Rwanda

Britain’s Zoe Backstedt claimed a dominant victory in the under-23 time trial at the Road World Championships in Rwanda.

Backstedt, 20, took the winner’s rainbow jersey and gold medal, finishing one minute 51 seconds ahead of Viktoria Chladonova of Slovakia, with Italy’s Federica Venturelli third on a hilly 22.6km course around the capital Kigali.

The favourite for victory set a blistering pace in the final section of a course which consisted of two big climbs – the second being a punishing cobbled ascent which seemed to completely drain many competitors’ energy.

“It’s brutal climbing here, but I really like it,” said Backstedt afterwards. “The climb at the end – your legs are tired and you look up and you think ‘this one’s going to hurt’. It took so much energy out of your arms, legs and body on all of those bumps.”

Backstedt, who is from Wales, crossed the line and immediately had icy water poured over the back of her neck as she gasped for breath in hot and humid conditions, with temperatures about 26C.

This is the first time the Road Worlds, which began in 1921, have been held in Africa.

Backstedt, who rides for the Canyon-Sram Zondacrypto team, is the daughter of Swede and 2004 Paris-Roubaix winner Magnus, and sister of Elynor who competes for UAE-ADQ.

The men’s U23 time trial will take place on Monday afternoon.

History in the making as Rwanda hosts the 2025 UCI Road World Championships – the first time cycling’s crown jewel comes to Africa.
Al Jazeera’s Samantha Johnson asks if this moment can change the sport and the continent forever?

JUBA, South Sudan — South Sudan said Saturday it repatriated to Mexico a man deported from the United States in July.

The man, a Mexican identified as Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez, was among a group of eight who have been in government custody in the East African country since their deportation from the U.S.

Another deportee, a South Sudanese national, has since been freed while six others remain in custody.

South Sudan’s Foreign Ministry said it carried out Munoz-Gutierrez’s repatriation to Mexico in concert with the Mexican Embassy in neighboring Ethiopia.

The move was carried out “in full accordance with relevant international law, bilateral agreements, and established diplomatic protocols,” the ministry said in a statement.

In comments to journalists in Juba, the South Sudan capital, Munoz-Gutierrez said he “felt kidnapped” when the U.S. sent him to South Sudan.

“I was not planning to come to South Sudan, but while I was here they treated me well,” he said. “I finished my time in the United States, and they were supposed to return me to Mexico. Instead, they wrongfully sent me to South Sudan.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said that Munoz-Gutierrez had a conviction for second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

South Sudan is engaging other countries about repatriating the six deportees still in custody, said Apuk Ayuel Mayen, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson.

It is not clear whether the deportees have access to legal representation.

Rights groups have argued that the Trump administration’s increasing practice of deporting migrants to third countries violates international law and the basic rights of migrants.

The deportations have been blocked or limited by U.S. federal courts, though the Supreme Court in June allowed the government to restart swift removals of migrants to countries other than their homelands.

Other African nations receiving deportees from the U.S. include Uganda, Eswatini and Rwanda. Eswatini received five men with criminal backgrounds in July, and the Trump administration wants to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador earlier this year, to the southern African kingdom. Rwanda announced the arrival of a group of seven deportees in mid-August.

Machol writes for the Associated Press.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Five men deported by the United States to Eswatini in July have been held in a maximum-security prison in the African nation for seven weeks without charge or explanation and with no access to legal counsel, their lawyers said Tuesday.

They accused the Trump administration’s third-country deportation program of denying their clients due process.

The New York-based Legal Aid Society said that it was representing one of the men, Jamaican national Orville Etoria, and that he had been “inexplicably and illegally” sent to Eswatini when his home country was willing to accept him back.

That contradicted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which said when it deported the five men with criminal records that they were being sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them. Jamaica’s foreign minister has also said that the Caribbean country didn’t refuse to take back deportees.

Etoria was the first of at least 20 deportees sent by the U.S. to various African nations in the last two months to be identified publicly.

Expanding deportation program

The deportations are part of the Trump administration’s expanding third-country program to send migrants to countries in Africa that they have no ties with to get them off U.S. soil.

Since July, the U.S. has deported migrants to South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda, while a fourth African nation, Uganda, says it has agreed to a deal in principle with the U.S. to accept deportees.

Washington has said it wants to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has been a flashpoint over President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, to Uganda after he was wrongly deported to his native El Salvador in March.

Etoria served a 25-year prison sentence and was granted parole in 2021, the Legal Aid Society said, but was now being held in Eswatini’s main maximum-security prison for an undetermined period of time despite completing that sentence.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department said that he was convicted of murder. The agency posted on X in reference to a New York Times report on Etoria, saying that it “will continue enforcing the law at full speed — without apology.”

It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

The Legal Aid Society said that an Eswatini lawyer acting on behalf of all five men being held in prison there has been repeatedly denied access to them by prison officials since they arrived in the tiny southern African nation bordering South Africa in mid-July.

The other four men are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen.

‘Indefinite detention’

A separate lawyer representing the two men from Laos and Vietnam said that his clients also served their criminal sentences in the U.S. and had “been released into the community.”

“Then, without warning and explanation from either the U.S. or Eswatini governments, they were arbitrarily arrested and sent to a country to which they have never ever been,” the lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said in a statement. “They are now being punished indefinitely for a sentence they already served.”

He said that the U.S. government was “orchestrating secretive third-country transfers with no meaningful legal process, resulting in indefinite detention.”

U.S. Homeland Security said those two men had been convicted of charges including child rape and second-degree murder.

A third lawyer, Alma David, said that she represented the two men from Yemen and Cuba who are also being held in the same prison and denied access to lawyers. She said she had been told by the head of the Eswatini prison that only the U.S. Embassy could grant access to the men.

“Since when does the U.S. Embassy have jurisdiction over Eswatini’s national prisons?” she said in a statement, adding the men weren’t told a reason for their detention, and “no lawyer has been permitted to visit them.” David said all five were being held at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

Secretive deals

The deportation deals the U.S. has struck in Africa have been secretive, and with countries with questionable rights records.

Authorities in South Sudan have given little information on where eight men sent there in early July are being held or what their fate might be. They were also described by U.S. authorities as dangerous criminals from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam.

The five men in Eswatini are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex. It’s the same prison where Eswatini, which is ruled by a king as Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has imprisoned pro-democracy campaigners amid reports of abuse that includes beatings and the denial of food to inmates.

Eswatini authorities said when the five men arrived that they were being held in solitary confinement.

Another seven migrants were deported by the U.S. to Rwanda in mid-August, Rwandan authorities said. They didn’t say where they are being held or give any information on their identities.

The deportations to Rwanda were kept secret at the time and only announced last week.

Imray writes for the Associated Press.

Qatar’s foreign ministry said delegations were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the M23 armed group have resumed negotiations in Qatar as violence deepens in the country’s mineral-rich eastern provinces in spite of a recently signed an agreement to reach a full peace deal.

Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Majed al-Ansari said delegations from Kinshasa and the M23 were meeting in Doha to review the implementation of a truce signed in July. “We’ve received the two parties here in Doha to discuss the earlier agreement,” Ansari said at a news briefing on Tuesday.

The deal, brokered by Qatar, committed both sides to a ceasefire and a path to a final settlement. Under its terms, talks were supposed to begin on 8 August and conclude by 18 August. Both deadlines passed without progress, and the agreement has faltered amid accusations of violations from both sides.

Ansari said the current discussions include plans to create a mechanism for monitoring the truce, as well as an exchange of prisoners and detainees. He added that the United States and the International Committee of the Red Cross were closely involved in supporting the talks.

The Qatar-led initiative followed a separate ceasefire agreement signed in Washington between Rwanda, who back M23, and DRC in June. But the M23 rejected that deal, demanding direct negotiations with Kinshasa to address what it called unresolved political grievances.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he ended the conflict, and several others, describing DRC as the “darkest, deepest” part of Africa and asserting that he “saved lots of lives.” On Monday, Trump claimed that nine million people were “killed with machetes” during the decades-long war, insisting, “I stopped it.”

Rights groups have dismissed Trump’s claims as misleading. “It is far from the reality to say that he has ended the war,” said Christian Rumu of Amnesty International. “People on the ground continue to experience grave human rights violations, and some of these amount to crimes against humanity,” he added, calling on Washington to accelerate efforts to secure peace.

Despite multiple ceasefire attempts, fighting has intensified in North and South Kivu provinces, forcing more than two million people from their homes this year. Human Rights Watch last week accused the M23 of carrying out ethnically targeted “mass killings,” while United Nations experts have said Rwandan forces played a “critical” role in supporting the group’s offensive.

Rwanda denies involvement, but the M23’s capture of vast areas, including the regional capital Goma earlier this year, has fuelled fears of a wider regional conflict.

The DRC’s eastern region, home to some of the world’s richest deposits of gold, cobalt, and coltan, has been devastated by years of armed conflict, with civilians bearing the brunt of atrocities despite repeated international mediation efforts.

Uganda is the latest of several countries to strike a deportation deal with the United States as President Donald Trump ramps up controversial efforts to remove migrants from the country.

In a statement on Thursday, Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kampala had agreed for Washington to send over third-country nationals who face deportation from the US, but are unwilling to return to their home countries. The ministry said that the agreement was made under certain conditions.

Rights groups and law experts have condemned Trump’s controversial plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Those already deported include convicted criminals and “uniquely barbaric monsters,” according to the White House.

African countries, such as Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, have accepted similar deals, reportedly in exchange for lower tariffs. The US’s actions are exploitative and tantamount to treating the continent as a “dumping ground,” Melusi Simelane of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) told Al Jazeera, adding that Washington was especially focusing on countries with weak human rights protection.

Here’s what you need to know about the Uganda deal and what countries might be getting in return for hosting US deportees:

What did Uganda agree to?

In a statement posted on X on Thursday, Bagiire Vincent Waiswa, the permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, said the country had agreed to a “temporary arrangement” with the US. He did not state the timelines for when the deportations would begin or end.

There are caveats regarding the people who would be transferred, the statement continued, including that Uganda will not accept people with criminal records or unaccompanied minors and that it “prefers” that Africans be transferred as part of the deal.

“The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” the statement added.

A US State Department statement confirmed that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had held discussions over the phone regarding “migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties”.

The deal’s announcement came after weeks of speculation in local Ugandan media regarding whether the East African nation would accept US deportees.

On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Okello Oryem denied the media reports, saying Uganda did not have the facilities to accommodate deportees.

Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Oryem said Uganda was discussing issues of “visas, tariffs, sanctions and related issues” with the US, but not of migration.

“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he told the AP.

A day later, Uganda’s narrative had flipped.

What might Uganda gain from this?

The Foreign Ministry’s statement on Thursday did not state what Uganda might be getting in return.

Other countries, including Eswatini, have reportedly accepted deportees in exchange for lower tariffs.

Uganda has been hit with 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, as part of Trump’s reciprocal tariff wars. Senior government officials in early August told local media that the tariffs would disrupt Ugandan exports, especially in the agricultural sector, and that Kampala would enter negotiations for a better deal.

Coffee, vanilla, cocoa beans and petroleum products are some of Uganda’s key exports to the US. Kampala is particularly keen on boosting coffee exports to the US and competing with bigger suppliers like Colombia. The US, on the other hand, exports machinery, such as aircraft parts, to Uganda, which imposes an 18 percent tariff on imported products.

The US and Uganda have historically enjoyed friendly ties, with the US routinely sending aid to Kampala. However, after Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill into law in 2023, relations turned sour, and the US accused Uganda of “human rights violations”. The law proscribes punishment, including life sentences, for same-sex relations.

Washington thereafter cut aid funding for HIV programs and issued visa restrictions on Ugandan government officials “complicit in undermining the democratic process.” The US also banned Uganda from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade programme that helped African countries trade tariff-free with the US, but that Trump’s tariffs have effectively killed.

The World Bank additionally banned Uganda from its loans for two years, although the restriction was lifted this June.

Rights activists say the deal on deportees could make the US administration more favourably inclined towards Uganda, but at the expense of those deported.

“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law,” human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo told the AP. He added that such an arrangement leaves the legal status of deportees unclear as to whether they are refugees or prisoners.

“We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case, because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” Opiyo said.“That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”

Does Uganda already host refugees?

Yes, Uganda is Africa’s largest refugee host country. It already hosts some 1.7 million refugees, largely from neighbouring South Sudan, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are all dealing with armed conflict and unrest.

The United Nations has, in the past, hailed the country as having a “progressive refugee policy” and “maintaining an open-door approach to asylum”.

However, opposition activists are sounding the alarm over the government’s dismal human rights record. Uganda has been ruled by Museveni since 1986, with his party winning contested elections in landslides. Opposition members and journalists are often targeted in arrests. Some report being tortured in detention.

Speaking to the AP, opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said the US deal could give Museveni’s government further Western legitimacy ahead of general elections scheduled for January 2026.

The deal was struck to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said. He urged the US not to ignore what he described as human rights issues in Uganda.

What other countries has the US sent people to?

Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan have struck similar agreements with the US.

Eswatini, in July, accepted five unnamed men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen.

Tricia McLaughlin, Department for Homeland Security assistant secretary, described them as “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back”. She added that they were convicted of offences ranging from child rape to murder, and faced up to 25 years in jail. The men are presently held in detention facilities and will be sent back to their countries, according to officials who did not state a timeline.

Activists accuse the Eswatini government of engaging in the deal in exchange for lower tariffs from the US. The tiny country, which exports apparel, fruits, nuts and raw sugar to the US, was hit with a 10 percent tariff.

“No country should have to be engaged in the violation of international human rights laws, including breaching its domestic laws, to please the Global North in the name of trade,” Simulane of SALC, who is leading an ongoing court case challenging the Eswatini government’s decision, told Al Jazeera. The move, he said, was against the country’s constitution, which mandates that international agreements pass through parliament.

“What we want, at the core, is for the agreement to be published for public scrutiny, and for the public to understand (if) it indeed is in line with our national interest,” Simulane said. “We further want the agreement declared unconstitutional because it lacked parliamentary approval.”

South Africa, which borders Eswatini on three sides, summoned the smaller country’s diplomats earlier in August to raise security concerns about the arrangement.

Similarly, the US sent eight “barbaric” criminals to South Sudan in July. The DHS listed them as being from Cuba, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan. They were convicted of crimes such as first-degree murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, the DHS said.

The men were initially diverted to Djibouti for months pending a legal challenge in the US. However, in late June, the US Supreme Court approved the move to South Sudan.

Rwanda, too, has confirmed that it will take 250 deportees from the US at an unnamed date. According to government spokesperson Yolande Makolo, the deportees will enjoy “workforce training, health care and accommodation”. The country previously struck a controversial migrant deal for a fee with the United Kingdom. That deal, however, fell through when the new Labour government was elected in the UK in 2024.

Outside Africa, El Salvador has taken in 300 migrants, mainly from Venezuela, for a $6m fee.

Costa Rica accepted 200 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, China, Ghana, India and Vietnam. While many have been repatriated, some 28 people were still in detention by June. It is unclear what the US offered in return.

Nearly 300 people from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and China were sent to Panama in February.

The US is sanctioning the Pareco-FF armed group, as well as the Congolese mining company CDMC.

The United States has sanctioned an armed group accused of illicit mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), as both the army and the Rwandan-backed M23 rebel group traded accusations of violating a recently reached US-mediated ceasefire deal by attacking each other’s positions.

The US Department of the Treasury said on Tuesday that it was blocking all interests and restricting transactions with Pareco-FF, an armed group that it said controlled the key coltan mining site of Rubaya from 2022 to 2024, and which has opposed the M23 group.

The administration of President Donald Trump has been pushing for US access to the region’s minerals, as it has done in other parts of the world, including Ukraine.

It also slapped sanctions on the Congolese mining company CDMC, saying it sold minerals that were sourced and smuggled from mines near Rubaya and two Hong Kong-based export companies, East Rise and Star Dragon, which have been accused of buying minerals from the armed group.

“The United States is sending a clear message that no armed group or commercial entity is immune from sanctions if they undermine peace, stability or security in the DRC,” State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said in a statement.

Rubaya is currently under the control of the M23 group, which is already targeted by US sanctions. The mine there produces 15 to 30 percent of the world’s supply of coltan, a mineral used in electronics such as laptops and mobile telephones.

Many Pareco rebels integrated into the DRC military in 2009, but Pareco-FF emerged in 2022 in response to the M23 gains.

The sanctions come as Congolese army spokesman Sylvain Ekenge said in a statement that the M23 group’s “almost daily” attacks constitute an “intentional and manifest violation” of the declaration of principles, which the two parties signed in mid-July in Doha, whose terms include a “permanent ceasefire”.

It followed a separate peace deal between the Congolese and Rwandan governments, signed in Washington, DC, the previous month, which also helped the US government and US companies gain control of critical minerals in the region.

The Congolese army said it was ready to respond “to all provocations from this [M23 group] coalition, accustomed to violating agreements”, the statement said.

M23 spokesman Lawrence Kanyuka said in a post on X on Monday that DRC’s government was continuing “its offensive military manoeuvres aimed at full-scale war”.

The eastern DRC, a region bordering Rwanda with abundant natural resources but plagued by non-state armed groups, has suffered extreme violence for more than three decades.

A new surge of unrest broke out early this year when the M23 group captured the key cities of Goma and Bukavu, setting up their own administrations, with thousands killed in the conflict.

Violence has continued on the ground despite the US and Qatar-brokered peace deal, with fighting becoming more intense since Friday around the town of Mulamba in South Kivu province, where the front line had been relatively stable since March.

The M23 attacked positions between Friday and Monday held by pro-Kinshasa militia and army forces, and pushed them back several kilometres, after clashes using light and heavy weapons, local and security sources said.

The DRC government and the M23 rebels have agreed to sign a permanent peace deal by August 18, but the renewed fighting has threatened this effort.

German football club to shift away from ‘Visit Rwanda’ sponsorship after criticism from fans.

Bayern Munich has signalled it will cut down on “Visit Rwanda” branding as it moves “away from a commercial sponsorship” with the African nation facing a backlash over alleged support for rebels in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Bayern dismissed allegations of “sportswashing” when it signed a five-year deal with Rwanda in 2023. It included advertisements in the stadium and what Bayern called events “to promote tourism and investment opportunities in Rwanda”.

At the time, it replaced a sponsorship deal with Qatar. Rwanda has similar sponsorships with European football giants like Paris Saint-Germain, Arsenal and Atletico Madrid.

Some Bayern fans displayed a large banner at a game in February protesting against the deal amid accusations from the United Nations that Rwanda has backed rebels in the DRC.

Now the German football champions say they have reached a new deal with Rwanda that turns the existing sponsorship into a three-year agreement focusing on developing young football players at a Bayern-affiliated academy in the country.

“In constructive talks about our future direction, we agreed that a very special part of our relationship with [the Rwanda Development Board (RDB)] was the developmental nature of our work in Kigali through the FC Bayern Academy,” Bayern Chief Executive Jan-Christian Dreesen said on Friday in a statement.

“We are therefore transforming our commercial partnership into a talent programme and expanding the FC Bayern Academy in Kigali together with the RDB as both a football and social initiative. This remains perfectly aligned to our strategic objective of developing playing talent in Africa.”

Bayern didn’t specify how soon it would drop “Visit Rwanda” branding as part of the move, which it described as a transition. As of Friday afternoon, the branding was still displayed under a section of the Bayern website listing club sponsors and partners.

RDB Chief Executive Jean-Guy Afrika was quoted by Bayern as saying the changes to the partnership aimed to “accelerate sports development”, adding: “This continued partnership with FC Bayern helps ensure that talent development remains anchored in our broader vision to position Rwanda as a global hub for tourism, investment, and high-performance sport.”

Rwanda’s presence in European football has grown steadily since 2018 when it first partnered with Arsenal to put “Visit Rwanda” branding on the London club’s shirt sleeves.

An agreement with PSG was signed in 2019 and renewed in April this year. It covers branding in the stadium and included shirt-sleeve sponsorship at the Club World Cup. A three-year deal to sponsor Atletico was agreed in April, including branding on training and warm-up shirts.

Rwanda is accused of supporting the M23 rebel group, the strongest of more than 100 armed groups vying for dominance in the mineral-rich eastern DRC just across the border from Rwanda. Rwanda also has been accused of exploiting the eastern DRC’s minerals, used in smartphones, advanced fighter jets and much more.

Rwandan authorities alleged that some of the people who participated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide fled to the DRC and are either working with or are being protected by the Congolese army. They have denied involvement in the DRC’s minerals sector and said any security action taken is to protect its own territory.

Aug. 5 (UPI) — Rwanda on Tuesday agreed to accept hundreds of U.S.-deported migrants as part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to get African nations to take in deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement,” Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told Politico and The New York Times.

Rwanda’s societal values, Makolo claimed in a statement, were “founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.”

Rwanda’s foreign minister Olivier J.P. Nduhungirehe initially confirmed the talks in May.

Its notorious 1994 genocide that killed over 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu peoples and later recovery made the small African country stand on its own in the eyes of the global community.

The Trump administration issued requests to at least 15 African nations, including South Sudan and Eswatini, to accept illegal migrants supposedly unable to return to their native country.

A second Rwandan government official told said the United States will provide funding but declined to outline a figure.

Last month, an internal memo out of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicated the federal agency intended to expand its effort to deport immigrants to other countries abroad where they do not hold citizenship.

The White House previously signed off on a $6 million infusion of U.S. dollars to El Salvador to imprison Venezuelan and Salvadoran citizens.

Meanwhile, Rwandan officials said the U.S.-infused money will support further work and training programs by its immigration authority.

The Rwandan official granted anonymity indicated its government agreed to demands as an opportunity to form closer ties to Washington.

In early July, President Donald Trump met at the White House with the leaders of Senegal, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Gabon to talk over trade. Within days the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the administration was permitted to deport eight migrants to war-torn South Sudan held at a U.S. military base in neighboring Djibouti.

The anonymous Rwandan government official said Tuesday that as a small country, “any time you can find a way consistent with your own policies and values, to be able to talk to a major country about something that it is interested in and not just asking them to take an interest in your issues,” that it creates a “more productive” and a “more balanced” diplomatic relationship “that’s good for both sides.”

However, the official did state that it’s an “obviously not equal” relationship.

Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as US President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.

Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,” Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to “third-party countries” they have no personal connections to.

Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.

Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a “dumping ground” for migrants with criminal records.

In this week’s statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.

“Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,” she said.

“Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

Trump’s mass deportation campaign

In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country’s population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.

But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.

In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.

An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.

But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.

Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.

Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to “third-party countries” where they may not even speak the language.

Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.

Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump’s allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.

El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.

The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge’s order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.

Deportations to Africa

In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start “third-party” deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.

Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.

The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.

But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.

That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.

Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.

The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them “sickos” and “barbaric”. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.

The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.

They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan’s custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.

“The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,” the justices wrote, calling the government’s actions “flagrantly unlawful”.

In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.

Cosying up to Trump?

Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.

Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.

Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.

But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.

In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda’s support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.

The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.

In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government’s recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that “appeasing President Trump pays”.

Muganwa explained that Tuesday’s agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries’ shared bond.

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

KIGALI, Rwanda — Rwanda on Tuesday became the third African nation to agree to accept deportees from the United States under the Trump administration’s plans to send migrants to countries they have no ties with to get them off American soil.

Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo told The Associated Press in a statement that the East African country would accept up to 250 deportees from the U.S., with “the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement” under the agreement.

Makolo didn’t provide a timeline for any deportees to arrive in Rwanda or say if they would arrive at once or in several batches. She said details were still being worked out.

The U.S. sent 13 men it described as dangerous criminals who were in the U.S. illegally to South Sudan and Eswatini in Africa last month and has said it is seeking more agreements with African nations. It said those deportees’ home countries refused to take them back.

The U.S. has also deported hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama under President Trump’s plans to expel people who he says entered the U.S. illegally and are “the worst of the worst.”

Rwanda attracted international attention and some outrage when it struck a deal in 2022 with the U.K. to accept migrants who had arrived in the U.K. to seek asylum. Under that proposed deal, their claims would have been processed in Rwanda and, if successful, they would have stayed there.

The contentious agreement was criticized by rights groups and others as being unethical and unworkable and was ultimately scrapped when Britain’s new Labour government took over. Britain’s Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that the deal was unlawful because Rwanda was not a safe third country for migrants.

The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for the African countries it has entered into secretive deals with to take deportees. It sent eight men from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in early July after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for their deportations.

They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in Djibouti as the legal battle over their deportations played out. South Sudan, which is tipping toward civil war, has declined to say where the men are being held or what their fate is.

The U.S. also deported five men who are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini, where the government said they will be held in solitary confinement in prison for an undetermined period of time.

A human rights lawyer in Eswatini said the men are being denied access to legal representation there and has taken authorities to court. Eswatini is Africa’s last absolute monarchy, and the king rules over government and political parties are effectively banned.

Both South Sudan and Eswatini have declined to give details of their agreements with the U.S.

Rwanda, a relatively small country of some 15 million people, has long stood out on the continent for its recovery from a genocide that killed over 800,000 people in 1994. It has promoted itself under longtime President Paul Kagame as an example of stability and development, but human rights groups allege there are also deadly crackdowns on any perceived dissent against Kagame, who has been president for 25 years.

Government spokesperson Makolo said the agreement with the U.S. was Rwanda doing its part to help with international migration issues because “our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation.”

“Those approved (for resettlement in Rwanda) will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade,” she said. There were no details about whether Rwanda had received anything in return for taking the deportees.

Gonzaga Muganwa, a Rwandan political analyst, said “appeasing President Trump pays.”

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

The U.K. government estimated that its failed migration deal with Rwanda cost around $900 million in public money, including approximately $300 million in payments to Rwanda, which said it was not obligated to refund the money when the agreement fell apart.

Ssuuna and Imray write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Cape Town, South Africa.

Neighbouring countries agree on terms of economic cooperation in several areas, including energy and supply chains for minerals.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have agreed on terms of economic cooperation in several sectors, as the two countries move towards delivering on a peace deal signed in June.

The tenets agreed on Friday summarise a regional economic integration framework, which includes elements of cooperation on energy, infrastructure, mineral supply chains, national parks and public health, according to the State Department of the United States, which brokered the deal.

A source familiar with the matter said a preliminary draft of the framework has been agreed to and there would now be an input period to get reaction from the private sector and civil society before it is finalised, the Reuters news agency reported.

In the statement, Rwanda and the DRC affirmed that each country has “full, sovereign control” over the exploitation, processing and export of its natural resources, and recognised the importance of developing mineral processing and transformation capacity within each country, according to Reuters.

The DRC views the plundering of its mineral wealth as a key driver of the conflict between its forces and Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in the country’s east that has killed thousands of people.

‘Mineral deal first’

The deal signed in Washington, DC, on June 27 aims to attract Western investment to a region rich in tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper, lithium and other minerals. According to Human Rights Watch, it is “a mineral deal first, an opportunity for peace second”, linking economic integration and respect for territorial integrity with the promise of billions of dollars of investments.

The two countries are also committed to ensuring that the minerals trade no longer provides funding to armed groups and to creating a world-class industrial mining sector in the region. The deal would also ensure better cross-border interoperability on mineral supply chains, according to the statement.

They also agreed to connect new infrastructure to the US-backed Lobito Corridor, underscoring Washington’s aim of greater access to resources in the region and efforts to counter China.

The Ruzizi III hydropower project and Lake Kivu methane exploitation were the only specific projects mentioned in the statement, despite US emphasis on critical minerals. The countries said they intended to prioritise financing for Ruzizi and work together to exploit methane gas sustainably.

Friday’s announcement comes after the two countries held the first meeting of a joint oversight committee on Thursday in a step towards implementing the deal, even as other commitments are yet to be fulfilled.

In the Washington agreement, the two countries pledged to implement a 2024 agreement that would see Rwandan troops withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days.

The Congolese military’s operations targeting the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a Congo-based armed group that includes remnants of Rwanda’s former army and militias that carried out a 1994 genocide, are meant to conclude over the same timeframe.

The deal also said the DRC and Rwanda would form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days and implement a plan agreed upon last year to monitor and verify the withdrawal of Rwandan soldiers within three months.

But 30 days from the signing have passed without a meeting of the joint security coordination mechanism.

The source familiar with the matter said the joint security coordination mechanism meeting would be held on August 7 in Addis Ababa.

The DRC is also involved in direct talks with M23 hosted by Qatar, and last month the two sides pledged to sign a separate peace agreement by August 18, though many outstanding details need to be negotiated.

Kampala, Uganda – Rwanda is in “command and control” of M23 rebels in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda has “unilaterally doubled its military presence” in the DRC, and armed groups – including those aligned to the Congolese government – are committing rights violations against civilians, according to a group of United Nations experts.

An as-yet unpublished report from UN experts on DRC that was leaked to the media and seen by Al Jazeera describes violations by all parties to the conflict and blames neighbouring governments for allegedly exploiting and escalating the current crisis.

The report was submitted to the UN Security Council in May, the Reuters news agency reported. It is expected to be released soon, a UN expert who contributed to the report told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, without specifying a date.

While analysts see these reports as an essential tool of accountability, Kigali and Kampala have called the experts biased.

Neither government replied to Al Jazeera’s request for comment about the contents of the report, but both have repeatedly denied the accusations levelled against them.

Meanwhile, the new findings risk putting a damper on the cautious optimism garnered by the signing of a peace deal between Rwanda and the DRC in the US last month, and ongoing Qatar-mediated peace talks between Kinshasa and M23.

Rwanda’s ‘instruction’, control of resources

For years, M23, which the UN says is backed by Rwanda – a charge Kigali denies – has been embroiled in conflict with the Congolese army and its allied militias known as Wazalendo. Early this year, M23 made rapid advances, seizing control of Goma and Bukavu, the capitals of North Kivu and South Kivu, respectively, which it still holds today.

The latest UN experts report – the first since M23’s advance – offers a stark assessment of the conflict, placing blame on Rwanda for facilitating the rapid expansion of the rebel forces.

Rwanda is providing “critical support” to M23, which takes “instructions” from Rwanda’s government and intelligence services, said the report.

In previous reports, the UN experts found there were some 3,000-4,000 Rwandan troops fighting alongside M23 in the DRC.

“One week prior to the [M23] Goma attack, Rwandan officials confidentially informed the Group [of experts] that President Paul Kagame had decided to imminently take control of Goma and Bukavu,” the new report alleged.

Rwanda has repeatedly denied backing M23, while Kigali has sharply criticised the UN experts.

“These reports were written long ago,” President Paul Kagame said at a news conference in Kigali on July 4, after the contents of the report started circulating in international media.

“They come here just to confirm a narrative they already had,” the Rwandan leader said about the UN panel of experts.

Kagame likened the experts to an arsonist who torches a house but also acts as both judge and prosecutor. “The very ones who burned the [house] are the ones in the seat to judge and prosecute.”

The report by UN experts, however, only reasserted its criticism of Kigali.

The Rwandan army’s “de facto direction and effective control” over M23’s operations “render Rwanda liable for the actions” of the group, the report said, arguing that Rwanda’s conduct meets the threshold for international sanctions.

Last month’s US-brokered deal between the DRC and Rwanda does not include M23, but it stipulates that all parties should comply with the Qatar peace process. It also highlights that the Congolese government should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Rwanda should then lift its “defensive measures” inside the DRC, the agreement said.

While Kigali has often argued that its actions in the DRC are aimed at addressing longstanding security threats posed by the FDLR, the UN experts assert that its actions went far beyond legitimate security concerns.

The experts noted that “the final objective of Kigali was to control the territory of the DRC and its natural resources.”

Their report details how minerals, including coltan, were looted from mines in towns seized by M23, then smuggled into Rwanda. “Once in Rwanda, the looted minerals were mixed with local production, effectively laundering them into the downstream supply chain under the guise of Rwandan origin,” the report said.

Part of the minerals smuggled to Rwanda were purchased by Boss Mining Solutions Inc, represented by Eddy Habimana, who has previously been implicated in the illegal trafficking of minerals from the DRC, the report added.

Beyond Rwanda, the report also outlines violations of international law by another neighbour, Uganda.

Amid the Rwanda/M23–DRC fighting, there was a “rapid military build-up” by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, the report said.

Troops significantly increased this year “effectively doubling Uganda’s footprint in the country”, it added.

The Ugandan army, which has conducted joint operations with the Congolese military against the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a rebel movement with origins in Uganda, since 2023, “unilaterally” increased its troop presence in eastern DRC, the report added.

“The DRC government confirmed that the new UPDF deployment was executed without its prior approval, and that UPDF was undertaking unilateral initiatives outside the framework of joint operations with the [Congolese army],” the report read.

The deployment, according to the panel of experts, raised questions about Kampala’s motives, particularly given past allegations of UPDF support to M23. While Uganda claimed the troop movements were defensive and aimed at securing its economic interests, the report says their positioning created a de facto buffer zone that shielded M23 from northern counterattacks.

In response, Uganda’s ambassador to the UN, Adonia Ayebare, wrote on X that the report “contains falsehoods” and attempts to undermine the joint military operation with the DRC. He said Uganda will make an official statement after publication of the report.

​​General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s army commander also posted on X, saying: “While the UN so called ‘Group of Experts’ writes biased reports against us, we (UPDF) continue to save the lives of human beings in our region.”

The report by the UN experts had called out “repeated incendiary public statements” by Kainerugaba in which they said he emphasised close cooperation between the UPDF and the Rwandan army.

The report also accused Thomas Lubanga, a former ICC convict living in Kampala, of forming a politico-military movement to oppose the Congolese government, “with at least moral and passive endorsement from the Ugandan authorities”.

However, addressing journalists in Kampala on July 16, Lubanga said he is in forced exile because of persecution by Kinshasa, and if his movement had been receiving support from Uganda, it “would find itself on Kinshasa’s doorstep today”.

Ugandan, Rwandan interests in DRC

Kristof Titeca, a professor at the University of Antwerp who recently published a report on Uganda’s operations in DRC, urges readers to view the UN report and the backlash it has provoked in the context of regional dynamics.

Kigali and Kampala share overlapping interests in the DRC – chiefly concerning security, political influence, and economic access – but these interests also place them in a complex relationship of both cooperation and competition, he said.

Titeca argues that the resurgence and rapid expansion of M23 was, in part, triggered by Kigali’s fear that Kampala might encroach on its influence in eastern DRC after Uganda allowed its soldiers to enter DRC in pursuit of the ADF.

As M23 gained ground towards the end of 2024, Uganda reacted with troop deployments, particularly aimed at preventing the rebels – and by extension, Rwanda – from entering areas it sees as its sphere of interest.

Titeca says the military manoeuvres were as much a strategic message to Rwanda as they were about protecting Ugandan interests.

Drawing from movements and postures observed since late 2024, Titeca suggests that Kigali and Kampala may have an implicit understanding of their respective zones of influence.

“Some people think there might be some agreement between Kampala and Kigali on their area of interest,” he said.

In eastern DRC, “they are friends and also enemies at the same time,” he added, referring to Uganda and Rwanda.

Kinshasa’s violations

For the UN experts, Kinshasa bears some responsibility, too. On the Congolese side, the report paints a picture of a state under siege, struggling to maintain sovereignty over its eastern territories.

The government continued to rely heavily on irregular Wazalendo groups, and on the FDLR, despite the latter being under UN sanctions, as proxies in its fight against M23 and the Rwandan army.

While strategic, the report says, this alliance has worsened the security and human rights situation, contributing to reprisal attacks, child recruitment and sexual violence.

As it called out M23’s actions during the taking of Goma and Bukavu, the report also documented a pattern of grave international humanitarian law and rights violations – including looting, sexual violence, and killings – by retreating Congolese soldiers and Wazalendo fighters at the same time.

“These abuses occurred in a climate of impunity, in the general context of a weakening chain of command,” it said.

Al Jazeera sought a response to these claims from the Congolese government, but received no reply.

In dismissing the report, the Rwandan president accused the panel of perpetuating a biased narrative against Kigali and of ignoring Congolese government complicity with the FDLR, which he says continues to spread anti-Tutsi views that led to the 1994 genocide.

“All the reports, 75 percent of them, blame AFC/M23 and Rwanda,” Kagame said at the July 4 news conference. “You will find they never write anything comprehensive about FDLR or how Congolese institutions spread hate and genocide ideology. How can experts not see that?”

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rwandan analyst Thierry Gatete echoed Kagame’s criticisms, questioning the credibility of the UN panel and alleging that they rarely conduct field research.

“They sit in New York or Paris and rely on testimonies from Congolese officials or FDLR sympathisers,” he said.

The report notes that Rwanda denied the group of experts access to Kigali. However, Gatete says Rwanda initially cooperated with the panel but later gave up because the reports were consistently biased and, in his view, inconsequential. “Nobody takes what they write seriously,” he said.

While Rwanda and Uganda view the UN reports as biased, others see them as essential tools for accountability.

Stewart Muhindo, a researcher with Congolese civil society group LUCHA, said the panel provides critical evidence that challenges both state and non-state actors.

“The panel tells hard truths,” he noted, pointing out that the report also criticises the DRC government for its continued collaboration with the FDLR, despite promises to end the alliance. “It’s not just about blaming Rwanda.”

Muhindo also agrees with UN experts that the DRC’s reliance on Wazalendo fighters has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. These irregular forces, though not sanctioned like the FDLR, have been implicated in atrocities, including attacks on civilians and the recruitment of child soldiers, he said.

“Despite ongoing peacemaking initiatives, efforts to stabilise the region continue to face significant challenges,” the UN experts said in the report. “Civilians bore the brunt of the conflict, enduring widespread displacement, insecurity, and grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.”

Paul Kagame gives cautious welcome to US-brokered agreement, but says success depends on goodwill from warring parties.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame has cautiously welcomed a United States-brokered peace deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), while suggesting Kigali will retaliate if provoked.

Speaking at a news conference in Kigali on Friday, Kagame said Rwanda remained committed to the agreement but questioned whether Kinshasa would uphold its part of the deal.

“If the side that we are working with plays tricks and takes us back to the problem, then we deal with the problem like we have been dealing with it,” Kagame said.

The agreement, backed by the administration of US President Donald Trump, was signed last week and calls for Rwandan troops to withdraw from eastern DRC within 90 days.

The region has seen intense fighting this year, with M23 rebels seizing major towns. The United Nations has accused Rwanda of backing the group with thousands of troops – an allegation Kigali denies.

While the peace deal is seen as a turning point, analysts do not believe it will quickly end the fighting because M23 – a major belligerent in the conflict – says the agreement does not apply to it.

US ‘not to blame’ if deal fails

Rwanda insists its military presence in eastern DRC is a response to threats from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an armed group made up of ethnic Hutu fighters linked to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Kagame said Kinshasa must act to dismantle the FDLR if the deal is to succeed.

“We are grateful to the Trump administration for its efforts,” he said. “If it doesn’t work, they aren’t the ones to blame.”

There has been no official response from Kinshasa, which has consistently accused Rwanda of fuelling the conflict.

Rwanda-backed M23 is the most prominent armed group in the conflict in eastern DRC, and its major advance early this year left bodies on the streets. With 7 million people displaced in DRC, the UN has called it “one of the most protracted, complex, serious humanitarian crises on Earth”.

M23 has not been involved in the US-mediated efforts, although it has been part of other peace talks. On Thursday, both the Congolese government and M23 representatives agreed that they would return to Qatar for further discussions aimed at ending the conflict.

Meanwhile, Washington has proposed a separate investment plan that could allow Western companies to tap into the region’s rich deposits of tantalum, copper, and gold – resources that have long fuelled violence in eastern DRC.

Kagame’s appearance on Friday marked his first public remarks since June 6, prompting speculation during his absence about his health. Dissidents abroad, including former adviser David Himbara, claimed the president was seriously unwell.

Kagame dismissed the rumours with a joke. “Some of my personal health problems might originate from managing you people,” he said, sparking laughter.

“What is the problem? What would people want me to account for? That I am not human?” he added. The president appeared in good health throughout the briefing.

Cape Town, South Africa – Five months ago, with a single social media post, United States President Donald Trump put half a million people in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) at risk when he announced the closure of USAID – the single biggest aid donor in the country.

A few days ago in Washington, DC, the same administration claimed credit for extricating the Congolese people from a decades-long conflict often described as the deadliest since World War II. This year alone, thousands of people have died and hundreds of thousands have been displaced.

While the White House may be celebrating its diplomatic triumph in brokering a peace deal between tense neighbours DRC and Rwanda, for sceptical observers and people caught up in conflict and deprivation in eastern DRC, the mood is bound to be far more muted, experts say.

“I think a lot of ordinary citizens are hardly moved by the deal and many will wait to see if there are any positives to come out of it,” said Michael Odhiambo, a peace expert for Eirene International in Uvira in eastern DRC, where 250,000 displaced people lost access to water due to Trump’s aid cutbacks.

Odhiambo suggests that for Congolese living in towns controlled by armed groups – like the mineral-rich area of Rubaya, held by M23 rebels – US involvement in the war may cause anxiety, rather than relief.

“There is fear that American peace may be enforced violently as we have seen in Iran. Many citizens simply want peace and even though [this is] dressed up as a peace agreement, there is fear it may lead to future violence that could be justified by America protecting its business interests.”

The agreement, signed by the Congolese and Rwandan foreign ministers in Washington on Friday, is an attempt to staunch the bleeding in a conflict that has raged in one form or another since the 1990s.

At the signing, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe called it a “turning point”, while his Congolese counterpart, Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, said the moment had “been long in coming”.

“It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of – safety, dignity and a sense of future,” Wagner said.

Trump has meanwhile said he deserves to be lauded for bringing the parties together, even suggesting that he deserves a Nobel prize for his efforts.

While the deal does aim to quell decades of brutal conflict, observers point to concerns with the fine print: That it was also brokered after Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi said in March that he was willing to partner with the US on a minerals-for-security deal.

Experts say US companies hope to gain access to minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium that they desperately need to meet the demand for technology and beat China in the race for Africa’s natural resources.

But this has raised fears among critics that the US’s main interest in the agreement is to further foreign extraction of eastern DRC’s rare earth minerals, which could lead to a replay of the violence seen in past decades, instead of a de-escalation.

M23 and FDLR: Will armed groups fall in line?

The main terms of the peace deal – which is also supported by Qatar – require Kinshasa and Kigali to establish a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and form a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Additionally, the DRC should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), after which Rwanda will lift its “defensive measures” inside the DRC.

According to the United Nations and other international rights groups, there are about 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan troops on the ground in eastern DRC, as Kigali actively backs M23 rebels who have seized key cities in the region this year. Rwanda has repeatedly denied these claims.

M23 is central to the current conflict in eastern DRC. The rebel group, which first took up arms in 2012, was temporarily defeated in 2013 before it reemerged in 2022. This year, it made significant gains, seizing control of the capitals of both North Kivu and South Kivu provinces in January and February.

Although separate Qatar-led mediation efforts are under way regarding the conflict with M23, the rebel group is not part of this agreement signed last week.

“This deal does not concern M23. M23 is a Congolese issue that is going to be discussed in Doha, Qatar. This is a deal between Rwanda and DRC,” Gatete Nyiringabo Ruhumuliza, a Rwandan political commentator, told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story, explaining that the priority for Kigali is the neutralisation of the FDLR – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

“Rwanda has its own defensive mechanisms [in DRC] that have nothing to do with M23,” Ruhumuliza said, adding that Kigali will remove these mechanisms only once the FDLR is dealt with.

But the omission of M23 from the US-brokered process points to one of the potential cracks in the deal, experts say.

“The impact of the agreement may be more severe on the FDLR as it explicitly requires that it ceases to exist,” said Eirene International’s Odhiambo. “The M23, however, is in a stronger position given the leverage they have from controlling Goma and Bukavu and the income they are generating in the process.”

The US-brokered process requires the countries to support ongoing efforts by Qatar to mediate peace between the DRC and M23. But by including this, the deal also “seems to temper its expectations regarding the M23″, Odhiambo argues.

Additionally, “M23 have the capacity to continue to cause mayhem even if Rwanda decided to act against it,” he said. “Therefore, I think the agreement will not in itself have a major impact on the M23.”

In terms of the current deal’s effect on the two countries, both risk being exposed for their role in the conflict, he added.

“I think that if Rwanda manages to prevail on the M23 as anticipated by the deal, it may prove the long-suspected proxy relationship between them.”

For DRC, he said Kinshasa executing the terms of the agreement will not augur well for the FDLR, but suggested calls to neutralise them may be a tall order.

“If [Kinshasa] manage to do it, then they remove Rwanda’s justification for its activities in the DRC. But to do so may be a big ask given the capacity of the FARDC [DRC military], and failure to do so will feed into the narrative of a dysfunctional and incapable state. Therefore, I think the DRC has more at stake than Rwanda.”

On the other hand, Tshisekedi’s government could score political points, according to Jakob Kerstan, DRC country director for the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung Foundation (KAS), which promotes democracy and the rule of law.

“The sentiment … of the Congolese population, it’s very much like the conflict has been left behind: No one really cares in the world; the Congo is only being exploited, and so on. And the fact that there is now a global power caring about the DRC … I think this is a gain,” he said.

He feels there is also less pressure on Kinshasa’s government today than earlier this year when M23 was first making its rapid advance. “There are no protests any more. Of course, people are angry about the situation [in the east], but they kind of accept [it]. And they know that militarily they won’t be able to win it. The Kinshasa government, they know it as well.”

‘Peace for exploitation’?

Although Kinshasa appears to have readily offered the US access to the country’s critical minerals in exchange for security, many observers on the continent find such a deal concerning.

Congolese analyst Kambale Musavuli told Africa Now Radio that reports of the possible allocation of billions of dollars worth of minerals to the US, was the “Berlin Conference 2.0″, referring to the 19th-century meeting during which European powers divided up Africa. Musavuli also bemoaned the lack of accountability for human rights abuses.

Meanwhile, Congolese Nobel laureate Denis Mukwege called the agreement a “scandalous surrender of sovereignty” that validated foreign occupation, exploitation, and decades of impunity.

An unsettling undertone of the deal is “the spectre of resource exploitation, camouflaged as diplomatic triumph”, said political commentator Lindani Zungu, writing in an op-ed for Al Jazeera. “This emerging ‘peace for exploitation’ bargain is one that African nations, particularly the DRC, should never be forced to accept in a postcolonial world order.”

Meanwhile, for others, the US may be the ones who end up with a raw deal.

KAS’s Kerstan believes Trump’s people may have underestimated the complexities of doing business in the DRC – which has scared off many foreign companies in the past.

Even those who welcome this avenue towards peace acknowledge that the situation remains fragile.

Alexandria Maloney, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s US-based Africa Center, praised the Trump deal for combining diplomacy, development and strategic resource management. However, she warned against extraction without investment in infrastructure, skills and environmental safeguards. “Fragile governance structures in eastern DRC, particularly weak institutional capacity and fragmented local authority, could undercut enforcement or public trust,” Maloney told the think tank’s website.

Furthermore, China’s “entrenched footprint in the DRC’s mining sector may complicate implementation and heighten geopolitical tensions”, she added.

For analysts, the most optimistic assessments about the US’s role in this process appear to say: Thank goodness the Americans stepped in; while the least optimistic say: Are they in over their heads?

Overall, this Congo peace agreement seems to have few supporters outside multilateral diplomatic fora such as the UN and the African Union.

For many, the biggest caution is the exclusion of Congolese people and civil society organisations – which is where previous peace efforts have also failed.

“I have no hopes at all [in this deal],” said Vava Tampa, the founder of grassroots Congolese antiwar charity Save the Congo. “There isn’t much difference between this deal and the dozens of other deals that have been made in the past,” he told Al Jazeera’s Inside Story.

“This deal does two things really: It denies Congolese people – Congolese victims and survivors – justice; and simultaneously it also fuels impunity,” he said, calling instead for an international criminal tribunal for Congo and for perpetrators of violence in both Kigali and Kinshasa to be held accountable.

“Peace begins with justice,” Tampa said. “You cannot have peace or stability without justice.”

Years of fighting between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda may be at an end – thanks to a peace deal signed in the United States.

Rwanda has agreed to remove thousands of troops from eastern Congo that were supporting the Rwandan-backed armed group M23, as it took control of major cities and mining areas.

That was widely seen as a major escalation and stoked fears of a regional conflict.

So can this agreement succeed where many others have failed?

And is this deal really about US interests in Congolese minerals?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

• Gatete Nyiringabo Ruhumuliza – Political commentator and writer
• Zainab Usman – Senior fellow and director of the  Africa Program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• Vava Tampa – Founder and chief campaigner of Save the Congo

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed a peace deal in the United States to end years of fighting between the neighbouring countries.

Meeting at the State Department in Washington, DC, on Friday, foreign ministers from the two African countries signed the agreement that was mediated by the US and Qatar.

The deal would see Kinshasa and Kigali launching a regional economic integration framework within 90 days and forming a joint security coordination mechanism within 30 days. Under its terms, thousands of Rwandan soldiers are to withdraw from the DRC within three months.

It raises hopes for an end to fighting that has escalated with the advance of Rwanda-backed M23 rebels in the DRC’s mineral-rich provinces of North and South Kivu this year. The conflict has killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands more since January.

The escalation is just the latest in a decades-old cycle of tensions and violence, rooted in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

“This moment has been long in coming. It will not erase the pain, but it can begin to restore what conflict has robbed many women, men and children of safety, dignity and a sense of future,” said Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner.

“So now our work truly begins,” she added at the signing, saying the agreement would have to be followed by “disengagement, justice, and the return of displaced families, and the return of refugees, both to the DRC and Rwanda”.

“Those who have suffered the most are watching. They are expecting this agreement to be respected, and we cannot fail them,” she said.

M23 and FDLR

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe said that the agreement heralded a “turning point”.

While Rwanda denies accusations it is backing M23, Kigali has demanded an end to another armed group in the DRC – the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) – which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

During the signing, he insisted on “an irreversible and verifiable end” to the DRC’s “support” for the FDLR. The agreement calls for the “neutralisation” of the FDLR.

Reporting from Goma, the capital of the DRC’s North Kivu province, Al Jazeera’s Alain Uaykani said the deal was a “big step”, but there was “confusion” on the ground over the absence of any mention of when the M23 rebels would withdraw.

“Rwanda [is] always saying that they are not the ones who should ask M23 to leave, because this is a Congolese problem,” he said, adding that the rebels were appointing governors and controlling airports in the DRC’s provinces of North and South Kivu, whose capital cities they seized in January and February.

Kinshasa, the United Nations and Western powers say Rwanda is supporting M23 by sending troops and arms.

The deal does not explicitly address the gains of the M23 but calls for Rwanda to end “defensive measures” it has taken. Rwanda has sent at least a few thousand soldiers over the border in support of M23, according to UN experts, analysts and diplomats.

Critical minerals

The DRC-Rwanda deal will also help the US government and American companies gain access to critical minerals like tantalum, gold, cobalt, copper and lithium needed for much of the world’s technology at a time when the US and China are actively competing for influence in Africa.

Ahead of the signing on Friday, US President Donald Trump said, “We’re getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it. They’re so honoured to be here. They never thought they’d be coming.”

Welcoming the foreign ministers to the White House, he said: “The violence and destruction comes to an end, and the entire region begins a new chapter of hope and opportunity. This is a wonderful day.”

The DRC sits on vast untapped reserves of mineral wealth, estimated to be worth around $24 trillion. It has said it is losing around $1bn worth of minerals in illegal trading facilitated by the war.

The agreement was mediated through Massad Boulos, a Lebanese-American businessman and father-in-law of Trump’s daughter Tiffany, who was appointed by the president as a senior advisor on Africa.

“This is an important moment after 30 years of war,” said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hosted the two foreign ministers at the Department of State for the signing of the agreement.

“It’s about allowing people to live. It’s about allowing people to now have dreams and hopes for a better life, for prosperity, for economic opportunity, for a family reunification, for all the things that make life worth living.

“Those things become impossible when there’s war and when there’s conflict,” he added.

Analysts see the deal as a major turning point but do not believe it will quickly end the fighting that has killed millions of people since the 1990s.

After Doha helped mediate, Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi says country is committed to efforts to de-escalate conflicts.

Qatari diplomat Mohammed bin Abdulaziz al-Khulaifi has welcomed the peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), saying that it came after several rounds of talks, some of which were held in Doha.

The deal, signed in Washington, DC, on Friday with backing from the United States and Qatar, will see Rwandan soldiers withdraw from the DRC and the two countries set up mechanisms to enhance trade and security cooperation.

“We hope that the sides will adhere to the terms of the agreement to de-escalate and bolster the security and stability of the … region,” al-Khulaifi, who serves as minister of state at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told Al Jazeera.

Al-Khulaifi added that the meeting between Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame, hosted by Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha in March, was followed by a series of talks, paving the way for Friday’s deal.

“Qatar enjoys excellent relationships with both countries and has earned the trust of both countries as a mediator and international partner trying to resolve these issues,” he said.

“Doha was a platform for these meetings, and we contributed [to reaching the agreement] with the US.”

The Reuters news agency reported earlier this month that Qatar presented a draft peace proposal to Rwanda and the DRC after negotiations in Doha.

On Friday, the US Department of State said the US, Qatar, the African Union and Togo “will continue to engage both parties to ensure implementation of the obligations laid out in the agreement”.

The agreement has sparked hopes of ending the conflict in the DRC, where the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group has been advancing in the resource-rich east of the country.

The renewed violence had raised fears of igniting a full-blown conflict, akin to the wars that the DRC endured in the late 1990s, involving several African countries, which killed millions of people.

“Qatar fully believes in dialogue as the cornerstone for resolving conflict through peaceful means,” al-Khulaifi said.

“Qatar believes that mediation is a pillar of its foreign policy. That’s why, hopefully, you will find Qatar always racing to try to resolve issues between countries, even countries that are geographically far from Qatar.”

Qatar has played a key role in securing diplomatic deals in various conflicts across the world over the past years. Most recently, it helped mediate the ceasefire agreement that ended the 12-day war between Israel and Iran.

“What pleases me is that this agreement came days after another agreement which Qatar contributed to with the US – and that’s the ceasefire between Iran and Israel,” al-Khulaifi said. “Qatar will not spare any efforts to engage in more attempts to de-escalate and pursue peaceful means to end these conflicts.”