“… M23 said that it will not withdraw from occupied areas and set conditions for future peace talks with the DRC government. M23 officials held a press conference in Goma to debrief the Qatari-brokered declaration agreement on July 25.
[ix] M23 claimed that the ceasefire provision in the agreement mandates that each side withdraws at least three miles from their positions on the frontline.
[x] M23 accused the DRC government of “misleading communication” following the signing ceremony and said that it would regularly provide the media with alleged violations of the ceasefire by the DRC government.
[xi]
M23 said that it has no plans to withdraw from occupied areas at the end of the talks.
[xii]M23 conditioned the next stage of talks on the release and transfer of all M23 prisoners held by the DRC government to Goma.
[xiii] M23 claimed that the DRC government had demanded that M23 withdraw from Lubero district in North Kivu in exchange for the release of M23 prisoners before the two sides signed the declaration agreement.
[xiv]
M23 said that it aims to extend its administration to areas outside of the Kivu provinces. M23 claimed that the “restoration of state authority” provision in the declaration agreement means that M23 will extend its “security model” in occupied areas to the “entire national territory,” including to Kinshasa, the Congolese capital—over 1,000 miles away from the eastern DRC.
[xv]M23 said that the “root causes” of the security crisis can only be addressed with a “new leadership [in the DRC government] made up of different political actors. ”
[xvi]M23 claimed that federalism was a major part of the Qatari-mediated discussions and that it would continue to push federalism as the “best form of state that can make this country take off.”
[xvii] M23 said that it will seek to integrate Congolese army soldiers into M23’s ranks in areas that it occupies as part of a peace agreement.
[xviii] M23 also denounced the DRC government’s aggressive measures against former DRC President Joseph Kabila.
[xix]…”
BUT
How Trump wants the US to cash in on mineral-rich DR Congo's peace deal
The US president is spearheading an ambitious but controversial deal to end a long-running conflict.
www.bbc.com
“… [The Trump Admin’s] mediation efforts come as no surprise, as DR Congo - a nation in the heart of Africa - is endowed with the mineral wealth that the US requires to power the IT, and now AI, revolutions, much of which is currently going to China.
… US-based World Peace Foundation executive director Prof Alex de Waal told the BBC that the Trump administration was promoting "a new model of peace-making, combining a populist performance with commercial deal-making".
"Trump has done this in Ukraine also. He wants to get the glory to boost his own political standing, and to secure minerals that are in America's interests," Prof De Waal said.
However, he noted that "in DR Congo, China has already snapped up many of the minerals so the US is playing catch-up".
He said that up to now US companies had been cautious about investing in DR Congo because of safety concerns and the "moral hazard" of dealing in so-called "blood minerals" - minerals financing rebellions - but this could change as the Trump administration implemented its peace model.
… He added that the Trump administration's peace model could not be dismissed out of hand, especially if it stops fighting that has killed thousands of people and displaced millions of others in conflicts that have raged for more than 30 years in eastern DR Congo.
But Prof Hanri Mostert, an academic on mineral law at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, told the BBC that DR Congo "risked compromising sovereignty over its minerals".
DR Congo could find itself locked into deals for years, in exchange for vague guarantees of security, she said.
This was reminiscent of the "resource-bartering" deals pursued by China and Russia in numerous African states, Prof Mostert added.…”
