The new peace agreement between the DR Congo and Rwanda, brokered by the United States, received praise around the world for being a triumph of diplomacy. But in both countries, especially in eastern Congo, the reaction has been far more cautious. Presbyterians have many missionaries and international partners with whom they work, particularly in places with unsettled or tragic situations. Here are their prayers about several such sites:
A ritual solemn and full of symbolism, scant on trust
On December 4, US President Donald Trump received Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi and Rwandan President Paul Kagame in Washington. Leaders joined to sign what the US president called a “historic” peace agreement. The deal sealed an earlier agreement penned by both countries’ foreign ministers. Trump hailed the signing as a milestone for “peace and prosperity” in Africa.
Yet his comments quickly tied peace with U.S. commercial interests. He said there would be major U.S. investments in Congo. Trump also suggested that the U.S. was going to help extract rare earth minerals. “Everybody is going to make a lot of money.” This blunt reference to mineral access — before stability had even been achieved — raised eyebrows across diplomatic and civil society circles.
These doubts further fuelled by the already strained atmosphere between Kagame and Tshisekedi. During the event, the two hardly looked into each other’s eyes and did not shake hands. To many onlookers, it’s a sign that deep mistrust between Kigali and Kinshasa still exists.
Accord Fails to Halt Clashes
Even as officials were signing the accord, reports emerged of renewed fighting in eastern Congo. Shelling in parts of South Kivu, including the M23-controlled Kaziba, reportedly killed several people. Residents of Goma and towns nearby said the violence had become worse in recent weeks, a reality that contradicted the image of peace projected in Washington.
“We are still at war,” said one resident of Goma to reporters. Others said they saw “no positive impact” from the peace announcement and feared the agreement would become another document with little effect on daily life.
What each side wants — and why it is complicated
The agreement calls upon the Congo to dismantle Hutu militias operating from its territory. These include fighters linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide that killed an estimated 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis. It is estimated that thousands of Hutu militants fled into Congo after the genocide; some remain operational to this day.
In turn, Congo demands that Rwanda pull back forces that Congo says are supporting the rebels known as M23. UN investigators along with Congolese officials had previously declared that Rwanda backs M23 – a Tutsi-led group that says it is fighting to protect Congo’s Tutsi minority.
The most critical issue, though, is not explicitly settled by the bilateral deal:
The political settlement between Kinshasa and M23-the rebels who, since 2021, have expanded their control of eastern Congo-show little intention of withdrawal without concessions.
These parallel talks, hosted by Qatar, between Congo and M23, have seen very little progress. Until this internal conflict is addressed, analysts say, any bilateral deal between Rwanda and Congo will struggle to hold.
ALSO READ: From the Russian testing ground to the world stage
Minerals, geopolitics, and foreign interests
Leaders of civil society say that the peace deal is shaped as much by global geopolitics as by local needs. Congo holds some of the world’s largest deposits of cobalt, lithium, and coltan – necessary for electric vehicles, defense systems and AI technologies.
For Washington, the Congo lies at the heart of a drive to shift away from Chinese-dominated mineral supply chains. Initiatives like the G7-led Lobito Corridor make up one element of a wider counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road presence across the continent. But critics caution that such a focus on minerals rather than stability from foreign powers risks repeating a generational dynamic in which the Congo’s resources fuel war, not peace. Maurice Carney of Friends of the Congo said the accord reflects “the convergence of economic interests” among elites rather than the interests of the 70 million Congolese living in poverty.
He doubts the agreement can bring meaningful change unless security and local governance improve. A conflict replete with history, trauma, and mistrust. The roots of this crisis run deep, stretching across decades: a never-addressed genocide, continuous ethnic tension between different groups, the presence of armed groups, and competition for resources. That formed the conflict.
The M23 has risen once more
M23 captured Goma in 2012 and again in 2021-proof that the security landscape remains fragile. As experts point out, this can be genuinely achieved only by addressing the deeper problems: healing between the Hutu and Tutsi communities, disarming militias, accountability across borders, and political dialogue. A deal still far from delivering peace, Trump’s declaration of the war “resolved” does seem a little hasty.
The photo opportunity brought headlines while the realities on the ground in eastern Congo indicated a different truth. As long as guns are not silent and militias are not disarmed, until trust is rebuilt between Kigali and Kinshasa, skepticism will continue to be the response that has dominated the U.S.-backed peace deal.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
1 thought on “Why skepticism grows over the U.S.-brokered Congo–Rwanda peace deal”