An official in the AFC/M23 movement has criticised the latest sanctions imposed by the United Nations and the United States on some of its leaders, saying the measures undermine ongoing peace efforts, unfairly target one side of the conflict. ALSO READ: AFC/M23 deputy head condemns bias, double standards over DR Congo crisis On July 14, the UN Security Council Committee announced sanctions against the AFC/M23 movement and its allied Banyamulenge self-defence group, Twirwaneho, in South Kivu. The measures targeted AFC/M23 political leader Corneille Nangaa, the movement's intelligence chief John Imani, and Twirwaneho military commander Charles Sematama over their alleged role in insecurity in eastern DR Congo. The officials are also under US sanctions. ALSO READ: DR Congo crisis: Bisimwa criticises mediators for ‘babysitting’ Kinshasa The sanctions come amid efforts to restore peace in eastern DR Congo through the Washington and Doha processes. The Washington Peace Agreement between Rwanda and DR Congo provides for the neutralisation of the Kinshasa-backed FDLR genocidal militia and the lifting of Rwanda's defensive measures against this threat, while the Doha talks between Kinshasa and AFC/M23 are intended to address the political and security issues at the root of the conflict. However, the Congolese government coalition, comprising FARDC, Burundian forces, FDLR, Wazalendo and other local militias, has continued military operations against the AFC/M23 and attacks targeting Banyamulenge and other Congolese Tutsi communities have not ceased. ALSO READ: DR Congo deploys ceasefire monitoring team to Goma as fighting continues UN sanctions ‘misread the conflict’ Speaking in an interview with Conspiracy Tracker Great Lakes published on July 21, AFC/M23 official Freddy Kaniki said that the latest UN sanctions demonstrate a 'misreading' of the conflict and the factors needed to resolve it. “It shows us that the international community, the UN in particular, does not understand the magnitude, the causes of this conflict, what we are fighting for, and the steps that should be taken to end this crisis.” Kaniki said the sanctions also risk undermining the Doha peace process by creating what he considers as an uneven playing field. ALSO READ: AFC/M23 leader Corneille Nangaa states four reasons why his movement is fighting Tshisekedi govt According to him, the measures embolden Kinshasa by signalling that it can continue its military operations without consequences, while discouraging AFC/M23 from trusting the mediation process. “The consequence is that this radicalises both sides. On one side, the Congolese government feels like they are entitled. They can get away with anything. They don't have to abide by the rules,” Kaniki said. He added that this has already affected implementation of commitments reached during the Doha negotiations. “There are so many things that we signed in the Doha peace process that are not being respected,” Kaniki said. “They sign papers and turn their backs and go. They have no consideration for the signature whatsoever. So that becomes an impediment to the continuation of the peace process.” ALSO READ: 315 killed in Kinshasa attacks on Minembwe in five months - report Kaniki said the sanctions also leave AFC/M23 questioning the neutrality of those leading mediation efforts. “We are feeling like there is nothing we could do whatsoever to gain the trust or the sympathy of those who are called mediators. It pushes us against the wall... On the matter of survival, there is no negotiating. It’s either I fight to survive or I give up and disappear.” ALSO READ: Bisimwa condemns ‘indifference’ of mediators amid Kinshasa’s attacks Refugees and discrimination Kaniki argued that the sanctions overlook decades of persecution, displacement and discrimination against Congolese Tutsi communities. He said more than one million Congolese refugees, many of them Banyamulenge and Tutsi from North Kivu, remain in neighbouring countries, with some families now entering a third generation in refugee camps. He argued that these communities are not fighting for political office but for recognition as citizens of their own country. “Those people are fighting for their rights to belong to the society that’s theirs,” Kaniki said, “They are fighting for their rights to their citizenship. They are fighting against discrimination and rejection on their own land. And you sanction them,” “Do you even know what you are doing? Are you trying to resolve the problem or are you putting fuel in the fire?” ALSO READ: Banyamulenge protest in US, Kenya amid rising calls for action on Minembwe crisis Kaniki maintained that taking up arms came only after years of failed attempts to secure those rights through peaceful means. “We did not wake up one morning and say we want to fight. It’s because other means have yielded no results whatsoever. We went back to the language they can understand.” He also questioned why sanctions had been directed at AFC/M23 and Twirwaneho while no similar pressure had been exerted on Kinshasa and its military coalition. “For someone who is dying, these sanctions mean nothing. They can multiply the sanctions. It will do nothing. We are fighting to survive.” ALSO READ: How Burundian troops in South Kivu sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis amid DR Congo’s wider war US sanctions and mediation Kaniki was equally critical of the United States government, arguing that Washington's role as a key player in the peace process is difficult to reconcile with its decision to sanction one of the negotiating parties. He said the sanctions undermine confidence in the mediation by creating the perception that the process is no longer impartial. Kaniki further linked the measures to the US-DR Congo minerals agreement, arguing that Washington’s strategic interests have influenced its approach to the conflict. “It’s the direct unintended consequence of the mineral deal... And we are victims, this is as clear as it can be,” he said. ALSO READ: Eastern DR Congo experienced record number of drone attacks in February - report He maintained that protecting the agreement requires ending the conflict rather than placing additional pressure on one side. “The best way to actually protect this deal is to be fair in the mediation, to make sure we resolve the conflict,” Kaniki argued that peace is ultimately in the interest of all parties, including the United States, because lasting investment cannot be achieved while the conflict persists. “We are not against the American interests. But the best way to protect their interests in DR Congo is to end the conflict. And to end the conflict, fairness and proper mediation is essential.”
