Wealth and Warfare Empower a Rwanda-Backed Militant Group in Congo
Rare-earth minerals critical for smartphone manufacturing. Lucrative trafficking routes and dizzying stockpiles of weapons. The lives of millions of people. All are now under the control of the M23 militia and its powerful backer, Rwanda.
M23 reigns over a vast territory in eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, home to lucrative mines and other natural resources. In the major city of Goma, on the border with Rwanda, M23's soldiers now patrol the streets and M23-appointed officials rule the city. Congo's large but inept army has not slowed the group's advance, nor has condemnation by the United Nations Security Council.
After months of fighting, the leaders of Congo and Rwanda held talks in Qatar this week and called for an immediate cease-fire. M23 declined to comment on whether it would honor the cease-fire.
Last month, The Times traveled to Goma days after its capture by M23.
Butembo
Democratic
Republic
of Congo
Detail
Lake
Edward
uganda
M23's area
of influence
Rutshuru
Goma
Rubaya
coltan mine
RWANDA
Lake
Kivu
Kibuye
Bukavu
BURUNDI
60 miles
Democratic
Republic
of Congo
Lake Edward
60 miles
M23's area
of influence
uganda
Rutshuru
Rubaya
coltan mine
Goma
Lake
Kivu
RWANDA
Kibuye
Bukavu
Detail
tanzania
BURUNDI
Note: Data as of March 14
Source: International Peace Information Service
By Samuel Granados
M23, once a ragtag militia, now behaves like a governing entity in buzzing cities, lucrative coltan and gold mines, and strategic border crossings. Its immigration officers stamp passports, and in a city still scarred by deadly fighting, its leaders have urged young people to join its army so they can 'liberate Congo.'
The group has vowed to march on Kinshasa, Congo's capital. That makes M23 and Rwanda a threat to the sovereignty of Congo, the biggest country in sub-Saharan Africa by territory, with more than 100 million people, where millions of people have died in the last three decades in endless wars.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Prospects for diplomacy dim after Trump rejects Europe's efforts on Iran: ANALYSIS
Under a self-imposed deadline to pursue diplomacy with Iran and with no direct negotiations with the U.S. on the horizon, President Donald Trump acknowledged on Friday that the situation in the Middle East appeared to be deadlocked -- but said he would still give the Iranians a chance to "come to their senses." "I'm giving them a period of time, and I would say two weeks would be the maximum," the president said. Earlier in the day, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrapped up talks with several of his European counterparts in Geneva, but reiterated Iran's demand that Israel stop attacks on the country before it would be willing to seriously pursue any negotiations. Asked whether he would ask the Israelis to hold back, Trump said it was "very hard to make that request right now." "If someone is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if someone is losing," he said. "But we are ready, willing and able and have been speaking to Iran and we'll see what happens." The president also dismissed the talks held in Europe, playing down the already low expectations for a breakthrough. "They didn't help," Trump said of the discussions. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one." But despite the president's claim, Iran has so far rebuffed a standing offer from the U.S to resume nuclear negotiations. Some administration officials have argued that the president's posture is setting the stage for Iran to ultimately cave—betting that the regime will bend under regular Israeli bombardment and ultimately back off from key demands on enriching uranium under a new nuclear deal with the U.S. They also see Iran's leadership as scrambled by the assault from Israel and predict it might take several days before it is logistically possible to convene a meaningful round of negotiations with the U.S. Meanwhile, as sharp differences between Israeli and American assessments on Iran's nuclear abilities have come to the forefront, Trump has also showcased distrust for his own intelligence community, including his own director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. On Friday, Trump was asked about Gabbard's testimony to Congress in March that the U.S. assessed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. "She's wrong," Trump said flatly. Shortly after Trump spoke, Gabbard criticized the news media, posting on X, "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." The president's decision to hold back on hitting Iran has frustrated Israeli officials, who have been privately pushing their case for U.S. military involvement for months, according to officials familiar with the matter. At the United Nations Security Council on Friday, Israel's permanent representative to the body Danny Danon insisted his country could go it alone. "This isn't just Israel's fight, it is the world's fight. And if no one else will fight it, we will," he declared. But as Trump ponders military action and its possible consequences, analysts say giving Iran extra time may come with its own risks. "Iran could use the talks simply to buy time in the conflict or, at worst, to shift around its nuclear material and sprint to a bomb, although it would presumably be difficult to fully develop a nuclear weapons capability amid an ongoing war," said Heather Williams, the director of the Project on Nuclear Issues and a senior fellow in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Already, the security of tens of thousands of Americans in the Middle East is already in peril. According to the State Department, it has now provided "information and support" to over 25,000 people seeking guidance regarding the security situation in Israel, the West Bank and Iran. The department is planning government evacuations for U.S. citizens in Israel but has warned it does not anticipate offering direct assistance to Americans in Iran.
UPI
5 hours ago
- UPI
Supreme Court OKs challenge to California stricter emission standards
1 of 2 | Electric cars sit on a Tesla parking lot in Fremont, Calif. (May 2020). Fossil fuel companies can challenge California's stricter standards to reduce pollution from vehicles, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- Fossil fuel companies can challenge California setting stricter emissions standards for cars, the U.S Supreme Court ruled Friday. California has stipulated that only zero-emission cars will be able to sold there by 2035, with a phased increase in ZEV requirements for model years 2026-2035. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a fleet-wide average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, with higher standards in the following years. In the 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court ruled that oil producers have legal standing to sue over California's clean car standards approved by the U.S. EPA. Dissenting were Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, two of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices. "This case concerns only standing, not the merits," Kavanaugh wrote in the 48-page opinion that included two dissents. "EPA and California may or may not prevail on the merits in defending EPA's approval of the California regulations. But the justiciability of the fuel producers' challenge to EPA's approval of the California regulations is evident." The Clean Air Act supersedes state laws that regulate motor vehicle emissions, but it allows the EPA to issue a waiver for California. Other states can copy California's stricter standard. The states are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and the District of Columbia. The EPA, when Barack Obama was president, granted a waiver for California, but President Trump partially withdrew it during his first term. When Joe Biden became president in 2021, the EPA reinstated the waiver with the tougher emissions. Last week, Trump signed a bi-partisan congressional resolution to rescind California's electric vehicle mandate. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, called this move illegal and will sue over this order. "You couldn't buy any other car except an electric-powered car, and in California, they have blackouts and brownouts," Trump said last week. "They don't have enough electricity right now to do the job. And, countrywide, you'd have to spend four trillion dollars to build the firing plants, charging plants." Gasoline and other liquid fuel producers and 17 Republic-led states sued, arguing California's regulations reduce the manufacturing of gas-powered cars. The lead plaintiff was Diamond Alternative Energy, which sells renewable diesel, an alternative to traditional petroleum-derived diesel. Valero Energy Corp. also joined in the suit. Automakers were involved in the case. California lawyers argue the producers have no legal standing, which requires showing that a favorable court ruling would redress a plaintiff's injury. The EPA said consumer demand for electric cars would exceed California's mandate and hence the regulations wouldn't have an impact. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the lawsuit. "If invalidating the regulations would change nothing in the market, why are EPA and California enforcing and defending the regulations?" Kavanaugh wrote. "The whole point of the regulations is to increase the number of electric vehicles in the new automobile market beyond what consumers would otherwise demand and what automakers would otherwise manufacture and sell." Sotomayor and Jackson separately wrote the case may become moot. "I see no need to expound on the law of standing in a case where the sole dispute is a factual one not addressed below," Sotomayor wrote. She said she would have sent the case back to the lower court to look at the issue again. Jackson said her colleagues weren't applying the standing doctrine evenhandedly and it can erode public trust in judges. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. Because the Court had ample opportunity to avoid that result, I respectfully dissent," Jackson wrote. The ruling does not prevent California and other states from enforcing standards, Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian. "The standards have saved hundreds of lives, have provided enormous health benefits, and have saved families money," Patton said. "While the Supreme Court has now clarified who has grounds to bring a challenge to court, the decision does not affect California's bedrock legal authority to adopt pollution safeguards, nor does it alter the life-saving, affordable, clean cars program itself."
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel Defends Strikes, Iran Asks for Help Before U.N. Security Council
Israel's ambassador to the U.N. lashed out at his Iranian counterpart during an United Nations Security Council meeting. Iran called on the Security Council to determine that Israel had committed a 'breach of peace.'
