Rwanda has openly acknowledged engaging in security coordination with the AFC/M23 movement, marking one of the clearest public statements yet on an issue that has long fueled regional and international debate over instability in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The admission appears in an official statement submitted to U.S. lawmakers by Rwanda’s ambassador to the United States, who said the decision to speak plainly was deliberate and aimed at rebuilding trust.
“For this reason, Rwanda does engage in security coordination with AFC/M23. I state this clearly to build trust through transparency,” the statement reads.
The wording represents a notable shift from past diplomatic language, with Kigali choosing to directly address accusations it has repeatedly denied or described as mischaracterized. Rather than framing the issue as political or ideological support, Rwanda presents the coordination as narrowly focused on security concerns tied to what it describes as an unresolved genocidal threat emanating from eastern Congo.
A Security-Based Justification
Rwanda argues that its engagement with AFC/M23 must be understood within the historical and security context of the Great Lakes region. According to the statement, the primary driver is the continued presence of the FDLR and other armed groups linked to perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, who fled into Congo and have remained active for decades.
Kigali maintains that these forces have never been fully dismantled and continue to operate near Rwanda’s borders, at times in coordination with Congolese military units. United Nations reports over the years have documented abuses attributed to the FDLR, including killings of civilians and other serious human rights violations.
From Rwanda’s perspective, security coordination with AFC/M23 is framed as a defensive measure intended to prevent a repeat of the cross-border insurgencies that nearly destabilized the country in the late 1990s.
Distancing From Political Ambitions
The statement is careful to draw boundaries around the nature of the coordination. Rwanda insists it does not seek to shape political outcomes inside the DRC and does not endorse armed movements as an alternative to inclusive governance.
Instead, it describes AFC/M23 as a Congolese group with its own grievances against Kinshasa, including claims of ethnic discrimination, political exclusion, and failure to honor past peace agreements. Rwanda emphasizes that acknowledging these grievances does not amount to political sponsorship.
“Our actions are narrowly focused on protecting Rwanda from cross-border genocidal threats,” the statement notes, adding that security measures are not open-ended.
Conditional and Time-Bound Engagement
A key element of Rwanda’s argument is that its coordination with AFC/M23 is temporary and conditional. Under the Washington Accords, Rwanda says it has committed to a phased and independently verified drawdown of its security measures as specific benchmarks are met.
Those benchmarks include the neutralization and repatriation of FDLR fighters, the dismantling of FDLR command structures embedded within Congolese military operations, and the cessation of support to associated militias.
Rwanda argues that past peace efforts failed precisely because these steps were promised but never implemented. The Washington Accords, Kigali says, are the first framework with clear operational benchmarks and verification mechanisms capable of addressing the root causes of insecurity.
Transparency as a Diplomatic Strategy
The decision to publicly acknowledge security coordination reflects what Rwanda portrays as a shift toward transparency in a highly contested regional conflict. By stating its position openly, Kigali appears to be seeking to reframe the narrative from one of covert interference to one of defensive necessity.
The statement suggests that Rwanda views silence or ambiguity as no longer serving its interests, particularly as diplomatic pressure and sanctions debates intensify in Western capitals.
For Rwanda, the message is clear: security coordination with AFC/M23 is not presented as an act of aggression or expansionism, but as a response to a threat it says has been ignored for decades.
Whether that explanation will satisfy critics remains uncertain. But by placing the admission on the record, Rwanda has set a new baseline for international discussions on its role in eastern Congo one rooted in declared intent, defined limits, and an explicit call for accountability from all parties involved.
