DRC-Rwanda: Can Geneva talks break the cycle of war in eastern Congo?

Diplomats from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda have returned to talks in Geneva more than a year after signing an agreement meant to end their confrontation, but violence persists in eastern DRC. The core dispute centres on the presence of the FDLR and Rwanda’s security concerns versus Kinshasa’s insistence on sovereignty, while M23’s territorial gains complicate separate negotiation tracks.

By AI NewsroomPublished 20 minutes agoUpdated 20 minutes ago0 views

DRC-Rwanda: Can Geneva talks break the cycle of war in eastern Congo?

Why It Matters

The Geneva talks aim to reduce a bilateral standoff that has regional implications, yet the fighting and displacement in North and South Kivu show that resolving state-to-state tensions may not be enough to halt armed conflict on the ground. Outcomes in Geneva could influence other processes, including a Qatar-led dialogue with the Congo River Alliance that involves M23.

Key Facts

Talks location: Geneva
Time since agreement: More than one year after a DRC-Rwanda agreement
Group at the centre of the dispute: Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR)
Origin of FDLR: Formed after the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi
M23 capture of Goma: January 2025

Diplomacy between Kinshasa and Kigali has resumed in Geneva more than a year after the two governments signed an accord intended to end their confrontation, but the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains unstable. Negotiators are grappling with a dispute that mixes questions of cross-border security and national sovereignty, centred on the presence of the FDLR and Rwanda’s insistence that hostile armed groups must not operate from Congolese territory.

The Washington framework committed the DRC to measures aimed at neutralising the FDLR, and Kinshasa says it is implementing demobilisation steps. Kigali, however, has described that response as inadequate, while the Congolese government accuses Rwanda of harboring expansionist aims. Those competing views — one emphasising Rwanda’s security needs, the other stressing Congo’s territorial integrity — are the focal point of the Geneva discussions.

Complicating the bilateral talks is the role of M23, which is not party to the Washington agreement but has reshaped the conflict by seizing territory, including Goma in January 2025 and later Bukavu in South Kivu. M23 operates under the political umbrella of the Congo River Alliance (AFC), which is engaged in a separate, Qatar-mediated dialogue with Kinshasa. Although the Geneva and Qatar tracks address different fronts of the crisis, decisions and military actions on one track are already affecting the other on the ground.

For residents of Goma and other parts of eastern DRC, the worth of diplomacy is measured by whether it reduces displacement, violence and loss of livelihoods. Local voices say they have yet to see tangible benefits. Fighting continues in North and South Kivu between the Congolese army and M23-allied groups, and the AFC-M23 has accused Kinshasa of attacking populated areas and breaching the ceasefire. A settlement between the two capitals could lower regional tensions, but the persistence of armed groups and territorial control inside the DRC means that diplomacy between states may not immediately end the violence facing communities in the east.