By Adonis Byemelwa
In a packed virtual briefing this week hosted by the U.S. State Department’s Africa Regional Media Hub, journalists from across the continent gathered to ask the hard questions—and for once, they got some straight answers. Senior Advisor Massad Boulos and Deputy Assistant Secretary Corina Sanders offered a candid look into Washington’s thinking on the worsening insecurity in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), amid the drawdown of regional peacekeeping forces and the growing influence of militant groups like ISIS-DRC.
For Pearl Matibe of Nigeria’s Premium Times, the briefing hit close to home. Having closely tracked the advisor’s recent diplomatic tour across the region, her question came sharp and urgent: With regional forces like the East African Community (EAC) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) pulling out, and MONUSCO—the UN mission—struggling to maintain control, how does the Trump administration intend to respond to the looming security vacuum?
Boulos didn’t shy away. “Let me be very clear,” he began. “The U.S. position is that the M23 must lay down their arms, and Rwandan forces must withdraw from the DRC.” It was a firm statement, underscoring a diplomatic line the U.S. has held—but his tone was less about hard lines and more about honest engagement.
He quickly pivoted to something that felt more grounded: recent, tangible progress on the ground. “This cannot be won by force,” Boulos emphasized. “We’ve already seen signs of goodwill.” In particular, he pointed to the withdrawal of M23 fighters from Walikale—an eastern town that had become a flashpoint—thanks in part to what he called a “push from the Rwandan government.” The retreat allowed U.S.-affiliated mining company Alphamin to resume operations, stabilizing global tin markets that had spiraled after the initial shutdown.
It was a reminder that for Washington, stability in Congo isn’t just a humanitarian imperative—it’s also about safeguarding economic interests. But Boulos was careful to strike a balance. He credited not only the Congolese and Rwandan leadership, but also regional actors like EAC, SADC, the African Union, and even West Africa’s ECOWAS.
“They’ve all played a part,” he said, clearly trying to acknowledge the multi-stakeholder nature of Africa’s peacebuilding ecosystem.
Still, it wasn’t all reassurance and talking points. Matibe, ever the seasoned journalist, asked if she could send more questions offline—an acknowledgment that 30 minutes was nowhere near enough to untangle the web of Eastern Congo’s conflicts. The panel welcomed that, signaling a shift toward more responsive, ongoing dialogue with African media.
Then came a pointed follow-up from Kigali.
Moise Bahati, reporting from The New Times in Rwanda, asked what many in the region have been wondering: Did the U.S. bring up the FDLR—the notorious Rwandan rebel group still active in eastern DRC—during Boulos’ meeting with President Paul Kagame?
This time, Boulos’ tone became more measured, even empathetic. “We definitely discussed the FDLR. It’s a major element of any peace accord,” he said. And while he didn’t delve into specifics, his message was clear: Rwanda’s concerns were heard. Moreover, he emphasized that solutions had already been drafted in prior agreements—what’s needed now is the political will to revisit and implement them.
What stood out in Boulos’ reply wasn’t just the content—it was the posture. He wasn’t posturing for dominance. Instead, he acknowledged that Rwanda’s security concerns, perceived or real, must be addressed if any peace deal is to hold. “At the end of the day,” he said, “everyone has to feel safe from any threat, whether it’s actual or perceived.”
The words were careful, but they struck a chord. For too long, conflict in the Great Lakes region has been framed in binaries—victims and aggressors, peacekeepers and spoilers. The briefing signaled a shift in tone. This wasn’t about picking sides; it was about creating space for all parties to breathe, to talk, and, hopefully, to step away from the brink.
DAS Sanders, equally measured, added that the U.S. is still building its strategy for the region—something that must work “for all sides,” she emphasized. There were no grand declarations of new troop deployments or flashy initiatives. But perhaps that was the point. This wasn’t performative diplomacy; it was the slow, often frustrating, but essential work of listening, calibrating, and engaging.
As the briefing wrapped, Boulos and Sanders both expressed thanks and openness to continued engagement with the press. For the journalists who dialed in, the story doesn’t end with this transcript. It begins with the promise—albeit cautious—of more transparency, more collaboration, and maybe, just maybe, a shared road to peace.
