Goma – The growing alliance between Burundian President Évariste Ndayishimiye and Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) President Félix Tshisekedi is drawing increasing criticism from observers who argue that the partnership has become more focused on military objectives than on addressing the political, humanitarian, and development challenges facing the region. Ndayishimiye’s arrival in Kinshasa on June 22 for a two-day state visit has renewed debate over the role Burundi is playing in eastern DRC and the broader implications of the military coalition supporting the government in Kinshasa.
Official statements surrounding the visit emphasized bilateral cooperation, regional security, public health concerns, and economic relations. However, critics contend that the most significant aspect of the relationship between the two leaders is their expanding military collaboration against AFC/M23 and allied movements operating in eastern Congo. Since relations between countries in Great Lakes region sharply deteriorated in 2022, Kinshasa and Gitega have steadily strengthened their political and military ties, resulting in the deployment of thousands of Burundian troops into Congolese territory.
Supporters of AFC/M23 believe that the growing partnership between Tshisekedi and Ndayishimiye has failed to deliver meaningful solutions to the longstanding grievances of many communities in eastern Congo, particularly Congolese Tutsi populations who have repeatedly complained of discrimination, exclusion, and insecurity. Critics of the Kinshasa government claim that military operations carried out by FARDC and its allies have often resulted in civilian suffering while doing little to address the root causes of the conflict.
The timing of Ndayishimiye’s visit is particularly significant as intense fighting continues in Minembwe and other parts of South Kivu. Reports from the region indicate that Congolese government forces, supported by Burundian troops and allied militias, have intensified military operations in an effort to regain control of strategic areas. Heavy weapons, drones, and aircraft have reportedly been used during these offensives, raising concerns among local communities about the humanitarian consequences of escalating combat.
Particular attention has focused on allegations that FARDC, Burundian forces, Wazalendo militias, and fighters from the FDLR have operated on the same battlefield. Rwanda has repeatedly raised concerns about the continued presence and influence of the FDLR, an armed group linked to individuals responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. Rwandan officials argue that the group’s continued activity in eastern Congo represents a direct threat to Rwanda’s security and remains one of the central obstacles to lasting peace in the region.
For many supporters of AFC/M23, the issue extends beyond military confrontation. They argue that the Congolese government’s cooperation with armed groups accused of genocide ideology and ethnic targeting undermines efforts to build trust among affected communities. These critics contend that Congolese Tutsi civilians continue to face hostility, discrimination, and insecurity while political leaders in Kinshasa prioritize military alliances over reconciliation and inclusive governance.
Ndayishimiye’s own comments regarding Burundi’s military deployment have also generated debate. In recent remarks, he acknowledged that Burundian forces in the DRC operate in support of Congolese military objectives and under FARDC command structures. He further stated that the decision regarding when Burundian troops leave the country ultimately rests with the Congolese government. Critics argue that such statements reinforce perceptions that Burundi has become deeply involved in a conflict whose objectives increasingly align with Kinshasa’s political agenda.
The relationship between Tshisekedi and Ndayishimiye has expanded considerably over the past four years, with frequent exchanges between the two leaders and growing military cooperation on the ground. While both governments describe their partnership as essential for defending national sovereignty and combating armed groups, opponents argue that the alliance has become centered on genocide ideologies and supporting FDLR rebels.
From the perspective of AFC/M23 supporters, the movement represents a struggle for security, political inclusion, and equal rights for marginalized communities in eastern Congo. They argue that military campaigns conducted by the Kinshasa government and its allies have failed to resolve underlying grievances and instead contributed to more killings of civilians and displacement.
As Ndayishimiye and Tshisekedi continue their discussions in Kinshasa, regional observers are closely watching whether their partnership will produce a credible path toward peace or further entrench a military approach that critics say has prolonged conflict and suffering. The future of eastern Congo may depend not only on battlefield developments but also on whether regional leaders choose dialogue, accountability, and political solutions over continued confrontation.
For Rwanda, any lasting settlement will require addressing concerns surrounding the FDLR, protecting vulnerable communities, including Congolese Tutsi civilians, and ensuring that peace efforts focus on the underlying causes of the conflict rather than solely on military responses. Until those issues are addressed, they argue, stability in eastern DRC will remain difficult to achieve.
