Active contacts between Kinshasa and Washington and Doha established at the beginning of the year have paved the way for an agreement between the DRC government and the M23 to cease hostilities until the talks on ending the conflict are finished.
Subsequently, on April 25, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio invited the foreign ministers of Rwanda and the DRC to meet in Washington, where they signed a framework agreement, committing the two states to cease military backing of armed groupings on the Congolese territory and to respect each other’s sovereignty. The agreement is supposed to serve as a blueprint and foundation for a comprehensive peace agreement between the two countries in the long run.
The achievement of these preliminary agreements, presented by Washington as a breakthrough in settling the 30-year conflict, caused widespread public and political stir in both global media and academic circles.
US Deal with the DRC Through the Eyes of the World Media
Certain countries’ leaders have started expressing hope in their statements for the Congolese crisis to come to a swift end, first and foremost, bringing peace to the country’s eastern provinces. However, a number of African, European, and American analytical publications offer an unflattering assessment of Washington’s intentions and voice serious doubts about their effective implementation in practice.
In this regard, Turkey’s Anadolu Agency cites the opinions of Congolese analysts and public figures who believe that the US needs the initiative to use it primarily as a pretext for gaining access to Congolese mineral resources.
For instance, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Dr. Denis Mukwege rejects the essence of the proposed agreement, as it is “dictated by economic and financial interests alien to the Congolese population.” From his standpoint, Kinshasa’s signing of this document “constitutes a renunciation of its sovereignty… and holds no promise of a way out of the crisis for our long-suffering population.”
An even harsher assessment of this agreement comes from experts at France 24, who suppose that Trump’s “security for Congo in exchange for its natural resources” deal essentially amounts to an endorsement of Rwanda’s policy of plundering the DRC’s mineral wealth.
Canada’s The Conversation sees one of the main problems of the Rwandan-Congolese agreement in the US behaving as the primary mediator. But instead of acting as a neutral broker that makes attempts to achieve peace, Washington pursues its own purely economic interests, which bodes ill for the Congolese people.
The newspaper emphasises that such a “neo-colonial deal of peace in exchange for natural wealth,” which is rooted in the struggle for Congolese mineral resources, could not serve as a suitable incentive to end the armed conflict.
Another American publication, The Week, has made a general assessment of Trump’s “peacekeeping” model in the DRC, which, as pinpointed by BBC News, combines populist posturing with commercial machinations serving a cynical calculation to gain access to Congolese reserves of cobalt, lithium, and manganese. The Week believes the deal might only work if its implementation puts an end to the deaths of thousands of people and ceases forced migration of millions of residents in the eastern regions of the country.
But, according to News 24 experts, the ongoing military actions by M23 militants leave little hope that this agreement will work in the long term, since the text of the agreement per se contains no clause on their withdrawal from the captured territories. Moreover, the head of their delegation in Doha, Benjamin Mbonimpa, openly stated that the group “will not retreat a single metre… and we will remain where we are now.”
Analysts from The National Interest also voice clear skepticism regarding the implementation of the “minerals for security” deal. Viewing the agreement as more of a formality than a substantive deal, they do not rule out that it might simply remain on their paper even after signing, as it is merely the result of the Trump administration’s ambitious desire to be at the centre of the events happening in the country in the first place.
Neither do experts from the American Enterprise Institute see any prospects for Kinshasa achieving its goals of stabilising the situation in the eastern regions together with reaping the expected dividends from the sale of its metals. Their forecast is based on the assumption that M23 and Kigali, in order not to lose their already gained positions, will continue their formal participation in negotiations with the DRC mediated by Qatar and the US, while deliberately dragging out the implementation of decisions, which will ultimately lead them to an impasse.
In this context, it is reasonable to take a look at the statement made by Rwandan President Paul Kagame on July 4 in the presence of journalists. He said he was not confident that the peace agreement would be fully observed by Kinshasa and warned that “if the party we are working with acts cunningly… then we will solve this problem just as we have been doing so far.”
Simultaneously, Kagame, as noted by Anadolu Agency, expressed “gratitude to US President Trump for his mediation,” while emphasizing that “if it doesn’t work, it is not the fault of the US, but ours, as we are the ones agreeing on solving the problem.”
In this particular case, according to the Turkish agency, Kagame is, on one hand, playing along with the American administration by lavishly praising Trump’s peacemaking efforts, and on the other hand, trying to preemptively shift the blame for the possible collapse of this agreement onto Kinshasa.
Meanwhile, answering the question of whether the US-DRC deal on Congolese raw materials can ensure lasting peace in the east of the country, Turkey’s Yeni Şafak states that a settlement of Kinshasa’s tense relations with Kigali is unlikely to happen without resolving the extremely complex underlying political, socio-economic, and ethnic problems not only in the eastern regions but also in Kinshasa per se. Moreover, it must be inclusive, involving not only numerous local armed groups but also rebel organisations from neighbouring states.
In general, according to assessments by UN officials voiced at a Security Council briefing on August 22, the diplomatic efforts of the US and Qatar aimed at establishing lasting peace in the DRC have not yet contributed to the improvement of the situation in the country’s eastern regions, where the security setting remains extremely grave.
According to a statement by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, “Despite the ceasefire agreement signed in Doha between Kinshasa and M23, between July 9 and 21, M23 militants, supported by the Rwandan Defence Forces, killed at least 319 civilians in North Kivu province, including 48 women and 19 children, who were conducting sowing work in their fields.”
At the same time, as acting US Representative to the UN Dorothy Shea officially affirmed, in spite of the negotiations taking place in Doha, M23, which recently took on several thousand new recruits from among the local population, has been engaged in combat operations against the Congolese army in South Kivu province since August 8, with the support of the Rwandan Defence Forces.
The confrontation between the Congolese army and the M23 rebels also coincides with the increase in activities by the Ugandan terrorist organization “Allied Democratic Forces,” linked to the “Islamic State in Central Africa.” Its militants organised an attack on a funeral procession in North Kivu province on September 9, killing 71 people. In total, according to AFP, since July 2025, the death toll of the “Allied Democratic Forces” has surpassed 150 civilians in the provinces of Ituri and North Kivu, both bordering Uganda.
Taking into account the fact that after establishing control over Goma and Bukavu, where it has already created its own parallel governance structures, including a tax system, M23 has acquired a degree of legitimacy as a political player, which it does not intend to lose. Hence, experts from Yeni Şafak believe that peace should not be expected, at least for the upcoming months. Even in the case of belligerents signing an official agreement, it could take several years, according to their outlook.
Experts from the American Council on Foreign Relations hold a similar view, underlining the current “unlikelihood” of the practical implementation of the American deal with the DRC, which is being touted as a diplomatic triumph for Washington.
The extremely difficult situation in the country is also eloquently evidenced by a commentary given to CNN on September 22 by Congolese opposition leader Corneille Nangaa, regarding Donald Trump’s contradictory statement during his visit to London that he had stopped the war in the DRC.
To Nangaa’s mind, “the root causes of the Congolese conflict are not being discussed in Washington… and even if an agreement between the parties at war is signed, nothing will change here… because we are not going into exile… we are at home and we are not leaving.”
The very course of the negotiation process also speaks of obstacles to achieving peace. According to All Africa, in early October, President Tshisekedi, at the very last moment, refused to put his official signature on an essential agreement on regional economic integration between the DRC and Rwanda reached through Washington’s mediation. He feared sparking negative reactions within the country.
“Kinshasa will do everything to drag out its signing” until 90 percent of Rwandan troops are withdrawn from the Congolese eastern regions, the newspaper emphasises, citing Reuters. But even when the agreement is signed, it will find various pretexts to evade its implementation unless this particular demand is met.
Viktor Goncharov, Africa Expert, PhD in Economics
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
