While diplomatic efforts for peace in the DRC are essential, they must not serve as a cover for foreign economic objectives. Sustainable peace requires addressing the root causes of the conflict: inequality, poor governance, impunity, and resource hoarding.
In a geopolitical context marked by tensions and instability, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is once again becoming a focal point of international interest, primarily due to its strategic resources such as cobalt and lithium.
Two international agreements—one negotiated in Washington, the other in Doha—were recently signed with the aim of promoting peace and stemming violence in the eastern part of the country. But beyond the stated objectives of peace, a key question arises: are these initiatives truly aimed at guaranteeing the fundamental rights of the Congolese people, or are they masking a new phase of exploitation under the guise of diplomacy?
As cited by Africanews, Junior Mbuyi, a writer and financial expert, warns about the illusion of a “negotiated” peace without real African control. The fact that these agreements were facilitated by foreign powers reveals a clear power imbalance. In a region marked by decades of conflict, solutions imposed or heavily influenced by external actors cannot guarantee lasting peace or ensure respect for fundamental human rights, particularly the right to self-determination, a fundamental principle of international law.
By excluding local communities from discussions and marginalizing key actors (such as the M23 rebel group in the Washington Agreement), these approaches reinforce a diplomacy without real effect or significant impact, risking deepening mistrust, increasing frustrations, and prolonging cycles of violence.
The lithium-rich Manono mining project lies at the heart of tensions reflecting struggles for influence between major economic powers. The standoff between the Congolese government, AVZ Minerals (Australia), and KoBold Metals (United States) illustrates opaque natural resource governance, where the right to development and the right to benefit from natural resources—both fundamental human rights—are often neglected.
The suspension of AVZ’s license and the signing of a new agreement with KoBold, despite an international legal ruling in favor of the Australian company, demonstrate how the legal system itself is being exploited. This poses risks to legal certainty and the protection of local populations’ rights, who should be the primary beneficiaries of this wealth.
While diplomatic efforts to pacify eastern DRC are necessary, they must not serve as a cover for foreign economic objectives. True peace cannot be bought or negotiated without addressing the structural causes of the conflict: inequality, poor governance, impunity for armed groups, and resource monopolization.
Current initiatives reveal a double standard: rhetoric of peace paired with actions guided by geoeconomic interests. In the absence of accountability mechanisms and citizen participation, the population remains excluded, and economic, social, and environmental rights are jeopardized.
What is currently unfolding in the DRC and other African countries is a societal choice: should Africa continue to submit to external agendas, or regain control of its economic, political, and legal sovereignty? Human rights, often mentioned in speeches, must be concretely integrated into peace and development processes. The DRC must rethink its legal framework, renegotiate its mining contracts, and establish truly equitable partnerships. Without this, peace will remain a mirage, and human rights a mere alibi.