For peace in Congo, all parties must come to the table

For over thirty years, the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a hell on earth. The immense country, as large as Western Europe, has seen many plunderers pass by as the personal province of the Belgian king in the nineteenth century, as a colony and as a post-colonial dictatorship. Since the end of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the number of armed groups that, with the help of neighbouring countries, want to grab a piece of the mineral wealth in eastern Congo has only increased. With great humanitarian need and the most terrible human rights violations as a result.

It is therefore commendable that the American government has made efforts in recent months to reach a peace agreement. Representatives of Congo and Rwanda signed an agreement in Washington last week that was presented by the Americans as a definitive end to the bloodshed. It is a “great day for Africa and, in fact, a great day for the world,” President Donald Trump concluded on his social media platform. He immediately added that despite his efforts, he will probably still miss out on the Nobel Peace Prize – an obsession that has occupied him for some time.

Whether he is after the Nobel Prize or not, there is much to criticize about the deal. The main point of criticism is that there is no clear plan for how the peace agreement can be maintained. Moreover, a number of essential parties were not at the table when it was created. Presenting the conflict as an equal war between two neighboring countries is a simplification that does not do justice to the situation that has become increasingly complex over the decades. For example, rebel group M23 was not represented in Washington. It is participating in a parallel process in Qatar, the outcomes of which are still uncertain. This makes the deal that was concluded quite shaky.

Earlier this year, M23 captured the cities of Goma and Bukavu, with a population of millions, and set up alternative administrative structures in the region. M23 is supported by Rwanda with weapons and military advice, but is largely made up of Congolese. Are they prepared to give up their newly captured territory and power structures? And if so, who will ensure that the rebels are disarmed? Like Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi have also profited from stolen minerals from eastern Congo in recent years. They export raw materials that are not or hardly found in their own soil. These countries were also not present at the talks in the US.

As with the deal Trump presented earlier for Ukraine, raw materials also seem to play a major role for the US in Congo. The US lags behind China in securing rare earth metals that are needed for the energy transition. According to Trump, the US can gain access to these essential materials in exchange for its mediating role. It would be good news for the Congolese if this economic motive would lead to long-term American involvement in security in Congo. But the same example from Ukraine shows that this is certainly no guarantee.

Rwanda has violated Congo's territorial integrity for years and fueled a horrific war. The fact that no agreements were made about prosecuting these crimes was rightly called a missed opportunity by Congolese doctor and human rights activist Denis Mukwege in The New York Times : "The US can do better." Mukwege has already won the Nobel Peace Prize.