The latest reports from North Kivu Province, where the death toll from a drone attack has risen to 30, should alarm every honest broker involved in efforts to end the conflict in eastern DR Congo. This past weekend, last week, dozens of civilians were killed and 57 others injured following a drone strike on a public market in Masisi Territory, in eastern DR Congo’s North Kivu Province, an attack that was attributed to the Kinshasa regime and its coalition. This despicable incident, which is the latest amongst many others before, cannot be treated as just another unfortunate episode in a conflict that has already claimed far too many lives. It must be seen for what it represents: yet another test of the sincerity of the peace process, and of the courage of those who claim to mediate it. For months, there have been repeated calls for restraint, dialogue and de-escalation. Yet, when violations occur, especially those attributed to Kinshasa, the response from many international actors has been muted, vague or wrapped in diplomatic language that avoids naming the offender. This is not the neutrality that such position demands. A ceasefire is not sustained by polite statements but firm accountability. When one party violates it and the response is silence, or carefully worded concern, the message is clear: there is no cost for undermining the process. That silence emboldens further violations and weakens those who still believe in dialogue. Honest brokerage requires more than convening talks and issuing communiqués. It requires the courage to look those violating the process in the eye and call them out openly. Anything less turns mediation into theatre and gives bad-faith actors room to use negotiations as cover while pursuing military options. The tragedy of eastern DR Congo is that civilians continue to pay the price for the failure of political leadership. Drone strikes, armed mobilisation, hate speech, alliances with genocidal forces and repeated ceasefire breaches all point to a dangerous pattern. Yet the international community has too often preferred balance over truth, as though all parties must be criticised equally even when responsibility is not equal. This approach has failed. It has not protected civilians. It has not strengthened the peace process. It has not stopped Kinshasa from pursuing actions that further destabilise the region. Those facilitating the peace efforts must now draw a clear line. Ceasefire violations must be documented, publicly condemned and followed by consequences. Kinshasa, like any other party, must be held accountable when it undermines commitments it has made. Peace in eastern DR Congo will not come from ambiguity. It will come from truth, courage and accountability. The sooner mediators abandon veiled language and confront violations directly, the better the chances of saving a process that is already under severe strain.
