A landmark peace deal signed between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, aimed at ending decades of devastating conflict, has been met with significant scepticism from regional analysts, Congolese citizens, and international observers. Critics point to the agreement’s lack of detail, the exclusion of the powerful M23 rebel group from negotiations, and the central role of mineral wealth as major obstacles to achieving sustainable peace.
The agreement, mediated by the United States and signed in Washington, calls for the disengagement and disarmament of armed groups and the establishment of a regional economic integration framework. While hailed by some as a turning point, many fear it is a fragile pact that fails to address the root causes of the conflict.
The deal’s emphasis on economic cooperation, particularly concerning the DRC’s vast mineral resources, has led to accusations that it is more of a trade agreement than a genuine peace initiative. This widespread scepticism threatens to undermine the accord before it can be fully implemented.
SMread: South Africa Inches Closer to Grey List Exit
Key Omissions and Unanswered Questions
A primary source of concern is the exclusion of the M23 rebel group from the peace talks. The M23, which the DRC and the United Nations accuse Rwanda of backing, controls significant territory in eastern DRC, including the major city of Goma. “How can they say they sign for peace, yet they have not involved M23?” a Goma resident questioned in a BBC report, highlighting a common sentiment on the ground.
In an interview with Salaamedia, journalist Musinguzi Goodluck echoed this concern, stating that not putting the M23 “at the centre of this agreement makes the whole thing a bit shaky”. This omission has led figures like former Congolese president Joseph Kabila to dismiss the deal as “nothing more than a trade agreement” and a “diplomatic show”.
Furthermore, the agreement is vague on how it will handle the numerous other armed militias operating in the region. Just hours before the deal was signed, the CODECO militia reportedly killed 10 people in an attack on a displaced persons’ camp, underscoring the challenge of enforcing a ceasefire among dozens of non-state actors.
The agreement also fails to address the presence of former President Joseph Kabila with rebels in eastern DRC, an issue Goodluck noted was “not addressed in the agreement”.
The economic dimension of the deal, particularly the access to the DRC’s rich deposits of coltan, cobalt, and other critical minerals, has fuelled further scepticism. The US has been open about its interest in securing these resources, with President Donald Trump stating, “We’re getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it.” This has raised fears among the Congolese that their natural wealth will be exploited without benefiting ordinary citizens.
Goodluck emphasised that the core of the conflict is economic. “The war that was moving the war is economic benefits,” he stated, adding, “How DRC is willing to accept Rwanda touch their minerals for me that’s where the juice is in the agreement.” The deal’s lack of clarity on how mineral resources will be shared and managed is a significant point of contention.
While the agreement calls for the “neutralisation” of the FDLR, a Hutu-led rebel group opposed to the Rwandan government, analysts are doubtful about its feasibility. Goodluck pointed out that these groups have been assimilated into local society over many years, making their demobilisation a complex challenge. This deep-rooted scepticism is compounded by a history of failed peace agreements in the region.
Image: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, centre, hosts Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, right, and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe for the signing of a peace agreement [Mandel Ngan/AFP]
