Adding M23 to the talks is a positive step, but the agreement’s test will be whether it can change circumstances on the ground.
On Saturday, representatives of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the M23 insurgency signed a Declaration of Principles Agreement in Qatar. A step toward a negotiated solution to the conflict between the two parties is certainly welcome news. But much like last month’s Rwanda-DRC deal, this latest development may mean less than meets the eye.
First, the good news. The parties have agreed to a permanent ceasefire, which should mean less mayhem for civilians on the ground. The parties agreed to refrain from hateful propaganda. The deal also sets an ambitious timeline for a comprehensive peace agreement. The fact that the United States and Qatar are clearly well-coordinated in their peacemaking efforts is another positive sign.
But the absence of other details speaks volumes. The agreement indicates that state authority should extend to all national territory but has nothing to say about when the M23 might relinquish the sizeable amount of territory it has seized in eastern Congo, or what Congolese concessions might trigger such a withdrawal. Statements from the signatories–like that of an M23 spokesperson who told the Associated Press that “we are in Goma with the population and we are not going to get out”–suggest that the meaning of the agreement is very much in the eye of the beholder.
Moreover, the Qatari-brokered deal, like the Washington process, seems to operate in a world in which the conflict in eastern Congo is fundamentally between two opposing sides–the Congolese government and the Rwanda-backed rebels. But scores of armed groups operate in the region, and the notion that command and control of all of these entities leads back to Kinshasa or Kigali is fanciful. Other surrounding states like Uganda and Burundi play a significant role in eastern Congolese dynamics. Local land disputes, access to lucrative mines, control of transit routes, and the quest for power and status are just some of the driving factors behind the region’s persistent insecurity, all amplified by the profound weakness of the Congolese state, in terms of both capacity and legitimacy.
Diplomacy that overestimates the will and ability of governmental and rebel leaders to cooperate for peace risks outcomes that are both disappointing and unpredictable. Small steps forward are welcome, but Congo’s history of failed peace deals calls for a heaping dose of caution to accompany any optimism.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
