Can peace hold? Rwanda and DRC deal to end regional conflict
A peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was signed in Washington on 27 June 2025.
With diplomatic support from allies in the region, the United States and Qatar helped to broker the deal.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the event at the State Department in Washington, DC.
Furthermore, the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group did not sign the accord but remains central to the continued peaceful dialogue in Doha.
In addition, within 90 days, both countries agreed to implement a disengagement plan for 2024.
The agreement includes a framework for regional economic integration as well as a framework for cooperative security.
According to the agreement, Rwanda has ninety days to withdraw its troops from the east of the DRC.
As a result, DRC will mandate an operational strategy for the neutralisation of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), provided Rwanda removes its defensive measures.
The deal makes it easier for the Congolese government and M23 representatives to negotiate in Qatar.
Within 30 days, a cooperative security oversight body will proceed to guarantee compliance.
Enhancing regional trade in vital minerals like cobalt and lithium is another goal of the agreement.
The United States will have access to mineral rights in the DRC, according to President Donald Trump.
Rwanda's foreign minister, Olivier Nduhungirehe, described the deal as 'a turning point' for the area.
The DRC's foreign minister, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, stressed the importance of justice and sovereignty.
The agreement could allow for billions of dollars in Western investment in the region, according to U.S. officials.
Over seven million people are displaced in the east of the DRC, and the agreement included a commitment to protect and advance humanitarian access for those affected.
Within a few weeks, heads of state will be concluding a comprehensive economic protocol in Washington.
Before the endorsement of the economic framework commences, progress in the Doha negotiations is considered a crucial priority.
The peace deal includes procedures for verifying the disarmament of militias and the withdrawal of the army from the region.
Trump's Africa advisor, Massad Boulos, affirmed the United States' involvement in facilitating the minerals deal.
Regional analysts and experts, including Michelle Gavin of the Council on Foreign Relations, expressed concern that the deal does not adequately address M23's territorial gains.
Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11.
Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
SA not ready for fallout if Israel-Iran ceasefire fails, warns UJ professor
As the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds, the world watches with bated breath to see what will happen next between the two regional powers. To gain insight into the situation, Caxton Local Media spoke to Dr Suzy Graham, professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Johannesburg. Discussing the ceasefire, Graham explained that although it is still early days, the truce holds real potential, though it remains inherently fragile. 'Its longevity hinges on disciplined diplomacy, credible inspections, and political will from all actors. If any of these break down, especially due to hardliners or indirect aggression via proxies, the truce could unravel quickly,' she said. For now, however, the signs are cautiously optimistic. A ceasefire on edge: What's holding it together? Graham believes the ceasefire was primarily driven by a rapid cycle of escalation and daring diplomacy aimed at avoiding further catastrophic conflict. Although the ceasefire appears to be working, she warned that initial breaches from either side could lead to its deterioration. She described the thought of a third world war as unthinkable. 'Despite social media speculation, the probability of a full-scale World War III remains low, but not zero,' Graham said. South Africa's position: Legal, vocal, and diplomatic Speaking about South Africa's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict and how it aligns with the country's broader foreign policy, Graham said South Africa will almost always call for dialogue in any conflict situation. 'The South African government has been vocal in strongly condemning the recent military strikes on Iran, describing the attacks as violations of international law. It has urged all parties, Iran, Israel, and the USA, to engage in UN-led dialogue, emphasising diplomacy, restraint, and nuclear inspection,' she explained. Regarding the potential impact on South Africa if the conflict reignites and becomes a wider regional crisis, Graham said the country would likely continue championing international law, human rights, and nuclear non-proliferation. She noted that South Africa could strengthen its moral leadership among Global South and Muslim-majority countries. 'At the same time, the country could face intense backlash from Israel and Western allies, particularly the USA, Germany, and the UK, especially if Pretoria doubles down on its International Court of Justice genocide case or calls for sanctions. 'South Africa could see reduced goodwill from Western investors or governments, especially if tensions rise over its international legal campaigns or alignment with Iran.' 'In the immediate term, South Africa would likely call for a ceasefire, condemn aggression, and activate international and legal channels. In the short term, it might push for UN and BRICS statements and engage the African Union and Global South partners. 'In the mid-term, it would need to manage economic fallout, reinforce public diplomacy, and maintain BRICS plus solidarity. In the longer term, South Africa could use the crisis to push for UN Security Council reform, nuclear disarmament, and multipolar global governance.' Graham emphasised that if South Africa is drawn into the conflict, its role would be principled, vocal, and legalistic, not military. 'It may be drawn in politically, but not militarily,' she said. 'The country's focus would remain on shaping the normative global order, not engaging in hard power projection.' What escalation could mean for South Africa Although South Africa would not be militarily involved, Graham said a wider Middle East conflict would hit its economy hard, particularly through rising fuel prices, increased trade costs, and inflation. 'An escalation in the Israel-Iran conflict could seriously disrupt global oil flows, and South Africa, as an energy-importing nation, would feel the effects quickly and deeply. 'The country's inflation rate, currency, fiscal stability, and household livelihoods would all come under pressure.' When asked if South Africa is prepared for possible knock-on effects of war, such as cyberattacks or disruptions in trade, Graham said the country is not fully ready for the complex and interconnected consequences of a major regional war involving Iran and Israel. 'While it has some institutional frameworks and economic policy tools, South Africa lacks a coordinated national resilience strategy, particularly for cyber threats and maritime trade disruptions. 'A greater focus on strategic planning, inter-agency coordination, and public-private resilience building is urgently needed.' Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!
The South African
5 hours ago
- The South African
Can peace hold? Rwanda and DRC deal to end regional conflict
A peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was signed in Washington on 27 June 2025. With diplomatic support from allies in the region, the United States and Qatar helped to broker the deal. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hosted the event at the State Department in Washington, DC. Furthermore, the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group did not sign the accord but remains central to the continued peaceful dialogue in Doha. In addition, within 90 days, both countries agreed to implement a disengagement plan for 2024. The agreement includes a framework for regional economic integration as well as a framework for cooperative security. According to the agreement, Rwanda has ninety days to withdraw its troops from the east of the DRC. As a result, DRC will mandate an operational strategy for the neutralisation of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), provided Rwanda removes its defensive measures. The deal makes it easier for the Congolese government and M23 representatives to negotiate in Qatar. Within 30 days, a cooperative security oversight body will proceed to guarantee compliance. Enhancing regional trade in vital minerals like cobalt and lithium is another goal of the agreement. The United States will have access to mineral rights in the DRC, according to President Donald Trump. Rwanda's foreign minister, Olivier Nduhungirehe, described the deal as 'a turning point' for the area. The DRC's foreign minister, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, stressed the importance of justice and sovereignty. The agreement could allow for billions of dollars in Western investment in the region, according to U.S. officials. Over seven million people are displaced in the east of the DRC, and the agreement included a commitment to protect and advance humanitarian access for those affected. Within a few weeks, heads of state will be concluding a comprehensive economic protocol in Washington. Before the endorsement of the economic framework commences, progress in the Doha negotiations is considered a crucial priority. The peace deal includes procedures for verifying the disarmament of militias and the withdrawal of the army from the region. Trump's Africa advisor, Massad Boulos, affirmed the United States' involvement in facilitating the minerals deal. Regional analysts and experts, including Michelle Gavin of the Council on Foreign Relations, expressed concern that the deal does not adequately address M23's territorial gains. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
eNCA
14 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump hails 'giant win' after top court curbs judges
US President Donald Trump said Friday he can now push through a raft of controversial policies after the Supreme Court handed him a "giant win" by curbing the ability of lone judges to block his powers nationwide. In a 6-3 ruling stemming from Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, the court said nationwide injunctions issued by individual district court judges likely exceed their authority. "This was a tremendous win," Trump told reporters in a hastily arranged press conference at the White House. "I want to just thank again the Supreme Court for this ruling." Trump said he would now proceed with "so many policies" that had been "wrongly" blocked, including his bid to end birthright citizenship, and stopping funding for transgender people and "sanctuary cities" for migrants. US Attorney General Pam Bondi, standing alongside Trump at the podium, said the ruling would stop "rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation." Democrats swiftly blasted the decision, saying it would embolden Trump as he pushes the boundaries of presidential power in his second term. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called it a "terrifying step toward authoritarianism." Trump however rejected concerns about the concentration of power in the White House. "This is really the opposite of that," Trump said. "This really brings back the Constitution." Trump separately hailed a "great ruling" by the Supreme Court to let parents opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons at public schools. The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order seeking to end automatic citizenship for children born on US soil. But the broader decision on the scope of judicial rulings removes a big roadblock to Trump's often highly contested policy agenda and has far-reaching ramifications for the ability of the judiciary to rein in Trump or future US presidents. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship is just one of a number of his moves that have been blocked by judges around the country -- both Democratic and Republican appointees – since he took office in January. Courts have, for example, blocked or slowed down his hardline immigration crackdown, firing of federal employees, efforts to end diversity programs and punitive actions against law firms and universities. - 'No right is safe' - Past presidents have also complained about national injunctions shackling their agenda, but such orders have sharply risen under Trump, who saw more in his first two months than Democrat Joe Biden did during his first three years in office. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion joined by the other five conservative justices. "Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch," wrote Barrett, who has previously been a frequent target of Trump loyalists over previous decisions that went against the president. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying "no right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates." Trump's initial reaction to the ruling came in a post on Truth Social, welcomed it as a "GIANT WIN." The case was ostensibly about Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, which was deemed unconstitutional by courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. But it actually focused on whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. The issue has become a rallying cry for Trump and his Republican allies, who accuse the judiciary of impeding his agenda against the will of voters. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government." Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens. Trump said that the policy "was meant for the babies of slaves," dating back to the US Civil War era in the mid 1800s. By Danny Kemp And Chris Lefkow
