Search
Close this search box.
The-panafrica-Final

Language as war in DRC: Is M23 Rwanda-backed, pro-Rwanda, Rwanda-allied, or none of the above?

When it comes to language, everyone is at war front. The words they choose are as loaded as the guns and mortars
1657
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
WhatsApp

 

What did DR Congo’s M23 rebels (or is it a movement) do on 27 January 2025? Did they “overrun”, “seize”, “capture”, “take control” of, or “liberate” the key eastern city of Goma, the capital of North Kivu? M23 prefers “liberated”. In DRC, there is a war of words, which is as ferocious as the shooting war. The consequences are as far-reaching as those of the bullets.

Nowhere is this language war as fierce as in the description of M23. Most Western, several African, and other media; the big players on the UN Security Council; the political commentariat; and TV pundits refer to it as “Rwanda-backed” – occasionally they slip in “Uganda-backed”. Rarely will anyone refer to it as “Rwanda-allied”, and I have never read or heard anyone call it “pro-Rwanda”.

These choices involve a bigger cultural and ideological contest, extending well beyond the nature of Rwanda’s relationship with M23. To delve deeper, I used a political dictionary and a digital assistant to gather the thinking on what a rebel group or movement described as “Rwanda-backed,” “pro-Rwanda,” or “Rwanda-allied” really means.

Here are the results:

“Rwanda-backed”: This term implies that the movement receives direct support from Rwanda, which could be in the form of financial aid, military assistance, logistical support, or diplomatic backing. “Backed” suggests that Rwanda has a vested interest in the success of this movement, potentially influencing its operations, strategies, or outcomes.

“Pro-Rwanda”: This term indicates that the political movement or entity ideologically supports or aligns with Rwanda’s interests, values, or policies. It suggests an affinity or sympathy towards Rwanda’s political stance or actions without necessarily implying direct support from Rwanda. This could involve promoting similar governance models, economic policies, or cultural values that are seen as favourable in Rwanda.

“Rwanda-Allied”: This term indicates a formal or informal alliance with Rwanda, suggesting a cooperative relationship where both parties might share common goals or enemies. An “allied” movement would likely collaborate with Rwanda on strategic matters, possibly involving mutual agreements, coordinated actions, or shared intelligence. This alliance implies a level of commitment from both sides, often extending beyond mere support to a partnership where both parties benefit or work towards common objectives.

The digital assistant also helpfully offered this summary of the nuances:

“Rwanda-backed” emphasises actual support, possibly covert or overt, from Rwanda.”Pro-Rwanda” focuses on ideological or sympathetic alignment.”Rwanda-Allied” highlights a strategic partnership or coalition.

 

There is a lot to these words. Each term can influence the public’s view of M23, its credibility, and its autonomy. The selection of terminology can impact perceptions of the movement’s independence, grassroots backing, and international relations.

In typifying the DRC conflict, the text and surface meaning are not where the action is. It’s in the subtext, the unspoken and less obvious layer of meaning beneath the surface text.

M23 claims it is in an existential fight for the very existence of the Congolese Tutsi, who face genocidal extermination. While denying backing M23, Rwanda argues that M23 has a legitimate right to fight for these rights, because the Congolese Tutsi have been oppressed, disenfranchised, stripped of their citizenship, chased out of the country, robbed, and have faced ethnic cleansing.

Its main security interest in DRC is the threat from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an armed group operating in eastern DRC, remnants of the Rwandan army (ex-FAR) and the Interahamwe militia who fled to Congo after perpetrating the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

The FDLR aims to overthrow the Kigali government, and in DRC, it is accused of continuing to kill local Tutsi. Rwanda says it has been co-opted as a key component of the DRC army. If that was the basis on which M23 is described, then it would be “pro-Rwanda” – or even “Rwanda-allied” – as they would have ideological and sympathetic alignment with Kigali.

However, if it is “Rwanda-backed”, then it has no ideological alignment, and therefore it is only a transactional relationship, driven by Rwanda’s self-interest, and for M23, military support to fight its Kinshasa adversary – and that both sides are in it for Congo’s vast minerals. It removes rights from the picture. That is why if one followed the two UN Security Council emergency debates on DRC in the last week, no one who referred to M23 as Rwanda-backed mentioned its rights. By contrast, East African Community leaders, most of whom don’t, often recognise their citizenship rights and talk of a political settlement rather than just a political solution.The distinction is important: A political solution is any resolution or process that employs political means to address a problem or conflict, and it can be either temporary or long-term. A political settlement, however, is more specific; it refers to an agreement or framework that establishes a stable structure for governance, such as peace accords, constitutional amendments, or power-sharing arrangements.

One could argue that it would be factual to speak of “Rwanda-backed” rebels if indeed Kigali was funnelling arms and soldiers to help M23, but it is more complicated than that. It’s true that the West has given Ukraine money, military training, and weapons worth over $200 billion, over twice as large as Rwanda’s and DRC’s combined gross domestic product (GDP), to help it fight Russia since the latter invaded it in February 2022. Not a single media outlet, let alone the UN Security Council diplomats who say “Rwanda-backed M23”, have ever called it “Western-backed Ukraine”. Israel has received even more than Ukraine in recent years, especially since the recent Palestine-Israel war. It is almost anathema to refer to Israel as “American-backed Israel”. There are cultural reasons for this, but there are good political ones too: the West is careful not to strip Ukraine and Israel of their agency.

There are many sides to the DRC conflict, and not everyone is on the ground shooting. However, when it comes to language, everyone is on the war front. The words they choose are as loaded as the guns and mortars.

Support The Pan African Review.

Your financial support ensures that the Pan-African Review initiative achieves sustainability and that its mission is shielded from manipulation. Most importantly, it allows us to bring high-quality content free of charge to those who may not be in a position to afford it.

You Might Also Like