Ce qu’il faut retenir
The seven-point declaration unveiled on 19 July placed refugee repatriation alongside cease-fire and governance provisions, signalling its centrality to any lasting settlement. Both Kinshasa and the AFC/M23 publicly commit to facilitating a safe, voluntary and dignified return for displaced Congolese currently in Rwanda and for Rwandans sheltering in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Yet the absence of an agreed data baseline, contested nationality claims and active combat zones around Rutshuru and Masisi complicate implementation. Negotiators in Doha and Washington recognise that humanitarian, legal and land-tenure dimensions must accompany military de-escalation, or risk turning the pledge into another unfulfilled aspiration.
Contexte des négociations
The return clause is not new. A similar promise framed the 2009 accord between Kinshasa and the Congrès national pour la défense du peuple, the political ancestor of today’s AFC/M23. The current cycle began in late 2023 when Qatar offered facilitation in Doha, while the United States opened a parallel Rwanda–DRC track in Washington, seeking to defuse cross-border accusations.
For Kigali, refugee issues intersect with security concerns over the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda operating in eastern Congo. Kinshasa, meanwhile, regards repatriation demands as a litmus test of AFC/M23 sincerity and a pathway to reassert state authority in North Kivu once guns fall silent.
Disputed numbers, disputed identities
According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Rwanda houses roughly 137,000 asylum seekers, of whom about 80,000 are Congolese. Congolese officials challenge both figure and composition, noting that the last comprehensive biometric registration dates back several years. Verification, they argue, must precede any movement to avoid the return of non-nationals or potential combatants.
Rwanda counters that it has hosted successive Congolese waves since the 1994 Great Lakes crises, absorbing the economic and security burden with limited donor support. Kigali points to regional protocols that label prolonged displacement a shared responsibility and calls for an accelerated timetable to relieve camp congestion in Kigeme, Mahama and elsewhere.
Sécurité d’abord, dit Kinshasa
The government in Kinshasa insists that no convoy will enter an active war theatre. It therefore links refugee return to a verified cease-fire, cantonment of AFC/M23 fighters and redeployment of the national army to reclaimed localities. Only once the flag and civil administration are restored, officials say, can schools, clinics and courts safely reopen for returnees.
This sequencing clashes with AFC/M23’s preference for concurrent security, political and humanitarian steps. Movement representatives argue that delays fuel distrust and prolong human suffering, warning that camps could become recruitment pools for extremist factions if hopelessness festers.
Calendrier diplomatique
Doha mediators have suggested a phased roadmap: technical sub-committees would finalise a refugee registry within three months, followed by pilot returns to relatively stable zones such as Kiwanja. Washington envoys back the idea but stress the need for rapid confidence-building gestures, including joint patrols and information sharing.
Observers note that electoral timetables in both the DRC’s eastern provinces and Rwanda add pressure. Kigali’s parliamentary polls, set for mid-2024, encourage domestic messaging that portrays Rwanda as a responsible regional actor. Kinshasa, still consolidating post-2023 election legitimacy, seeks tangible progress to appease North Kivu constituencies weary of repeated displacement.
Acteurs et leviers
Alongside state negotiators, UNHCR chairs the technical working group on protection guarantees, while the International Organization for Migration offers logistical planning. The African Union and the East African Community, though recently criticised for limited impact on the ground, retain convening power to validate any final accord.
Civil-society voices—from church networks to women’s associations—demand a seat at the table, arguing that local knowledge of land tenure and customary law is indispensable. Land disputes, particularly over fertile foothills in Rutshuru, risk reigniting conflict if not pre-emptively arbitrated.
Scénarios d’issue
Optimists envisage a controlled pilot return demonstrating that cease-fire lines hold and services can resume, unlocking broader reconstruction funds pledged by the World Bank and African Development Bank. A neutral third-party verification mechanism, perhaps drawing on the expanded Joint Verification Mechanism of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, would monitor compliance.
A muddling-through scenario foresees protracted talks where humanitarian corridors function intermittently but mass returns stall. The worst-case outlook entails a relapse into full-scale combat, derailing not only repatriation efforts but also regional economic projects such as the Central Corridor railway extension linking Goma to Kigali.
Beyond security: the social contract
Experts caution that even a flawless security transition cannot alone anchor displaced populations. Reintegration hinges on schools, health posts, trauma counselling and, crucially, land access. The DRC’s draft national land policy advocates community adjudication panels to balance customary rights with statutory titles, a framework donors could immediately support.
Meanwhile, investors eyeing North Kivu’s arable soils and mineral deposits argue that predictable governance, rather than tax incentives, will determine capital flows. Refugee return thus becomes a bellwether for the region’s broader peace-and-development compact.
A regional ripple effect
Successful repatriation could set a precedent for other protracted displacement files in the Great Lakes, including Burundians in Tanzania and South Sudanese in Uganda. It could also ease bilateral strains that periodically spill over into trade and aviation links. Conversely, failure may embolden hard-liners across the region.
As one Nairobi-based analyst notes, “Refugees are the human face of the conflict; how they are treated will either cement or unravel every other clause in the peace package.” The stakes, therefore, reach well beyond camp perimeters.
