Behind the veil of this new peace declaration, which some have heralded as a significant step toward easing the crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, lies a more nuancedâ€"and indeed troublingâ€"reality.
In a hasty and triumphalist display of communication, the Congolese government, through its spokesperson, Minister of Communication Patrick Muyaya, has offered a highly skewed interpretation of the document, attributing to it provisions and commitments that are neither stated nor reasonably implied.
In statements made shortly after the signing, Muyaya declared that the declaration upheld Kinshasa's 'red lines,' particularly the unconditional withdrawal of M23 rebels from occupied areas and the restoration of state institutions in those territories. However, this interpretation starkly misrepresents the actual content of the agreement.
The declaration contains no explicit reference to rebel withdrawal, nor does it outline any enforcement mechanism or timeline for such action. M23 leaders themselves have contested Muyaya's characterisation, asserting that the agreement merely initiates a process to build up state presenceâ€"not a mandate for immediate rebel disengagement.
By portraying the declaration as a diplomatic victory, Kinshasa not only disregards the strategic caution such circumstances demand but also betrays the very essence of the agreement.
The text's deliberate ambiguity called for measured restraint, not triumphalism. Thus emerges a growing risk: that this long-awaited peace, instead of being nurtured and sustained, may be compromised from the outset, undermined by a state communication machinery disconnected from reality, conflating political aspirations with legal stipulations.
Peace initiatives for the eastern DRC have come and goneâ€"postponed promises, endlessly renewed and nearly always broken. This latest diplomatic text, whose legal weight remains largely symbolic, stipulates a 'permanent ceasefire' and prohibits 'any attacks of any kind as well as any attempts to alter the situation on the ground by force.'
In effect, this amounts to the freezing of the current military status quo, thereby tacitly legitimising the prolonged occupation of vast swathes of national territory by rebel forces.
Troubling silences and grey zones
While the ceasefire enshrines the current frontlines, the essentials remain shrouded in ambiguity: no mention is made of the rebels' disarmament, their cantonment, or the return of displaced civilians. More worrisome still, the declaration contains no enforcement clauses. No body is designated to monitor compliance, and no sanctions are outlined for potential violations.
In a regional context scarred by the repeated erosion of peace efforts, the adoption of this new declarationâ€"though non-binding in formâ€"nonetheless deserves recognition for what it symbolises: a renewed willingness on all sides to break with cycles of antagonism and progressively rebuild the foundations of peaceful coexistence.
The document, the product of a mediation process sustained by the unwavering commitment of external partners, reflects a mutual pledge to abandon violence as a means of conflict resolution and to embrace dialogue as a shared horizon. While the legal guarantees remain to be solidified, the symbolic weight of the accord is no less significant. It rekindles hope in the war-ravaged provinces of North and South Kivu, where exhausted populations await with longing the end of hostilities and the return of legitimate civil order.
In this regard, the declaration is not a final achievement but a foundational milestoneâ€"one that signals a new momentum, where diplomacy is no longer an escape route but a tangible promise of restored peace and sovereignty.
A dangerous drift
Against this backdrop, the statements made by Minister Muyaya are especially troubling. By presenting the agreement as a victory for Kinshasa's 'red line'â€"namely, the unconditional withdrawal of AFC/M23 forces from occupied areasâ€"the minister engages in blatant misinformation, misrepresenting the actual content of the signed declaration.
In reality, the text contains no such provision, nor does it define any concrete modalities for withdrawal or reintegration. The government's jubilant rhetoric stands in stark contradiction with the legal substance of the document. This gap between official discourse and factual reality constitutes a serious breach of the rigour required in statecraft.
Such manipulation of the narrative, far from reinforcing Kinshasa's diplomatic position, instead weakens its credibility and further exposes the nation to strategic delusion and moral disarmament.
Tite Gatabazi
Source : https://en.igihe.com/opinion/article/the-dangerous-drift-of-government-communication-in-the-drc
