The Democratic Republic of Congo has been hit by latent conflicts that have led to outbursts of violence over the years. This political and practical letter proposes that, in order to effectively address the issue of lasting peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is important to take into account the recommendations below. CDAA meeting on the implementation of the December 31 agreement of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Photo: MONUSCO/Michael Ali). In a statement, the European Union welcomed the Luanda agreement as a mechanism to support peace efforts. However, the EU also acknowledged that continued fighting between the Congolese people is one of the reasons Uganda continues to protect the population through its presence. [8] Many conflicts in Africa today are demands for re-offending of previous conflicts. These conflicts therefore reflect, to some extent, the distribution of previously negotiated peace agreements. An overview of the experience gained in three of these cases – Lesotho, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo – provides lessons that can help inform future agreements. The continuation of the violent crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo risks reversing progress in the peace process and the implementation of peace-building efforts. The current interest of regional and international actors in the crisis offers the opportunity to create a framework to solve the underlying structural problems that have long run through the Democratic Republic of Congo. The reality is that the resolution of historical issues will be long and that the peace process in the Democratic Republic of Congo cannot be linked to a timetable. Actors and stakeholders interested in peace-building in the Democratic Republic of Congo must focus on transformation strategies to ensure infrastructure development for a stronger and more peaceful Democratic Republic of Congo. These include combined efforts and long-term peace-building strategies that fit into the context of several interest groups whose interests are rooted in reconciliation and the well-being of the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Luanda Agreement is a bilateral agreement that directly changes the terms of the Lusaka agreement. Both agreements, however, require the explicit agreement of the Democratic Republic of Congo to allow Ugandan troops on their land. [6] This has led to several disputes within the ICC between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 1999, the Democratic Republic of Congo filed three complaints, claiming that Uganda was violating international laws:[7] (1) on the non-use of force, peaceful settlement of disputes, respect for sovereignty and non-interference (2) rules of occupation, respect for sovereignty over natural resources, the right to self-determination of peoples and the principles of non-interference in internal affairs, and (3) violation of international legal obligations regarding respect for human rights, including the obligation to distinguish between civil and military objectives during armed conflicts.” The Lusaka ceasefire agreement was a peace treaty to end the Second War. All military operations should cease and steps should be taken to demonstrate respect for human rights and reconcile relations between Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe in 1999. The International Court of Justice considered this agreement to be a modus operandi rather than a legally binding agreement. The ICJ`s treatment of the agreement should have wider consequences, as “the ICJ`s authority in the interpretation of international law should influence the perception of parties to armed conflicts with regard to the law and the effects of peace agreements… it threatens to undermine the crucial role of peace agreements in the settlement of armed conflicts. [5] The interpretation of the Lusaka agreement thus set a precedent that undermined the legal authority of the Luanda agreement.