The United Nations (UN) was founded with the noble mission of maintaining international peace and security, preventing conflicts, and protecting vulnerable populations. However, its longstanding failure in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) reveals a stark contradiction between its founding principles and its actions—or lack thereof—on the ground.
For decades, the DRC has been engulfed in violence, fueled by state-sponsored militias, foreign interventions, and deep-seated ethnic tensions. Despite clear legal frameworks under the UN Charter and customary international law that should guide global interventions, the UN has failed to prevent atrocities, enforce peace, or hold violators accountable.
This is not merely a political failure—it is a legal and moral abdication of responsibility.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: The Prohibition of Force
The UN Charter, in Article 2(4), establishes a fundamental principle of international law:
“All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
At its core, this provision aims to prevent aggressive wars and ensure respect for state sovereignty. However, it does not shield governments that systematically commit atrocities or threaten regional stability.
The DRC government, through its collaboration with the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR)—a genocidal militia composed of remnants of the perpetrators of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide—has consistently violated this principle. The FDLR is responsible for numerous attacks against civilians, including mass killings, rapes, and cross-border incursions into Rwanda.
Furthermore, President Félix Tshisekedi and top Congolese officials have issued explicit threats to invade Rwanda, bomb its capital, Kigali, and overthrow President Paul Kagame. Such declarations are not mere political rhetoric; they constitute clear violations of Article 2(4) by demonstrating intent to use force against another sovereign state.
Despite these blatant breaches, the UN has remained silent, refusing to hold the DRC accountable. This selective enforcement of international law has emboldened the DRC leadership, creating a dangerous precedent where state-sponsored aggression is tolerated.
Article 51 of the UN Charter: The Right to Self-Defense
The UN Charter, Article 51, is explicit in recognizing a nation’s right to defend itself:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
This provision is crucial in understanding Rwanda’s legal position. When a country faces an existential threat from foreign aggression or state-sponsored armed groups, it has the right—without seeking UN approval—to take defensive action.
Now, let’s examine the situation:
- The DRC government harbors and collaborates with the FDLR, a group that has carried out attacks on Rwandan soil.
- Tshisekedi and his military officials have publicly threatened war against Rwanda, violating international law.
- The DRC government has actively supported other ethnic militias, such as Mai-Mai groups, which have engaged in ethnic violence against Congolese Tutsi communities.
Under Article 51, Rwanda is legally justified in taking preemptive or defensive action. The principle of anticipatory self-defense—recognized in international law—permits a state to act if an attack is imminent, overwhelming, and leaves no room for deliberation. This legal doctrine was established in the famous Caroline Case (1837), which remains a cornerstone of modern self-defense laws.
Rwanda does not need to wait for an invasion or mass killings to occur before defending itself. The threats, combined with a history of FDLR-led incursions, provide sufficient legal grounds for Rwanda to act.
The Principle of Necessity in International Law
Even if we assume, for argument’s sake, that Rwanda supports the March 23 Movement (M23)—an allegation Rwanda denies—international law still justifies Rwanda’s position under the Principle of Necessity.
This legal principle states that a state may take unilateral action when: a humanitarian catastrophe is imminent and unavoidable, and there is an absence of multilateral intervention to prevent it.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has recognized this principle in past conflicts where mass atrocities were imminent. In Nicaragua v. United States (1986), the ICJ examined whether states could intervene in a foreign country to prevent grave humanitarian crises.
Applying this precedent to the DRC, the Congolese Tutsi communities face an imminent risk of ethnic cleansing. The government’s failure to curb hate speech, disarm genocidal militias, or prevent mass killings triggers Rwanda’s right to act under the Principle of Necessity.
The UN, which should be the first responder in such crises, has failed to intervene. When international institutions neglect their duties, the responsibility falls to the nearest capable state—in this case, Rwanda.
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) vs. Non-Intervention
The UN often cites state sovereignty as a reason for non-intervention. However, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine—adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2005—directly contradicts this stance.
Under R2P, the international community has a moral and legal obligation to intervene when a government is either:
• Unwilling or unable to prevent genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity.
The DRC government has failed in all these aspects:
• It has failed to protect Rwandophone communities from ethnic violence.
• It has allowed genocidal militias (FDLR) to operate freely.
• It has engaged in hate speech and incitement against Congolese Tutsi populations.
Under R2P, the UN should have acted to prevent these crimes. Since it has failed, the responsibility shifts to Rwanda, as the nearest capable state, to take preventive measures.
Why Rwanda’s Legal Position is Unassailable
When assessing Rwanda’s actions through a legal lens, it is evident that international law supports its position. Rwanda has multiple legal justifications:
1. Article 51 of the UN Charter—The right to self-defense against an existential threat.
2. The Principle of Necessity—The right to act in the absence of international intervention.
3. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)—The obligation to prevent mass atrocities when no other party is willing or able to do so.
President Paul Kagame’s repeated statements on Rwanda’s commitment to self-defense are not mere rhetoric—they are legally sound assertions rooted in international law.
The UN’s Legal and Moral Failure
The UN’s inaction in the DRC represents a failure on multiple fronts:
• It has failed to hold the DRC accountable for harboring the FDLR.
• It has failed to prevent ethnic violence against Congolese Tutsi populations.
• It has failed to enforce its own Charter provisions on international peace and security.
Instead of addressing these violations, the UN has engaged in selective enforcement of international law, disproportionately blaming Rwanda while ignoring the DRC’s breaches.
If the UN genuinely upheld justice, the legal case against Rwanda would collapse entirely. History will remember the UN’s negligence in the Congo as a catastrophic failure of its founding principles.
In summary, the International law is clear: Rwanda is acting within its legal rights. The threats from the Congolese leadership are not empty words—they are declarations of intent, and Rwanda is fully entitled to respond.
When global institutions fail to act, states must take security into their own hands. Rwanda is doing just that—legally, rightfully, and necessarily.