While Hariana Veras’s documentary, “DRC After the Washington Accord,” offers a somber look at the humanitarian crisis, a full understanding of the conflict requires an examination of the Rwandan Government’s official position. Kigali views the documentary’s narrative as an incomplete portrayal that ignores the complex security threats facing Rwanda.
The following analysis is detailed across the four key themes of the conflict.
The “Aggression” vs. “Defensive Measures” Narrative
Kigali categorically rejects the label of “unprovoked aggression” used in the documentary. The Rwandan government maintains that any military movement near or across the border is a necessary defensive measure to protect its territorial integrity. They point to the “bellicose rhetoric” and heavy weaponry positioning by the Congolese army (FARDC) as evidence of an imminent threat that requires a proactive stance.
Rwanda argues that the Washington Accord is a two-way street. From their perspective, the DRC’s failure to secure its own borders and its continued “scapegoating” of Rwanda are the primary drivers of tension. For Kigali, the documentary’s focus on Rwandan troop presence ignores the “badge of honor” the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) carries in protecting its citizens from cross-border incursions that have plagued the region for decades.
The M23 and the “FDLR Existential Threat”
A central pillar of the Rwandan position is the threat posed by the FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda). Kigali asserts that the FARDC has integrated FDLR genocidaires—remnants of the forces responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi—into its official command structure. This collaboration, Rwanda argues, is a blatant violation of the Washington Accord’s requirement to neutralize “negative forces.”
Regarding the M23, Rwanda frames the group not as a proxy, but as a legitimate Congolese movement born from Kinshasa’s failure to protect Kinyarwanda-speaking communities and Tutsi Congolese. Rwanda contends that the M23 is fighting for the survival of the Banyamulenge and other minorities who face systemic “hate speech and public incitement” from Congolese officials. For Kigali, the conflict is an internal Congolese political crisis that cannot be solved by blaming neighbors.
Responsibility for the Humanitarian Crisis
Rwanda expresses deep regret for the humanitarian suffering shown in the film by Hariana Veras but argues that the DRC government bears the primary responsibility. Kigali claims that the displacement in the Kivu is exacerbated by the DRC’s reliance on “state-sponsored extremist militias” like the Wazalendo, who operate with impunity. They argue these groups, not the RDF, are responsible for the “indiscriminate drone attacks” and ground offensives that terrorize civilians.
Furthermore, Rwanda highlights that it currently hosts over 100,000 Congolese refugees who have fled ethnic cleansing and instability in the DRC. The Rwandan position is that the humanitarian crisis will only end when the DRC stops its internal “governance and security failures” and addresses the root causes of why its own citizens are being targeted by state-aligned militias.
The Failure of the Washington Accord
Kigali views recent U.S. sanctions (March 2026) as “one-sided and distorting” of the facts on the ground. The Rwandan government argues that international pressure has been unfairly skewed toward Rwanda while ignoring the DRC’s “clear violations” of the ceasefire. They maintain that the Washington Accord’s economic and security goals can only be realized through an “even-handed approach” from the international community.
Ultimately, Rwanda remains “fully committed” to the Washington Accord, provided the process is reciprocal. Their position is that they will only begin a verifiable disengagement of forces in tandem with the DRC fulfilling its own obligations—specifically the “irreversible and verifiable end” to state support for the FDLR. Without this, Rwanda views a withdrawal as a dereliction of its duty to ensure the safety of its own people.
Conclusion
Ultimately, regional analysts point to the documentary as a prime example of a narrative that, while emotionally resonant, remains fundamentally incomplete and analytically flawed. By presenting the conflict through a lens of exclusive Rwandan culpability, Veras’s journalism is viewed by some observers as a biased and potentially dangerous contribution to the Great Lakes discourse. The documentary’s primary danger, according to this school of thought, lies in its omission of the FDLR threat—the presence of genocidal remnants in eastern DRC—which is the central pillar of Rwanda’s security doctrine. By ignoring this existential concern, Veras is seen as providing a sanitized and one-sided account that fails to address the root causes of the instability.
Furthermore, analysts argue that this form of “activist journalism” risks derailing the fragile diplomatic path established by the Washington Accord. By calling for “aggressive” international pressure directed solely at Kigali, the Veras’ film reinforces the Congolese government’s strategy of externalizing its internal governance and security failures. Analysts warn that such a polarized narrative emboldens extremist rhetoric and provides a moral cover for the DRC’s continued reliance on state-sponsored militias like the Wazalendo. In this context, Veras is characterized by her critics not as a neutral reporter, but as a biased advocate whose work inadvertently fuels the cycle of mistrust and ethnic tension, making a lasting peace even more difficult to achieve.
