• Experts warn that the fragile peace process between DR Congo and rebel groups risks stalling before a comprehensive peace agreement can be reached
• New round of talks in Doha comes just a month after an initial agreement, but both sides have since accused each other of violating its terms, while fighting persists in eastern Congo

KIGALI, Rwanda

Fresh negotiations between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and M23 rebels resumed in Doha last week, but experts warn that the fragile process risks stalling before a comprehensive peace agreement can be reached.

Despite international mediation by Qatar and prior commitments on paper, issues such as mistrust, prisoner releases, and disputes over territorial control continue to cast a long shadow over one of Africa’s most protracted conflicts.

The new round of talks comes just a month after Congo and a coalition of armed groups, including M23, signed a ceasefire agreement known as the Declaration of Principles.

While that deal was hailed as a breakthrough, both sides have since accused each other of violating its terms, with fighting persisting in eastern Congo.  

Prisoner releases as a sticking point

A diplomatic source close to the mediation told Anadolu that the M23 delegation arrived in Doha focused on the release of detained members rather than finalizing a broader peace accord.

“The M23 delegation is in Doha to discuss ceasefire mechanisms and the release of its members arrested by the government, not to negotiate a peace agreement. The release of M23 prisoners will be a crucial step towards reaching a comprehensive truce,” the source said.

Kinshasa, however, remains wary of granting such concessions without firmer commitments from the rebels. Government spokesperson Patrick Muyaya confirmed that Congolese negotiators had also traveled to Doha, but acknowledged key disagreements persist.  

Draft agreement: Ambitious but disputed

Qatar has circulated a draft accord envisioning a phased roadmap toward peace. The document calls for government authority to be restored in areas now under rebel control, overseen by an “Interim Special Force” with a five-year mandate. Other provisions include a national dialogue in 2025, regional elections in 2027, and the creation of a truth and reconciliation body.

But the proposal is deeply contested. Kinshasa opposes the buffer force, fearing it undermines sovereignty, while M23 resists surrendering seized territories.

“On the ground, it’s a complex situation as the M23 still controls several localities and has even installed a parallel administration,” the diplomatic source noted.

Rwanda-based governance expert Raphael Nkaka echoed those concerns: “With a special force, the government will not claim control over those areas, especially as the rebels continue to assert their authority by appointing administrators.”  

A fragile peace built on mistrust

At the heart of the conflict lies the contested role of Rwanda. The UN and Kinshasa accuse Kigali of backing M23, which Rwanda has repeatedly denied.

Nonetheless, M23’s territorial control – including the provincial capitals of Goma and Bukavu seized earlier this year – has fueled speculation of external support and raised doubts about the rebels’ long-term intentions.

Analysts point out that the stakes extend beyond Congo. The conflict has displaced 7 million people, making it one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises. A durable agreement would require regional cooperation, but mistrust between Congo and Rwanda complicates the equation.

For observers, the credibility of all sides remains questionable.

Nkaka argued that the rebels are using continued clashes to project strength. “The rebels want to show that they are not holding talks from a weakened position,” he said, adding that their resistance to ceding ground undermines confidence in the process.

Evariste Kamba of the Congo Interreligious Council stressed that mutual trust must be rebuilt through incremental concessions.

“Kinshasa’s willingness to release prisoners could help. But if M23 insists on securing the release of its members before signing a peace agreement, it feeds suspicions that the group is acting as a surrogate for foreign interests – fighting to secure resources rather than genuine peace,” he explained.