Congo and Rwanda on Friday signed a peace deal facilitated by the U.S. to help end the decades-long deadly fighting in eastern Congo while helping the U.S. government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it “an important moment after 30 years of war.” Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump said at a news conference that he was able to broker a deal for “one of the worst wars anyone’s ever seen.”
“I was able to get them together and sell it,” Trump said. “And not only that, we’re getting for the United States a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo.”
The agreement has been touted as an important step toward peace in the Central African nation of Congo, where conflict with more than 100 armed groups, the most potent backed by Rwanda, has killed millions since the 1990s.
It’s also at the heart of Trump’s push to gain access to critical minerals needed for much of the world’s technology at a time when the U.S. and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.
Analysts see the deal as a major turning point but don’t believe it will quickly end the fighting. The agreement involves provisions on territorial integrity and a prohibition on hostilities, as well as the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups.
Peace deal not likely to quickly end the conflict
The Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group in the conflict, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets.
With seven million people displaced in Congo, the United Nations has called it “one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth.”
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, as well as from the entire region, where Rwanda is estimated to have up to 4,000 troops. Rwanda has said that it’s defending its territorial interests and not supporting M23.
M23 rebels have suggested that the agreement won’t be binding on them. The rebel group hasn’t been directly involved in the planned peace deal, although it has been part of other ongoing peace talks.
Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance — known by its French acronym AFC — which includes M23, told The Associated Press in March that direct peace talks with Congo can only be held if the country acknowledges their grievances and that “anything regarding us which are done without us, it’s against us.”
An M23 spokesperson, Oscar Balinda, also echoed those thoughts in an interview with the AP this week, saying the U.S.-facilitated deal doesn’t concern the rebels.
Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo’s minerals, a trend analysts say might make it difficult for Rwanda not to be involved in any way in the region. Critical minerals are used in smartphones, advanced fighter jets and much more.
A team of UN experts alleged in a December report that “fraudulent extraction, trade and export to Rwanda of [Congo] minerals benefited both AFC/M23 and the Rwandan economy.” Rwanda has denied any involvement in Congo’s minerals.
The deal is also at the heart of the U.S. government’s push to counter China in Africa. Chinese companies have been for many years one of the key players in Congo’s minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo.
Why is Donald Trump set on coming after Canada’s critical minerals? Then, despite cooling inflation, a falling interest rate and steady employment numbers, more Canadians are missing payments on their loans and mortgages. Andrew Chang explains why.
‘Trigger-happy proposition’
Analysts say the U.S. commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese governments.
The mostly untapped minerals are estimated to be worth as much as $24 trillion US by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think-tank Dypol, called the deal a “major turning point” in the decades-long conflict but said the signing could “in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict.”
“The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor,” he said. “This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation.”
In Congo’s North Kivu province, the hardest hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence but warn that justice must still be served for an enduring peace to take hold.
“I don’t think the Americans should be trusted 100 per cent,” said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province. “It is up to us to capitalize on all we have now as an opportunity.”
The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militias killed between 500,000 and one million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and Twa, Indigenous people. When Tutsi-led forces fought back, nearly two million Hutus crossed into Congo, fearing reprisals.
Rwandan authorities have accused the Hutus who fled of participating in the genocide and alleged that elements of the Congolese army protected them. They have argued that the militias formed by a small fraction of the Hutus are a threat to Rwanda’s Tutsi population.
The World Food Program is warning of shortages of food, clean water and medical supplies in Goma, in eastern Congo, where waves of fighting have displaced thousands of people and disrupted supply chains.
