Rwanda’s Refusal to Reopen Goma Airport After the Paris Conference

Rwanda's Refusal to Reopen Goma Airport After the Paris Conference: A Confirmation of the Ongoing Balkanisation of the DRC

Introduction: A Missed Diplomatic Turning Point

On 30 October 2025, Paris hosted a major diplomatic event: the Conference in Support of Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region. This meeting, chaired by French President Emmanuel Macron and conducted with regional facilitator Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé, President of Togo, aimed to revive a political dynamic capable of halting the deterioration of security in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It brought together governments, international donors, multilateral institutions and humanitarian agencies, all aware of the humanitarian emergency and the geopolitical stakes of the region.

At the end of the discussions, the conference announced the mobilisation of approximately €1.5 billion, a sum intended to support stabilisation, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and economic recovery. One of the central recommendations concerned the immediate reopening of Goma International Airport, an essential infrastructure for security, the economy and humanitarian operations. Yet despite the international agreement, Rwanda categorically opposed it. This refusal is far from a simple logistical disagreement; it is a decisive step confirming that the progressive balkanisation of the DRC is underway.

The Paris Conference: An International Stabilisation Effort

Diplomatic Context and Key Actors

The Paris Conference formed part of a long series of mediation attempts that had until then failed to achieve lasting stabilisation. Unlike previous initiatives, the Paris meeting benefited from high-level political support, notably from France, eager to play a structuring role in a region threatened by military escalation, humanitarian catastrophe and growing territorial fragmentation.

Emmanuel Macron, as President of the French Republic, gave the conference significant political and diplomatic weight. Faure Gnassingbé, as the official facilitator between Kigali and Kinshasa, played a central role in securing verbal commitments from the parties and defining a follow-up mechanism.

Official Title and Objectives of the Conference

Its full name, "Conference in Support of Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region," reflects its ambition. The goals were to strengthen regional peace efforts, mobilise substantial funding, and establish a clear roadmap for stabilising the DRC and neighbouring countries.

Discussions focused on three pillars: regional security, humanitarian access and economic reconstruction. The reopening of Goma Airport was considered one of the priority emergency measures because it was an essential lever for all other recommendations.

The Main Recommendations Adopted in Paris

Immediate Reopening of Goma Airport

Of all the recommendations adopted, the one concerning Goma Airport was regarded as the most urgent. Participants emphasised that this airport is the only air gateway connecting North Kivu to the rest of the world. Its reopening was meant to restore humanitarian flights, deliver emergency aid, restart economic activity, and re-establish state presence in an area significantly weakened by the advance of the M23.

Strict Respect for the Territorial Integrity of the DRC

The conference reaffirmed that the sovereignty of the DRC is a non-negotiable principle. Participants recalled the illegality of any territorial occupation by foreign forces or armed groups supported from abroad, insisting that any attempt to redefine national borders must be firmly condemned.

Unhindered Humanitarian Access

An immediate objective was to ensure that humanitarian organisations could reach displaced and affected populations. Leaders stressed the urgency of opening secure humanitarian corridors, facilitating the movement of humanitarian workers, and protecting civilians trapped in hostilities.

Ending Support to Armed Groups

The conference reiterated that armed groups operating in eastern DRC—particularly the M23, the FDLR, the ADF and other transnational militias—must be dismantled. Participants demanded that all external support, whether military, logistical or financial, cease immediately.

A Historic Financial Commitment of €1.5 Billion

International donors announced a total envelope of €1.5 billion, consisting of humanitarian aid, stabilisation funds, reconstruction programmes and investments in regional development. This funding was intended to provide structural support for reconstruction and peacebuilding.

A Diplomacy Follow-Up Mechanism Assigned to the Facilitator

Faure Gnassingbé received the official mandate to oversee the implementation of the recommendations. He was responsible for coordinating consultations between Kinshasa and Kigali, producing interim reports, and ensuring compliance with the commitments made in Paris.

Rwanda's Refusal: A Political Signal With Serious Consequences

The Strategic Importance of Goma for Kigali

Less than 48 hours after the conference, Rwanda rejected the recommendation to reopen Goma Airport. This refusal can only be interpreted as a strategic calculation. Goma, a city bordering Rwanda, is a vital economic centre, a key logistical hub and a gateway to territories occupied by the M23.

Reopening the airport would have enabled Kinshasa to strengthen its authority, rapidly transfer troops, deploy essential services and facilitate humanitarian operations. It would also have allowed the international community to observe the situation on the ground more transparently.

By opposing this measure, Rwanda seeks to maintain an area of influence indirectly controlled through the M23, thereby ensuring the continued weakening of the Congolese state in the region.

A Strategy Consistent With a Broader Regional Agenda

Rwanda's refusal is not an isolated incident. For more than twenty years, Kigali has pursued a strategy combining military pressure, support for rebel groups, establishment of parallel administrations and illegal exploitation of Congolese resources. The objective is never formally declared, but the cumulative effects point to an attempt to transform part of eastern DRC into a space under Rwandan influence.

Goma Airport is a crucial infrastructure. Keeping it closed results in further isolation of North Kivu, prevents reconstruction and consolidates the M23's presence.

The Balkanisation of the DRC: A Now Visible Process

Clear Signs of Territorial Fragmentation

In areas occupied by the M23, observers report the establishment of a parallel administration. Foreign officers circulate freely, informal tax systems are imposed, and some economic transactions are conducted in Rwandan francs. Natural resources are systematically exploited and transported to Rwanda without any ability of the Congolese state to intervene.

The prolonged closure of Goma Airport fits perfectly into this logic. It creates a logistical rupture between North Kivu and the rest of the country, gradually transforming the region into an area cut off from Kinshasa.

The Transformation of Goma Into an External Sphere of Influence

As a provincial capital, Goma holds immense symbolic and strategic value. Kigali's determination to prevent the resumption of air operations indicates a clear intention: reducing the Congolese state's capacity to control its own territory and fostering the emergence of a geopolitical entity operating outside national sovereignty.

Conclusion: A Refusal That Confirms the Advance of Balkanisation

The Paris Conference sought to open a new chapter for the Great Lakes region. It mobilised exceptional financial resources, brought together major international stakeholders and proposed clear solutions. Yet Rwanda's categorical refusal to authorise the reopening of Goma Airport shows that some actors have no interest in stabilisation.

This refusal confirms a worrying trend: the progressive balkanisation of the DRC is no longer a hypothesis but a visible, structured process being implemented on the ground. In light of this, it is the responsibility of the states and institutions that took part in the Paris Conference to recognise the seriousness of the situation and assume their obligations in following through on the commitments made.

References

• RFI Afrique, "RDC : à Paris, une conférence de soutien à la paix dans la région des Grands Lacs," October 2025.
• Human Rights Watch, "Paris Meeting Should Prioritize Promoting Aid and Justice in Congo," October 2025.
• European External Action Service (EEAS), "Conference for Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region," communiqué, November 2025.
• Xinhua / English.news.cn, "France mobilizes 1.74 billion USD for Great Lakes peace efforts," October 2025.
• United Nations, Group of Experts on the DRC, Reports 2012–2024.
• International Crisis Group, analyses on conflicts in Central Africa and the M23 issue.

 

The Responsibility of the International Community in the Crisis in Eastern DRC: Diplomatic Ambiguity, Deliberate Inaction, and Moral Failure.

The Responsibility of the International Community in the Crisis in Eastern DRC: Diplomatic Ambiguity, Deliberate Inaction, and Moral Failure.

Introduction: A Deepening Crisis Worsened by International Silence

The crisis in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has reached a critical point, marked by intensifying violence, the occupation of vast territories by the M23 rebel movement, the active involvement of Rwanda, and a humanitarian collapse affecting millions of civilians.
One of the most striking symbols of this situation is the persistent refusal to reopen Goma International Airport—an essential infrastructure for the survival of the local population and for the sovereignty of the DRC.

Yet during the Conference for Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region, held in Paris on 30 October 2025, states and international institutions unanimously recommended the immediate reopening of the airport. This measure was meant to ensure humanitarian access, restart economic activity, and gradually restore Congolese state authority.
Despite this consensus, no government, no international organisation, and no global power demanded its implementation. Rwanda categorically rejected the recommendation, and the international community accepted this rejection through its silence.

This situation raises a fundamental question: how can such a grave and well-documented crisis persist under the watch of the international community without it fulfilling its moral and legal obligations?
This article offers an in-depth analysis of international responsibility, highlighting the behaviour of leading powers, regional organisations, and the United Nations, and examining their moral, political, and legal implications.

Major Powers: Geopolitical Calculations and Diplomatic Incoherence

The United States: A Powerful Actor Choosing Ambiguity

The United States, as the world's leading power, wields significant political influence in the Great Lakes region. Rwanda remains a key ally of Washington, especially in regional security and counter-terrorism operations. Yet despite multiple reports proving Rwandan involvement in supporting the M23 and occupying Congolese territory, Washington has never demanded the reopening of Goma airport.

U.S. official communications rely on cautious diplomacy, calling for peace and dialogue without imposing any coercive measures or political pressure on Kigali. This attitude reflects a political priority: preserving a strategic alliance, even at the expense of Congolese sovereignty and the lives of millions of civilians.

France: Proclaimed Leadership Without Follow-Through After the Paris Conference

By organising the Paris Conference, France presented itself as a central actor for peace in the Great Lakes region. President Emmanuel Macron, who chaired the conference alongside facilitator Faure Gnassingbé, stressed the importance of defending Congolese sovereignty and promoting a lasting solution.

Yet when Rwanda publicly rejected the conference's key recommendation—the reopening of Goma airport—Paris remained silent.
No statement, no diplomatic brief, no official comment demanded implementation of the commitments taken in Paris.

This incoherence weakens France's credibility and demonstrates that the conference was, in essence, a rhetorical exercise without the political will to enforce its own decisions.

Qatar: Passive Neutrality that Sustains the Status Quo

Qatar, now a significant international actor in regional diplomacy, played a supportive role in financing and facilitating discussions. Yet its active diplomatic involvement did not translate into clear demands for the implementation of the Paris recommendations.
Qatar opted for passive neutrality, avoiding confrontation with Kigali and thereby allowing the Rwandan refusal to stand unchallenged.
This stance reinforces the status quo and contributes to the paralysis of international action.

The African Union: An Institution Paralyzed by Consensus Politics

The African Union (AU), which should champion African interests and defend the sovereignty of its member states, proved incapable of acting effectively in the Congolese crisis.

Its official statements referred to the need for African dialogue, de-escalation, and concerted solutions. Yet no concrete measures were taken to demand the reopening of Goma airport, condemn Rwanda's actions, or protect Congolese civilians.
This paralysis stems from the AU's internal logic of avoiding direct confrontations among member states, including when one of them blatantly violates international law.
Non-interference, in this context, becomes a tool that protects governments—not people.

The United Nations: The Collapse of a System Supposed to Guarantee Peace

The posture of the United Nations in the Congolese crisis reflects a system losing its authority.
In 2024, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2773, requiring the cessation of support to armed groups, the immediate withdrawal of the M23 from occupied zones, the opening of humanitarian corridors, and the restoration of Congolese state authority.

This resolution, passed under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, is legally binding. All UN member states, including Rwanda, must comply with it.

Yet Kigali openly ignored it. The M23 did not withdraw—on the contrary, it strengthened its military and administrative presence in several strategic areas. Human rights violations multiplied. Roads and Goma airport remained closed, preventing humanitarian access.

Despite this flagrant violation of international law, the Security Council took no action: no sanctions, no coercive measures, no formal warnings.
This behaviour undermines the multilateral system and shows that UN resolutions can become symbolic documents when not accompanied by political will.

Rwanda's De Facto Control Over Goma Airport: A Direct Attack on Sovereignty

Statements by Rwandan officials following the Paris Conference confirmed a dangerous reality: Rwanda speaks as though it has authority over Goma airport. By declaring that "conditions do not permit the resumption of flights," Kigali positioned itself as a decision-maker over an infrastructure belonging to a sovereign state.

This is a grave violation of international law, but it reveals a truth the international community refuses to confront: Rwanda exercises de facto control over part of Congolese territory, including strategic infrastructure.
Global silence in the face of this reality confirms the passive complicity of numerous states and institutions.

Moral and Legal Responsibility of International Powers: Law, Ethics, and Collective Failure

Moral Responsibility: Silence that Kills

International powers cannot claim ignorance. They possess irrefutable evidence documenting the violations in eastern DRC: atrocities, mass displacement, Rwanda's support to the M23, the illegal exploitation of mineral resources, and the establishment of parallel administrative structures.

In the face of these facts, their silence is a profound moral failure.
Failing to act when one knows the violations and possesses the means to stop them is a form of participation in those crimes.
No nation can claim to defend human rights while tolerating the humanitarian collapse of an entire region.

Legal Responsibility: International Law Violated and Not Enforced

Resolution 2773 imposes a legal obligation on all states to ensure its enforcement. By allowing Rwanda to ignore it, the powers sitting on the Security Council—especially those with veto power—violate their own obligations.

International humanitarian law requires the protection of civilians, unhindered humanitarian access, and the prohibition of support to armed groups.
The closure of Goma airport violates these foundational principles. The international community, by refusing to demand its reopening, becomes legally complicit in these violations.

International jurisprudence recognises the concept of responsibility by omission: when a state is able to prevent a grave violation but chooses to do nothing, it bears responsibility.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

Adopted in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine obliges states to act—diplomatically, politically, or legally—when civilian populations face mass crimes.
The millions of displaced people, documented atrocities, and the humanitarian isolation of Goma fulfil all criteria of this doctrine.
Yet no power has invoked it.
This absence represents a historic failure and undermines the credibility of R2P itself.

Conclusion: The International Community as a Contributor to the Crisis Rather Than a Guarantor of Peace

The crisis in eastern DRC is not only the outcome of regional tensions or historical rivalries. It is also the product of the moral and legal failure of the international community.
By failing to enforce Resolution 2773, by allowing Rwanda to control a strategic Congolese airport, by accepting Kigali's refusal to reopen it, and by remaining silent in the face of mass displacement and atrocities, global powers become complicit in the gradual fragmentation of the DRC.

This crisis reveals a collapse of fundamental principles of the international system: sovereignty, equality between states, protection of civilians, and enforcement of law.
As long as the international community prioritises strategic alliances and economic interests over justice, law, and human life, eastern Congo will remain abandoned to violence, occupation, and global indifference.

References

1. European External Action Service (EEAS). "Conference for Peace and Prosperity in the Great Lakes Region." 30 October 2025. Available at: eeas.europa.eu.
2. French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs. "Conference in Paris on 30 October, in support of peace and prosperity in the Great Lakes region." 16 October 2025. Available at: diplomatie.gouv.fr.
3. United Nations Security Council. "Resolution S/RES/2773 (2025): The Situation Concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo." Adopted 21 February 2025. Available at: docs.un.org.
4. Human Rights Watch. "Paris Meeting Should Prioritize Promoting Aid and Justice in Congo." 30 October 2025. hrw.org.
5. EJIL:Talk! – Blog of the European Journal of International Law. "Three Legal Issues on First Reading of Resolution 2773 (2025) on Eastern DRC." 7 March 2025. ejiltalk.org.
6. UK Government (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office). "The United Kingdom urges the parties in eastern DRC to continue to engage in the ongoing peace processes… including the demands of the Council set out in Security Council resolution 2773." Speech delivered at the UN Security Council, 13 October 2025. gov.uk.

Prepared par :

Sam Nkumi, Chris Thomson & Gilberte  Bienvenue

Africa Realise, London, UK