The ongoing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) has been attributed to Rwanda’s pursuit of regional dominance and mineral resources. However, this narrative oversimplifies the complex dynamics at play. The reality is that instability in eastern DR Congo benefits more powerful and wealthy actors than Rwanda, including those involved in the extraction and smuggling of minerals.
The city of Antwerp, known as the diamond capital of the world, is a notable example. Located in Belgium, a country with no diamond mines, Antwerp’s diamond industry thrives on the instability in DR Congo, which enables the extraction and smuggling of diamonds. This instability also prevents DR Congo from becoming a power center, instead keeping it as a resource basin.
Rwanda’s role in the region is often misunderstood. The country has rebuilt itself from the devastating genocide in 1994 and has refused to become a humanitarian ward. Instead, Rwanda has exercised competence and sovereignty, which threatens the Western doctrine that Africa must be managed. This model is not flawed because it is authoritarian, but because it proves that Africa is not condemned to divisionism.
The international system has historically been opposed to a strong and sovereign African state. In the 1990s, the United Nations considered partitioning Rwanda into a Hutu state and a Tutsi state as a “stability solution.” This implication was stunning, as it would have rewarded genocide by administratively validating its outcome.
Today, the fear is that if DR Congo were to ally with Rwanda, it would become the leading economic power in Africa. This alliance would combine DR Congo’s vast mineral resources and landmass with Rwanda’s governance model, which has delivered significant economic growth and development. The possibility of a strong and sovereign African state is a threat to the international system, which has long benefited from the fragmentation and instability of the continent.
The security environment in DR Congo remains fragmented, with over 100 armed actors operating in the eastern region. The United Nations has been present in the region for 27 years, but its mission has failed to demobilize or restore state authority. In contrast, the UN mission in Rwanda exited in under three years after the genocide was halted.
The origins of the conflict in DR Congo cannot be understood without reference to the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The genocide did not end in Rwanda; it detonated into Zaire, with two million people crossing into North and South Kivu. The international system knew that the camps in the region were not humanitarian sanctuaries, but rear bases for attacks against Rwanda.
The question that matters in international relations is who benefits from allowing gƩnocidaires and FDLR lineages to target Congolese Tutsi. The answer is not Rwanda or Africa, but rather those who benefit from the instability and fragmentation of the continent. As the region continues to grapple with conflict and instability, it is essential to understand the complex dynamics at play and the interests that are driving the narrative.
