Geneva Talks Put Rwanda‑DRC Peace Deal to the Test

On September 16‑17, diplomats from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda will sit down again in Geneva. It’s not just another diplomatic courtesy – it’s the second‑hand‑shake of a two‑day session of the Joint Security Coordination Mechanism (JSCM), a body created to keep an eye on the promises made in the Washington Accords of 2025.

The atmosphere is tense. Even as the delegates exchange pleasantries, artillery still thunders in North and South Kivu, and the rebel group M23 keeps pressing forward. The very same violence that sparked the Washington Accords is still very much alive, and both sides know that words on paper mean little if the guns keep firing.

Representatives from the United States, Qatar, Togo and the African Union Commission will act as mediators. Their job? To coax the two neighbours into concrete steps – Rwanda pulling back troops and dismantling border fortifications, and Kinshasa finally neutralising the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR). Those two obligations are the backbone of the peace framework, and they remain stubbornly unfinished.

Why does this matter? The conflict in the eastern DRC has been a tinderbox for decades, drawing in Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi at various moments. Kigali has long complained that armed groups headquartered in Congolese territory threaten its security. Meanwhile, the Congolese government accuses Kigali of backing rebels that aim to carve out swathes of land in the east. It’s a classic blame‑game, but the stakes are human lives, displaced families and a region that desperately needs stability.

When the Washington Accords were signed in June 2025, the United States framed them as “a bold roadmap for peace, security and unprecedented economic growth”. The follow‑up Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity, signed in December, reaffirmed those ambitions. Yet a September report from the Security Council says the ground reality is far from the vision: clashes between the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC) and the M23 militia continue, and the FDLR remains a thorn in the side of both countries.

The FDLR’s origins trace back to the 1994 Rwandan genocide – remnants of the former Rwandan army and the Interahamwe militia fled into eastern Congo and never truly left. Rwanda argues that any negotiation with the group is a betrayal of the Accords, which call for its outright neutralisation. Kinshasa, on the other hand, presented a July 28 protocol in which a faction of the FDLR signed a disarmament and demobilisation deal, touting it as progress.

Rwanda dismissed that move as a smokescreen, insisting that the Accords demand the group be dismantled, not merely talked to. The disagreement over the FDLR is more than semantics; it ties directly into Kigali’s own security guarantees. Under the deal, Rwanda is supposed to lift its defensive measures along the border once the FDLR is dealt with – a step that would open the way for freer movement and, potentially, trade.

Adding another layer of complexity is the M23 rebel movement. Though not a signatory to the Washington Accords, M23’s resurgence in 2022 and its seizure of Goma and Bukavu in 2025 make it a central player in any peace equation. The U.S.–backed process therefore also nudges Kigali and Kinshasa to support a Qatar‑led dialogue with M23, which culminated in the Doha Framework for Peace in November 2025.

Last month’s JSCM meeting in Geneva (August 12‑13) saw both sides agree on two new monitoring initiatives. They asked the United States to review those proposals ahead of the September session. The DRC also laid out its Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) plan for the FDLR, fielding a barrage of questions from the assembled mediators.

What will the September talks achieve? That remains the big question. The parties have pledged to hold a trilateral planning conference in October, which should produce a revised operations order guiding joint security actions. But if the core issues – the FDLR’s fate and Rwanda’s border fortifications – stay unresolved, the whole Washington Accords framework could unravel.

In short, Geneva is once again the testing ground. The world will be watching to see whether lofty diplomatic language can survive the harsh reality of guns, mines and displaced families. For the people of eastern Congo and the bordering Rwandan communities, the outcome isn’t just a news headline – it could determine whether they finally see an end to the cycle of violence that has haunted the region for far too long.