WIREDGOV

EXPERT COMMENT

Washington needs to back projects that support local livelihoods and offer security. It must also clarify US regulation to overcome mining operators’ wariness of investing in the Great Lakes region.

At a tense ceremony in Washington on 25 April, representatives from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda committed to working towards a peace agreement to end ongoing violence in the Eastern DRC. The announcement came following mediation by Qatar underwritten by US promises of a minerals deal. 

The agreement’s main points would include a respect for sovereignty and refraining from providing support to non-state groups – Rwanda has been accused of providing support to the M23 rebel group. Parallel talks were hosted subsequently in Doha, with DRC and Rwanda, as well as the AU mediation support group which includes France and the US. A draft peace agreement was reportedly submitted to the US on 5 May – although the two sides have said their proposals have not yet been consolidated. 

All are hopeful that US investment in minerals will generate lucrative peace dividends. The region holds globally significant reserves of tantalum and niobium found in coltan – particularly around the rebel-held Congolese mining town of Rubaya – as well as tin and tungsten. All are listed as critical minerals by the US, EU, Japan, China and UK. 

As ever, the devil will be in the detail. Turning a headline announcement into sustainable progress will require resolving deep suspicion between Rwanda and the DRC. A deal will also need to account for complex local political problems of land access and identity, wider security challenges in a region that hosts myriad non-state armed groups, and issues of asset scarcity.

Compounding this is the challenge of risk aversion: Corporate America is wary of operating in a conflict-affected and high-risk area (CAHRA), which requires enhanced due-diligence and reporting and carries governance, security and reputational challenges.  

Click here to continue reading the full version of this Expert Comment on the Chatham House website.