ANALYSIS: Nyerere, Museveni and the DRC Lesson: Dialogue Over Guns

By Kabyanga Milly Felix

The conflict in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has endured for decades despite repeated military interventions, foreign deployments, regional initiatives and international mediation efforts. The persistence of violence demonstrates a fundamental truth long articulated by Tanzania’s founding president Mwalimu Julius Kambarage Nyerere who put it much clearer that durable peace cannot be imposed through military force alone but it must be negotiated through inclusive political dialogue that addresses the root causes of conflict.

Today, events in Eastern DRC appear to vindicate Nyerere’s philosophy and that of our visionary leader Gen. Museveni. The resurgence of the M23 rebellion, the collapse of several ceasefire arrangements and the failure of successive military deployments have highlighted the limitations of battlefield solutions. The current crisis is not merely a product of armed confrontation but a consequence of the failure to fully implement multiple peace agreements, regional commitments and negotiated frameworks that were intended to prevent a return to war.

Nyerere’s Philosophy: Talking to Your Enemy Is Not Weakness

Mwalimu Nyerere consistently argued that conflicts end not when enemies are annihilated but when adversaries find a political settlement. Throughout Africa’s liberation struggles and post-independence crises, he maintained that dialogue was not a reward for rebellion but a practical necessity for achieving lasting peace.

His famous observation remains relevant today as he plainly put it, “You do not negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with your enemies.”
This principle recognizes that military victory may silence guns temporarily, but it rarely resolves the grievances, fears, and political disputes that fuel armed conflict and the Eastern DRC conflict perfectly illustrates this reality.

The Failure to Implement Existing Peace Agreements

The current situation in Eastern DRC did not emerge in a vacuum. It is, to a significant extent, the result of unimplemented agreements and broken commitments.
Over the past several years, multiple frameworks were established to de-escalate tensions:

• Agreements between the Government of the DRC and M23
• Commitments made under the East African Community (EAC)-led peace process.
• Understandings reached through the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).
• The Luanda Process mediated by Angolan President João Lourenço between Rwanda and the DRC.
• Various ceasefire arrangements and confidence-building measures negotiated by regional leaders.

Each of these initiatives recognized that military confrontation alone would not end the crisis. They sought to create space for political dialogue, confidence-building measures and eventual reconciliation. However, implementation repeatedly stalled. Mutual distrust grew. Accusations replaced negotiations. Ceasefires collapsed. Armed actors returned to the battlefield and the result is the renewed violence witnessed today.

The East African Community Force: A Different Approach

One of the most significant peace initiatives was the deployment of the East African Community Regional Force.
Unlike previous military missions, the EAC force was designed not merely as a combat operation but as a stabilizing mechanism intended to facilitate dialogue and create conditions for political negotiations.

In 2022 American lawmakers visited President Museveni with a view of understanding how the EAC deployment might contribute to regional stability and the host explained that the presence of a regional force composed of neighboring states would help prevent escalation and create an environment conducive to negotiations rather than regional confrontation and the logic was straightforward.

When troops from Kenya, Uganda, Burundi and other regional states were deployed under a collective mandate, it became more difficult for any regional actor to undermine the mission. The force could serve as a neutral stabilizer while political leaders pursued dialogue.

This approach aligned closely with Nyerere’s long-standing belief that military deployments should support political settlements rather than replace them.

The Fundamental Disagreement: War or Negotiation?

The EAC mission soon encountered a critical challenge. The government in Kinshasa expected the force to confront and defeat the M23 militarily whereas the regional force emphasized that they were deployed to facilitate peace and encourage negotiations rather than become another participant in the conflict.

This distinction was crucial.

The EAC force viewed itself as a bridge toward dialogue whereas my friend and namesake in Kinshasa increasingly viewed it as an instrument for military victory.

The divergence ultimately became unsustainable and In December 2023, President Félix terminated the EAC deployment and ordered the force to withdraw. This decision marked a turning point in the conflict.

Consequences of the Withdrawal

The withdrawal of the EAC force removed a key regional mechanism designed to support political engagement.
Ugandan forces left Goma under the EAC framework while maintaining Operation Shujaa, a separate joint military operation targeting extremist groups.

Burundi maintained its presence, while the broader EAC mission came to an end.
The departure of the regional force effectively closed one of the most significant channels through which dialogue with armed groups could have been pursued under regional supervision.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision, the consequence was clear as the political track weakened while military calculations increasingly dominated decision-making.

The SADC Intervention and the Limits of Military Solutions

Following the departure of the EAC force, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) deployed troops from South Africa, Tanzania, and Malawi.

The mission represented a different strategy rather than emphasizing mediation, it was perceived primarily as a military effort to counter the M23 Yet the results have reinforced a lesson repeatedly observed throughout the history of the Great Lakes region. Military superiority does not automatically translate into political success. Despite considerable resources and military capabilities, the conflict persisted, battlefield dynamics shifted, territories changed hands and casualties increased, but a definitive resolution remained elusive and the core political issues underlying the conflict remained unresolved.

This outcome mirrors countless conflicts across Africa and the world where military campaigns have failed to produce sustainable peace in the absence of meaningful political dialogue.

Why Peace Talks Remain the Most Viable Option

Several realities make negotiations unavoidable.

1. No Military Victory Appears Imminent. After years of fighting, neither side has achieved a decisive victory capable of ending the conflict permanently. Military operations may alter tactical realities, but they have not eliminated the underlying drivers of violence.

2. The Human Cost Is Unsustainable

Millions of Congolese civilians have suffered displacement, poverty, insecurity and loss of life. Every additional year of conflict deepens humanitarian suffering and weakens prospects for long-term development. Many of us still alive and our comrades we lost in DRC in pursuit of peace are at pain to see what is happening in Eastern DRC.

Regional Stability Is at Stake

Eastern DRC’s conflict is intertwined with broader regional security concerns involving Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, and other neighboring states. A negotiated settlement offers the best opportunity to reduce regional tensions and prevent escalation. The root causes are political with
questions surrounding governance, citizenship, local representation, resource control, refugee return, ethnic tensions and regional security which CAN NOT be solved through military means alone. These are political problems requiring political solutions.

Lessons from African History

African history provides numerous examples demonstrating the power of dialogue.

The end of apartheid in South Africa was achieved through negotiations.

Mozambique’s civil war ended through peace talks.

Liberia and Sierra Leone emerged from devastating conflicts through negotiated settlements.

Even where military pressure played a role, lasting peace only became possible when adversaries sat at the negotiating table.

The same lesson applies to Eastern DRC.

A Return to Nyerere’s Wisdom

Mwalimu Nyerere and Museveni understood something many leaders struggle to accept during wartime: refusing to talk to one’s adversaries often prolongs conflict rather than ends it.

Negotiation does not mean surrender.

Dialogue does not mean endorsement.

Peace talks do not imply agreement with every action of an opponent.

Rather, negotiations acknowledge a practical reality that sustainable peace requires a political settlement that addresses the interests and concerns of all relevant actors.

Eastern DRC stands at a crossroads.

The region can continue pursuing military solutions that have repeatedly failed to deliver lasting peace or it can return to the path envisioned by regional statesmen such as Mwalimu Nyerere and Museveni, one centered on dialogue, diplomacy, compromise and implementation of existing agreements.

The evidence of recent years suggests that peace talks are not merely an option but they are the most viable path toward ending one of Africa’s longest and most devastating conflicts.

When you make a conservative estimate of the expenditure using declared figures todate by the DRC and its partners they have spent well over US$3–5 billion directly and indirectly on military efforts related to M23 since the group’s resurgence in late 2021 and this does not include:

• Lost tax revenue from occupied territories.
• Economic losses from disrupted mining activities.
• Humanitarian assistance for millions of displaced people.
• The cost of UN peacekeeping operations.
• Damage to infrastructure and local economies.

Imagine what this money would do if used in the infrastructure development of the country.

This is why many analysts on DRC like me, regional leaders, including the late Julius Nyerere have long argued that durable political agreements and implementation of signed peace accords are ultimately less costly and more effective than relying solely on military solutions.

As Nyerere’s legacy reminds us, wars may begin on the battlefield, but they end around the negotiating table. I pray leaders listen to the living great statesman Gen Museveni who has the highest experience and find a lasting solution.