The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo has been fighting Rwandan-backed rebels who are occupying its mineral-rich east for more than 30 years. For most of that time, Kinshasa has built diplomatic pressure to force Kigali to stop funding militias on its territory.

In 1999, the Lusaka Agreement with Angola, Congo (DRC), Namibia, Uganda, Rwanda and Zimbabwe sought to end hostilities in eastern Congo.

The 2002 Pretoria Agreement set modalities on the withdrawal of the Rwandan troops from the DRC. Then the 2007 Nairobi communiqué and the 2008 Goma Peace Agreement formed a twin-track framework aiming to resolve both the regional friction and the internal domestic insurgencies. There was also the 2013 Addis Ababa framework and the Nairobi-Luanda tracks in 2022 and 2023.

In February 2025, the DRC pushed for the United Nations Security Council to take steps against the Rwandan-financed M23 rebels and Rwanda itself, culminating that year in Resolution 2773, the first Council document to name Rwanda as a party to the conflict. Congo lobbied for United States sanctions against individuals connected to the war.

A coalition of Congolese rights groups called on the UN Human Rights Council to create an independent commission to investigate alleged violations, abuses of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in North and South Kivu provinces in Congo’s east.

In 2025, the DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement brokered by Washington. And in June 2026, Kinshasa filed a case before the International Court of Justice accusing Kigali of genocide, torture and decades of abuses in eastern Congo.
The Washington Accord called for Rwanda to withdraw its troops from eastern Congo while opening the door to joint economic investments by the Trump administration.

Days after the peace accord was signed, M23 fighters captured Uvira, in South Kivu, clearly violating the agreement. Washington responded months later by sanctioning Rwanda’s entire military. But for ordinary Congolese, anything short of a full return to peace does not make up for killed relatives and repeated displacement.

PassBlue sat down with Thérèse Kayikwamba Wagner, Congo’s minister of foreign affairs on July 24, while she was in New York City during her country’s rotating presidency in the Security Council (snippets of the interview on video).

We talked with her about years of diplomacy by Congo to reclaim full control of its resources and territory as well as the frustrations of 116 million Congolese, many of whom have suffered as the conflict continues despite the attempts toward peace.

Wagner has served as Congo’s foreign minister since June 2024. Before entering government, she worked with the German development agency GIZ as well as the UN, Oxfam and Meta. She holds a master’s degree in public administration from Harvard Kennedy School and additional degrees from Fordham University, the Global Campus of Human Rights in Venice and Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany. She was born in Kinshasa, Congo’s capital, in 1983 to a Congolese mother and a German father.

The interview has been edited for clarity and condensed for brevity.

PassBlue: It’s been more than a year since the DRC signed the Washington Accord, yet fighting continues in your country. What has the agreement actually delivered on the ground?

Wagner: You are fully right in your assessment that there is still a big discrepancy between what is achieved diplomatically, what is achieved politically and how it materializes concretely on the ground. I do want to remind us that when the Washington Agreement was being signed in December, this was in the thick of an attack of Rwandan troops on the city of Uvira. One change that happened on the ground was that after the signing, there was such pressure on Rwanda that they had to withdraw from Uvira. Now, does it mean that we have reached all of the objectives that we have set for ourselves in this ambitious agreement? Certainly not. But it does mean that we have an agreement with brokers and facilitators who are willing and able to hold parties accountable for their shortcomings, and I think this is what sets it apart from other agreements.

Unfortunately, things are not happening at the pace we want, especially for us Congolese, because this is a war that is being fought on our ground. It is our people being killed, so we want things to materialize faster. But we are also comforted that we have seen clear, unmistakable political signs that show a determination to hold parties accountable. We have seen that the UN Sanctions Committee has extended its list of individuals and entities, showing clearly that individuals do not get away with perpetrating mass violations, including violations of international law.

We have seen that the Human Rights Council has deployed an independent commission of inquiry on the violations perpetrated in eastern DRC. We have also seen that the Rwandan Defense Forces, as an army, has been put under US Treasury sanctions. So, of course, these are things that have an impact, even on the mindset of people. But we are in a context where not all of that is always visible to the naked eye, and, unfortunately, not all of that translates into more lives being spared or saved.

PassBlue: I’d like to follow up more on what this means for people on the ground. What would you say to ordinary Congolese who are not following these diplomatic efforts you’ve described?

Wagner: The effect is still being expected and awaited by many. I want to be fully transparent: We are not satisfied at all with the situation on the ground, at all. Resolution 2773 is the first resolution that, in over 20 years of conflict with Rwanda openly and explicitly names Rwanda as a party to the conflict. So, if you imagine the blood, sweat and tears that we invested diplomatically to reach that outcome, and the frustration that we feel to see that very little of it has materialized, then this is nothing that we are proud of.

At the same time, and this is my role as minister of foreign affairs, I have to be cognizant of the environment in which all of this is happening. The Security Council is straddling so many emergencies around the world, so my task, as minister of foreign affairs as well as that of my entire team, be it here in New York or elsewhere, is to make sure that this stays top of mind for everyone. It’s to make sure that this translates into more pressure, and so we are continuing at that level until the change is felt and visible on the ground.

PassBlue: There have been a lot of conflicts the Security Council has grappled with and continues to do so, seemingly unable to resolve. What would you like to see from the Council in terms of implementing these mechanisms and resolutions?

Wagner: I think this is not just a concern for the DRC but for many countries. When I speak to them, it is that the Council has shifted over time to a place where the big battle is actually getting the resolution, right? That is being seen as an achievement, and we need to make sure that we shift that narrative that the big struggle, the big achievement in the Security Council cannot be that we acknowledge a situation that is catastrophic through a resolution. That cannot be satisfactory for anyone, be it in the DRC or elsewhere. So there needs to be an investment of thought and political will to render these instruments more impactful. Otherwise, we risk becoming irrelevant.

We have become so engrossed in our inner battles that getting to a consensus on a document, on something that could be perceived as political, yes, but also administrative and procedural has become the achievement. The Council’s mission is not to pass resolutions. Its job is to preserve international peace and security, and it needs to deliver on that. A Security Council resolution does not deliver peace and security. It is the first step, but that’s not peace and security. So we need to see how we equip and how we push for the Council to reclaim its authority, because you don’t get to sit there just because you have beautiful eyes.

A country like the DRC had to wait 30 years to be back at the Council. We have five countries that get to sit there all the time. It is a privileged position, but with privilege comes responsibility, and we need to put the emphasis back on that responsibility. Responsibility is not passing resolutions. It’s not agreeing on committees and how they are composed. It’s actually making sure that the political pressure is there for all of that to translate into change on the ground.

PassBlue: I want to ask about the International Court of Justice. The DRC has taken Rwanda to the court. Doesn’t pursuing legal action undercut the peace negotiations?

Wagner: It doesn’t. You know why? Because not just in the DRC, not just in Rwanda, which is next door, but everywhere on Earth, we know, no justice, no peace. You cannot get away with claiming that you will create peace, that you will stop warring, and then get away with the worst crimes being perpetrated. And when I say the worst crimes, I mean children being maimed, children being raped, children being forced to dig holes and find minerals, women being raped, having to see their families killed in front of them.

These are the worst crimes of humanity. You don’t get away with sitting at the table at the UN, being a member state that has signed the Charter, and violating another country’s territorial integrity and then you claim innocence, ignorance? None of that works.

We’ve been clear about this in all of our negotiations. The fact that the issue of justice is not explicitly mentioned in the peace agreements does not mean that we have forfeited the question of justice. We have just acknowledged that that was not the forum to raise it. Rwanda had its own justice process after the genocide, and I believe that, according to them, they came out stronger for it. Why should this be denied to Congolese?

PassBlue: Let’s talk about Congolese. This week, a group of Congolese-Americans protested outside the UN, accusing your government of targeting the minority Tutsi-Banyamulenge community in your country. They say your government targets them because they’re Tutsi, and that they’ve been killed and disenfranchised. What do you say?

Wagner: The Democratic Republic of the Congo, unlike some of our neighbors, is truly a pluriethnic country. We have over 600 ethnic groups, right? So in that context, everyone is a minority. But in that context, everyone is Congolese before being anything else. This is what gives us strength. Now, what is also normal about governance is that yes, sometimes you have groups that do not feel heard, that do not feel represented. We have made consistent efforts, especially when it comes to our communities in eastern DRC who are Rwandophone; that is, Hutu and Tutsi, both, not just one. We have made consistent efforts in integrating them, in ensuring representation in government, at a level at which other, comparatively small ethnic groups are not even represented, because we’re cognizant of the sensitivity of the issue.

Are there shortcomings? Are there challenges? Certainly. Do these shortcomings and challenges warrant taking up arms against your country? When our country is being bombed, when you have kamikaze drones falling from the sky, do they spare lives based on ethnicity? When part of your territory is occupied by a foreign army, who does it serve? Do you really think that Tutsi Congolese identify with that? I don’t think so. Because first and foremost, they are Congolese. They want to belong to the DRC, and we want them as part of our country.

The president [Félix Tshisekedi] has been explicit about that. We refute any attempt to claim that there is a systematic, state-driven exclusion or discrimination. And if it had been the case, trust and believe that a country as transparent and outspoken and available as the DRC, when it comes to human rights, would be talking with the human rights high commissioner on the matter. There would be a special envoy, or a special rapporteur, on the issue. It is not the case.

PassBlue: I’m Nigerian, so I’m familiar with minority groups and their grievances. But critics point out these communities aren’t armed. They have sticks and stones, not weapons, yet they’re being killed and suppressed.

Wagner: I think the strongest message is having a president who says they are Congolese, having a president who says, “I refute anyone claiming that a Banyamulenge or Munyamulenge is not Congolese.” Is it not the strongest statement to have a robust constitution that protects everyone? And indeed, they are not armed. The issue that we have is that they are taken hostage by Rwandans who are there and who claim to protect them.

Do you know how many times customary chiefs from Rwandophone, Hutu or Tutsi communities, have spoken up and said, “We’re not represented by the Rwandan army, we’re not represented by the M23”? What about those voices who feel trapped, who feel like we are pushed into pretending that we are not liked in our country, and at the same time pushed into the arms of these armed groups who, before doing anything else, are pillaging?

Because, yes, the UN Group of Experts has established that the M23 and the Rwandan army are pillaging natural resources, exploiting metric tons of coltan and occupying mines. Do you think they run after villages to protect them? No, they run after mines. That’s the first thing that they’re aiming for, and that’s what they’re protecting.