Fear grips Congo’s Uvira as M23 rebels take control, displacing 200,000

Congolese civilians gather after returning to their homes following displacement during renewed clashes between Alliance Fleuve Congo AFC/M23 and the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in Uvira town, South Kivu province, Congo Dec. 13, 2025. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 14 December 2025
Follow

Fear grips Congo’s Uvira as M23 rebels take control, displacing 200,000

  • On Saturday, the situation in Uvira still had not returned to normal
  • “Some people left the city, but we stayed,” Maria Esther, a 45-year-old mother of 10, told AP

UVIRA, CONGO: A climate of fear reigned Saturday in Uvira, a strategic city in eastern Congo, days after it fell to the Rwanda -backed M23 group, as fighting in the region escalated despite a US mediated peace deal.
The Associated Press gained rare access to the city, which was the Congo government’s last major foothold in South Kivu province after the provincial capital of Bukavu fell to the rebels in February. Its capture allows the rebels to consolidate a broad corridor of influence across the east.
M23 said it took control of Uvira earlier this week, following a rapid offensive launched at the start of the month. Along with the more than 400 people killed, about 200,000 have been displaced, regional officials say.
On Saturday, the situation in Uvira still had not returned to normal. There was absolute silence and no traffic, apart from military jeeps circulating on the empty streets. The banks were closed and people have not resumed their jobs — only a few dared to go out during the day, and no one ventured outside after sunset, with armed M23 fighters patrolling the city.
“Some people left the city, but we stayed,” Maria Esther, a 45-year-old mother of 10, told AP. “But the situation hasn’t returned to normal, we haven’t resumed our usual activities because there’s no money circulating.”
Joli Bulambo, another resident of Uvira, said: “People thought that the situation that had happened in Goma with the deaths would be the same here in Uvira, but fortunately, there were not many deaths because God helped.”
M23’s latest push
The rebels’ latest offensive comes despite a US-mediated peace agreement signed last week by the Congolese and Rwandan presidents in Washington.
The United States accused Rwanda of violating the agreement by backing a deadly new rebel offensive in the mineral-rich eastern Congo, and warned that the Trump administration will take action against “spoilers” of the deal.
The accord didn’t include the rebel group, which is negotiating separately with Congo and agreed earlier this year to a ceasefire that both sides accuse the other of violating. However, it obliges Rwanda to halt support for armed groups like M23 and work to end hostilities.
Marco Rubio, US Secretary of State, said on X on Saturday: “Rwanda’s actions in eastern DRC are a clear violation of the Washington Accords signed by President Trump, and the United States will take action to ensure promises made to the President are kept.”
There was no immediate reaction from Rwanda.
The rebels’ advance pushed the conflict to the doorstep of neighboring Burundi, which has maintained troops in eastern Congo for years, heightening fears of a broader regional spillover.
A struggle for mineral rich territory
More than 100 armed groups are vying for a foothold in mineral-rich eastern Congo, near the border with Rwanda, most prominently M23. The conflict has created one of the world’s most significant humanitarian crises, with more than 7 million people displaced, according to the UN agency for refugees.
Local UN partners report that more than 200,000 people have been displaced across the province since Dec. 2. Civilians also have crossed into Burundi, and there have been reports of shells falling in the town of Rugombo, on the Burundian side of the border, raising concerns about the conflict spilling over into Burundian territory.
Congo, the US and UN experts accuse Rwanda of backing M23, which has grown from hundreds of members in 2021 to around 6,500 fighters, according to the UN
Rwanda, Congo and M23 trade accusations

Congo’s Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner on Friday accused Rwanda of trampling on the peace agreement, which she described as bringing “hope of a historic turning point.”
She warned, however, that the “entire process … is at stake,” and urged the Security Council to impose sanctions against military and political leaders responsible for the attacks, ban mineral exports from Rwanda and prohibit it from contributing troops to UN peacekeeping missions.
“Rwanda continues to benefit, especially financially but also in terms of reputation, from its status as a troop-contributing country to peacekeeping missions,” Wagner told AP.
Bertrand Bisimwa, deputy coordinator of the AFC/M23 rebel movement told AP in an exclusive interview Friday that peace commitments have remained largely theoretical. “Regardless of the ceasefire agreements we sign and the mutual commitments we make, nothing is implemented on the ground,” he said.
Asked about the expansion of M23 operations toward the Uvira region, Bisimwa said the region was a long-standing hot spot of ethnic tensions and violence. “For a long time, people were attacked and killed because of their community affiliation,” he said.
On Friday, Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe told diplomats that Congo had declared it would continue fighting in M23 recaptured territories and it was only after M23 retaliated that the international community “suddenly woke up.”
“The DRC has openly declared that it would not observe any ceasefire and would instead continue fighting to recapture territories held by the AFC/M23, even as the peace process unfolded,” he said.
While Rwanda denies the claim that it backs M23, it acknowledged last year that it has troops and missile systems in eastern Congo, allegedly to safeguard its security. UN experts estimate there are up to 4,000 Rwandan forces in Congo.


House Republicans barely defeat Venezuela war powers resolution to check Trump’s military actions

Updated 23 January 2026
Follow

House Republicans barely defeat Venezuela war powers resolution to check Trump’s military actions

WASHINGTON: The House rejected a Democratic-backed resolution Thursday that would have prevented President Donald Trump from sending US military forces to Venezuela after a tied vote on the legislation fell just short of the majority needed for passage.
The tied vote was the latest sign of Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson’s tenuous hold on the majority, as well as some of the growing pushback in the GOP-controlled Congress to Trump’s aggressions in the Western Hemisphere. A Senate vote on a similar resolution was also tied last week until Vice President JD Vance broke the deadlock.
To defeat the resolution Thursday, Republican leaders had to hold the vote open for more than 20 minutes while Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt, who had been out of Washington all week campaigning for a Senate seat in Texas, rushed back to Capitol Hill to cast the decisive vote.
On the House floor, Democrats responded with shouts that Republican leaders were violating the chamber’s procedural rules. Two Republicans — Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky — voted with all Democrats for the legislation.
The war powers resolution would have directed Trump to remove US troops from Venezuela. The Trump administration told senators last week that there are no US troops on the ground in the South American nation and committed to getting congressional approval before launching major military operations there.
But Democrats argued that the resolution is necessary after the US raid to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and since Trump has stated plans to control the country’s oil industry for years to come.
The response to Trump’s foreign policy
Thursday’s vote was the latest test in Congress of how much leeway Republicans will give a president who campaigned on removing the US from foreign entanglements but has increasingly reached for military options to impose his will in the Western Hemisphere. So far, almost all Republicans have declined to put checks on Trump through the war powers votes.
Rep. Brian Mast, the Republican chair of the House Armed Services Committee, accused Democrats of bringing the war powers resolution to a vote out of “spite” for Trump.
“It’s about the fact that you don’t want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history,” Mast added.
Still, Democrats stridently argued that Congress needs to assert its role in determining when the president can use wartime powers. They have been able to force a series of votes in both the House and Senate as Trump, in recent months, ramped up his campaign against Maduro and set his sights on other conflicts overseas.
“Donald Trump is reducing the United States to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies,” Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during a floor debate. “This isn’t making America great again. It’s making us isolated and weak.”
Last week, Senate Republicans were only able to narrowly dismiss the Venezuela war powers resolution after the Trump administration persuaded two Republicans to back away from their earlier support. As part of that effort, Secretary of State Marco Rubio committed to a briefing next week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Yet Trump’s insistence that the US will possess Greenland over the objections of Denmark, a NATO ally, has alarmed some Republicans on Capitol Hill. They have mounted some of the most outspoken objections to almost anything the president has done since taking office.
Trump this week backed away from military and tariff threats against European allies as he announced that his administration was working with NATO on a “framework of a future deal” on Arctic security.
But Bacon still expressed frustration with Trump’s aggressive foreign policy and voted for the war powers resolution even though it only applies to Venezuela.
“I’m tired of all the threats,” he said.
Trump’s recent military actions — and threats to do more — have reignited a decades-old debate in Congress over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s by lawmakers looking to claw back their authority over military actions.
The war powers debate
The War Powers Resolution was passed in the Vietnam War era as the US sent troops to conflicts throughout Asia. It attempted to force presidents to work with Congress to deploy troops if there hasn’t already been a formal declaration of war.
Under the legislation, lawmakers can also force votes on legislation that directs the president to remove US forces from hostilities.
Presidents have long tested the limits of those parameters, and Democrats argue that Trump in his second term has pushed those limits farther than ever.
The Trump administration left Congress in the dark ahead of the surprise raid to capture Maduro. It has also used an evolving set of legal justifications to blow up alleged drug boats and seize sanctioned oil tankers near Venezuela.
Democrats question who gets to benefit from Venezuelan oil licenses
As the Trump administration oversees the sale of Venezuela’s petroleum worldwide, Senate Democrats are also questioning who is benefiting from the contracts.
In one of the first transactions, the US granted Vitol, the world’s largest independent oil broker, a license worth roughly $250 million. A senior partner at Vitol, John Addison, gave roughly $6 million to Trump-aligned political action committees during the presidential election, according to donation records compiled by OpenSecrets.
“Congress and the American people deserve full transparency regarding any financial commitments, promises, deals, or other arrangements related to Venezuela that could favor donors to the President’s campaign and political operation,” 13 Democratic senators wrote to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles Thursday in a letter led by Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.
The White House has said it is safeguarding the South American country’s oil for the benefit of both the people of Venezuela and the US