Johannesburg – The unexpected arrival of M23 rebel representatives at the Thabo Mbeki Foundation’s African Peace and Security Dialogue in Magaliesburg has ignited questions about South Africa’s role as a regional peace broker and exposed cracks in Pretoria’s handling of conflict diplomacy.
International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, who delivered a keynote address at the event, insisted he had no prior knowledge that M23 delegates would attend. “We were not aware that there were members of the M23 rebels,” Lamola told City Press. “For us, the dialogue is part of information sharing and a way of trying to find solutions to the continent’s political conflicts.”
A Controversial Presence
The timing of the visit was striking. Just months ago, M23 rebels were involved in clashes near Goma that claimed the lives of 14 South African soldiers deployed under a SADC mission. Their spokesperson, Lawrence Kanyuka, arrived in South Africa for the first time since those deadly battles, stressing that his mission was “one of peace.”
Kanyuka thanked former President Thabo Mbeki for extending the invitation and criticised the Congolese government for boycotting the gathering. “It is dreadful. Awful. To have a president of a country deny an invitation for peace is really appalling,” he told journalists, while apologising “as a Congolese” for the absence of his government.
The Democratic Republic of Congo’s boycott underscored just how divisive M23’s participation was. Outside the venue, Congolese nationals staged protests, angered that the group accused of atrocities in their homeland was given a platform in South Africa.
Who Cleared the Guest List?
Lamola’s denial raises uncomfortable questions. If the Department of International Relations did not screen the guest list, who did? The Thabo Mbeki Foundation appears to have extended the invitation directly, but in an environment where rebel movements are accused of destabilising the Great Lakes, it is unusual for state authorities to claim ignorance of such a delegation’s presence.
Analysts suggest three scenarios:
Diplomatic cover: M23 envoys may have been invited under a neutral label such as “civil society” representatives.
Quiet facilitation: A regional actor—possibly Rwanda or Uganda, both accused of backing M23—could have helped ensure their travel.
Intelligence gap or blind eye: South African security structures may have known but chose not to intervene, prioritising dialogue over confrontation.
Any of these explanations would expose weaknesses in Pretoria’s coordination. Either the state was bypassed, or it deliberately kept its distance to avoid being seen as legitimising the rebels.
The Stakes for South Africa
South Africa has long projected itself as a continental mediator, from Burundi to Lesotho and South Sudan. Yet, the Magaliesburg episode highlights how external actors and non-state groups can outmanoeuvre Pretoria in its own backyard. For a government seeking to lead on African peace and security, appearing blindsided undermines its credibility.
At the same time, Lamola leaned on the principle of dialogue, urging “African solutions to African problems” and highlighting the need for Africa to benefit from its own mineral wealth. His remarks suggested that Pretoria views such forums, however controversial, as necessary platforms for addressing deep-rooted conflicts.
Between Engagement and Embarrassment
The M23’s presence has therefore exposed a paradox. On one hand, their participation fits within broader attempts to open dialogue in the DRC conflict. On the other, it embarrassed a government already reeling from the deaths of its soldiers at the hands of the same group.
Whether Pretoria was caught off guard, or simply chose silence, the episode leaves lingering doubts about South Africa’s control over its peace diplomacy narrative. As the protests outside Magaliesburg showed, giving rebels a seat at the table comes at a political cost.
For now, the government insists it was not in the loop. But the question remains: in whose hands does South Africa’s role as mediator truly rest—the state’s, or the foundations and foreign actors operating in the shadows of Africa’s conflicts?
Tags
News and Analysis