Peace for Profit? What the DRC-Rwanda Peace Deal Leaves Unsaid

Present at the signing were Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe, the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, respectively, along with Donald Trump and other top U.S. government officials. This historic moment follows years of broken ceasefires and failed negotiations between Kinshasa and Kigali. Meanwhile, negotiations are still ongoing in Doha with the alleged Rwanda-backed M23, a key player in the long-standing conflict, with hopes of peace in Eastern Congo.

Some headlines praised the U.S. for its "big win," and analysts called it "strategic." Meanwhile, President Paul Kagame expressed cautious optimism, saying that "success depends on goodwill from the warring parties." President Felix Tshisekedi, however, believes the deal "is a promise of peace for the people and heralds an era of lasting peace, regional cooperation and shared prosperity." But he added a sobering caveat: "We will continue to demand that justice be served for the victims and that those responsible for the atrocities be held accountable."

On the surface, it appeared to be progress. But for Congolese activists, survivors, and ordinary citizens who have experienced decades of conflict, it feels like a cycle of repetition — a cycle of manipulation, broken peace, and complete exclusion from decision-making.

"When we discuss Congo, we're talking about the heartbeat of Africa's natural wealth," says Kambale Musavuli, analyst at the Center for Research on Congo-Kinshasa. "This deal is not about peace — it's about entrenching a model of resource extraction where African sovereignty is exchanged for foreign military or political convenience. If it happens in Congo today, it sets a precedent for how external powers can bypass African institutions and broker deals over our heads. Every African should care."

Dubbed the Washington Accord, the deal outlines three main components: the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from Eastern DRC within 90 days, the establishment of a joint security mechanism to monitor hostilities, and the formalization of mineral trade routes through Rwanda to attract U.S. investment. Under the deal's economic integration framework, Rwanda is now authorized to process minerals from eastern DRC — such as coltan, tungsten, and tin — effectively formalizing trade routes that were once illicit. This move grants Rwanda legal, U.S.-approved processing capacity, with the potential to increase official export revenues and enhance local economic stability. A clause some critics called "rewarding the aggressor nation."

As for the DRC, it offers security guarantees from Rwanda, potential western investment and rebuilding, and a US-brokered legitimacy and pressure. The terms appear favorable on paper, but there is no mention of what the Congolese people might gain from this deal in terms of accountability, economic reparations, or transitional justice.

Koko, a Congolese student and writer living in the diaspora, cuts to the heart of the matter: "This deal prioritizes the development of a regional economic framework that will shuttle Congolese minerals through Rwanda to the United States. It does not enshrine any protections for already vulnerable populations, namely the everyday Congolese people who live and work in terrible conditions to source these minerals." She sees the 'peace' deal as a symptom of failing systems across the continent, where African leaders are quick to turn to the West for peace. "Why was it so easy to find peace in Washington and Doha but impossible to find it in Luanda or Dar es Salaam?" Koko poses.

"On the ground, the communities I work with express great concern about the peace deal. They fear that it may not be adapted to local realities and may not take into account the needs and concerns of populations affected by the conflict," said Palmer Kabeya, lawyer, activist/researcher, and Spokesperson for Filimbi, a Congolese civil society.

"Grassroots organizations and civil groups were not sufficiently consulted during the negotiation of this agreement. We have valuable knowledge and experiences that could have enriched the negotiation process and ensured that the agreement is more adapted to the needs of communities," Kabeya added. He noted that the deal is "only a step towards a fragile and temporary peace if root causes are not addressed."

Fueled by Trump's comment, the deal is seen as a backdrop to the ongoing supremacy war between China and the U.S. The Chinese currently control 80 percent of the minerals in the DRC, primarily cobalt and lithium, which are essential for powering the world, from military intelligence and technology to AI.

"Trump's statement of gaining mineral rights in the Congo is a rare moment of honesty," Musavuli notes. "It confirms what many of us have said for years — these peace negotiations are a cover for resource plunder. Our pain is being commodified. Our suffering is being negotiated away in boardrooms where we have no seat. This isn't peace. It's plunder dressed in diplomatic language."

Musavuli also warns that framing the crisis as simply a Congo-Rwanda conflict is "deliberate and dangerous." "It allows global players to pretend they're neutral mediators rather than the main beneficiaries. The real story is about multinational corporations, regional proxies, and the militarization of resource zones across Africa. Congo is just the test case."

Notably absent from the Washington Accord is any language addressing the historical crimes committed in the DRC, nor is there a roadmap for long-term healing, accountability, and sovereignty. In the wake of the 2010 UN Mapping Report — which documented over 600 grave human rights violations committed in the DRC between 1993 and 2003 — more than 200 Congolese civil society organizations, supported by Nobel Laureate Dr. Denis Mukwege, called for the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity. Mukwege, on X, emphasized that "the ongoing conflict [...]cannot be resolved without placing the fight against impunity and the use of all transitional justice mechanisms at the heart of peace-making efforts." At least six million Congolese have died, but the deal remains silent on accountability. It establishes no tribunal, provides no reparations, and creates a process that is parallel to the will of the people.

Groups such as the Coalition for Congolese Transitional Justice (CCJT) warned that impunity continues to fuel violence, insisting that a peace process without justice is merely a temporary lull before the next conflict. "A truly African-led peace process must begin with truth and sovereignty," Musavuli insists. "We need pan-African mediators who are independent of Western influence. Peace without justice is simply silence."

Even as the world watches to see how this deal fares, amid some of the positive remarks, skepticism remains. As one user on X put it: "What raises eyebrows is trusting President Trump in the peace-mediated agreement between the DRC & Rwanda, particularly in light of his approach to the Israel-Iran conflict and the broader context of U.S. national interests, global hegemony, and political hypocrisy."

Koko shares their sentiment: "This 'peace' deal, like many before it, fails to adequately acknowledge the relationship between conflict in the East and Congo's mining industry, both of which disproportionately exploit and harm Congolese women and children." She emphasizes that advocacy messaging itself is problematic: "Congo – and by extension, Congolese people – is measured for the value of the things we produce. Even the messaging of advocacy deeply unsettles me. I cannot, in good conscience, celebrate the Washington Accord."

Her final recommendation is direct: "Listen to the Congolese people, and the many organisations on the ground that do incredible work, such as Focus Congo. The resources are at our disposal, the question is whether we are willing to do the work."

The Washington Accord may promise stability, but without confronting the root causes of violence — impunity, exploitation, and exclusion — it risks becoming just another page in Congo's long history of externally brokered deals that ignore the voices that matter most.