European leaders continue to painstakingly work towards a ceasefire in Ukraine and reaffirm their commitment to the defense of Ukraine’s sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.), a very different story is playing out, with European leaders turning a blind eye to Rwanda’s plundering of the country’s natural resources through the ongoing conflict between the Congolese government and M23 rebels, Rwanda’s proxy. If European leaders truly believe in the principle of sovereignty, as they claim to in the case of Ukraine, then European policy on Rwanda must change in response to Rwandan actions violating the sovereignty of the D.R.C. At the very least, the European Union must ensure that mineral resources, plundered by Rwanda, do not make their way to European markets and that its words align with its actions. Failure to do so would not only constitute a moral failing akin to Europe’s colonial exploitation of Africa; it would also be a strategic blunder that weakens Europe's reputation and position on the African continent at a time when rival powers, including Russia, are making plays for influence.

M23 and the D.R.C.

M23 is a rebel group operating within the D.R.C. that has been waging an armed conflict against government forces since 2022. It launched an initial rebellion from 2012-2013 but has since experienced a resurgence, beginning in 2022 and culminating in the 2025 seizure of Goma and Bukavu, two cities in the country’s mineral-rich eastern provinces [1]. Unlike the initial rebellion, M23 currently operates as both a military and a political entity, indicating that it is likely looking to consolidate its rule over the eastern territories under its control. The current conflict has also been far more devastating. With thousands dead and millions displaced, it is one of the world’s largest ongoing humanitarian crises [2]. M23 traces its roots to the National Congress for the Defense of the People (C.N.D.P.), which waged its own insurgency before reaching a peace agreement with the Congolese government on March 23, 2009; M23 was formed by members of the C.N.D.P. who felt the government had not upheld its commitments in line with the March 23 peace agreement [3]. It is from this peace agreement that M23 draws its name. Like the C.N.D.P., M23 predominantly consists of ethnic Tutsis and claims that it operates with the goal of protecting Tutsis within the D.R.C. [4]. Tutsis were the victims of the Rwandan genocide, committed largely by ethnic Hutus, with both C.N.D.P. and M23 enjoying material support from the now Tutsi-dominated Rwandan government. Much like M23, Rwanda justifies its involvement in the Congo by citing a commitment to defending ethnic Tutsis in the wake of the Rwandan genocide. However, unlike the C.N.D.P., which came into conflict with Hutu militias, M23 operates in cooperation with Hutu militias and even consists of some ethnic Hutus, discrediting the claim that Tutsis in the D.R.C. face any prospect of ethnic strife that warrants an armed group.

Rwandan Involvement 

Rwanda has been heavily involved in the conflict between M23 and the D.R.C., with the Rwandan genocide ostensibly being the justification for M23’s ideology. The Rwandan government supplies M23 with weapons deliveries, mostly consisting of small arms, while also providing technical and logistical support. Rwanda has even gone as far as deploying upwards of 7,000 troops within M23-controlled territory, possibly outnumbering M23’s fighting force while often engaging in direct fighting with Congolese forces, with potentially thousands of Rwandan casualties reported [5]. In exchange for this support, it is well recorded that M23 provides Rwanda with precious mineral resources extracted from the D.R.C.’s eastern provinces [6]. Coltan, a major mineral input in modern electronics manufacturing, is perhaps the most noteworthy of these minerals. Rwanda then goes on to sell minerals plundered from the D.R.C. to a myriad of influential global actors, including the European Union (E.U.). This activity blatantly violates international law and amounts to a plundering of the D.R.C.’s resources by a foreign power in violation of the rules of sovereignty. Despite Rwanda’s deep involvement in the conflict, it has also served as a leading figure in mediation efforts between the D.R.C. and M23, taking place in Qatar. While both sides have committed to a ceasefire as of April 24, 2025, each side has made and broken similar commitments six times to date [7]. The sheer size of the conflict zone and the decentralized nature of the forces involved make administering and ensuring compliance with a ceasefire incredibly difficult.

Involvement of the European Union

Europe’s response to the conflict has been non-existent at best and complicit at worst. To the E.U.’s credit, the European Parliament has publicly condemned both M23 and Rwanda for their participation in the conflict and for their exportation of mineral resources outside of the D.R.C., with the E.U. going as far as to impose individual sanctions on members and organizations within the Rwandan military [8]. The European Parliament has even demanded an end to European aid to Rwanda [9]. Belgium, Rwanda’s former colonial ruler, has been the most forceful in its demand for a change in E.U. policy and its condemnation of Rwanda and M23, prompting Rwanda to cut diplomatic ties while citing Belgium’s colonial history. Despite these calls to action, the E.U. and Rwanda maintain a deal for minerals that are not mined within Rwandan borders. Demands to end the deal have mounted in the face of reports revealing minerals from the D.R.C. are already being smuggled into the European market via Rwanda [10]. Despite this obvious violation of internationally accepted norms, the European Commission has not moved to end the deal. The European Parliament has no power of enforcement over the deals and aid mentioned; that power rests solely with the European Commission. This leaves European words completely out of step with European actions. European military aid to Rwanda has also been called into question, as Europe provided Rwanda with 40 million euros in military aid for its peacekeeping mission in Mozambique [11]. Limited oversight has prompted concern that the aid is being used to fund the conflict in the D.R.C. Furthermore, the E.U. announced a 900 million euro investment deal with Rwanda in 2023 [12]. All of the aforementioned deals and aid agreements with Rwanda were announced and maintained after the conflict in the D.R.C. had already broken out, discrediting Europe’s already precarious standing in Africa. This potentially signals a green light to Rwanda to continue the illegal exploitation of the D.R.C.. Europe’s behavior concerning Rwanda and the D.R.C. confirms the feelings of many Africans that Europe is merely concerned with the extraction of the continent’s resources while it mouths platitudes of international rules and democratic accountability. 

In accordance with the E.U.’s priorities of shoring up its reputation in Africa and upholding international rules and norms, it is in its interest to cease aid and trade agreements with Rwanda and impose harsher punishments on the perpetrators of the conflict. Such measures may include the expansion of sanctions on Rwanda and even support for a UN intervention like the one that successfully defeated the C.N.D.P.. Sanctions and any other strong measures would require a change in French policy. Up to this point, France has blocked all efforts by fellow E.U. members to sanction Rwanda, with France spearheading the effort to grant Rwanda military aid for its Mozambique mission, where Rwandan troops protect natural gas reserves partially owned and operated by the French company, TotalEnergies [13]. France’s Rwanda policy may also be influenced by its controversial actions surrounding the Rwandan genocide. Immediately before the genocide, France supported the Hutu government, sending French advisors who trained Hutu militias that would go on to carry out the genocide against Tutsis. During the genocide, French troops set up UN safe zones that protected Tutsis but also provided a safe haven for Hutu perpetrators to escape into the D.R.C.. Since then, France’s relationship with Rwanda has been strained, and France’s current policy is an effort to repair that relationship while also protecting French interests in the region.

Today, the E.U. maintains both its economic and military agreements with Rwanda despite Rwanda’s support of M23 and the involvement of its forces in the conflict. The EU remains committed to these agreements, contradicting public statements made by the European Parliament and undermining Europe’s commitment to international norms. Not only is the persistence of this policy contradictory, but it is also harmful to European interests. Furthermore, the presence of smuggled minerals in the European market, coupled with Europe’s failure to respond accordingly, undermine Europe’s position on the global stage even further. In order to safeguard European interests and bolster the rules-based order at a time of uncertainty, European policy on Rwanda must change. The E.U. should end its mineral deal with Rwanda and exercise greater oversight over the use of military aid to at least ensure European resources are not furthering conflict in the D.R.C.. With economic and military agreements at risk, combined with the threat of sanctions or intervention, Rwanda and M23 may be more willing to engage in talks and create a path towards peace.