By H.E Ambassador Godfrey Madanhire*
The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda have lived for decades in the shadow of mistrust, their borderlands scarred by rebellion, displacement and the relentless struggle for control of resources that feed global industries. The mineral rich east of Congo has been the theatre of recurring violence with accusations that Rwanda has backed armed groups such as M23 and counterclaims that its actions were defensive. Beneath these charges lies the deeper contest over sovereignty, identity and the right of African nations to determine their own destiny without external interference.
On 4 December 2025 President Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo and President Paul Kagame of Rwanda placed their signatures on what has been called the Washington Accord, a peace deal mediated not on African soil but in Washington DC under the auspices of President Donald Trump. The agreement pledged to end hostilities, foster economic cooperation and stabilise eastern Congo. Rwanda promised to lift its defensive measures while Congo insisted that true peace required full troop withdrawal. Economic integration was emphasised linking stability to trade and mineral access. The accord was hailed as historic yet conspicuously absent were the M23 rebels themselves whose exclusion leaves a shadow over the durability of the settlement.
The content of the deal matters but so too does its aesthetic. That two African presidents travelled to Washington to sign a peace accord between themselves is not a neutral act. It projects the United States as the arbiter of African conflicts framing the narrative as an American diplomatic triumph. For Africa the symbolism is troubling. Why was this not mediated in Addis Ababa home of the African Union or in Accra a city steeped in Pan African heritage. Why was the stage not African. The optics suggest a reliance on external guarantees and a willingness to let global powers script the story of African peace in their own capitals.
If external mediation dominates the stage then Africa must ask itself where its own custodians of legitimacy stand. Across the continent royal leaders and traditional authorities remain the guardians of land and resources and the bearers of cultural continuity. They are close to the people and carry the responsibility of comforting families who have lost loved ones in wars that have stretched across generations. Their voices are not distant or abstract but rooted in the daily lives of communities who suffer the consequences of conflict. A forum of such leaders could provide a uniquely African space for reconciliation, one that draws on ancestral wisdom and indigenous governance systems to restore trust and dignity. By involving them in peace processes Africa would not only honour its heritage but also strengthen the legitimacy of agreements in the eyes of ordinary citizens.
Yet even with such legitimacy the question of armed actors cannot be ignored. The absence of M23 from the Washington Accord illustrates the limits of agreements signed only at the level of presidents and diplomats. Communities may be comforted by their traditional leaders and reassured by the symbolism of heritage but peace will remain fragile if those who carry weapons are left outside the framework. Indigenous governance systems can provide moral authority and cultural grounding yet they must be woven together with political and military realities if reconciliation is to endure.
The challenges ahead are formidable. Disputes over troop withdrawal remain unresolved. By tying peace to economic integration and mineral access the accord risks prioritising external interests over local stability. These are not minor details. They are the fault lines upon which the success or failure of the accord will rest.
For those unfamiliar with the deal it is important to see both its promise and its paradox. On one hand it represents a chance to halt violence and rebuild trust. On the other it reveals the dependence of African states on external mediation and the unfinished work of Pan Africanism. The Washington Accord signed on 4 December 2025 by Presidents Tshisekedi and Kagame under the mediation of President Trump is not just a peace deal. It is a mirror held up to African leadership reflecting both the urgency of unity and the gaps in sovereignty. Whether it becomes a turning point or a temporary pause will depend not on Washington but on the courage of African leaders to reclaim the stage of mediation and narrative for themselves and to recognise that the custodians of Africa’s resources and traditions must be part of the process. Peace must not only be negotiated in foreign capitals but also affirmed in the palaces and councils of Africa’s own royal and traditional authorities who embody the heritage driven systems of governance that remain closest to the people and whose presence must be complemented by the inclusion of armed actors such as M23 if the wounds of decades are truly to be healed.
* His Excellency Ambassador Godfrey Madanhire, Diplomatic Envoy of the State of the AfricanDiaspora, Chief Operations Officer, Radio54 African Panorama, Pan-Africanist and Advocate for Sovereign African Governance. The views expressed in the article are his.
