The Security Council has heard that agreements intended to calm the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo have not stopped fighting, as a record Ebola emergency deepens the strain on communities already living with conflict and displacement.
The briefing on 29 September did not declare either peace process over. It did, however, set out a sobering test of their value: clashes between Congolese forces and the M23 armed group have continued in the east despite the Washington Accords and the Doha peace framework. For civilians, the distinction between a diplomatic process and a reliable pause in violence remains crucial.
The Washington Accords were signed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in December 2025. A month earlier, Kinshasa and M23 had signed the Doha framework. Both were intended to create a route away from a conflict that has drawn in regional interests and repeatedly displaced people in North and South Kivu. The Council was told that their existence has produced mechanisms for engagement, but not yet the durable security needed on the ground.
There are limited signs of practical movement. The first joint verification missions, carried out in South Kivu in August and North Kivu in September, were presented as an important step for the ceasefire process. Verification matters because it can establish whether commitments are being observed and can provide a channel for addressing reported breaches. It is not, though, a substitute for a ceasefire that holds. The Council’s discussion made clear that monitoring is taking place against a background of continuing military activity.
The security picture described at the meeting was particularly grave in North Kivu, where fighting involving M23 and forces aligned with the Congolese Government was said to be continuing. In South Kivu, the increasing use of heavy weapons was reported to be displacing people and interrupting essential services and humanitarian aid. Those effects make the diplomatic impasse more than a dispute over implementation: when families are forced to move, access to food, healthcare and schooling can quickly become more fragile.
The meeting also reflected the sharp disagreement between Kinshasa and Kigali. The Congolese representative said a 20 September drone strike, which he attributed to the Rwanda Defence Force, killed five people at a Congolese position in Pinga. Rwanda set out its own security concerns, focused on the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda, or FDLR. These are competing official positions, not findings independently resolved by the Council. Their prominence nevertheless shows why the regional dimension remains central to any settlement.
Alongside the conflict discussion, the Council faced an escalating health emergency. The latest figures cited from the Congolese health authorities put the Ebola outbreak at 8,067 confirmed cases and 3,901 deaths as of 26 September, across seven provinces. That was a sharp rise from the 7,890 confirmed cases and 3,799 deaths recorded three days earlier. The disease is caused by the Bundibugyo virus, and health officials have described this as the largest Ebola disease outbreak ever recorded in the country.
The outbreak should not be treated as a separate backdrop to the security crisis. Health responders have warned that conflict, insecurity, displacement and limited access to basic services obstruct surveillance, case finding, contact tracing, infection prevention and prompt care. As people move away from violence or as aid delivery is interrupted, it can become harder to maintain the systems needed to identify and contain infection.
There are also important differences within the country. Ituri remains the outbreak’s epicentre, while North Kivu has recently experienced a substantial increase in incidence before a decline in the most recent reporting days. The national picture therefore cannot be read as a simple recovery or deterioration. It is a fast-changing emergency across a wide area, with the needs of each province shaped by local transmission and access constraints.
The immediate significance of the Council meeting is not that it produced a new settlement. It is that it exposed the gap between diplomatic commitments and conditions in eastern DRC. The next measure of the Washington and Doha processes will be whether verification, dialogue and civilian protection translate into a sustained reduction in fighting. Until then, the conflict and the Ebola response will continue to place pressure on the same communities and on the workers trying to reach them.
