On December 4, 2025, the signing of the Washington Accords at the White House marked a pivotal, if precarious, moment in African geopolitics. Yet, to view this merely as a diplomatic photo-op between Presidents Donald Trump, Félix Tshisekedi (DRC), and Paul Kagame (Rwanda) is to miss the tectonic shift occurring beneath the surface. This agreement represents a fundamental departure from three decades of failed "peacekeeping" in the Great Lakes Region. It attempts to resolve a deeply entrenched security crisis not through moral suasion, but through a high-stakes "geoeconomic grand bargain."
As a mediator looking at the architecture of this deal, it is clear that the Washington Accords are designed to address the "ghosts" that have sat at every negotiating table since 1994. To understand the future this deal promises, we must first confront the history that necessitates it.
The Historical Vacuum: Why the War Never Ended
The conflict in Eastern Congo is often described as complex, but its roots are brutally simple: it is the result of a century-long collision between an absent state and a spillover war.
The structural flaw dates back to 1885, when the Congo was designed by King Leopold II and later Belgium not as a nation-state, but as a business enterprise for resource extraction. The state apparatus was built to ship rubber and minerals out, not to govern the people within. Consequently, when the Mobutu dictatorship crumbled in the 1990s, the mineral-rich eastern provinces became effectively stateless—a vacuum waiting to be filled.
That vacuum was filled in July 1994. Following the Rwandan Genocide, the perpetrators (the génocidaires, later coalescing into the FDLR) fled across the border into Zaire (now DRC). They were welcomed by Mobutu, creating an existential threat on Rwanda’s doorstep. The new Rwandan government, led by Paul Kagame, invaded in 1996 and again in 1998 to neutralize this threat.
Thus began a thirty-year cycle: Rwanda intervenes in Congo (either directly or through proxy groups like the M23) to hunt the FDLR and secure its border; the DRC accuses Rwanda of annexation and looting; and amidst the chaos, dozens of other militias emerge to profit from the lawlessness. The war transformed from a security operation into a self-sustaining economic system where instability was the most profitable industry.
The Architecture of the Deal: Trading Security for Prosperity
The Washington Accords of 2025 attempt to break this cycle by acknowledging a hard truth: peace will only hold if it is more profitable than war. The agreement is built on two interlocking tracks: the "Seven Pillars" of security and the "Regional Economic Integration Framework" (REIF).
The security track addresses the "chicken-and-egg" dilemma that has doomed previous accords. Historically, Rwanda refused to withdraw until the FDLR was neutralized, while the DRC refused to act against the FDLR until Rwanda withdrew. The Washington Accords impose a "Neutralization Swap." The DRC has committed to a verified, "harmonized plan" to dismantle the FDLR command structure. In exchange, Rwanda must simultaneously withdraw the Rwandan Defence Force (RDF) and cease all support for the M23 rebels.
Crucially, the enforcement mechanism has shifted. Instead of the United Nations (MONUSCO), whose credibility has eroded, the "referee" is now the Joint Security Coordination Mechanism (JSCM), backed by US intelligence and satellite verification. The involvement of the United States adds a layer of coercive leverage that the UN lacked.
However, the true innovation—and the gamble—lies in the economic track. The REIF creates a legal framework for US private sector investment in the region’s critical minerals, specifically Lithium, Cobalt, and Tantalum. The logic is transactional: by establishing "clean corridors" for minerals to flow directly to Western tech markets, the deal aims to starve the illicit smuggling networks that fund the militias. The message to the regional elites is clear: If you stabilize the region, you will get rich legally; if you continue the war, you will be cut off from the global economy.
The Mediator’s Verdict: A Fragile Hope
From a dispute resolution perspective, the Washington Accords are stronger than the failed Luanda or Nairobi processes because they align the incentives of the warlords with the interests of the state.
However, the risks are immense. The agreement relies on "concurrent sequencing"—both sides must trust the other to jump at the same time. If the DRC’s military (FARDC) is too slow or too weak to neutralize the FDLR, Rwanda may view the deal as a trap and reactivate the M23. Furthermore, the M23 itself is a wildcard; while their patrons in Kigali have signed the deal, the commanders on the ground may resist losing their fiefdoms.
Ultimately, the Washington Accords represent an attempt to reverse the colonial logic of 1885. Instead of resources being the engine of chaos and extraction, this agreement tries to make them the engine of state-building and stability. It is an ambitious, cynical, and necessary gamble. If it holds, it could finally bring the "World War of Africa" to a close. If it fails, it will be because the profits of peace could not outpace the entrenched profits of war.