Diplomacy vs. Reality: Pacta Sunt Servanda in Question and the Washington Peace Deal

 

On December 4, 2025, the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) signed the Washington Peace Deal, a U.S.-facilitated agreement aimed at restoring bilateral relations, stabilizing the Great Lakes region, and attracting Western investment in the mining sector. Both leaders praised President Donald Trump for his role in convening the meeting, framing the signing as a historic step toward regional cooperation.

Reflecting on 30 years of unresolved conflict, Kagame noted that previous peace efforts failed to tackle the core security issues, including the FDLR militia in eastern DR Congo. “President Trump introduced a new and effective dynamism that created the space for breakthroughs. His approach is even-handed, never taking sides. He orients us towards the future, not the past, emphasizing that the dividend of peace is prosperity and investment, including from the US,” he added.

Yet, even as the agreement was formalized, fighting continued in eastern DRC, highlighting the persistent gap between diplomatic ceremony and operational realities on the ground. This moment underscores how complex the conflict remains: while the accord carries symbolic and economic weight, it also raises critical questions about whether the parties possess the political will, operational control, and institutional capacity to implement their commitments in good faith. In this context, the principle of pacta sunt servanda—that agreements must be kept—is put to a practical test.

Speaking during the live Kwibohora 31 Presidential Dialogue, President Kagame acknowledged the Trump administration for “at least paying attention” to the long-running crisis in eastern DRC, contrasting it with previous international responses he described as indifferent or inadequate. He emphasized that “the problems in Congo are a concern for Rwanda, and that Rwanda has a right to protect itself,” highlighting Rwanda’s perspective on regional security and justifying its proactive stance. 

The Washington setting, convened by the U.S., conveys both pressure and diplomatic momentum. International facilitation can signal seriousness, but it also introduces symbolic distance: signing an agreement abroad, far from the conflict zone, risks elevating optics above practical realities. Civilians experiencing ongoing violence may struggle to reconcile images of leaders shaking hands in Washington with the persistence of insecurity at home, potentially undermining the legitimacy of both leadership and the agreement.

The continued fighting during the signing exposes the fragile link between political ceremony and operational control. While the presence of heads of state indicates political intent, good faith in law is demonstrated not only through signatures but also through concrete action. If armed groups remain active even as leaders formalize peace, it is unclear whether the agreement reflects genuine readiness to end conflict or merely the fulfilment of diplomatic expectations.

From a legal perspective, a peace deal’s effectiveness depends on conditions that allow compliance. Ceasefires, disarmament, integration of combatants, enforcement mechanisms, monitoring bodies, and implementation timelines are critical. In their absence, commitments can become aspirational rather than operational. The Washington Peace Deal’s symbolic value is evident, but its practical authority is diminished if combatants continue operations and local conditions remain insecure.

Moreover, the psychological dimension of the signing cannot be overlooked. Trust is essential in peace processes—both among leaders and between leaders and civilians—ceremonial agreements without immediate impact on the ground risk producing skepticism rather than hope. For communities affected by war, the contrast between diplomatic gestures abroad and continued violence at home may reinforce the perception that peace is used as a political instrument rather than a lived priority. A Rwandan near the border who faces the consequences of bombs crossing the border, and a Congolese who is in her village, both facing danger of death, need to see change more than another signed paper.

Ultimately, the Washington Peace Deal illustrates a common pattern in conflict-affected regions: prioritizing the signing of documents over building the conditions necessary for durable peace. True peace requires groundwork, coordination with armed forces, trust-building, and a shared understanding of obligations. Pacta sunt servanda carries meaning only when agreements are made under circumstances that allow them to be kept. Signatures alone, while legally significant, are insufficient to ensure compliance.

The Washington signing represents a hopeful gesture, overshadowed by ongoing violence. Diplomacy and war can coexist uneasily, and when they do, the value of a peace agreement depends not on the ceremony itself but on the subsequent decisions and actions of the parties involved. Peace is ultimately sustained not by signatures, but by the commitment to translate those signatures into reality.