A Fragile Peace: The High Stakes Gamble of the Rwanda-DRC Treaty

June 30th, 2025

Patrick Li and Dhruv Arun

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo signed a U.S.-brokered peace agreement on Friday, raising hopes for an end to a conflict that has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more this year. U.S. President Donald Trump said at a White House meeting with the foreign ministers of both countries, DRC's Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner and her Rwandan counterpart Olivier Nduhungirehe, “Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace.” Specifically, the Washington-brokered agreement calls for a phased withdrawal of Rwandan troops from eastern Congo within 90 days, followed by the joint demobilization of armed groups and finally the first steps toward a regional economic integration plan.

On paper, this treaty appears to be a diplomatic breakthrough. In some ways, it is, as it is the first formal treaty between the two countries in over a decade. Yet, in truth, peace in Central Africa has rarely been about what exactly is written on the page. It’s what happens after the ink dries that is most critical. Beyond these domestic implications, the peace deal paves the way for the U.S. government and American companies to gain access to critical resources such as cobalt, tin and gold in the mineral-rich region of eastern DRC. So, while both Kigali and Kinshasa shook hands in front of the cameras in the White House, the actual terms of the deal—and the deep-rooted tensions it fails to directly address—leave a minefield of uncertainty in its wake.

Regional Implications

To the outside observer, this might seem like a bold and overdue attempt to stabilize a region that’s seen decades of foreign meddling, militia violence, and a resource-fueled scramble for power. Since the resurgence of the Rwandan-backed M23 rebels in 2022, fighting has displaced over 800,000 people in eastern DRC. Towns like Goma have changed hands multiple times. For ordinary Congolese, the only constant has been chaos.

This week’s deal promises to change that. As Rwanda will pull back its military presence, both countries will cooperate to disarm rogue militias and build joint infrastructure corridors. However, while Kigali agrees to exit, the M23 rebels—Rwanda’s unofficial proxies in the region—are notably absent from the agreement. Their silence is deafening. Critics warn that without their disarmament, any so-called “peace” may be just another version of the status quo violence with a nicer press release.

Meanwhile, the elephant in the room—strategic minerals—is nowhere in the treaty’s text. Yet, it’s central to the deal. The DRC possesses roughly 70% of the world’s cobalt and 60% of its coltan, both essential to modern batteries, AI chips and EV production. This is less a peace-for-peace’s sake treaty and more a peace-for-extraction pact. The U.S., eager to secure mineral access and edge out Chinese dominance in Africa’s resource markets, has tied itself to the success of this framework, openly pushing American investors to move into what was, until last week, an active war zone. Some see this as strategic. Others are opportunistic.

Still, supporters of the deal point to diplomatic realism: you can’t build hospitals, roads, or anything sustainable in a region where missiles are still flying. And to be fair, this is the first time in years that both sides have sat at the same table without an armed escort. Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, who was once defiant about his country’s military role in Congo, has agreed in writing to disengage. Additionally, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi—who recently survived a shaky re-election—has committed to establishing civilian oversight in rebel-held zones. If they follow through, the payoff could be enormous: the end of a war that’s killed upwards of 6 million people and devastated an entire generation.

But that’s a big “if.” What this treaty doesn’t include is just as telling as what it does. There is no transitional justice mechanism, no roadmap for holding militias accountable and no acknowledgment of the mass atrocities committed by state and non-state actors. While a regional economic council is mentioned, critics point to how the structure is vague and untested. This leaves open the very real possibility that “integration” becomes a cover for increased foreign exploitation, especially as Western firms flood the area with contracts. At the same time, local infrastructure and oversight remain relatively weak.

Moreover, there’s the risk of repetition. After all, this is not the first ceasefire. Since 2022 alone, seven separate peace processes have failed—each one undermined by bad-faith actors, regional rivalries, and sheer logistical collapse. This deal could be different, but it could also be the eighth.

American and Minerals

Under the terms of the deal, the DRC and Rwanda agreed to respect each other’s territorial integrity and cease hostilities, while paving the way for greater U.S. investment in the DRC’s critical minerals. The agreement has provisions on territorial integrity, a prohibition of hostilities and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups.

At a ceremony with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, the two African countries' foreign ministers signed the agreement, pledging to implement a 2024 deal that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern Congo within 90 days. In addition, the agreement articulated that Kinshasa and Kigali will also launch a regional economic integration framework within 90 days. However, significant concerns remain, as the M23 militia—the Rwanda-backed rebel group that captured the major Congolese cities of Goma and Bukavu earlier this year—did not participate in these negotiations. M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won’t be binding for them. Speaking to AP News this week, the M23 spokesperson Oscar Balinda claimed the agreement did not concern the rebels, who were not a party to the negotiations. Nduhungirehe said, “there is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy.” Congo’s Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner invoked the millions of victims of the conflict in signing the agreement with Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe. Wagner said, “Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them.” Additionally, Trump warned of “very severe penalties, financial and otherwise,” if the agreement is violated. Trump has pushed to gain access to such minerals at a time when the United States and China are actively competing for influence in Africa. China—which holds a monopoly over the DRC’s vast cobalt industry—will be watching this deal closely, as it too has a rapacious demand for critical minerals for its processing industry and for commercial and defense applications.

The Congo hopes the U.S. will provide it with the security support needed to fight the rebels and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, along with the entire region where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called the agreement a turning point.

The Future

Jason Stearns, a political scientist at Simon Fraser University in Canada who specializes in Africa's Great Lakes Region, said, “This is the best chance we have at a peace process for the moment despite all the challenges and flaws.” Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the deal a “major turning point” but said it could “in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.” The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militias killed between 500,000 and 1 million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and Twa, Indigenous people. Since then, the ongoing conflict in east Congo has killed 6 million people in attacks, famines and unchecked disease outbreaks stemming from the fighting. This agreement may provide a platform for stability and strategic cooperation by de-risking mineral supply chains essential for clean energy, formalizing governance in conflict-affected regions of the DRC, and empowering African stakeholders to shape global narratives around resource development.

Additionally, the stakes are enormous. Should Rwanda follow through and M23 credibly lay down arms—whether through Doha-mediated talks or local integration—this could mark the beginning of a new security architecture in Central Africa. Regional trade would expand. The mineral sector could modernize under more transparent systems, humanitarian aid could actually reach long displaced populations and, for the first time in decades, children in eastern Congo might grow up in something resembling peace.

But should the deal collapse—as so many others have—Rwanda risks international isolation, the DRC risks descent into full-blown civil war and the U.S. risks being seen not as a broker of peace, but as just another superpower angling for cobalt. Put simply, it’s a gamble. A fragile, high-stakes gamble on diplomacy, extraction, and regional control. One that could either mark either Africa’s most promising partnership—or its most cynical.

Extemp Analysis by Finian Knepper

Question: Will the DRC and Rwanda's peace deal be effective at stabilizing the region?

Introduction: As for your AGD’s, it is in your best interest to go with a narrative AGD. This topic is quite serious, so quips and puns will be detrimental to your speech. However - like many topics, whether your narrative is somber or hopeful will largely depend on whether or not you will argue over the course of your speech that this treaty will be effective at reducing violence, or will be ineffective at stopping the violence in the region.

Background - This, like many IX topics, is very important. Be sure your judge knows what exactly is going on here, and why there is uncertainty as to if the treaty will be effective (the actions and absence of M23 should be notable factors)

Thesis and main points: Being a descriptive question, there are a couple directions you could go, for either side of the question. Even further, the substructure you choose to use may vary depending on the points you use, not the question itself:
Let’s say you want to answer no, using the following:

No, because the actions of M23 are unaddressed

M23 still has access to its weapons
M23 has access to more recruits
Rwanda will not be effective at limiting M23’s movements

With a response like this, you would want to use a Past/Present/Future substructure, or some equivalent, to show the past problems and why they haven’t been solved.

Or, if you’re answering yes, using, for example:
Yes, because large scale fighting will cease

Due to the withdrawal of Rwandan troop
Due to more aid within the region
It will make it easier to evacuate refugees.

In this case, you’d likely use expectation/verification, as to how its expected that these actions are going to alleviate suffering in the region, and why these actions will fix it.

Conclusion: Remember to restate your background, and a nice tie-in with a hopeful ending will make a snapping ending.