Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda signed a peace deal last Friday that was brokered by the Trump administration and signed in Washington. If it succeeds, the agreement could help bring an end to a long and deadly conflict between the two countries.
There are many caveats, however. Chief among them, the deal does not include the M23 rebel group that currently occupies areas of eastern DRC.
The World’s Host Carolyn Beeler spoke with Michelle Gavin, a senior fellow for Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations and former US ambassador to Botswana, about the agreement and what it means.
Carolyn Beeler: What does this deal include?
Michelle Gavin: We know that the deal includes some general principles, like respect for each state’s territorial integrity, provisions for the disarmament of non-state armed groups. But these are difficult to square with the realities of eastern Congo, where it’s not just M23, there are scores upon scores of different armed actors operating in the area, and there have been for a couple of decades now. So, exactly how these groups are going to be disarmed, by whom, when that didn’t happen over the course of a long-standing UN peacekeeping mission and multiple military interventions by African forces, it’s a bit difficult to say.
The deal is between DRC and Rwanda and does not include any of those rebel groups that you just mentioned.
That is absolutely right.
We should note that many, many people suggest that Rwanda is backing M23. Rwanda denies that. But this would not be any sort of admission of involvement of Rwandans behind M23, correct?
Correct, and the evidence is quite solid to suggest that Rwanda supports M23. And Rwanda also has its formal Rwandan forces in Congo and, in fact, just yesterday, the Rwandan foreign minister tweeted that the deal that was going to be signed would not include the precondition that the Rwandans withdraw from any of their positions. So, this peace deal not only doesn’t include M23, it doesn’t require that formal Rwandan forces go back to the Rwandan side of the border.
Do you think the wording that this is a peace deal is fair?
No, Rwanda and Congo were not at war in any kind of formal sense. So, it was really this proxy force that, yes, it’s backed by Rwanda, but frankly, it’s also backed by Uganda and it’s Congolese in origin. So, it’s not entirely a Rwandan creation. Its military advances have unquestionably been enabled by Rwandan support. So, I just don’t understand peace between who, right? If the M23 is not part of the deal and Rwandans don’t have to get out of the territory, what is this?
So, what will this deal do?
Great question. I think this deal eases pressure on both Kigali and Kinshasa because they can point to their cooperation in signing it. I think that the US theory must be that, step by step, this could help build some kind of confidence between the parties and that the parallel promise of US investment in infrastructure and mineral processing in the region will begin to change the incentive structure, essentially, where there’s a more lucrative possibility than continuing the war economy. That’s the best case I can make for why this makes sense.
What you’re referring to here is that DRC offered the US access to minerals in the country. What exactly does that mean for the US?
Well, there’s no question that DRC is rich in critical minerals that are required in a lot of the technology we use today and certainly for a transition to a green economy. It’s unclear exactly what is on offer. A lot of Congo’s mines are already spoken for and there’s a tremendous amount of Chinese investment.
A lot of the critical minerals the come out of Rwanda are not necessarily mined in Rwanda, so there have been questions about whether or not, eventually, this will legitimize Rwandan control over Congolese resources. It’s all very unclear exactly how the economic element of this is intended to work.
A lot of the critical minerals the come out of Rwanda are not necessarily mined in Rwanda, so there have been questions about whether or not, eventually, this will legitimize Rwandan control over Congolese resources. It’s all very unclear exactly how the economic element of this is intended to work.
I should note that the mineral deal is officially separate from the peace agreement. Is that right?
That is right, yes.
The impacts you have outlined here sound to me like they are all concerning the leaders of these countries. Do you anticipate that this deal will change the situation on the ground at all for people living through war and the humanitarian impacts that it has caused?
I wish I anticipated that, but no, I am extremely concerned that there will be handshakes and photographs and smiles, and that very little will change for the people dealing with insecurity, living under the M23’s administration and watching a military buildup which has been happening on both sides. So, they’re both preparing for fighting to break out again. So no, I don’t think that there will be much to celebrate for the Congolese on the ground.
Parts of this interview have been edited for length and clarity.
The World is on YouTube! Check us out and subscribe.