Shortly after the M23 withdrew from the city of Uvira, Burundi, the DRC’s partner in crime, quickly reopened the Gatumba border, which it had kept closed for nearly a month, preventing Congolese refugees from returning to their homes.
The gate swung open instead for looters, armed gangs, and FDLR/Interahamwe elements that had been comfortably hosted on Burundian soil. Videos that immediately flooded the internet showed Wazalendo and Interahamwe militia looting the city empty without remorse. Shops have been stripped bare, homes broken into, doors smashed, and mattresses dragged into the streets.
What is even more revealing is that the looting has not been random. Homes belonging to Banyamulenge and other Tutsi families were clearly targeted. It was selective, ideological, and familiar. The same communities that had enjoyed relative safety during M23’s presence were the first to be punished once that presence ended.
Just days earlier, Burundi’s rulers had justified closing the Gatumba border by claiming that M23 was nothing but Rwanda. Since Burundi had closed its borders with Rwanda, they argued there was no need to reopen Gatumba. Rwanda is not even adjacent to Uvira. The claim was never about security. It was about creating a pretext.
President Evariste Ndayishimiye, alias Kirogorogo, recently articulated this empty logic in an interview. He suggested that resolving insecurity in eastern Congo requires Western pressure on Rwanda and the deployment of foreign forces between Rwanda and the DRC.
The crisis in eastern Congo has never been about physical demarcations. It has always been about the normalization of genocidal ideology, the recycling of militias under state sponsorship, and the persecution of communities disguised as patriotism. Walls do not solve these problems. Accountability does.
For nearly a month, Uvira experienced relative calm. Civilians moved freely, markets functioned, and targeted communities lived without constant fear. That stability did not collapse because M23 withdrew. It collapsed because those who replaced it arrived with loot lists and long settled grudges. The contrast could not be clearer.
It must also be recalled that M23 did not withdraw unconditionally. The movement clearly stated that Uvira should be placed under a neutral force, not FARDC and not its coalition of militias, mercenaries, and extremist groups. That condition has not been met. Instead, the very forces associated with past abuses were allowed to take over without restraint.
The international community has responded with silence. There have been no urgent statements, no condemnation of the looting, no concern for the renewed persecution. Silence, once again, functions as endorsement.
If M23 decides to return to Uvira, there should be no manufactured outrage. Withdrawal was a gesture of good faith. What followed was exploitation. You cannot hand a city to arsonists and then feign surprise when it burns.
The agenda remains unchanged. Uvira will not be abandoned to militias, thieves, and incompetence disguised as authority.