Kemi Osukoya | Africa Bazaar Magazine
A fragile but consequential test of the Rwanda-Democratic Republic of Congo’s peace process is now underway in eastern Congo, as the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC/M23) Monday announced a unilateral withdrawal of its forces from the strategic city of Uvira—a move closely tied to the U.S.-brokered Washington Peace Agreement signed at the White House on June 27 and formally ratified on December 4 at the Donald Trump Institute of Peace, formerly named the United States Institute of Peace.
The announcement comes ahead of the scheduled official meeting between the U.S. Deputy Secretary Landau and DRC Foreign Minister Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner in Washington on Tuesday at the State Department.
The withdrawal follows recent progress under the Doha Peace Process, including the signing of the Doha Framework Agreement on November 15, 2025, which laid the groundwork for confidence-building measures among the conflict’s key stakeholders. AFC/M23 said the decision to pull back from Uvira was taken at the request of U.S. mediators, underscoring Washington’s growing role as a central guarantor of de-escalation in eastern DRC.
A Defining Moment for the Peace Process
Uvira is not just another city in South Kivu. It is a critical commercial and security corridor linking eastern Congo to Burundi and the wider Great Lakes region. Control of the city has long shaped military dynamics, population displacement, and cross-border tensions. A withdrawal from Uvira therefore represents a tangible shift on the ground—one that directly aligns with the Washington Agreement’s core objective: de-escalation ahead of political and security normalization.
U.S. officials have emphasized that the June 27 agreement was never meant to remain a diplomatic document. Its success depends on concrete actions that reduce civilian risk and create space for humanitarian access, demilitarization, and longer-term stabilization. The Uvira move is one of the first visible attempts to translate the agreement into reality.
The Doha process, backed by Qatar’s quiet but persistent mediation, has emerged as the parallel diplomatic track reinforcing Washington’s efforts. While the U.S. has focused on convening political leadership and regional actors, Doha has worked behind the scenes to secure incremental commitments and trust-building steps among armed groups.
Together, the two tracks form a complementary architecture: Doha providing the confidence-building mechanics, Washington supplying the political weight and international guarantees.
Diplomats familiar with the talks describe this coordination as essential to preventing the peace process from collapsing under mutual suspicion.
China’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Fu Cong told the United Nations Security Council last week that “the Doha process must be accelerated and brought to a conclusion so a comprehensive peace agreement can finally be reached,” noting that it is the only sensible position, and frankly the kind of clarity one would expect from the US representative, especially since Massad Boulus, President Donald Trump’s Senior Adviser on Middle East and African affairs and a central figure in these negotiations, has said that Doha is the missing piece of the puzzle. “Without a peace deal between Kinshasa and M23 in Doha, the fighting will continue and we all know Kinshasa has been dragging its feet on this front, all while continuing to violate the ceasefire.” He urged all parties to to come to the negotiation table.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz in his remarks to the Council accused Rwanda of edging M23 rebel group to fuel instability and war in the region, emphasizing that the US will use all tools at its disposal to hold to account spoilers to peace and also urged both parties, Rwanda and the DRC to adhere to the peace agreement.
UN Peacekeeping Operations Chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix said the recent developments in South Kivu undeniably illustrate the gap that exists between diplomatic efforts and the reality experienced by civilian populations for the immediate implementation of resolution 2773. He called for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire and the respect by the parties for the commitments made within the framework of the Washington and Doha processes, adding that it remains essential if diplomatic progress is to finally translate on the ground.
Despite the withdrawal announcement, risks remain high. AFC/M23 in its statement on Monday warned that previous trust-building measures were followed by advances by Congolese government forces (FARDC) and allied militias into vacated areas, often accompanied by reprisals against civilians perceived as sympathetic to rival groups.
As a result, the group has called on peace-process guarantors—including the U.S. and regional partners—to ensure temporary administration, demilitarization, civilian protection, and ceasefire monitoring in Uvira, potentially through a neutral force. Whether such safeguards materialize will be a critical test of the Washington Agreement’s credibility.
The announcement on Monday also touches on broader regional concerns. AFC/M23 reiterated that it would not allow armed groups hostile to the governments of the DRC or Burundi to use areas under its influence as rear bases—language that mirrors Washington’s insistence that the peace deal must reduce cross-border threats and improve relations among neighboring states.
For the Biden-Trump transition-era Washington Agreement—now ratified and formally in force—the coming weeks may determine whether diplomacy can outpace decades of mistrust and militarization in eastern Congo.
The Uvira withdrawal, while limited, represents a litmus test: can commitments secured in Doha and Washington hold when confronted with realities on the ground?
For the United States and Qatar, the answer will shape not only the fate of the DRC peace process, but also the credibility of a new model of coordinated global mediation—one that blends political leverage, regional diplomacy, and incremental confidence-building in one of Africa’s most complex conflicts.
