Connect with us

NGO WORK

Profit off Peace? Meet the Corporations Poised to Benefit from the DRC Peace Deal

Published

on

The peace agreement signed in June 2025 between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) under the auspices of the Trump administration raises serious concerns about whom it truly serves. Rather than securing lasting peace for the Congolese people, the deal appears poised to benefit corporate and financial interests eager to access the country’s vast mineral wealth. Investigating these interests, this Policy Brief alerts that the US firms and oligarchs set to profit from the deal lack the interest, history, and know-how to make peace happen and last. Barring a radical shift, this deal may only perpetuate the deadly cycle of exploitation that has plagued the country for centuries.

On June 27, 2025, a peace agreement was signed between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) under the auspices of the Trump administration, after extensive diplomacy work and mediation by Qatar. On the surface, the deal offered hope to a country devastated by three decades of war, which have claimed over six million lives, displaced millions more, and inflicted widespread suffering.

The most recent escalation began in 2024, when the M23 rebel group and the Rwandan Defense Forces launched a violent offensive, exacerbating an already massive humanitarian crisis. The United Nations has gathered overwhelming evidence that Rwanda was actively supporting and directing M23’s offensive in eastern DRC. President Kagame has framed the intervention as a defense of the Tutsi population – targeted during the 1994 genocide – but it has been extensively documented that Rwanda’s illegal extraction of the DRC’s highly valuable minerals has been a major driver of the conflict. The DRC, rich with mineral reserves worth US$24 trillion, produces 70 percent of the world’s cobalt, and has large reserves of several critical minerals. Rwanda’s support of M23 has allowed it to take over much of eastern DRC, capture many mines, and perpetrate massacres and egregious human rights abuses. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of Rwanda’s coltan exports are illegally sourced from eastern DRC and that many of the armed groups involved in the area are financed by this illegal extraction.

Image
M23 militia in Goma, eastern DRC, 2012 © UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti
M23 militia in Goma, eastern DRC, 2012 © UN Photo/Sylvain Liechti

The peace deal came under criticism even before it was signed. The 2018 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Denis Mukwege warned that the deal “would amount to granting a reward [to Rwanda] for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace.” In June, a coalition of 80 Congolese non-governmental organizations and public interest attorneys, called for “the rejection of the hasty and ill-conceived peace and business agreement.” The appeal from the Mobilisation pour la Sauvegarde de la Souveraineté et de l’Autonomie Congolaise (MOSSAC) alerted on a number of critical shortcomings in the agreement, a draft of which had been leaked in previous weeks. Their concerns included impunity the deal provides to perpetrators of violence and abuses; and that it was forced upon the DRC and thus may not benefit the country and its people. It was also criticized for allowing Rwanda’s continued plundering of the DRC’s mineral resources while ultimately catering to the interests of US mining and corporate interests.

These concerns are legitimate given the deal is not just a peace agreement between two warring countries – it unusually also involves the expansion of mineral exploitation in partnership with the US government and American investors. President Trump even claimed at the signing of the deal: “We’re getting, for the United States, a lot of the mineral rights from the Congo as part of it.”

At the launch of the “Declaration of Principles” that preceded the peace deal in April 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “Our firms are good corporate citizens, American firms, and they’ll bring good governance and ensure responsible, reliable supply chains for things like critical minerals that benefit regional governments and our partners and allies as well.”

However, the terms of the peace agreement are vague on business arrangements with US interests. The text does not indicate which US firms would be involved and how they would deliver on the above promises. Details on specific business interests are expected to be disclosed in a forthcoming US-DRC critical minerals agreement.

Read full report: oaklandinstitute.org

Source: The Oakland Institute

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

No Heritage Without its People: Why Ngorongoro Cannot be a World Heritage Site and an Eviction Zone

Published

on

The Tanzanian government, under the guise of “conservation,” restricts Maasai livelihoods and denies access to essential services forcing Indigenous residents away from their ancestral lands and turning their heritage into a playground for safari tourists.

As the 48th Session of the World Heritage Committee begins July 19, UNESCO continues to legitimize the continued forced displacement of the Maasai from Ngorongoro. If UNESCO cannot ensure that the World Heritage designation protects the rights of its Indigenous custodians, then the Committee must remove the Ngorongoro Conservation Area from the World Heritage List.

Increased international pressure is imperative to hold UNESCO accountable and protect the lives and rights of the Maasai!

Read our Open Letter to the World Heritage Committee.

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Rush: Global Scramble for Minerals Wages War on People and Planet

Published

on

As governments and corporations scramble to secure critical minerals, a new Oakland Institute report exposes the forces fueling today’s unprecedented mining boom. RUSH: Global Scramble for Minerals Wages War on People and Planet dismantles the dominant narrative that massive amounts of minerals are needed for the energy transition, revealing instead a potent convergence of political, military, and corporate interests racing to control the resources that underpin modern warfare and artificial intelligence.

“Securing access to critical minerals is reshaping international relations and foreign aid as competition between the US and China becomes a new geopolitical battleground,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute. “The costs are being borne by communities around the world as this global race drives wars and violence, results in land grabs, forced displacement, devastating pollution, and the irreversible destruction of lands and livelihoods,” Mittal continued.

With the Pentagon shifting towards an “AI-first” warfighting stance, the US military-industrial complex is rapidly integrating tech and AI firms with a mutual interest in locking down critical mineral supplies. The report exposes key players positioned to profit from a resource boom already drawing trillions in investment. These include ventures tied to the Trump family, billionaire-backed outfits such as KoBold Metals, an AI-driven mining firm supported by Bill Gates, and defense-tech companies like Palantir and Anduril, among others.

To justify a massive scale up of mineral extraction, governments, corporations, and international financial institutions like the World Bank, frame critical minerals as indispensable to the green transition and as a pathway to prosperity for the Global South. However, RUSH documents that more than 70 percent of critical mineral demand today comes from industries unrelated to the energy transition, including the automotive, aerospace, military, communications, and technology sectors. Rapid growth in artificial intelligence, data centers, surveillance technologies, and military spending is expected to increase this demand massively.

“Renewable energy deployment, such as wind and solar, requires only a fraction of the minerals that corporations plan to extract in the coming decades,” said Andy Currier, Oakland Institute Policy Analyst and report co-author. “But growing military demand and stockpiling of materials like copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt will undermine the energy transition, diverting critical resources away from urgently needed climate solutions,” Currier continued.

RUSH warns that the acceleration of resource extraction poses a catastrophic threat to both ecosystems and human survival. In response, Indigenous groups and frontline communities are leading a vital, global resistance to defend their territories. It is, however, undermined by a dangerous myth that expanding extraction is necessary to fix the climate crisis.

“The report issues a resounding call to challenge this false narrative to stop the untenable rush for minerals before it becomes an irreversible global catastrophe,” warned Oakland Institute Policy Director and report co-author, Frederic Mousseau. “The stakes could not be higher. If left unchecked, the global mining rush will trigger hundreds of new mines in a short period. The resulting human and planetary devastation will be at a scale never seen before – livelihoods will be destroyed, millions will be displaced, and environmental destruction will become irreversible,” concluded Mousseau.

Read the report

Source: oaklandinstitute.org

Continue Reading

NGO WORK

Acholi land dispute threatens Shs3bn govt-backed Cassava Factory in Pader

Published

on

Affected residents demonstrate at acholibur town council offices over a disputed 179-acre piece of land earmarked for a government and gulu archdiocese-backed cassava processing factory in pader district.

Pader, Uganda: A protracted land dispute in Acholibur Sub-county, Pader District, is threatening to stall a Shs3 billion cassava processing factory project jointly backed by the Government of Uganda and the Gulu Archdiocese, raising fears over the future of one of northern Uganda’s most significant agro-industrial investments.

The proposed cassava factory, which is being spearheaded by the Gulu Archdiocese with support from the Uganda Development Corporation (UDC), is expected to boost value addition, create employment opportunities and improve household incomes for thousands of cassava farmers across the Acholi sub-region.

At the centre of the dispute is a 179-acre piece of land claimed by two families, the estate of the late Ignatius Lakere Latigo and that of the late Odwong Joseph Lagoro, both of which maintain ownership rights over the property earmarked for the project.

The dispute escalated following a court-directed boundary opening exercise conducted by a joint security team led by Pader Resident District Commissioner Amos Banyizi. Several affected families have since protested the exercise, claiming it was carried out without their knowledge or participation.

Families question boundary exercise

Mr. Latigo Morris, administrator of the estate of the late Ignatius Lakere Latigo, said his family was never notified about the recent boundary demarcation despite earlier agreements that required all stakeholders to be involved.

He recalled that a stakeholders’ meeting held last year, attended by Archbishop Emeritus John Baptist Odama of the Gulu Archdiocese and other parties, had resolved that any future activities on the disputed land would involve all affected families.

According to Morris, his family was shocked to find the RDC accompanied by armed security personnel carrying out activities on land they claim belongs to them.

“We expected dialogue and participation of all stakeholders before any action was taken,” Morris said.

Local leaders have also questioned how the exercise was conducted.

The LCIII Chairperson of Acholibur Town Council, Okumu Robert, said his office was neither informed nor requested to mobilise residents before the boundary opening exercise.

Mr. Ocen Paul, one of the affected stakeholders, appealed to government to intervene, warning that nearly 150 families could lose land if the matter is not handled transparently.

He further alleged that influential individuals could be influencing the ongoing demarcation despite what he described as valid documentation showing that the affected families still hold an active 49-year lease over the land.

Source: dailyexpress.co.ug

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates