Doubts in Juma on the peace agreement between Dr. Congo and Rwanda

The signing of the peace agreement between the governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in Washington has sparked mixed reactions with former Congolese President Joseph Capella, describing it as “more than a commercial agreement.”

The deal signed on Friday He called for “disengagement, disarmament, and conditional integration of armed groups fighting in the eastern Congo – but provided few other details.

While some, including Capella, Canon are two computers, others praised the agreement as a point of transformation in a devastating conflict that lasted for decades.

Rwanda denied allegations that it supports an armed group, known as the M23, which was fighting in the east of the Congo.

The conflict escalated earlier this year when the M23 rebels seized large parts of the Eastern Congo, including the regional capital, Juma, Boukavo and two airports.

Thousands of people were killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians were forced from their homes in the wake of the recent rebel attack.

After the region’s loss, the government of Dr. Kongo turned into the United States for help, and as stated allows access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. East Congo is rich in two and other vital resources for global electronics industries.

In a post on the X after the signing of the agreement on Friday, Kabila asked about the selection of the participants in the deal, saying that Dr. Congo was not in war with the states that were photographed in a picture of the signature, which included President Donald Trump and other US officials, as well as the Foreign Minister of Rwanda.

It is not quite clear whether his comments were indirectly for the absence of M23 representatives in Washington.

“We must stop distorting the facts to hide the propaganda agenda,” Kabila said, adding, “The Congolese people deserve the truth, not a diplomatic offer.”

The absence of M23 representatives in the city of Guma, which is controlled by the rebels in the east of the Congo.

“How can they say they are on peace, but they did not participate in M23?” One of the residents was interrogated, adding that the rebels should be included in the “collective peace” talks.

“People are tired, and they are not interested in conversations,” the other resident, an other resident, said, “The people are tired, and they are not interested in conversations,” and they insist on “everything they want is peace.”

He said that the previous peace talks have not been adopted, not approved or implemented by the conflicting parties, leaving a little hope to return to normal life.

Likewise, Sam Zarifi, Executive Director of Doctors for Human Rights (PHR), an international NGO worked in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for more than a decade, said that the Washington Mediterranean Agreement is full of “great negligence.”

Mr. Zarifi said: “There can be no solid peace without justice in meaning. But the agreement … collides with human rights and the survivors fail,” said Mr. Zarifi.

He added: “The agreement ignores how hostilities can continue through the armed groups, the agent that our research has shown responsible for serious violations.”

Stephanie Marongo, head of a humanitarian organization in Juma, was more positive.

“The signing of the deal … is an important development and hope in the eastern region,” BBC told BBC, adding that “it can” lead to an increase in stability and will be easier for us to provide assistance and access to the needy. ” However, it admits that there may be challenges in implementing the deal.

“If the agreement is what will achieve peace, we have no problems.”

It remains to see what will go ahead on the ground, with fears that the Washington deal may simply raise some people who have mineral resources in the country at the expense of ordinary people.