logo
Trump helped these African countries sign a peace deal. Here's what we know

Trump helped these African countries sign a peace deal. Here's what we know

DAKAR, Senegal (AP) — A deal signed in Washington on Friday has been touted as a major step toward peace in Congo following decades of conflict that has killed millions, including thousands this year.
The U.S.-mediated agreement is between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been battered by fighting with more than 100 armed groups. The most potent is backed by neighboring Rwanda, and it is not clear if it will abide by the deal as the group wasn't part of the negotiations.
President Donald Trump says the deal gives the United States 'a lot of the mineral rights' from Congo. His administration has pushed to gain access to minerals key to much of the world's technology and is seeking to counter China, a key player in the region where the U.S. presence and influence have eroded.
Both the Congolese and Rwandan presidents are expected in Washington in a few weeks to 'finalize the complete protocol and agreement,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.
Here's a look at what we know about the agreement:
The terms of the deal
The agreement details general expectations but is short on how it will be implemented, particularly in getting the key actors of the conflict — the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels — to lay down their arms, according to a copy seen by The Associated Press.
The deal emphasizes the two neighboring countries' sovereignty, territorial integrity and peaceful coexistence, with a commitment to halt all hostilities and any support for armed groups.
Although it denies supporting the M23 rebels, Rwanda has said it is protecting its border and going after the ethnic Hutus, whom it accuses of participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and now working with Congolese forces after fleeing to the neighboring country.
Armed gangs involved in the conflict may be reintegrated into Congolese security forces only after individual vetting based on loyalty, fitness and human rights records, the deal says.
In what the U.N. has called 'one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth,' the deal includes a commitment to protect and facilitate humanitarian access for displaced people in Congo, estimated to be more than 7 million.
The two countries also commit to creating an economic framework 'to expand foreign trade and investment derived from regional critical mineral supply chains,' including ones that 'link both countries, in partnership, as appropriate, with the U.S. government and U.S. investors.'
Uncertainty over whether the hostilities will end
Analysts say it is going to be difficult for the M23 rebels to withdraw from the cities they seized during their major advance this year and that such withdrawal may either take a long time or another round of fighting.
Rwanda is estimated to have thousands of troops supporting the M23 rebels in eastern Congo. Even if Rwanda ends its support for the rebels, the M23 has been consolidating its grip in the cities it has seized, setting up local administrative offices and enforcing a new governing structure.
A team of U.N. experts said in a report in December that Rwanda was benefitting from minerals 'fraudulently' exported from areas in the region under the control of the M23. Rwanda has denied involvement.
The rebels were not directly involved in the U.S.-facilitated negotiations and have not spoken publicly about the deal. And Corneille Nangaa, leader of the Congo River Alliance, which includes the M23, told the AP in March that 'anything regarding us which are done without us, it's against us.'
Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe pointed to separate talks happening in Qatar that are meant to get both Congo and the M23 rebels to agree among themselves how they will end the fighting. He also said Rwanda agreed to lift its 'defensive measures.' It was not clear if he meant withdrawing the troops that Rwanda has said are defending its territorial interests.
What Congolese think of the deal
Of five people that the AP spoke to in the conflict-battered region, none of them was convinced the deal would quickly end the fighting.
They called for caution in granting the U.S. access to the region's minerals — resources that even late Pope Francis had reprimanded developed countries for exploiting to the detriment of the Congolese.
'We draw the attention of the Congolese government not to give in completely or to sell the Congo to the Americans just because the United States has supported us in restoring peace,' said Hangi Muhindo, a resident of Goma, the city at the center of the conflict.
Wednesdays
Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture.
'The commitments to the United States must not jeopardize the future of our people,' he added.
Some also felt the agreement is only a part of the solution and called for more dialogue and justice.
'We want peace now, but we don't want the therapy to be worse than the disease,' said Prince Epenge, spokesperson for the local opposition political coalition.
___
Justin Kabumba and Saleh Mwanamilongo in Congo contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Debate is underway in U.S. Senate on Trump's big bill. It may go all night
Debate is underway in U.S. Senate on Trump's big bill. It may go all night

CTV News

time28 minutes ago

  • CTV News

Debate is underway in U.S. Senate on Trump's big bill. It may go all night

WASHINGTON —Debate is underway in the Senate for an all-night session Sunday, with Republicans wrestling President Donald Trump's big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts over mounting Democratic opposition -- and even some brake-pumping over the budget slashing by the president himself. The outcome from the weekend of work in the Senate remains uncertain and highly volatile. GOP leaders are rushing to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline to pass the package, but they barely secured enough support to muscle it past a procedural hurdle in a tense scene the day before. A handful of Republican holdouts revolted, and it took phone calls from Trump and a visit from Vice President JD Vance to keep it on track. GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina announced Sunday he would not seek reelection after Trump badgered him for saying he could not vote for the bill with its steep Medicaid cuts. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that 11.8 million more Americans would become uninsured by 2034 if the bill became law. It also said the package would increase the deficit by nearly $3.3 trillion over the decade. But other Senate Republicans, along with conservatives in the House, are pushing for steeper cuts, particularly to health care, drawing their own unexpected warning from Trump. 'Don't go too crazy!' the president posted on social media. 'REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected.' All told, the Senate bill includes some $4 trillion in tax cuts, making permanent Trump's 2017 rates, which would expire at the end of the year if Congress fails to act, while adding the new ones he campaigned on, including no taxes on tips. The Senate package would roll back billions in green energy tax credits that Democrats warn will wipe out wind and solar investments nationwide, and impose $1.2 trillion in cuts, largely to Medicaid and food stamps, by imposing work requirements and making sign-up eligibility more stringent. Additionally, the bill would provide a $350 billion infusion for border and national security, including for deportations, some of it paid for with new fees charged to immigrants. If the Senate can push through overnight voting and pass the bill, it would need to return to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson has told lawmakers to be on call for a return to Washington this coming week. Democrats ready to fight all night Unable to stop the march toward passage of the 940-page bill, the Democrats as the minority party in Congress is using the tools at its disposal to delay and drag out the process. Democrats forced a full reading of the text, which took some 16 hours, ending Sunday afternoon. Then senators took over the debate, filling the chamber with speeches, while Republicans largely stood aside. 'Reckless and irresponsible,' said Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan. 'A gift to the billionaire class,' said Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, raised particular concern about the accounting method being used by the Republicans, which says the tax breaks from Trump's first term, in 2017, are now 'current policy' and the cost of extending them should not be counted toward deficits. 'In my 33 years here in the United States Senate, things have never -- never -- worked this way,' said Murray, the longest-serving Democrat on the Budget Committee. She said that kind of 'magic math' won't fly with Americans trying to balance their own household books. 'Go back home and try that game with your constituents,' she said. 'We still need to kick people off their health care -- that's too expensive. We still need to close those hospitals -- we have to cut costs. And we still have to kick people off SNAP -- because the debt is out of control.' Sanders said Tillis' decision not to seek reelection shows the hold that Trump's cult of personality has over the GOP. 'We are literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids,' Sanders said, while giving tax breaks to Jeff Bezos and other wealthy billionaires. GOP leaders unphased Republicans are using their majorities to push aside Democratic opposition, and appeared undeterred, even as they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. 'We're going to pass the 'Big, beautiful bill,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., the Budget Committee chairman. 'And President Trump is going to sign it.' The holdout Republicans remain reluctant to give their votes, and their leaders have almost no room to spare, given their narrow majorities. Essentially, they can afford three dissenters in the Senate, with its 53-47 GOP edge, and about as many in the House, if all members are present and voting. Trump, who has at times allowed wiggle room on his deadline, kept the pressure on lawmakers to finish. He threatened to campaign against Tillis, who was worried that Medicaid cuts would leave many without health care in his state. Trump badgered Tillis again on Sunday morning, saying the senator 'has hurt the great people of North Carolina.' Later Sunday, Tillis issued a lengthy statement announcing he would not seek reelection in 2026. Democrats can't filibuster, but can stall Using a congressional process called budget reconciliation, the Republicans can muscle the bill through on a simple majority vote in the Senate, rather than the typical 60-vote threshold needed to overcome objections. Without the filibuster, Democrats have latched on to other tools to mount their objections. One is the full reading of the bill text, which has been done in past situations. Democrats also intend to use their full 10 hours of available debate time, now underway. And then Democrats are prepared to propose dozens of amendments to the package that would be considered in an all-night voting session -- or all-day, depending on the hour. GOP senators to watch As Saturday's vote tally teetered, attention turned to Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who was surrounded by GOP leaders in intense conversation. She voted 'yes.' Several provisions in the package are designed for her state in Alaska. A short time later, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., drew holdouts Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming to his office. Vance joined in. The talks dragged on. Then Vance led them all back in to vote. Later, Scott said he had met with the president, adding, 'We all want to get to yes.' Lee said the group 'had an internal discussion about the strategy to achieve more savings and more deficit reduction, and I feel good about the direction where this is going, and more to come.'

CIA chief told lawmakers Iran's nuclear program set back years by strikes
CIA chief told lawmakers Iran's nuclear program set back years by strikes

Toronto Sun

timean hour ago

  • Toronto Sun

CIA chief told lawmakers Iran's nuclear program set back years by strikes

Published Jun 29, 2025 • 3 minute read This satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows the Isfahan nuclear technology centre in Iran after U.S. strikes, Sunday, June 22, 2025. Photo by Maxar Technologies via AP WASHINGTON — CIA Director John Ratcliffe told skeptical U.S. lawmakers that American military strikes destroyed Iran's lone metal conversion facility and in the process delivered a monumental setback to Tehran's nuclear program that would take years to overcome, a U.S. official said Sunday. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive intelligence, said Ratcliffe laid out the importance of the strikes on the metal conversion facility during a classified hearing for U.S. lawmakers last week. Details about the private briefings surfaced as President Donald Trump and his administration keep pushing back on questions from Democratic lawmakers and others about how far Iran was set back by the strikes before last Tuesday's ceasefire with Israel took hold. 'It was obliterating like nobody's ever seen before,' Trump said in an interview on Fox News Channel's Sunday Morning Futures . 'And that meant the end to their nuclear ambitions, at least for a period of time.' Ratcliffe also told lawmakers that the intelligence community assessed the vast majority of Iran's amassed enriched uranium likely remains buried under the rubble at Isfahan and Fordo, two of the three key nuclear facilities targeted by U.S. strikes. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But even if the uranium remains intact, the loss of its metal conversion facility effectively has taken away Tehran's ability to build a bomb for years to come, the official said. Read More Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Sunday on CBS' Face the Nation that the three Iranian sites with 'capabilities in terms of treatment, conversion and enrichment of uranium have been destroyed to an important degree.' But, he added, 'some is still standing' and because capabilities remain, 'if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.' He said assessing the full damage comes down to Iran allowing in inspectors. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'Frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared, and there is nothing there,' Grossi said. Trump has insisted from just hours after three key targets were struck by U.S. bunker-buster bombs and Tomahawk missiles that Iran's nuclear program was 'obliterated.' Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has said they were 'destroyed.' A preliminary report issued by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, meanwhile, said the strikes did significant damage to the Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan sites, but did not totally destroy the facilities. As a result of Israeli and U.S. strikes, Grossi says that 'it is clear that there has been severe damage, but it's not total damage.' Israel claims it has set back Iran's nuclear program by 'many years.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The metal conversion facility that Ratcliffe said was destroyed was located at the Isfahan nuclear facility. The process of transforming enriched uranium gas into dense metal, or metallization, is a key step in building the explosive core of a bomb. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Secretary of State Marco Rubio in comments at the NATO summit last week also suggested that it was likely the U.S. strikes had destroyed the metal conversion facility. 'You can't do a nuclear weapon without a conversion facility,' Rubio said. 'We can't even find where it is, where it used to be on the map. You can't even find where it used to be because the whole thing is just blackened out. It's gone. It's wiped out.' The CIA director also stressed to lawmakers during the congressional briefing that Iran's air defences were shattered during the 12-day assault. As a result, any attempt by Iran to rebuild its nuclear program could now easily be thwarted by Israeli strikes that Iran currently has little wherewithal to defend against, the official said. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Ratcliffe's briefing to lawmakers on the U.S. findings appeared to mesh with some of Israeli officials' battle damage assessments. Israeli officials have determined that Iran's ability to enrich uranium to a weapons-grade level was neutralized for a prolonged period, according to a senior Israeli military official who was not authorized to talk publicly about the matter. Tehran's nuclear program also was significantly damaged by the strikes killing key scientists, damage to Iran's missile production industry and the battering of Iran's aerial defence system, according to the Israeli's assessment. Grossi, and some Democrats, note that Iran still has the know-how. 'You cannot undo the knowledge that you have or the capacities that you have,' Grossi said, emphasizing the need to come to a diplomatic deal on the country's nuclear program. — AP writer Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv contributed to this report. Toronto Maple Leafs Toronto Maple Leafs Sports World Toronto Maple Leafs

U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship

Globe and Mail

timean hour ago

  • Globe and Mail

U.S. Supreme Court ruling jeopardizes birthright citizenship

An explosive constitutional battle broke out over the weekend in the U.S., as the country assessed the impact of a Supreme Court decision that jeopardized the notion of 'birthright citizenship' and inflamed all the passions of the Donald Trump era. The high court ruled Friday that lower courts could not 'stay,' or delay, the implementation of executive orders or laws. The decision has immediate implications beyond ending nationwide injunctions, which has been used against executive-branch policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations but came into full flower in the Joe Biden and Trump years. The lower courts had questioned the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship policy, announced the day he returned to the White House on Jan. 20. So the Supreme Court's decision opened the way, if only temporarily, to permit the administration to deny American citizenship to some people born in the U.S. It's an initiative by the Trump administration that has roiled American politics and has the potential of altering the composition of the country's population. Until Friday's ruling, it was a common assumption that the 14th Amendment's provision granting citizenship to all born in the U.S. was beyond debate. But, as it has done in a full gamut of areas, the Trump administration has taken what was a settled matter and, in the process, unsettled American politics. Trump administration ends legal protections for half-million Haitians who now face deportations The Supreme Court's decision spurred fresh determination from the Trump camp to expand its drive against migrants, prompted indignant howls of protest from migrant-rights activists. It triggered yet another national debate on the Constitution, the prerogatives of the executive branch, and the policies of the President. The Trump offensive against all the assumptions of American civic life took special aim at the very first sentence of the post-Civil War amendment, passed by Congress in 1866 and confirmed by the states two years later: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' For 157 years, the interpretation of that language was largely immune to challenge, even though the context was the granting of citizenship to the enslaved persons who had been freed in the aftermath of the Civil War. The meaning was clear: Those born in the U.S. were, by definition, Americans. Even an earlier Supreme Court, in 1898, affirmed that notion, and for more than a century and a quarter, it seemed unassailable. But the new focus on immigration, and what the Trump administration considered the promiscuous conferring of American citizenship on the children of those residing in the country illegally, transformed a given to a right that the President and anti-immigrant activists wanted to take away. Many legal scholars doubt the Trump tactic, and argue that what the words say is what the amendment means. But the Trump administration argues that the context of the 14th amendment – part of a flurry of changes in American life after the Civil War that tore the country apart geographically, culturally, economically, and morally – means that the language reflected a specific moment in time and a specific circumstance. They argue that the 19th-century amendment doesn't apply to far different 21st-century circumstances. The irony is that many of those who support that position also embrace a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution, urging in other cases that the words of the founding American document (which includes the 25 amendments that followed) are to be taken literally, shorn of context or interpretation. The Supreme Court's decision actually said nothing about birthright citizenship. It merely argued that, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett put it, excesses by the executive branch can't be stanched by excesses of the judicial branch. That means that lower-court judges skeptical of, or opposed to, Trump policies cannot invalidate those initiatives. The fact that the court test involved the Trump birthright citizenship case opened the administration to pursue its original intention, the denial of citizenship to some children of migrants and to make them vulnerable to deportation. This was an especially important target to the administration because of its view that large numbers of migrants were having children in the U.S., or coming to the country, for the express purpose of rendering their children American citizens. A May study by the Migration Policy Institute at Penn State University found that, if Mr. Trump prevailed, about 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would be denied American citizenship. The Supreme Court likely will rule on birthright citizenship in its next term, which begins in October, though it is possible some of the suits already filed may prompt it to make a swifter ruling. Opinion: The missing pieces migrants leave behind The Trump administration must wait about a month before taking action in the 28 states that haven't challenged the President's order. Opponents of the policy didn't wait to take legal action. The court challenges came first from New Hampshire and New Jersey, but other states likely will follow, taking advantage of the fact the Supreme Court's decision offered another opening for action. It's an analogue to the opening granted to the Trump administration. The Supreme Court ruled that class-action suits could be filed in federal district courts that might, in specific geographical areas, bar enforcement of the Trump order. This issue has been confined thus far to the executive and judicial branches. But shortly after the Trump executive order, legislation was filed on Capitol Hill that would grant citizenship only to children born to a parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, to a lawful permanent resident living in the country, or to a non-American legally admitted to the country performing active service in the armed services. No congressional action has been taken.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store