A joint ministerial meeting of the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), co-chaired by Kenya’s Foreign Affairs Minister Musalia Mudavadi and Zimbabwe’s Prof. Amon Murwira, took place in Dar-es-Salaam on 7 February 2025. While the meeting produced technical recommendations for an upcoming presidential summit, it fell short of addressing the deep-seated political issues driving instability in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the broader Great Lakes region. Critics argue that the meeting’s outcomes were superficial, failing to engage over 100 active rebel groups in the DRC or propose a durable ceasefire, leaving the fragile Kinshasa regime at risk of collapse.
Key Outcomes of the Meeting
The summit outlined nine short-term measures:
- Ceasefire: An immediate cessation of hostilities, monitored by EAC-SADC peacekeepers.
- Humanitarian Access: Reopening Goma airport and supply routes for aid delivery.
- Security in Goma: Enhanced protection for the city and surrounding areas.
- Repatriation: Return of deceased and injured individuals.
- Confidence-Building: Dialogue between warring factions through the Nairobi and Luanda processes.
- Neutralizing FDLR: Rwandan troop withdrawal and engagement with M23 rebels.
- Territorial Integrity: Respect for the sovereignty of the DRC and its neighbors.
- Humanitarian Aid: Facilitating relief operations.
- De-escalation: Curbing inflammatory rhetoric.
- Three medium-term goals were also proposed:
- Addressing root causes through political dialogue.
- Phased withdrawal of foreign forces from the DRC.
- Establishing a joint EAC-SADC security team to coordinate implementation.
- A long-term roadmap, including funding strategies, was tasked to a technical team for submission within 30 days.
Critique of the Meeting’s Limitations
Despite these measures, the meeting was widely criticized for sidestepping the region’s core issue: a systemic lack of democracy. Many EAC-SADC member states, including Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and the DRC, fail to meet basic electoral standards, undermining their credibility in proposing meaningful reforms. Countries like Kenya and South Africa, which conduct relatively fair elections, still face significant challenges, such as political killings in Kenya and rising crime rates in South Africa.
Former Rwandan General Kayumba Nyamwasa, in a televised interview, argued that conflicts like the M23 rebellion stem from power imbalances and resource disputes, not resolved grievances. He pointed out that the Banyamulenge citizenship issue, often cited as a cause of conflict, was addressed between 1998 and 2000. Instead, the real issue lies in Kinshasa’s exploitation of eastern DRC resources without reinvestment, exacerbating regional disparities.
Nyamwasa also highlighted Rwanda’s alleged exploitation of DRC minerals, such as coltan, which is exported to the EU despite Rwanda having no natural reserves. He linked regional instability to undemocratic regimes that suppress dissent, citing President Kagame’s 99.92% election “victory” and attacks on dissidents. Over 100 rebel groups, many from excluded communities, weaponize frustrations over political marginalization. The FDLR, for instance, seeks inclusion in Rwanda’s governance, not a revival of past genocidal ideologies.
Exclusion of Key Stakeholders
A glaring flaw in the meeting was the exclusion of rebel groups like M23 from negotiations. Without their involvement, agreements lack legitimacy and enforceability. M23, currently holding military momentum, has little incentive to cease hostilities when it perceives an opportunity to overthrow the Tshisekedi government in Kinshasa. The SADC-EAC peacekeepers, already outnumbered and outgunned, lack the moral and tactical authority to enforce a ceasefire. Some peacekeepers have even been captured or killed by M23, further eroding their credibility.
The Cycle of Violence
Even if M23 succeeds in toppling the Tshisekedi regime, lasting peace remains unlikely. History shows that regimes born from violence rarely embrace democracy. Instead, they perpetuate cycles of repression and rebellion, only to be overthrown by the next armed group. This vicious cycle can only be broken through genuine democratic reforms that address political exclusion, resource inequality, and systemic corruption.
The FDLR Dilemma
The meeting’s recommendation to disband the FDLR ignores the group’s legitimate demands for democratic reforms in Rwanda. This move appears to serve the interests of President Kagame’s regime rather than the broader goal of regional stability. Without addressing the FDLR’s grievances, peace in the Great Lakes region remains elusive.
The Role of Regional Leadership
The EAC-SADC meeting’s failure to address these issues reflects a broader lack of political will. If member states like Tanzania genuinely care about regional stability, they must lead by example. This means ensuring free and fair elections, respecting human rights, and fostering inclusive governance. Preaching peace while wielding authoritarian tools is hypocritical and ineffective. True leadership requires setting a standard that inspires confidence and trust, both domestically and regionally.
Structural Challenges
- Resource Greed: Foreign actors, including the EU, profit from conflict minerals, ignoring human rights abuses.
- Proxy Warfare: Neighboring states destabilize rivals via armed groups (e.g., Rwanda vs. Burundi).
- Military Legacies: Regimes in the DRC, Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi emerged through violence, distrusting democratic transitions.
The EAC-SADC meeting’s outcomes highlight the limitations of regional bodies in addressing deeply entrenched political problems. Without democratic reforms and inclusive dialogue, the Great Lakes region will remain trapped in a cycle of violence. The international community, particularly the EU, must also reckon with its complicity in fueling conflict through resource exploitation. Until these issues are addressed, meetings like these will remain little more than performative exercises, offering false hope while perpetuating the status quo. Sustainable peace requires bold leadership, equitable resource sharing, and a commitment to democracy—principles that remain conspicuously absent in the current approach.