NIAS Area Studies


AFRICA MONITOR

Africa Comment

Photo Source: Reuters
   NIAS Course on Global Politics
National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)
Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore
For any further information or to subscribe to GP alerts send an email to subachandran@nias.res.in

CWA # 1877, 18 December 2025
CW Note
DR Congo: M23 offensive in Uvira and a fragile peace deal

  Anu Maria Joseph

In the news
On 16 December, the leader of the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC) coalition, which includes M23, Corneille Nangaa, announced that its fighters will withdraw from Uvira town in South Kivu "as per United States mediation request." The rebels seized the town on 11 December.

On 11 December, Al Jazeera reported that more than 400 civilians had been killed in the latest wave of M23 violence in South Kivu. The new wave of violence comes after US President Trump finalised the peace agreement on 4 December, which was originally agreed upon by the warring parties in June. 

On 9 December, the President of DR Congo, Felix Tshisekedi, accused Rwanda of violating the US-brokered peace deal. He stated: “Despite our good faith and the recently ratified agreement, it is clear that Rwanda is already violating its commitments." He claimed that the Rwandan army carried out and supported attacks on "the very day after the signing" of the peace deal. 

Issues at large
First, the escalating M23 coalition's offensive. Since capturing Goma and Bukavu, the regional capitals of North and South Kivu, in January 2025, M23's control in eastern DRC has been expanding and strengthening despite multiple peace efforts. In June, a ceasefire was agreed between M23 and DR Congo under the mediation of Qatar. However, in July, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that the rebels summarily executed 140 civilians in July. Besides Goma and Bukavu, the rebels' control has now spread to neighbouring towns in South and North Kivu, including Butembo, Walikale, and, most recently, Uvira. The group has also quadrupled its troops to an estimated number of 22,000 in October. Neither the DRC-Rwanda peace deal nor the M23-DRC ceasefire has quelled M23's expansion.

Second, a controversial peace deal. In June, Trump successfully mediated a peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda, with an impression of peace on the ground. In reality, peace is far from being achieved. The Trump deal is being criticised for many aspects. First, the deal lacked inclusivity. M23, the major actor in the conflict, was not a signatory to the deal. Second, the deal depicted a transactional character when Trump involved the US's mineral interests in the bargaining and deviated from a genuine interest in resolving the conflict. Third, the deal talks about an end to hostilities, disarmament and disengagement of the rebel groups, and a regional economic integration. However, the deal does not discuss resolving the decades-long root causes behind the complex conflict in eastern DRC. At the end, the DRC turned out to be a US geopolitical manoeuvre that served Trump's global peace pursuits. Most importantly, six months into the signing, the deal could not materialise any of its provisions on the ground.

Third, a lack of compliance from warring parties. All parties involved in the conflict are committed to the US-led peace agreement and the Doha-led ceasefire. However, there was no compliance with the commitment. Rwandan forces have not withdrawn from eastern Congo. Not only has M23 not withdrawn from the regions it had captured, but it has also continued its violence. DRC authorities have not released any of the M23 prisoners.

In perspective
M23's withdrawal from Uvira town is the only positive development in the eastern DRC conflict following the January escalation. However, the withdrawal is unlikely to signal M23 agreeing to end violence or give up the strategic towns it has captured. For M23, along with geographic and political control, presence in these mineral towns is a major funding source. 

The US peace deal projected a successful initiation of the peace process. However, the challenges are multiple. The gap between commitment and compliance is too wide. The deal failed to address root causes and lacked inclusivity and effective implementation. The outcomes imply that the deal has failed to transform into meaningful progress towards peace, turning into a peace deal without peace.  

About the author
Anu Maria Joseph is a Project Associate at NIAS.

Print Bookmark

Previous Africa Comments