For more than three decades, MONUSCO has claimed to protect civilians in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Today, that long-standing mandate is being put to the ultimate test as the AFC/M23 officially places the strategic city of Uvira under the responsibility of the international community.
Following its withdrawal from the city, the AFC/M23 announced its decision to hand over Uvira to United Nations forces, directly challenging MONUSCO to live up to its stated mission of civilian protection. This move, however, raises a critical question: will MONUSCO accept responsibility for a city where it is widely accused of supporting forces that have persecuted the very population it claims to protect?
In a formal letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, AFC/M23 Coordinator Corneille Nangaa confirmed that the group has decided to place Uvira under the full and complete responsibility of the International Community.
This decision comes amid growing insecurity and escalating violence in and around the city. Nangaa warned of serious threats posed by the Burundian army, the FDLR, Wazalendo militias, and foreign mercenaries operating alongside the FARDC. According to the letter, the continued presence of these forces risks plunging Uvira into chaos and undermining all regional peace efforts.
The AFC/M23 urges the international community, particularly MONUSCO, to rapidly deploy a truly neutral force capable of protecting civilians without discrimination, preserving peace, and ensuring the safety of Uvira’s residents.
This moment presents the United Nations with a stark choice: face its commitments. If MONUSCO is serious about stabilizing eastern Congo, it must confront the negative forces operating in the region, such as the FDLR, Wazalendo militias, mercenaries, and Burundians that continue to threaten civilian lives.
Today, Uvira and its surrounding areas are facing daily drone attacks attributed to the FARDC—attacks that are killing civilian, these drones are operated by FARDC soldiers trained by MONUSCO itself. This reality raises serious concerns about how MONUSCO can claim neutrality while being linked to the very mechanisms destabilizing the city.
If MONUSCO is to assume responsibility for Uvira, it must first address its own role in the conflict and demonstrate a clear break from practices that have contributed to civilian suffering.
By placing Uvira under international responsibility, the AFC/M23 has shifted the burden of action onto the United Nations. This is no longer a matter of declarations or mandates it is a test of credibility.
The people of Uvira are watching. The region is watching. And history will judge whether MONUSCO stands for genuine civilian protection or continues to shield forces that perpetuate instability in eastern Congo.