In a historic yet controversial move, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have inked a peace deal aimed at ending decades of devastating conflict, a pact brokered with significant involvement from the United States. As the ink dries on this agreement, questions loom over its efficacy and the motives behind it, particularly concerning justice for the millions affected by the violence.

The deal, signed on June 27, comes after 30 years of bloodshed rooted in the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which saw millions of Hutu refugees flood into the DRC. The conflict has escalated into two major wars, involving over 100 armed groups, including the notorious M23 and FDLR, both of which have been implicated in severe human rights violations. While the deal calls for the neutralization of the FDLR, the M23 remains outside this agreement, complicating the already fragile situation.

As the DRC grapples with the reality of its mineral wealth being a focal point of foreign interest, many locals express skepticism over the peace process. Activists argue that the deal prioritizes resource extraction over genuine reconciliation and justice, raising alarms about the potential for exploitation. “Congo is not for sale,” echoes the sentiment of many Congolese, who fear that their sovereignty is being bartered for foreign interests.

The international community watches closely, with the U.S. positioning itself as a key player in this geopolitical chess game, potentially seeking access to critical minerals like cobalt and lithium. However, the voices of the Congolese people, yearning for true peace through justice, remain alarmingly absent from high-level discussions. As violence persists and human rights abuses continue, the question remains: can this peace deal truly deliver a brighter future for the DRC, or is it merely another chapter in a long history of broken promises? The urgency for accountability and genuine peace has never been more critical.