DRC demands a new model of peaceful peace in the conflict, including and reform | Conflict

Reconstruction of the conflict in the Congo People’s Republic, Goma and Bukavu’un Goma and Bukavu’s Swift Capture, in late January 2025, attracted international attention. In response, global actors immediately called for ceasefire and direct talks. It should be noted that Qatar and the United States were moving as a mediator. This new momentum offers a unique opportunity to revise the shortcomings of past mediation efforts – especially disarm, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), wealth exchanges and regional consensus. Any new diplomatic initiative must prioritize these elements for a sustainable solution and sustainable regional stability.

To achieve a sustainable and sustainable peace in the Eastern DRC, it is important to solve the root reasons for the conflict. Extensive deposits of natural resources of the region – especially rare land minerals – controlled, international, regional and local actors competing for fuel and gas stability. Ink, this is a limited opportunity to regulate the eastern years of Congole’s Central Government, to spread armed groups with various claims. Ethnic tensions have been aggravated since the genocide, especially since 1994, and then the arrival of Hutu refugees and the emergence of enemy militia and increased the insecurities and border-border conflict.

The involvement of regional dynamics, including the rwar, only assesses the conflict with the risks of Rwa. Such narratives darken DRC’s long-term structural inequality, especially the marginalization of Congolese Tutsi communities. A continuous peace should be engaged in this inner dynamics by solving the meaningful inclusion and complaints of Congolese Tutsi in the national political framework through fair and fair mechanisms.

Despite the recycling international engagement, in East DRC, the Pretoria agreement could not convey to the 2009 peace agreement – consistently continued peace. These initiatives were shaken by the structural weaknesses that violated both reliability and effectiveness.

The central defect is a lack of reliable executive mechanisms. Most contracts are impartial monitoring frameworks that voluntarily check or prevent violations or prevent violations. Monitoring mechanisms are often not often accepted, not often available, not frequently available, not often available. Inappropriate attention and limited political will of the international community, the continuous pressure, which was constantly pressed. In the absence of meaningful accountability, armed groups and political elites violated their unpretituted repeated contracts, increase the period of impunity and violence.

There was an exception to problematic processes of equally. Negotiations were often political and military elites, the community of civil society outside, and especially women, especially women – especially women. Without extensive-based participation, the matches failed to reflect the truths on the ground or gain trust of local populations.

Moreover, these efforts, land disputes, ethnic marginalization, management failures and management failures and natural resources did not take into account the root reasons for the conflict. By prioritizing the short-term ceasefire and elite power sharing regulations, the mediators have stated deeper structural issues that manage instability.

DDR programs – important to break the period of conflict – as well as inadequate designed and poorly executed. Many former warriors remained a fertile ground for recruiting and re-employing armed groups and re-employed violence.

These defects merged with the lack of political will within the Kongollia government. Successive administrations are instrumental peace talks to develop more strength than sometimes developing real reforms, exercise and sketch public confidence.

Loan and Nairobi, such as the processes, aims to revive and increase the voltage of political dialogue. But they also struggled to gain legislation. Critics claim that both initiatives could not include the votes of the lower political and the most affected by the narrow political and conflict. Civil society actors and marginalized communities accepted these dialogues as separated from surface and local truths.

These processes also decreased shortly in appealing to the drivers, touching on violence, land property disputes, poor management and recent fighters. Without reliable mechanisms for local participation or structural reform, Luanda and Nairobi processes began to appear more than diplomatic performances than the real ways before peace.

Together, these repetitive shortcomings explain why international mediation efforts failed in DRC. For any new initiative – the train and the United States must go beyond these restrictions, including people, and accept a more comprehensive, responsible and local approach.

In addition to the head mill, East African Community (EAC) and the South African Development Community (SOC) and the South African development community (SOC), the United States and the South African development community (EAC) offer potential for meaningful progress. However, success will depend on the fact that these efforts cannot overcome systemic failures that seize previous mediation attempts.

The three main principles taken from the past experience to make peace, Qatar and American badge to peace, Qatar and the American badge should be guided by peace:

First, enter to access. Previous peace processes, civil society, women and armed groups, except for the affected communities, were mainly elite managed. The lack of this opening has weakened the legality and could not resolve the complaints of the most affected. The reliable mediation process must build a large coalition for the peace and reflect the realities of the consequences of the negotiations for peace.

Second, solve the root causes of the conflict – not just symptoms. Earlier, the efforts also focused on the sharing of ceasefire and power without solving structural drivers of instability. Effective mediation should deal with unresolved land disputes, ethnic marginalization, management failures and socio-economic reintegration of past fighters. Any agreement will be fragile and short-lived without solving these basic problems.

Third, create reliable application and accountability mechanisms. One of the most continuous weaknesses of past contracts is the lack of powerful applications. The agreements were often not enough for independent monitoring bodies, clear criteria and violations. The international community must comply with diplomatic pressure and support mechanisms that can provide compatibility, including train and the United States, and respond to violations. Without this, the risk of relapse of relapse to violence remains high.

By accepting these principles, current mediation efforts have a chance to break the period of failed peace initiatives and prepare the ground for more and more sustainable resolution in the East DRC.

The crisis has reached a critical riot. The participation of Qatar and the United States, along with African regional mechanisms, offers a unique opportunity to rebuild the approach of the approach to peace. With past failures and inclusive, the root cause and this effort can be seen as a constant peaceful peace – finally, Congole can solve people’s desires and complaints.

The views shown in this article are unique and definitely reflect the editorial position of Gazir.