For more than two decades, the crisis in eastern DR Congo has defied countless peace agreements, military operations, and diplomatic initiatives. Today, as violence resurges in South Kivu, North Kivu, and Ituri provinces, it is tempting, once again, to search for a decisive military solution. That temptation should be resisted. ALSO READ: Who really benefits from the war in eastern DR Congo? The reality is more uncomfortable: there is no sustainable military victory to be achieved in eastern DR Congo without political courage: both in Kinshasa, across the region, and within the wider international community. ALSO READ: Mineral rivalry, geopolitics and the imperative of peace in DR Congo The re-emergence of the M23 Movement, alongside the persistent threat posed by the Allied Democratic Forces, the continued presence of the Kinshasa-backed genocidal FDLR militia, local militias such as Wazalendo, the involvement of Burundian forces, and the use of foreign mercenaries, has once again exposed the fragility of state authority in eastern DR Congo. Civilians, especially Congolese Tutsi, continue to pay the highest price, caught between armed actors, weak governance, and a stalled international response. ALSO READ: What are the motivations of Burundi’s military intervention in South Kivu? Yet focusing solely on armed groups risks missing the deeper drivers of the conflict. First, the crisis is fundamentally internal and must be treated as such, through genuine dialogue among Congolese stakeholders to identify and address its deep-rooted political and historical causes. Such national dialogue has been proposed in multiple forums but has yet to be meaningfully pursued. Using Rwanda as a scapegoat for all of the country’s internal challenges risks obscuring the core issues and delaying necessary reforms. ALSO READ: DR Congo crisis: Understanding FDLR’s source of funding Second, the crisis is also regional. Tensions between Kinshasa and Kigali, particularly regarding the continued presence of FDLR in DR Congo, remain unresolved. As long as armed groups linked to past genocidal forces continue to operate on Congolese soil, Rwanda’s security concerns will persist. At the same time, Kinshasa’s concerns over sovereignty and territorial integrity are equally legitimate, as they are for all states in the region. ALSO READ: UNSC credibility on trial in eastern DR Congo Bridging this divide requires more than statements of intent. It demands verifiable commitments: the effective neutralisation of FDLR, in line with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions; credible guarantees of non-support to armed groups; and robust regional monitoring mechanisms under the auspices of the African Union and the East African Community. Third, the Congolese state must confront its own internal weaknesses. The absence -or, at times, predatory presence- of state institutions in the east has created a vacuum in which armed groups flourish. Reforming the national army, strengthening local governance, and tackling corruption are not secondary issues; they are central to achieving durable peace. Fourth, the economic dimension of the conflict can no longer be ignored. Eastern DR Congo’s vast mineral wealth continues to fuel networks of illicit exploitation that benefit local militias and their leaders, regional actors, and international supply chains. As long as conflict remains profitable, it will persist. Breaking this cycle requires stricter enforcement of mineral traceability and targeted sanctions against those who sustain war economies, including FDLR and its networks. Fifth, the international community must move beyond rhetoric. The Security Council has adopted resolutions and sanctions regimes since 1999 to date, but enforcement remains inconsistent. This gap between commitment and action has emboldened spoilers and undermined peace efforts. Accountability: real, visible, and sustained, must become the norm, not the exception. Sanctions must also be applied fairly and credibly to avoid undermining their legitimacy. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the human dimension of the conflict must be brought back to the centre of policy. Ethnic tensions, particularly those affecting Tutsi communities and others, continue to be manipulated for political and military ends. Protecting civilians, countering hate speech, and investing in reconciliation are not peripheral concerns; they are essential to breaking cycles of violence. The international community must also reflect on past failures. Silence and inaction in the face of targeted violence have had devastating consequences before, and the cost of ignoring warning signs remains far too high. The way forward in eastern DR Congo is not a mystery. It is, however, politically demanding. It requires aligning security efforts with diplomatic honesty, regional cooperation, economic reform, and international accountability. Above all, it requires leadership willing to confront difficult truths rather than defer them. Until then, eastern DR Congo risks remaining trapped in a cycle where each temporary ceasefire merely sets the stage for the next conflict. Amb Joseph Mutaboba is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region. jmutaboba@gmail.com
