The Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) and Rwanda signed a long-anticipated peace agreement in Washington, aimed at ending decades of violent conflict in eastern Congo. The deal, endorsed by U.S. President Donald Trump as “a great day for Africa and… a great day for the world,” marks a bold diplomatic step forward, though critical questions remain unanswered.
The agreement signed by the foreign ministers of both nations at the U.S. State Department calls for the disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of armed groups operating in the mineral-rich eastern region of DR Congo. Though light on specifics, the deal also references the respect for territorial integrity, prohibition of hostilities, and facilitation of refugee returns.
Eastern DR Congo has seen escalating violence in recent months, with the M23 rebel group capturing key cities such as Goma and Bukavu, displacing hundreds of thousands and sparking a humanitarian crisis. The Kinshasa government, struggling to maintain control, reportedly offered the U.S. access to valuable minerals including coltan, vital to global electronics in exchange for security guarantees.
A major sticking point remains the presence of Rwandan troops on Congolese soil. Although DR Congo pushed for an immediate withdrawal of the estimated 7,000 Rwandan soldiers, Rwanda has refused, claiming its forces are defending against the FDLR, a militia group with ties to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Rwanda’s Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe criticized the leak of a draft agreement and denied that the final text explicitly mentioned troop withdrawal.
DR Congo, however, insists that the deal does call for a phased pullback of Rwandan forces albeit using the term “disengagement” for strategic diplomacy. Without full transparency, it remains unclear whether M23 rebels will withdraw, or who will oversee the disarmament of groups like the FDLR.
While the peace accord is a significant step, observers caution that similar agreements in the past have collapsed. The success of this deal will depend on implementation, verification, and genuine commitment from both sides something history has repeatedly shown to be elusive in the volatile Great Lakes region
