On June 27, 2025, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed what has been touted as a significant peace agreement in Washington, D.C.—a deal mediated and facilitated by the United States. Heralded by diplomats as a landmark step toward ending decades of instability and conflict in eastern Congo, the accord outlines a framework for regional economic cooperation and Western investment. But for those of us watching the region’s history unfold with sobering familiarity, the fanfare around the deal feels less like a celebration of peace and more like the rollout of a new phase in the global scramble for African resources.
According to Al Jazeera, the deal is aimed at attracting Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. These minerals are essential for the global tech economy and clean energy transition, making them strategically invaluable to countries like the United States that are attempting to secure supply chains amid growing tensions with China. It is no coincidence that the deal was brokered in Washington. The city that once oversaw Cold War alliances now seeks influence through critical mineral corridors.
Yet, the underlying drivers of conflict in eastern Congo remain unchanged. For over two decades, the region has been a battleground for proxy wars, armed militias, and foreign interests—all fueled by access to the vast natural resources beneath Congolese soil. The M23 rebel group, often accused of receiving support from Rwanda, continues to destabilize the region. In fact, M23 was not even a signatory to the Washington deal, raising serious concerns about the sustainability of the ceasefire and the inclusivity of the process.
The Peace Promised
The Washington Accord includes provisions for troop withdrawals, disarmament of non-state actors, and the formation of joint infrastructure projects. It establishes an economic integration zone aimed at enhancing cross-border mineral trade and attracting billions in foreign direct investment. On the surface, these goals are laudable. But what is notably missing from the deal are enforceable mechanisms for human rights protections, local community benefits, or truth and reconciliation processes for decades of war crimes and abuses.
Human Rights Watch warned explicitly that the agreement appears to be “a mineral deal first, an opportunity for peace second.” This warning should not be taken lightly. Peace must be more than the absence of active gunfire—it must address the root causes of conflict, including justice, political marginalization, and economic exploitation. Otherwise, what we are witnessing is not peacemaking, but the repackaging of resource extraction under the banner of diplomacy.
Neocolonial Patterns in a New Era
The pattern is depressingly familiar. Two African countries, battered by years of conflict and distrust, are encouraged—some would say coerced—into signing an agreement in a Western capital. The agreement focuses on access to resources vital to global markets, not the welfare of local populations. It emphasizes supply chains and investor confidence over local governance and sovereignty.
It is hard not to see in this a continuation of neocolonial economic structures, where African governments are reduced to junior partners in deals negotiated on foreign terms. As The Guardian put it, “Trump eyes mineral wealth as Rwanda and DRC sign controversial peace deal in US,” a headline that tells us exactly where the priorities lie..
Indeed, the U.S. has been open about its interest in counterbalancing China’s influence in Africa by securing its own mineral supply lines. The DRC produces more than 70% of the world’s cobalt—used in smartphones, laptops, and electric vehicle batteries. Lithium, copper, and rare earth elements are equally essential for the “green transition.” But while the minerals are labeled “critical,” the communities sitting atop them remain critically underserved. This deal risks continuing that trend under new management.
Justice and Inclusion: Still Missing
Peace without justice is a shaky foundation. To this day, no large-scale truth and reconciliation effort has been implemented to reckon with the atrocities committed in the Congo wars. Rwandan-backed militias, Congolese army units, and numerous rebel groups have all been implicated in mass killings, conflict related sexual violence, child soldier recruitment, and forced displacement.
If peace efforts are to be legitimate, they must be inclusive—not just of governments and armies, but of civil society, survivors, local leaders, and youth. None of these groups appear to have been meaningfully consulted in the lead-up to the Washington deal. Instead, negotiations happened behind closed doors, looking more as trade talks than peacebuilding processes.
Beyond Slogans: What Real Peace Requires
It is tempting to be seduced by the language of progress. “Integration,” “development,” and “stability” are comforting terms for donors and diplomats. But for those living in North Kivu, Ituri, or South Kivu—the heartlands of the mineral war—peace is not a word that can be imported through investment packages. It must be built from below, from within, and with full acknowledgment of the crimes, grievances, and injustices of the past.
This moment, though presented as a diplomatic win, must be treated with vigilance. The DRC has seen peace deals come and go. Many were signed with great hope and ended in betrayal, violence, or quiet abandonment. Unless the peace deal signed in Washington learns from those failures, it risks joining them in the dustbin of well-meaning but ultimately exploitative history.
A Cautious Hope
I want to believe in peace. I want to believe that this agreement, imperfect as it is, could reduce suffering and allow communities to heal. But I also know that peace cannot be built on exploitation, exclusion, and silence. Unless local communities benefit, unless justice is pursued, and unless transparency is guaranteed, this will be just another mineral rush—only this time, signed in suits instead of enforced with guns.
For now, I remain skeptical. What we are seeing may be colonialism rebranded, neocolonialism cloaked in the language of stability. Until proven otherwise, the DRC-Rwanda peace deal remains, in the words of Human Rights Watch, “a mineral deal first, and an opportunity for peace second.”
