Rwanda is being forced into an impossible choice: tolerate a direct security threat on its border or defend itself and face international condemnation for doing so.

That is the unfair reality at the centre of the crisis in eastern DR Congo. Much of the pressure surrounding implementation of the Washington Peace Accord has been directed at Rwanda, as though responsibility for peace rests on Kigali alone.

But no agreement can succeed when only one party is expected to comply while the obligations of the others are treated as optional.

Rwanda’s frustration is justified.

The peace process was never supposed to be one-sided. It was meant to address both regional tensions and the serious security threat posed by the FDLR, a genocidal militia with roots in the forces responsible for the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

Yet while Rwanda is repeatedly judged and pressured, the Congolese government is not being held to the same standard on the need to dismantle hostile armed groups operating on its territory. Nor has the United States, as a key sponsor of the accord, been equally firm in ensuring that all sides meet their commitments.

This double standard is dangerous. For years, Rwanda has warned that the FDLR is not a theoretical concern or a diplomatic excuse. It is a real and persistent threat. Ignoring that threat has not made it disappear.

On the contrary, it has only emboldened the militia, allowing it to reorganize, recruit, and remain active, with support of the Kinshasa government. There is growing concern, too, that its networks and mobilization efforts are extending beyond the region, including into European countries.

No responsible government can be expected to sit back while a force with genocidal ideology remains active near its borders. Yet this is effectively what Rwanda is being asked to do in the name of "restraint.” That is neither realistic nor fair.

If the Washington accord is to mean anything, then accountability must be shared. DR Congo must be held responsible for confronting and dismantling the FDLR. The United States must be judged not by its statements, but by whether it applies pressure evenly and honestly. And the international community must stop treating Rwanda’s security concerns as secondary or inconvenient.

Peace cannot be built on selective enforcement and political convenience. It requires honesty about the threats that exist and fairness in how responsibility is assigned.

Rwanda did not create this impossible choice. But it cannot be expected to ignore it.