** DRC-M23: The unknown issues of an aborted dialogue in Luanda **
March 18, 2024 was to mark a turning point in conflictual relations between the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Rebel M23 movement. However, the meeting initially planned in Luanda did not take place, leaving many questions not only on the reasons for this failure, but also on the underlying implications of this situation for regional peace.
### 1. Timing and context: an explosive situation
The failure of this meeting is part of a context of exacerbated tension in eastern DRC, where clashes between the government and the armed groups, including the M23, remain recurrent. With the continuous influx of internal displaced people, which according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) now exceeds 5 million, the pressure on the Congolese government is at its climax. In addition, the announced withdrawal from the M23 of the talks occurred in an already loaded atmosphere, with the sanctions imposed by the European Union targeting several of its leaders, thus limiting any prospect of constructive dialogue.
### 2. The role of Angola: mediator or partner actor?
Angolan mediation, although recognized, remains a relatively misunderstood element in this complex conflict. Angola, while affirming his desire to promote dialogue as the sole result of this crisis, is at a strategic crossroads. Historically, the country has had its share of involvement in regional conflicts, especially in the past in the Central African Republic or in Angola even. At the same time, his own inner reality, marked by challenges of governance and economy, could influence the way in which he addresses this role of mediation. Would one of the underlying challenges guarantee security stability at its own borders, especially in the face of instability that could overflow on its territory?
### 3. The darkness of dialogue: the international dimension of sanctions
The withdrawal of the M23 linked to European sanctions also raises broader questions concerning the way in which international actors influence the internal dynamics of countries in crisis. The impact of sanctions on rebel movements is not new. Studies have shown that coercion not only harms the progress of peace talks, but can also strengthen the radicalization of the groups concerned. Sanctions, as punitive measures, have an immeasurable weight, but these can have the isolation of leaders as a paradoxical result rather than promoting productive dialogue.
### 4. The fragile way to peace
It is crucial to reflect on the very definition of the terms “dialogue” and “peace” in this context. While the Government of the DRC and the M23 exchange declarations on the need for discussion, the perception of this dialogue remains deeply cleared. Local populations, who suffer from the direct consequences of conflicts, may themselves seem disconnected from diplomatic developments. Unfortunately, this gap between the political elite and the average citizen could also feed resentment and distrust of peace initiatives.
### 5. The role of media and public opinion
While news often focuses on the protruding facts of negotiations, the role of the media in the transmission of a balanced vision of events is of capital importance. Reports must not only cover major incidents, but also give voice to local voices, often muzzled or neglected. The emergence of alternative information platforms, such as Fatshimetrie.org, can make it possible to enrich public discourse by offering access to information that stimulates citizen participation and further clarifies complex issues around the conflict.
### Conclusion
The lack of direct dialogue between the Congolese government and the M23 in Luanda on March 18, 2024 is not only a diplomatic failure – it is a missed opportunity to approach the very roots of the conflict. By highlighting internal tensions, the role of international sanctions and the necessary inclusion of local voices, we are invited to rethink the way in which the international community interacts with internal crises, while forging a possible path towards lasting peace. Peace agreements cannot be limited to signatures on paper; They must also go through the transformation of hearts and minds, on the ground as in negotiation salons.