Skepticism Surrounds DR Congo-Rwanda Peace Deal Amid Ongoing Conflict

As the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda sign a peace deal focused on disarmament of armed groups, reactions remain mixed, particularly from former leaders and local residents of conflict-affected areas like Goma, who express doubts about the agreement's effectiveness and inclusivity.

The recent peace agreement signed between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda in Washington is being met with considerable skepticism, particularly in Goma, a city under the control of rebels. The deal, finalized on Friday, calls for the "disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration" of the armed groups that have been vying for control in eastern DRC, yet critics, including former Congolese president Joseph Kabila, view it as "nothing more than a trade agreement."

Rwanda has firmly denied accusations of backing the M23 rebel group, which has seized significant territory in eastern DRC, including the strategic regional capital, Goma, as well as Bukavu and various airports. The resurgence of violence earlier this year has resulted in massive casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians. In a bid to counteract the growing threat posed by the M23, the DRC government sought assistance from the United States, reportedly offering access to valuable mineral resources in exchange for security assurances.

Kabila expressed doubt regarding the peace talks, questioning the legitimacy of their participants, particularly regarding the absence of M23 representatives from the agreement discussions. His critical stance, shared by some locals in Goma, points to the belief that without the involvement of all relevant parties, achieving a sustainable peace is nearly impossible. "How can they say they sign for peace, yet they have not involved M23?" pondered a resident, emphasizing the need for an inclusive approach that encompasses all voices involved in the conflict.

Despite the skepticism, there are those who see the signing of the agreement as a potential turning point. Stephanie Marungu, leading a humanitarian organization in Goma, acknowledged the potential benefits of the pact, stating it could lead to greater stability in the region and facilitate humanitarian aid efforts. However, she tempered her optimism by highlighting the challenges that lie ahead in translating this agreement into tangible peace on the ground.

Local opinions are mixed, as some residents share the sentiment that they are exhausted by discussions and merely desire peace. Activists and human rights advocates have also expressed concern, pointing out that the agreement falls short in addressing the serious violations committed by proxy armed groups. Sam Zarifi from Physicians for Human Rights criticized the deal's lack of focus on ensuring justice for survivors of the ongoing conflict.

As the international community observes, the implications of this peace deal remain uncertain. The pressing question is whether this Washington-brokered agreement represents a viable path towards lasting peace or if it will merely serve the interests of a select few while leaving ordinary Congolese citizens in continued turmoil.