The signing of the historic Washington Accords on Thursday marks a defining moment in the long and painful history of relations between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It signals the possibility of a new dawn, one in which, hopefully, the entire Great Lakes Region may finally begin to turn the page on decades of instability. Yet this moment, monumental as it is, should not be confused with an end in itself. The accords are not the finish line. They are a means to an end — a structured opportunity for the two countries to steer their shared future in a different direction. The document signed in Washington offers what President Kagame described as the clearest and most viable path toward a sustainable peace. But whether this path leads to the destination the region longs for will depend entirely on the commitment, sincerity, and political will of the parties involved. Cautious optimism is fitting. Even during the latter stages of the negotiations, Kinshasa showed little urgency or initiative to bring the conflict to an end. This is an uncomfortable truth, but one that cannot be ignored. Peace agreements have collapsed in this region before, not because the frameworks were inadequate but because the obligations assumed on paper were abandoned in practice. Words of commitment have often been overshadowed by actions that point in the opposite direction. It is this history that urges both caution and vigilance as the Washington Accords take effect. Rwanda’s position has remained consistent and unwavering. For years, the country has expressed its readiness to work with all partners toward peace and mutual prosperity. Rwanda has long stressed that peaceful coexistence is not only possible but necessary for the broader development of the region. Stability is the soil in which opportunity grows, and no nation can thrive when its neighbourhood is engulfed in conflict. The Washington Accords therefore present a structured platform through which Rwanda’s long-held principles — cooperation, dialogue, and shared progress — can finally be given the space to flourish. The responsibility now shifts from diplomacy to implementation. Trust will need to be rebuilt, step by step. Commitments will need to be honoured, not rhetorically but practically. Civilians in eastern DR Congo, who have carried the heaviest burden of this conflict, cannot afford yet another agreement that begins with celebration and ends with disillusionment. The world will be watching, but more importantly, the people of this region will be counting on the leaders who signed these accords to translate signatures into tangible change.
