Scepticism in Goma over peace deal between DR Congo and Rwanda

The signing of a peace agreement between the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in Washington caused mixed reactions, the former Congolese president, Joseph Kabila, describing him as “nothing more than a trade agreement”.

The agreement signed on Friday required the “disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration” of armed groups that fight in eastern Dr. Congo – but have offered some other details.

While some, including Kabila, have been critical, others praised the agreement as a turning point in a devastating conflict that has been dragging for decades.

Rwanda denied allegations that it supports an armed group, known as M23, which fought in the eastern Dr. Congo.

The conflict intensified earlier this year when the M23 rebels took control of large parts in eastern Dr. Congo, including the regional capital, Goma, the city of Bukavu and two airports.

The UN says that thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of forced civilians from their home after the recent rebellious offensive. The M23 disputes the figures, saying that less than 1,000 people died.

After the loss of territory, the government of Dr Congo turned to the United States to obtain aid, offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. Eastern Dr Congo is rich in coltan and other vital resources for the global electronics industries.

In an article on X after the signing of the agreement on Friday, Kabila questioned the choice of the participants of the agreement, saying that Dr. Congo was not at war with the states represented in a photo of the signing, which included President Donald Trump and other American officials, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Rwanda.

It is not quite clear if his comments were an indirect criticism of the absence of representatives of M23 in Washington.

“We have to stop distorting the facts to hide a propaganda program,” said Kabila, adding that “Congolese people deserve the truth, not a diplomatic spectacle”.

The absence of representatives of M23 was also noted in the city of Goma held by the rebels in the east of Dr Congo.

“How can they say that they sign for peace, but they did not involve M23?” A resident interviewed, adding that the rebels should have been included in talks for “collective peace”.

Another resident, a commercial motorcycle driver told the BBC “people are tired, they are not interested in talks”, insisting “all they want is peace”.

He argued that previous discussions and peace agreements were not approved or implemented by the conflicting parties, leaving little hope for a return to normality.

Similarly, Sam Zarifi, executive director of Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), an international NGO that has worked in the DRC for more than a decade, said that the Washington agreement is filled with “major omissions”.

“There cannot be lasting peace without significant justice. But the agreement … The touch of human rights and fails on survivors,” said Zarifi.

He added: “The agreement neglects the way hostilities can continue with proxy armed groups that our research has shown are responsible for serious violations.”

Stephanie Marangu, head of a humanitarian organization in Goma, was more positive.

“The signing of the agreement … is a crucial and hopeful development for the Eastern Region,” she told the BBC, adding that this could “lead to increased stability and this will facilitate the benefit of assistance and access those who need it”. However, she recognizes that there can be challenges in implementing the agreement.

“If the agreement is what will bring peace, we have no problem,” said another Goma resident.

It remains to be seen what the situation will be on the ground, with concerns, the Washington agreement can simply enrich a few people with the country’s mineral resources to the detriment of ordinary people.