US pushes for June peace deal between Rwanda and Congo
(Corrects Fitrell's title in paragraph 2)
KINSHASA (Reuters) -The United States is pressing for swift progress in peace negotiations between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with a senior U.S. diplomat underscoring an 'extremely aggressive timeline' for a potential agreement as early as June or July.
Troy Fitrell, the senior U.S. bureau official for Africa, said during an online conference this week that technical teams are working to move the process forward.
'This coming week, we do have technical teams here to try to get to the next stage,' Fitrell said. 'We've done these principles. Now we have been arguing about putting these principles into action. We are still shooting for a June or July peace agreement.'
'There is no sense fooling around on this. If we are going to do it, we do it now,' he added, emphasizing Washington's push to accelerate negotiations.
A planned meeting in May between the foreign ministers of Rwanda and the DRC did not take place, highlighting ongoing tensions and the fragility of the peace process.
In a separate but parallel mediation effort in Doha, delegations from the Congolese government and the M23 rebel group have been recalled for further talks following consultations this week, sources from both sides told Reuters.
The Qatar-led process is seen as a complementary track aimed at addressing the armed conflict in eastern Congo, where M23 rebels have seized territory in recent months.
Despite regional and international efforts, mistrust remains deep between Kinshasa and Kigali. The DRC accuses Rwanda of supporting M23, a charge Rwanda denies.
The U.S. has played a growing role in trying to bridge differences, but diplomats caution that achieving a durable settlement will require political will on all sides.
(Reporting by Sonia Rolley; Editing by Daniel Wallis)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
30 minutes ago
- Mint
Swamps, protests, and politics: The battle over Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center
Hundreds of protesters, including Native American tribes, environmentalists, and immigration advocates, lined Florida's Tamiami Trail highway on Saturday, June 28, to decry the rapid construction of the "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center in the Everglades. Dump trucks hauling materials rumbled past demonstrators waving signs like "No Detention on Stolen Land," while passing cars honked in solidarity. The facility, spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis under emergency powers, repurposes the Miami-Dade-owned Dade-Collier Training Airport into a compound with tents and trailers for up to 5,000 detainees, slated to open by early July. DeSantis touts it as critical to supporting Trump's mass-deportation agenda, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirming partial FEMA funding. 'Clearly, from a security perspective, if someone escapes, you know, there's a lot of alligators,' DeSantis said Wednesday. 'No one's going anywhere.' Yet the site sits within Big Cypress National Preserve, home to 15 Miccosukee and Seminole villages, burial grounds, and endangered species like the Florida panther. For Betty Osceola, a Miccosukee activist, the project dishonors ancestral lands: "It's very taboo for us to incarcerate. We don't have a jail on our reservation". 'The Everglades is a vast, interconnected system of waterways and wetlands, and what happens in one area can have damaging impacts downstream," Friends of the Everglades executive director Eve Samples said, according to a Reuters report. 'So it's really important that we have a clear sense of any wetland impacts happening in the site,' Eve continued. Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit on June 27, demanding an immediate halt to construction until a full ecological review is completed. The Center for Biological Diversity and Friends of the Everglades—founded in 1969 to block a jetport on this same site—warn that the facility threatens wetlands that taxpayers have spent billions to restore. The 39-square-mile site is 96% wetlands, and runoff from sewage, fuel, and construction could poison interconnected waterways supplying drinking water to 8 million Floridians. Critics also highlight brutal conditions: Summer heat indices exceed 100°F, hurricanes loom, and detainees would face swarms of mosquitoes and alligators, DeSantis joked, which would deter escapes. "It's inhumane," said protester Jamie DeRoin. 'I got bombarded by mosquitoes just coming out here'. Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava called the rush "devastating," noting the state bypassed environmental safeguards and community input. With locked gates now blocking public access, Jessica Namath of Floridians for Public Lands added that noise and light pollution are already disrupting the 'international dark sky area'. The project's $450 million annual cost, partially funded by FEMA, faces scrutiny as litigation mounts. Attorneys argue the state violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act by skipping mandatory reviews. A hearing is urgently sought to pause construction before detainees arrive next week, but DeSantis' office vows to fight, insisting the "preexisting airport" causes 'zero impact'.
Economic Times
32 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Canada kicks out Chinese surveillance giant Hikvision over national security threat
Reuters Federal review finds Chinese tech giant's operations pose national security threat The Canadian government has ordered Chinese surveillance technology company Hikvision to shut down its Canadian operations, citing national security concerns. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly announced the decision late Friday(June 27), stating the move follows a formal national security review under the Investment Canada Act. The review involved intelligence and security assessments provided by Canada's national agencies. "The government has determined that Hikvision Canada Inc.'s continued operations in Canada would be injurious to Canada's national security," Joly wrote in a post on formally known as Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Ltd., is one of the world's largest manufacturers of surveillance cameras and related equipment. The company has operated in Canada through a subsidiary since 2014. The decision comes amid growing international scrutiny of Hikvision. The US, UK, and Australia have previously placed sanctions or restrictions on the company over allegations that its technology was used in the surveillance of Uyghur Muslims in China's Xinjiang region, allegations Beijing has denied. Major retailers such as Best Buy and Home Depot stopped selling Hikvision products as early as 2021. While Canadian officials did not disclose the specific threat that triggered this review, the Investment Canada Act allows Ottawa to investigate and block foreign investments that pose potential risks to national a statement issued Saturday, Hikvision said it 'strongly disagrees' with the government's decision.'We believe it lacks a factual basis, procedural fairness, and transparency,' the company said. 'Instead of evaluating our technology on its cybersecurity merits, the decision appears to be driven by the parent company's country of origin, reflecting broader geopolitical tensions and an unjustified bias against Chinese companies.'Hikvision added that it fully cooperated with Canadian authorities and submitted all requested with the shutdown order, Minister Joly said the federal government will ensure that departments, agencies, and Crown corporations do not purchase or use Hikvision equipment moving forward. She also announced a review of government buildings to identify and phase out any legacy Hikvision devices.'I strongly urge Canadians to take note of this decision and make their own decisions accordingly,' Joly added. The Chinese Embassy in Ottawa has not yet commented on the decision.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Confusion and anxiety grips immigrant communities nationwide after US Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship
Confusion and anxiety gripped immigrant communities nationwide after the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship, leaving pregnant asylum seekers like Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian in Houston, fearing her unborn child could become stateless, according to a Reuters report. "I don't understand it well," she admitted, voicing concerns that her September-born baby might lack Colombian citizenship if she can't add the child to her pending asylum case. Her panic reflects a broader uncertainty: The court's 6-3 decision curbed federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions against President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to babies born to undocumented or temporary-visa holders, but did not rule on the order's constitutionality. Instead, it triggered a 30-day countdown before the policy could take effect, during which lower courts must reconsider narrower ways to block it. Immigrant advocates reported a surge of calls from distraught parents-to-be, including a visa holder in Ohio terrified his child would be denied rights in a non-plaintiff state. "I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality," Lorena said, highlighting the humanitarian crisis brewing beneath all the legal chaos. The ruling's ambiguity centers on its potential to fracture citizenship rights state-by-state. While Trump's order remains blocked for plaintiffs like members of Maryland's CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, it could apply elsewhere after 30 days, creating what experts call an "unworkable patchwork." For instance, a baby born to undocumented parents in Louisiana (a non-plaintiff state) might be denied citizenship, while an identical birth in Massachusetts (a plaintiff state) would secure it. This disparity could force hospitals to act as de facto immigration enforcers, checking parents' statuses during childbirth. "Would individual doctors have to figure out how to determine citizenship?" asked Migration Policy Institute analyst Kathleen Bush-Joseph, as per Reuters. Trump, meanwhile, doubled down at a press conference, falsely claiming "hundreds of thousands" exploit birthright citizenship as a migration magnet. In a rapid response, advocacy groups filed class-action lawsuits to shield families nationwide. Within hours of the ruling, CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project amended their Maryland lawsuit to seek certification for a nationwide class covering all children born after February 19, 2025, who'd be stripped of citizenship under Trump's order. "We're going to get protection for everyone," vowed lawyer William Powell, arguing class actions could achieve what universal injunctions no longer can. But hurdles persist: Joining these groups requires resources that many lack, and Republican-led states may still enforce the policy during litigation. Betsy, a Virginia teen and CASA member whose undocumented parents migrated from El Salvador, fears targeting 'innocent kids who haven't even been born.' Meanwhile, Democratic attorneys general in 22 states signaled they'll argue in lower courts that only nationwide injunctions prevent bureaucratic chaos, like tracking parents who cross state lines to give birth. As Honduran asylum seeker Nivida fielded panicked calls from pregnant friends in Louisiana, she echoed a community's plea: "Is the baby going to be a citizen?" With the Supreme Court likely to revisit the order's constitutionality this fall, the clock ticks toward a fragmented America.
