Precarious Pact: Unpacking the DRC-Rwanda Peace Deal

The peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, signed on 27 June 2025 in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. State Department, marks a pivotal moment for a region long tormented by conflict. This accord, witnessed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and brokered with significant diplomatic backing from the United States and Qatar, aims to usher in a new era of stability. DRC Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe affixed their signatures to a document born from months of arduous negotiations.

While the agreement addresses critical issues such as territorial integrity, militia disarmament, and regional economic integration, a political analyst can’t ignore the deeply entrenched geopolitical realities. These threaten to undermine even the most well-intentioned peace initiatives in the Great Lakes region. The history of broken promises and persistent external interference demands a cautious and pragmatic assessment of this ostensibly promising development.

Components of a fragile peace

The peace agreement, officially titled the “Critical Minerals for Security and Peace Deal,” is multifaceted, touching upon several key areas designed to foster lasting peace.

Territorial integrity

Central to the agreement is the mutual reaffirmation of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Both nations commit to refraining from any acts of aggression, direct or indirect, and explicitly prohibit supporting or condoning military incursions that threaten the other party’s peace or security. This clause directly addresses the long-standing accusations of Rwandan backing for the M23 rebel group in eastern DRC, and equally, the DRC’s alleged hosting of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). The agreement aims to put an irreversible end to state support for such armed groups, a crucial, albeit historically elusive, objective.

Disarmament of non-state groups

A critical component focuses on neutralising non-state armed groups, particularly the FDLR, and supporting the disengagement, disarmament, and potential integration of M23 combatants into the Congolese security forces (FARDC and PNC). This process, to be carried out on a case-by-case, conditional basis, is contingent upon the successful implementation of the Harmonised Plan for the Neutralisation of the FDLR and Disengagement of Forces/Lifting of Defensive Measures by Rwanda (CONOPS) of 31 October 2024.

The agreement stresses the verifiable cessation of all domestic and foreign material, logistical, and financial support to these groups. However, the M23’s notable absence from these specific negotiations, despite ongoing separate talks in Doha, presents a significant vulnerability.

Joint security coordination

To ensure transparency and coordinated action, the agreement establishes a joint DRC-Rwanda security coordination mechanism (JSCM) within 30 days of its entry into force. This mechanism is tasked with intelligence and information exchanges, defining the status of groups like the FDLR, and coordinating efforts for their neutralisation. Its scope is to be determined based on ground conditions, with strict adherence to territorial integrity and sovereignty. The JSCM is envisioned to report monthly to respective military, intelligence, and ministerial levels, fostering direct communication and trust-building.

Humanitarian considerations

The pact emphasises the dignified and safe return of refugees and IDPs, with support from the UNHCR. It mandates compliance with international humanitarian law and the facilitation of unhindered humanitarian access. Given the immense human cost of decades of conflict, with millions displaced and suffering, this provision is morally imperative. However, its implementation will require substantial resources and unwavering political will.

Regional economic integration

Perhaps the most compelling, and arguably the underlying, driver of this agreement is the focus on regional economic integration, particularly concerning critical minerals. The “Critical Minerals for Security and Peace Deal” aims to expand foreign trade and investment from regional critical mineral supply chains, enhance transparency, and block illicit economic pathways.

This aspect is widely seen as a strategic move by the United States to counter China’s dominance in the critical mineral sector, a point that has drawn both praise for its potential to unlock prosperity and concern for its geopolitical implications. The deal explicitly aims for shared growth and cross-border cooperation, recognising the vast mineral wealth of the eastern DRC, including tantalum, tungsten, and coltan, essential for modern technology and defence industries.

Deep forecast of precaution

While the stated intentions of the peace agreement are commendable, the current geopolitics of the DRC and Rwanda necessitate a deep forecast of precaution. The historical context of this conflict is littered with failed agreements, often due to a lack of genuine commitment, external interference, and the complex interplay of internal grievances and resource exploitation.

The M23 dilemma

The most immediate and glaring vulnerability is the non-participation of the M23 rebel group in the Washington agreement, despite their occupation of significant territory, including Goma. While separate talks are ongoing in Doha, the success of this broader peace deal hinges on the M23’s willingness to disengage and disarm. Rwanda’s perceived, and often evidenced, support for M23 has been a major point of contention. Without their full buy-in and verifiable disarmament, the conflict in eastern DRC will persist, regardless of any bilateral agreement between the states.

Resource curse risks

The explicit link between peace and critical minerals, while offering a pathway to economic development, simultaneously introduces a potent risk. The “minerals-for-security” pact could inadvertently exacerbate the very issues it seeks to resolve if not managed with utmost transparency and accountability. The history of the DRC’s mineral wealth has been intertwined with cycles of violence, corruption, and illicit trade.

The involvement of global powers, particularly the U.S. in this instance, to secure access to these resources, while potentially stabilising the region, also raises concerns about neo-colonial tendencies and the equitable distribution of benefits. There’s a tangible risk that economic exploitation, rather than sustainable development, could become the primary outcome, further entrenching existing inequalities and fuelling new conflicts.

Governance challenges

The DRC, classified as one of the world’s most fragile states, possesses weak institutional capacity and fragmented local authority, particularly in its eastern provinces. This fragility has consistently hampered the enforcement of past peace accords. The success of this agreement will heavily depend on the DRC’s ability to assert its sovereignty, control its territory, and effectively integrate disarmed combatants. Without robust governance structures and a commitment to the rule of law, the detailed mechanisms outlined in the agreement risk becoming mere paper exercises.

Entrenched grievances

Decades of conflict have created deep-seated mistrust and ethnic tensions between communities in the eastern DRC and between the two nations. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 and its aftermath profoundly shaped the region’s dynamics, leading to the presence of groups like the FDLR. Overcoming this historical baggage requires more than diplomatic signatures; it demands genuine reconciliation, justice for victims, and a sustained effort to build inter-communal harmony.

The agreement’s focus on top-down institutional mechanisms, while necessary, must be complemented by inclusive, grassroots peacebuilding initiatives that address the grievances of affected populations and civil society.

Guiding policy for sustainable peace

To preserve this fragile peace deal amidst geopolitical uncertainty, the following guiding policies are imperative:

Inclusive implementation

All stakeholders, including local communities, civil society organisations, and affected populations, must be meaningfully involved in the implementation and monitoring of the agreement. A broad-based national dialogue in the DRC, coupled with transparent, internationally backed oversight mechanisms, is crucial to ensure accountability and build trust. The Joint Security Coordination Mechanism must include representation from diverse local actors to gain legitimacy.

Addressing root causes

The agreement mustn’t be solely transactional, focused on minerals for security. Sustainable peace requires a genuine commitment to addressing the root causes of conflict, including poverty, historical grievances, weak governance, corruption, and impunity. This necessitates significant investment in local development, judicial reform, genuine disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) programmes that offer viable alternatives to armed conflict.

Diversified economic development

While critical minerals offer economic potential, reliance solely on this sector is perilous. Both the DRC and Rwanda should pursue diversified economic development strategies that create broad-based prosperity, reduce dependency on extractive industries, and foster regional trade beyond minerals. This will lessen the incentive for illicit exploitation and provide more stable livelihoods for citizens.

Strengthened regional cooperation

The establishment of a regional economic integration framework, as outlined in the agreement, must be vigorously pursued. This should extend beyond mineral trade to include agricultural development, infrastructure projects, and cross-border initiatives that benefit all citizens. Regional bodies like the East African Community (EAC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) must play an active role in fostering this integration and mediating any future disputes.

Consistent international support

The role of international guarantors, particularly the United States and Qatar, remains paramount. Their sustained diplomatic and financial support, coupled with rigorous enforcement mechanisms and consequences for non-compliance, will be critical. However, this engagement must be balanced, avoiding actions that could be perceived as self-serving or exacerbating regional rivalries. The international community mustn’t disengage once a deal is signed, recognising that peacebuilding is a long-term commitment.

Deal’s pros and cons

Current facts

The agreement was signed on 27 June 2025 in Washington, D.C., with Foreign Ministers Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner (DRC) and Olivier Nduhungirehe (Rwanda) signing, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio witnessing. Diplomatic support came from the United States and Qatar. Officially, it’s the “Critical Minerals for Security and Peace Deal.” Key components include territorial integrity, disarmament of non-state armed groups (FDLR, M23), a Joint Security Coordination Mechanism, provisions for refugees and IDPs, and a framework for regional economic integration focused on critical minerals.

The M23 rebel group, a significant actor in the eastern DRC conflict, wasn’t a direct signatory to this specific agreement, though separate talks are underway in Doha. Marco Rubio assumed office as the 72nd U.S. Secretary of State in January 2025. Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner was appointed DRC Foreign Minister in June 2024. Olivier Nduhungirehe became Rwanda’s Foreign Minister in June 2024.

Advantages of the accord

The diplomatic breakthrough itself is a significant achievement, offering a glimmer of hope for a region mired in conflict. The agreement formalises commitments to territorial integrity and the cessation of support for armed groups, providing a clear legal and diplomatic framework for accountability.

The establishment of a JSCM creates a platform for direct communication and coordinated security efforts, potentially reducing miscalculations and fostering trust between the nations. The economic incentive linked to critical minerals could unlock substantial investment and development for both nations if managed transparently and equitably, leading to shared prosperity. Lastly, the visible involvement of the U.S. and Qatar provides substantial diplomatic weight and potential resources for implementation and monitoring.

Disadvantages and risks

The exclusion of the M23 from direct negotiations is a critical flaw. Without their full engagement and verifiable disarmament, the conflict in eastern DRC remains precarious. The region has a grim history of failed agreements due to a lack of genuine political will and continued proxy warfare, suggesting this accord could follow a similar path. The “minerals-for-security” nexus, while promising, carries a substantial risk of exacerbating the resource curse, fuelling corruption, and leading to further exploitation rather than equitable development. Weak enforcement mechanisms and limited scope on internal DRC issues further threaten the agreement’s efficacy.

Conclusion: A cautious path

The peace agreement signed on 27 June 2025 between the DRC and Rwanda represents a monumental step, yet it’s a path riddled with historical complexities and contemporary geopolitical pitfalls. As a political analyst, I assess that while the aspirations embodied in this document are profound and necessary, their sustainability will be tested relentlessly by the harsh realities on the ground. The explicit link to critical minerals underscores a fundamental truth: peace in the Great Lakes is inextricably tied to the region’s immense wealth, and how this wealth is managed will dictate the future.

The history of eastern DRC is etched with the tears of millions displaced, and the blood of those lost to seemingly endless cycles of violence. This agreement offers a glimmer of hope for these suffering populations but hope alone is insufficient. The current geopolitical landscape, marked by a scramble for critical resources and the enduring influence of non-state armed actors, demands an extraordinary level of commitment, transparency, and inclusive action from all parties involved.

Without genuine political will to disarm all armed groups, without robust governance and equitable distribution of mineral wealth, and without a sincere effort to address the deep-seated mistrust and grievances, this agreement risks becoming yet another footnote in a long, tragic history.

The true test of this peace deal lies not in its signing, but in the relentless, difficult, and often unglamorous work of its implementation. For the sake of the people of the DRC and Rwanda, who have endured far too much, we must hope that this time, the promises made on paper translate into a tangible, lasting peace that fundamentally transforms their lives. The world watches, with a fervent hope that this accord defies the odds and brings forth a new era of stability and shared prosperity for a region that has suffered for far too long.

Aric Jabari | Africa Regional Policy Fellow | Editorial Director, The Sixteenth Council