Let me be clear from the start: I’m optimistic about the Washington Accord. Not because it’s perfect, but because it’s the first U.S. approach to Central Africa in decades that treats the region like adults who respond to opportunity, not charity.
For too long, American policy in the Great Lakes oscillated between well-meaning aid packages and disappointed hand-wringing when conflicts reignited. We acted like peacekeepers could substitute for paychecks, like humanitarian relief could replace functioning markets. It couldn’t. And while we were busy being disappointed, China and Russia stepped in with a simpler pitch: we’ll buy your minerals and ask fewer questions.
The Washington Accord flips that script. It says peace isn’t just about stopping violence. It’s about making cooperation more profitable than conflict. And six months in, that bet is starting to pay off.
What’s Actually Different This Time
I know what you’re thinking. We’ve seen “historic” peace deals before. So what makes this one different?
Three things.
First, it’s built on commerce, not compliance. Past agreements focused on troop withdrawals and monitoring mechanisms. This one opens trade routes, coordinates investment, and creates supply chains that give both Congo and Rwanda reasons to keep talking. When a Rwandan processor depends on Congolese coltan, and a Congolese exporter needs Rwandan logistics, you’ve got natural stakeholders in stability.
Second, it acknowledges what everyone knew but wouldn’t say out loud: minerals matter. Eastern Congo sits on resources the world needs for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and technology manufacturing. The accord embraces the economic stakes while insisting they be managed transparently. That honesty makes the whole framework more durable.
Third, it has the right architect. Massad Boulos, the U.S. President’s Senior Adviser for Arab and African Affairs, didn’t parachute in with theories from a think tank. He spent decades doing business across West and Central Africa. He understands that in Francophone markets, relationships precede transactions. That in regions scarred by broken promises, credibility matters more than grand statements. His approach during the negotiations was relentlessly practical: make peace tangible, make it local, make it profitable.
That combination is why the talks succeeded where others stalled.
The Skeptics Aren’t Entirely Wrong
Look, I’m not blind to the criticism. Some say this is just resource extraction with better PR. Others worry we’re prioritizing supply chains over human rights.
Those concerns deserve answers, not dismissal.
But here’s what the skeptics miss: the alternative isn’t some pristine, values-only policy. The alternative is what we had: marginal influence, continued violence, and resources flowing through opaque channels that fund the very militias we claim to oppose. The accord doesn’t solve every problem, but it creates leverage we didn’t have before. Traceability systems mean we can track minerals from mine to market. Border reopenings mean informal smuggling routes lose their economic logic.
Is it messy? Yes. Is it imperfect? Absolutely. But it’s engagement, and engagement creates options that sternly-worded statements never will.
What Success Actually Looks Like
Six months in, the early signs are encouraging. Customs posts that were shuttered for years are processing trucks again. Rwandan manufacturers are sourcing materials through official channels instead of gray markets. Joint ventures between Congolese and Rwandan entrepreneurs are forming in transport and processing.
These aren’t dramatic shifts. Nobody’s declaring mission accomplished. But in a region where suspicion has been the default for decades, modest progress is significant. Commerce builds trust slowly, one transaction at a time.
The real test will come in the next year. Can the monitoring mechanisms hold both sides accountable? Will investment actually reach communities, or just capitals? Can the U.S. sustain attention as other crises compete for headlines?
Those are open questions. But the framework is solid, and the incentives are aligned.
Why This Matters Beyond Congo
If the Washington Accord holds (and I think it will), it offers a blueprint for fragile regions from the Sahel to Sudan. It proves that prosperity-first diplomacy isn’t naive idealism. It’s a hard-headed strategy.
You can’t negotiate your way to stability in places where people have no economic stake in peace. Markets aren’t a substitute for values, but they’re often better at enforcing them than lectures are.
Boulos understood that from the beginning. His background gave him a lens most policymakers lack: he knew that in much of Africa, economic dignity precedes political reform. Give people the tools to build something, and they’ll defend it.
That insight shaped the accord. It’s why trade routes matter as much as troop withdrawals. It’s why the agreement includes financing mechanisms, not just security guarantees. It’s why this approach feels different.
The Path Forward
The Washington Accord won’t transform the Great Lakes overnight. Peace in regions this scarred never moves in straight lines. There will be setbacks, violations, and moments when the whole framework feels fragile.
But the foundation is stronger than anything we’ve built before. The incentives are right. The architecture is sound. And the people driving it understand the region they’re working in.
I’m optimistic because this approach respects what matters: local agency, economic logic, and long-term alignment over short-term fixes. Boulos and the administration got the strategy right. Now comes the harder part: proving that prosperity-first diplomacy can deliver what years of well-intentioned aid couldn’t.
If you’ve been waiting for a U.S. Africa policy that treats the continent as a partner rather than a project, this is it. Let’s see it through.
