DR Congo-Rwanda ceasefire deal still faces many challenges
But there are dozens of non-state armed groups active in the region and it's not clear whether all of them will adhere to the ceasefire.
Just hours before the deal was signed, one of them, the Codeco militia, attacked a displaced persons camp in Ituri province, killing 10 people.
Keeping these non-state actors in line will be a tall order. Part of the peace deal involves creating the conditions to allow the hundreds of thousands of people displaced by the conflict to return home.
That won't be possible without a complete cessation of hostilities.
Due to the eastern DRC's vast mineral resources, critical to modern technology including electric car and mobile phone batteries, the economic incentives for rebel groups are incredibly tempting, and this deal does not mention alternatives which may convince these groups to stop fighting over valuable territory. Integrating them into an under-resourced Congolese armed force is unlikely to prove enough of a deterrent.
It's also still not clear what preferential access, if any, the US has been offered to the DRC's minerals.
President Donald Trump has made it clear that this is one of his key incentives for agreeing to support the peace process. But granting the US unfettered access to the country's mineral wealth is unpopular with many in the DRC, upset that the country's resources have failed to provide a better life for its citizens.
As to the key questions of whether Rwandan forces will withdraw from eastern DRC, the US position is that once the Hutu-led FDLR, which Rwanda says is backed by the DRC and aims to overthrow the Rwandan government, is dismantled, then Rwanda will also row back on its "defensive measure".
This appears to be an oblique reference to the presence of Rwandan armed forces in eastern DRC.
If the US is able to convince the Rwandans to do this in earnest, it would be a big victory for Washington and Kinshasa.
Rwanda has repeatedly denied its troops are on the ground in eastern DRC, despite credible reports they've actively supported groups like M23 in the region.
Congolese rebels want peaceful solution to crisis, UN says
Ex-DR Congo president returns from self-imposed exile, party says
DR Congo conflict tests China's diplomatic balancing act
How DR Congo's Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
'They took all the women here': Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Focus on Africa
This Is Africa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
16 minutes ago
- Associated Press
White House orders a review of exhibits at Smithsonian museums ahead of nation's 250th birthday
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is ordering a wide-ranging review of the Smithsonian museums and exhibitions ahead of the country's 250th birthday with a goal of aligning the institution's content with President Donald Trump's interpretation of American history. In a letter sent Tuesday to Smithsonian Institution Secretary Lonnie Bunch III, the White House laid out in detail the steps it expects the organization to take as part of the announced review. The examination will look at all public-facing content, such as social media, exhibition text and educational materials, to 'assess tone, historical framing, and alignment with American ideals,' according to the letter. 'This initiative aims to ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions,' the letter said. The Smithsonian said it remained committed to 'scholarly excellence, rigorous research, and the accurate, factual presentation of history.' 'We are reviewing the letter with this commitment in mind and will continue to collaborate constructively with the White House, Congress, and our governing Board of Regents,' it said in a statement. The review, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is the latest attempt by the president to bring the country's cultural institutions in line with his vision. In March, Trump signed an executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which accused the Smithsonian of coming under the influence of a 'divisive, race-centered ideology' and called upon it to 'remove improper ideology' from the institution's museums. In February, Trump removed the Kennedy Center's Board of Trustees, replaced them with his supporters and named himself chairman. He vowed to end events featuring performers in drag, indicating he would take on a larger role in dictating the institution's programming schedule. The review of the Smithsonian will initially focus on eight museums — the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of Natural History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, the National Portrait Gallery and the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The letter said additional museums would be reviewed in subsequent phases. Civil rights leaders have criticized the administration's particular focus on the National Museum of African American History and Culture as efforts to minimize Black Americans' contributions to the country and to recast the obstacles they faced throughout history. The Smithsonian has repeatedly denied allegations that it has changed or removed exhibit details in response to pressure from the administration. Recently, the institution removed references to Trump's two impeachments from an exhibit on the American presidency. A spokesman for the museum said the references, which were added in 2021, were intended to be a temporary measure and said a future exhibit would include details on all presidential impeachments. The review ordered by the White House directs the museums to submit materials from exhibits and drafts for upcoming events within 30 days. Within 120 days, the letter said, museums will be expected to take corrective action, 'replacing divisive or ideologically driven language with unifying, historically accurate, and constructive descriptions.'
New York Post
17 minutes ago
- New York Post
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration calls out human rights records of some nations accepting deported migrants
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Tuesday released human rights reports for countries worldwide, which eliminate mentions of discrimination faced by LGBTQ people, reduce a previous focus on reproductive rights and criticize restrictions on political speech by U.S. allies in Europe that American officials believe target right-wing politicians. The reports, which cover 2024 before President Donald Trump took office, reflect his administration's focus on free speech and protecting the lives of the unborn. However, the reports also offer a glimpse into the administration's view of dire human rights conditions in some countries that have agreed to accept migrants deported from the United States under Trump's immigration crackdown. 'This year's reports were streamlined for better utility and accessibility in the field and by partners,' the State Department said. The congressionally mandated reports in the past have been frequently used for reference and cited by lawmakers, policymakers, academic researchers and others investigating potential asylum claims or looking into conditions in specific countries. The reports were delayed by the Trump administration's changes The reports had been due to be released in March. The State Department said in an overview that the delay occurred because the Trump administration decided in March to 'adjust' the reports, which had been compiled during the Biden administration. Among other deletions, the reports do not include accounts from individual abuse survivors or witnesses. 'Frequently, eyewitnesses are intimidated or prevented from reporting what they know,' the overview said. 'On the other hand, individuals and groups opposed to a government may have incentive to exaggerate or fabricate abuses. In similar fashion, some governments may distort or exaggerate abuses attributed to opposition groups.' Human rights groups decried the changes in focus and omissions of certain categories of discrimination and potential abuse. 'With the release of the U.S. State Department's human rights report, it is clear that the Trump Administration has engaged in a very selective documentation of human rights abuses in certain countries,' Amnesty International said in a statement. 'In addition to eliminating entire sections for certain countries – for example discrimination against LGBTQ+ people – there are also arbitrary omissions within existing sections of the report based on the country,' it said. The reports do follow previous practices in criticizing widespread human rights abuses in China, Iran, North Korea and Russia. Laying out the poor human rights records of countries accepting migrant deportees Although such deportations did not begin until after Trump took office, the reports, with one notable exception, detail general poor human rights conditions in many of the countries that have agreed to accept migrants, even if they are not citizens of that nation. The exception is El Salvador, which was the first of several countries in Latin America and Africa to agree to accept non-citizen migrant deportees from the U.S. Despite claims from rights advocates to the contrary, the report about the country says 'there were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses' in El Salvador in 2024 and that 'the government took credible steps to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses.' Human rights groups have accused authorities of abuses, including at a notorious prison where many migrants are sent. However, for Eswatini — a small country in Africa formerly known as Swaziland — South Sudan and Rwanda, the reports paint a grimmer picture. All have agreed to accept third-country deportees from the United States. In all three countries, the reports noted 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings, torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment … serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, prohibiting independent trade unions or significant or systematic restrictions on workers' freedom of association.' Those governments 'did not take credible steps or action to identify and punish officials who committed human rights abuses,' the reports said. Singling out the treatment of white South Africans South Africa was also singled out for its human rights situation 'significantly worsening.' The report pointed to unfair treatment of white Afrikaners following the signing of major land reforms that the Trump administration has said discriminate against that minority, which ran the country's apartheid government. That system brutally enforced racial segregation, which oppressed the Black majority, for 50 years before ending in 1994. With the signing of that law in December, the report said that 'South Africa took a substantially worrying step towards land expropriation of Afrikaners and further abuses against racial minorities in the country.' It also said the government 'did not take credible steps to investigate, prosecute and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, including inflammatory racial rhetoric against Afrikaners and other racial minorities, or violence against racial minorities.' This year, the administration admitted as refugees some groups of white Afrikaners. Accusations of European allies restricting right-wing speech The reports take issue with what the Trump administration believes are restrictions on free speech imposed against generally right-wing voices in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. The reports use identical language to say that human rights conditions in each of the three NATO allies 'worsened during the year.' The executive summaries for each of the three reports say 'significant human rights issues included credible reports of serious restrictions on freedom of expression, including enforcement of or threat of criminal or civil laws in order to limit expression; and crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism.' These governments have rejected such assertions that have been made by senior U.S. officials, including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Targeting Brazil over allegations of restricting Bolsonaro's speech Similar freedom-of-speech issues were raised in Brazil, which has more recently provoked Trump's ire by prosecuting his ally — former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro — and led to the imposition of massive U.S. tariffs and sanctions against Brazil's Supreme Court chief justice. 'The human rights situation in Brazil declined during the year,' the report said. 'The courts took broad and disproportionate action to undermine freedom of speech and internet freedom by blocking millions of users' access to information on a major social media platform in response to a case of harassment.' It added that the government 'undermined democratic debate by restricting access to online content deemed to undermine democracy' and specifically mentioned suppressing the speech of Bolsonaro and his supporters.
