Signing DRC and Rwanda by the US mediated peace agreement to put an end

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have signed a peace agreement facilitated by the US that are intended to help endless fighting in Eastern Congo, while also helping the American government and American companies to gain access to critical minerals in the region.

It comes after decades of long -term conflict in the region, where the Congolese government fought against more than 100 armed rebel groups – of which the most prominent is supported by the neighboring Rwanda – which leads to the death of millions of people.

The agreement was previously signed in the treaty space of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs under a portrait of Colin Powell, the first African-American who served as a top American diplomat.

There, the current State Secretary Marco Rubio called it “an important moment after 30 years of war”.

Although the deal can be a turning point in the struggle to terminate the conflict, a lot of Congolese see it primarily as an opportunity for the US to acquire the critical minerals of Congo after their government had reached Mr Trump for supporting the rebels.

The American president has insisted on accessing those minerals at a time when the United States and China actively compete for influence in Africa.

So, will this deal mark the beginning of the end of the decades of conflict, or is it destined to fail because of the absence of a large player?

What has the conflict fueled in the DRC?

With 7 million people who are displaced in the DRC, the United Nations have called the situation “one of the most long -term, complex, serious humanitarian crises on earth”.

The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militia killed between 500,000 and 1 million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and TWA, Indigenous people.

When Tutsi-conducted forces returned, nearly 2 million Hutus Congo crossed, for fear of retaliation.

Rwandan authorities accused the Hutus who fled of participation in the genocide and claimed that elements of the Congolese army protected them.

They also argued that the militias formed by a small fraction of the Hutus pose a threat to the Tutsi population of Rwanda.

Since then, the constant fighting in the east of Congo has killed 6 million people, in attacks, famine and uncontrolled outbreaks of diseases resulting from the fighting.

The M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group involved in the conflict, and the most important advance left bodies on the street at the beginning of this year.

Rwanda is also estimated to be 4,000 troops in the region that supports M23, although it claims that it simply defends its territorial interests.

Does this mean that the fighting ends?

During the signing of the agreement, Congo’s Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner called on the millions of victims of the conflict.

She expressed optimism, but emphasized that important work still had to be done to put an end to the fighting.

“Some wounds will heal, but they will never disappear completely,” said Mrs. Wagner.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe was careful in the same way, nothing was still a “much uncertainty” because previous similarities were never implemented.

“There is no doubt that the road that lies in front of us will not be easy,” he said.

“But with the constant support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached.”

Although the two foreign ministers seemed to be optimistic, most analysts do not believe that the deal will quickly put an end to the fighting – because rebel group M23, the most prominent of the armed groups fighting against the government in Congo, says that the deal does not apply to it.

Asked in the Oval Office about possible violations of the agreement, Mr. Trump said he didn’t think that would happen, but also warned of “very serious penalties, financially and otherwise”, if so.

Will M23 sabotage the peace agreement?

The DRC hopes that the deal with Rwanda – including access to critical minerals for American companies – will lead the US to offer the safety support that it is of the opinion that it must fight against the rebels, and possibly bring them back from the most important cities of Goma and Bukavu.

However, M23 rebels say that they will not adhere to it because they were not directly involved in the development of the deal, although they were part of other continuous peace talks.

Corneille Nangaa, who leads the Congo River Alliance – which includes M23 – said in March that direct peace talks with the DRC can only be kept if the government recognizes the grievances of the rebels, as well as the principle that “everything about us what what [is] Done without us, it’s against us “.

An M23 spokesperson, Oscar Balinda, repeated these feelings for the Associated Press this week.

Mr. Nduhungirehe pointed to divorcing conversations in Qatar that are intended to agree to both Congo and the M23 rebels how they will end the fighting.

He also said that Rwanda had agreed to cancel his “defensive measures”, although it was not clear whether he meant to retire troops that Rwanda said earlier they were in Congo to defend his interests.

The new deal is also the core of the urge of the US government to combat China in Africa.

Chinese companies have been an important player in the Congo mineral sector for many years. Chinese Cobalt refineries, which represent a majority of global delivery, are highly dependent on Congo.

Rwanda is also accused of exploiting the critical minerals of Eastern Congo, which are used in smartphones, advanced fighter jets and much more.

What role will the US play in the deal?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Congo said that the US had been proven during the peace process, as well as during conversations on other issues in the relationship between the two countries.

“So there is no doubt at the moment, if you want, when it comes to the credibility of the US as a partner – albeit for a peace process, where we have signed a very important agreement today, or for investments from the US,” said MS Wagner on Friday.

However, analysts say that the promise of the US government can depend on how much access it has to the minerals discussed under separate negotiations between US and Congolese governments.

The mostly untouched minerals are estimated at no less than $ US24 trillion ($ 36.8 trillion) by the US Department of Trade.

Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the deal a “big turning point”, but said it “could not eliminate all the issues of the conflict in any way”.

“This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot determine permanent peace without justice and recovery.”

In the province of North Kivu of Congo, the most difficult struck by the fighting, some believe that the peace agreement will help to resolve violence but warn that justice must still be served for a permanent peace.

“I don’t think the Americans should be 100 percent familiar,” said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province.

“It is up to us to take advantage of everything we now have as an opportunity.”

ABC/AP