By Albert Rudatsimburwa
The recent piece by Reuters titled, “US wants Rwanda troops out of Congo before peace deal signed,” is not an isolated incident; it is merely the latest installment in a pervasive and troubling series of Western media narratives that systematically pound on Rwanda.
Time and again, the drumbeat of accusation targets Kigali, portraying it as the relentless aggressor and “troublemaker” in the Great Lakes region, while conveniently sidestepping critical context and the glaring failures of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) under President Felix Tshisekedi.
A genuine peace deal necessitates addressing all core issues for all parties involved. Anyone with a modicum of understanding recognises that if root causes persist, they will inevitably undermine any superficial “declaration of principles.” This is particularly true when one party, as is demonstrably the case with the DR Congo under President Tshisekedi, appears to be actively sabotaging the process behind the curtains.
Recent revelations of the DR Congo’s manipulative dealings within ECCAS, overtly targeting Rwanda, are not mere speculation; they are out in the open for all to see. Yet, these inconvenient truths rarely make it into the headlines.
Crucially, it must be acknowledged that negotiations between the Congo and Rwanda, and directly between Kinshasa and the M23, are, in theory, now in place. This represents a significant shift, as President Tshisekedi systematically refused direct engagement for a long time, seemingly believing he was too big to fall.
This direct engagement was precisely what had been missing since the onset of the crisis. Yet, despite this crucial step, we are still far from seeing any tangible progress. This stasis should trigger an immediate alarm for those who claim to support peace, but instead, it is often Rwanda that remains a target for Western media.
What is consistently ignored, or worse, deliberately downplayed by these very outlets, is the existential threat that genocidal forces, notably the FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda), continue to represent for Rwanda.
The recurring refrain from “analysts” that the FDLR no longer poses a significant threat to Rwanda stands in stark contrast to the consistent and grave concerns raised by the Rwandan government – a government that has demonstrably ensured the security of 14 million people, 24/7, 365 days a year. To dismiss Rwanda’s security concerns as mere rhetoric from an “analyst” at a desk, devoid of real-world responsibility, is not just irresponsible; it is a profound dereliction of journalistic duty.
Then there’s the tired invocation of “territorial integrity.” While a crucial principle, it often serves as a slogan rather than a shared understanding of practical reality. If a nation’s security is genuinely imperiled, does it passively await an attack, risking incapacitation, before responding? This is not a theoretical question for Rwanda; it is a lived reality shaped by cross-border incursions and the activities of hostile groups based in the DR Congo.
Furthermore, the casual claims from “analysts and diplomats” citing figures like “between 7,000 and 12,000 Rwandan soldiers” in the DR Congo strain credulity. Did these sources also provide names and addresses? Such vague, unsubstantiated numbers from individuals whose impartiality, particularly when situated in the DR Congo, is highly questionable, are worth precisely what they’re based on: speculation. The true issue is not the exact number of troops, but the undeniable fact that Kinshasa has fostered a critical security problem on Rwanda’s doorstep, a problem that demands fundamental resolution – a fact that often gets lost in the accusations.
The insistence that M23 fighters are simply Rwandan troops reveals a profound historical amnesia or a deliberate disregard for the complex dynamics of the Great Lakes region. Those in Western circles commenting on these issues are either newcomers to a problem spanning three decades or conveniently suffering from memory loss.
For the past 30 years, Congolese Banyarwanda communities have been a significant force in every major armed movement within the vast country: from AFDL with Laurent-Désiré Kabila against Mobutu, to the CNDP with Laurent Nkunda, and as a primary component of the DR Congo national army (FARDC), and indeed as M23 in 2012.
No other demographic in the region possesses such extensive and varied combat experience. To deliberately ignore this history and perpetuate the simplistic narrative of “Rwanda” discredits those who recycle this tired trope, regardless of their self-proclaimed titles as “analysts and diplomats.”
What consistently gets overlooked, and is arguably the most crucial omission in the current discourse, is the fundamental raison d’être of the M23. This group’s grievances are intrinsically linked to a set of root causes that remain unaddressed. And as long as these core issues are not confronted head-on and resolved, the region will remain precariously balanced on the brink of further instability.
Finally, the relentless accusation of “mineral plundering” leveled against Rwanda by these same media and analytical circles completely misrepresents Rwanda’s strategic imperatives. The very foundation of Rwanda’s economic model, which has attracted significant foreign investment and fostered high-end tourism, is its unwavering commitment to security and stability.
Rwanda’s need for peace and order is paramount, far outweighing any short-term gains from illicit mineral trade. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand a nation whose very survival and prosperity hinge on being a beacon of security in a volatile region.
Given the current lack of progress despite the initiation of talks, a critical question must be posed to the press outlets and the so-called analysts who have consistently amplified Kinshasa’s narrative over the realities of peace: Are you truly seeking resolution, or merely perpetuating a biased account?
Your unwavering support for Tshisekedi’s government, even in the face of its transparent obstructionism, risks undermining the entire peace process. The credibility of the information you disseminate, and your role in shaping public understanding, hinges on your willingness to equally scrutinize all parties and acknowledge the historical complexities. Otherwise, the current negotiations risk becoming yet another performative exercise, allowing the underlying problems to fester, much to the detriment of the long-suffering populations of the Great Lakes.
For these purveyors of narrative, the message is clear: cease your selective reporting and recognize the full spectrum of challenges.
The region cannot afford another failed peace attempt born of incomplete understanding or unmonitored machinations, especially when the press and analysts are complicit in the obfuscation.
The writer is a media veteran with extensive knowledge about the Great Lakes Region.