Can Geneva Talks Deliver Real Peace in the DRC?

When Diplomacy Meets Displacement

It's been over a year since the Washington Agreement was signed, promising to end hostilities between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Yet in Goma, where M23 fighters captured the city in January 2025, the sounds of war haven't faded. As both governments gear up for talks in Geneva, the people of eastern DRC are left wondering if this latest diplomatic push will finally bring an end to a cycle that has plagued their region for decades.

The situation is a complex web of regional insecurity, territorial claims, and conflicting narratives. On one side stands Kinshasa, defending its sovereignty against what it sees as Rwandan military overreach. On the other, Kigali insists its actions are necessary to safeguard national security—especially in light of the ongoing threat posed by the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).

What we're seeing in Geneva today is not just a negotiation between two nations; it's an attempt to contain and resolve decades of mistrust, all while the war continues to rage on the ground. And yet, many are skeptical that words alone will bring about lasting peace.

"People are still waiting for the real benefits of peace that have been trumpeted for over a year. Fields continue to be ravaged in the east, and further displacement is still being reported," said Josue Akuzwe Walayi, a pro-democracy activist based in Kinshasa.

Understanding the FDLR Issue

The core of the conflict lies in the FDLR—a group that emerged from the aftermath of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. Members of the former Rwandan army and Hutu extremists fled into eastern DRC, establishing a military presence that Kigali has long viewed as a direct security threat.

The Washington Agreement was meant to neutralize this force through demobilization and reintegration processes. While Kinshasa claims progress is underway, Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has criticized the agreement as insufficient.

Patrick Muyaya, Congolese minister of information, dismissed these criticisms, asserting that Kinshasa is fulfilling its obligations. However, he also accused Rwanda of harboring “expansionist ambitions” in eastern DRC—a charge that underscores the deep-seated distrust between both sides.

This isn't just about one group or one agreement—it's a clash over sovereignty itself. For Rwanda, credible guarantees against hostile forces are essential. For Kinshasa, allowing foreign troops on Congolese soil is a violation of national sovereignty.

M23: A Third Party in the Conflict

While M23 isn't formally part of the Washington Agreement, its influence looms large over any peace process. The group took control of Goma and Bukavu in early 2025, shifting regional dynamics significantly.

M23 operates under the political banner of the Congo River Alliance (AFC), which is currently engaged in a separate dialogue with Kinshasa mediated by Qatar. That said, these two tracks—Geneva versus the AFC-M23 talks—are deeply intertwined on the ground.

When M23 controls territory, it affects how Kinshasa approaches its military strategy. Similarly, when Rwanda positions itself near the border, it influences regional security perceptions in DRC.

In short, while Geneva focuses on bilateral tensions between DRC and Rwanda, M23's continued activity ensures that local conflict remains a constant factor. Without addressing M23's position directly, any peace deal may only offer temporary respite rather than long-term stability.

The Human Cost of Inaction

For residents like Sadiki Bitha, who lived through Goma's capture in January 2025, the outcome of Geneva talks is measured not by policy documents or summit declarations—but by whether civilians can return to normal life. He's watching closely, hoping that this round of diplomacy won't be another failed attempt at resolution.

But for those on the ground, trust has eroded. Accusations fly back and forth—Rwanda is accused of supporting violence in DRC, while Kinshasa claims Rwanda seeks territorial expansion. The result? A stalemate rooted in fear, suspicion, and unresolved grievances.

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

These sentiments echo throughout eastern DRC. When people are displaced, when land is seized, and when lives are lost—diplomatic rhetoric becomes irrelevant.

What Can Be Achieved in Geneva?

Despite the cynicism, there is reason to believe that Geneva's upcoming talks could yield something meaningful. Herve Amani, a civil society activist, sees potential for progress—not as a miracle solution but as an opportunity to reduce tensions and begin rebuilding trust.

“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 recognize that dialogue remains preferable to escalation.”

The success of Geneva hinges on concrete commitments that can be verified and implemented. For Rwanda, that means tangible steps toward neutralizing the FDLR. For DRC, it means ensuring the withdrawal of Rwandan forces.

But perhaps most importantly, both sides must acknowledge that peace cannot come at the expense of local populations. If Geneva is to deliver anything beyond another round of empty promises, it must prioritize the voices of those who have suffered most—the people of eastern DRC.

Looking Ahead: A Test of Trust

The Geneva talks may not resolve the deep-seated issues plaguing the region. But they do offer a rare moment for both governments to engage constructively, even if only temporarily. As international observers and humanitarian workers watch closely, one thing is clear: this peace process will be judged by its outcomes—not just its intentions.

In Goma, residents like Bitha still hold onto hope. "Every 21 September marks the International Day of Peace," he said. "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."

That hope, however, will only last as long as both governments show they are willing to walk the walk—instead of merely talking the talk.