Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have signed a US-facilitated peace deal intended to help end deadly fighting in eastern Congo, while also helping the US government and American companies gain access to critical minerals in the region.
The agreement has provisions on territorial integrity, prohibition of hostilities and the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of non-state armed groups.
"Today, the violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity, harmony, prosperity and peace," US President Donald Trump told the two countries' foreign ministers at a White House meeting on Friday.
The agreement was signed earlier at the State Department's Treaty Room beneath a portrait of Colin Powell, the first African-American to serve as top US diplomat.
There, current Secretary of State Marco Rubio called it "an important moment after 30 years of war".
Over the past few decades, the DRC has been wracked by conflict between the government and more than 100 armed groups — the most potent backed by neighbouring Rwanda — leading to the deaths of millions of people.
However, while the deal could be a turning point in the struggle to end the conflict, many Congolese see it mainly as an opportunity for the US to acquire Congo's critical minerals, after their government reached out to Mr Trump for support in fighting the rebels.
The US president has pushed to gain access to those minerals at a time when the United States and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.
So, will this deal mark the beginning of the end of the decades-long conflict, or is it destined to fail due to the absence of a major player?
What has fuelled the conflict in the DRC?
With 7 million people displaced in the DRC, the United Nations has called the situation "one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth".
The conflict can be traced to the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where Hutu militias killed between 500,000 and 1 million ethnic Tutsi, as well as moderate Hutus and Twa, Indigenous people.
When Tutsi-led forces fought back, nearly 2 million Hutus crossed into Congo, fearing reprisals.
Rwandan authorities have accused the Hutus who fled of participating in the genocide, and alleged that elements of the Congolese army protected them.
They have also argued that the militias formed by a small fraction of the Hutus are a threat to Rwanda's Tutsi population.
Since then, the ongoing fighting in eastern Congo has killed 6 million people, in attacks, famines and unchecked disease outbreaks stemming from the fighting.
The M23 rebel group is the most prominent armed group involved in the conflict, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets.
Rwanda is also estimated to have up to 4,000 troops in the region supporting M23, though it maintains it is simply defending its territorial interests.
Does this mean fighting will soon end?
While signing the agreement, Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner invoked the millions of victims of the conflict.
She expressed optimism, but stressed significant work was yet to be done in order to end the fighting.
"Some wounds will heal, but they will never fully disappear," Ms Wagner said.
"Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them."
Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe was similarly cautious, nothing there was still a "great deal of uncertainty" because previous agreements were never implemented.
"There is no doubt that the road ahead will not be easy," he said.
"But with the continued support of the United States and other partners, we believe that a turning point has been reached."
While the two foreign ministers appeared to be guardedly optimistic, most analysts do not believe the deal will quickly end the fighting — because rebel group M23, the most prominent of the armed groups fighting the government in Congo, says the deal does not apply to it.
Asked in the Oval Office about potential violations of the agreement, Mr Trump said he didn't think that would happen but also warned of "very severe penalties, financial and otherwise", if it did.
Will M23 torpedo the peace deal?
The DRC hopes the deal with Rwanda — which includes access to critical minerals for US companies — will lead the US to provide it with the security support it believes it needs to fight the rebels, and possibly get them to withdraw from the key cities of Goma and Bukavu.
M23 rebels, however, say they won't abide by it as they weren't directly involved in the deal's development, though they have been part of other ongoing peace talks.
Corneille Nangaa, who leads the Congo River Alliance — which includes M23 — said in March that direct peace talks with the DRC could only be held if the government acknowledges the rebels' grievances, as well as the principle that "anything regarding us which [is] done without us, it's against us".
An M23 spokesperson, Oscar Balinda, echoed those sentiments to the Associated Press this week.
Mr Nduhungirehe pointed to separate talks happening in Qatar that are meant to get both Congo and the M23 rebels to agree among themselves how they will end the fighting.
He also said Rwanda had agreed to lift its "defensive measures", though it was not clear if he meant withdrawing troops that Rwanda has previously said were in Congo to defend its interests.
The new deal is also at the heart of the US government's push to counter China in Africa.
For many years, Chinese companies have been a key player in Congo's minerals sector. Chinese cobalt refineries, which account for a majority of the global supply, rely heavily on Congo.
Rwanda has also been accused of exploiting eastern Congo's critical minerals, which are used in smartphones, advanced fighter jets and much more.
What role did the US play in the deal?
Congo's foreign minister said the US had proven to be a "reliable partner" during the peace process, as well as during talks on other issues in the relationship between the two countries.
"So there is no doubt in this moment, if you want, when it comes to the credibility of the US as a partner — be it for a peace process, where we have signed a very important agreement today, or for investment from the US," Ms Wagner said on Friday.
However, analysts say the US government's commitment might depend on how much access it has to the minerals being discussed under separate negotiations between the American and Congolese governments.
The mostly untapped minerals are estimated to be worth as much as $US24 trillion ($36.8 trillion) by the US Department of Commerce.
Christian Moleka, a political scientist at the Congolese think tank Dypol, called the deal a "major turning point" but said it could "in no way eliminate all the issues of the conflict".
"The current draft agreement ignores war crimes and justice for victims by imposing a partnership between the victim and the aggressor," he said.
"This seems like a trigger-happy proposition and cannot establish lasting peace without justice and reparation."
In Congo's North Kivu province, the hardest-hit by the fighting, some believe that the peace deal will help resolve the violence — but warn justice must still be served for an enduring peace.
"I don't think the Americans should be trusted 100 per cent," said Hope Muhinuka, an activist from the province.
"It is up to us to capitalise on all we have now as an opportunity."
ABC/AP
