Ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) highlights the persistent failure of regional and international peace initiatives to address the root causes of instability in the Great Lakes region. Despite renewed diplomatic engagement and the signing of high-profile agreements, armed conflict continues to escalate, revealing a widening gap between political commitments and realities on the ground.
In early December 2025, the presidents of Rwanda and the DRC signed the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity, a renewed commitment building on an earlier agreement reached in mid-year. The accord, witnessed by several regional leaders and facilitated by the United States, aimed to de-escalate tensions and promote regional economic cooperation. However, events unfolding simultaneously in eastern Congo cast serious doubt on the agreement’s effectiveness.
Just days after the signing, the M23 armed group widely regarded as being supported by Rwanda launched a major offensive in South Kivu province. Advancing through border areas near Burundi, M23 fighters seized control of the strategic town of Uvira, triggering widespread displacement and heavy civilian casualties. The offensive forced more than 200,000 people to flee their homes, further deepening an already severe humanitarian crisis.
The renewed violence has intensified diplomatic friction among regional actors. The Congolese government accused Rwanda of violating the spirit and letter of the peace agreement, while Burundi condemned what it described as hostile actions along its borders. Rwanda, in turn, rejected these accusations, claiming that Congolese and Burundian forces had breached ceasefire commitments. These competing narratives have reinforced mistrust and stalled meaningful progress toward de-escalation.
Several structural weaknesses explain why recent peace initiatives have failed to halt the conflict. First, the exclusion of key armed actors from high-level agreements has severely limited their impact. While the Washington Accords focused on state-to-state relations, M23 remains engaged in a separate negotiation track with the Congolese government. Talks held in Doha produced a framework agreement, but implementation has stalled, with no durable ceasefire or security arrangements in place. Without meaningful engagement from all principal belligerents, peace efforts remain fragmented and ineffective.
Second, international leverage over the conflict’s main actors has been limited. External mediators have relied heavily on diplomatic engagement and economic incentives rather than enforcement mechanisms. Sanctions and other coercive tools have been largely absent, reducing pressure on parties accused of perpetuating violence. In some cases, peace initiatives have been closely tied to broader economic and strategic interests, diluting their credibility and enforcement capacity.
Third, current negotiations have failed to address the underlying drivers of conflict within eastern Congo. Long-standing disputes over land, local governance, identity, and access to resources continue to fuel violence. The resurgence of M23 cannot be understood solely as a regional proxy conflict; it is also rooted in unresolved local grievances and the proliferation of armed groups operating in areas where state authority remains weak. The exclusion of local militias, community leaders, and civil society from peace processes has allowed these grievances to persist.
Regional military involvement further complicates the situation. Forces from neighboring countries, including Uganda and Burundi, are active in different parts of eastern Congo under bilateral security arrangements. While these deployments are officially framed as counter-insurgency operations, they contribute to a complex and overlapping security landscape that undermines Congolese sovereignty and heightens regional tensions. Relations between Rwanda and Burundi have deteriorated sharply, marked by border closures and mutual accusations of supporting rebel groups.
The conflict has also had severe humanitarian consequences. The withdrawal of the United Nations peacekeeping mission from parts of eastern Congo has left civilians increasingly vulnerable. Armed groups have restricted humanitarian access, while ongoing fighting has isolated entire communities. Vulnerable populations, including minority groups in the highlands, face heightened risks of violence and displacement.
The spillover effects of the conflict are placing additional strain on neighboring countries. Burundi, already hosting large numbers of refugees, has seen a new influx of displaced Congolese civilians. Border closures and insecurity have disrupted trade and humanitarian supply routes, compounding economic pressures and limiting access to aid. Maintaining regional humanitarian corridors, including air access, has become increasingly urgent.
A more effective peace strategy will require a fundamental shift in approach. Priority should be given to the withdrawal of foreign forces and the dismantling of external support networks for armed groups. These steps must precede broader political negotiations and disarmament efforts. Parallel peace tracks should be consolidated into a coordinated and sequenced process that aligns regional, national, and local initiatives.
Regional institutions and existing international frameworks provide potential foundations for such an approach. However, lasting peace will only be possible if negotiations are inclusive and address both regional rivalries and local grievances. Past experiences from the region demonstrate that sustainable stability depends on regional disengagement combined with a genuinely Congolese-led political settlement.
Without a comprehensive strategy that confronts the structural causes of conflict, eastern Congo risks remaining trapped in cycles of violence, regardless of how many agreements are signed.
