• DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington, driven by US and Qatar mediation.
• The deal aims to end years of conflict fueled by the M23 rebel group, which has caused significant casualties.
• Critics express skepticism over the deal's effectiveness, with previous agreements failing to achieve lasting peace.
• Concerns grow that the agreement may prioritize foreign mineral interests over local needs.
• Local reactions are mixed, emphasizing a desire for genuine peace amid historical grievances.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda officially signed a peace agreement in Washington DC, aimed at resolving the violent conflict that has plagued the eastern DRC for decades. This accord follows months of negotiation and comes as a pressing response to the resurgence of the M23 rebel group, which is alleged to have seized large territories, including Goma, a strategic city, complicating regional stability. The deal is brokered under the auspices of the United States and Qatar, with high-ranking officials, including US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, emphasizing this as a pivotal moment in the long-standing conflict, according to Al Jazeera.

Despite hopes tied to the newly signed deal, skepticism regarding its implementation is palpable, particularly in regions directly impacted by the conflict. Notably, former Congolese President Joseph Kabila criticized the agreement as "nothing more than a trade agreement," voicing concerns regarding its lack of involvement of key stakeholders, such as the M23 representatives. Many local residents echoed this sentiment, pointing to previous efforts that have failed to bring tangible peace, raising doubts about whether this agreement will lead to substantive change, according to BBC.

The peace deal includes provisions for the disengagement and disarmament of armed groups but does not clearly address the pressing needs for justice and the return of displaced persons. Analysts caution that the absence of robust frameworks for human rights accountability could perpetuate cycles of violence and marginalization in communities affected by ongoing hostilities. Critics warn that the agreement might serve as a cover for greater foreign access to the DRC's rich mineral resources, a point underlined by the nation's offer of mineral access in exchange for security guarantees from the US, potentially leading to exploitation rather than true reconciliation, according to TRT World and Al Jazeera.

In Goma, reactions to the peace agreement have ranged from cautious optimism to outright skepticism. Humanitarian leaders expressed hope that the signing could stabilize the region and facilitate aid delivery, while others reflected on the historical context of failed agreements that have left local communities frustrated and weary of empty promises. As the international community keeps a close eye on the situation, concerns remain that without meaningful involvement from all parties, including the M23, achieving a lasting peace may prove elusive once again, according to Al Jazeera and BBC.