After thirty years of conflict that began in 1994 and claimed thousands of lives, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed a historic peace agreement under U.S. auspices on 27 June 2025. Brokered through multilateral mediation involving Washington and Doha and signed in the U.S. capital with the direct facilitation of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the accord seeks to end one of Africa’s most protracted and complex conflicts.[1] Beyond its immediate security dimension, the deal signals an attempt to establish a new framework of economic cooperation in a region exceptionally rich in strategic minerals such as cobalt, lithium, tantalum, and gold. An initial reading suggests that the United States not only achieved a significant diplomatic breakthrough but also secured strategic access to critical minerals, strengthening its position in global supply chains amid intensifying competition with China and Russia.[2]

Yet the implementation of this agreement faces daunting structural challenges. The military landscape in eastern Congo remains highly fragmented, with the presence of dozens of armed groups—most prominently the Rwanda-backed M23 movement—excluded from the accord. Civil society in Congo has voiced concerns that the deal prioritizes geopolitical bargains over transitional justice, as the official text omits any reference to reconciliation or accountability for grave violations committed over the past three decades. The persistence of insecurity, mutual accusations between Kigali and Kinshasa, and the erosion of peacekeeping missions have left the region vulnerable to renewed violence, mass displacement, and instability. Against this backdrop, the June 2025 agreement represents not only a potential turning point in reshaping regional security and economic relations but also a test of whether external mediation can overcome entrenched local grievances and deliver sustainable peace in one of Africa’s most volatile regions.[3]

This study aims to analyze the June 2025 peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda by unpacking its economic, political, and security dimensions. It explores the dual U.S. role as mediator and strategic investor, highlighting the opportunities for fostering more stable bilateral and regional relations. At the same time, it assesses the implementation challenges, including resistance from local actors and the influence of international stakeholders. Special attention is given to excluded groups and the risk of parallel conflicts that may undermine the accord. Ultimately, the study argues that sustainable peace hinges on building mutual trust beyond short-term interests.

Key Provisions of the Peace Agreement

The peace agreement signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda is marked by a notable degree of comprehensiveness. Built upon the Declaration of Principles signed in April of the same year, the agreement reaffirms mutual respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both states. It emphasizes the rejection of military solutions to their recurring disputes and prioritizes political and diplomatic avenues. The agreement draws upon regional and international legal frameworks, including the United Nations Charter, UN Security Council resolutions, and African Union instruments—granting it solid legal legitimacy and increasing its chances of being implemented within a multi-level institutional framework. This legal foundation enhances the agreement’s sustainability and renders any violation of its provisions a clear breach of regional and international legal norms, thus enabling the activation of deterrence and international oversight mechanisms.[4]

Among the agreement’s most prominent clauses is the mutual commitment to respect each other’s territorial integrity and to cease all forms of hostile acts, whether direct or indirect. It explicitly prohibits the use of either country’s territory as a launchpad for military operations against the other or as a base for supporting armed groups. The agreement also places stringent responsibility on both parties regarding non-state armed groups, obligating them to take all necessary measures to eliminate such activities in line with the ban on hostilities. These provisions represent a critical step toward de-escalation and the creation of a more stable environment in eastern Congo—where the majority of tensions have historically concentrated—and assign both parties direct responsibility for the safety of civilians and humanitarian workers.[5]

The agreement contains a specific clause addressing the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of non-state armed groups, reflecting a significant shift in conflict management strategies in the region. Rather than unilateral military approaches, the agreement promotes a structured process through support for the Doha negotiations between the Congolese government and the M23 movement, mediated by Qatar. It stipulates that any potential integration of former fighters into the Congolese armed forces or police must be conditional and based on strict criteria related to behavior, legal eligibility, and loyalty to the state. This approach reflects a more mature handling of armed groups and aims to break the cycle of violence by incentivizing inclusion within the state while also dismantling the parallel economic and political structures that have long reinforced the influence of these groups in remote regions.

Recognizing the need for effective implementation mechanisms, the agreement mandates the establishment of a Joint Security Coordination Mechanism between Congo and Rwanda within 30 days of the agreement’s entry into force. This mechanism is tasked with setting operational procedures and communication channels that ensure transparency and mutual monitoring of security operations. It is granted broad authority to identify the locations of armed groups, share intelligence, verify activities, and assess potential threats in collaboration with international partners. This structure acknowledges the deep-rooted mistrust between the two sides and represents a necessary step toward fostering stability and reshaping military relations in a way that regulates behavior in the field and minimizes the risk of uncontrolled escalation.[6]

On the economic front, the agreement calls for the launch of a “Regional Economic Integration Framework” within three months. This framework will be built on existing agreements and initiatives such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the East African Community (EAC), and others. Its goals include expanding trade and foreign investment—especially in supply chains linked to critical minerals—by ensuring transparency, preventing smuggling, and maximizing benefits for local populations. It also establishes pathways for cooperation in energy, joint resource management, and the development of transparent value chains connecting both countries with the involvement of American investors. These provisions reflect a concerted effort to redefine the relationship between the two nations—not merely as geographic rivals but as economic partners. This shift seeks to transform former flashpoints of conflict into drivers of integration and development, laying the foundation for a strategic alliance that could reshape the dynamics of the entire region.[7]

U.S. Efforts in Securing the Peace Agreement

The United States played a pivotal role in reaching the peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, leveraging its long-standing expertise in multilateral mediation and its ability to combine diplomatic and economic tools. Over the course of several months, President Donald Trump’s administration oversaw multiple rounds of negotiations coordinated through the State Department and supported by Qatari mediation, culminating in the final agreement on 27 June 2025. Washington’s role extended beyond traditional facilitation of dialogue; it also shaped the political and security framework of the agreement in line with its priorities—chiefly reducing the influence of unregulated regional actors in eastern Congo and countering the expanding presence of rival powers such as China and Russia. The American imprint was clearly visible through direct oversight of verification and implementation mechanisms, particularly via a joint monitoring committee comprising the United States, Qatar, and the African Union.[8]

The U.S. peace initiative in eastern Congo was part of a broader strategic orientation aimed at securing access to critical minerals, especially amid rising tensions with China over global supply chains. Under the agreement, the United States did not merely act as a neutral mediator—it secured for itself an active role in the Joint Security Coordination Mechanism, granting it oversight of on-the-ground operations in eastern Congo. The agreement also included a provision for launching a “Regional Economic Integration Framework” within three months, intended to open the door for increased U.S. investment in mining and infrastructure sectors. One of the clearest indicators of Washington’s economic agenda was its public support for the Lobito Corridor project and energy ventures in Lake Kivu—initiatives that allow for the construction of long-term economic influence, bolster bilateral partnerships, and reduce African dependence on non-Western actors.

The United States demonstrated a deep understanding of the intertwined nature of security and economic interests in the Congo-Rwanda conflict. Through the agreement, it sought to implement precise security arrangements that would help recalibrate the balance of power in eastern Congo. This was exemplified by the inclusion of a security annex outlining the structure of the Joint Coordination Mechanism—comprising permanent representatives from both sides, including military and security personnel, along with observers from Washington and Doha. This mechanism functions both as a monitoring body and an enabling tool for the U.S. to oversee the implementation of the disarmament plan, particularly targeting groups such as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). Furthermore, the U.S. reinforced its role by hosting the inaugural meeting of the Joint Monitoring Committee on its own soil—an unmistakable sign of its intent to position itself as the primary guarantor of the agreement. This robust presence reflects a broader American strategy to re-establish its influence in Africa by linking peacebuilding with strategic investment.[9]

Implications of the Peace Agreement

The peace agreement signed between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda—under U.S. sponsorship and Qatari-African mediation—marks a turning point in one of Africa’s longest-running conflicts. After thirty years of recurring hostility and failed diplomatic efforts, the agreement was reached amid a dangerous escalation in political and security tensions, following the expansion of M23’s control—supported by Rwanda—over strategic territories in eastern Congo. However, the deal, which includes mutual commitments to end hostilities, withdraw troops, and activate a joint monitoring mechanism, reflects more than just security arrangements. It reveals new dynamics in the conflict, shifts in regional and international policy, and redefined power balances in a region rich in strategic resources. The following are the key implications of the agreement:[10]

1. Renewed U.S. Embrace of the “Peace-for-Resources” Strategy in Africa: The agreement signifies a shift in Washington’s approach to African conflicts—from its traditional focus on developmental aid to a model rooted in “peace for resources,” or what might be termed “strategic realism.” The Trump administration placed its geo-economic interests at the heart of the negotiation process, focusing on securing access to Congo’s critical minerals—such as lithium, coltan, and cobalt—in exchange for security guarantees and military assistance. This formula resembles the U.S. agreement with Ukraine on rare minerals, indicating a global shift in diplomatic relations toward multi-layered transactional deals. The move is reinforced by intensifying U.S.-China competition, with Washington aiming to undermine Beijing’s dominance over global supply chains via eastern Congo.
2. Rising Recognition of Security as a Diplomatic Tool: The agreement underscores Washington’s growing recognition of security not just as a prerequisite for investment, but as an effective diplomatic instrument to reshape regional balances. The U.S. committed to providing comprehensive security support to Congo—including training, equipment, and potentially operational assistance—in exchange for privileged access to its mining sector. This fusion of security and development reflects a conceptual shift in American diplomacy, recasting the U.S. not only as a peacebroker but also as a guarantor of mutual strategic interests. It also illustrates a transformation in Washington’s rhetoric—from championing human rights to safeguarding vital interests through calculated security arrangements.[11]
3. Acknowledgment of a Complex Regional Crisis in Eastern Congo: The agreement signals an official recognition—particularly by the United States—that the crisis in eastern Congo is no longer a local or bilateral dispute between Kigali and Kinshasa, but a regional emergency entangled with international stakes. M23’s territorial expansion, the conflicting support provided by Rwanda and Congo, and the emergence of militias such as “Wazalendo” demonstrate that the issue has outgrown border disputes. The agreement, therefore, represents an attempt to contain the escalating chaos through a more comprehensive approach, one that seeks to realign alliances, dismantle arms-smuggling networks, and neutralize non-state armed groups.[12]
4. Clear Affirmation of the Economic Nature of the Conflict and the Race for Resource Control: One of the main drivers of the conflict—evident in the agreement—is the struggle over mineral wealth, particularly in North and South Kivu. Control over gold and tantalum mines has become a tool for political leverage and military funding. Recent battles have revealed how M23 has used its military presence to establish a de facto economic order, taking over mining institutions and exporting minerals to Rwanda. The agreement acknowledges this reality and attempts to create formal and transparent mineral value chains through trilateral partnerships involving the United States. However, the lack of clarity around profit-sharing mechanisms and responsibilities reflects the continued fragility of the economic dimension of the deal.[13]
5. Qatar’s Return as a Key Mediator in Complex African Conflicts: The agreement also marks the culmination of Qatar’s mediation efforts, which began in early 2025 with organizing talks between the Congolese government and M23. This has granted Doha a foothold in one of Africa’s most intricate conflicts, reflecting its broader strategy to act as a regional mediator—particularly amid the inefficacy of mechanisms like the East African Community (EAC) or the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Qatar’s involvement was formally integrated into the U.S.-Africa agreement, signaling a trend toward multi-party mediation and the internationalization of peace processes—though this could also open the door to conflicting interests and new entanglements.
6. Rwanda’s Effort to Improve Its Diplomatic Image and Ease International Pressure: Rwanda’s signing of the agreement reflects a clear desire to break free from persistent international accusations of supporting armed groups—particularly M23. Although Kigali officially denies these allegations, repeated reports by the UN and Western intelligence agencies have linked Rwanda to military and logistical support for the rebels. For Rwanda, the agreement offers an opportunity to polish its international image, avoid further sanctions, and open new pathways for economic cooperation—especially with the United States. It also strengthens President Paul Kagame’s negotiating position ahead of the upcoming July summit, where the agreement may be used to reinforce his regional and international legitimacy. [14]
7. Fragile Implementation and the Risk of Returning to Conflict: Despite the significance of the agreement, many analysts caution that its success hinges on the realism of its implementation. The absence of M23 as a direct signatory constitutes a structural gap that may undermine the deal in its early stages. The ambiguity surrounding both parties’ obligations—regarding disarmament, withdrawal, and the distribution of security responsibilities—leaves room for varied interpretations. Without a robust enforcement mechanism and clear oversight tools, combined with the weakening of the Congolese military, the agreement risks becoming a temporary truce rather than a lasting peace. In its current form, the deal is a necessary but insufficient step toward resolving a deeply rooted conflict fueled by overlapping interests and regional and international rivalries.[15]
8. Implications for Egypt, Sudan, and the Nile Basin: Beyond the immediate Great Lakes context, the peace agreement also carries strategic implications for Egypt and Sudan and the Nile Basin. Stability in eastern Congo, a key upstream country, could reshape regional dynamics around transboundary water management, particularly amid growing pressures on the Nile. Enhanced U.S. involvement in mining and infrastructure projects may intersect with hydropower and dam initiatives, affecting water flows and energy cooperation across the basin. For Egypt and Sudan, the agreement presents both opportunities and risks: while it could reduce regional instability that often spills into Nile Basin politics, it may also consolidate external influence over upstream resources in ways that complicate Cairo and Khartoum’s efforts to safeguard their historical water rights. Thus, the accord must be read not only as a bilateral settlement but also as part of a broader geopolitical equation linking peace, resources, and water security in Africa.

Expected Outcomes of the Peace Agreement

The peace agreement signed between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo represents a significant turning point in the trajectory of the protracted conflict in the Great Lakes region. After decades of armed confrontations, countless casualties, and millions of displaced people, the agreement seeks to dismantle the foundations of the conflict by combining security, political, and economic tracks. These include ceasefire arrangements, disarmament, reintegration of combatants, and the creation of a framework for regional cooperation in the critical minerals sector. Despite the considerable obstacles to implementation, the agreement paves the way for several potential outcomes that could directly impact both domestic dynamics in Kinshasa and Kigali, as well as the geopolitical map of the African continent. Key expected outcomes include:[16]

Redrawing Geopolitical Balances in the Great Lakes Region: One of the most notable potential results of the agreement is the reshaping of power dynamics in the Great Lakes region, particularly with the entry of the United States as a key player—filling the vacuum left by the weakening of regional organizations such as the East African Community (EAC). If implemented successfully, the agreement could curtail the influence of traditional actors like Uganda and Burundi while elevating Rwanda’s position as a strategic partner in new security and economic arrangements. It may also lead to a temporary reduction in Russian and Chinese roles in the region—especially in the security and mining sectors—pending further clarity on the nature of long-term American engagement.

Acceleration of Western Investment in Congo’s Mining Sector: If the agreement succeeds in creating a stable environment in eastern Congo, it could unlock a wave of major Western investments, particularly in the mining industry. This outcome aligns with one of the U.S.’s implicit goals: securing global supply chains for critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt. Should the U.S. Development Finance Corporation (DFC) release a conditional financing package, the DRC may witness partial economic recovery, especially in infrastructure projects like roads and airports linked to mining hubs. However, this scenario hinges on achieving a minimum level of security, ensuring both parties’ commitment to the agreement, and addressing entrenched issues such as corruption and weak governance in the sector.[17]

Weakening of M23 and Reduction of Its Operational Influence: Although the M23 movement was not a direct signatory to the agreement, one of its central objectives is to dismantle the group through two mechanisms: pressure on Rwanda to cut support and conditional integration of fighters via the P-DDRCS program. If Kigali genuinely abides by the agreement’s terms—withdraws its troops and halts logistical support—M23 may find itself politically and militarily cornered, gradually losing control over key areas in Kivu. However, this scenario faces serious challenges, especially amid persistent mistrust between parties and M23’s reluctance to accept any agreement that does not address its political and security demands related to identity and citizenship.[18]

Expansion of U.S. Influence at the Expense of Chinese Dominance in Mining: The agreement is expected to trigger a reconfiguration of international influence in the DRC by enhancing Washington’s role as a credible economic and security partner—particularly in the strategic minerals sector long dominated by China. If the agreement’s transparency and governance provisions are fully implemented, Chinese companies may lose some of their previous advantages in the Congolese market amid growing U.S. pressure on African partners to reduce reliance on Beijing. With American companies entering the market under a unified security and economic framework, eastern Congo may emerge as a key node in the U.S. strategy to outcompete China in the race for African resources.[19]

Boosting President Félix Tshisekedi’s Domestic and International Legitimacy: Even partial success of the agreement could translate into significant political gains for President Félix Tshisekedi, who faces domestic challenges related to security, political fragmentation, and economic instability. The president could present the deal as a diplomatic and security breakthrough that reset relations with Rwanda and secured unprecedented international backing. Collaboration with the United States provides him with global legitimacy that could bolster his standing in future electoral contests and deter potential efforts to sideline him by opposition elites or military factions. However, these political benefits are contingent on his ability to deliver tangible results on the ground in a short timeframe.[20]

Opening the Door to a Comprehensive Peace Process in Eastern Congo: Despite the exclusion of some actors—most notably M23—from formally signing the agreement, the deal could serve as a launching pad for a more comprehensive peace process if leveraged as a broad-based negotiating platform. By focusing on principles such as voluntary refugee return, fighter reintegration, post-conflict reconstruction, and civil society engagement, the agreement could evolve from a political pact between governments into a national reconciliation initiative. This would require the inclusion of affected local communities, transparent management of natural wealth, and the establishment of mechanisms for accountability and transitional justice. If realized, the agreement could become the cornerstone of a long-term process aimed at breaking the cycle of recurring violence in eastern Congo.[21]

Potential Scenarios Following the Rwanda-DRC Peace Agreement

The peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda carries momentum but faces an uncertain future shaped by complex conflict dynamics and regional entanglements. Rather than a final resolution, it serves as a starting point whose success depends on political will, security coordination, and local empowerment. Implementation challenges and diverging interests raise doubts about sustainability, making international and regional engagement critical. Within this context, the study identifies five possible scenarios, reflecting a spectrum that spans from cautious optimism about stability to deep concerns over potential collapse:

1. Full Implementation and Strategic Transformation: This best-case scenario assumes full commitment from Rwanda, the DRC, and international mediators. Joint monitoring curbs armed groups, and some M23 fighters disarm and reintegrate. Western investment flows, U.S. projects in mining and energy take off, and infrastructure expands. Regional stability strengthens, with Washington gaining economic influence and President Tshisekedi enhancing legitimacy. The Great Lakes begins to emerge as a model for integrated security and economic cooperation in Africa, showcasing how diplomacy and resource-based development can reinforce each other.
2. Partial Implementation with Relative Stability: In this scenario, the core ceasefire and troop withdrawals hold, but issues like M23 disarmament and refugee repatriation remain unresolved. Both sides avoid escalation, maintaining limited but functional stability. Select economic and infrastructure projects are launched, with U.S. support confined to conditional technical assistance. While peace is maintained, it remains fragile and precarious, leaving underlying grievances unaddressed. The region enjoys short-term calm but continues to face long-term risks of relapse, highlighting the limitations of partial solutions to deep-rooted conflicts.
3. Stalled Implementation and Symbolic Agreement: Here, mistrust and conflicting interpretations stall implementation. Key provisions—combatant reintegration, humanitarian corridors, joint security monitoring—are delayed or ignored. Political momentum fades, and the agreement becomes symbolic, with little impact on the ground. Armed groups retain control in Kivu, foreign investment stalls, and low-intensity violence persists. Although full-scale war is avoided, the region remains trapped in a “no war, no peace” state, where instability is normalized, development stagnates, and the accord risks being remembered as diplomatic theater rather than real progress.
4. Agreement Breakdown and Renewed Confrontation: In this pessimistic scenario, the agreement collapses—either through M23’s rejection or ceasefire violations. Fighting resumes in eastern Congo, and Rwanda faces renewed accusations of backing rebels. The U.S. withdraws support, militias regain strength, and Kinshasa loses control of key territories. Economic cooperation unravels, investors withdraw, and insecurity spreads. The peace accord becomes a fleeting memory, while older mediation frameworks return. The cycle of violence and failed negotiations resumes, underscoring the fragility of externally brokered deals in the face of entrenched rivalries and mistrust.
5. Involvement of New Global Actors and Clashing Agendas: This scenario foresees intensified great-power competition undermining the U.S.-led process. China expands its dominance in mining through economic tools, while Russia increases its security footprint, possibly via support to armed factions. These overlapping agendas weaken enforcement and deepen instability. Without a unified regional stance, eastern Congo risks becoming a proxy battlefield for global rivalry rather than a platform for peace and development. The agreement’s promise is diluted, as local aspirations are overshadowed by external powers clashing over strategic resources and influence.

Conclusion

The peace agreement between the DRC and Rwanda offers a rare chance to end decades of conflict and pursue stability through a balance of security and development. Yet, its success depends less on the written terms and more on building mutual trust, tackling root causes, and ensuring inclusive community participation. With a complex geopolitical context, progress requires both strong domestic will and sustained external engagement. The accord marks not an endpoint but the start of a long process demanding constant monitoring, adaptation, and accountability to transform peace into a durable reality in East Africa.

[1] Atlantic Council Experts, “The DRC and Rwanda Agreed to a US-Backed Peace Deal. Can Critical Minerals Help End This Conflict?” Atlantic Council, June 27, 2025. https://shorturl.at/09Y4l.

[2] Agreement Between the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda on Investment Promotion and Protection, World Trade Institute, https://shorturl.at/19S6m.

[3] Kinyanjui Mungai, “Reaping the Dollar Benefits but Bearing the Costs of Cash: Rwanda-DRC Informal Cross-Border Trade,” Cenfri, August 4, 2023, https://shorturl.at/JKbOT.

[4] U.S. Department of State, Peace Agreement Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda, June 27, 2025, https://shorturl.at/RZ7XX.

[5] Ibid.

[6] “Trump Eyes Mineral Wealth as Rwanda and DRC Sign Controversial Peace Deal in US,” The Guardian, June 27, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/286zxnyt

[7] U.S. Department of State, Peace Agreement Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Rwanda.

[8] “Trump Eyes Mineral Wealth as Rwanda and DRC Sign Controversial Peace Deal in US.”

[9] “Le Rwanda et la République Démocratique du Congo Ont Signé un Accord de Paix à Washington,” BBC News Afrique, June 27, 2025, https://tinyurl.com/mrrbsjnz.

[10] Sara Khalil, “What Are the Implications of the Peace Agreement Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda?,” InterRegional for Strategic Analysis, 2025, https://shorturl.at/2C82l.

[11] Nimi Princewill, “As Two African Nations Sign a Peace Deal, Trump Wants Credit. But Some Fear Peace May Still Elude Them,” CNN, June 27, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/32hmvast.

[12] Sajeda El-Sayed, “Mounting Challenges: Will the Peace Agreement Between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo Hold?,” Cairo News, July 2, 2025, https://shorturl.at/lEO2u.

[13] “Trump Seeks Crown as World Peacemaker, Brokering Truce in Central Africa,” The Washington Post, June 27, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/ek82fx9k.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Daphne Psaledakis, Sonia Rolley, and Ange Adihe Kasongo, “Rwanda, Congo Sign Peace Deal in US to End Fighting, Attract Investment,” Reuters, June 27, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/yua9dupm.

[16] Sara Khalil, “What Are the Implications of the Peace Agreement Between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda?”

[17] “Trump Seeks Crown as World Peacemaker, Brokering Truce in Central Africa.”

[18] “Will the Fragile Peace Deal Between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda Hold?” The Soufan Center, July 2, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/58xv59pp

[19] Ibid.

[20] Atlantic Council Experts, “The DRC and Rwanda Agreed to a US-Backed Peace Deal. Can Critical Minerals Help End This Conflict?”

[21] “Will the Fragile Peace Deal Between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda Hold?”