DRC and Rwanda sign 'Washington Accord' peace deal
Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) signed a US-brokered peace agreement in Washington on Friday, ending three decades of conflict and ushering in billions in foreign investment to the region.
President Donald Trump, flanked by his Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, said the foreign ministers of the two countries signed the agreement in the Oval Office.
"They were fighting for years, and it was machetes, it was vicious, people's heads were being chopped off," Mr Trump said at a news conference earlier on Friday.
"And I have a man who's very good in that part of the world, very smart, and put them together," he said. "First time in many years, they're going to have peace. And it's a big deal."
Mr Trump had enlisted the help of Massad Boulos, a Lebanese-American businessman and the father-in-law of the President's daughter Tiffany. Qatar also joined in mediating the process.
Born in Lebanon, Mr Boulos has ties to Africa, having lived and owned businesses in Nigeria. Last month, Mr Boulos said the DRC and Rwanda had submitted a draft peace proposal.
Speaking in the Oval Office, Mr Boulos said he had first engaged with the two sides in early April, and the final agreement will be known as the Washington Accord.
"There's an economic aspect as well that is extremely important for both countries," Mr Boulos said.
"There would be some bilateral agreements with negotiating a mineral deal with the DRC for critical minerals - many American companies have shown interest in investing in the DRC," he said. "Same thing with Rwanda. "
The agreement would bring to an end a three-decade conflict in the eastern DRC which escalated earlier this year, when the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels seized the key cities of Goma and Bukavu.
A draft of the agreement provided by the state Department includes the disengagement of Rwandan forces and the voluntary repatriation of refugees.
It also called for the monthly rotating meetings between DRC and Rwanda, with the US and Qatar attending as observers. Another joint meeting was to be held in Washington within 45 days.
The fighting has killed about 3,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands of others.
The DRC, United Nations and the US have long accused Rwanda of providing weapons and training to the M23 rebels.
Rwanda denies supporting M23, and says its forces are acting in self-defence against the Congolese army and Hutu militias linked to the Rwandan genocide of ethnic Tutsis in 1994.
The conflict is fuelled by the rich mineral resources in eastern Congo.
The DRC is the world's largest producer of cobalt, a mineral used to make lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles and smartphones. The country also has substantial gold, diamond and copper reserves.
M23 and Rwanda are accused of exploiting these resources.
On Thursday, Reuters reported that the DRC had dropped its demand for the immediate withdrawal of Rwandan troops, paving the way for the peace deal.
Physicians for human rights, an organisation that has worked in the DRC for more than a decade, said the agreement does not ensure that hostilities would not resume through proxy armed groups, and has no reparations component.
"We welcome any dialogue and de-escalation in the devastating conflict in eastern DRC, but it is important to note that the new agreement between Rwanda and DRC contains major omissions and does not adequately safeguard civilians in the region," Sam Zarifi, executive director said in a statement on Friday.
"There can be no durable peace without meaningful justice. But the agreement signed today sidelines human rights and fails survivors," he said.
The economic incentives involved remain unclear as Mr Trump seeks to compete with China in investing in the region's abundant mineral wealth.
Mr Trump said it included the US getting "mineral rights" from the Congo.
The draft agreement said it would shut down 'illicit economic pathways' and instead "formalise and audit" cross-border mineral trade.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
2 hours ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Trump says ceasefire in Gaza possible within 'next week'
President Donald Trump on Friday said he expects a ceasefire in the war in Gaza to be reached within a week. Speaking from the Oval Office during the signing of a peace accord between Congo and Rwanda, Mr Trump said he had earlier been speaking with people involved in reaching a truce in the 20-month-old war. 'We think within the next week, we're going to get a ceasefire,' he said. He added that the US was supplying money and food to the war ravaged coastal enclave. 'We're involved because people are dying and I look at those crowds of people that have no food, no anything, and we're the ones that are getting it there,' he said. Mr Trump's comments follow months of stalled efforts to bring an end to the war in Gaza that ignited on October 7, 2023, after the Iranian-backed group Hamas attacked Israel. It also comes days after the Trump administration conducted strikes on Iran's three nuclear sites. At least 54,084 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli strikes since the war's start, and much of the enclave has been reduced to rubble. A brief ceasefire that was reached in January – a day before Mr Trump took office – collapsed in March. Israel moved to block the entry of food aid and assistance, compounding the suffering of the approximately two million Gaza residents who are facing dire food shortages. The Trump administration advanced the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a private aid group, to address the concerns over famine in the Strip. But the group has drawn intense scrutiny after scenes of chaos and bloodshed unfolded at aid distribution sites. Since late May, nearly 550 people have been killed near GHF its four aid centres while seeking food, according to local health authorities. The GHF, backed by Israel and the US, has denied that deadly incidents have occurred in the immediate vicinity of its aid points. They say they've handed out more than 46 million meals. The UN and other aid groups have refused to work with the GHF, calling them a 'death trap.' 'The new aid distribution system has become a killing field,' said Philippe Lazzarini, head of the UN agency for Palestinian affairs (UNWRA). 'This abomination must end through a return to humanitarian deliveries from the UN including UNRWA,' he wrote on X. The US State Department on Thursday said that it is providing $30 million in direct funding to the group. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Thursday published a report quoting unnamed soldiers saying they were ordered to deliberately fire live bullets at crowds near distribution centres to disperse them, even when they posed no threat.
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Gaza ceasefire possible within a week, Trump says
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that he believes it is possible that a ceasefire in the Gaza conflict will be reached within a week. Trump, at an Oval Office event celebrating a Congo-Rwanda accord, told reporters that he believes a ceasefire is close. He said he had just been talking to some of the people involved in trying to reach a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. - Reporting by Reuters
