Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) have signed a landmark but fragile peace agreement in Washington, seeking to end decades of deadly conflict in eastern Congo and paving the way for increased US access to critical minerals.
The deal was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough by the US and Congolese presidents, though many observers remain skeptical due to the lack of details and a history of failed agreements in the region.
The peace deal, signed by the foreign ministers of both nations at the US State Department, calls for the “disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration” of armed groups active in eastern DR Congo. However, it omits direct references to the withdrawal of Rwandan troops, a major sticking point that nearly derailed the agreement in the final hours.
“This is a great day for Africa and a great day for the world!” former President Donald Trump declared on his Truth Social platform, following an earlier version of the agreement.
Trump, who helped facilitate the talks, has hinted at a possible three-way meeting in Washington with Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame, although no date has been confirmed.
Eastern DR Congo has been engulfed in violence since M23 rebels launched a fresh offensive earlier this year, seizing Goma, Bukavu, and two strategic airports.
The escalation displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians and left thousands dead. Congo turned to the US for security support, reportedly offering access to coltan and other vital minerals used in electronics manufacturing in return.
Despite substantial evidence of Rwandan support for the M23, Rwanda has denied any involvement, claiming its troop presence is a defensive measure against the FDLR a militia of ethnic Hutus, many of whom are linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Rwanda has accused Kinshasa of backing the FDLR, which the Congolese government denies.
Crucial details of the deal remain hidden, and early drafts sparked tension. Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe slammed leaks that implied Kigali had agreed to withdraw its estimated 7,000 troops.
He insisted the final document made no mention of “Rwanda Defense Force,” “Rwandan troops,” or “withdrawal.”
In response, Tshisekedi’s office said the term “disengagement” was used instead of “withdrawal” because it offers broader coverage of military activity. However, critics argue this semantic shift leaves the door open for vague interpretations.
Key unanswered questions looms- Will the M23 rebels retreat from captured territories? Does “respect for territorial integrity” imply Rwanda’s acknowledgment of troops on Congolese soil? Will thousands of Congolese refugees in Rwanda be allowed to return? Who is responsible for disarming the FDLR after repeated failed attempts? Will humanitarian corridors, including rebel held airports, reopen?
Rwandan government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo stated any easing of its “defensive measures” depends on the neutralisation of the FDLR, indicating conditional cooperation.
Notably, the M23 itself emerged from a failed peace deal signed 16 years ago. Last year, Rwanda and DR Congo reached two separate agreements mediated by Angola that also called for troop withdrawals and joint action against the FDLR, but neither deal was ratified by ministers. Angola ultimately withdrew from the mediation effort in March.
While Friday’s deal represents a major geopolitical moment, observers warn it could simply be the latest in a series of well-intentioned agreements that falter without meaningful enforcement, transparency, and mutual trust.
Erizia Rubyjeana
Follow us on:
