In a statement published by the UK government, the International Contact Group for the Great Lakes set out a clear position on eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: recent diplomacy has created movement, but that movement now has to produce measurable change on the ground. The group said the conflict continues to damage regional stability and prosperity, while also pointing to two negotiation channels that are now generating specific commitments rather than general declarations. One channel concerns relations between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda through the Washington Accords. The other concerns the Congolese government’s talks with Alliance Fleuve Congo/March 23 Movement under the Doha Framework Agreement. The ICG presented these processes as connected parts of a wider peace effort, not as separate diplomatic exercises.
The statement also reaffirmed support for the broader mediation structure around the conflict, including efforts backed by Qatar, the United States, African Union-appointed mediator Faure Gnassingbé, the Panel of Facilitators and regional partners. That matters because it signals continued political support for the existing process rather than another institutional reset. For officials following the file, the practical message is continuity. The ICG is not proposing a fresh framework. It is attempting to consolidate the arrangements already in play and keep attention on compliance, sequencing and verification.
The group gave particular weight to the 13 to 19 April meeting in Montreux, Switzerland, where the Government of the DRC and AFC/M23 supported humanitarian operations, committed to release prisoners and backed implementation of the Ceasefire Oversight and Verification Mechanism. According to the statement, that mechanism is to be supported by the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region and MONUSCO. These are implementation points, not symbolic additions. Prisoner releases can serve as confidence-building measures, while a verification mechanism creates a formal route for documenting violations and testing whether political commitments are being followed in the field.
The ICG also highlighted the 23 April meeting in Washington DC, where the DRC and Rwanda convened the Joint Oversight Committee. It welcomed both governments’ stated commitment to uphold their obligations under the Washington Accords and recalled the importance of implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 2773. The statement then widened the frame. It said durable peace will also require an inclusive inter-Congolese dialogue involving key Congolese stakeholders, and it welcomed consultations undertaken by Angola. The point is straightforward: regional diplomacy may reduce interstate tension, but it does not remove the need for a political process inside the DRC itself.
The strongest language in the statement was reserved for civilian protection. The ICG repeated that there is no military solution to the conflict and said all parties must comply with international humanitarian law. It also warned that the escalating use of drones by various actors, including state actors, is contributing to rising civilian casualties. That warning has direct operational significance. The group called for better civil-military coordination, clearer liaison arrangements, notification procedures and pre-identification of humanitarian infrastructure. In policy terms, it is asking for stronger deconfliction systems so that hospitals, aid routes and humanitarian facilities are not drawn into military action.
The ICG’s benchmark for progress is simple: political announcements must quickly produce safer conditions on the ground. The ceasefire, it said, has to be respected by all parties, and humanitarian relief personnel must be allowed safe, rapid and unimpeded access. The statement tied that requirement to several specific measures, including the sustained opening of Goma and Kavumu airports, the establishment of safe humanitarian corridors in North and South Kivu, and simpler administrative procedures. Each of those measures has practical value. Airport access affects airlift capacity for medicines, food and staff movement. Humanitarian corridors determine whether assistance can reach displaced communities. Administrative simplification matters because delays in approvals and movement permissions can turn nominal access into ineffective access.
The statement added a public health warning to the security picture. It said the recent Ebola outbreak, declared by the World Health Organization as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 17 May and by Africa CDC as a Public Health Emergency of Continental Security on 18 May, has deepened an already fragile humanitarian situation in eastern DRC. The ICG urged parties to the conflict to enable the outbreak response, treating public health access as part of ceasefire implementation. It concluded by placing the current diplomacy within the wider Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework for the DRC and the region. The group said it will continue supporting regional partners in addressing the drivers of conflict and linked long-term stability to inclusive governance, accountability and the protection of rights. For policymakers, the next test is whether April’s diplomatic progress can be converted into monitored ceasefire compliance, functioning access routes and a broader political process that lasts beyond the current round of talks.