The Rwandan and Congolese governments have lauded the recently signed peace agreement as a historic milestone to end fighting in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, or DRC.

The deal, brokered and signed in the United States, with support from Qatar, outlines commitments to cease hostilities, establish a path to economic cooperation, and neutralize armed groups, including the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). President Felix Tshisekedi said it would open a "new era of stability, cooperation and prosperity." Meanwhile US officials say this is a step towards unlocking mineral wealth in the region.

But observers in Rwanda and the DRC warn implementation, inclusivity and accountability remain significant hurdles. Also the realities on the ground and the cool reactions from armed groups, such as the M23, complicate matters.

Will rebel groups be reigned in?

The M23 rebel group, which seized the strategically important cities of Goma and Bukavu earlier this year, has rejected the binding nature of the DRC–Rwanda deal. A separate process in the Qatari capital of Doha between the Congolese government and the M23 is ongoing but has produced few public details.

In a statement, Corneille Nangaa, coordinator of the M23-affiliated Congo River Alliance (AFC), criticized the Washington deal as "limited," claiming Kinshasa was undermining the Doha process. 

M23 executive secretary, Benjamin Mbonimpa, told reporters: "Our problems are different from what was dealt with in Washington."

Kigali-based political commentator Gonza Mugi described the M23's stance as predictable.

"They are still attacked by other groups like the Wazalendo and even Congolese government coalitions," Mugi told DW. "So it makes sense for them to keep defending the communities they claim to protect."

Jean Baptiste Gasominari, a Congolese political analyst, told DW the Congolese government should be held accountable for arming militias, and their subsequent actions. 

"Saying there are multiple armed groups operating independently in the eastern DRC is misleading," he said. "Except for M23, the rest have been armed, trained, and commanded by the DRC government itself, now unified under the Wazalendo umbrella."

A United Nations report concluded that despite denials, Rwanda's army played a "critical" role alongside the M23 anti-government group in this year's offensive in eastern DRC.

Both the DRC and Rwanda have pledged to pull back support for guerilla fighters.

Implementation and inclusivity

The US-brokered deal has been critcized for not addressing the atrocities committed by all sides during years of conflict. Additionally concerns persist that key local communities, other rebel groups and civil society appear to have been ignored.

For Gasominari, accounting for the violence and suffering is crucial.  

"Justice is a matter of state sovereignty," said Gasominari, who has been living in Rwanda as a refugee. "It's the responsibility of the DRC government to request the intervention of an international tribunal or the International Criminal Court." 

He said the agreement does not ignore justice issues, but rather delegates their resolution to internal processes and existing international frameworks. But because justice was not clearly defined by the Washington agreement, the interpretation of justice remains vague and very dependent on the actors' willingness to implement it, according to Mugi.

"The important point is whether it will be possible to implement such an ambitious concept in 90 days," Mugi told DW.

"That depends entirely on the commitment and effort put into making the deal stick," he added.

He said previous peace efforts had lacked inclusive dialogue and marginalized some political and civil society actors.

"There are forces who saw the conflict in the east as an opportunity to negotiate a new political order in Kinshasa," Mugi told DW, pointing out that armed groups had profited from the instability and conflict.

Dual objectives of peace and profit

Both analysts said the peace deal has economic motives. The eastern Congo is rich in minerals such as cobalt, gold and coltan. Gasominari characterized the agreement as "a peace deal and a business deal."

"You cannot do business where there is no peace," he said. 

Mugi added that formalizing economic cooperation could reduce the influence of informal networks that have profited from conflict.

"If proper contracts are awarded, that means the interest in supporting peace is more powerful than the interest supporting war. In the long term that could be very good for the region," he told DW.

While President Tshisekedi is expected to meet his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame in Washington in the coming weeks to discuss next steps, Rwanda's foreign minister Olivier Nduhungirehe reaffirmed Kigali's insistence on the "irreversible and verifiable end" to the FDLR, a militia it holds responsible for attacks inside Rwanda.

"We must acknowledge there is a great deal of uncertainty in our region," Nduhungirehe said. 

The FDLR is a Congo-based militia, which is opposed to Kagame's Tutsi-led government in Rwanda. Initially made up of fighters who led the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Kagame's government views the FDLR's presence on its borders as an existential threat.

Regional and international calculations

US involvement, and particularly the Trump administration's role in brokering the agreement, has added a geopolitical dimension. President Donald Trump, who welcomed the two foreign ministers at the White House, celebrated the deal's potential to unlock mineral resources.

However Trump's remarks about securing "a lot of mineral rights from the Congo" have fueled a different narrative.

Mugi, for instance, suggested that formalizing the "permanent economic interests" of Rwanda and other neighboring countries in the Congo could create powerful incentives for peace over war.

In contrast, Nobel laureate and former Congolese presidential candidate Denis Mukwege has warned the deal "would amount to granting a reward for aggression" and legitimize the "plundering of Congolese natural resources."

While the front in eastern DRC has largely stabilized since February, sporadic skirmishes persist. The joint monitoring mechanism created by the Washington agreement and the vaguely defined "regional economic integration framework" are expected to provide accountability mechanisms. However both are still in early stages.

Edited by: Cai Nebe