Critical Analysis of Ambassador Mukantabana's Statement and Kagame's Hidden Agenda

AGREEMENT VIOLATIONS AND ILLEGITIMATE MANDATE

Critical Analysis of Ambassador Mukantabana's Statement and Kagame's Hidden Agenda

PART 2 OF 4: Washington Accords Violations, Legal Framework Failure, and the Selective Intervention Fraud

PART 2 OVERVIEW

Part 1 exposed the direct lies about M23 independence, FDLR threats, and revealed Rwanda's hidden mineral extraction empire worth hundreds of millions annually. Part 2 examines how Rwanda systematically violates the peace agreements it praises, operates without any legitimate international mandate, and represents the only neighbor exploiting ethnic protection rhetoric – exposing the fraudulent nature of Rwanda's justifications.

Key Findings in Part 2:

Rwanda violated the Washington Accords immediately after signing whilst praising them
No international body has authorized Rwanda's military operations in DRC
Seven DRC neighbors have identical ethnic cross-border ties but only Rwanda invades
The selective intervention exposes mineral extraction as true motive

SECTION 3: RWANDA VIOLATES THE ACCORDS IT PRAISES

The Performative Gratitude

What Ambassador Mukantabana States:

"On behalf of the Government of Rwanda, I am honored to submit this statement regarding President Trump's historic peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. Gratitude for American Leadership. Rwanda extends its profound gratitude to President Trump and his administration for prioritizing the Rwanda-DRC peace process... We thank President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Vice President Vance, Senior Advisor Massad Boulos, and every U.S. official who made this achievement possible... The Washington Accords represent serious progress toward permanent stability, security, and prosperity in the Great Lakes region."

The statement contains six separate expressions of gratitude to Trump administration officials in the opening paragraphs alone. This is strategic flattery designed to:

Frame criticism of Rwanda as criticism of Trump's "achievement"
Position Rwanda as cooperative partner deserving support
Make American officials invested in defending the agreement
Deflect from immediate violations through diplomatic praise

The Immediate Violations

Agreement Timeline:

Signed: November 2025
Statement Date: January 22, 2026
Agreement Status: Already violated

The 90-Day Withdrawal Commitment:

The Washington Accords stipulated Rwandan troop withdrawal within 90 days. Yet:

In January 2025, M23 and Rwandan Defence Force jointly captured Goma and Bukavu, the two provincial capitals home to over three million people Oaklandinstitute
By 2025, between 4,000 to 7,000 RDF soldiers were estimated fighting in Congo, with satellite images showing expansion in Kigali's Kanombe military cemetery where at least 600 graves have been dug Wikipedia
The United States condemned "the unlawful presence of several thousand Rwandan troops in the DRC" just days after the agreement was signed United States Department of State

Escalation, Not De-escalation:

Rather than withdrawing, Rwanda escalated:

RDF units seized strategic military positions and launched sustained bombardments Wikipedia
Rwanda and M23 continued GPS jamming and spoofing activities grounding MONUSCO air operations and UN humanitarian flights United States Department of State
M23/RDF forces doubled territorial control after the agreement

The Historical Pattern of Agreement Violations

This is Not New Behavior:

Diplomatic efforts led by Angolan President João Lourenço faltered after President Paul Kagame failed to attend a tripartite summit in Luanda on 15 December 2024, which was specifically meant to address the FDLR issue alongside President Félix Tshisekedi Wikipedia.

During ministerial talks in Luanda in July 2024, DRC and Rwanda agreed to a ceasefire to take effect on 4 August, with parties committing to "neutralising" the FDLR and establishing a tripartite verification mechanism to monitor compliance International Crisis Group – violated within weeks.

Every Agreement Follows the Same Pattern:

Sign agreement claiming commitment to peace
Praise mediators and international community
Immediately violate core provisions
Blame DRC for non-compliance
Cite FDLR threat as justification for continued presence
Consolidate territorial control during "peace process"
Negotiate next agreement from strengthened position

Previous Failed Agreements:

2009: March 23 Agreement (which M23 takes its name from violating)
2013: M23 defeat and integration commitments – violated when M23 reformed in 2021
July 2024: Luanda ceasefire agreement – violated within weeks
December 2024: Luanda Summit – Kagame refused to attend
November 2025: Washington Accords – violated by January 2026

Verdict: Rwanda uses peace agreements as diplomatic cover for military consolidation. The praise for the Washington Accords is performative theatre whilst systematic violations continue. Each agreement provides breathing space to strengthen military position before the next offensive.

The Conditional Framework Trap

What the Ambassador Claims:

"Rwanda's security coordination and defensive measures are time-bound, conditional, and threat-based. It is not open-ended, and will cease in parallel with independently verified implementation of the CONOPS benchmarks, through the mutually-agreed monitoring mechanisms... As Kinshasa fulfills its core obligations—especially the neutralization and repatriation of FDLR fighters, the dismantling of FDLR command structures embedded within FARDC operations, and the cessation of support to associated militias—Rwanda commits to a phased, simultaneous, and independently verified drawdown of its security coordination measures with AFC/M23, in direct proportion to FDLR disarmament milestones, culminating in complete termination upon full CONOPS implementation."

The Problem with "Conditional" Withdrawal:

This framework creates perpetual justification for presence:

"Threat-based" means Rwanda defines when threat has ended
"Conditional" means Rwanda determines if conditions are met
"Simultaneous" means Rwanda can claim DRC hasn't done enough
"Independently verified" mechanisms remain vague and unspecified
FDLR can never be "fully" neutralized to Rwanda's satisfaction

Who Decides Compliance?

The statement doesn't specify:

Who conducts "independent verification"
What constitutes adequate FDLR neutralization
How to measure "proportional" withdrawal
Dispute resolution mechanisms
Timelines for each phase

Result: Indefinite military presence presented as temporary conditional measure. Rwanda can perpetually claim insufficient DRC compliance to justify continued occupation.

SECTION 4: THE ILLEGITIMATE "PROTECTION" MANDATE

The Fundamental Legal Question

By what authority does Rwanda claim the right to conduct large-scale military operations in sovereign DRC territory to "protect" an ethnic minority?

The Answer: No legal authority whatsoever.

What Rwanda Does NOT Have

1. UN Security Council Authorization:

No resolution mandates Rwandan intervention to protect civilians in DRC. The UN Charter framework for humanitarian intervention requires Security Council authorization under Chapter VII. Rwanda has never sought nor received such authorization.

2. African Union Mandate:

The AU has not authorized Rwanda's operations. Instead, the African Union called on M23 to withdraw to prevent the "balkanization" of DR Congo, with the UN Security Council adopting Resolution 2773 that also called on Rwanda to end its support for M23 Wikipedia.

3. Regional Body Authorization:

SADC (Southern African Development Community): Demands Rwandan withdrawal
EAC (East African Community): Has not authorized operations
ICGLR (International Conference on the Great Lakes Region): Calls for compliance with territorial integrity

4. DRC Government Invitation:

Kinshasa explicitly opposes Rwanda's military presence. Unlike legitimate regional peacekeeping (such as Burundi's deployment through SADC mandate), Rwanda operates against DRC government wishes.

5. International Court Ruling:

No judicial body – ICJ, ICC, or regional court – has granted Rwanda protective jurisdiction over DRC territory or populations.

6. Responsibility to Protect (R2P) Authorization:

R2P doctrine, while controversial, has specific requirements Rwanda fails to meet:

Requires Security Council authorization – Rwanda has none
Applies to prevent mass atrocities – anti-Tutsi violence did not significantly escalate before M23's 2021 resurgence; analyst Jason Stearns noted the group's return exacerbated communal divisions Wikipedia International Crisis Group
Prohibits ulterior motives – Rwanda's mineral extraction is exhaustively documented
Requires collective international action – Rwanda acts unilaterally for national interest
Demands proportionality – deploying 7,000 troops, capturing provincial capitals, and extracting hundreds of millions in minerals is not proportional

What This Means:

Rwanda has unilaterally appointed itself as protector, judge, and military enforcer in another sovereign nation. This is not humanitarian intervention under international law – it is illegal military aggression disguised in humanitarian rhetoric.

International Law is Unambiguous

UN Charter Article 2(4):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

There are only two exceptions to this prohibition:

Exception 1: Self-Defence (Article 51)

Must be in response to armed attack by the state itself, not by non-state actors operating within its territory. FDLR is not the DRC government. Rwanda cannot claim self-defence against DRC when the threat comes from a non-state militia the DRC government has repeatedly committed to neutralizing.

The ICJ (International Court of Justice) has consistently held that self-defence does not extend to attacks by non-state actors unless attributable to the state. The DRC government's alleged failure to adequately control FDLR does not give Rwanda the right to invade.

Exception 2: Security Council Authorization

None exists. Rwanda has never sought, and certainly has never received, UN Security Council authorization for military operations in DRC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The Legal Verdict:

Rwanda's operations in DRC constitute:

Violation of Article 2(4) – Use of force against territorial integrity
Aggression under customary international law
Breach of sovereignty – Fundamental principle of international system
Illegal occupation – Military control without legal basis

The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2773 calling on Rwanda to end support for M23, with every regional body demanding withdrawal Wikipedia. This universal international condemnation confirms the illegality.

Comparison to Other Illegal Invasions

Russia-Ukraine Parallel:

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 claiming to protect Russian-speaking populations from alleged Ukrainian aggression and "Nazi" forces, the international community rightly condemned it as:

Illegal territorial conquest
Violation of sovereignty
Aggression under international law
War crime and crime of aggression

Rwanda-DRC Parallel:

When Rwanda invades DRC claiming to protect Tutsi populations from alleged Congolese/FDLR aggression and "genocidaire" forces, the operational logic is identical:

Both claim ethnic protection justification
Both cite historical grievances
Both portray themselves as defensive
Both capture territory and resources
Both establish proxy administrations

The Hypocrisy:

Yet Rwanda receives:

Military partnerships and training
Mineral agreements (EU partnership)
Diplomatic engagement and summits
Development aid continuing
No meaningful sanctions

The Double Standard:

The international community applies one standard to Russia (sanctions, isolation, condemnation) and another to Rwanda (engagement, partnerships, limited criticism). The only consistent explanation is that Rwanda:

Serves Western interests in Africa as regional ally
Weaponizes genocide guilt creating political paralysis
Provides resources (minerals) Western economies need
Maintains plausible deniability through M23 proxy

But the legal analysis is identical: both are illegal invasions violating UN Charter Article 2(4).

SECTION 5: THE SELECTIVE INTERVENTION FRAUD

DRC's Ethnic Complexity

The Democratic Republic of Congo contains over 200 distinct ethnic groups across territory the size of Western Europe (2.3 million km²). The country is extraordinarily diverse:

Over 215 languages spoken
Four major ethnic families (Bantu, Nilotic, Sudanic, Pygmy)
Dozens of ethnic groups with cross-border populations

Many groups share deep linguistic, cultural, historical, and ethnic ties with populations in neighbouring countries – the legacy of colonial borders that divided pre-existing communities.

Cross-Border Ethnic Connections Throughout DRC

1. Angola-DRC Border (2,646 km):

Kongo peoples: Major population spanning both countries
Chokwe: Traditional territories divided by colonial borders
Lunda: Kingdom historically spanning current borders
Pende, Yaka, Songo: Multiple groups with cross-border presence

2. Zambia-DRC Border (2,332 km):

Lunda: Extensive populations in both countries
Bemba: Significant presence across border
Kaonde, Lamba: Groups divided by borders
Luvale: Traditional territories span both nations

3. Central African Republic-DRC Border (1,747 km):

Ngbandi: Major population in both countries
Zande (Azande): Extensive cross-border community
Banda peoples: Divided by colonial boundaries
Ngbaka: Present in both nations

4. South Sudan-DRC Border (714 km):

Zande: Significant populations both sides
Lugbara: Cross-border community
Kakwa: Divided population
Moru-Madi peoples: Span the border

5. Uganda-DRC Border (877 km):

Multiple groups: Lendu, Hema, Alur, Kakwa
Lugbara: Substantial cross-border population
Historically mobile populations across the border

6. Burundi-DRC Border (236 km):

Hutu: Largest ethnic group in both countries
Tutsi: Significant minority in both nations
Twa: Indigenous population in both territories

7. Congo-Brazzaville Border (1,775 km):

Kongo groups: United people divided by colonial River boundary
Teke (Bateke): Kingdom spanning both nations
M'Bochi: Cross-border population
Lingala speakers: Shared language communities

The Critical Question: Why Only Rwanda?

If Rwanda's ethnic protection logic legitimized military intervention, every single one of DRC's neighbours should be invading.

Why Doesn't Angola Invade?

Angola has massive Kongo, Chokwe, and Lunda populations sharing ethnicity with communities in DRC's resource-rich Kasai, Katanga, and Kongo Central provinces. Using Rwanda's logic, Angola could:

Deploy troops to "protect" Kongo peoples from discrimination
Establish "security coordination" with Kongo militias
Create "buffer zones" in diamond and copper-rich Katanga
Claim "defensive measures" against anti-Kongo violence
Seize mineral areas and export resources through Angola
Invoke historical Kingdom of Kongo territorial claims

Angola does NOT do this. Why? Because it would be:

A violation of sovereignty under UN Charter Article 2(4)
An illegal use of force under international law
Territorial aggression and conquest
Grounds for international sanctions and condemnation

Angola respects international law and sovereignty despite having the military capability and ethnic justification to intervene.

Why Doesn't Burundi Invade?

Burundi has identical Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa populations as eastern DRC. They face similar historical discrimination and violence. Burundian co-ethnics in DRC experience challenges comparable to Congolese Tutsis.

Yet Burundi:

Does NOT send thousands of troops to "protect" Burundian co-ethnics in DRC
Does NOT establish proxy militias to "defend" ethnic kin
Does NOT seize provincial capitals claiming "defensive measures"
Does NOT control mineral mines to "fund protection operations"

When Burundi DOES deploy troops, it does so as part of the SADC regional force with explicit DRC government authorization – legally, transparently, under proper regional mandate with international oversight.

This is the legitimate model of regional security cooperation: multilateral, authorized, transparent, accountable.

Why Don't Zambia, CAR, Congo-Brazzaville, or Others Invade?

Every single neighbour could invoke ethnic protection using Rwanda's precedent:

Zambia could "protect" Lunda and Bemba populations
CAR could "protect" Zande and Ngbandi communities
Congo-Brazzaville could "protect" Kongo peoples
Tanzania could "protect" various cross-border groups
South Sudan could "protect" Zande populations
Uganda (which does provide some M23 support) could escalate protection claims

None do at Rwanda's scale. This universal restraint by all other neighbours exposes Rwanda's argument as fraudulent special pleading.

The Only Difference: Minerals

What distinguishes Rwanda's situation from all other DRC neighbours?

Not ethnic ties – others have equally strong connections
Not historical discrimination – Kongo, Lunda, and others face similar challenges
Not security threats – Angola faced actual UNITA insurgency from DRC territory historically
Not geographic proximity – all share lengthy borders
Not military capability – Angola and others have armed forces

The Difference:

M23's control of Rubaya mine provides an estimated $800,000 monthly revenue from coltan taxation Oaklandinstitute Global Witness, with minerals contributing around 30% to Rwanda's budget Mongabay. Rwanda exports 2,300 tons of coltan annually despite geological capacity for only 10-15% Discovery Alert.

Rwanda's neighbours don't have hundreds of millions of dollars in annual mineral revenue to extract from "ethnic protection" operations. That is the sole distinguishing factor.

The territories Rwanda occupies through M23 happen to contain:

Rubaya mine producing 50% of DRC's coltan output and 15% of world supply International Crisis Group
Strategic trade routes to Rwanda
Other mineral deposits (cassiterite, gold, tungsten)
Agricultural land

If the objective were truly ethnic protection, why do all occupied territories coincidentally contain valuable resources whilst ethnically-linked but resource-poor areas receive no "protection"?

The Precedent Rwanda Demands

If the international community accepts Rwanda's ethnic protection argument, the consequences would be catastrophic:

In Africa:

Ethiopia could invade Djibouti to "protect" Somali and Afar populations
Nigeria could invade Cameroon for Fulani communities
Kenya could invade Somalia for ethnic Somali populations
Somalia could invade Kenya claiming Somali protection
Sudan could invade South Sudan for Arab populations
South Sudan could invade Sudan for Dinka/Nuer protection
Eritrea could invade Ethiopia claiming Tigrinya protection

Globally:

India could invade Pakistan to "protect" Hindu minorities
Pakistan could invade India to "protect" Muslim populations
Hungary could invade Romania for ethnic Hungarian protection
Turkey could invade Greece to "protect" Turkish minorities
China could invade any neighbor claiming ethnic Chinese protection
Russia's Ukraine invasion would be legitimized under identical logic

Result: The complete collapse of the international system based on sovereignty and territorial integrity. Every state with co-ethnic populations across borders would have license to invade, occupy, and extract resources under humanitarian pretext.

This is precisely why international law prohibits it.

The Westphalian system since 1648, the UN Charter since 1945, and customary international law all rest on the principle that sovereignty trumps ethnic kinship as the organizing principle of international relations. Otherwise, perpetual warfare would be the norm.

What DRC's Neighbours Actually Do

Angola:

Respects sovereignty despite ethnic ties and historical UNITA threats from DRC
Plays diplomatic mediation role through President João Lourenço
Does not militarily intervene despite capability
Manages cross-border communities through diplomatic engagement

Zambia:

Manages cross-border Lunda and Bemba communities peacefully
Does not invoke ethnic protection to justify military operations
Respects territorial integrity despite shared populations
Engages through bilateral diplomatic channels

Tanzania:

Hosts Congolese refugees without military intervention
Manages shared ethnic groups through regional cooperation
Does not claim protective mandate over co-ethnics in DRC
Respects sovereignty whilst providing humanitarian assistance

Central African Republic:

Faces its own severe security challenges
Does not use DRC territory to project military power
Respects sovereignty despite ethnic connections
Focuses on internal stability rather than external intervention

Congo-Brazzaville:

Shares extensive Kongo populations with DRC
Does not militarily intervene despite shared language and culture
Manages cross-border movement through bilateral agreements
River boundary respected despite dividing unified ethnic groups

Uganda:

Has provided some support to M23 though significantly less than Rwanda
UN experts documented Uganda's support for M23 including help with recruitment and free movement, though to lesser degree than Rwanda International Crisis Group Al Jazeera
Also violates international law but at smaller scale
Demonstrates that even partial intervention faces condemnation

Burundi:

When deploying forces, does so through SADC mandate with DRC authorization
Legal, transparent, internationally sanctioned presence
Model of how regional security cooperation should work
Demonstrates the difference between legitimate and illegitimate intervention

Verdict on Selective Intervention

Rwanda's claim to unique protective mandate is:

Legally baseless – No international law principle supports it
Historically unprecedented – No comparable claim accepted in modern international system
Strategically fraudulent – Mineral extraction is demonstrable motive

Every neighbour could invoke identical justification. None do – because they:

Respect international law and sovereignty
Lack the economic incentive of systematic mineral extraction
Face international accountability that Rwanda evades through guilt manipulation

If ethnic protection legitimized intervention:

DRC would face simultaneous invasions from seven directions
The international system would collapse into ethnic warfare
Sovereignty would become meaningless
Resource-rich weak states would be perpetually victimized

The fact that only Rwanda (and partially Uganda) conduct illegal operations exposes the argument as pretext for resource theft, nothing more.

The selective application proves the principle is false. If it were legitimate, it would apply universally. Since it applies only where minerals exist, the true motive is revealed.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Q1: Has Rwanda violated the Washington Accords?

Yes, immediately and comprehensively. Despite signing in November 2025 and praising the agreement in January 2026, M23 and RDF jointly captured Goma and Bukavu in January 2025 Oaklandinstitute, with 4,000-7,000 RDF soldiers estimated fighting in Congo Wikipedia. The U.S. State Department condemned "unlawful presence of several thousand Rwandan troops" and GPS jamming blocking humanitarian flights United States Department of State weeks after signing.

Q2: Does Rwanda have legal authority to protect Tutsis in DRC?

No. Rwanda has no UN mandate, no African Union authorization, no DRC government invitation, and no legal basis under international law (UN Charter Article 2(4)) to conduct military operations in DRC. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2773 calling on Rwanda to end M23 support, with every regional body demanding withdrawal Wikipedia.

Q3: Why don't other DRC neighbours invade to protect their ethnic groups?

Because they respect sovereignty and international law. Angola, Burundi, Zambia, CAR, Congo-Brazzaville, Tanzania, and South Sudan all have ethnic populations in DRC but do not conduct military invasions. Burundi sends troops only through SADC mandate with DRC authorization – the legitimate model. Only Rwanda (and partially Uganda) violate sovereignty, exposing mineral extraction as the motive.

Q4: How does Rwanda's intervention compare to Russia's Ukraine invasion?

The legal logic is identical: both claim ethnic protection (Russian-speakers/Tutsis), cite historical grievances, portray themselves as defensive, capture territory, and establish proxy administrations. Both violate UN Charter Article 2(4). Yet Russia faces comprehensive sanctions whilst Rwanda receives mineral partnerships and diplomatic engagement – a stark double standard revealing Western geopolitical calculations.

Q5: What would happen if Rwanda's ethnic protection logic became international law?

Global chaos. Ethiopia could invade Djibouti, Nigeria invade Cameroon, India invade Pakistan, Pakistan invade India, Hungary invade Romania – every state with co-ethnic populations across borders could militarily intervene. The Westphalian sovereignty system would collapse into perpetual ethnic warfare. This is precisely why international law prohibits it.

Q6: What is the pattern of Rwanda violating peace agreements?

Systematic: 2009 March 23 Agreement (violated, giving M23 its name); 2013 M23 defeat and integration (violated when M23 reformed 2021); July 2024 Luanda ceasefire (violated within weeks); December 2024 Luanda Summit (Kagame refused to attend); November 2025 Washington Accords (violated by January 2026). Each agreement provides diplomatic cover whilst Rwanda consolidates military position.

Q7: What makes the Washington Accords "conditional" framework problematic?

It creates perpetual justification: Rwanda defines when threat ends ("threat-based"), determines if conditions are met ("conditional"), can claim DRC hasn't done enough ("simultaneous"), with vague verification mechanisms. FDLR can never be "fully neutralized" to Rwanda's satisfaction, enabling indefinite military presence presented as temporary.

Q8: How many cross-border ethnic groups exist between DRC and neighbors?

Over 200 ethnic groups in DRC, with dozens having cross-border populations: Kongo peoples (Angola/Congo-Brazzaville), Lunda (Angola/Zambia), Bemba (Zambia), Zande (CAR/South Sudan), Lugbara (Uganda), Hutu/Tutsi (Burundi/Rwanda), and many others. All seven neighbors could invoke Rwanda's logic – none do except Rwanda (and partially Uganda), proving mineral extraction is the distinguishing factor.

REFERENCES

African Arguments. (2025). Rwanda: Who lit the fuse in 1994? Retrieved from https://africanarguments.org/

Al Jazeera. (2025). A guide to the decades-long conflict in DR Congo. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/21/a-guide-to-the-decades-long-conflict-in-dr-congo

Council on Foreign Relations. (2012). TWE Remembers: Juvenal Habyarimana's Plane Crashes and the Rwandan Genocide Begins. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/

Council on Foreign Relations. (2025). Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Global Conflict Tracker. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/violence-democratic-republic-congo

International Crisis Group. (2025). The M23 Offensive: Elusive Peace in the Great Lakes. Report No. 320. Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org/

The Conversation. (2025). Rwanda genocide: 30 years on, why Tutsis are at the centre of DR Congo's conflict. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/

The New Humanitarian. (2025). Life under the M23: What our reporting reveals about rebel rule in DR Congo. Retrieved from https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/

United Nations Security Council. (2024). Final report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. S/2024/432.

United Nations Security Council. (2025). Final report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. S/2025/446.

U.S. Department of State. (2025). U.S. Support for the United Nations Group of Experts Report on the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. January 15, 2025. Retrieved from https://2021-2025.state.gov/

West Point Lieber Institute. (2025). The Conflict in Eastern DRC and the State Responsibility of Rwanda and Uganda. Retrieved from https://lieber.westpoint.edu/

Wikipedia. (2025). Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda conflict (2022–present). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Wikipedia. (2025). First Congo War. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Wikipedia. (2025). Second Congo War. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Wikipedia. (2025). Rwandan genocide. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Wikipedia. (2025). M23 campaign (2022–present). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Wikipedia. (2025). 2025 Goma offensive. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/

Author: Independent International Law and Conflict Analysis – Great Lakes Region

Search This Blog