Follow us on social

Did Trump admin just bring DRC and Rwanda closer to peace?

Did Trump admin just bring DRC and Rwanda closer to peace?

Reports today suggest both sides — on deadline — submitted drafts for preliminary peace accord

Reporting | QiOSK

Reports on Friday suggest that the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda — which is backing the rebel group M23, the main armed rival to the DRC in a war that has ravaged the DRC’s east for years — have submitted drafts for a preliminary peace accord to end the war.

Friday’s news comes a week after the foreign ministers for both the DRC and Rwanda met in Washington in a ceremony hosted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio for the signing of a Declaration of Principles, which served as a commitment from each country to move towards a sustained peace agreement. That declaration set today as the deadline for drafts to be submitted for a preliminary accord between the two countries — today’s news suggests this deadline was met.

During the ceremonial conference in Washington on April 25, Rubio said that the USengagement with the two rival governments on the peace effort is part of President Trump’s “prosperity agenda for the world.”

The Trump administration has played a positive role in moving this conflict a few steps closer to a peaceful resolution. President Trump placed Massad Boulos as his Senior Advisor for Africa last month, a position which includes working on leading the president’s effort to end this war. Boulos has been serving as the American representative in the ongoing Qatar-led peace talks, and has participated in the mediation efforts.

Boulos’ work has seemingly paid off. During the April 25 press conference in Washington for the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the foreign ministers of both the DRC and Rwanda thanked Boulos for his role in advancing dialogue around peace. The DRC’s foreign minister said Boulos’ “extensive consultations across the region have brought nuance, depth, and humanity in this process. And [his] presence today underscores that diplomacy must listen, understand the lived experiences of those most affected and seek durable solutions.”

The DRC and the Alliance Fleuve Congo — which is the political body of the M23 — agreed on April 23 in a joint declaration to a truce in the fighting and underscored that “both parties reaffirm their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities, a categorical rejection of any hate speech, intimidation, and call on all local communities to uphold these commitments.” Although the temporary truce was broken just a few days later when fighting resumed in the South Kivu province, it appears as though this has not derailed negotiations.

In the Washington event last week, Rubio highlighted U.S. economic interests in securing peace in the region, saying that American “firms are good corporate citizens … and they’ll bring good governance and ensure responsible, reliable supply chains for things like critical minerals that benefit regional governments and our partners and allies as well.”

In an interview with Reuters, Boulos said that he is anticipating a final, permanent peace deal to be signed between the DRC and Rwanda in Washington in about two months.

The U.S. has an interest in achieving peace in the region — access to the vast mineral wealth in and around the warzone. In his interview with Reuters, Boulos said the United States is currently in the process of finalizing bilateral economic agreements with both Rwanda and the DRC, and hopes these agreements will be signed on the same day as the peace deal.

"The (agreement) with the D.R.C. is at a much bigger scale, because it's a much bigger country and it has much more resources, but Rwanda also has a lot of resources and capacities and potential in the area of mining as well ... not just the upstream, but also midstream and downstream to processing and refining and trading," Boulos told Reuters.

He also said the U.S. will join France, Qatar, and Togo, which will represent the African Union, in forming a committee to review the progress of the peace deal.

News of this tentative peace agreement comes on the heels of the M23 rebel group successfully advancing across the eastern portion of the DRC. In late January, the group overpowered the Congolese military and allied militias to capture the major city of Goma. The M23 then moved southward and conquered the city of Bukavu, the capital of the South Kivu province.

Previous efforts to broker a lasting deal between the two sidesfailed to move the needle. An effort by Kenya in 2022 brought some peace between rebel groups and the DRC, but failed to end the conflict with the M23. Angola had been working to broker a peace deal between the various parties, but after months of failing to secure a deal, Angolan president João Lourenço announced in March that he would no longer serve as the lead mediator for the conflict, choosing instead to focus on his new position as leader of the African Union.

Qatar then stepped in to lead peace talks, and has been supported in this effort in recent weeks by the U.S. delegation, led by Boulos.

The Trump administration’s work to support Qatar’s efforts to broker peace in the DRC’s east is welcome news and serves as a positive example of how U.S. economic interests — namely, access to minerals and mining in the DRC and Rwanda — can be used to spur American diplomatic engagement with the goal of ending a years-long war.


Congolese civilians who fled from Goma, in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, following clashes between M23 rebels and the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC), carry their belongings as they walk towards the Grand Barrier crossing point to return home, in Gisenyi, Rubavu district, Rwanda, January 30, 2025. REUTERS/Thomas Mukoya
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.