The sanctions, which follow Washington’s earlier measures against the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and several senior officers, reflect growing American frustration with the continuing conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Yet, while the objective of ending hostilities is unquestionably legitimate, the diplomatic approach raises concerns about neutrality, consistency and the prospects for achieving a sustainable peace.

The conflict in eastern DRC is neither a simple bilateral dispute nor a crisis that can be resolved by isolating one regional actor. It is a complex security challenge involving armed groups, weak state institutions, unresolved historical grievances, competing national interests and the persistent failure to implement negotiated commitments.

The question is not whether sanctions can exert pressure, but whether they are being applied within a diplomatic framework capable of addressing the conflict’s underlying causes.

The danger of selective accountability

Washington’s sanctions portray Rwanda as a principal obstacle to peace, while the DRC is largely presented as a cooperating party to the diplomatic process. This raises legitimate questions about the consistency of American engagement.

The Washington Accords and the Doha peace process contain obligations for multiple parties. Rwanda is expected to address its military posture in eastern DRC, while the Congolese government is expected to take meaningful measures to neutralise the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR), an armed group whose origins are associated with perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

The continued presence of the FDLR and associated hostile elements in eastern DRC remains a longstanding security concern for Rwanda. Kinshasa’s failure to provide credible and verifiable assurances regarding this threat undermines the confidence necessary for regional security cooperation.

If sanctions are imposed on Rwanda for alleged non-compliance while the DRC’s obligations concerning the FDLR receive comparatively limited enforcement, Washington risks creating an impression of selective accountability.

Peace agreements cannot be implemented through obligations imposed on one party and expectations extended to another. It takes two to tango; equally, it takes all parties to honour their commitments for peace to become sustainable.

Rwanda’s security concerns cannot be dismissed

Every responsible state has a fundamental obligation to protect its territorial integrity and safeguard its citizens against existing and potential threats.

For Rwanda, the security implications of armed groups operating across its borders are inseparable from the country’s historical experience and national security considerations.

This does not mean that every security measure undertaken by a state is automatically justified, nor does it exempt any country from international law. Rather, it means that Rwanda’s security concerns must be examined within their proper context, alongside the obligations of other parties.

A diplomatic framework that demands military disengagement without establishing credible security guarantees risks addressing the visible manifestations of the conflict while leaving its underlying causes unresolved.

The critical question for Washington and other international partners should therefore be: what verifiable arrangements will ensure that Rwanda’s legitimate security concerns are addressed while protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC?

Sanctions are not a substitute for diplomacy

The United States has considerable diplomatic and economic influence in the Great Lakes region. However, influence is not synonymous with effectiveness.

Sanctions can communicate disapproval and impose costs, but their contribution to peace depends on whether they form part of a coherent strategy that encourages compliance by all parties.

When pressure is perceived as one-sided, it can deepen mistrust, reinforce competing narratives and reduce incentives for cooperation. It may also inadvertently strengthen domestic constituencies that view diplomatic compromise as capitulation.

Washington should therefore reconsider whether its current approach is creating the conditions for compliance or merely consolidating the perception that Rwanda has been designated as the principal spoiler of peace.

A more constructive approach would involve establishing transparent benchmarks for all parties, including measurable progress in neutralising the FDLR, verifiable military disengagement, cessation of support to armed groups, and credible monitoring of ceasefire commitments.

From diplomatic pressure to regional security guarantees

The international community should move beyond the assumption that sanctions alone can resolve a conflict whose causes extend well beyond the conduct of one state.

Washington should use its diplomatic and logistical influence to support a credible regional security framework that addresses the concerns of Rwanda and the DRC while strengthening the capacity of Congolese institutions to exercise legitimate authority throughout their territory.

The African Union, the United Nations and regional institutions should be empowered to monitor implementation of the Washington Accords and Doha agreements through impartial, transparent and verifiable mechanisms.

Accountability must also extend to violations by all parties, including armed groups and those who provide them with military, financial or logistical support.

The international community must resist the temptation to treat diplomatic alignment as evidence of compliance or political disagreement as evidence of wrongdoing.

The choice before Washington

The stability of eastern DRC is not simply a bilateral concern between Rwanda and the DRC. It has implications for regional integration, international security, humanitarian protection and the credibility of multilateral diplomacy.

The United States has an opportunity to demonstrate that its commitment to peace is grounded not in the political isolation of one actor but in the consistent application of obligations to all parties.

The ultimate test of American diplomacy will not be the number of sanctions imposed, but whether its engagement contributes to a security environment in which armed groups are neutralised, national borders respected, civilians protected and negotiated commitments honoured.

Peace cannot be built on selective accountability, nor can regional security be sustained by leaving legitimate security concerns unresolved.

Washington must therefore move from a sanctions-centred approach towards a comprehensive, impartial and enforceable diplomatic framework.

Only then can diplomacy become more than an instrument of pressure and begin to deliver the peace and security that the people of eastern DRC and the wider Great Lakes region urgently deserve.