The roadmap followed several days of discussions between the parties and provides a framework for advancing negotiations under the Doha peace process. However, fighting has not completely ended, and the persistence of violence demonstrates that a negotiated roadmap is only the beginning—not the end—of the peace process.

The immediate challenge is therefore to transform the ceasefire into sustainable peace. This will require more than agreements on paper; it will require trust, political inclusion and a willingness by all parties to address the underlying causes of the conflict.

The roadmap should not be viewed simply as something imposed on unwilling parties. Available evidence indicates that representatives of Kinshasa and AFC/M23 participated in discussions that produced the agreed framework. The more important question is whether the parties have developed sufficient confidence in one another to implement it. Previous peace initiatives in eastern DRC have repeatedly demonstrated the difficulty of translating political commitments into realities on the ground. The current ceasefire-monitoring arrangements are therefore particularly important for establishing facts, addressing alleged violations and preventing individual incidents from triggering renewed military confrontation.

A major concern, however, is the exclusion of rebel groups, including AFC/M23, from President Félix Tshisekedi's proposed national political dialogue. While the government has legitimate reasons to oppose the legitimization of armed violence, excluding actors who remain central to the conflict risks creating a contradiction within the broader peace effort. How can a comprehensive political settlement be achieved if important actors in the conflict are excluded from discussions about the political future of the country?

Political inclusion should not be confused with impunity or unconditional recognition of armed groups. Participation in a political process can be accompanied by clear obligations to respect the ceasefire, international humanitarian law and the authority of legitimate state institutions. At the same time, political grievances cannot simply be dismissed because they have become associated with armed movements.

At the heart of the eastern DRC crisis is the unresolved question of citizenship, belonging, security and political inclusion. International human-rights law recognizes the fundamental importance of nationality, including the principle that everyone has the right to a nationality. This does not give any armed group an automatic right to political power or territorial control. It does, however, underline the importance of resolving questions of citizenship and belonging through law and inclusive political institutions rather than through violence.

This distinction is particularly important in eastern DRC. Congolese citizens associated with AFC/M23 should not be permanently regarded as outsiders simply because they are affiliated with an armed-political movement. Their involvement in armed conflict must be distinguished from their citizenship and from legitimate questions concerning security, dignity, political participation and equal treatment under Congolese law.

If communities perceive that peaceful political channels cannot address their grievances, armed struggle can increasingly appear to them as the only avenue through which their demands can be heard. This does not justify violence, but it illustrates why political exclusion can become a driver of continued conflict. The objective of the peace process should therefore be to make political engagement more credible and attractive than continued warfare.

Qatar and other mediators deserve recognition for keeping the parties engaged in dialogue. Yet they face an uphill task: building sufficient confidence among actors who have accumulated years of mistrust and whose political and security interests remain deeply divergent. Mediation must therefore focus not only on negotiating agreements but also on building confidence through independent ceasefire monitoring, humanitarian access, reciprocal confidence-building measures, protection of civilians and credible mechanisms for addressing violations.

For President Tshisekedi and the government in Kinshasa, the central strategic choice is whether to approach AFC/M23 exclusively as a security problem or to combine security measures with a political strategy addressing the grievances that sustain the conflict. A sustainable settlement requires separating citizenship and political inclusion from armed conduct. Congolese citizens can be held accountable for unlawful acts while their legitimate citizenship and political grievances are addressed through lawful political processes.

Similarly, AFC/M23 must recognize that military strength and territorial control cannot provide a sustainable political future. A durable settlement ultimately requires the transformation of armed power into legitimate political participation within a functioning Congolese state.

The current moment should therefore be approached with cautious optimism rather than premature celebration. The ceasefire provides an opportunity; the roadmap provides a process; but neither guarantees peace.

The decisive test will be whether Kinshasa, AFC/M23 and the mediators can build the trust necessary to move from managing conflict to resolving it. Eastern DRC does not need another temporary pause before the next cycle of violence. It needs a political settlement that reconciles security, citizenship, accountability, political inclusion and state authority.

The guns may fall silent through a ceasefire, but only trust and inclusive political engagement can make the silence permanent.

[email protected]