By Jonas Eugène Kota
The United Nations’ recent statement condemning stigmatizing rhetoric and warning against the ethnicization of conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) raises a legitimate concern—but does so in a manner that is both incomplete and strategically misaligned with the realities on the ground.
Issued by MONUSCO on December 31, the statement came after Congolese authorities had already condemned the controversial remarks made by a senior FARDC spokesperson and taken concrete disciplinary action. As such, the intervention appears less preventive than retrospective.
More importantly, the UN’s framing risks obscuring the deeper and more consequential forms of ethnicization that continue to drive instability in eastern Congo. While rhetorical excesses must be addressed, policy responses that focus primarily on discourse rather than structure risk misdiagnosing the conflict and, by extension, misdirecting international engagement.
A question of timing—and relevance
From a policy perspective, timing matters. The Congolese government, military leadership, and public opinion responded swiftly to the remarks in question, signaling both institutional capacity and political will to contain inflammatory discourse. The UN’s delayed reaction, therefore, adds limited value in terms of conflict prevention, while reinforcing long-standing perceptions of institutional inertia in the UN’s approach to the Congolese crisis.This pattern is not new.
Over the past three decades, UN engagement in eastern Congo has often been characterized by reactive statements rather than proactive deterrence, particularly in the face of cross-border military dynamics that have proven far more destabilizing than domestic rhetoric alone.
Ethnicization as a structural, transnational process
The central policy blind spot lies in how “ethnicization” is defined and operationalized. Framing the problem primarily as a matter of hate speech risks overlooking the fact that ethnic identity has been systematically instrumentalized as part of a broader regional security strategy.
Since 1994, repeated Rwandan military interventions in eastern DRC—whether direct or through armed proxies—have been justified through narratives rooted in Rwanda’s unresolved ethnic conflict. The historical Hutu–Tutsi divide, shaped by the 1959 social revolution and violently reconfigured after the genocide, did not remain confined within Rwanda’s borders.
It was externalized, militarized, and embedded in regional conflict dynamics.
From a policy standpoint, this matters because it shifts the analytical focus from isolated incidents to enduring patterns. Ethnicity, in this context, is not merely a source of tension; it is a mobilization tool that underpins recruitment, legitimacy claims, and operational cohesion among armed actors.
Evidence from recent research
Recent academic work reinforces this structural reading. In The Banyamulenge Soldiers (University of Michigan Press, 2025), political scientist Christopher P. Davey documents how young Congolese Banyamulenge—often broadly identified as Congolese Tutsis—are exposed to cross-border military training and ideological conditioning rooted in narratives of persecution and collective survival.
Davey’s findings suggest a deliberate process in which ethnic identity is reframed as both a security rationale and a moral imperative, preparing recruits to fight in eastern Congo under the conviction that their actions are defensive and necessary.
This form of transnational ethnic socialization has direct implications for conflict persistence, yet it remains largely absent from official UN messaging.
For policymakers, ignoring this dimension limits the effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts. Addressing hate speech without confronting the organized, cross-border instrumentalization of ethnicity risks treating symptoms while leaving core drivers intact.
The credibility challenge
The UN’s credibility in eastern Congo is already fragile. Statements emphasizing social cohesion ring hollow when juxtaposed with decades of limited success in curbing armed groups widely identified as foreign-backed. Past remarks by senior UN officials, including comments acknowledging the military sophistication of groups such as the M23, have reinforced perceptions of ambiguity rather than resolve.
In this context, the latest warning risks being interpreted as an attempt to reassert moral authority without engaging in the harder task of policy recalibration.
From a strategic standpoint, this is counterproductive. Effective international engagement requires aligning normative discourse with a clear-eyed assessment of power dynamics, regional state behavior, and the political economy of violence.
Toward a more effective policy approachIf the UN and its partners seek to meaningfully reduce violence in eastern Congo, policy frameworks must move beyond rhetorical containment. This entails:
- Recognizing ethnic instrumentalization as a regional security issue, not merely a domestic discourse problem
- Addressing cross-border military socialization and proxy dynamics with the same urgency applied to internal governance concerns
- Aligning peacekeeping mandates, diplomatic pressure, and accountability mechanisms with the structural realities of the conflict.
Absent such adjustments, UN interventions risk remaining performative rather than transformative—well-intentioned, but strategically insufficient.
In eastern Congo, the challenge is not simply to discourage inflammatory language. It is to confront the enduring, transnational use of ethnic identity as a tool of war. Until policy responses reflect that reality, warnings against ethnicization will continue to fall short of their stated objectives.
