** Towards a dialogue reinvented in the DRC: the stake of mediation in time of turbulence **
The complex and volatile dynamics of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), particularly in the Eastern region, takes an unexpected turning point with the announcement of Angola to initiate direct discussions with the rebel movement of the M23. While the Congolese government had long considered this group as a “puppet” of Kigali, the possibility of direct dialogue is now based on international foundations, curling the already established lines of negotiations. This development challenges the role of regional diplomacy and the singular position of Kinshasa in the face of a crisis that fuels tensions, suffering and despair among the affected populations.
### A historical context of mistrust
The history of relations between the DRC and Rwanda throws a heavy shadow on attempts at dialogue. The M23, described as harmful groups and subordinate to Rwandan interests, is perceived by Kinshasa as an actor to rule out rather than a dialogue partner. Paradoxically, the rejection of this direct dialogue is illustrated by the very historicity of the rivalry between these two nations, which fueled armed conflicts from the 1990s, resulting in millions of dead and displaced.
### A response to global uncertainties
The invitation of the Angolan presidency to initiate direct discussions with the M23 represents not only a response to internal crises, but also an imperative in the face of global geopolitical uncertainties. The international community, in particular the United Nations and the African Union, is looking for sustainable solutions through a consensus that could strengthen sustainable peace in the region. Thus, this Angolan initiative crystallizes the efforts of an increasingly regional mediation behind a common front.
It is interesting to put this in parallel with similar situations observed recently. In 2023, peace negotiations in South Sudan also experienced a redefinition of key actors, where neighboring countries took the initiative to intermediate discussions, connecting divergent points of view and bringing a new air to a dead end of several years.
### Kinshasa: torn between resilience and adaptation
The Congolese government’s reaction to this announcement highlighted a strategic dilemma. Kinshasa’s refusal to recognize M23 as a legitimate interlocutor raises questions about the real desire to establish lasting peace. On the diplomatic level, the need to align the processes of Luanda and Nairobi becomes crucial. The contradiction between resistance to fusion of the two processes, however recommended by SADC and EAC, could harm the autonomy of Congolese strategies. Not capitalizing on the opportunity to dialogue could lead to increasingly apparent strategic isolation on the international scene.
### Reactions within civil society
Critical voices emerge in civil society, calling for a reassessment of Kinshasa’s positions. Social movements and human rights organizations require not only the end of hostilities, but also taking into account the aspirations of the affected populations, often left behind in power games. It is crucial to integrate these voices into a mediation framework which goes beyond the simple round tables to include elements of social justice and sustainable economic development.
In addition, the angle of study of the latest reports of Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International reveals that the conflict in the DRC is a reflection of power struggles, not only interstate, but also intra-community, where the voice of the people must be heard and integrated into any lasting solution.
### Conclusion: A call for collaborative commitment
While Angola is positioned as a key facilitator in future negotiations, the future of peace in the DRC will depend on Kinshasa’s ability to evolve and adapt to these new realities. Traditional diplomacy is faced with a new paradigm where regional collaboration must be in the foreground, not only for security, but for inclusive socio-economic development.
The current situation calls for a collective commitment, where the mix of mediation processes can reduce polarization and bring an inclusive approach to overcome the old friend-enemi dichotomy. In the end, the horizon of peace and proposed reconciliation can only emerge if transparent and representative discussions are carried out. It is only then that the hope of a real sanctuarization of the rights and well-being of the Congolese will become a tangible reality on the ground.
In this atmosphere of tension, only proactive initiatives and an authentic commitment to listening to populations will be able to give meaning to the tumultuous quest for a realistic peace.