Motivations, ambitions of Congo's M23 rebels unclear, analysts say
A Rwandan government minister and the spokesperson of the M23 rebel group were sanctioned Thursday by the United States for alleged involvement in the recent conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
This comes after M23 fighters on Feb. 16 marched unopposed through Bukavu, three weeks after taking over Goma — eastern Congo's biggest city.
The recent advances made by the group were not surprising, as the DRC, the United Nations and many foreign governments say the fighters are heavily armed and supported by Rwanda, a country with a strong military force, analysts told VOA.
Sasha Lezhnev, senior policy adviser at The Sentry, a Washington NGO, who specializes in U.S.-Africa policy on human rights and conflict, cited numerous United Nations investigative reports over the last three years showing that Rwanda is arming and supporting the M23.
'The latest report in December stated that Rwanda had three to four thousand of its own troops in the DRC,' Lezhnev said.
While Rwanda denies the allegations, Lezhnev said this crisis would have been preventable if the outside world had not recently taken its eyes off the situation.
'They [Rwanda] started rearming and reorganizing the M23 about four years ago and, back in 2023, the United States brokered an intelligence-sharing agreement and even sanctioned some Rwandan generals for supporting the M23,' Lezhnev said. 'Then Rwanda basically responded, promoting the generals and continuing to escalate the situation, as well as the DRC reneging on its promise to stop arming and supporting the FDLR.'
Rwanda's President Paul Kagame accuses the DRC of backing FDLR — the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a Congo-based, mainly Hutu rebel group that includes some fighters who were involved in Rwanda's 1994 genocide.
The Tutsi-led M23, short for the March 23 Movement, first seized control of Goma in 2012. The group was pushed back the next year by the Congolese army, some of its regional allies, and special operations forces of the U.N. Stabilization Mission in the DRC.
The group has been among more than 130 armed groups operating in the eastern DRC, mainly in the North and South Kivu provinces, vying for control of valuable and abundant mineral wealth including gold, diamonds, uranium and copper, as well as coltan and cobalt, major components in batteries used in electric cars, cellphones and other electronics.
Claude Gatebuke, a Rwandan genocide survivor and coauthor of the book Survivors Uncensored, said Rwanda is not the only backer of the M23.
'It's Rwanda and Uganda under the leadership of Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni who are invading Congo to provide access to Congo resources to ... mostly Western multinationals. This is all well documented,' Gatebuke said.
Mvemba Phezo Dizolele, director of the Africa program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, based in Washington, called the situation confusing.
'Uganda has troops in DRC that are fighting conjointly with the Congolese, against the ADF, the Allied Democratic Forces, an Islamist Ugandan group based in that part of the country,' Dizolele said. 'It's confusing in the sense that on one level, Ugandans are collaborating with the government of DRC ... and on other hand, they've been reported to be engaged in this instabilization [instability], as well.'
Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni recently said he is ready to assist with peace initiatives in the DRC.
M23 leaders have said they plan to go all the way to Kinshasa.
'We ... do not know fully what they want, so it's gone anywhere from, 'Are they only trying to hold part of the Kivus and surrounding areas and set some kind of domination there?' Or are they willing to go to Kinshasa?' Dizolele said.
Gatebuke added: 'For sure they are trying to carve off the Kivus. The problem that they have, they would've been able to do this a long time ago had it not been for the Congolese not wanting to be in separate countries. … So, they are going to try to keep that area by force for as long as they can ... set up their own government and pretty much try to run a parallel country inside of the [DR] Congo.'
A statement posted Feb. 17 on X by the M23 reiterated the group's call for a direct and sincere dialogue with the DRC government.
Speaking at the Munich Security Conference last week, DRC President Felix Tshisekedi criticized the outside world for not taking action against Rwanda in light of the escalating violence in his country.
On Thursday, a Rwandan government minister and the spokesperson of the M23 rebel group were sanctioned by the United States for their alleged involvement in the recent escalation.
In response, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe told VOA the recent sanctions are unjustified.
'This kind of punitive measures cannot contribute toward peace and stability in our region,' Nduhungirehe said.
The government also says the country's only aim is a secure border and that for the last three years, the conflict has involved hostile forces — including Congolese armed forces and FDLR — that have not been sanctioned.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Can the US pry Russia away from China?
Western politicians have repeatedly called on China to limit or cease tacit support for Russia's bloody war against Ukraine. In response, China's leadership insists it is committed to peace and respect for the territorial integrity of other nations. But unlike most United Nations member states, China has never condemned Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and their military-diplomatic partnership — from joint bomber flights near the U.S. state of Alaska to votes in the U.N. Security Council — has only helped the Kremlin overcome its international isolation. While President Donald Trump has said he has good personal relations with both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, there is a consensus among experts in Washington that the China-Russia partnership poses a threat to U.S. interests, and that while Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, tried to establish a strategic dialogue with China, the Trump team appears to be prioritizing normalized ties with Russia while punishing China over trade. As the White House talks about the possibility of restoring economic cooperation with Russia, some of its officials are hinting at lifting or reducing the sanctions Washington has imposed on Moscow in recent years. Charles Hecker, an expert on Western-Russian economic ties and risks, and author of the book Zero Sum: The Arc of International Business in Russia, says some Western companies will quickly return to Russia if sanctions are lifted, particularly those involved in energy, metals and minerals. 'There's only so much oil in Norway, and there's only so much oil in Canada; the rest of it is in some countries that have a very high-risk environment,' Hecker told VOA's Russian Service. 'And so, these kinds of companies are accustomed to business in these sorts of places, and they have the internal structures to help protect them. You know, there are energy companies doing business in Iraq right now. And I don't want to compare Russia and Iraq, but they are high-risk environments.' Still, Hecker cautions, their return to doing business in Russia wouldn't signal an overall U.S.-Russian rapprochement — let alone a fracturing of Sino-Russian relations. 'I think it will be very difficult for the West to pull Russia away from China,' he said. 'Allowing Western companies back into Russia doesn't necessarily change President Putin's hostility towards the West. President Putin remains antagonistic towards a Western-dominated political and economic system, and he has said over and over again that he wants to create an alternative political and economic environment – an alternative to the West. 'Part of that alternative includes China,' he added. 'You have never heard President Putin say anything ideologically against China. And the two are now important energy partners.' Limited popular domestic appeal U.S.-based FilterLabs analyzes public sentiment in regions where polling is problematic. According to a recently published assessment of popular attitudes expressed on Russian and Chinese social media networks, Sino-Russian relations are 'full of underlying tensions, mistrust, and diverging interests.' One of the report's authors, Vasily Gatov, told VOA its research found that 'the Chinese and Russian populations are far from happy with this alliance of their authorities.' "China does not perceive Russia as a reliable, safe and equal partner,' he said. 'Russia annexed the Amur Region from China; Russia adopted a completely colonial policy towards China during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, in my opinion, it is entirely possible to consider historical frictions as a vulnerability.' A media analyst at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, Gatov also noted that, despite the Kremlin's expectations, China's economic presence inside Russia today remains 'several times smaller' than that of either Europe or the U.S. before Russia invaded Ukraine. Thus, while Russian and China have overlapping interests, they are not 'marching in lockstep.' "They are very different, they have very different geopolitical focuses, very different political philosophies,' he said. Other experts, however, question the Filterlabs findings, warning that random Russian and Chinese opinions online are of limited value, especially as those casting the insights aren't likely to influence policy. "People who have the time and desire to comment on things on social media do not have much influence on how state policy is conducted,' Alexander Gabuev, director of the Berlin-based Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, told VOA. 'And these people certainly do not have much influence on whether China transfers components for Russia's weapons or takes certain military technologies from it, since the people who comment on this simply do not have real knowledge of what is actually happening.' Gabuev added that 'the Chinese leadership has reasons to think that they have something to take from Russia in terms of military technology,' suggesting that China is extremely interested in gaining Russian experience in countering Western weapons during Russia's war in Ukraine. Does Trump see China as a threat? One critical question about whether Washington's improved ties with Russia will loosen the Sino-Russian pact, say some analysts, is how Trump perceives China. Ali Wyne, senior research and advocacy advisor on the U.S. and China at the International Crisis Group, describes Trump as an anomaly for U.S. policy. 'Widespread bipartisan agreement in Congress and from one administration to the next [is] that China is American's foremost strategic competitor,' he said. But 'President Trump, in many ways, is the most prominent dissenter from this alleged China consensus.' 'He doesn't view President Xi [Jinping] in adversarial terms,' Wyne said. 'He actually calls President Xi a 'dear friend' of his. And he believes that his personal rapport with President Xi will be the decisive dynamic in setting — or resetting — the U.S.-China relationship over the next four years.'
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Under what circumstances can a US green card be revoked?
The recent arrest of Palestinian activist and U.S. legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil, who played a prominent role in last year's Columbia University protests over the war in Gaza, has prompted questions about the limits of a green card. A green card holder since 2024, Khalil was granted lawful permanent residency status in the U.S. But green card holders can lose their status and face deportation if they violate immigration law. A federal judge on Wednesday extended efforts to halt Khalil's deportation, and the New York resident remains in detention in Louisiana although he has not been charged with any crime. It is not a criminal offense to disagree, even openly, with the U.S. government's policy or actions, and the Bill of Rights protects free speech and the right to assemble. The why Green cards can be revoked, New York-based immigration lawyer Linda Dakin-Grimm told VOA. 'It's not that common, but it also isn't rare. People lose their green cards most often when they're convicted of crimes. … A green card is not citizenship. It's seen as a privilege that you earn, but you can also lose it if you engage in conduct that is contrary to the conditions that green card holders live under,' she said. Examples of crimes that can cause a green card holder can lose their status include aggravated felonies, drug offenses, fraud, or national security concerns such as ties to a terrorist group. Green card holders can also lose their status and lawful permanent residency status for being deemed a threat to national security. If a green card holder is accused of a crime, their criminal case will go through the justice system. But the process to revoke their permanent status takes place in immigration court, where officials must present evidence to justify revoking a green card. The how Revoking a green card is a legal process that starts when the U.S. government determines that an individual has violated immigration laws. The case can come to the government's attention in different ways, either through a routine immigration check, law enforcement investigation, or whistleblower. 'It could theoretically be a whistleblower. Someone who has some information. … Could they call the State Department? Maybe. Could they call the ICE hotline? Maybe,' Dakin-Grimm said. The Department of Homeland Security usually initiates the process. The green card holder will receive a document known as a Notice to Appear in immigration court or, in serious cases, they may be arrested and detained. White House officials said Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the authority to revoke a green card or any visa if an individual's activities in the United States 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' to the country. Rubio has said that Khalil's case is not about free speech. 'No one has a right to a green card, by the way. … If you told us that's what you intended to do when you came to America, we would have never let you in,' Rubio said on Wednesday. 'If you do it once you get in, we're going to revoke it and kick you out.' The authority for the secretary of state to intervene in a case like Khalil's stems from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. A provision in the law allows the secretary of state to deem a non-citizen deportable if their presence or activities are believed to significantly harm U.S. foreign policy interests. According to Khalil's NTA, Rubio has made that determination. Khalil has been ordered to appear in front of an immigration judge on March 27 at the Lasalle Detention Facility in Louisiana. The court In immigration court, the burden of proof is on the government; it must show the person violated immigration laws. In a case like Khalil's, ICE attorneys will ask for deportation, but they will have to prove he is a threat to national security. The green card holder can also present a defense. In the criminal justice system, if a person cannot afford an attorney, the government must provide a public defender. In immigration court, however, immigrants have the right to their own attorney, but the government does not have to provide one. If immigrants cannot afford an attorney or cannot find one to represent them pro bono, they do will not have access to legal representation. Dakin-Grimm says the process can sometimes go fast, but it is also complex. In the immigration court system, the decision to revoke a green card is an administrative procedure conducted by the Department of Justice, under an office known as the Executive Office for Immigration Review. 'It's kind of like the government is prosecuting a case, and the judge is also the government,' Dakin-Grimm said. The outcome If the immigration judge rules against the green card holder, they can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). And if the BIA agrees with the government, the green card holder can appeal to a Federal Court of Appeals. Although the case can end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, Dakin-Grimm says that rarely happens, mostly because the Supreme Court has complete discretion over the cases it chooses. 'Most people can't afford to do this kind of legal work themselves. It's just very, very expensive — you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars to take a case from the trial court level all the way to the Supreme Court,' she said. 'But in the immigration space, you tend to see nonprofit agencies, law school clinics, working pro bono, working for free in significant cases like this.' A final decision If the green card is revoked and all appeals fail, the person is usually deported from the U.S. If the appeal is successful, the person keeps their green card and is allowed to stay in the country. Dakin-Grimm said many green card holders think because it is called 'permanent residency,' the status is actually permanent. 'But it's only permanent as long as you follow the rules,' she said. VOA White House correspondent Anita Powell contributed to this report.
Voice of America
13-03-2025
- Voice of America
Syrian leader signs constitution putting Islamist group in charge for 5 years
Syria's interim president on Thursday signed a temporary constitution that leaves the country under Islamist rule for five years during a transitional phase. The country's interim rulers have struggled to exert their authority across much of the country since the Islamist former insurgent group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, led a lightning insurgency that overthrew former leader Bashar al-Assad in December. Former HTS leader Ahmad al-Sharaa is now the country's interim president — a decision that was announced after a meeting of the armed groups that took part in the offensive against Assad. At the same meeting, the groups agreed to repeal the country's old constitution and said a new one would be drafted. While many were happy to see an end to the Assad family's dictatorial rule of over 50 years in the war-torn country, religious and ethnic minorities have been skeptical of the new Islamist leaders and reluctant to allow Damascus under its new authorities to assert control of their areas. Abdulhamid al-Awak, one of the seven members of the committee al-Sharaa tasked to draft the temporary constitution, told a press conference Thursday that it will maintain some provisions from the previous one, including the stipulation that the head of state must be a Muslim and Islamic law is the main source of jurisprudence. However, al-Awak, a constitutional law expert who teaches at the Mardin Artuklu University in Turkey, also said the temporary constitution includes provisions that enshrine freedom of expression and the press. The constitution will "balance between social security and freedom" during Syria's shaky political situation, he said. A new committee to draft a permanent constitution will be formed, but it is unclear if it will be more inclusive of Syria's political, religious and ethnic groups. Al-Sharaa on Monday reached a landmark pact with the U.S.-backed Kurdish-led authorities in northeastern Syria, including a ceasefire and a merging of their armed forces with the central government's security agencies. The deal came after government forces and allied groups crushed an insurgency launched last week by gunmen loyal to Assad. Rights groups say that hundreds of civilians — mostly from the Alawite minority sect to which Assad belongs —were killed in retaliatory attacks by factions in the counteroffensive. A key goal of the interim constitution was to give a timeline for the country's political transition out of its interim phase. In December, al-Sharaa said it could take up to three years to rewrite Syria's constitution and up to five years to organize and hold elections. Al-Sharaa appointed a committee to draft the new constitution after Syria held a national dialogue conference last month, which called for announcing a temporary constitution and holding interim parliamentary elections. Critics said the hastily organized conference was not inclusive of Syria's different ethnic and sectarian groups or civil society. The United States and Europe have been hesitant to lift harsh sanctions imposed on Syria during Assad's rule until they are convinced that the new leaders will create an inclusive political system and protect minorities. Al-Sharaa and regional governments have been urging them to reconsider, fearing that the country's crumbling economy could bring further instability.
