For more than thirty years, the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a hell on earth. The immense land, as large as Western Europe, has seen many looters pass by as a personal wingwest of the Belgian king in the nineteenth century, as a colony and as a post-colonial dictatorship. Since the end of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the amount of armed groups that, with the help of neighboring countries, want to take a grain of the mineral riches in Eastern Congo. With great humanitarian need and the most terrible human rights violations as a result.
It is therefore to be praised that the US government has made attempts in recent months to arrive at a peace agreement. Representatives of Congo and Rwanda signed an agreement in Washington last week that was presented by the Americans as a definitive end to the bloodshed. It is a “great day for Africa and, actually, a great day for the world,” concluded President Donald Trump on his social media platform. To add immediately that despite his efforts, he probably misses the Nobel Prize in Peace – an obsession that has been occupied him for some time.
Whether it is about the Nobel Prize or not, the deal can be seen a lot anyway. The most important point of criticism is that there is no clear plan how the peace agreement can be maintained. Moreover, a number of essential parties were not at the table during the creation. Presenting conflict as an equal war between two neighboring countries is a simplification that does not do justice to the situation that has become increasingly complex in decades. For example, rebel group M23 was not represented in Washington. She participates in a parallel process in Qatar, the results of which are still uncertain. That makes the deal that is closed quite shaky.
At the beginning of this year, M23 took the millions of cities of Goma and Bukavu and set up alternative administrative structures in the region. M23 is supported by Rwanda with weapons and military advice, but consists largely of Congolese. Are they willing to give up their newly taken area and power structures? And if that is already the case, who will ensure that the rebels are disarmed? Just like Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi have also benefited from stolen minerals from Eastern Congo in the last years. They export raw materials that hardly occur in their own soil. Those countries were also not present in the US conversations.
Just as with Trump previously presented by Trump for Ukraine, the US also appear to play a major role in Congo Raw materials. The US is behind China in securing rare earth metals that are needed for the energy transition. According to Trump, in exchange for their mediating role, the US can have access to those so necessary substances. It would be good news for the Congolese if this economic motive would lead to long -term American involvement in the safety in Congo. But the same example from Ukraine shows that this is certainly not a guarantee.
For years, Rwanda has violated the territorial integrity of Congo and drove a horrible war. That no agreements have been made about trial these crimes, mentioned The Congolese doctor and human rights activist Denis Mukwege in The New York Times Rightly a missed opportunity: “The US can be better.” Mukwege sometimes won the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Read also
Also read: Is this the end of the conflict between Rwanda and Congo? And three other questions.