The peace initiatives between the Democratic Republic of Congo (RDC) and Rwanda have reached a critical RDC Rwanda peace deadlock, according to Jason K. Stearns, an associate professor at Simon Fraser University. Speaking on Monday during a discussion hosted by journalist Stanis Bujakera Tshiamala, Stearns emphasized that neither the Doha-Montreux nor the Washington-led peace processes have yielded any concrete outcomes over the past year.

Regarding the Montreux discussions, Stearns noted a distinct lack of progress, stating that significant disagreements persist between the Congolese government and the AFC/M23 rebel group, with little to no observable change since those talks.

Concerning the agreement brokered by Washington between Kinshasa and Kigali, Stearns acknowledged the multitude of pacts signed but underscored the severe challenges in their actual implementation. He drew a parallel to past American diplomatic efforts, such as those with Iran under the Trump administration, suggesting a tendency to prioritize ‘grand declarations and Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)’ over tangible, actionable progress. Stearns asserted that the crucial next step involves moving beyond these preliminary frameworks to forge a genuine, clearly defined compromise, which he believes is currently lacking.

Stearns reiterated that the core compromise sought between Kinshasa and Kigali remains consistent with all prior agreements, including the comprehensive and inclusive accord from the 2003 transition period. This fundamental arrangement involves the withdrawal of Rwandan forces in exchange for a firm Congolese commitment to combat the FDLR. He emphasized that despite this recurring ‘deal,’ its practical execution has seen minimal advancement.

Regarding the M23 insurgency, Stearns identified a complete lack of common ground. The Congolese side continues to favor a military resolution, while the rebel movement explicitly states its intention to maintain its presence for another decade. The expert’s assessment is stark: a successful resolution appears ‘very, very far’ from reach.

When questioned about the underlying reasons for this persistent stalemate, Stearns initially commended the unique contribution of the Trump administration compared to earlier mediation efforts by the East African Community and the African Union (through Angolan mediation). He highlighted the application of genuine pressure, a factor he believed was absent in previous attempts. Stearns observed that sanctions imposed on Rwanda are ‘more aggressive than ever before,’ even surpassing measures taken since the major Congolese wars began in 1996.

However, Stearns pinpointed two critical deficiencies. First, he noted a profound lack of coherence within the international community. Washington has sanctioned Rwanda without fully engaging European partners, who are among Kigali’s primary financial backers. He illustrated this incongruity by pointing out that Rwandan President Paul Kagame continues to ink deals, including with American basketball teams, suggesting that he is not truly experiencing intense international pressure.

Second, there is a distinct absence of a clear, overarching global Washington’s strategy. Citing American diplomats, Stearns confirmed that Washington does not envision a military solution, a stance he shares. Yet, he argued that the crucial compromise strategy meant to underpin the pressure on Kigali remains alarmingly undefined.

Furthermore, Stearns disclosed that American diplomats reportedly put forward a ‘vague’ compromise between the M23 and the RDC during the Montreux talks, which was never publicly released. Based on his understanding, this proposal would have offered the rebel movement a form of ‘partial integration,’ though he clarified he did not have direct access to the agreement’s text. Both parties, he stated, ultimately rejected this proposition.

Ultimately, Stearns concluded that the most significant missing element today is comparable diplomatic pressure on Kinshasa. He asserted that, unlike Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo has ‘not genuinely faced diplomatic pressure from the United States’ thus far.