Will the peace agreement between Congo (DRC) and Rwanda finally bring about change?
Jul 08 2025
3 minutes
On June 27, 2025, the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington. Although the agreement is welcomed internationally as a step towards de-escalation, skepticism prevails in Congolese civil society.
A symbolic breakthrough?
Since 2021 there has been a resurgence of violence in Eastern Congo, with the M23 rebels, supported by Rwanda, taking up arms again. Everything reached a nadir in the spring of 2025. Goma and Bukavu fell to the rebels, killing thousands and forcing more than 1 million to flee. After stalled peace processes in Luanda and Nairobi, the United States and Qatar acted as mediators to bring Rwanda and the DRC to the negotiating table. Led by the US Trump administration, this initiative succeeded in bringing the two countries together for peace negotiations.
The Washington accord was signed by Congolese Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner and her Rwandan counterpart Olivier Nduhungirehe, in the presence of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The accord provides for an end to hostilities and the withdrawal of foreign troops, but also for the development of economic ties, with a particular focus on strategic raw materials. The latter has fuelled concerns that the accord primarily serves geopolitical and economic interests, rather than lasting peace and justice for the affected populations.
Belgium and the EU expressed their support for the agreement. Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot congratulated both neighbours on their courageous choice for peace and stressed the crucial nature of the upcoming implementation phase.
Without effective measures such as the opening of humanitarian corridors, the reopening of airports and banks, and the cessation of hostilities, it will be difficult to hope for the success of this new agreement.
Congolese midfield on the sidelines
Congolese civil society organisations are more cautious in their praise. They recognise that any opening to dialogue and peace must be supported, but question its practical feasibility and political intentions. They note how civil society is sidelined in the dialogue, and how the condition for signing – the withdrawal of Rwandan troops and equipment – has not been met.
Other important elements, such as the disarmament of the M23 rebels, are not addressed. These issues have been postponed to the difficult peace dialogue coordinated by the Emir of Qatar. Local sources also point out that, despite the agreement, there is still no talk of a withdrawal of Rwandan troops and equipment from eastern Congo.
Geopolitical and economic interests
The fact that armed groups such as M23 were not involved in the negotiation process raises major questions. After all, they are a key figure in the conflict. The AFC-M23 is building up their administration in large parts of North and South Kivu. They exercise control with an iron fist through their own tax systems and pseudo-judicial and extrajudicial structures.
The new report by a UN expert group reveals how Rwanda actively steers this new regime and even strives for full control and annexation of parts of North and South Kivu, according to an article in De Standaard. These findings cast a shadow over the sincerity of the agreement and the feasibility of a lasting peace. The Washington agreement seems to revolve more around geopolitical and economic interests, including access to the valuable mining reserves in Eastern Congo.
Repetition of the past?
While Marco Rubio declares that the Washington agreement ends thirty years of conflict, the daily reality shows something different: a continuation of military actions and ambitions of the M23 and Rwanda. Without participation of affected communities, women and youth, and with economic interests above those of the population, the agreement risks becoming a repetition of previous failures.
