Negotiators of the AFC\/M23 movement and the Congolese government will meet on Tuesday, April 14, in Geneva, Switzerland, where a new round of peace talks will focus on humanitarian access in conflict-affected areas.<\/p>\n
\nOriginally hosted in Doha since April 2025, the talks have been relocated to Geneva due to the ongoing Middle East crisis. But Qatar remains the mediator between the parties that have been fighting since late 2021.<\/p>\n
\nThe progress of the talks has been complicated by ongoing hostilities on the ground. The rebels have accused the government coalition of multiple violations, including the use of combat drones and attacks on civilian-populated areas.<\/p>\n
\nThe negotiators are expected to discuss humanitarian access, the third of eight protocols agreed last year.<\/p>\n
\nThe first protocol, signed in October 2025, established a ceasefire monitoring mechanism, later reinforced by a ceasefire mandate signed on February 2. The agreement prohibits attacks by air, land, lake, or sea, as well as acts of sabotage and hate propaganda.<\/p>\n
\nThe ceasefire framework provides for a monitoring mechanism led by MONUSCO, in coordination with the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), though its operationalisation remains pending.<\/p>\n
\nThe second protocol, concerning the release of prisoners, was formalised on September 15, 2025, with implementation entrusted to the International Committee of the Red Cross.<\/p>\n
\nThe Doha process was initiated following the AFC\/M23\u2019s capture of Goma and other key towns in eastern DR Congo in early 2025.<\/p>\n
\nWhile the agreements were widely viewed as critical steps to a comprehensive peace deal, their implementation remains limited. AFC\/M23 officials say they have released over 5,000 government soldiers captured on the battlefield, and the Congolese government has yet to reciprocate.<\/p>\n
\nThe AFC\/M23, which controls the two largest cities in eastern DR Congo, has repeatedly accused the government and its allied forces, including Burundian troops, mercenaries, the Rwandan genocidal militia FDLR, and Wazalendo armed groups, of continued offensives against its positions and civilian-populated areas.<\/p>\n
\nThe movement particularly points to sustained aerial bombardments, which it says have exacerbated insecurity for civilians in North Kivu and South Kivu provinces.<\/p>\n
\nThe Minembwe area and the High Plateaus in South Kivu have been among the hardest-hit areas, facing both airstrikes and a blockade that has restricted civilian access to markets and the movement of essential goods, food and medicine.<\/p>\n
\nDespite these developments, AFC\/M23 says it remains committed to dialogue.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cWe record every ceasefire violation and will present the reports to the mediators,\u201d Oscar Balinda, a spokesperson for the movement, told The New Times.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe fact that the Congolese government signed the agreement gives us reason to believe in the process. We remain committed to a peaceful resolution rather than continued confrontation.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe war was not necessary in the first place; we did not want war. We are confronted militarily and often find ourselves fighting back to protect civilians and safeguard our positions,\u201d he said. \u201cAt times, this results in the unplanned capture of new areas as we chase the coalition forces from their bases.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n‘The only solution is for Kinshasa to honour its part’<\/p>\n
\nAnalysts, however, are divided on the prospects of the peace process.<\/p>\n
\nBojana Coulibaly, a Great Lakes conflict researcher and analyst, argued that the process risks stagnation if the Congolese government does not demonstrate political will to honour its commitments.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAFC\/M23 will not practice the politics of the empty chair. Their objective has been to pursue a political solution through dialogue,\u201d Coulibaly told The New Times on Monday. \u201cBut one-sided political will cannot deliver peace. Kinshasa must also uphold its commitments.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nShe criticised the lack of accountability from the mediators and international actors.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cDespite ample evidence, Kinshasa\u2019s violation of the ceasefire is not condemned by the international actors and peace process mediators, and therefore Kinshasa is not ‘accused’ of violating the agreements. This lack of condemnation is what the international community uses as leverage through its presence and power in the United Nations to pressure AFC\/M23 into making concessions,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cAFC\/M23 cannot make these concessions because this is an existential struggle for them, and making concessions would lead to their physical and political eradication. So the only solution for peace is for Kinshasa to honour its part of the agreements.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nWhy humanitarian access?<\/p>\n
\nShe also questioned the emphasis on humanitarian access in the current round of talks, describing it as a diversion from deeper structural issues.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe so-called \u2018issue of humanitarian access\u2019 is a distraction tactic from addressing the root causes of conflict,\u201d Coulibaly argued.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe mere discussion of humanitarian aid is a fallacy in itself because it is treating the symptoms but letting the disease spread.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIndeed, these same actors who are, so to speak, seeking to \u201cdeliver aid\u201d are not condemning those who are triggering the humanitarian need. Kinshasa, instead of protecting its people, is the one targeting them in Masisi and in the High Plateaus.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nShe said international actors asking for humanitarian access “are being silently complicit by not condemning Kinshasa” and by continuing to provide logistical and operational support to Kinshasa, such as through the UN mission MONUSCO.<\/p>\n
\nBojana argued that humanitarian needs are most acute in areas affected by ongoing military operations and blockades, particularly in Minembwe and the High Plateaus, where she said civilians face severe restrictions on movement and access to necessities.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIf there is any humanitarian aid needed today, it is not in the AFC\/M23-administered territory where security has been restored, and people are back in their fields planting and harvesting crops without being persecuted, terrorised, and killed,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThey were not able to do this for the 30 years of the presence of these humanitarian organisations. The humanitarian need is in the areas where Kinshasa is targeting civilians and imposing a blockade, namely in Minembwe.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nTom Mulisa, a lecturer at the University of Rwanda and conflict observer, noted that while AFC\/M23 has consistently welcomed dialogue, the broader environment remains fragile.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThey have pursued negotiations and even released prisoners, yet reciprocity from Kinshasa is absent,\u201d Mulisa said. \u201cThis asymmetry undermines trust and fuels scepticism.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThere is significant pessimism, largely because one side appears unwilling to fully respect the agreements,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\nIndependent researcher Frederick Golooba-Mutebi offered a more cautious assessment of the situation, suggesting the process remains viable if both sides sustain engagement.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe Congolese government is still sending its representatives to the talks. But of course, peace can only be achieved if both sides want it enough to invest energy, time and effort in talking and not fighting,\u201d Golloba-Mutebi said.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThe fighting and ceasefire violations have to stop first.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nHe argued that the AFC\/M23 \u201ccannot afford to be seen as the side that does not want to talk.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u201cThey have said they want a peaceful resolution of the crisis. So, they must demonstrate goodwill,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Negotiators of the AFC\/M23 movement and the Congolese government will meet on Tuesday, April 14, in Geneva, Switzerland,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":49285,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[28286,2134,10862,28285,28284,65,11760,28283,13162,28282],"class_list":{"0":"post-49284","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-geneva","8":"tag-afc-m23","9":"tag-democratic-republic-of-congo","10":"tag-drc","11":"tag-drc-peace-agreements","12":"tag-drc-peace-process","13":"tag-geneva","14":"tag-headlines","15":"tag-monusco","16":"tag-regional","17":"tag-what-hope-do-peace-talks-in-geneva-offer-for-dr-congo"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ch\/116409170995633629","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49284","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49284"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49284\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49285"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49284"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49284"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ch\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49284"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}