Share this article
On 2 June 2026, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned two men: Gustave Kubwayo (“Colonel Sirkoof”), an intelligence and special-operations commander of the FDLR, and John Imani Nzenze, intelligence chief of the M23. Both were listed under the same authority, Executive Order 13413, and described in near-identical terms as “commanders” of “armed groups undermining stability in eastern DRC.” The action is welcome. But the language Washington chose, and the language it avoided, deserves close and measured scrutiny.
The positive significance
The move is a genuine step forward. For the first time in this cycle of escalation, the United States has named and sanctioned a serving FDLR commander, signalling that the militia is not a forgotten relic but an active target of US pressure. Treasury restated the core expectation of the Washington Accords of 4 December 2025: that “the DRC neutralize FDLR and affiliated groups.” Crucially, the release also records that the FDLR “has solicited support from DRC militias and Congolese Army units… despite a DRC government ban on cooperation with FDLR.” That single sentence, sourced to the US itself, confirms what UN Groups of Experts have reported for years: the FDLR operates with the Congolese army, not against it.
What the chosen language quietly omits
The release describes the FDLR only as “a rebel group that formed in 2000 from the remnants of the ex-Rwandan Armed Forces and extremist militias that fled Rwanda in the wake of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.” Every word is technically true, yet the framing is sanitised, and three things go missing. The word “genocidal”: the release itemises looting, illegal taxation, kidnapping for ransom and illegal logging — ordinary war-economy crimes — but says nothing of the FDLR’s founding purpose, an exterminationist, Hutu-supremacist ideology aimed at Tutsi. The word “Rwandan”: the FDLR is a Rwandan group, led by Rwandan nationals, whose stated war aim is regime change in Kigali. And the victims: the Tutsi, in Rwanda and in Congo, whom the release never names. The US has been blunter before. Its 2009 designation (tg-49) called the FDLR a group “made up of ex-Rwandese Armed Forces, Interahamwe, and other Hutu extremists, including those responsible for the Rwandan genocide of 1994,” and its January 2025 release (jy1703) identified FDLR leaders explicitly as “a Rwandan national.” The 2026 text retreats from that clarity, presenting a foreign genocidal force as a generic “armed group… in eastern DRC” — and erasing the ideological line that runs from 1994 to the present threat against Congolese Tutsi and the Banyamulenge.
The asymmetry of naming: “Rwanda-backed” M23, but not “Rwandan” FDLR
The most revealing choice is comparative. Throughout the press release, M23 is repeatedly tagged “Rwanda-backed.” The FDLR is never tagged “Rwandan.” This is an analytical inconsistency with real consequences. M23 is, in origin and composition, a Congolese Tutsi movement — a community that is itself the intended victim of the FDLR’s ideology. Yet the US foregrounds Rwanda as M23’s external sponsor while obscuring the FDLR’s own national identity and the state cooperation that sustains it. The effect is to keep Rwanda rhetorically attached to the conflict at every turn, while the genocidal force that justifies Rwanda’s security concerns is described as if it had no country, no creed and indeed no state sponsor.
The legal and political danger for the US as mediator
This reflects a wider habit: a culture of political equalisation, in which sanctions are paired off for diplomatic symmetry even when the underlying security matters are unequal and unrelated. Behind it lies a familiar tendency to read African conflicts through simplistic moral binaries — good versus evil, victim versus perpetrator, or two equally culpable sides — frameworks that flatten the political, historical and social complexity that actually shapes security on the continent. Here that habit produces a specific error: because AFC/M23 is a Congolese political and military movement that mobilised against the DRC’s governance failures, the FDLR is quietly assumed to be its mirror-image counterpart.
It is not. As guarantor of the Washington Accords, the US must be seen as even-handed — but even-handedness is not the same as false equivalence. By listing an FDLR commander and an M23 commander side by side, under the same Executive Order, in the same sentence, with the same generic label of “armed group,” the release places them on equal moral footing. They are not equal. The FDLR is a UN- and US-designated terrorist group formed by the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi; AFC/M23 emerged in 2012 from a Congolese rebellion rooted in the protection of a threatened minority. Equating the two is the moral equivalent of casting Nazis and the fighters who resisted them as interchangeable — a posture that, applied to 1994, edges toward a denialism of the genocide itself. Legally, it muddies the distinction between aggressor ideology and defensive reaction that any durable settlement must preserve. Politically, it hands Kinshasa a narrative of symmetry that lets it evade its own treaty obligation to neutralise the FDLR — the very obligation the same release affirms.
Conclusion
The sanctions are a step in the right direction and should be acknowledged as such. But a mediator’s words are instruments of policy. By stripping the FDLR of the words “genocidal” and “Rwandan,” and by framing it as the mirror image of AFC/M23, the United States risks blurring the moral and legal asymmetry at the heart of this conflict — and undercutting the Washington Accords it is trying to enforce. Precision of language is not a courtesy here. It is the difference between naming a genocidal threat and laundering it.