Congo at a Crossroads: Which Devil Do We Choose?

For the past month, a major deal has been brewing between the United States and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The deal promises U.S. military support against Rwandan-backed rebels in exchange for access to Congo’s critical minerals; the same minerals driving the global tech revolution. To some, this sounds like salvation. For others, it raises old ghosts.

Because history tells us this: every time a global power claims to “help” Africa, the story rarely ends well for Africans.

And yet, for the first time in decades, the world is finally paying attention to Congo. For a country whose suffering has been ignored for far too long, that in itself is something to be grateful for. Maybe, just maybe, this deal could end a war that has taken too many lives and stolen too many futures.

At the Table in Washington

On August 21st, I attended a U.S.-DRC mineral deal session in Washington, D.C., hosted by the Von Batten Foundation.

The room was filled with Congolese professionals eager to rebuild their country. It was empowering to see. Yet, the language used by the non-Congolese speakers, Ambassador Eric Schultz, Greg Roberts (Vice President of Operations at VCO), and Andrew Hunter (CEO of Hunter and Company, representing AVZ Minerals), revealed something unsettling.

Again and again, they spoke of helping Congo develop through this deal.

That word, help, carried the weight of history. It hinted at imbalance. At saviorism. At the idea that Congo should be grateful rather than treated as an equal partner in a transaction clearly beneficial to both sides.

Because let’s be clear: this deal isn’t charity. It’s business. The U.S. needs Congo’s minerals as China tightens its grip on the global supply chain. The idea of China holding a monopoly on Congo’s futuristic resources terrifies Washington. This deal is about power, plain and simple.

The American Way

As a Congolese American, I see the cultural gap clearly. In America, nothing is free.

An American might invite you to lunch, but you’ll pay for your own meal. Donations? They come with tax write-offs. Volunteering abroad? It goes straight on the résumé to land the next big job.

Contrast that with many African societies, where giving, whether food, help, or hospitality, is a moral duty, no strings attached.

This difference matters. Because the sooner the Congolese government realizes America operates on a system of transactional relationships, the better prepared we’ll be to survive these partnerships in the long run.

The U.S. isn’t coming to save Congo. It’s coming to trade.

A New Power Dynamic

Trump’s direct interest in Congo changes everything.

For decades, during Democratic administrations, the U.S. quietly funded African development efforts while European countries, especially France and the EU, freely funneled military aid and resources to Rwanda, ignoring its role in Congo’s suffering.

Now, with Trump vocal about the crisis, European nations have been forced to pay attention after years of silence. Washington’s sudden spotlight on Congo disrupts the old dynamic where Europe set the tone while the U.S. looked the other way.

And for that, there is gratitude: after 30 years of being ignored, Congo is finally at the center of the global stage. What comes next could rewrite history.

Beyond Party Loyalty

What complicates things further is the role of American politics itself.

Democratic administrations, from Clinton to Obama, have supported Rwanda’s government despite its role in Congo’s tragedy. Now the Trump administration is suddenly front and center. That alone shows how quickly global priorities can shift.

But here’s the hard truth: we can’t afford to tie Congo’s future to the fortunes of any one U.S. political party.

Yes, Democrats often feel safer for many of us living in America, especially as immigrants or people of color. But when it comes to foreign policy in Africa, both parties have a history of acting in ways that put American interests above African lives.

Instead of showing blind loyalty to any one side, Congolese leaders must remain strategic, ready to work with whichever administration is in power, while keeping Congo’s long-term interests at the center. This means using the current attention to lay the groundwork for self-sustenance, so that in the future, Congo can rely on its own strength rather than shifting global interests.

Which Devil Do We Choose?

The reality is this: America has a long history of building and breaking nations. Working with the U.S. can bring opportunity, or organized chaos.

So, Congo faces a choice:

• Stick with China, the current master of our minerals?

• Turn to the U.S., knowing its history of both development and exploitation?

Either way, this deal cannot be approached with naivety. Congo must walk in with eyes wide open, ready to negotiate not just for today, but for the next generation.

Because in global politics, there are no saviors. Only interests. And the question remains: which devil should we go with?