The deal signed on Friday demanded the “disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration” of armed groups fighting in eastern DR Congo – but offered few other details.
While some, including Kabila, have been critical, others have hailed the agreement as a turning point in a devastating conflict that has dragged on for decades.
Rwanda has denied allegations it backs an armed group, known as M23, which has been fighting in the eastern DR Congo.
The conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels seized control of large parts of eastern DR Congo, including the regional capital, Goma, the city of Bukavu and two airports.
Thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands of civilians forced from their homes following the recent rebel offensive.
After the loss of territory, DR Congo’s government turned to the US for help, reportedly offering access to critical minerals in exchange for security guarantees. Eastern DR Congo is rich in coltan and other resources vital to the global electronics industries.
In a post on X following the signing of the agreement on Friday, Kabila questioned the choice of the deal’s participants, saying the DR Congo was not at war with the states depicted in a photo of the signing, which included President Donald Trump and other US officials, as well as Rwanda’s foreign minister.
It is not entirely clear if his comments were an indirect criticism of the absence of M23 representatives in Washington.
“We must stop distorting the facts to disguise a propaganda agenda,” Kabila said, adding “Congolese people deserve the truth, not a diplomatic show”.
The absence of M23 representatives was also noted in the rebel-held city of Goma in eastern DR Congo.
“How can they say they signed for peace, yet they have not involved M23?” a resident questioned, adding the rebels ought to have been included in the talks for “collective peace” to be found.
Another resident, a commercial motorbike rider told the BBC, “people are tired, they are not interested in talks”, insisting “all they want is peace”.
He argued that previous peace talks and agreements were not endorsed or implemented by the conflicting parties, leaving little hope for a return to normality.
Similarly, Sam Zarifi, executive director at Physicians for Human Rights (PHR), an international NGO that has worked in the DRC for more than a decade, said the Washington-brokered agreement is replete with “major omissions”.
“There can be no durable peace without meaningful justice. But the agreement…sidelines human rights and fails survivors,” Mr Zarifi said.
He added: “The agreement overlooks how hostilities can continue through proxy armed groups that our research has shown are responsible for serious violations.”
Stephanie Marungu, head of a humanitarian organisation in Goma, was more positive.
“The signing of the deal…is a momentous and hopeful development for the eastern region,” she told the BBC, adding it could “lead to increased stability and it’s going to make it easier for us to deliver aid and access those in need”. However, she acknowledges there may be challenges in implementing the deal.
“If the agreement is what will bring peace, we have no problems,” another Goma resident said.
It remains to be seen what the situation on the ground will be going forward, with concerns that the Washington deal may simply enrich a few people with the country’s mineral resources to the detriment of ordinary people.
