Washington Agreement: Ambition Meets Fragility in the DRC–Rwanda Partnership

 

 

When grand ambition meets fragile reality, can history guide us toward success? On December 4, 2025, Félix Tshisekedi Tshilombo signed a sweeping economic agreement with Rwanda in Washington, a move celebrated as historic but immediately raising questions about feasibility, trust, and long-term impact. The Regional Economic Integration Framework (REIF), backed by the United States, aims to reshape the economic future of the Great Lakes region. Yet, history reminds us that signing agreements is only the first step. The success of such frameworks ultimately depends on addressing deeper structural drivers of conflict — a lesson the DRC and Rwanda cannot afford to ignore.

 

A Historic Agreement in a Fragile Context

 

The REIF envisions integrating key sectors between two neighboring countries long marked by tension. Its ambitions are significant: expanding hydroelectric power to underserved regions, formalizing the mining sector to reduce smuggling and corruption, modernizing infrastructure to boost trade, protecting biodiversity while promoting tourism, and coordinating cross-border public health responses.

 

The United States has positioned itself as a facilitator, framing the process as a transformative opportunity for the region. But the agreement comes amid severe insecurity in eastern DRC. Armed groups remain active, and communities continue to distrust national authorities. How can economic cooperation thrive where basic security is absent?

 

History offers cautionary lessons. The Arusha Accords in Burundi aimed to end ethnic violence through power-sharing but faltered because key provisions were not fully implemented and political exclusion persisted.

Ambitious Plans, Daunting Challenges

 

REIF’s economic agenda faces significant hurdles. Energy projects in conflict-affected areas require stability and local buy-in. Mining reforms risk failure without robust enforcement in a sector long plagued by informality. Infrastructure development, though essential for regional trade, remains vulnerable to armed groups. Conservation and tourism initiatives can inadvertently exacerbate land disputes if communities are sidelined. Even public health coordination, vital in a region prone to disease outbreaks, depends on institutional capacity that is uneven at best.

 

While the agreement emphasizes putting communities at the center, distrust and insecurity threaten this vision. The experience of South Sudan’s Revitalised Agreement in 2018 illustrates the danger: despite formal power-sharing structures, political and ethnic grievances persisted because the underlying causes of conflict remained unaddressed.

 

Lessons from Other Peace and Integration Frameworks

 

Comparative experiences underline a universal truth: signing an agreement is not a guarantee of lasting peace. Angola’s Lusaka Accord in 1994 temporarily halted fighting but failed to prevent militia resurgence due to unresolved grievances. Sierra Leone’s Lomé Peace Agreement in 1999 paused the civil war but left armed groups with coercive power until comprehensive disarmament and political inclusion were enforced. Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005 mapped a path toward South Sudan’s independence but faltered because local conflicts and weak governance remained unresolved. The lesson is clear: agreements that ignore root causes — identity, political exclusion, and unequal resource distribution — rarely achieve long-term stability.

 

Why Implementation Could Fail

 

Several factors could undermine REIF. Military coercion without political negotiation risks leaving grievances unaddressed. Weak political will, coupled with mutual distrust, may reduce follow-through. Structural inequality persists in eastern DRC, and regional interference could complicate outcomes further. Without independent monitoring and accountability, even the most ambitious provisions risk remaining symbolic.

After the signing of the agreement President Tshisekedi's State of the Nation Address, only four days after the signing of the agreement, started criticizing the same agreement supposed to be a turning point in the disputes. Assuring the parliament that their natural resources won’t be touched. Apparently, he seems more worried bout natural resources than resolving the disputes as he was supposed to. The day before, President Kagame predicted such behaviour in an interview with Al Jazeera, saying how DRC thought to manipulate the whole process and how the problem of DRC has become an industry by itself.

 

Yet REIF is not without promise. Inclusive political processes that engage marginalised communities, conflict-sensitive economic planning, robust monitoring, and regional coordination to prevent cross-border armed group activity can improve its chances of success. Addressing the structural drivers of conflict is not optional; it is essential.

 

The Role of International Support

 

The United States offers funding, expertise, and diplomatic support. However, geopolitical interests, particularly securing global supply chains for strategic minerals, are evident. While international backing can provide credibility and technical assistance, it cannot replace local political will or resolve decades-old grievances.

 

Between Opportunity and Fragility

 

REIF represents an ambitious step toward regional economic cooperation. It could deter escalation, create jobs, and foster development. But ambition alone cannot overcome fragility. Without simultaneously addressing political exclusion, identity tensions, and governance gaps, the agreement risks becoming another well-intentioned framework struggling in implementation. History shows that sustainable peace and prosperity require more than treaties; they demand political courage, inclusivity, and a relentless focus on the roots of conflict.

 

For the DRC and Rwanda, the challenge is clear: turning a historic agreement into a durable foundation for security, economic growth, and regional stability will require vision, commitment, and the hard work of implementation.