A peace deal signed in Washington between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda has stirred mixed reactions, particularly in rebel-held eastern regions of the DRC. The agreement, which calls for the disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of armed groups, notably omits detailed implementation mechanisms raising questions about its effectiveness.
Former Congolese president Joseph Kabila dismissed the deal as “nothing more than a trade agreement,” suggesting it was driven by economic interests rather than genuine peacebuilding. He noted the absence of the M23 rebel group in the negotiations, an omission echoed by residents in Goma, a city currently under M23 control. “How can they say they sign for peace, yet they have not involved M23?” one resident asked, underlining the prevailing sentiment that sustainable peace requires the inclusion of all actors in the conflict.
The M23, which Rwanda is widely accused of backing a claim Kigali denies has seized large swathes of territory in the eastern DRC, including key cities and infrastructure. The United Nations estimates that thousands have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced, though M23 disputes these figures.
Analysts suggest the DRC’s outreach to the United States, reportedly offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees, may have influenced the nature of the agreement. The mineral-rich eastern DRC is a hub for resources like coltan, essential to global electronics production, making the region a geopolitical flashpoint.
Critics argue that without the participation of M23 or provisions for justice and accountability, the agreement is unlikely to succeed. Sam Zarifi, head of Physicians for Human Rights, described the deal as overlooking human rights and the role of proxy militias.
Still, some remain cautiously optimistic. Stephanie Marungu, a humanitarian worker in Goma, called the deal a “hopeful development,” expressing hope for improved access and aid delivery. Yet many residents remain sceptical, citing a history of failed peace initiatives.
As the region awaits tangible change, the true impact of the Washington accord will depend on its execution and whether it can go beyond diplomacy to bring real peace on the ground.
