DRC-Rwanda: Can Geneva talks break the cycle of war in eastern Congo?
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have resumed negotiations in Geneva after a year of stalled talks, while fighting continues in eastern Congo. The core issues involve the presence of the FDLR, Rwanda’s military operations, and M23’s control of key cities. Both sides insist on security gu…
In Goma, the capital of South Kivu province, residents have lived through a cycle of conflict that has left villages devastated and thousands displaced. More than a year after a Washington‑brokered agreement intended to end the confrontation between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, the two governments are back at the negotiating table in Geneva. Yet the guns in eastern Congo have not fallen silent.
Background: The FDLR and Rwanda’s Security Concerns
The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) is a rebel group that emerged from the aftermath of the 1994 genocide. Former members of the Rwandan army and militia who fled into eastern Congo have continued to operate near the Rwandan border, which Kigali views as a direct threat to its national security. Under the Washington framework, Kinshasa agreed to a demobilisation process for the FDLR, a step the Congolese government claims is underway. However, Rwandan President Paul Kagame has called the agreement “insufficient,” insisting that the presence of hostile armed groups on Congolese soil must be eliminated before any lasting peace can be achieved.
Congolese Minister of Information Patrick Muyaya has countered that Kinshasa is meeting its commitments and has accused Kigali of pursuing “expansionist ambitions” in eastern DRC. The dispute is not merely about the FDLR’s status; it reflects deeper concerns over sovereignty and the legitimacy of foreign military presence on Congolese territory.
M23 and the Local Conflict Dynamics
While the Geneva talks focus on the DRC–Rwanda confrontation, a separate Qatar‑led dialogue is underway between the Congolese government and the political coalition backing the M23 rebels. M23, which captured Goma in January 2025 and later seized Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu, has not signed the Washington agreement. Its control of key cities has reshaped the security calculus for both Kinshasa and Kigali. The Congolese army’s operations against M23, in turn, influence the security environment along Rwanda’s border, creating a complex web of interdependencies that the Geneva negotiations must navigate.
In Goma, residents like Sadiki Bitha, who witnessed the city’s capture, watch the Geneva talks with a mix of hope and skepticism. Bitha believes that concrete commitments—such as the withdrawal of Rwandan forces and the neutralisation of the FDLR—are essential for lasting peace. Pro‑democracy activist Josue Akuzwe Walayi from Kinshasa echoes this sentiment, arguing that another round of diplomacy will mean little unless people see tangible improvements in their daily lives.
Current Violence and Verification Challenges
Despite diplomatic efforts, fighting continues in North and South Kivu between the DRC army and allied armed groups, including M23. The AFC‑M23 coalition has accused the Congolese government of violating ceasefire agreements and attacking civilian areas. In late August, the group claimed that a humanitarian aircraft was shot down by the DRC army, a statement the army’s spokesperson declined to comment on. Such incidents highlight the difficulty of establishing a reliable verification mechanism, a prerequisite for any sustainable ceasefire.
Without a trusted system to confirm what happens on the ground, disputed events can quickly become catalysts for further escalation. The lack of independent verification fuels mistrust and hampers the ability of both sides to hold each other accountable.
What Geneva Can Achieve
Experts like civil society activist Herve Amani stress that the Geneva talks should not be dismissed simply because previous diplomatic efforts have faltered. The meeting offers an opportunity to reduce tensions and rebuild trust between Kinshasa and Kigali. However, it is unlikely to resolve the long‑standing mistrust or to eliminate M23’s influence on its own. The success of the talks hinges on producing concrete, implementable, and verifiable commitments.
For Rwanda, this means credible progress toward neutralising the FDLR and addressing its security concerns. For the DRC, it means respect for its territorial sovereignty and a clear path toward the withdrawal of Rwandan forces. Any progress on one track must not come at the expense of the other, especially for civilians caught between armed groups and national armies.
As the international community watches, the real test will be whether the guns finally fall silent and whether the people of eastern Congo and Rwanda can move forward with a shared vision of peace.
Key Takeaways
- The DRC and Rwanda have resumed negotiations in Geneva after a year of stalled talks.
- Core issues include the presence of the FDLR, Rwanda’s military operations, and M23’s control of key cities.
- Separate diplomatic tracks—Geneva for DRC–Rwanda and Qatar for the AFC‑M23 coalition—make conflict resolution complex.
- Verification mechanisms are lacking, making it difficult to confirm incidents and enforce ceasefires.
- Concrete, verifiable commitments are essential for lasting peace and for protecting civilians.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What is the Washington framework? The Washington framework is a set of agreements brokered in Washington, D.C., aimed at neutralising the FDLR and reducing tensions between the DRC and Rwanda.
- Why is M23 not part of the Washington agreement? M23 was not a signatory to the Washington agreement because it is a rebel group that emerged later and has not engaged in the same diplomatic process.
- How does the presence of the FDLR affect Rwanda’s security? Rwanda views the FDLR as a direct threat because the group operates near its border and could launch attacks into Rwandan territory.
- What is the role of the Qatar‑led dialogue? The Qatar‑led dialogue focuses on resolving the conflict between the DRC government and the AFC‑M23 coalition, separate from the DRC–Rwanda talks.
- What can civilians expect if the talks succeed? Successful talks could lead to the withdrawal of foreign forces, a reduction in violence, and improved access to land and livelihoods for displaced people.
Why it matters
The conflict in eastern Congo has displaced millions and destabilised the region. A durable resolution between the DRC and Rwanda is essential for regional security and for protecting civilians from ongoing violence.
Key points
- DRC and Rwanda resume Geneva talks after a year of stalled negotiations
- FDLR remains a central security concern for Rwanda
- M23’s control of Goma and Bukavu complicates peace efforts
- Verification gaps hinder ceasefire enforcement
- Concrete, verifiable commitments are critical for lasting peace
Frequently asked questions
What is the Washington framework?
The Washington framework is a set of agreements brokered in Washington, D.C., aimed at neutralising the FDLR and reducing tensions between the DRC and Rwanda.
Why is M23 not part of the Washington agreement?
M23 was not a signatory to the Washington agreement because it is a rebel group that emerged later and has not engaged in the same diplomatic process.
How does the presence of the FDLR affect Rwanda’s security?
Rwanda views the FDLR as a direct threat because the group operates near its border and could launch attacks into Rwandan territory.
What is the role of the Qatar‑led dialogue?
The Qatar‑led dialogue focuses on resolving the conflict between the DRC government and the AFC‑M23 coalition, separate from the DRC–Rwanda talks.
What can civilians expect if the talks succeed?
Successful talks could lead to the withdrawal of foreign forces, a reduction in violence, and improved access to land and livelihoods for displaced people.
