In a dramatic turn of events, the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a controversial peace deal in Washington, D.C., aimed at ending a decades-long conflict fueled by violence and mineral exploitation. The agreement, brokered by the U.S. and Qatar, has raised alarms among human rights activists and analysts who fear it may perpetuate the cycle of violence and exploitation in the resource-rich region.

As tensions escalate, the M23 rebel group, allegedly backed by Rwanda, has intensified its bloody campaign in eastern Congo, leading to widespread chaos and civilian displacement. Thousands have fled their homes, and hospitals are overwhelmed with casualties. The signing of the peace deal comes amid a backdrop of ongoing violence, with the UN estimating that around 7,000 people have already lost their lives and investigations into potential war crimes are underway.

Critics, including DRC human rights activist Kambal Musavuli, express skepticism about the deal’s potential for lasting peace. “Without accountability for those who have committed atrocities, we risk repeating history,” he warns. The deal’s lack of transparency raises questions about whether it will genuinely address the root causes of conflict or merely facilitate foreign access to Congo’s vast mineral wealth.

While the U.S. may see this agreement as a pathway to secure critical minerals, many Congolese voices are being sidelined. The absence of local consultation in the deal has sparked outrage, reminiscent of colonial-era exploitation. As the dust settles from this high-stakes negotiation, the question looms: will this peace deal bring genuine stability, or will it merely mask the ongoing exploitation of Congo’s resources? The world watches closely as the implications of this agreement unfold, with the potential for both hope and further turmoil hanging in the balance.