Recounting MONUSCO’s inefficiency, Hubert reflected, "That's why they changed the name to
MONUSCO, so that they could meet Congolese expectations." 1 Growing up in the heart of the conflict,
Hubert's childhood was marked by the horrors of war, displacement, and fear. Through the oral history, he
offered a personal account of how the war's escalation shaped his early years, as various armed groups and
nations clashed, leaving a profound impact on the lives of those caught in the chaos. Unlike official reports or
secondary analyses, which often focus on policies, statistics, and geopolitical strategies, oral history captures
the emotions, struggles, and perspectives of those who lived through these events, that may go unnoticed
otherwise. Tshisambu’s oral history serves as a critical primary source that exposes the disillusioned sentiment
of Congolese people towards MONUSCO’s failures. To fully grasp the significance of his account, one must
understand the historical pattern of foreign involvement in the Congo as well as the impact of a person’s biases,
limitations, and subjectivity when conducting an oral history, as personal experiences, opinions, and viewpoints
can shape how events are recalled and interpreted. However, while Tshisambu’s critique is compelling, we must
recognize that MONUSCO operated within structural limitations, including inadequate resources, conflicting
mandates, and regional political complexities that made effective intervention difficult. By closely examining
key excerpts from the interview, especially those discussing MONUSCO’s perceived complicity, foreign
exploitation, and governance failures, oral history can provide invaluable insights, it simply needs to be
considered alongside traditional sources to create a fuller and more accurate representation of history.
According to Karen Hirsh, a historian who focuses on bringing disabled people's stories to light through oral
history, states that, “Oral history is likely to play an important role in documenting the deeper roots of this
transformation. ” 2 Documenting history in this way helps to capture firsthand perspectives alongside an
emotional connection and a more nuanced understanding of historical events that may not be possible through
written accounts. Yet, the same feature that makes it unique is also what could make it potentially unreliable as
these personal accounts are susceptible to distortions, selective memory, and bias which reduce their overall
validity. While traditional reports of the Second Congo War carefully document MONUSCO’s official
mandates and the international community’s responses, Hubert offers a completely different narrative and point
1
2
Mpunga Tshisambu, Hubert. Interview by Rudy Smith. Personal Interview. Gaithersburg, January 10, 2025.
Karen Hirsch, “Culture and Disability: The Role of Oral History,” The Oral History Review 22, no. 1 (1995): 1–27, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4495354.
of view. His story challenges the prevailing perspective of lived experiences of those directly affected by the
conflict and sheds light on the realities faced on the ground.
Tshisambu’s narrative challenges the dominant international perspectives by emphasizing how foreign
intervention has exacerbated local corruption, exploited Congo’s natural resources, and contributed to sustained
instability. His account is supported by personal experience and historical context, connecting current events to
a legacy of exploitation dating back to colonial times. Tshisambu is unequivocal in his criticism of
MONUSCO. He argues that the UN peacekeeping mission acted in the interests of external actors rather than
the local population. He supports this perspective stating that MONUSCO “will do what they used to do. They
have plenty, plenty of experience. They have plenty of experience. Global experience from everywhere.
They've been spending something like 30 years in Congo. No, this hasn't happened anywhere else, anywhere
else.” 3, articulating a common sentiment among many Congolese that MONUSCO’s actions, influenced by
international agendas, have undermined rather than supported Congolese sovereignty.
High-profile failures, like the fall of Goma, left lasting scars on MONUSCO’s reputation, eroding the
trust of many Congolese people. Historian Marta Iñiguez de Heredia points out that, despite successes like
cholera prevention and election support, these efforts were overshadowed by well-publicized failures. For
many, MONUSCO’s reliance on international staff created a real sense of disconnect from life on the ground 4.
This feeling of detachment is something Hubert Mpunga Tshisambu expressed vividly in our interview. He
believes MONUSCO wasn’t just out of touch, it was serving international interests at the expense of local
needs. For him, the war wasn’t driven primarily by neighboring countries like Rwanda or Uganda, but by a
“new economy” powered by global forces. He described the conflict as a fight over Congo’s immense mineral
wealth, orchestrated by what he called the “International Mineral Mafia.” While Iñiguez de Heredia emphasizes
operational failures and a lack of connection, Tshisambu’s view frames these failures as deliberate exploitation
rather than simple disconnection. His frustration reflects the disillusionment of many Congolese who saw
peacekeepers as part of the problem, not the solution.
3
Mpunga Tshisambu, interview.
Marta IÑiguez de Heredia, "The History and Present of 'Africa's World War,'" in Everyday Resistance, Peacebuilding and State-making: Insights from 'Africa's World
War' (Manchester University Press, 2017), [Page 253], JSTOR.
4
Kwame Nkrumah once wrote that neo-colonialism keeps former colonies in a vicious cycle, where
power shifts from colonial rulers to local elites, but the system of exploitation remains the same. His message
feels strikingly relevant to Hubert Mpunga Tshisambu’s reflections on the DRC. Tshisambu described how,
even after independence, Congo was left with a government unprepared to truly lead. “First of all, colonization
didn't complete everything. They left and the nationals who took power were not in enough shape to rule and
manage the country,”5 he explained. The infrastructure that existed wasn’t designed for development—it was
built for extraction and export. Tshisambu’s frustration was clear: independence didn’t break the chains of
exploitation; it only changed who held the key. Nkrumah’s broader vision for self-reliance and empowerment
aligns with Tshisambu’s call for deeper reforms. Tshisambu’s perspective forces us to rethink whether Congo’s
governance failures are simply about local mismanagement or part of a much bigger system shaped by foreign
interests and historical patterns. Like Nkrumah, he suggests that Congo’s struggles can’t be separated from a
global web of economic dependency and exploitation that’s persisted for decades.
Tshisambu’s testimony is invaluable because it provides a localized, personal perspective that both
challenges and enriches the prevailing historical narratives about the Second Congo War and international
interventions like MONUSCO. His account enhances our understanding of local sentiments by voicing the
frustrations and disillusionments of Congolese citizens, the interview exposes the emotional and social
dimensions of the conflict that are often overlooked in traditional, policy-focused reports. He emphasized that,
“there are plenty of reports by MONUSCO, by UN experts that revealed that those people weren't in Congo for
Congo. They were not there. So the mission was tough for them, because they had to show that they working
for Congo while really, truly, not working for Congo, but they fail. Because if the population of like that of
Congo discover something like this, so those high diplomat failed in the mission.” 6 His view connects
contemporary issues to historical patterns as his reflections draw a direct line from the exploitation of the
Congo under King Leopold II and colonial rule to the modern-day challenges posed by international economic
interests and corrupt governance. Similarly, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights states in
the Mapping report, “the failure to prosecute perpetrators undermined MONUSCO’s human rights advocacy.
5
6
Mpunga Tshisambu, interview.
Mpunga Tshisambu, interview.
The report highlighted patterns of violence and impunity, drawing attention to the need for transitional justice
mechanisms. Efforts to implement the report’s recommendations often faced political resistance, both
domestically and internationally.” 7 The report frames these failures as the result of structural limitations,
political resistance, and competing priorities that hampered efforts to promote transitional justice and
accountability. It portrays MONUSCO as an organization with good intentions but constrained by a complex
environment, ultimately failing to meet its goals despite persistent advocacy for justice. In contrast, Hubert’s
perspective is more critical of MONUSCO’s underlying motives, suggesting that its mission was compromised
from the start. He argues that international actors were not truly working for the benefit of the Congolese
people but rather for their own interests, with MONUSCO’s efforts largely performative. He emphasized this
point saying, “Yes. To start, I told you about the black hands “La Main Noir”. They planned everything and all
those entering in was just tools that they get.They bring ___??+ to accommodate that space. Yes. Both Uganda
and Rwanda are just middle men, are just middle men. Are just tools! Are just tools!” 8 While the UN Mapping
Report frames MONUSCO’s failures as the result of systemic challenges like political resistance, limited
resources, and the inherent complexities of peacekeeping, Tshisambu offers a different critique of its very
foundation. For him, the problem was not just poor implementation but a deeper, intentional manipulation by
international actors driven by self-interest. His reference to "La Main Noir" suggests a hidden, orchestrated
plan where external forces, including regional powers like Rwanda and Uganda, were merely tools in a much
larger scheme. This view challenges the notion of MONUSCO as a neutral actor, implying that its interventions
were performative and ultimately complicit in perpetuating the very conflicts it sought to resolve. The report
emphasizes the difficulty of achieving reconciliation in such a fraught context, but Hubert focuses on the lack
of genuine engagement, viewing MONUSCO’s failure as a betrayal of local trust. Together, these viewpoints
offer a more nuanced understanding that underscores the deep dissapointment felt by those living through its
consequences.
The interview with Tshisambu possess valuable strengths, including a firsthand perspective and the
emotional connection it builds with the audience. His experience in government and humanitarian sectors
7
8
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Mapping Exercise, 2010.
Mpunga Tshisambu, interview.
provides credibility to his insights on the Second Congo War. His focus on corruption, foreign exploitation, and
institutional failure presents a comprehensive view of the conflict’s complexities. However, there are
weaknesses in the interview as well, particularly the limitations of memory. Tshisambu’s recollections, while
insightful, are shaped by time, personal experiences, and the emotions attached to them. As the years pass,
memories naturally shift, some details fade, while others take on new meaning based on what has happened
since. His perspective on MONUSCO, for example, may not only reflect what he witnessed during the war but
also the frustration that has built up over decades of continued foreign involvement in the DRC. Memory isn’t a
perfect record, it’s influenced by emotions, new experiences and the way history unfolds after the fact. This is
what makes oral history so powerful yet also reminds us to balance it with other sources to piece together a
more accurate representation of the past.