Few regions in the world have received as much sustained diplomatic attention as Africa’s Great Lakes Region. For more than three decades, the Democratic Republic of Congo and its neighbours have been the subject of countless peace initiatives, United Nations Security Council resolutions, African Union decisions, regional summits, mediation efforts, sanctions regimes, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian interventions. Few conflicts have been studied more extensively. Few have generated more reports, more communiqués or more international conferences. ALSO READ: When diplomacy demands insecurity: Rethinking sovereignty, self-defence and collective security in the 21st Century Yet one fundamental question remains: why does the region continue to experience recurring cycles of violence despite one of the most comprehensive international engagements in modern diplomatic history? ALSO READ: The systematic blinders of western media in the DR Congo-Rwanda narrative This question deserves to be asked not to diminish the efforts of those who have worked tirelessly for peace, but because the people of the Great Lakes Region deserve an honest assessment of what has worked, what has not, and why. Diplomacy should ultimately be judged by results rather than intentions. ALSO READ: Restoring chaos? How Western policies fuel DR Congo’s collapse Measured against that standard, the region presents a mixed record. There have been important achievements. Millions of refugees have returned home since the mid-1990s. National institutions have been rebuilt in several countries. Regional organisations have become more active. Electoral transitions have taken place. Trade and infrastructure links have expanded. African-led mediation has assumed a more prominent role than in earlier decades. These gains should not be overlooked. They demonstrate that progress is possible. Yet they coexist with another reality. ALSO READ: Selective outrage and transactional diplomacy in eastern DR Congo Eastern DR Congo remains one of the world’s most persistent theatres of armed conflict. Communities continue to suffer displacement. Civilians remain vulnerable to violence. Alleged illegal exploitation of natural resources reportedly continues to finance armed groups. Hate speech against some citizens and humanitarian crises recur with alarming frequency. Trust among neighbouring states remains fragile. ALSO READ: Sanctions, sovereignty, and Rwanda: A small nation in the crosscurrents of global power The central paradox is therefore unmistakable. The region does not suffer from a shortage of diplomacy, I can assure you all. It suffers from a shortage of diplomacy that consistently produces durable security. One explanation lies in the distinction between identifying problems and implementing solutions. ALSO READ: Why blaming Rwanda won't solve DR Congo's crisis The international community has demonstrated remarkable capacity to diagnose the crisis. Successive United Nations Panels of Experts (if experts they are) have documented the financing of armed groups, the trafficking of strategic minerals, cross-border criminal networks, violations of sanctions regimes and the devastating humanitarian consequences of prolonged conflict. The Security Council has repeatedly recognised the dangers posed by foreign and numerous domestic armed movements operating in eastern DR Congo. Regional organisations have acknowledged the same threats. Knowledge has never been lacking. Implementation has. Perhaps no example illustrates this implementation gap more clearly than the long-standing challenge posed by foreign armed groups. ALSO READ: How Burundian troops in South Kivu sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis amid DR Congo’s wider war For nearly three decades, international resolutions have repeatedly called for their disarmament, demobilisation and repatriation. Peacekeeping mandates have incorporated these objectives. Regional initiatives have reaffirmed them. Sanctions have been imposed on individuals and entities associated with armed violence. Yet several of these organisations continue to operate. ALSO READ: Why genocide ideology doesn’t dissolve three decades after dispersion of genocidaires The continued existence of the Kinshasa-backed FDLR genocidal militia is particularly significant because of its historical links to criminals responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and because successive United Nations resolutions have recognised the threat it poses to regional stability. The terrorist organisation’s persistence despite repeated international commitments illustrates a broader concern: the gap between diplomatic decisions and their effective implementation. This observation extends beyond any single armed group. More than one hundred armed organisations, local militias and criminal networks have at various times operated across eastern DR Congo. Some pursue political objectives. Others seek territorial influence or control of mineral resources. Others survive through extortion, illicit taxation or cross-border criminal activity. Their identities evolve. Their alliances shift. Their methods adapt. The insecurity they produce remains remarkably constant. The humanitarian consequences are profound. Behind every diplomatic communiqué we read are families forced from their homes, children unable to attend school, disrupted health services, destroyed livelihoods and communities trapped in cycles of fear and uncertainty. Development cannot flourish where insecurity persists. Investment rarely follows instability. Regional integration cannot fully succeed where borders are associated more with armed movements than with commerce. This reality also raises a difficult question concerning sovereignty. Respect for territorial integrity remains one of the cornerstones of international law. Every state has the right to exercise authority within its recognised borders free from external interference. But sovereignty is for all States and it is accompanied by responsibility. Territory should not become a sanctuary from which internationally recognised armed groups threaten neighbouring states with impunity. From my experience, reconciling these two principles i.e. respect for sovereignty and protection against cross-border insecurity has become one of the defining diplomatic challenges of the Great Lakes Region. Neither principle can simply override the other. The answer cannot be found in choosing between sovereignty and security. It must lie in strengthening both simultaneously. That requires a shift in emphasis. Future diplomacy should place greater attention on implementation than on declaration. Peace agreements should contain measurable benchmarks whose fulfilment can be independently verified. Regional security mechanisms should deepen intelligence-sharing and operational cooperation against armed groups and transnational criminal networks. Sanctions should be enforced consistently, regardless of political convenience. The financial networks that sustain armed violence, including illicit mineral trading, arms trafficking and money laundering, should receive the same sustained attention as military developments on the ground. This is not done due to global strategic geopolitical gains of certain powerful countries of the world. Above all, African institutions should assume an even greater leadership role in shaping and implementing regional security solutions. Durable peace cannot be imported. It must be built through political will, regional ownership and accountable institutions. The Great Lakes Region possesses extraordinary human talent, abundant natural resources and immense economic potential. It should be known for innovation, regional commerce and cultural exchanges, not for recurring humanitarian emergencies. The people of the region deserve diplomacy that delivers more than periodic ceasefires. They deserve diplomacy that removes the structural conditions allowing armed violence to regenerate. After three decades, the essential challenge is no longer diagnosing the crisis. The diagnosis has been made repeatedly. The challenge is implementation. History will judge the international community not by the number of resolutions it adopted on the Great Lakes Region, nor by the number of conferences it organised, nor by the length of its mandates. It will judge it by a simpler standard. Did those efforts leave the people of the Great Lakes Region safer than before? Until that question can be answered with confidence, the work of building a durable and just peace remains unfinished. The Great Lakes Region has never lacked diplomatic attention. What it still seeks is diplomacy that consistently translates commitment into security, accountability into implementation, and hope into lasting peace. The writer is a political and diplomatic analyst specialising on Africa and countries of the Great Lakes Region.
