Kigali, Rwanda – The rapid capture of a key city in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) early this week has reignited international debate over the durability of the peace deal recently endorsed in Washington and championed by former US President Donald Trump as a “historic” breakthrough.
Headlines have quickly framed the development as evidence that the agreement has already collapsed upon arrival. Yet such conclusions risk oversimplifying a conflict whose drivers long predate the Washington accord and whose dynamics cannot be reduced to a single diplomatic moment.
The agreement was signed amid optimism, symbolism and strong international messaging, but it rested on fragile assumptions.
Chief among them was the belief that a political handshake at the highest level would immediately translate into calm on the ground in eastern DRC, a region shaped by decades of armed mobilization, competing security interests, and parallel mediation efforts.
When violence resumed, it was interpreted less as a symptom of unresolved structural problems and more as proof of bad faith by one party.
This framing ignores a central reality that the Washington deal was never designed as a comprehensive ceasefire binding all armed actors. Nor did it erase pre-existing military movements, unresolved border incidents, or long-standing security grievances.
Treating the latest developments as a sudden rupture risks misdiagnosing the problem, and in doing so, undermines the very peace process observers claim to defend.
A peace agreement built on incomplete foundations
The Washington accord brought together political leaders and international guarantors, but it did not include armed groups operating in eastern Congo, some of whom are engaged in separate negotiations facilitated by other actors.
This omission matters. Expecting an immediate halt in hostilities without their participation was unrealistic and placed the agreement under immediate strain.
Military activity in South Kivu had already begun days before the Washington ceremony, underscoring that the fighting was not triggered by the accord itself.
Yet this chronology has largely been absent from international coverage, replaced instead by post-facto interpretations that frame subsequent developments as deliberate violations rather than the continuation of an existing confrontation.
Rwanda has argued that this selective reading distorts both cause and effect. As Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe noted during a briefing with diplomats, “Rwanda is surprised to note that even though the international community was fully briefed and has its own means of investigation, voices have suddenly woken up only when the AFC/M23 decided to retaliate.” The remark points to what Kigali sees as an imbalance in how incidents are contextualized and which actions attract international outrage.
Narratives, attribution, and the politics of accusation
The conflict’s internationalization has increasingly relied on strong rhetoric and public accusations, often presented as established fact rather than contested claims.
In this environment, language itself becomes a weapon, shaping perceptions, influencing diplomatic pressure, and narrowing space for compromise.
Rwanda has pushed back against what it considers deliberate misattribution and the conflation of commentary with verified statements.
Responding to inflammatory claims circulating in international forums, Nduhungirehe stated: “Even if the American representative at the United Nations is wrong on every count, he never mentioned the name of President Kagame in the sentence that dared to put in quotation marks, as if it were a direct quote from the author.”
This clarification highlights a broader concern: that interpretations and political messaging are being retrofitted into official records, reinforcing predetermined narratives rather than fostering clarity.
When diplomacy becomes entangled with accusatory framing, it risks entrenching positions instead of de-escalating tensions.
Security realities the deal cannot ignore
At the core of Rwanda’s position is the argument that peace initiatives will remain fragile unless they confront the security threats emanating from eastern Congo. Armed groups hostile to Rwanda continue to operate in the region, a reality Kigali views as existential rather than rhetorical.
While the Washington accord acknowledged the need to address such groups, it offered limited clarity on timelines, enforcement mechanisms, or responsibility for implementation.
Without tangible progress on this front, ceasefires risk becoming temporary pauses rather than sustainable arrangements.
Regional troop deployments, shifting alliances, and cross-border concerns further complicate the picture, making it clear that the conflict cannot be treated as a purely bilateral dispute.
Declaring the peace deal “shattered” may satisfy headlines, but it obscures the deeper challenge which is the gap between diplomatic ambition and ground realities.
The current moment should be seen less as a collapse than as a test, of whether international mediation can move beyond symbolism, resist selective narratives, and address the conflict’s root causes with consistency and balance.
Until that happens, peace in eastern Congo will remain vulnerable, not only because agreements are sometimes signed in bad faith, but because they are built on foundations that are still unfinished.
