Central Africa is watching closely after Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a long-awaited peace agreement—an event some leaders have described as a milestone in the region’s troubled history. The deal, shaped under mounting international pressure and renewed diplomatic involvement from Washington, Doha, and African mediators, aims to quiet decades of violence linked to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. The conflict has affected millions and drawn in foreign armies, warlords, and powerful mineral interests, leaving a trail of displaced families and shattered communities from Goma to the Ituri forests.

Yet a critical omission threatens to undermine the spirit of the accord: the M23 rebel movement was not included in the negotiation process. This absence fuels major doubts, as M23 remains a decisive actor controlling large swathes of North Kivu. Many observers question whether peace can be secured without the participation of those actively shaping the battlefield. Rwanda retains influence through the group—whether acknowledged or denied—while Kinshasa faces the challenge of implementing peace in territories where M23 still holds ground. In effect, this agreement may signal a starting point rather than a definitive solution.

Complicating the picture further is the enduring question of minerals—an issue that has overshadowed every attempt at peace. The DRC’s vast reserves of cobalt, gold, coltan, and other rare resources continue to attract global demand for smartphones, electric vehicles, and defense technologies. Reports from the International Energy Agency show just how crucial Congolese minerals are to future global energy systems. The financial incentives tied to this sector have empowered clandestine networks and kept instability profitable, making mineral governance a central challenge in any meaningful peace effort.

The sight of African leaders from SADC, the African Union, and the East African Community standing together to endorse the deal carried strong symbolic weight. It demonstrated a continental acknowledgment that Congo’s crisis is a shared African problem. However, symbolism cannot replace substantive action. The irony is hard to ignore: while leaders invoke “African solutions to African problems,” the core negotiations unfolded in Washington and Doha instead of within Africa. This dynamic raises questions about whether Kinshasa secured a diplomatic victory by avoiding direct talks with M23, thereby casting itself as the proactive peace-seeker while shifting responsibility for future outcomes toward Kigali. Even so, diplomacy without concrete demobilization risks becoming little more than political theatre.

Looking forward, Central Africa needs an inclusive and honest dialogue, one that brings all armed actors to the table. A credible truth and reconciliation process is vital to address the psychological and communal scars accumulated over thirty years of conflict. Meanwhile, transparent governance of mineral wealth—guided by global frameworks such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative—is essential for dismantling the economic incentives that keep the war machinery turning. Above all, sustainable peace demands a strong regional commitment that goes beyond symbolic handshakes and foreign-brokered agreements, reinforced by African institutions like the African Union. Whether this deal becomes a genuine turning point or merely another fleeting chapter depends on the choices made next for the people of eastern Congo, who have waited far too long for lasting stability.