In a significant development within the protracted crisis of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the rebel movement AFC/M23 announced on Monday, December 15, that it had facilitated the voluntary repatriation of over 500 Burundian refugees. This action, framed as a humanitarian confidence-building measure, is layered with strategic political and military implications for a region where state and non-state actors vie for control.
The movement’s spokesperson, Lawrence Kanyuka, used the official communication to issue a direct, reciprocal demand. AFC/M23 called upon the government of Burundi to “facilitate and guarantee the free passage” of Congolese refugees who fled to Burundi to escape violence. Specifically, the statement referenced indiscriminate bombardments by the pro-Kinshasa coalition forces in areas like Sange, Luvungi, and Katogota. This call for reciprocity transforms a unilateral act into a proposed bilateral framework for managing displacement, a critical issue often weaponized in regional conflicts.
[[PEAI_MEDIA_X]]
The statement’s deeper value lies in the explicit quid pro quo it outlines. AFC/M23 declared its readiness to take further steps—including handing over captured Burundian military personnel and proclaiming a unilateral ceasefire—but only if reciprocal measures are taken by Bujumbura. This positions the group not merely as a belligerent but as a negotiating entity seeking recognized humanitarian corridors and a form of tacit legitimacy through its actions. However, the movement was careful to delineate boundaries, stressing that such humanitarian gestures would not equate to tolerance for Burundian forces operating on Congolese soil, which it views as an occupation.
Furthermore, the statement addressed a persistent regional security dilemma: the presence of armed groups hostile to neighboring governments using DRC territory as a sanctuary. AFC/M23 assured Burundi that it “will not allow such groups to use liberated areas as rear bases.” This is a crucial point, as Burundi’s military intervention in South Kivu has been justified, in part, by the presence of Burundian rebel groups like RED-Tabara. By offering this assurance, AFC/M23 attempts to undercut one of Burundi’s primary justifications for its cross-border military presence.
Simultaneously, the communiqué served as a platform for condemnation, accusing the Kinshasa-aligned coalition of continuing attacks in Masisi, Walikale, and Minembwe that cause civilian casualties and displacement. This highlights the fragmented nature of the conflict, where multiple fronts are active, and civilian populations are caught between various armed factions, including the Congolese army (FARDC), foreign contingents, local militias, and groups like AFC/M23.
In essence, this move by AFC/M23 is a multifaceted strategic communication. It is a public relations maneuver to cast the group in a humanitarian light, a diplomatic overture to initiate a form of dialogue with Burundi, and a tactical effort to isolate the Kinshasa government by appealing directly to a neighboring state involved in the coalition against it. The success of this gesture hinges entirely on Burundi’s response, which will reveal whether Bujumbura is willing to engage in such parallel, localized diplomacy amidst the wider war.
ALSO READ: How Burundian troops in South Kivu sparked a distinct humanitarian crisis amid DR Congo’s wider war
ALSO READ: What are the motivations of Burundi’s military intervention in South Kivu?