The self-styled expert on the Congo affairs, Jason Stearns, is peddling dangerous narratives, ones that would ensure war continues to rage across the eastern part of that country. Through a string of recent interventions, his lopsided analysis has done little to shed light on the crisis and plenty to muddy the waters.
First came the article he co-authored in Foreign Policy, “Why Trump’s Congo Deal Is Falling Apart.” Then he popped up in a forum hosted by Congolese journalist Stanis Bujakera. On both occasions, Stearns painted a picture that twists reality and can only pave the way for more endless bloodshed.
Stearns kicks off by dismissing the M23 movement’s very raison d’être. He refuses to see it as a homegrown Congolese political problem. Clearly, admitting that the M23 has its own grievances and agenda would blow apart the convenient fiction that it is a Rwandan proxy. So he clings to the fiction, which only undermines his second argument.
Stearns calls for a compromise between Kinshasa and the rebels that would somehow preserve Congo’s sovereignty. He knows this doesn’t add up. Why would any government cut a deal with a foreign proxy without selling its sovereignty down the river? Stearns knows the answer full well. So either he is being disingenuous about a political settlement, or he has lost the plot entirely.
His bright idea, in a nutshell, is to absorb the M23, a force that now controls a territory “larger than Belgium or Maryland,” into the very army it has been fighting, an army riddled with corruption, incompetence, and genocidal ideology. Stearns’ pipe dream is simply a non-starter.
For starters, the M23 is dead set against it. Second, even if it weren’t, it would be a disaster: folding a force as disciplined and professional as the M23 into the decrepit Congolese army would only drag both down. If Stearns truly wanted Congo to become a thriving state capable of keeping its people safe, he would be arguing for the FARDC to be folded into the M23, not the other way round. Third, and by no means least, the whole rebel-integration gambit has been tried before and flopped spectacularly, whether with the RCD or the CNDP.
Stearns knows all this, yet he keeps peddling the same failed formulas. It is hard to escape the conclusion that he wants the war to drag on while going through the motions of advocating peace.
Then comes another whopper: his portrayal of the FDLR. To Stearns, this genocidal outfit is not a serious threat. He paints it as a spent force, reduced to a few thousand old men capable only of the odd “rare raid.” This downplaying is not just off the mark; it is downright reckless.
The facts paint a very different picture. The FDLR has managed to survive and regroup for decades, and it now enjoys full state backing. It runs recruitment and training operations deep inside eastern Congo, all with one fixed goal: to invade Rwanda and finish what they started in 1994.
Both the UN Group of Experts and the Washington Accord recognize the FDLR as a grave and ongoing danger that must be dismantled. Dismissing it as a spent force, as Stearns does, is not expert analysis; it is political advocacy designed to keep that genocidal threat hanging over Rwanda’s head and over Congolese Tutsi.
Finally, there is the stubborn misreading of Rwanda’s behaviour. Stearns suggests that Rwanda is playing for time, waiting for the Trump administration to leave office or lose interest in the crisis. This is pure conjecture.
Rwanda wants the Washington Accord implemented as agreed. President Kagame called them the most comprehensive peace agreement ever, meaning they went further than any previous deal. Rwanda’s parliament wasted no time in ratifying them. Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe and government spokesperson Yolande Makolo have both voiced Rwanda’s eagerness to see both the security and economic tracks of the agreement delivered.
What Rwanda rejects is a one-sided process where only one party is held to account. So, contrary to what Stearns would have us believe, it does matter which American administration is in power, as long as all parties implement the accords in good faith.
Let’s take stock. Stearns refuses to acknowledge the M23 as a genuine Congolese grievance, talks down the FDLR as a minor nuisance, and misrepresents Rwanda’s motives and actions. Clearly, he is not offering a way out. He is engaged not in academic research but in a political exercise aimed at stripping Rwanda and the M23 of any legitimacy while dressing up Kinshasa and its allies as victims of aggression.
In short, even as he poses as a peace advocate, he is pouring fuel on the fire. If his arguments ever translate into policy, they will only destabilize the region further, because they brush aside the very reasons why peace remains so elusive.
The road to peace in eastern Congo does not run through recycled failures, misleading soundbites, or downplaying the forces that keep the region bleeding. It runs through an honest reckoning with the root causes of the conflict.
Anything less only guarantees more war. And for that, we have the likes of Jason Stearns to thank.
