An Unexpected Agreement Brokered in Washington
It was a handshake few had foreseen. On June 27, in Washington, the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a peace agreement under the mediation of the United States. Hailed as “historic” by President Donald Trump, who praised the work of his diplomatic team, the deal is seen by Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi as ushering in “a new era of stability, cooperation, and prosperity.” Yet this optimistic declaration barely conceals the deep-seated tensions between the two nations.
A War-Weary Region Still in Turmoil
Eastern DRC remains one of the world’s most volatile regions, plagued by decades of violence involving armed groups, ethnic militias, and foreign interventions. The resurgence of the M23 rebel group—allegedly backed by Rwanda, according to the United Nations—has reignited conflict. In just weeks, the rebels captured Goma, Bukavu, and several key airports. Thousands have been killed, and hundreds of thousands displaced.
The agreement, which follows numerous failed ceasefires and broken truce deals, aims to halt hostilities, secure borders, and initiate demilitarization. It refers to a “Concept of Operations” signed in late 2024, which outlines the phased withdrawal of Rwandan troops and the dismantling of the FDLR, a Hutu rebel group that Kigali views as an existential threat.
Strategic Omissions and Diplomatic Maneuvering
But a closer look reveals gaping holes. The M23, whose offensive triggered the latest crisis, is only mentioned in connection with ongoing mediation in Doha. Rwanda’s role in the conflict is downplayed—if not erased. Analysts say this is a calculated omission that helps absolve Kigali of direct responsibility, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.
Rwanda, under President Paul Kagame, emerges as the more effective negotiator. Kigali succeeded in framing its military presence in eastern Congo as “self-defense.” In exchange, Kinshasa is believed to have conceded to U.S.-backed economic initiatives—chiefly, a regional integration framework aimed at improving transparency in critical mineral supply chains.
Former Congolese President Joseph Kabila bluntly labeled the deal a “commercial agreement,” suggesting Kinshasa may have traded strategic resources for security guarantees. The United States, eager to secure access to Congolese coltan and lithium, appears motivated by both economic and geopolitical interests, including countering China’s influence in the region.
An Externally Driven Peace?
The active role played by the Trump administration marks a shift in U.S. engagement with Africa. Long criticized for neglecting the continent, Washington now seems intent on reasserting its influence—using peace diplomacy as a vehicle. Whether this signals genuine commitment or mere strategic opportunism remains an open question.
On the ground in Goma, now under rebel control, the response has been muted. Local communities view the agreement with suspicion, fearing that once again, peace has been negotiated without their input. Corneille Nangaa, head of the Congo River Alliance that includes the M23, condemned the Washington deal as “limited,” accusing Kinshasa of sabotaging the Doha peace process.
A Cautious Step, Not a Final Resolution
While the Washington agreement is diplomatically significant, it marks only the beginning of a complex and fragile process. Implementation remains uncertain. The region still hosts a mosaic of armed factions, unresolved grievances, and competing foreign interests.
True peace in eastern Congo will require more than symbolic gestures or backroom deals. It demands truth, justice, and the inclusion of all stakeholders—local communities, rebel groups, and regional powers alike. Without them, the so-called “historic” accord may prove to be just another temporary fix to a deeply rooted crisis.
