By Jonas Eugène O. Kota
As the Great Lakes region enters a critical phase of diplomatic negotiations aimed at halting the escalation of violence in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, every statement from an influential figure carries weight. The United States, working alongside other international actors in search of a lasting solution, is trying to balance firmness with dialogue. It is in this delicate context that a recent remark by Tibor P. Nagy, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, has sparked surprise and controversy.
The former top U.S. diplomat for Africa is no stranger to commentary on Congo’s security crisis. But his latest remarks, targeting both the Congolese army and President Félix Tshisekedi, raise more questions than they answer. “It was shameful enough how Congo’s army was humiliated by M23. Now these ‘warriors’ are unable to protect innocent villagers from the ADF ISIS-linked extremists. Meanwhile DRC Prez Tshisekedi is globetrotting to Kazakhstan. He should visit East Congo!” tweeted Nagy, who once served as one of Washington’s key architects of Africa policy from 2018 to 2021.
A contradictory break with his own diplomatic legacy
What makes this intervention striking is its tone and its contradictions. During his tenure, Tibor Nagy built a reputation on consistent advocacy for peace and stability in the Great Lakes. He urged Kinshasa to strengthen its institutions, fight corruption, disarm armed groups, and engage in regional dialogue. Today, his reductive and accusatory words seem to undercut years of painstaking diplomacy, while handing rhetorical ammunition to rebel movements and critics of the Congolese government.
Which raises a question: Is Tibor Nagy merely voicing a personal opinion, or has he aligned himself with a cause that runs counter to ongoing peace efforts—efforts led by the very U.S. government he once served and continues to advise?
And more pointedly: By suggesting that President Tshisekedi should travel to eastern Congo, fully aware of the region’s volatile security environment, is Nagy encouraging a move that could put the Congolese head of state in harm’s way—perhaps even into a trap he himself knows of?
The weight of an influential former official
Nagy is hardly a retired diplomat confined to his memoirs. As recently as 2025, he was recalled to the State Department as Acting Under Secretary of State for Management, making him a figure still regularly consulted in Washington. This is why his words—even if made in a personal capacity—can easily be read as an unofficial U.S. position. That is precisely what now embarrasses American diplomacy, as it struggles to manage sensitive negotiations between Kigali and Kinshasa.
A blind spot in his record: addressing islamist militancy in Congo
It is also striking to see Nagy fault the DRC for failing to confront ISIS-linked ADF militants. During his time at the State Department, there is no record of him initiating or promoting any U.S. strategy specifically targeting Islamist extremism in eastern Congo.
This raises another pointed question: What did Tibor Nagy—then a senior State Department official overseeing the 2018 Congolese elections—do with the repeated warnings from then-U.S. Ambassador Mike Hammer in Kinshasa about ADF atrocities, including the killing of Tanzanian UN peacekeepers in Beni?
Washington must clarify
In an environment where words carry significant weight, Washington’s silence in the face of Nagy’s remarks is far from neutral. Without an official clarification, his statement risks being exploited by Kigali as well as by Kinshasa’s detractors, reinforcing the narrative that Congo alone is to blame for its own insecurity. Yet the reality is far more complex: Kinshasa is confronting both transnational terrorism (the ADF) and regional state aggression (Rwanda through the M23).
To avoid confusion, the State Department should make its position clear: Are Nagy’s remarks nothing more than the personal views of a retired diplomat, or do they signal an indirect shift in U.S. policy? Without such clarification, American diplomacy risks appearing divided, incoherent, and complicit in a narrative that undermines the fragile peace process in the Great Lakes.
