After three decades marked by bloodshed, proxy wars, and political theatre, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a peace agreement. Many are calling this a historic moment in the Great Lakes region, with the aim to silence the guns. This significant step was facilitated by international pressure, including a surprising re-entry into African diplomatic theatre by Donald Trump, and saw a convergence of American, Qatari, and African diplomacy, signalling a global weariness with the conflict in eastern Congo. The prolonged conflict, born from the geopolitical shockwaves of the 1994 genocide, has profoundly shaped the lives of millions, drawing in foreign armies, warlords, rebels, mining interests, and global powers. The scars run deep, manifesting in burned villages, displaced families, looted minerals, and shattered trust across the region.

However, a crucial omission casts a shadow of doubt over this new peace deal: the M23 rebel movement was not part of the negotiation process. This is a significant point of concern, as the M23 controls large areas of North Kivu and remains central to the ongoing tension between Kigali and Kinshasa. Many question the efficacy of securing peace without the direct involvement of the group actively fighting the war. Rwanda, whether acknowledged or denied, retains leverage through M23, and the DRC faces immense challenges in fully implementing peace while these rebels remain active. Consequently, a deal struck without their participation is seen more as a beginning than a definitive solution to the entrenched conflict.

Adding another layer of complexity is the persistent issue of minerals, a factor that has haunted every previous peace effort in the region. The Congolese soil is rich with valuable resources such as cobalt, coltan, gold, and rare earths, which are essential for powering smartphones, electric cars, and global military hardware. The inherent instability in the region often serves to keep mineral prices low and supply flexible, thereby benefiting powerful, clandestine networks. Any genuine attempt to stabilize eastern Congo must squarely confront the uncomfortable truth that the financial incentives provided by these minerals have fuelled the protracted war as much as political grievances.

The symbolism of various African leaders, including those from SADC, the AU, and EAC members, standing together to endorse the agreement should not be dismissed. It suggests a continental recognition that Congo’s conflict is not merely a localized problem but a profound continental wound. Yet, symbolism alone cannot substitute for substantive action. A critical contradiction arises when the mantra of “African solutions to African problems” is advocated, while the key negotiations themselves take place in distant capitals like Washington and Doha, rather than within Africa. This raises the uncomfortable question of whether the DRC has managed a diplomatic coup by securing a deal without legitimising M23, potentially positioning Kinshasa as the peace-seeking party and placing responsibility for future outcomes on Kigali. However, diplomacy without concrete disarmament remains little more than a carefully orchestrated performance.

Looking ahead, the region requires an honest and inclusive dialogue, critically involving all armed groups, to address the core issues. There is an urgent need for a truth and reconciliation process to confront the deep-seated trauma accumulated over three decades of conflict. Furthermore, transparent mineral governance is imperative to dismantle the quiet incentives that continue to perpetuate the conflict. Most importantly, a robust regional commitment, extending far beyond ceremonial handshakes on foreign soil, is essential for sustainable peace. This peace deal offers a crucial opportunity, but whether it ultimately becomes a true turning point or merely another footnote in a long and tragic history depends entirely on the concrete actions taken next for the long-suffering people of eastern Congo.