
DRC and Rwanda to strike Trump-brokered peace deal: All to know
Neither country is formally at war, but the DRC accuses its neighbour, Rwanda, of backing the M23 rebel group, which is waging war in eastern DRC. Rwanda denies this charge.
In January, a deadly offensive by the rebels – aided by Rwandan forces, according to a United Nations expert panel – escalated a decades-long conflict in eastern DRC. The M23 has since seized the strategic cities of Goma and Bukavu, and its attacks have raised fears of a regional war.
The peace agreement comes amid reports that the US is considering investments in the mineral-rich region in return for security and calm in an area where dozens of militias vying for resource control have operated since the mid-1990s.
Here's what we know about the peace agreement to be announced:
What's the background to the crisis?
The DRC and Rwanda conflict dates back to the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis and centrist Hutus in 1994.
Following the overthrow of the genocidal government by the Rwandan Defence Forces, Hutu genocidaires fled into the neighbouring DRC's poorly governed eastern region. They hid among civilian refugees and continued to launch attacks on Rwanda.
Kigali's attempts to attack those forces led to the First and Second Congo Wars (1996-1997 and 1998-2003). Rwanda and Uganda were accused of targeting Hutu civilians, and looting and smuggling the DRC's coffee, diamonds, timber, coltan and gold. Other neighbours similarly interfered, choosing Rwanda or the DRC's side.
Eastern DRC has been in the throes of low-level conflict since then. More than six million people have been killed, and millions have been displaced. At least 100 armed groups taking advantage of a security vacuum operate in the area and control lucrative mines. The DRC has one of the world's largest reserves of coltan and cobalt. It is also rich in gold, tantalum, tin and tungsten, which are critical for tech gadgets.
M23, which first emerged in 2012, is one of those forces. The group mostly comprises Congolese Tutsi soldiers who fought in the war and were to be integrated into the army. In 2011, they revolted, claiming ethnic discrimination in the force. M23 now says it is defending the rights of Congolese Tutsis. However, critics accuse the group of being a front for Rwanda's ambitions to control the region – a charge that Kigali rejects. President Felix Tshisekedi has also accused longtime Rwandan leader Paul Kagame of backing the group.
A 2022 United Nations expert report noted that Rwanda is actively backing the M23 and that about 3,000 to 4000 Rwandan troops are on the ground in the DRC. The US has also said that Rwanda backs the group. Rwanda counters the allegations by accusing the DRC of working with other armed groups like the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Hutu rebel outfit. Kinshasa insists that it does not work with the group.
Why did the conflict resurface?
M23, which was initially pushed back with the help of a UN force, resurfaced in 2022 with a series of violent, sporadic attacks. In January 2025, it launched a lightning offensive, armed with heavy artillery, seizing towns in quick succession and promising to march on Kinshasa.
An alliance of the Congolese Defence Forces, the FLDR, and a force from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) attempted to push the group back. In May, the SADC forces withdrew.
African Union-led mediation attempts like the Luanda Peace Process (2022) and the Nairobi Peace Process (2023) have failed to end the violence, as each side blames the other for violating ceasefires. In March, President Joao Lourenco of Angola, who attempted to strike a deal for months, stepped down as official mediator.
Meanwhile, the European Union has cut military aid to Rwanda and the United States has imposed sanctions on key Rwandan army officials for their involvement in the conflict.
In April, US Secretary of Defence Marco Rubio began negotiations with DRC Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and her Rwandan counterpart, Olivier Nduhungirehe.
Qatar is also involved in the mediation. Tshisekedi and Kagame met Qatar's emir in Doha in rare first face-to-face talks in March.
What's in the peace agreement?
A full draft of the agreement to be signed on Wednesday has not been made available.
Earlier drafts during the negotiation process included standard provisions like:
Either side's respect for territorial integrity and a cessation of hostilities.
Disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups.
The return of refugees and displaced persons.
Earlier in April, the US Department of State released conditions that would guide the negotiations, although it is not confirmed if they were included in the final agreement. They were categorised as such:
Sovereignty: Both sides agreed to recognise and respect each other's territorial borders.
Security: Both committed to not supporting any armed groups and to establishing a joint security mechanism to target militias.
Economic issues: Both countries agreed to use existing regional framework structures, such as the East African Community, to expand transparent trade and investment opportunities, including those to be facilitated by 'the US government or US investors' in mineral supply chains, hydropower development and national park management.
Is the deal a bargaining chip for DRC's minerals?
Some critics have raised fears that the US could use the deal as leverage for greater access to the DRC's minerals. Such a scenario, they warn, could cause a replay of the violence of past decades, when the DRC's minerals were a major draw for interfering foreign governments.
These fears are rooted in a February pitch from the Tshikekedi government to the US. The DRC offered a minerals-for-security deal to Washington, essentially asking the US government to oversee the stability of eastern DRC in exchange for minerals.
US envoy to Africa Massad Boulos confirmed on a trip to DRC in April that Washington was interested in a mineral deal. Talks have been ongoing in parallel with the Rwanda-DRC peace deal, according to some reports, although there are no details yet.
Under President Donald Trump, Washington is racing to secure supplies of minerals used to manufacture high-tech gadgets and weapons.
'The intertwining of peace and mineral interests is deeply alarming, echoing a tragic and persistent pattern in the DRC's history,' analyst Lindani Zungu wrote in an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, recalling how colonial rulers exploited the DRC's resources, and how its neighbours did the same during the Congo wars.
'This 'peace deal' risks becoming another instrument of neo-colonialism,' Zungu warned. 'In this context, foreign capital is used not to build, but to extract – deepening the divide between resource-rich African nations and wealthy consumer economies.'
Will this fix the DRC crisis?
Questions remain over how this deal will fix myriad tensions in the DRC. The draft agreements do not mention remediation or resolution processes.
Chief among the issues, analysts say, is the overall weak governance and justice system in the country that historically sees corrupt officials and perpetrators of injustice go scot-free. Analysts point to some politicians in the country who were part of the Congo wars and who did not face trials.
Both the M23 and the Congolese armed forces have been accused of atrocities, including extrajudicial killings and sexual assault. One M23 rebel leader, Corneille Nangaa, was the head of the country's elections commission before he fell out with President Tshisekedi over alleged 'backroom deals' related to contested 2018 general elections. In December 2023, he announced that his Congo River Alliance was joining M23.
Another cause of tension is the discrimination that Congolese Tutsis say they face in the DRC, in the form of ethnic killings and workplace discrimination, among others. The minority group is largely associated with Rwanda, and hate speech by politicians canvassing for votes often inflames tensions with local Congolese. The M23 claims to be fighting for this group, although critics say that's a pretext to justify its violence.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran is meeting European powers amid threats of renewed nuclear sanctions
Iranian diplomats are meeting their counterparts from Germany, the United Kingdom and France for renewed nuclear talks, amid warnings that the three European powers could trigger 'snapback' United Nations sanctions outlined under a previous 2015 deal. The meeting, which is underway in Turkiye's Istanbul on Friday morning, will be the first since Israel's mid-June attack on Iran, which led to an intensive 12-day conflict with the United States militarily intervening on Israel's behalf also attacking key Iranian nuclear sites. Israel's offensive – which killed top commanders, nuclear scientists and hundreds of civilians as residential areas were struck as well – also derailed US-Iran nuclear talks that began in April. Iran said on Friday that the meeting is an opportunity for with the so-called E3 group of Germany, UK and France, to correct their positions on Iran's nuclear issue. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with state news agency IRNA that Iran considers the talk of extending UN Security Council Resolution 2231 to be doubly 'meaningless and baseless'. The resolution, which cemented the 2015 deal Iran reached with world powers under which it curbed enrichment in return for much-needed sanctions relief, is due to expire in October. It enshrines the big powers' prerogative to to restore UN sanctions. Since then, the E3, have threatened to trigger the 'snapback mechanism', which would reinstate the sanctions on Iran by the end of August, under the effectively moribund 2015 nuclear deal which United States President Donald Trump unilaterally torpedoed in 2018 during his first term. The option to trigger the snapback expires in October, and Tehran has warned of consequences should the E3 opt to activate it. Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who is attending the talks Friday, alongside senior Iranian diplomat Majid Takht-Ravanchi, warned this week that triggering sanctions 'is completely illegal'. He also accused European powers of 'halting their commitments' to the deal after the US withdrew from it. 'We have warned them of the risks, but we are still seeking common ground to manage the situation,' said Gharibabadi. Warning from Tehran Iranian diplomats have previously warned that Tehran could withdraw from the global nuclear non-proliferation treaty if UN sanctions are reimposed. Restoring sanctions would deepen Iran's international isolation and place further pressure on its already strained economy. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has urged European powers to trigger the mechanism. Israel's June 13 attack on Iran came two days before Tehran and Washington were scheduled to meet for a sixth round of nuclear negotiations. On June 22, the US istruck Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz. Before the conflict, Washington and Tehran were divided over uranium enrichment, which Iran has described as a 'non-negotiable' right for civilian purposes, while the US called it a 'red line'. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran is enriching uranium to 60 percent purity – far above the 3.67 percent cap under the 2015 deal, which is well below the 90 percent needed for weapons-grade levels. Tehran has said it is open to discussing the rate and level of enrichment, but not the right to enrich uranium. A year after the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal, Iran reportedly began rolling back its commitments, which had placed restrictions on its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Israel and Western powers accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons – a charge Tehran has consistently denied. Both US intelligence and the IAEA said they had seen no evidence of Iran pursuin a nuclear weapon in the build up to the June conflict. Enrichment is 'stopped' Iran insists it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called a source of 'national pride'. The full extent of the damage sustained in the US bombing remains unclear. Trump has claimed the sites were 'completely destroyed', but US media reports have cast doubt over the scale of destruction. Araghchi has noted that enrichment is currently 'stopped' due to 'serious and severe' damage to nuclear sites caused by US and Israeli strikes. In an interview with Al Jazeera that aired on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said Iran is prepared for another war and reiterated that its nuclear programme will continue within the framework of international law while adding the country had no intention of pursuing nuclear weapons. Since the 12-day conflict, Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing it of bias and failing to condemn the attacks. Inspectors have since left the country, but a technical team is expected to return in the coming weeks after Iran said future cooperation would take a 'new form'. Israel has warned it may resume strikes if Iran rebuilds facilities or moves towards weapons capability. Iran has pledged a 'harsh response' to any future attacks.


Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
France's move to recognise Palestinian state condemned by US, Israel
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Washington 'strongly rejects' French President Emmanuel Macron's plan to recognise a Palestinian state, as the administration of President Donald Trump announced it would not attend an upcoming United Nations conference seeking a two-state solution for Palestinians. Posting on X late on Thursday, Rubio criticised Macron's 'reckless decision', which he said 'only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace'. Earlier, Macron had said he would formalise France's decision to officially recognise a Palestinian state at the UN's General Assembly in September. 'In keeping with its historic commitment to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, I have decided that France will recognise the State of Palestine,' Macron wrote on X. At least 142 countries out of the 193 members of the UN currently recognise or plan to recognise a Palestinian state. But several powerful Western countries – including the US, the United Kingdom and Germany – have refused to do so. Fellow European Union members Norway, Ireland and Spain indicated in May that they had begun the process to recognise a Palestinian state. But Macron's decision would make France – one of Israel's closest allies and a G7 member – the largest and arguably most influential country in Europe to make the move. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the decision, saying such a move 'rewards terror and risks creating another Iranian proxy'. 'A Palestinian state in these conditions would be a launch pad to annihilate Israel – not to live in peace beside it,' he said in a post on X. 'Let's be clear: the Palestinians do not seek a state alongside Israel; they seek a state instead of Israel,' Netanyahu added. Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz also described the move as 'a disgrace and a surrender to terrorism'. He added that Israel would not allow the establishment of a 'Palestinian entity that would harm our security, endanger our existence'. While supporting a two-state solution remains the long-held official stance of the US, President Donald Trump has himself expressed doubts about its viability. Since returning to the White House in January, Trump suggested the US could 'take over' Gaza, displace the territory's more than two million Palestinian population, and transform it into the 'Riviera of the Middle East'. Trump's plan has been condemned by rights groups, Arab states, Palestinians and the UN as tantamount to 'ethnic cleansing'. In June, Washington's ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, also said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remained a US foreign policy goal. His comments prompted Department of State spokesperson Tammy Bruce to say Huckabee 'speaks for himself' and policy-making is a matter for Trump and the White House. On Thursday, State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott said the US will not attend an upcoming conference set to be held at the UN on the two-state solution. The conference – co-chaired by France and Saudi Arabia, and scheduled to take place between July 28-30 – seeks to chart a roadmap to end the decades-long conflict and recognise a Palestinian state. Speaking to reporters, Pigott said there was 'nothing further' to say about the issue other than that Washington 'will not be in attendance'. There is mounting pressure on Israel to end its deadly war on Gaza, waged in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on southern Israel, which saw some 1,139 people killed and more than 200 captives taken to the Palestinian enclave. Israel's subsequent 21-month assault on Gaza has resulted in almost 60,000 Palestinians being killed, with a further 144,000 wounded. Months-long ceasefire negotiations – brokered by the US, Egypt and Qatar – have so far failed to yield a breakthrough. On Monday, 28 countries – including the UK, Japan and numerous European nations – issued a joint statement telling Israel the war on Gaza 'must end now'. The joint statement also condemned 'the drip feeding of aid and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to meet their most basic needs of water and food'.


Qatar Tribune
2 days ago
- Qatar Tribune
Deported Afghans at risk of torture and persecution, UN report finds
IslamabadcTypeface:> A UN report released on Thursday highlights cases of serious human rights violations against Afghans who were forcibly returned to their home country, particularly from neighbouring countries. The reported abuse includes torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and threats to personal security, allegedly carried out by the Taliban against returnees with specific backgrounds. Since 2023, huge numbers of Afghans have been forcibly returned, mainly by Pakistan and Iran. This month, Germany deported 81 Afghans with criminal convictions to Kabul, as the government pursues a harder line on migration policy. According to the report, those most at risk include women and girls, former government officials, security personnel, media workers, and civil society activists. 'Nobody should be sent back to a country where they face the risk of persecution on account of their identity or personal history,' said UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk. The report notes that former officials and members of the security forces have gone into hiding out of fear of reprisals, while women have been left without access to jobs or educational opportunities. The UN warned that returning people to such conditions violates the principle of non-refoulement and constitutes a serious breach of international law.(dpa)