On 26 November 2024, Kinshasa finally relented and adopted the Angola-negotiated concept of operations (CONOPS) to neutralise the genocidal FDLR, the implementation of which remains a precondition for Rwanda to review its defence posture. However, there is no indication that Kinshasa intends to implement this plan, even though it was agreed by Angolan, Congolese and Rwandan security experts. So far, the US response to the conflict under the Biden administration has been largely counterproductive and has fuelled tensions in the region. The new Trump administration will have a unique opportunity to distance itself from the policies of its predecessor, play a positive role in restoring peace in Congo, and ultimately begin to change the image of the US from at best an obstacle to peace, and at worst an instigator of conflict, to a peacemaker.
A good place to start is by supporting the Angola-led mediation process, which the State Department under Anthony Blinken has undermined through various statements and actions. Indeed, repeated US calls for Rwanda to withdraw its troops from the DRC have provided justification for Kinshasa’s refusal to get rid of the FDLR, the remnants of the Rwandan genocidal forces which have wreaked havoc in eastern DRC for the past 30 years, made several deadly incursions into Rwanda during that same period, and are now integrated into the Congolese army. To date, the Biden administration continues to make these calls, emboldening warmongers in the Congolese government who have threatened war and regime change in Rwanda.
Moreover, Washington’s impulse to blame Rwanda for the conflict and to impose sanctions on the M23 rebel movement, a significant part of which are Congolese Tutsi fighting for their citizenship rights and the right to return to their homeland, has prevented negotiations between the DRC government and the M23 rebels. Notably, the negotiations route is supported by the presidents of Angola, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda, as well as the former presidents of Kenya and South Africa, Uhuru Kenyatta and Thabo Mbeki. Even South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is leading the SADC intervention in Congo in support of Kinshasa, has admitted that there is no military solution to the current crisis and that political dialogue is the only sensible way forward. In other words, the Biden administration has continually worked against a broad regional consensus on how to end this particular conflict. The incoming Trump team can reverse this course.
Another important move for the Trump team to consider is the need to shift from the callous approach to African lives adopted by previous US administrations, which has left Washington in a precarious position on the continent vis-à-vis Beijing and Moscow. The Biden administration has no qualms about turning a blind eye to genocidal killings in eastern DRC and providing diplomatic support to a government that is guilty of assembling a coalition of foreign and local militias and European mercenaries to fight its own citizens, in the pursuit of deals for strategic minerals. The Trump team can take the principled stand that business can only be sustainable and thrive when the conditions for peace are in place. In practical terms, the US should consider withdrawing financial support for the failed, decades-old and most expensive UN peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, which is now providing logistical support to this coalition. The only way to change Africans’ negative perceptions of US foreign policy is to fulfil the promise Trump made in his victory speech to end wars, not fuel them or start new ones.
Fulfilling this promise is the only way the US can compete favourably with China and Russia for influence on the continent in the long term. Continuing the course set by the Biden administration in Congo may appear to have immediate benefits, but it is short-sighted. It will eventually lead to the emergence of anti-America sentiment in the region, a trend seen in West Africa where anti-French sentiment has driven out the former colonial power and, through a ripple effect, its allies, including the US. The Trump team can learn the right lessons from these developments and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.
For this to be possible, however, at least three things must happen at once.
First, the Trump team must constantly seek out the truth, which is obscured by the plague of fake news and biased reporting that has ruined the reputation of Western mainstream media and the UN Group of Experts on Congo, and deal with the facts. One fact is that Kinshasa, not Rwanda or the M23, is standing in the way of a negotiated solution to the conflict in eastern DRC. Rwanda’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Olivier Nduhungirehe, recently highlighted the lack of good faith on the part of the Congolese government. According to the minister, Kinshasa launched 27 attacks on M23 positions between 12 October and 25 November, despite agreeing to a ceasefire. These attacks have continued along with Kinshasa’s military build-up in preparation for further offensives, while DRC officials, including President Tshisekedi himself, have ramped up their war rhetoric, promising regime change in Rwanda during recent meetings with army officers in Haut Katanga. It’s worth noting that attacking and defeating Rwanda is a fantasy that Tshisekedi is whipping up to garner support for a constitutional amendment that would allow him to run for a highly controversial third term, which could deepen Congo’s never-ending crises. Suffice it to say that these facts, not a predetermined anti-Rwanda narrative or mineral interests, should inform the US response to the crisis and its support for the Angola-led mediation.
Second, the Trump team ought to recognise that whatever mineral deals the US government has with the DRC cannot yield the expected benefits without neutralising the genocidal forces, which have already caused two major regional wars (in 1996 and 1998) and which threaten to cause another; and repatriating the Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese refugees in Rwanda who have been stranded in refugee camps for more than two decades.
Finally, the future US administration would do well to heed the advice of Vice President-elect James David Vance, who has called for a dramatic shift in foreign policy from unhelpful lectures to mutually beneficial relationships between the US and other countries. Such a shift would certainly find an invaluable ally in Rwanda which, in the words of President Kagame, wants the US to be “a partner of choice that attracts by the force of its example, rather than by imposing its views and ways of life on others“.
In the end, the Trump administration could either help end the 30-year conflict or side with a government in Kinshasa that wants to escalate it into a region-wide one, further weakening the US’s position and influence in the Great Lakes region and Africa more broadly in the process – a prospect that runs counter to President-elect Trump’s “Make America great again” mantra. Will the US make the right choice? Only time will tell.
