Rwanda has dismissed DR Congo’s latest announcement that it reached a protocol with the Kinshasa-backed FDLR genocidal militia on disarmament, saying the focus ought to be on concrete motion to neutralise the group moderately than on new declarations.
ALSO READ: Makolo: DR Congo should disarm FDLR, repatriate its members
International affairs minister Olivier Nduhungirehe stated the announcement was a political manoeuvre geared toward delaying the implementation of commitments already agreed underneath the Washington peace course of.
ALSO READ: Nduhungirehe outlines Rwanda’s diplomatic push, regional priorities
The Congolese authorities stated the association with the genocidal militia on disarmament, demobilisation and cantonment was reached “in accordance with the Washington agreements and the related CONOPS.” Rwanda, nevertheless, maintains that the Washington framework doesn’t present for negotiations with the militia, however as an alternative requires its neutralisation.
FDLR was shaped by remnants of the previous Rwandan military and Interahamwe militia liable for the 1994 Genocide in opposition to the Tutsi in Rwanda. For many years, the group has carried out assaults in opposition to Rwanda, dedicated atrocities in opposition to civilians in japanese DR Congo and operated alongside components of the Congolese safety forces.
ALSO READ: Former FDLR deputy president on how genocidal militia was shaped
Talking on The New Occasions’ The Context podcast, launched on Friday, August 7, Nduhungirehe stated the Washington Accords stay the suitable framework for addressing safety issues between Rwanda and DR Congo. He accused Kinshasa of missing the political will to implement what it signed.
The Washington Peace Settlement, signed by the 2 international locations’ international ministers on June 27, 2025, and endorsed by Presidents Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi on December 4, 2025, features a Idea of Operations (CONOPS) outlining the neutralisation of FDLR earlier than Rwanda lifts its defensive measures.
Nduhungirehe stated the most recent protocol introduced by Kinshasa contradicts the Washington framework as a result of the genocidal militia was by no means meant to be a negotiating celebration.
“The FDLR ought to be neutralised as per the Washington Accords…They’re the topic of the Washington Accords. They aren’t a celebration to signal protocols.”
The minister stated Rwanda’s place relies on earlier experiences the place comparable bulletins didn’t result in motion.
“Now we have dismissed it by expertise as a result of we all know Congolese. It is a political manoeuvre and delaying techniques. And it’s not the primary time.”
ALSO READ: Nduhungirehe slams Kinshasa-FDLR protocol
He stated: “The FDLR are working with the Congolese military. They’re embedded within the Congolese military. Now we have seen communication between the FDLR writing to the Congolese authorities and the federal government responding to the letter by the FDLR leaders. It’s simply comedy… that is delaying techniques that can’t idiot anybody and it’s not the primary time.
“Now we have informed the mediator that what we consider is outcomes on the bottom as per the come-ups, as per the Washington accords, not a number of plans and protocols that the DRC and its FDLR allies are coming with.”
ALSO READ: Kinshasa-FDLR deal a sidestep from Washington Accords: analysts
Nduhungirehe stated the reported protocol makes an attempt to introduce situations that weren’t a part of the Washington settlement.
“Now they’re attempting one other delaying tactic of saying a protocol, which, by the way in which, is attempting to maneuver the aim posts.”
The Washington Accords don’t present political area for a militia liable for genocide.
“There are a number of the preconditions which can be actually unacceptable for a genocidal motion. Looking for a political area in Rwanda.”
“The Washington Accords doesn’t discuss any situation for the neutralisation of the FDLR.”
ALSO READ: Former FDLR ‘Colonel’ on how militia funds its operations
Nduhungirehe stated Kinshasa’s newest transfer follows years of fixing narratives concerning the existence and position of the genocidal militia. In March 2024, he recalled, then Congolese international affairs minister Christophe Lutundula introduced a plan to neutralise the militia group, however later questioned whether or not its location was identified.
“He had introduced a plan to neutralise the FDLR, however a number of days later he was questioning even the existence of the FDLR.”
He additionally cited claims by some Congolese officers that the group didn’t exist, earlier than later arguing that it was working in areas managed by AFC/M23.
“Sooner or later they stated they don’t exist.”
“Now they got here just lately with this idea that the FDLR are in areas managed by the AFC/M23.”
ALSO READ: Kagame: Tolerance has limits if nationwide unity is at stake
The minister additionally accused Kinshasa of continuous to help the militia regardless of signing the Washington Accords.
He recalled that after discussions resumed on implementing the settlement in March this yr, Congolese navy commanders introduced operations in opposition to FDLR.
“However then two days later, they despatched helicopters to Walikale filled with rifles, near 700 rifles, ammunition, cash, mortars and different weapons to the identical FDLR.”
He additionally accused the Congolese authorities of selling people primarily based in Europe to provide the militia a political face.
“Not solely has the federal government of Congo continued to supply weapons to the FDLR, however they went additionally forward in attempting to sanitise or promote political figures who reside in Europe to make them the political face of the FDLR.”
“They know the place the FDLR are. They collaborate with them. They know the place the models are…they need to implement what they should implement.”
ALSO READ: Ex-FDLR militia fighter speaks out on MONUSCO, FARDC help
Nduhungirehe stated Rwanda nonetheless considers the Washington Accords one of the vital complete peace agreements in latest a long time.
“The settlement we signed, the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity, is among the greatest agreements previously 30 years as a result of it’s complete sufficient, addressing safety challenges, political dimensions, but additionally financial points.”
He stated the problem is implementation, not the content material of the settlement.
“What we have to do is to implement it. We don’t must renegotiate it as a result of we agree with its content material.”
ALSO READ: FDLR hyperlinks to Habyarimana's son elevate regional safety issues – report
He stated organs established underneath the settlement proceed to satisfy, together with the Joint Safety Coordination Mechanism and the Joint Oversight Committee involving Rwanda, DR Congo, the USA, Qatar, the African Union Fee and the Togolese mediator.
“There’s one other one really in a number of days in Geneva,” Nduhungirehe stated, whereas noting that progress depends upon political will.
“We will maintain a thousand conferences. However we have to resolve one factor that might make us progress. The difficulty shouldn’t be multiplying conferences. What we have to do is to reveal political will to implement what we signed.”
ALSO READ: Rwanda's defensive measures to stay 'till FDLR menace is gone'
The minister criticised what he described as uneven stress from the USA, saying Kinshasa continues to help the FDLR whereas Rwanda faces sanctions.
“As we communicate, the federal government of Congo remains to be supporting the FDLR. It’s nonetheless arming the FDLR. And it’s nonetheless organising politically the identical FDLR whereas the US mediator is wanting on.”
He stated US officers have acknowledged that DR Congo has not neutralised FDLR, whereas Rwanda has been implementing its commitments underneath the settlement.
“If the US acknowledges that DR Congo has performed nothing in neutralising the FDLR, why are we at all times ending up with sanctions in opposition to Rwanda? If sanctions are geared toward pushing events to implement what they’ve signed, why are we ending with unfair and one-sided sanctions in opposition to one celebration?”
