When the DRC Must Be Reminded of Its Right to Self-Defence
Diplomatic, Media, and Narrative Imbalances in the Conflict in Eastern Congo
What is deeply striking in the current situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is not only the persistence of armed violence, but the fact that a foreign power — namely the United States — had to publicly remind Kinshasa that it possesses the legitimate right to defend itself, including with partners of its choosing.
This reminder, although elementary under international law, reveals a broader and deeper malaise: that of a sovereign state under aggression, yet constantly restrained, monitored, conditioned, and at times discouraged from fully exercising its fundamental rights.
Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every state has an inherent and inalienable right to self-defence in the event of armed attack. This principle is clear, universal, and non-negotiable. Yet for more than two decades, the DRC has faced non-state armed groups — notably the M23 — whose external support by a neighbouring state has been extensively documented by reports from the UN Group of Experts, international NGOs, and human rights organisations.
That such a fundamental principle must be reiterated by a foreign power highlights the extent to which Congolese sovereignty has been politically weakened, even conditioned, in the name of a so-called "regional stability" that has too often been constructed at the expense of the security, dignity, and lives of Congolese civilians.
1. The Paradox of the U.S. Reminder of the Right to Self-Defence
It is deeply troubling that the United States deemed it necessary to publicly remind the DRC of this basic right. This reminder is not neutral. It comes in a context where Kinshasa has long been encouraged to exercise restraint, sometimes explicitly urged to avoid any military response deemed "escalatory," even as its territory was violated, occupied, and fragmented by externally supported armed groups.
This paradox reveals a form of strategic paternalism toward the DRC. On the one hand, its sovereign status is formally recognised; on the other, it is expected to maintain permanent moderation, even in the face of clear aggression. This contradiction has contributed to the emergence of strategic self-censorship within the Congolese political and military establishment, driven by fear of losing international support or being accused of "destabilising the region."
As a result, the DRC's right to self-defence has ceased to be a naturally exercised right and has instead become an action implicitly requiring moral and political validation from external actors. This situation is not only abnormal but dangerous. It weakens state authority, undermines the state's responsibility to protect its population, and sends a signal of permissiveness to aggressors.
2. Conditional Sovereignty of the DRC: A Dangerous Precedent
In no other comparable conflict is an attacked state required to explain, justify, or limit the exercise of its right to self-defence with such caution as the DRC. This creates a dangerous legal and political precedent: sovereignty fully recognised in legal texts but severely constrained in practice.
This differentiated treatment rests on an implicit hierarchy of states and victims. Congolese suffering is consistently relativised in the name of regional geopolitical calculations, fragile diplomatic balances, or dominant historical narratives. Such an approach normalises aggression, legitimises territorial occupation, and indefinitely prolongs a conflict in which civilians bear the heaviest burden.
3. Diplomatic and Media Silence in the Face of Al Jazeera Reporting
This erosion of Congolese sovereignty is also visible in the media sphere, which has become a central battlefield in contemporary conflicts. Recent Al Jazeera reports on the M23's presence in Uvira, including footage of apparently forced or staged demonstrations in support of the armed group, raise serious concerns.
These images are not neutral. They contribute to a misleading narrative, creating the illusion of popular support where there is in fact coercion, fear, and military occupation. The M23 is an armed group responsible for grave crimes, including civilian massacres, forced displacement, sexual violence, and systematic human rights abuses.
Its presence in Uvira is not the result of a political process or democratic choice, but of force. Yet the DRC has remained largely silent. No visible diplomatic protest, no structured right of reply, and no strong institutional counter-narrative has been asserted internationally.
This silence carries serious consequences. It allows such reporting to become a reference point, shaping international public opinion, influencing policymakers, and even informing multilateral institutions.
4. The Stark Contrast with Rwanda's Response to RFI
This Congolese silence stands in sharp contrast to Rwanda's assertive, well-structured media diplomacy. In France, Kigali did not hesitate to file a complaint against Radio France Internationale (RFI) for broadcasting interviews with alleged representatives of the FDLR. Regardless of journalistic context or public interest, any narrative diverging from the official Rwandan position is immediately challenged, judicialised, or criminalised.
This strategy rests on several pillars:
-
immediate reaction to unfavourable media content;
-
systematic use of Western legal mechanisms;
-
a clear intent to deter media outlets from giving space to alternative voices.
Meanwhile, the DRC adopts the opposite posture — cautious, defensive, and often passive — allowing narratives that undermine its sovereignty, credibility, and factual reality to circulate without strong institutional response.
5. Judicial Instrumentalisation of the Rwandan Genocide Narrative
Rwanda systematically uses judicial intimidation as a political tool to silence opponents, suppress critical voices, and impose the government's official narrative on the genocide.
This strategy relies on the judicialisation of political, media, and academic speech, conflating critical analysis, dissent, or historical contextualisation with genocide denial or revisionism. Through lawsuits, prosecutions, and legal pressure — often in Western jurisdictions — Kigali seeks to deter journalists, researchers, NGOs, and institutions from diverging from the dominant state narrative.
This is not a pursuit of truth or justice, but strict control of international debate, criminalising questions about the responsibility of actors currently in power or crimes documented by the UN Mapping Report, including those attributed to the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).
6. A Structural Failure of Congolese Strategic Communication
These dynamics reveal a deeper structural problem: the absence of Congolese strategic communication commensurate with contemporary challenges. In modern conflicts, the information war is as decisive as military operations. Words, images, and narratives shape alliances, sanctions, international aid, and the legitimacy of state action.
The DRC suffers from persistent weaknesses:
-
delayed or non-existent responses to media offensives;
-
limited institutional presence in major international media;
-
lack of coordination between diplomacy, communication, and defence.
By contrast, Rwanda has fully internalised the strategic value of narrative and deploys it with discipline, consistency, and effectiveness.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Narrative Sovereignty
The current situation reveals a dual vulnerability for the DRC: military on the ground, but above all narrative and diplomatic on the international stage. That it must be reminded of its right to self-defence while tolerating media narratives that normalise the occupation of its territory is symptomatic of a state that has yet to fully assert its sovereignty in all its dimensions.
Unless the DRC firmly defends its right to security, speech, and truth — in the media, diplomatic arenas, and international institutions — it will continue to be subjected to narratives that justify the unjustifiable.
Reclaiming narrative sovereignty is neither a luxury nor a mere communication exercise. It is an essential condition for restoring state authority, protecting civilian populations, and opening the path toward a durable peace grounded in justice, truth, and respect for international law.
References and Documentary Sources
International Law and Self-Defence
-
United Nations Charter, Article 51, 1945
→ Recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence.
-
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005.
→ Confirms violations of DRC sovereignty and responsibility of a neighbouring state for serious breaches of international law.
External Support to M23 and Documented Violations
-
UN Security Council – Group of Experts on the DRC
Reports including S/2012/843, S/2022/479, S/2023/431.
→ Document military, logistical, and political support to M23, including the presence of Rwandan troops on Congolese soil.
-
Human Rights Watch
DR Congo: M23 Rebels Commit War Crimes, 2012–2024.
→ Details massacres, summary executions, forced displacement, and systematic human rights violations.
-
Amnesty International
DRC: Civilians Under Attack in Eastern Congo.
→ Confirms widespread violations of international humanitarian law by armed groups, including M23.
Historical Crimes and Regional Responsibility
-
UN Mapping Report (OHCHR, 2010)
→ Documents crimes that may amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide, including those involving the Rwandan Patriotic Army/RPF.
-
Carla Del Ponte, Madame Prosecutor, 2009
→ Describes political pressure to block investigations into crimes committed by the RPF.
Media Narratives and Judicial Instrumentalisation
-
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
World Press Freedom Index – Rwanda.
→ Highlights judicial and political pressure used to control media discourse.
-
FIDH
Rwanda: Repression Beyond Borders.
→ Analyses transnational repression through legal and judicial means.
-
Freedom House
Freedom in the World – Rwanda.
→ Documents criminalisation of dissent and restriction of public debate.
Strategic Communication and Modern Conflict
-
International Crisis Group
Averting Proxy Wars in the Eastern DR Congo, 2022–2024.
-
UNESCO
Journalism, Disinformation and Armed Conflict, 2018.
