The US has invested rare presidential-level capital in the Great Lakes Region. President Donald Trump’s engagement, culminating in the Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity, has elevated diplomacy when escalation could have tipped the region into a wider war.  

That leadership deserves recognition. The Accords offer a credible framework to end cycles of violence between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, normalise relations and anchor peace in shared economic interests. Yet for mediation to succeed, perception matters as much as text. 

With the recent fall of Uvira in South Kivu to the AFC/M23 movement, the US diplomacy has chosen to single out one party — Rwanda — while underplaying the responsibilities of the DRC with its coalition of armed groups and its military ally, Burundi. Burundi has been seen as a spoiler, creating the conditions under which Uvira fell — not as an isolated battlefield event but as the culmination of months of provocation and blockade. 

During 2025, the Burundian National Defence Force (FDNB), with more than 20 000 troops in South Kivu, contributed to the collapse of the security situation around Uvira and its capture by AFC/M23.

Major Burundi-Congo offensives appeared to have been planned to coincide with moments of diplomatic breakthrough, including on the day the Washington Accords were signed. 

Burundian forces were “invited” by the DRC government and integrated into the Congolese army operations. But rather than acting as a stabilising partner, the FDNB imposed a humanitarian blockade on Banyamulenge areas such as Minembwe and conducted cross-border shelling and air-enabled operations targeting civilian zones and displacement camp. The actions — acknowledged by Burundian military spokespeople as deliberate movement restrictions — resulted in civilian casualties, destruction of villages, mass displacement and further radicalised local ethnic dynamics. 

The last thing the Great Lakes region need is further escalation of violence in eastern DRC. Mediators are effective when they are perceived as even-handed. The repeated characterisation of US mediation has not escaped this lens. Perceptions are fragile because grievances are deep and the human cost is high. Public statements that appear to attribute blame asymmetrically can harden positions. Parties that feel unfairly targeted tend to retreat from compromise, while those spared scrutiny become more emboldened and delay compliance with agreements. 

This is why the Washington Accords themselves matter as an anchor. The Joint Declaration, witnessed by Trump at the beginning of December, reaffirmed mutual commitments by Rwanda and the DRC to peaceful relations, security coordination and regional economic integration, recognising the Accords as a foundation for stability and prosperity. The strength of the framework lies in reciprocity: each side’s security concerns are acknowledged, and each side’s obligations are clear. US diplomacy is at its best when it insists on that reciprocity.

Any mediation that appears to discount the reality risks asking one party to accept permanent vulnerability. A balanced approach recognises that durable peace requires verifiable action against all non-state armed groups.

Balance also demands urgency on civilian protection, especially where there is credible evidence of targeted, ethnic violence. In South Kivu’s Hauts-Plateaux, Banyamulenge communities, categorised as Tutsi, have faced repeated attacks, displacement and rhetoric that dehumanises them as “foreigners.” This pattern, documented by humanitarian actors and community leaders, has all the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing. Silence or equivocation in the face of such abuses is not neutrality; it is abdication. If the Washington Process is to be morally credible, it must elevate the protection of civilians to a non-negotiable priority and demand immediate measures to stop atrocities. 

The Accords provide tools to do so. They call for joint security coordination, protection of civilians, humanitarian access and dispute resolution through agreed mechanisms rather than force. They also link peace to prosperity through the Regional Economic Integration Framework, which aims to formalise trade, cut illicit financing and deliver shared growth — an incentive structure that works only if violence against civilians is decisively addressed. 

For Washington, the policy implication is straightforward. First, maintain a disciplined public posture that emphasises equal accountability. When violations occur, name them, regardless of the actor and channel consequences through the Accords’ oversight mechanisms. Second, pair pressure with pathways: offer technical support for verification, joint patrols and economic projects that create tangible benefits for border communities. Third, elevate civilian protection, especially for at-risk groups like the Banyamulenge, into every diplomatic engagement, with clear benchmarks and timelines.

The US high-level engagement has created a rare opening. Preserving this credibility requires consistency with the spirit of the Accords. If Washington can recalibrate toward visibly even-handed mediation, it can help translate the promise of the Washington Accords into lasting peace for the Great Lakes.

Albert Rudatsimburwa is a veteran Rwandan journalist who covered the first Congo (then Zaire) war in 1996. He’s also a political analyst and founder of one of the first private radio stations in Rwanda, Contact FM in 2004. By Albert Rudatsimburwa, Mail & Guardian