### Analysis of the peace pact between Congo and Rwanda: a step towards stabilization or an increased risk of conflict?
The recent event of signing a peace agreement between Congo and Rwanda, in the presence of the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, marks a significant step in the complex framework of interstate relations and geopolitical issues in East Africa. This agreement, which aims to establish a peace climate conducive to the access to the United States to vital mineral resources in the Congo, raises important questions about its long-term impact on security, human rights and economic development in the region.
#### Historical and economic context
East of Congo, rich in minerals such as cobalt-essential for the manufacture of lithium-ion batteries-and other precious resources, was the scene of prolonged conflicts. The impact of armed conflicts, exacerbated by political instability and the influence of rebel groups sometimes supported by neighboring countries like Rwanda, has led to tragic human losses. According to some estimates, millions of lives have been lost since the 1990s, rationally rationally due to the fight for mineral resources.
The signing of this agreement was praised as a potential point turning to the stabilization of the region. The two countries thus seem to recognize the need for a peaceful environment to encourage foreign investments, especially those in the United States. However, this dynamic can also be interpreted from a more critical angle: the risk of transformation of the quest for resources into a factor of division and violence.
#### The implications of the agreement
During the ceremony, Rubio spoke of the promise of “sustainable peace” which could catalyze considerable investments and relaunch the local economy. However, this perspective raises the following question: who will really benefit from these investments? The concerns expressed by actors of Congolese civil society, who fear that economic benefits be siphoned by corruption or badly used by political elites, should not be taken lightly. The Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, herself recognized that peace “must be won”, which underlines the fragility of this situation.
The mixed reaction of Congolese civil society, oscillating between optimism and skepticism, illustrates the complexity of these agreements. The voices of human rights activists, like that of Christophe Muisa, question the role of the United States and highlight the risk that it is the best party of the agreement while neglecting the needs of the local population.
#### to an inclusive development model?
In order for this agreement to be only a hollow promise, it will be crucial that the dialogues between the two governments include mechanisms of transparency and responsibility to ensure that the populations affected by violence can participate in a fair way in economic benefits. Conversations around the regularization of regional value chains and the reintegration of refugees must be carried out with a human -centered approach and local development.
Integrating local actors into the decision -making process could offer more prospects on how to approach the roots of conflicts. This could also strengthen communities’ engagement in the quest for real and lasting peace.
#### Conclusion
The signing of this new agreement between Congo and Rwanda represents a moment of hope but also vigilance. As an international community, it is essential to support initiatives that promote not only security but also social and economic justice. The real ordeal will begin with the implementation of this agreement and will have to translate into tangible profits for a people who, for too long, has suffered from the consequences of a lack of lasting peace. Vigilance and collective commitment will be required to guarantee that a new era of dialogue leads to a real conflict resolution, rather than a simple redirection of the table of actors in conflict.