UK condemns M23 capture of Uvira and backs MONUSCO

On 12 December 2025 in New York, UK Minister‑Counsellor Jennifer MacNaughtan told the UN Security Council that Britain welcomes the Washington Accords and last month’s Doha Framework, condemns the M23 offensive and takeover of Uvira, and backs MONUSCO to protect civilians and help monitor a ceasefire. The message was plain: stop the fighting now, comply with Resolution 2773, and let the UN mission move freely.

Here is what we know about Uvira from verified reporting. M23, operating within the Alliance Fleuve Congo coalition, pushed deeper into South Kivu this week, with residents fleeing towards the Burundian border and heavy clashes around key routes. The UN Secretary‑General said more than 200,000 people have been displaced since 2 December and condemned the offensive in and around Uvira; Reuters cited residents reporting that rebels had taken control of the town.

Britain’s statement placed real weight on MONUSCO, the UN mission in Congo. In moments like this, peacekeepers are often the only organised presence capable of deterring attacks on civilians, keeping roads open for aid and checking whether a ceasefire is genuine. The UK backed a monitoring role for MONUSCO and pressed for full freedom of movement, calling on M23 to remove all obstructions to its work.

For your notes: Resolution 2773 was adopted unanimously earlier this year. It condemns M23’s offensives, urges Kinshasa and Kigali back to talks, calls for the withdrawal of Rwandan forces from Congolese territory, and demands humanitarian access, including temporary corridors in North and South Kivu. It also reaffirms support for MONUSCO’s mandate and warns against any attempts to restrict it.

Two political tracks sit behind the UK’s remarks. On 4 December, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda signed the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity; on 15 November, parties in Doha endorsed a Framework for a comprehensive agreement. The UN and the UK want these commitments honoured in full. Notably, Associated Press reports that M23 was not a signatory to the Washington deal, which helps explain the gap between diplomacy and armed actors’ behaviour on the ground.

Who is who matters. When you see AFC/M23, think of a rebel coalition led by March 23 Movement under the Alliance Fleuve Congo banner. Congolese officials, the United States and UN experts accuse Rwanda’s Defence Forces of supporting M23 with logistics, training and troops; Rwanda denies this and says Congo works with anti‑Rwanda militias. As a reader, hold both the allegations and the denials in view and look for evidence, not just statements.

Wazalendo is the umbrella term for community‑based militias aligned with the Congolese army. Human Rights Watch has detailed abuses by Wazalendo groups in South Kivu, including attacks on Banyamulenge villages, while Amnesty International has recorded grave violations by both M23 and Wazalendo, including conflict‑related sexual violence. This is why the UK insists that all sides comply with international humanitarian law.

Sexual violence is not a side note. The UK told the Council it had heard harrowing testimony from Médecins Sans Frontières and called on every party to protect civilians. For classroom discussion, that means we centre people’s safety alongside the headlines about territory and talks.

How should you read claims about who controls a city? Start by checking who is speaking and what they can see. In Uvira, an M23 spokesperson claimed the town was “liberated”, Reuters spoke to residents reporting rebel control, while The Guardian noted Burundi’s foreign minister initially disputed the fall. In fast‑moving crises, figures and language shift quickly-treat early statements as provisional.

What to watch next over the coming days is practical and measurable. Do hostilities stop in line with Resolution 2773, do aid agencies get safe passage, and do peacekeepers move without roadblocks in South Kivu? If refugees continue to cross into Burundi in large numbers, the humanitarian picture is worsening; if flows ease and access opens, the political commitments are beginning to stick.