Assessing the Current Peace Framework in the DRC

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is currently engaged in peace negotiations taking place in cities such as Doha, Washington, and Dar es Salaam. While these international venues reflect a growing global interest in resolving the conflict, some observers have raised concerns that the relocation of talks outside Congolese territory may reduce Kinshasa’s direct influence in shaping the outcomes. Critics argue that external mediators, while contributing diplomatic resources, may also bring interests that go beyond peacebuilding alone.

The recent negotiations in Doha between representatives of the DRC government and the M23/AFC group have yet to produce a breakthrough. The participation of M23—reportedly supported by Rwanda—has sparked debate, with some analysts arguing that it elevates the group’s political status. Others note that engaging non-state actors in dialogue is a common practice in efforts to resolve protracted conflicts, even when it presents difficult questions about legitimacy and state authority.

The Role of External Actors and the Challenge of Justice

The growing involvement of external stakeholders—such as Qatar, the United States, the East African Community (EAC), the African Union (AU), and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)—has positioned Kinshasa in a less central role within the peace process. While this international attention demonstrates the conflict’s significance, some Congolese observers express concern that these processes may increasingly be shaped by non-Congolese priorities. Official communiqués from some mediators, for instance, have not explicitly addressed allegations of human rights abuses or the illegal exploitation of minerals in the eastern provinces. Critics argue that economic and strategic interests—particularly access to vital natural resources—can sometimes complicate efforts to ensure impartial diplomacy.

Economic Fragmentation and Resource Governance

Large portions of the DRC’s mineral-rich regions remain under contested control, often administered by non-state actors or local militias. This has led some experts to describe the situation as a form of de facto economic decentralization or fragmentation. Current peace frameworks rarely include concrete measures to address this issue. As a result, some civil society voices argue that dialogue focused solely on security or political integration may fail to resolve deeper challenges related to resource management and accountability.

Reflections on the 2025 Declaration of Principles

The recent Declaration of Principles, presented as a renewed effort to promote regional stability, bears structural similarities to the 2013 Addis Ababa Framework Agreement. While supporters describe it as a foundation for long-term cooperation, others point out that many of the original framework’s shortcomings—such as the absence of enforcement mechanisms and limited attention to justice—remain unaddressed.

Continuity of Mediation Actors: Though the list of mediators has changed over time—from the AU and UN to current actors like the U.S. and Qatar—the basic structure of externally supervised negotiations persists. Some Congolese analysts question whether this shift in leadership brings meaningful change in outcomes.

Limited Legal Redress: A recurring criticism of peace initiatives has been the limited pursuit of legal accountability. Victims of war crimes and mass violence often see few avenues for justice, and reparations are rarely discussed at the negotiation table.

Focus on Stability Over Root Causes: Although political reconciliation is a central goal, longstanding grievances—including forced displacement, sexual violence, and mineral exploitation—remain insufficiently addressed in diplomatic texts.

Incentivizing Armed Rebellion: Some commentators argue that repeated recognition of armed groups as negotiating partners may inadvertently reinforce the perception that violence is a viable path to political legitimacy.

Lack of Implementation Guarantees: Without strong enforcement provisions, peace agreements often rely on goodwill rather than binding commitments. Past violations have gone largely unpunished, raising doubts about the durability of new frameworks.

Strategic and Economic Considerations: While agreements are framed in terms of peace and development, critics suggest they may also reflect broader geopolitical interests—particularly in securing access to minerals like cobalt, coltan, and lithium, which are critical to global supply chains.

Partnership Dynamics and the Rwanda Question

One point of contention in recent discussions has been the inclusion of Rwanda in mineral partnership frameworks, particularly under U.S. facilitation. While the Congolese government has sought bilateral cooperation with Washington on resource development, some Congolese officials and commentators have expressed discomfort with Rwanda’s involvement, citing its alleged support for armed actors in eastern Congo.

In addition, the Declaration of Principles includes provisions for the voluntary return of refugees currently residing in Rwanda. The DRC government has raised concerns about the origins of some of these individuals, fearing the potential for renewed ethnic tensions if the process is not carefully managed. These concerns echo past debates about demographic shifts and communal representation in the Kivu provinces.

Observers note that refugee return, if not paired with local reconciliation efforts and transparent registration, could trigger unrest or be perceived as externally influenced population engineering. Historical references to similar plans in the 2000s have fuelled these anxieties.

Institutional Context and Diplomatic Forums

The choice to sign key documents in Washington, outside the institutional frameworks of the African Union, EAC, or International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR), has prompted debate about the marginalization of regional bodies. While some argue that external engagement can bring needed resources and leverage, others view it as a step back from African-led solutions to African challenges.

Potential Winners and Losers

Perceived Beneficiaries:

• Rwanda: Observers note that Rwanda’s international image may be strengthened through its role in the process, and it continues to exert regional influence, particularly in eastern Congo.
• United States: U.S. involvement reaffirms its interest in African stability and resource security, particularly amid global competition with China, Russia, and other powers.

Recent reports indicate that the U.S. signed a letter of intent with Trinity Metals and Nathan Trotter on May 14, aiming to establish a direct tin supply chain from Rwanda to the U.S. Tin, critical to electronics and clean energy technologies, is part of broader U.S. efforts to strengthen domestic industrial resilience. The agreement reflects a shift toward reshoring key materials in line with U.S. strategic priorities.

Challenges for the DRC:

• Sovereignty Concerns: Some view the reliance on external mediation as a sign of limited internal capacity to lead the peace process.
• Security Uncertainty: Despite negotiations, the continued presence of armed actors and foreign troops in eastern Congo raises doubts about long-term security.
• Political Legitimacy: President Félix Tshisekedi faces domestic pressure, with some critics questioning the government’s strategic posture and communication coherence.
• Governance and Development: Critics, including figures within the ruling coalition, have highlighted the need for a clearer vision for national reconstruction, beyond managing external partnerships.

Conclusion

While the Declaration of Principles marks another attempt to stabilize the Great Lakes region, its long-term effectiveness will depend on addressing unresolved structural issues: justice for victims, transparency in resource governance, and inclusive political dialogue. Without tangible progress in these areas, there are concerns that future agreements could follow the same pattern—ambitious on paper but limited in practical impact.