Today, December 4, 2025, Presidents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of Rwanda authenticated a long-awaited peace agreement—which many hope will usher in a new era of stability in a region marked by decades of conflict, displacement, and silent suffering. Peace is always worth pursuing. But not all peace agreements are created equal, and some carry within them the seeds of future instability. This initiative represents an important development, but it is one that prudent observers should approach with measured optimism and careful vigilance
Peace Cannot Be Built on Active Frontlines
Despite diplomatic progress, the frontlines in eastern Congo remain active. Civilians continue to flee, lives are lost, and communities are destabilized. A peace agreement signed while bullets still fly risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
A Divided National Landscape Weakens Peace
The DRC enters this agreement without internal unity in the face of external aggression. Some political actors openly collaborate with the invading country in hopes of regaining power. Others continue to demand a recount of the December 2018 ballots, claiming their victory was stolen. Genuine opposition groups operate within democratic norms, pushing for accountability, transparency, and more responsible governance. Still others call for internal dialogue and power-sharing—an effort they claim will appease grievances over mismanagement or contested elections. Some of these fractures, however, represent a threat to the deal.
The Core Threat: Superpower Economic Interests and a Market for Stolen Minerals
The peace agreement will be challenged primarily by the economic interests of global powers who rely on the DRC’s minerals but continue to buy them through channels marked by violence, illegal exploitation, violation of Congolese sovereignty, and cross-border incursions by Rwanda to plunder natural resources. These are not abstract allegations; they are the daily reality of Congolese communities living atop the world’s most coveted minerals.
The DRC government’s acceptance of the U.S. commitment to purchase minerals directly from legitimate Congolese sources is a positive step. However, such direct purchase agreements must be accompanied by strict safeguards. Without them, “minerals for peace” risks becoming a new system of exploitation, with Congolese citizens, artisanal miners, and local communities once again sidelined.
Local and Environmental Concerns
Civil society and pressure groups across the region warn that communities may lose control over their own natural resources, artisanal miners risk being pushed out of the supply chain, environmental damage—including water contamination, loss of biodiversity, and forced displacement—may accelerate under new mining pressures. A true peace framework must place these voices at the center.
Lack of Trust in DRC–Rwanda Relations
President Félix Tshisekedi himself has underscored the conditional nature of engagement with Rwanda. He emphasized that regional integration and trade will only move forward once Rwanda has fully withdrawn from Congolese soil, left communities in peace, and restored trust between the two countries. As he stated:
“We do not engage in trade with someone we fear or someone we do not trust. That is simply not possible… trade will only happen if genuine peace and mutual trust are reestablished between our two countries. We do not believe that development can happen without peace. Peace is the primary requirement. We must first live in peace, and only then can we think about investment and development. On this point, there is no debate.” — Félix Tshisekedi
This perspective highlights that peace cannot be assumed solely through a signed agreement; it must be lived, trusted, and verified. Any accord that bypasses these conditions risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative.
Skepticism Toward President Kagame Based on Documented Patterns
Reservations about this agreement are shaped by a long and verifiable record that cannot be ignored. Over the years, Rwanda’s leadership has consistently relied on militarism and the use of force as tools for political preservation and regional influence. The Rwandan army has developed a revenue-generating model functioning as a private military contractor, deploying fighters for profit in various conflicts. This pattern is accompanied by repeated violations of Congolese territorial integrity, often justified through shifting narratives that mask deeper strategic objectives. Added to this are revisionist claims and ambitions concerning Congo’s borders, as well as an ethnocentric ideology that informs broader power calculations reaching well beyond Rwanda itself. Taken together, these factors cast serious doubt on the sincerity and sustainability of any agreement that fails to address them directly. These patterns undermine trust—the very foundation President Tshisekedi himself has said is essential for any regional integration or cooperation.
A Fragile Congolese Political Class Compounds the Risks
The DRC’s political elite has too often treated political power as a direct path to wealth, rather than a mandate for service. The fact that some still seek power through proxy warfare instead of democratic processes further weakens the foundations of durable peace.
A Peace Deal With Weak Structural Guarantees is a Gamble
A peace agreement signed with President Kagame—without enforceable mechanisms, international guarantees, and genuine accountability—risks becoming a fool’s bargain. Peace is indeed possible, but it cannot be declared by signatures alone; it must be built on truth, justice, accountability, respect for sovereignty, protection of local communities, and a fair and transparent mineral economy. Anything less will only recycle the tragedies of the past.