** The prolonged expectation of the dialogue: return to the striking absence of the ministerial meeting in the DRC **
The unexpected postponement of the meeting between the ministers of SADC (Development Community of Southern Africa) and the EAC (Eastern African Community) in Harare, scheduled for February 28, not only underlines persistent tensions in the region, but also gaps in European diplomacy in the face of the crisis in the Congo. While no official invitation has been sent to Rwandan and Congolese delegations, this incident highlights the complex issues underlying relations between Kinshasa and Kigali.
### A two -speed diplomatic artillery
The historical context of the relationship between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is marked by armed conflicts and political tensions. The 1996-1997 war, followed by the 1998-2003 war, left deep scars. However, with the recent rise in rebel movements in the Congolese East, regional dynamics have taken an additional turn. While the DRC maintains firm positions on a direct dialogue with Rwanda, the latter has chosen to focus negotiations on the Congolese armed group, AFC/m23, causing friction.
As part of this diplomatic misunderstanding, it is crucial to analyze the impact that this kind of postponement can have on previously envisaged initiatives. Indeed, at a time when the international community strives to guarantee regional stability, the veto of Luxembourg to new European sanctions against Rwanda pending this meeting demonstrates a lack of coordination, even strategy within European bodies to manage such delicate crises.
### The deafening silence of Kinshasa
The reaction, or rather the non-reaction, of Kinshasa in front of this situation also reveals a hesitant political landscape. While the Congolese authorities have confirmed the postponement, little information filtered on the internal discussions carried out by the Minister of Foreign Affairs with President Félix Tshisekedi. This confidentiality borders on opacity, leaving an emptiness in the information accessible to the public which could fuel rumors and speculation on decision -making at the top of the state.
It should be noted that a study conducted by the Peace Research Institute and Conflicts have highlighted that transparency in diplomacy is often a key factor in conflict prevention. Attempts at dialogue frequently fail when stakeholders do not have a clear understanding of the situation. In a climate of mistrust, the absence of information nourishes the resentments and the frozen positions, thus making reconciliation even more difficult.
### to an uncertain future
The next steps, mentioned for March 1 to 3, suggest inevitable references to the same problems if most of the dialogue remains centered on historical confrontations. Could less conventional tracks lead to creative solutions? For example, the involvement of civil society organizations or local elected officials in the dialogue process could bring new breath and promote a less formalized and more inclusive discussion framework.
In conclusion, the postponement of this meeting is neither a simple diplomatic setback nor a simple logistical misunderstanding, but testifies to the complex issues that cross the region of the Great Lakes. While tensions remain palpable, the need for a real dialogue, based on transparency and mutual commitment, is more relevant than ever. Far from being limited to conflict and negotiation labels, this situation calls for a daring reconsideration of the methods and structures already implemented. The path to lasting peace in the east of the DRC remains strewn with pitfalls, but it must be surveyed, failing which the cycle of violence could perpetuate, further eroding the foundations of an already traumatized region.