Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How many countries were involved in the peace agreements brokered in 2025?
Executive Summary
Multiple contemporary sources produce different counts because they refer to different 2025 agreements and treaties. The Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda ceasefire and peace agreement involved two sovereign signatories (DRC and Rwanda) with the United States and Qatar acting as mediators, while a separate 2025 international treaty on high-seas biodiversity was signed by 60 countries; reporting that lumps these together generates confusion [1] [2]. Several press accounts list broader diplomatic activity attributed to the same period but do not change the factual signatory counts for those individual agreements [3].
1. Why the DRC–Rwanda deal reads as a two-country agreement — and what mediators did
The most direct, transaction-level fact is that the 2025 Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda peace agreement was signed by two countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Reports identify the United States and Qatar as mediators rather than signatory parties, which means they facilitated but did not become treaty parties or primary signatories to the agreement. Commentaries that evaluate the deal’s substance and implementation measure the agreement against peacebuilding benchmarks, but the basic signatory count remains two for that bilateral accord [1] [4]. This distinction between signatories and mediators is central to counting countries involved.
2. When ‘involvement’ expands beyond signatories — mediators, implementers, and endorsers
Counting involvement can expand if one includes mediators, guarantors, or endorsing states. The United States and Qatar are repeatedly referenced as external brokers in the DRC–Rwanda case; labeling them as “involved” is accurate in a diplomatic sense but would inflate a straight signatory tally. News pieces cataloguing diplomatic wins during the same timeframe mention numerous countries tied to different talks and ceasefires, producing an impression of many-state engagement; however, these references cover multiple, separate processes rather than a single multi-state treaty with dozens of signatories [3] [4]. Distinguishing signatories from participants prevents double-counting.
3. A separate 2025 multilateral treaty: the high-seas biodiversity pact with 60 signatories
A clearly separate 2025 international agreement—described as a treaty to protect marine biodiversity in the high seas—reached a multilateral threshold when Morocco became the 60th nation to sign, enabling the instrument to approach entry-into-force procedures. Coverage of that development explicitly states 60 countries had signed that environmental treaty by the cited dates. That pact is a legal multilateral instrument with a broad list of state signatories, entirely distinct from bilateral or region-specific peace accords and should not be conflated with “peace agreements” in the armed conflict sense [2] [5] [6].
4. Media summaries that aggregate many deals can blur the math
Analyses highlighting multiple diplomatic engagements during 2025 sometimes list countries where administrations claimed mediation credit, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Thailand, Cambodia, Israel, Iran, Rwanda, DRC, India and Pakistan. Such lists reflect a portfolio of diplomatic activity rather than a single numerically large peace agreement. Treating such compilations as evidence that one or more 2025 deals had dozens of state signatories misreads the reporting: the cited Newsweek-style summaries are inventorying multiple separate outcomes, not enumerating participants in a single instrument [3].
5. Sources that don’t answer the signatory question still shape perception
Several background pieces and advocacy reports from 2025 reference peacebuilding initiatives, summits, and movements without specifying signatory counts for discrete agreements; these materials inform the political context but do not alter the hard counts for the agreements that do list signatories. When a source fails to state the number, it is methodologically unsound to infer a different count from contextual language alone; the available concrete figures come from accounts that explicitly list signatories for the DRC–Rwanda bilateral pact and the high-seas biodiversity treaty respectively [7] [8] [9].
6. Bottom line: two distinct factual tallies depending on the instrument referenced
The factual, source-supported conclusion is straightforward: the DRC–Rwanda peace agreement [10] was signed by two countries with external mediators noted, while a separate 2025 multilateral high-seas treaty had 60 signatory countries by the reported dates. Reports that claim larger numbers for “peace agreements brokered in 2025” are aggregating disparate items or expanding the meaning of “involvement”; precise counting requires naming which instrument is under discussion [1] [2] [3].