A Risk-Based Analysis of the DRC-Rwanda Peace Deal
Written by Elisa Garbil – 18.07.2025
On the 27th of June 2025, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of Rwanda signed a landmark peace agreement in Washington, D.C., mediated by the United States and Qatar. This deal is meant to be potential turning point in the region’s turbulent history, the deal, which has unofficially been dubbed the Washington Accord, promises a roadmap toward peace and prosperity in Africa’s mineral-rich Great Lakes region. By linking military disengagement with economic integration through critical minerals, the accord represents a bold diplomatic gamble. Yet despite its promise, the agreement introduces a complex matrix of risks: security-related, political, economic, and geopolitical. If unmanaged, this could jeopardise the deals durability and undermine long-term peace in the region.
Military Withdrawal and Mineral-Driven Cooperation
At the core of the agreement is a 90-day phased withdrawal of Rwandan troops from eastern DRC, coordinated with the disarmament of armed groups and the restoration of state control in conflict-affected areas. Both nations agreed to cease support for proxy militias: the DRC pledged to sever ties with the Hutu-dominated FDLR, while Rwanda committed to ending its backing of the M23 rebel movement. A bilateral joint security coordination mechanism is to be established within 30 days to monitor compliance, resolve violations, and facilitate communication between the two governments.
In parallel, the accord proposes a U.S.-backed economic framework aimed at formalising and stabilising the trade of critical minerals, particularly cobalt, lithium, tin, and tantalum. Importantly, this agreement is a mineral deal first, and peace seems to be an afterthought or a nice bonus. The U.S. is vital in order to make the peace last, as they promised continued monitoring and support from Congress whenever needed. Knowing how that is currently going for Ukraine, it is important to ask whether the U.S. will uphold its end of the bargain.
The hope is that regional cooperation on mineral extraction and processing will not only reduce the resource-driven violence that has plagued eastern Congo for decades but also integrate both countries more tightly into global supply chains, especially those vital to the clean energy transition.
1. Security Risks: Fragile Ceasefires and Excluded Actors
While the deal marks a diplomatic milestone, serious security concerns remain. The most immediate and pressing challenge is the exclusion of M23 from the agreement. As one of the most powerful armed groups in the region and a key Rwandan ally, M23’s absence raises doubts about the feasibility of full military disengagement. The group continues to control territory around Goma and Bukavu, key urban and mining hubs in North Kivu. Without its formal disarmament or integration into the peace process, renewed clashes seem likely, undermining both the security and symbolic integrity of the accord.
Further compounding the issue is the proliferation of other non-state armed groups still active in eastern Congo. These include remnants of the FDLR, local Mai-Mai militias, and various independent warlords, all of whom operate in environments with weak or absent state authority. The joint DRC-Rwanda coordination mechanism, while promising, is untested, and will need strong technical and international support, possibly from the UN mission MONUSCO, to maintain credibility and enforce compliance.
2. Governance and Political Risks: A History of Failed Deals
Past failures also haunt the current accord. Both DRC and Rwanda have previously signed peace agreements, many were brokered by the African Union, UN, or regional bodies, that were never fully implemented. Distrust remains deep-rooted. Rwandan President Paul Kagame has openly warned about ‘tricks’ and false promises undermining the agreement, revealing limited confidence in the DRC’s political commitment. This skepticism is echoed in Kinshasa, where officials harbor concerns about Kigali’s true willingness to sever its ties with M23.
More troubling is the deal’s silence on justice and accountability. Despite widespread documentation of war crimes and human rights violations by both state and non-state actors, including summary executions, sexual violence, and forced displacement, there are no provisions for transitional justice, reparations, or legal accountability. This omission risks alienating civil society groups and victims’ communities, many of whom view reconciliation as inseparable from justice. Without mechanisms to address past atrocities, grievances may fester, ultimately destabilising the very peace the agreement seeks to secure.
3. Economic Risks: Minerals as a Pathway or Pitfall
The economic component of the deal, while innovative, brings significant risks of its own. By linking peace to access and control over critical minerals, the accord attempts to turn a historic driver of conflict into a foundation for cooperation. However, without robust safeguards, the commodification of peace may reinforce rather than resolve the structural inequalities and corruption that fuel violence in Eastern Congo.
The DRC’s mining sector remains notoriously opaque, with entrenched networks of corruption, informal mining, and militia involvement. Even in peacetime, mineral wealth has often benefited political and military elites rather than local communities. If foreign investment flows into extraction and export infrastructure without corresponding investment in governance, transparency, and local development, there is a real risk that mineral wealth will be captured by a few, exacerbating inequality and resentment. Furthermore, the focus on U.S.-backed supply chains, designed in part to counter Chinese influence, may stoke geopolitical rivalries that complicate implementation on the ground.
4. Geopolitical and Structural Risks: Foreign Control and Domestic Backlash
Another critical risk lies in the geopolitics of the deal. The United States’ prominent role in brokering the accord reflects Washington’s strategic interest in securing access to clean energy minerals. However, this framing also invites accusations of neo-colonialism and resource exploitation. Civil society groups in both Rwanda and DRC have expressed concerns that the agreement disproportionately benefits foreign companies and governments, while doing little to ensure community participation or long-term development.
Moreover, the sustainability of the accord depends heavily on continued U.S. support: both diplomatically and financially. Should the U.S. administration change course, or should congressional interest wane, the absence of long-term guarantees may lead to fragmentation or non-compliance. As mentioned previously, the U.S. does promise and not fulfil (think of Ukraine), leading to questions about whether this is purely meant to get access to rare minerals, rather than ensuring safety for the communities.
Regional buy-in is similarly fragile. Other neighbors in the Great Lakes region, including Uganda and Burundi, have their own stakes in eastern Congo and could disrupt or undercut the deal if not adequately engaged.
5. Mitigation Strategies: Building Resilience into the Process
Despite these risks, there are viable strategies for mitigating them:
- The peace process must broaden to include M23 and other armed groups in the Doha talks. Without their participation, the military aspects of the deal will remain fragile.
- The joint security coordination mechanism must be endowed with robust monitoring and enforcement tools, including civil society and UN observers, to build legitimacy and detect violations early.
- Transitional justice must be added to the agenda. Peace without accountability risks creating a fragile truce rather than a durable solution. Investigations, victim compensation, and legal reform should be incorporated into subsequent phases of the agreement. On the economic front, mineral governance must be guided by transparency mechanisms, such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), and local value chains must be prioritised to ensure economic benefits reach affected populations.
- The deal must be institutionalised in both U.S. and regional political frameworks: through legislation, trade compacts, and development partnerships, in order to ensure that the DRC and Rwanda are protected from future political shocks in the U.S..
From Transactional Peace to Lasting Stability
The Washington Accord represents a bold and innovative attempt to reshape peace building in Central Africa through the lens of economic interdependence. By connecting military disengagement with mineral trade formalisation, it acknowledges the central role that resources play in both conflict and opportunity. Yet the risks are substantial: without inclusion, justice, and local empowerment, the agreement could falter or even backfire.
For peace to be sustainable, it must be more than a foreign-brokered ceasefire and investment framework. It must become a process rooted in accountability, participation, and shared prosperity. Only then can the DRC and Rwanda move beyond war and toward a peaceful, cooperative future in which minerals fuel development rather than destruction.
