Sanctioned and Still Serving: Why Rwanda Must Now Be Expelled from UN Peacekeeping Missions

The Formal Accountability Case Following US, UK, EU, and German Sanctions Against Rwanda

The African Rights Campaign | Analytical Series: Rwanda–DRC Conflict and International Accountability

Introduction

On 2 March 2026, the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) — the military of Rwanda as an institution — and on four of its senior officials: Vincent Nyakarundi, Army Chief of Staff; Ruki Karusisi, Major General and commander of the RDF's 5th Infantry Division; Mubarakh Muganga, Chief of Defence Staff; and Stanislas Gashugi, Special Operations Force Commander. The trigger was M23's capture of Uvira in the days following the 4 December 2025 signing of the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity, the US-brokered peace agreement signed by DRC President Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Kagame before President Trump. Rwanda-backed M23 fighters seized Uvira in direct and immediate violation of that agreement. The March 2026 designations followed an earlier sanction imposed on 20 February 2025 against James Kabarebe, Rwanda's Minister of State for Regional Integration, who had been identified as the principal orchestrator of RDF support for M23 and coordinator of Congolese mineral exports through Rwandan channels.

The United Kingdom, the European Union, and Germany have imposed parallel or complementary measures. Taken together, these sanctions represent the convergent formal legal determination of the world's most significant sanctions authorities that Rwanda is engaged in internationally unlawful conduct threatening regional peace and security.

One consequence of this determination has received wholly insufficient attention: Rwanda currently contributes thousands of troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations worldwide. It is one of the largest troop-contributing countries (TCCs) to the UN, deploying forces in Sudan, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, and the Golan Heights, among other theatres.

The contradiction is stark, legally untenable, and institutionally corrosive. A state formally sanctioned for directing armed aggression against a sovereign neighbour, for the systematic killing of civilians, and for the pillage of that neighbour's natural resources, cannot simultaneously serve as a guarantor of international peace and security under the UN flag. What makes this contradiction particularly damaging is its financial dimension: the United Nations pays Rwanda approximately USD 1,428 per soldier per month in troop reimbursements. Member states — including the very governments that have sanctioned Rwanda — are therefore directly subsidising the RDF budget of an aggressor state through the UN peacekeeping reimbursement system. Following the 2 March 2026 sanctions designating the RDF as an institution, UN payments flowing to RDF-linked entities now constitute a direct compliance risk for the UN itself under US and EU sanctions regimes.

This article sets out the analytical, legal, and institutional case for Rwanda's immediate suspension and expulsion from all UN peacekeeping operations.

Section 1: The UN's Own Standards and the Vetting of Troop-Contributing Countries

The United Nations does not operate peacekeeping missions without formal conduct standards for contributing states and their personnel. The Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (HRDDP), adopted in 2011, requires the UN to withhold support from any military or security force unit where there are substantial grounds to believe that it has committed, or is committing, serious violations of international humanitarian law, international human rights law, or international refugee law.

The HRDDP's underlying logic — that the UN cannot lend legitimacy or operational support to forces credibly implicated in atrocity crimes — applies with equal force to forces the UN itself fields under its own flag. A troop-contributing country whose national military is directly engaged in armed aggression against a neighbouring sovereign state, and whose forces and proxies are documented perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity, does not meet the threshold of institutional fitness required of a UN peacekeeping contributor.

Article 100 of the UN Charter is equally clear: all persons serving the UN, including those contributed by member states, must act exclusively in the interests of the organisation and must neither seek nor receive instructions from any government. Rwandan peacekeepers operating under the UN flag remain subject to the RDF chain of command, which is simultaneously directing M23 operations in the DRC. This dual allegiance is a direct and structural violation of Article 100.

Rwanda's conduct in the DRC places it squarely within the category of states whose contributions the UN is institutionally required to scrutinise and withdraw. The evidence is not merely credible. It is exhaustive, multi-source, and formally acknowledged by multiple governments through the instrument of legal sanctions.

Section 2: The Documented Record — RDF, M23, and War Crimes in the DRC

The evidentiary record against Rwanda is built not on allegations but on a multi-decade corpus of UN documentation, judicial findings, satellite imagery, witness testimony, and forensic investigation.

The UN Mapping Report (2010) documented 617 incidents of potential war crimes and crimes against humanity in the DRC between 1993 and 2003. It identified RPF/RPA forces as perpetrators of systematic massacres of Hutu civilians, including refugees, and concluded that these acts, if prosecuted before a competent court, could be classified as crimes of genocide. No criminal accountability proceedings have followed. The same command structure that directed those operations — the RPF, now the RDF — continues to operate in the DRC today.

Successive UN Groups of Experts on the DRC have documented Rwanda's sustained military support for M23 from 2012 to the present. Their reports detail the provision of weapons, ammunition, and military equipment; the recruitment of Congolese and Rwandan fighters; the command and control exercised by RDF officers over M23 field operations; and the direct participation of RDF units in combat against the Armed Forces of the DRC (FARDC) and MONUSCO peacekeepers.

Since the resumption of M23's offensive in 2021 and the fall of Goma in January 2025, documented atrocities have escalated sharply:

•         More than seven million internally displaced persons in eastern DRC — the largest displacement crisis in Africa.

•         The Kishishe massacre of November 2022: at least 131 civilians killed by M23 in a single incident, condemned by the UN Secretary-General.

•         Systematic sexual violence used as a weapon of war, documented by UNFPA and the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict.

•         The deliberate closure of Goma International Airport, severing humanitarian supply lines to millions of civilians in acute need.

•         The killing of humanitarian workers, including Karine Buisset, a French national and UNICEF child protection officer killed in Goma on 11 March 2026, for which RDF/M23 bears direct institutional responsibility as the occupying force.

•         Systematic destruction of civilian hospitals, schools, and humanitarian infrastructure in violation of the laws of armed conflict.

Rwanda has consistently justified its DRC operations by reference to the threat posed by the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congolese-based armed group with historical links to the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide. This justification has been systematically discredited by successive UN Groups of Experts, who have found that the FDLR does not represent a credible military threat to Rwanda's territorial integrity, that Rwanda has used the FDLR pretext to justify operations serving economic and strategic objectives unrelated to genuine security needs, and that Rwanda's operations in the DRC have consistently generated far greater insecurity than the FDLR threat they purport to address. Security concerns, even legitimate ones, cannot justify creating systematic insecurity for the civilian populations of a neighbouring sovereign state.

Section 3: The US Sanctions — A Formal Determination of Unlawful Conduct

The US Treasury sanctions of 2 March 2026 are analytically significant beyond their direct economic effect. They represent a formal legal determination by the executive branch of the world's primary sanctions authority that Rwanda's conduct in the DRC constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and that the RDF as an institution — not merely individual officials — bears direct responsibility for material support to a designated armed group. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated unequivocally that the United States expects the immediate withdrawal of RDF troops, weapons, and equipment from the DRC.

The sanctions were imposed under Executive Order 13413, as amended by EO 13671, targeting entities responsible for, or complicit in, actions or policies threatening the peace, security, or stability of the DRC. The designation of the RDF as an institution is particularly significant: it means that Rwanda's entire military structure is now a designated entity under US sanctions, not merely a handful of named individuals. The four designated officials — Nyakarundi, Karusisi, Muganga, and Gashugi — represent the operational command chain directly responsible for RDF involvement in M23 operations. The earlier designation of Kabarebe on 20 February 2025 had already established that Rwanda's civilian leadership was complicit in mineral revenue generation from occupied Congolese territory. Together, the two rounds of designations cover the full chain of command and civilian oversight of Rwanda's DRC operations.

The compliance implications of these sanctions for the UN are direct and have not been adequately addressed by the Secretariat. The UN reimbursement system pays Rwanda approximately USD 1,428 per soldier per month for each troop contributed to peacekeeping missions. At current contribution levels, this represents several million dollars per year transferred from UN member state contributions to the Rwandan government and, through the government, to the RDF. Following the designation of senior RDF officials and entities under US sanctions, payments flowing through RDF institutional channels may constitute sanctions violations by the UN itself and by the Western governments whose assessed contributions fund the peacekeeping budget. No UN body has formally addressed this compliance question. Its silence is an institutional failure of the first order.

The UK, EU, and German measures align with and reinforce the US determination. France remains the only major Western power not to have imposed sanctions on Rwanda, a failure compounded by France's permanent Security Council seat. The PNAT war crimes investigation opened on 13 March 2026, following the killing of French national Karine Buisset in Goma, creates an institutional pathway for France's position to shift. French prosecutors are now formally examining whether the circumstances of Buisset's death constitute a war crime, and the institutional logic of that investigation points directly at the RDF/M23 occupation as the enabling context.

Section 4: The Aggressor-Peacekeeper Contradiction

Rwanda currently deploys approximately 5,000 to 6,000 troops in UN missions and is consistently ranked among the top ten TCCs globally. This peacekeeping contribution has been strategically constructed by the Kagame government as diplomatic capital, deliberately offsetting accountability pressure by embedding Rwanda in the institutional architecture of international peace and security.

The strategy is effective precisely because it exploits the UN's institutional reluctance to act against a significant TCC. Expelling a major contributor has operational consequences: missions lose personnel, logistical capacity, and experienced units. But these costs are manageable and recoverable. The damage to UN credibility caused by retaining Rwanda is neither manageable nor recoverable.

The aggressor-peacekeeper contradiction has direct operational implications. Rwandan peacekeepers operating in Sudan or the CAR represent the same institutional chain of command — the RDF — that is simultaneously directing armed operations in the DRC. The chain of command does not change depending on the theatre. Officers who have served, or will serve, in M23-linked operations are interchangeable with those deployed under the UN flag. The blue helmet does not sever an officer's loyalty to, or accountability within, the RDF command structure.

The UN has additionally created a perverse incentive structure. By continuing to reimburse Rwanda for peacekeeping contributions, the UN effectively subsidises the RDF budget. A portion of that budget funds the logistics, personnel, and equipment that sustain M23 operations in the DRC. The UN is therefore, through its reimbursement system, an indirect financier of the conflict its own mission in the DRC is mandated to resolve. This circularity is not a theoretical abstraction. It is a live financial relationship that the UN Secretariat has failed to examine.

Section 5: The Bribery of Host Country Officials in CAR and Mozambique

Rwanda's commercial penetration of the Central African Republic and Mozambique is not conducted solely through structural dependency and political leverage. It is conducted through the direct, systematic bribery of senior government officials: ministers, military commanders, provincial governors, and licensing authorities whose cooperation is required to convert military presence into commercial extraction and land ownership. This constitutes active corruption of sovereign governance institutions and a violation of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), to which both the CAR and Mozambique are states parties.

In the Central African Republic, Rwandan actors have made documented payments and granted material benefits to senior officials in exchange for mining concessions, land acquisition rights, business licences, and political protection. The pattern is consistent and structural: Rwandan forces arrive under the cover of a security arrangement; Rwandan commercial entities follow, seeking access to mineral deposits, agricultural land, and business infrastructure; and the officials with authority over those resources receive payments, gifts, and benefits that create personal financial interests in Rwanda's continued presence. Ministers responsible for mines, land tenure, and commercial licensing have been identified in credible investigative reporting and UN Panel of Experts documentation as recipients of Rwandan commercial inducements.

The consequences extend beyond individual acts of corruption. When a CAR minister responsible for mining concessions has received payments from Rwandan commercial actors, he is no longer an independent decision-maker exercising sovereign authority over his country's natural resources. He is a compromised official whose decisions reflect the interests of the party that has paid him. The sovereignty of the CAR over its own mineral wealth is undermined not only by the presence of Rwandan forces but by the corruption of the institutional officials whose formal authority governs that wealth. Rwanda does not merely occupy territory. It purchases the officials who control it.

In Mozambique, the same model operates in the context of the Cabo Delgado deployment. Land concessions in areas adjacent to the gas extraction zone, business licensing arrangements for Rwandan-linked enterprises, and preferential treatment for Rwandan commercial entities in provincial procurement have all been facilitated through payments to local and national officials. The Mozambican officials who receive these payments acquire a personal financial interest in Rwanda's continued military and commercial presence that is distinct from and additional to their government's structural dependency on Rwandan security capacity. Individual corruption compounds institutional dependency to create a multi-layered system of entrenched Rwandan influence that is progressively harder to reverse.

The bribery model is analytically significant for the peacekeeping question because it demonstrates that Rwanda's commercial activities in host countries are not opportunistic or incidental. They are planned, resourced, and executed with the same institutional deliberateness as the military deployments that enable them. The same government that directs the RDF to provide presidential protection in Bangui also directs Rwandan commercial actors to secure concessions and licences through payments to CAR officials. The civilian and military dimensions of Rwanda's foreign deployments are integrated instruments of a single national strategy. The UN peacekeeping framework provides the entry point and the institutional cover. Bribery ensures the commercial access is secured and maintained regardless of changes in the formal political environment.

The US Treasury sanctions designation of James Kabarebe on 20 February 2025 is directly relevant to this analysis. Kabarebe was sanctioned specifically for managing Rwanda and M23's revenue generation from DRC mineral resources and for coordinating the export of extracted minerals from Congolese mining sites through Rwandan channels. The mineral revenue management function Kabarebe exercised in the DRC is structurally identical to the commercial access management function that Rwandan actors exercise in the CAR and Mozambique. The difference is that in the DRC, the extraction is conducted through armed occupation; in the CAR and Mozambique, it is facilitated through bribery of officials who retain formal sovereign authority but have been financially compromised. Both are forms of the same predatory commercial strategy.

Section 6: The Veto-Proof Accountability Gap and the Failure of International Justice

Rwanda's continued impunity is not accidental. It is the product of a specific and durable accountability gap that has been maintained by a combination of political protection, institutional design, and deliberate obstruction.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) had jurisdiction only over crimes committed in Rwanda and neighbouring states during 1994. It could not, and did not, prosecute RPF/RPA crimes in the DRC committed from 1996 onwards. The International Criminal Court has never opened a formal investigation into Rwandan nationals for crimes in the DRC, despite the scope of documented evidence and the DRC's status as an ICC member state. Individual indictment requests made by UN prosecutors in the 1990s were not pursued. The result is an unbroken chain: Rwanda commits atrocities in the DRC, the international community documents them, and no criminal accountability follows.

The Security Council, the body with the formal authority to refer situations to the ICC or establish accountability mechanisms, is structurally blocked. Russia and China have consistently shielded Rwanda from binding Chapter VII resolutions, reflecting their own resistance to Western-led accountability frameworks and their bilateral relationships with Kigali. This veto architecture has been a permanent feature of the Council's engagement with the DRC conflict and shows no sign of changing.

The Bruguière investigation in France, which identified Kagame's inner circle as responsible for the assassination of President Habyarimana in April 1994, and the Hourigan affidavit, which documented early US intelligence awareness of RPF responsibility for the downing of the presidential aircraft, are part of a broader accountability record that has been systematically suppressed or deprioritised. These materials establish a long-standing pattern of international foreknowledge and political management of accountability that has benefited the Kagame government across three decades.

The expulsion of Rwanda from UN peacekeeping would not substitute for criminal accountability. But it would end the institutional subsidy that peacekeeping participation provides to Rwanda's impunity. It would remove one of the three pillars on which Rwanda's architecture of impunity rests, and it would create pressure on the other two.

Section 6: The Architecture of Impunity — How Rwanda Has Made Itself Too Connected to Sanction

Rwanda's relationship with the international community is built on a deliberate architecture of impunity maintenance. This architecture has three principal pillars.

The first is narrative control. The Kagame government has consistently framed all scrutiny of RDF conduct in the DRC as anti-Tutsi bias, genocide revisionism, or FDLR apologia. This framing has been deployed with particular effectiveness in France, where post-genocide guilt about French complicity in 1994 has historically inhibited sustained criticism of Kigali. The result is that documentation of Rwanda's atrocities in the DRC is frequently filtered through a defensive interpretive lens that minimises what would, in any other context, be treated as unambiguous war crimes.

The second pillar is multilateral positioning. Rwanda's presence in the African Union, the Commonwealth, the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, the East African Community, and the UN peacekeeping system creates a dense network of institutional relationships that make unilateral action against Kigali politically costly for any single actor. This network was not assembled by accident. It is the product of a deliberate strategy of institutional embedding designed to make Rwanda too connected to sanction.

The third pillar is negotiation as delay. Rwanda has consistently promoted peace processes — the Luanda Process, the Nairobi Process, the Paris humanitarian conference of October 2025 — without making or honouring concrete commitments. The pattern mirrors the strategic use of the Arusha Accords in the pre-genocide period: negotiations deployed not to resolve conflicts but to manage international pressure while military operations continue. At the Paris conference of October 2025, Kagame publicly rejected the commitment to reopen Goma airport, demonstrating that Rwanda's participation in diplomatic frameworks is tactical rather than substantive.

The expulsion of Rwanda from UN peacekeeping would dismantle the second pillar of this architecture. It would remove the institutional credibility that peacekeeping participation lends to Rwanda's diplomatic positioning, and it would signal that multilateral embedding does not confer permanent immunity from consequences.

Section 7: Institutional Pathways for Rwanda's Suspension and Expulsion

The formal mechanisms available to the United Nations for suspending or expelling Rwanda from peacekeeping missions are multiple and do not require Security Council unanimity.

•         The Secretary-General holds inherent administrative authority over the composition of UN missions and the vetting of TCCs. This authority allows the Secretary-General to decline to renew Memoranda of Understanding with Rwanda on grounds of conduct incompatible with UN principles. This is the most direct and least politically obstructed pathway and does not require a Security Council vote.

•         The Human Rights Due Diligence Policy creates a formal institutional obligation to withhold UN support from forces credibly implicated in serious violations of international humanitarian law. Its logic applies directly to TCCs whose national military meets that threshold.

•         The General Assembly, acting under the Uniting for Peace resolution (A/RES/377), can recommend measures to member states where the Security Council is deadlocked by veto. A General Assembly resolution calling for Rwanda's suspension would carry significant political weight.

•         Sanctioning governments — the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and EU member states — can condition their financial contributions to specific UN missions on the absence of Rwandan troop contributions. These states collectively fund the majority of the UN peacekeeping budget. Conditional financing is the most powerful short-term lever available outside the Security Council.

•         A sanctions compliance review by the UN Secretariat is immediately required to assess whether UN reimbursements to Rwanda are flowing to designated entities under US and EU sanctions. If they are, the UN is in breach of its own obligations under the sanctions regimes of its principal financial contributors. This review should be the first administrative step taken.

•         The Security Council, under Chapter VII, retains the authority to adopt resolutions restricting the participation of specific states in peace operations. Even if a binding resolution is vetoed, the process of tabling such a resolution applies diplomatic pressure and establishes a formal record of the institutional question being raised.

The argument that expulsion is institutionally impossible because Rwanda is a significant TCC cannot be sustained. If the peacekeeping system cannot act against a state that kills its own peacekeepers, wages war against a member state, and is formally sanctioned by its most significant contributors, then the system has no enforceable standards at all. The operational cost of Rwanda's absence from UN missions is real but recoverable. The institutional cost of Rwanda's continued presence is the credibility of the system itself.

Section 8: What Expulsion Would Signal — The Stakes for the UN System

The expulsion of Rwanda from UN peacekeeping would not resolve the DRC conflict, compel Rwanda's withdrawal from Goma, or automatically trigger criminal accountability. These are larger objectives requiring separate processes.

What expulsion would do is restore institutional coherence to the UN's peacekeeping framework. It would signal that the UN Charter's foundational prohibition on aggression is operationally enforced, not merely aspirational. It would demonstrate that the status of troop-contributing country is conditional on conduct compatible with the UN's own principles. It would end the financial absurdity of UN member states simultaneously sanctioning Rwanda and reimbursing it through the peacekeeping budget. And it would send a direct signal to Congolese civilians and humanitarian workers that the international community is prepared to pay a cost for institutional coherence.

That signal is not peripheral to the conflict. It is central to it. Rwanda's confidence in continued impunity is founded partly on the calculation that its institutional embeddedness protects it from meaningful consequences. Removing that embeddedness changes the strategic calculation.

France's permanent Security Council seat makes its position decisive. A France that has aligned with the sanctions consensus and supported Rwanda's suspension from peacekeeping would fundamentally alter the diplomatic geometry of the issue. The PNAT investigation provides an institutional pathway for that shift. The international community should press France to align its Security Council position with the findings of its own national prosecutors.

Conclusion

The case for Rwanda's expulsion from UN peacekeeping missions is not built on political grievance or advocacy rhetoric. It is built on the UN's own evidentiary record, the convergent formal determinations of sanctioning governments, the documented atrocities of RDF/M23 in the DRC, the financial compliance crisis created by UN reimbursements to a sanctioned military, and the institutional principles that give UN peacekeeping its authority and legitimacy.

A state that is simultaneously sanctioned for directing armed aggression against a sovereign neighbour and deploying troops under the UN flag is not a peacekeeping partner. It is a threat to the credibility of the peacekeeping system itself. The UN Secretariat must immediately initiate a sanctions compliance review of reimbursements to Rwanda. The Secretary-General must exercise his administrative authority to suspend Rwanda's troop contribution agreements. The sanctioning governments must condition their peacekeeping financial contributions on Rwanda's removal from all active missions.

Rwanda must be suspended from all UN peacekeeping operations immediately, pending the withdrawal of RDF forces from the DRC, the cessation of all support for M23, and the commencement of a credible international accountability process for atrocities documented since 1996. These are not maximalist demands. They are the minimum conditions for institutional coherence, financial integrity, and the moral authority on which UN peacekeeping depends.

Frequently Asked Questions (Google People Also Ask)

Why is Rwanda one of the largest UN peacekeeping contributors?

Rwanda has strategically cultivated its peacekeeping role as a form of diplomatic capital, deploying between 4,000 and 6,000 troops to UN missions. The Kagame government uses this contribution to offset accountability pressure relating to the DRC conflict and to embed Rwanda in the institutional architecture of international peace and security, making it harder for any single actor to take unilateral action against Kigali.

How much does the UN pay Rwanda for peacekeeping contributions?

On 2 March 2026, OFAC designated the RDF as an institution and four of its senior officials — Nyakarundi, Karusisi, Muganga, and Gashugi — under EO 13413 as amended by EO 13671, following M23's capture of Uvira in violation of the Washington Accords. This followed an earlier designation of James Kabarebe on 20 February 2025. At current contribution levels, UN reimbursements to Rwanda amount to approximately USD 85–103 million per year flowing into the RDF institutional budget. Following the March 2026 designation of the RDF as an institution, payments to any RDF-linked entities may constitute a breach of US sanctions by the UN and by the Western governments whose assessed contributions fund the peacekeeping budget.

What is the HRDDP and how does it apply to Rwanda?

The Human Rights Due Diligence Policy (HRDDP), adopted by the UN in 2011, requires the UN to withhold support from any military or security force unit where there are substantial grounds to believe it has committed serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law. Rwanda's RDF, documented by the UN's own Group of Experts as the commanding authority behind M23 atrocities, meets this threshold.

What is Article 100 of the UN Charter and why does it matter for Rwanda?

Article 100 of the UN Charter requires all persons serving the UN to act exclusively in the organisation's interests and to neither seek nor receive instructions from any government. Rwandan peacekeepers remain subject to the RDF chain of command, which simultaneously directs M23 operations in the DRC. This dual allegiance is a structural violation of Article 100 that the UN Secretariat has not addressed.

Why has there been no ICC prosecution of Rwandan officials for DRC crimes?

The ICTR's jurisdiction was limited to 1994 crimes in Rwanda. The ICC has not opened a formal DRC investigation into Rwandan nationals despite extensive documentation. The Security Council is structurally blocked by Russian and Chinese vetoes from making an ICC referral. Individual indictments sought by UN prosecutors in the 1990s were not pursued. The result is an unbroken accountability gap spanning three decades.

What is the FDLR and is it a legitimate justification for Rwanda's DRC operations?

The FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda) is a Congolese-based armed group with historical ties to perpetrators of the 1994 genocide. Rwanda has used the FDLR threat as its primary justification for military operations in the DRC. Successive UN Groups of Experts have found this justification to be systematically overstated: the FDLR does not represent a credible military threat to Rwanda's territorial integrity, and Rwanda's operations have generated far greater insecurity than the FDLR threat they purport to address.

What is the Brugière investigation?

French judge Jean-Louis Brugière conducted a judicial investigation into the shooting down of President Habyarimana's aircraft on 6 April 1994, the event that triggered the genocide. His 2006 report identified Kagame's inner circle as responsible and issued international arrest warrants for senior RPF officials. The investigation was subsequently deprioritised following the Sarkozy-era normalisation of Franco-Rwandan relations. Combined with the Hourigan affidavit documenting early US intelligence awareness of RPF responsibility, it forms part of a broader accountability record that has been politically suppressed.

Can the UN expel Rwanda from peacekeeping without a Security Council resolution?

Yes. The Secretary-General holds inherent administrative authority to decline to renew Memoranda of Understanding with troop-contributing countries. This authority does not require Security Council approval and is not subject to veto. It is the most direct pathway for Rwanda's suspension. Additionally, Western governments funding the majority of the peacekeeping budget can condition their financial contributions on Rwanda's removal from specific missions.

References

United Nations (2010) Report of the Mapping Exercise Documenting the Most Serious Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Committed Within the Territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo Between March 1993 and June 2003. Geneva: OHCHR.

United Nations (2011) Human Rights Due Diligence Policy on United Nations Support to Non-United Nations Security Forces (HRDDP). New York: United Nations.

United Nations Security Council (2012–2025) Final Reports of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2012/843, S/2022/967, S/2023/431, S/2024/432 et al.). New York: United Nations.

United Nations Secretary-General (2022) Statement Condemning the Kishishe Massacre. New York: United Nations. [3 December 2022]

United Nations Charter (1945) Articles 1, 2(4), 24, 39, 41, 42, and 100. San Francisco: United Nations.

US Department of the Treasury, OFAC (2025) Treasury Sanctions Rwandan Minister and Senior Militant for Conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo [Kabarebe designation]. Washington DC: OFAC. [20 February 2025] Press Release SB0022.

US Department of the Treasury, OFAC (2026) Treasury Sanctions Rwanda Officials, Condemns Blatant Violations of Washington Peace Accords [RDF institution and four officials designated: Nyakarundi, Karusisi, Muganga, Gashugi]. Washington DC: OFAC. [2 March 2026] Press Release SB0411.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (2002) Articles 8(2)(b)(iii) and 8(2)(b)(xvi). The Hague: ICC.

United Nations General Assembly (2000) Resolution A/RES/377 (V): Uniting for Peace. New York: United Nations.

Reyntjens, F. (2011) The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prunier, G. (2009) Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stearns, J. (2012) Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. New York: PublicAffairs.

Del Ponte, C. (2008) Madame Prosecutor: Confrontations with Humanity's Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity. New York: Other Press.

Human Rights Watch (2022) DR Congo: M23, Rwandan Forces Targeting Civilians. New York: Human Rights Watch. [December 2022]

UNHCR (2025) Democratic Republic of Congo Emergency: Situation Report. Geneva: UNHCR.

European Union (2024) Council Decision on Restrictive Measures in View of the Situation in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Brussels: Council of the European Union.

Parquet National Antiterroriste (2026) Ouverture d'une information judiciaire pour crimes de guerre suite au décès de Karine Buisset à Goma. Paris: PNAT. [13 March 2026]

African Rights Campaign (2025–2026) Rwanda–DRC Analytical Series, Articles 1–7. London: The African Rights Campaign.

Hourigan, M. (2006) Affidavit of Michael Hourigan Concerning RPF Responsibility for the Downing of the Habyarimana Aircraft. Submitted to the ICTR.

Brugière, J.-L. (2006) Report of the Investigation into the Shooting Down of the Aircraft Carrying President Habyarimana. Paris: Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.

Author: The African Rights Campaign | London, United Kingdom