My analysis of the agreement signed on June 27, 2025 between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo under the aegis of the United States of America
Kinshasa took the initiative of contacting Washington to propose an agreement in exchange for security guarantees. The DRC, although the initiator, saw its demands downplayed in a watered-down text, silent on Rwanda’s alleged responsibility in supporting the M23 and other armed groups. The idea behind the Congolese government’s proposal was to corner Rwanda and sign this partnership on its critical minerals with the United States of America in exchange for security, i.e. diplomatic and military support. This diplomatic process was intended to put an end to decades of border tensions and armed conflict in Eastern Congo, and to Rwanda’s involvement in supporting armed groups such as the M23.
Curiously, instead of the United States responding to the requests and expectations of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which had asked it to protect itself from Rwanda, the USA invited Rwanda to the negotiating table.
The agreement signed by Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe and Congolese Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner under the aegis of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on June 27, 2025 must be read beyond the fine formulas it contains.
Diplomatic rehabilitation and strategic gain for Rwanda
The Congo, which was initially a signatory to the agreement with the USA, has been totally stripped of its rights, and Rwandan aggression is not recognized. Nowhere in the agreement is there any mention of Rwanda’s aggression against the DRC. On the contrary, for Rwanda, the agreement represents a diplomatic victory. Long accused of supporting armed groups operating on Congolese territory, Paul Kagame’s regime has succeeded in repositioning its international image thanks to this agreement. By avoiding explicitly naming the M23 or setting sanctions, the text enables Kigali to maintain a defensive, even victimizing posture, while demanding that the DRC commit to disarming militias hostile to Rwanda, such as the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR).
The UN experts’ report published on July 2, 2025
The latest report by the United Nations group of experts on the conflicts in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, published on Wednesday July 2, re-launches the accusations against Rwanda. The UN accuses Rwanda of leading the military operations of the Alliance Fleuve Congo et Mouvement du 23 mars (AFC/M23).
The text, which Radio France Inter was able to consult, notes the massive presence of up to 6,000 Rwandan soldiers on Congolese soil between January and May 2025, and cites the names of several high-ranking Rwandan officials directly involved in the operations. Less than a week after the signing of agreements between Kigali and Kinshasa in Washington. It’s a report that won’t go unnoticed. Released on July 2, 2025, after having been submitted to the United Nations Security Council last May, the document details the Rwandan military presence on Congolese soil and the support it provided to the Alliance Fleuve Congo and Mouvement du 23 mars (AFC/M23) coalition, notably during the capture of Goma and BUKAVU earlier this year. The United Nations (UN) experts who drew up the report state unequivocally. In January and February 2025, some 6,000 Rwandan soldiers, including members of the special forces, were deployed in North and South Kivu, and Kigali recruited demobilized former combatants of the Forces de Libération de Rwanda (FDLR) to carry out reconnaissance and intelligence operations in Congolese territory. This report clearly shows that Rwanda does use the Forces de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR). They are demobilized and recycled by Rwanda. It is therefore clear from this report that Rwanda does not only want Congolese minerals, but also and above all to annex North and South KIVU.
I highly recommend this latest report by UN experts, published on July 2, 2025, which is very pathetic and speaks for itself.
If only the Congolese leaders could leap on this UN expert report and retract their position on the June 27 Washington surrender agreement!
• Moreover, in this agreement, Kagame obtains the return of Congolese-Rwandan refugees (according to him, nearly 400,000) who have been in Rwanda for over 30 years. Thanks to this agreement, he’s going to infiltrate part of his population into this corner, using the pretext that these are Congolese who have been refugees in Rwanda for over 30 years.
• Bilateral integration:
The same agreement provides for the bilateral management of national parks. The Kahuzi Biega Park, which also abounds in rich, solid woods, and the Virunga Park, which also abounds in oil, are to be managed by the Congo and Rwanda. With this agreement, the USA already has the right to Congolese ore.
Rwanda shares the Ruzizi River and Lake Kivu with the DRC. The Ruzizi flows south from Lake Kivu into Lake Tanganyika, while Lake Kivu forms part of the border between the two countries. With the potential for hydroelectricity, electric dams will be built, because they will need electricity to dig the minerals and do all the work that goes with it.
How can we talk about the peace agreement without justice?
The agreement makes no mention of Rwanda’s aggression against the Democratic Republic of Congo, war crimes or reparation processes. Millions of Congolese victims are ignored, creating a profound sense of injustice and abandonment.
Even if peace were to return to the Congo, the country would return to its status quo ante. This cannot be considered a gain for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Whatever can be done, the population of Eastern Congo will remain scarred by trauma, rape, damage, victims of all kinds and the dead who will not be resurrected. This agreement may enable the population to live in tranquillity, but will not repair the Congolese people’s bruised past.
And what about the USA?
With this agreement, the USA is already entitled to Congolese minerals. Clearly, the United States stands to benefit from Congo’s minerals, for which it will invest in refining, mining, exporting, cleaning and processing, all of which will take place in Rwanda.
And this agreement constitutes the guidelines or policy that formalizes and legitimizes Rwanda’s access to the Congo. Rwanda will no longer obtain minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo fraudulently, by stealing, as it has done until now. This agreement opens the door for Rwanda to help itself in peace. Through this signature, the USA is initiating an economic agreement between the Congo and Rwanda for the control and exploitation of Congolese natural resources, which have long been plundered and exploited by Rwanda.
The Congo will give access to its minerals, while Rwanda, acting on behalf of the United States, will pollute the Congolese soil, dumping mercury, leaving waste, dust, smoke and uneven earth as a result of the digging. Who will be employed as laborers on this project? Let’s wait and see.
But what’s the guarantee for the Congo?
Chapter 7 point 3 of this agreement states that signatory parties who are not members of this agreement have no obligations with regard to this agreement. In this case, the non-signatory members are: the United States of America and Qatar. The signatory members are Congo, Rwanda and the African Union, since Congo and Rwanda are members of the African Union. As a non-signatory to this agreement, the United States has no obligations under it. America will withdraw if the agreement fails.
An unclear peace for a weakened state
The Democratic Republic of Congo is the party that has given up the most in this agreement. Kinshasa had hoped to obtain formal recognition of Rwandan aggression and the immediate withdrawal of elements of the March 23 Movement (M23) from occupied areas in North Kivu. However, the final text remains vague on these key issues. There are no binding guarantees on the disarmament of the March 23 Movement (M23 ) or on respect for Congolese territorial sovereignty. There is a risk of recurrence.
The Congolese state appears to have given in to external pressure. The terms of the agreement appear to have been dictated more by the mediators than by Kinshasa itself. An agreement under the influence of foreign powers.
Congo is the loser, as it will not have the diplomatic and military support it needs.
It was Rwanda’s demands that were considered, not those of the Congo.
In addition, some observers criticize the lack of consultation with local populations and Congolese institutions, giving the impression that the agreement was dictated more by external diplomatic imperatives than by the real needs of the Congolese people.
On the security front, the agreement provides for the establishment of a joint border surveillance mechanism, which could ultimately limit incursions and improve security. But its effectiveness remains to be demonstrated.
The basic element in this agreement is the economy, not peace. It’s a surrender agreement.
The conclusion:
The peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda raises a number of concerns as to its practical impact on the Congolese population. It illustrates the complexity of the balance of power in the Great Lakes region, where external powers, under the guise of peace, are also pursuing their own strategic interests.
The real challenge remains the appropriation of this peace by the Congolese themselves: without justice, truth and real security, any peace agreement risks being no more than a temporary ceasefire.
The flaws in the text highlight the structural weaknesses of Congolese diplomacy. Civil society, as the sentinel of memory and popular sovereignty, calls for a peace based on truth, justice and consultation with the populations directly affected by the conflict.
This 23-page agreement can still be dissected. There are many grey areas.
Indicative bibliography
– United Nations. (2010). Mapping Report on Human Rights Violations in the DRC (1993-2003).
– Human Rights Watch. 2022. Rwanda and M23 in Eastern Congo’.
– International Crisis Group (2024). Reconciling peace and justice in the DRC’.
– Radio Okapi, Actualités (2025). Reactions of civil society after the peace agreement’.
– Al Jazeera, African News (2025). US-brokered peace deal between Rwanda and DRC draws mixed reactions’.
– UN Press Releases(July 2025)
By Sr. Berlaine Kola
