A peace agreement brokered by the White House to stem the bloodshed in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies vast swaths of land, will be signed in Washington D.C. on Friday by officials of the two African nations.
But many remain unconvinced that the accord – portrayed as a “wonderful treaty” by United States President Donald Trump – can end the complex and long-running conflict, while the militia itself has yet to commit to laying down its weapons.
Trump was upbeat about the prospects for peace when teams from Rwanda and the DRC initialed a draft agreement on June 18, while at the same time suggesting that he would not get credit for his role in ending this or other conflicts.
On June 20, he wrote on Truth Social: “This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this.”
He added: “I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me!”
Trump touts himself as a “peacemaker” and has expanded his interest in global conflicts to the brutal war in the mineral-rich eastern DRC. His peace deal could also pave the way for America’s economic interests in the region, as it eyes access to the DRC’s critical minerals.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will preside over the signing of the peace agreement by DRC Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner and her Rwandan counterpart Olivier Nduhungirehe on Friday.
More than 7,000 people have been killed, and some one million others displaced since January, when the M23 militia waged a fresh offensive against the Congolese army, seizing control of the two largest cities in the country’s east.
There has been increasing reports of summary executions – even of children – in occupied areas, where aid groups say they are also witnessing an epidemic of rape and sexual violence.
A complex war
The crisis in the eastern DRC, which shares a border with Rwanda and harbors large deposits of minerals critical to the production of electronics, is a fusion of complex issues.
In that genocide, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu militias.
Rwanda criticizes the DRC, which faces problems with militia violence, for integrating a proscribed Hutu militia group into its army to fight against the mainly Tutsi M23.
M23, which first emerged in 2012, is one of the most prominent militias battling for control of the DRC’s mineral wealth. The rebel group also claims to defend the interests of the Tutsis and other Congolese minorities of Rwandan origin.
UN experts and much of the international community believe that Rwanda backs M23 and supports the rebels with troops, leaving the nation on the cusp of war with the DRC over this alleged territorial violation.
The Rwandan government has not acknowledged this claim but insists it protects itself against the Hutu militia operating in the DRC, which it describes as an “existential security threat to Rwanda.”
M23 occupies strategic mining towns in the DRC’s eastern provinces of North and South Kivu.
In a report in December, the UN Group of Experts on the DRC said they found evidence that minerals “were fraudulently exported to Rwanda” from the DRC “and mixed with Rwandan production.”
Rwandan President Paul Kagame drew outrage last year when he admitted in a public address that Rwanda was a transit point for minerals smuggled from the DRC but insisted his country was not stealing from its neighbor.
What’s contained in the US peace deal?
Washington’s peace accord contains provisions on “respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities,” including “disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of non-state armed groups,” according to a joint statement issued by the US, Rwanda and the DRC on June 18.
Other points include “facilitation of the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as humanitarian access” and the establishment of a “regional economic integration framework” that could attract significant US investments into Rwanda and the DRC.
Asked whether AFC would surrender its arms, Victor Tesongo, a spokesperson for the coalition, said it was “not there yet” and that it was waiting on developments in Doha. He did not confirm whether airports in the eastern DRC that had been shut by the rebels would reopen for aid supply.
Why US efforts may fail
Previous truce agreements have failed to bring lasting peace between M23 and the Congolese armed forces.
In April, the rebels jointly declared a truce after meeting with representatives of the DRC during negotiations led by Qatar. Fighting flared up days after.
Qatar has been facilitating talks after Angolan President João Lourenço quit his mediation role following months of inability to broker peace.
One of those root causes, he said, was the “unfair distribution” of the DRC’s mineral wealth, which he claimed, “benefits a small elite and foreign powers, while ordinary Congolese, especially in the east, suffer displacement and misery.”
The DRC is roughly the size of western Europe and is home to more than 100 million people. The Central African nation is also endowed with the world’s largest reserves of cobalt – used to produce batteries that power cell phones and electric vehicles – and coltan, which is refined into tantalum and has a variety of applications in phones and other devices.
However, according to the World Bank, “most people in DRC have not benefited from this wealth,” and the country ranks among the five poorest nations in the world.
Kubelwa said another trigger for the conflict in the DRC was the country’s “weak institutions” and “suppression of dissent.”
A fragile peace
The DRC foreign minister’s office said it would comment on the deal after the document is signed.
Congolese human rights activist and Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege has described the deal as “vague” and tilted in Rwanda’s favor.
After details of the draft agreement were announced last week, he posted a statement on X criticizing it for failing to recognize “Rwanda’s aggression against the DRC,” which he wrote, “suggests it (the peace accord) benefits the unsanctioned aggressor, who will thus see its past and present crimes whitewashed as ‘economic cooperation.’”
He added: “In its current state, the emerging agreement would amount to granting a reward for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace.”
For Kubelwa, “a true and lasting solution must go beyond ceasefires and formal agreements. It must include genuine accountability, regional truth-telling, redistribution of national wealth, reform of governance, and a broad national dialogue that includes all Congolese voices not just elites or foreign allies.”
“Without this, peace remains a fragile illusion,” he said.