Geneva Peace Talks Resume: Can Diplomacy Break the Deadlock Between the DRC and Rwanda?

Goma, DR Congo – Over a year after the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda signed an agreement meant to halt their hostilities, both nations have reconvened in Geneva for a new round of negotiations. Yet in eastern Congo, the conflict shows little sign of abating.

The disagreements surrounding the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), Rwanda’s military footprint in Congolese territory, and M23’s grip on vast swathes of the eastern region have become deeply intertwined. As the DRC and Rwanda negotiate in Geneva, Kinshasa is simultaneously pursuing a separate dialogue with the political coalition that backs M23.

The diplomatic tracks are distinct, but the conflicts they seek to contain are not.

In Goma, where M23 fighters seized control in January 2025, the latest diplomatic initiative is being measured against the realities on the ground since then.

Josue Akuzwe Walayi, a pro-democracy activist speaking from Kinshasa, warned that another round of talks will carry little weight unless people begin to see tangible improvements in their daily lives.

“People are still awaiting the real dividends of peace that have been promised for over a year. Fields in the east continue to be destroyed, and further displacement continues to be reported,” he told Al Jazeera.

Why Do Kinshasa and Kigali Remain Divided?

The FDLR lies at the core of the dispute.

The armed group originated from the fallout of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, when members of the former Rwandan military and militant groups implicated in the killings fled into what is now eastern DRC. Kigali has long viewed the group’s presence near its border as a serious security threat.

Under the Washington framework, Kinshasa agreed to a process aimed at neutralising the FDLR. The Congolese government maintains that this process, including demobilisation efforts, is actively underway.

However, Rwandan President Paul Kagame described the agreement on the FDLR as “insufficient” in remarks at the end of last month.

Patrick Muyaya, the Congolese minister of information and government spokesperson, pushed back on that assessment, stating that Kinshasa is fulfilling its commitments while accusing Kigali of sustaining “expansionist ambitions” in eastern DRC.

“The work of neutralising the FDLR through demobilisation is being carried out in accordance with the Washington agreements,” Muyaya told Al Jazeera.

The disagreement extends beyond whether the FDLR process is adequate. It reflects a more fundamental dispute over security and sovereignty.

Rwanda seeks credible guarantees that armed groups hostile to it will not operate from Congolese soil. Kinshasa contends that Rwanda’s security concerns cannot serve as justification for the presence of foreign forces on Congolese territory.

What Rwanda regards as a necessary security measure, Kinshasa views as a direct threat to its sovereignty.

This mistrust now sits at the very centre of the Geneva talks.

Where Does M23 Fit in the Peace Process?

M23 is not a signatory to the Washington agreement, yet it is central to the conflict the agreement is meant to help contain.

The group captured Goma in January 2025 and subsequently took Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu, dramatically shifting the balance of power in eastern DRC.

M23 operates under the political umbrella of the Congo River Alliance (AFC), which has been engaged in a separate Qatar-led dialogue with Kinshasa.

The Geneva process centres on the confrontation between the DRC and Rwanda, while the Qatar process addresses Kinshasa’s dispute with the AFC-M23 alliance.

Yet on the ground, these conflicts cannot be neatly divided.

M23’s territorial control shapes Kinshasa’s strategic calculations, while the Congolese military response affects the security environment along Rwanda’s border. Rwanda’s concerns about armed groups in eastern DRC are also closely tied to its stance towards M23, while Kinshasa continues to demand the withdrawal of Rwandan forces.

A settlement between Kinshasa and Kigali could ease regional tensions, but it would not necessarily put an end to the fighting inside eastern DRC.

The talks may proceed on separate tracks, but developments on one can ripple into the others.

What Does the Diplomacy Look Like from Goma?

In Goma, where residents have endured repeated cycles of fighting and displacement, diplomacy is ultimately judged by what unfolds beyond the conference rooms.

Sadiki Bitha, a resident who lived through the city’s capture in January 2025, is closely following the Geneva talks and wants the parties and their mediators to ensure their commitments are honoured.

For Walayi, the ongoing violence has made it difficult to view another round of diplomacy with any confidence.

He accuses Rwanda of supporting violence in eastern DRC and of leveraging the FDLR threat to justify its military actions.

“Rwanda prefers to attack us in order to secure its borders within our country, something we cannot accept,” he said.

“The threat posed by the FDLR cannot justify a Rwandan military presence on Congolese territory. Rwanda’s security must not, under any circumstances, be built at the expense of our country’s sovereignty.”

Rwanda rejects accusations that it is pursuing territorial expansion.

The dispute is difficult to resolve because Kinshasa and Kigali disagree on both the nature of the threat and how it should be addressed. Neither side appears willing to alter its military posture without guarantees from the other.

For people in eastern DRC, however, these arguments carry a different urgency: displacement, violence, and the loss of access to land and livelihoods.

Can the Ceasefire Hold While Accusations Continue?

As the talks continue, fighting persists in North and South Kivu between the DRC army and allied armed groups on one side and M23 fighters on the other.

AFC-M23 has accused Kinshasa of attacking populated areas and violating the ceasefire.

“The AFC-M23 calls on the Congolese people and the international community to bear witness to these serious attacks against the civilian population, which violate the ceasefire,” Lawrence Kanyuka, spokesperson for AFC-M23, told Al Jazeera.

“The AFC-M23 will take all necessary measures to establish a security perimeter to protect these people.”

The allegations could not be independently verified.

On August 27, AFC-M23 also reported that an aircraft carrying humanitarian aid and essential supplies had been shot down by the DRC army and described it as a civilian aircraft.

When contacted by Al Jazeera, Mak Hazukay, acting spokesperson for the DRC army, declined to comment on the allegation.

The incident also illustrates how quickly a disputed event can become fuel for the conflict itself. Without a trusted mechanism for establishing what happened, disputed incidents can rapidly become another source of confrontation.

That makes verification central to whether any ceasefire can endure.

What Can Geneva Realistically Achieve?

Herve Amani, a civil society activist, believes the meeting should not be dismissed simply because previous diplomatic efforts have fallen short.

For him, the priority is to reduce tensions and begin rebuilding trust between the two countries.

“This meeting in Switzerland should be seen as an opportunity rather than yet another diplomatic exercise,” he told Al Jazeera.

“We must not underestimate the difficulties, but we must also recognise that dialogue remains preferable to escalation.”

Geneva will not resolve decades of mistrust between Kinshasa and Kigali. Nor will it settle M23’s position or, on its own, end the wider conflict in eastern DRC.

But it can still matter if it yields commitments that are concrete, implementable, and verifiable.

For Rwanda, that means credible progress towards neutralising the FDLR and addressing its security concerns.

For the DRC, it means respect for its territorial sovereignty and progress towards the withdrawal of Rwandan forces.

And for the broader peace effort, progress on one track cannot come at the expense of the other.

For civilians caught between armed groups and national armies, however, the test is simpler: Whether the guns finally fall silent.

Bitha, who lived through the fall of Goma, says he still believes the Geneva meeting can offer a way forward.

“We have high hopes for this meeting. Every 21 September marks the International Day of Peace. We believe this is an opportunity for the people of Congo and Rwanda to speak with one voice and silence the guns by mutual agreement,” he told Al Jazeera.

Source link