Peace in the Great Lakes region remains fragile as the Rwanda–DRC agreement prioritizes mineral access over justice, leaving Congolese communities vulnerable to renewed conflict.
Introduction: A Deal at the Crossroads of Peace and Profit
In early 2025, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a peace agreement facilitated by the United States. At first glance, the accord appeared to signal a breakthrough in one of Africa’s most persistent conflicts, raising hopes for an end to decades of bloodshed in eastern Congo. Yet beneath the diplomatic language lies a deeper question: does this deal truly serve the people of the DRC, or does it simply secure access to the country’s vast mineral wealth for foreign powers, particularly the United States?
For many observers, the agreement is less about peace and more about resources. The fear is that it represents a continuation of a long history in which Congo’s mineral riches, including cobalt, copper, lithium, and diamonds, have fueled both prosperity abroad and misery at home.
Eastern Congo’s Endless War
The eastern provinces of the DRC have been locked in cycles of violence since the mid-1990s. The official end of the Second Congo War in 2003 did not bring lasting peace. Instead, more than 120 armed groups, many with links to neighboring countries or powerful political figures, have competed for control over territory and resources.
The M23 militia, one of the most notorious, resurfaced in recent years, attacking villages, displacing communities, and engaging in looting and sexual violence. In January and February 2025 alone, thousands were killed. Entire towns have been emptied as families flee in search of safety.
Humanitarian agencies have repeatedly warned that the situation constitutes one of the world’s largest and most underreported crises. Yet peace initiatives have often stalled, either because they fail to address the root causes of conflict or because they prioritize the interests of regional and international actors over those of the Congolese people.
The U.S. Role and the Geopolitics of Minerals
The involvement of the United States in Congo’s affairs is not new. During the Cold War, Washington played an active role in Congolese politics. Since then, U.S. interests in the region have consistently aligned with securing access to strategic resources.
In today’s global economy, Congo’s importance is even more pronounced. The country produces about 70 percent of the world’s cobalt, a key component in electric vehicle batteries, renewable energy storage systems, and other technologies central to the energy transition. It ranks among the top producers of copper, industrial diamonds, nickel, and lithium. The Manono deposit alone could yield nearly 95,000 tonnes of crude lithium, a resource in high demand for digital infrastructure and advanced technologies.
In 2025, policies from the United States began to adopt what many described as a resource-first approach. Official statements openly linked support for certain countries to guarantees of mineral supply, and the DRC was no exception.
The March 2025 Bargain
In March 2025, President Félix Tshisekedi of the DRC made a pivotal offer: Congo’s critical minerals would be opened to foreign companies in exchange for security guarantees. The move came at a time when M23 violence was escalating, Rwanda was accused of supporting rebel activity, and communities were desperate for stability.
Shortly afterward, the peace deal was signed. It was celebrated internationally as a diplomatic success. But for many Congolese citizens and civil society leaders, the celebration rang hollow. The deal seemed designed less to end suffering and more to secure lucrative mining contracts.
Critical Loopholes in the Agreement
While the peace deal has been promoted as a pathway to stability, several weaknesses threaten its credibility and sustainability:
- Lack of Justice Mechanisms
The agreement makes no provision for prosecuting war crimes or compensating victims. This omission risks reinforcing a culture of impunity. - Exclusion of Civil Society
Local voices, particularly those of war survivors and grassroots activists, were absent from the negotiation table. Without their participation, peace risks being imposed rather than owned. - Ignoring the Role of Neighboring States
Rwanda and Uganda have long been accused of backing armed groups in eastern Congo. The agreement fails to address this reality directly. - Neglecting State Fragility
The DRC’s weak institutions and limited governance capacity remain central enablers of conflict. Yet the deal contains no robust plan to strengthen the state’s ability to protect its citizens or manage its resources fairly. - Mineral-First Priorities
By focusing heavily on mineral rights, the agreement risks deepening the very inequalities that have fueled instability for decades.
A Pattern of External Control
This is not the first time Congo’s fate has been shaped by foreign powers. From colonial exploitation to modern economic interventions, the country’s trajectory has often been steered by outside interests. In the past two decades, global competition for Congo’s resources has intensified, with multiple powers vying for influence.
Yet these projects have largely focused on resource logistics rather than human security. The new peace deal appears to follow the same pattern, prioritizing supply chains over dismantling the systems of violence and exploitation that destabilize the country.
Humanitarian Consequences of the Deal
Even as the agreement was signed, certain forms of humanitarian aid were reduced, including medical support for survivors of sexual violence. This decision undermines trust in the peace process and leaves vulnerable populations without critical assistance.
Rights advocates warn that rewarding aggressors with political legitimacy and economic access, while sidelining justice, risks fueling further violence. Many have condemned the deal for legitimizing the plunder of Congo’s natural resources and sacrificing justice for a fragile peace.
The Bigger Picture: Global Mineral Competition
The scramble for Congo’s resources must be seen in the context of global competition for critical minerals. As countries race to transition to green energy, demand for cobalt, lithium, and other rare elements is surging.
The DRC’s estimated mineral wealth is staggering. Yet without transparent governance, this wealth can easily become a curse rather than a blessing. In such an environment, peace deals that ignore the social and political dimensions of resource management may simply perpetuate instability.
What Sustainable Peace Requires
True and lasting peace in the DRC cannot be achieved through agreements that ignore the human dimension. A credible process must include:
- Accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity
- Inclusive dialogue involving civil society and marginalized communities
- Regional cooperation that addresses the role of neighboring countries in fueling conflict
- Institutional strengthening to ensure transparent resource management
- Economic justice so that mineral wealth benefits the population rather than a small elite
Without these pillars, the risk is that the peace deal will be another chapter in a long story of exploitation, where minerals flow out of the country while violence, poverty, and instability remain.
Learning from History
Congo’s post-independence history is a cautionary tale. From political assassinations to regional wars, moments of foreign engagement have often brought temporary political change but long-term economic extraction.
The presence of peacekeeping forces for more than two decades has not prevented massacres, mass displacement, or the entrenchment of armed groups. Each time, agreements have been signed with promises of peace, only for violence to resume when deeper structural issues remain unresolved.
Conclusion: The Cost of Ignoring Justice
The peace agreement between Rwanda and the DRC may bring a temporary halt to certain hostilities, but without mechanisms for justice, accountability, and genuine inclusion of Congolese voices, it risks becoming another missed opportunity.
For Congo’s long-suffering citizens, peace must mean more than the absence of gunfire. It must mean the presence of justice, dignity, and equitable development. If the international community is serious about fostering stability, it must resist the temptation to treat Congo merely as a mineral warehouse.
The world has a choice: to continue a cycle of exploitation disguised as diplomacy, or to invest in a truly just peace that puts people before profit. More perspectives on human rights in conflict zones can be found at Human Rights Watch.
