UK condemns M23 capture of Uvira at UN Security Council

If you are following events in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, here is the headline: the United Kingdom told the UN Security Council that it condemns M23’s recent capture of Uvira in South Kivu and wants the fighting to stop immediately. The UK also welcomed the Washington Accords signed last week and a Framework Agreement signed in Doha last month, crediting the United States, Qatar and the African Union for their roles, and urging all signatories to deliver on what they have agreed. This comes directly from a UK Government statement at the Security Council.

M23 is an armed group operating in eastern DRC. In its statement, the UK said M23’s latest offensive took Uvira, a major lakeside city close to the Burundi border, and alleged the operation had support from the Rwandan Defence Forces. The UK stressed that there is no military solution to this conflict, even as violence has risen in South Kivu despite movement on the political tracks.

When fighting escalates, people pay the price first. The UK warned that the situation for civilians is already severe and likely to worsen as more families seek safety in neighbouring Burundi. Médecins Sans Frontières told the Council about conflict‑related sexual violence; the UK repeated its concern over reports of human rights violations by parties to the conflict.

It helps to know the rules that still apply in war. International humanitarian law (IHL) requires all sides-state forces and non‑state armed groups-to protect civilians, prohibit sexual violence, respect medical and humanitarian staff, and treat detainees humanely. The UK called on every actor in eastern DRC to comply fully with these obligations, without exceptions.

The statement highlighted alleged abuses by multiple armed actors, naming M23 and groups often referred to collectively as Wazalendo. Wazalendo is a label widely used for community‑based fighters who say they back national defence. Whatever the label, the legal duties are the same: stop abuse, investigate violations, and support survivors.

On peacekeeping, the UK reiterated full support for MONUSCO-the UN mission in the DRC-which still has a protection‑of‑civilians mandate. The UK also backed a role for MONUSCO in monitoring any ceasefire so that political agreements translate into real safety for people. For this to work in practice, the mission needs open roads and airspace, not threats, blockades or misinformation.

Security Council decisions set the framework for that work. The UK urged all parties to comply with Resolution 2773, pressed M23 to lift any obstructions to UN operations, and asked everyone to respect MONUSCO’s freedom of movement in line with Council decisions. These are practical steps that allow peacekeepers to reach vulnerable communities and report accurately on any violations.

If you teach or study global politics, this is a timely case study. You can map how high‑level agreements-the Washington Accords and the Doha Framework Agreement-sit alongside battlefield realities. Implementation is the real test: orders to halt attacks, access for aid, and checks that civilians actually feel safer in places like Uvira and along the Burundi border.

A quick media‑literacy check also helps us read official statements with care. Who is speaking? In this case, a UK Government representative at the UN. What is being alleged? That M23 took Uvira with support from the Rwandan Defence Forces. Whom does the statement hold responsible for abuse? M23 and Wazalendo are named. The citation of testimony from Médecins Sans Frontières signals the need to track independent reporting and UN monitoring alongside government positions.

What should we watch next? Whether signatories act on their agreements; whether MONUSCO can move freely to protect civilians and verify any pause in fighting; and whether displacement into Burundi slows. The UK’s closing message was straightforward: use this opening to deliver peace, prosperity and security for people in eastern DRC.