Yesterday, in Washington, Rwanda and DRC delegations convened once again to review progress on the implementation of the December 2025 peace accords.
In a meeting chaired by members of the U.S. administration, including senior advisor on African affairs Massad Boulos, not much came to the fore beyond the expected. The recommendations remained largely unchanged: each party should respect its obligations.
From a critical point of view, however, it increasingly appears that Washington is reluctant to firmly hold the government in Kinshasa accountable for its repeated violations of the agreement, particularly on ceasefires and on the neutralization, dismantling, and demobilization of the FDLR.
Since the signing of the accord, DRC national forces, in collaboration with the FDLR, Wazalendo militias, mercenaries, and Burundian troops, have continued to threaten Rwanda’s territorial integrity. This has been most visible through repeated attacks near Rwanda’s borders, especially in areas where they are engaged against AFC/M23 positions.
At the same time, genocidal ideology and unchecked hate speech targeting both Rwandans and Congolese Tutsis have not only persisted but intensified. This toxic narrative, left unchallenged, continues to fuel hostility on the ground and undermines any genuine path toward de-escalation.
Even more concerning is the continued denial of the FDLR’s existence by Congolese officials. This is not just political posturing. It raises serious questions about intent. One cannot dismantle what they refuse to acknowledge. By denying the problem, Kinshasa signals a lack of willingness to meet one of the core obligations of the peace framework.
Meanwhile, the pattern of military escalation has remained steady. Drone strikes, artillery bombardments, and coordinated offensives have continued in eastern Congo, often in populated areas, with consequences that extend beyond the battlefield. These actions directly contradict the spirit and the letter of the ceasefire commitments endorsed in Washington.
This leaves Rwanda in a predictable position. Defensive measures remain tied to the presence and activity of hostile forces along its borders. Expecting a shift in posture without addressing the root security concerns is detached from the realities on the ground.
The burden, therefore, is not evenly shared. It rests heavily on Kinshasa to demonstrate, through concrete actions, that it is willing to move from rhetoric to compliance.
Until the United States moves beyond routine calls for restraint and decisively holds the DRC government accountable, these meetings will remain procedural exercises. And the situation on the ground will remain unchanged.
ellenkampire