MOMAR DIENG The image of Rwanda as an imperialist country or, at the very least, a regional gendarme is becoming commonplace.
BOUBACAR BORIS DIOP True, but when you pause for a moment, to dig deeper, to give the matter some thought, then you realize how strange the claim really is. If we refer to the revolutionary struggles of the Cold War era, we would be talking about a ruthless superpower running roughshod over weaker nations. Do people really believe that tiny Rwanda is going to lay waste to so many neighboring nations? Let’s put aside all these African countries that claim to live in fear of Rwanda's hegemonic ambitions, and consider this single fact: the DRC boasts an area of over 2,344,858 square kilometers compared to 26,338 for Rwanda, and a population of 105 million compared to about 15 million for Rwanda. It is also a complete mismatch between the two armies, and that is precisely why in his remarkable book "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families", the American author Philip Gourevitch quipped in 1998: “The thought of Rwanda invading Zaire was a bit like Liechtenstein taking on Germany or France.” You know, at some point, we have to look each other in the eye as African brothers and sisters, and tell the unvarnished truth: if everything Rwanda is accused of is true, we must, after decrying it, reflect upon the incredible decay of the Congolese state. This is the crux of the matter, and I see more and more Congolese willing to go beyond their criticisms of Kagame. After calling the Rwandan president all sorts of names, they realize a little something is missing in their analysis, and they start to question their own military, bureaucracy, and political class, all scrutinized under the microscopic lens of endemic corruption that has been raging in their country for years. In this regard, there is a silver lining to the dark clouds of conflict and instability currently hanging again over the region: this military debacle is so embarrassing that it forces every Congolese to look deep into themselves.
A national soul-searching? What do you mean?
In a sense, what we could expect from everyone is a detached “freeze-frame.” Comparison is no proof, of course, but in this specific case the temptation is hard to resist. You cannot avoid comparing Rwanda and the DRC. Rwanda gives the image of a well-organized country where effective anti-corruption measures also help reduce poverty. Everyone talks about Rwanda’s cleanliness, which is both true and embarrassing because to marvel at it implicitly suggests that dirt should be the norm in an “ordinary” African country. None of these results were obtained thanks to Congo’s minerals; Kagame achieved it by getting his people to work and being as tough on himself as he was with his compatriots. God knows this man has, for mysterious reasons, some particularly determined enemies, but even they cannot accuse him of being a corrupt or indulgent president. If he had placed the slightest cent in tax shelters, his hateful critics in the West would have let the whole world know about it. So, his integrity commands respect. At this point in my life, the personal ethics of a leader and his sense of responsibility matter infinitely more than his ideological rants.
You say that he works for his country. Does he always have the memory of the genocide in mind?
You know, it’s been nearly thirty years that I have been reading and listening attentively to Kagame, and at some point I came to think that maybe he had chosen to not let himself be paralyzed by a passive and negative contemplation of the horrors of the genocide. That he had decided to free himself from it to look ahead, toward the future, since he couldn’t change the past. That might have been the case, but in April 2024, on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary, his speech carried undertones of a cold, seething rage, and it showed that he was still haunted by the deaths of the genocide. So, I wasn’t surprised to hear him say, just five days ago, about the violence against Congolese Rwandophones: “We endured the worst suffering in 1994, and no one wanted to come to our aid.” This means that if we want to parse through current events in Kivu without factoring in the genocide, more specifically the period from November 1, 1959 to July 4, 1994, we are likely to miss the mark. The Tutsis in Congo are well aware of their own history, and they know that the speeches and behaviors that preceded the outbreak of violence in 1994 in Rwanda are now repeating themselves in the east of their own country. And as I’ve already told you, beyond the populations directly threatened in Kivu, all Rwandans take the determination of the FDLR to return to power in Kigali very seriously, and one can understand why that terrifies them. They are starting to think, to borrow the words of Primo Levi: “It happened once, and it can happen again, anywhere.”
Isn't that precisely where the accusation of instrumentalizing the genocide comes from?
I guess those who level this charge cannot put themselves in the shoes of Rwandans. We are dealing with a very complex mindscape here, because you know, what we call the “duty of memory” is a fraught exercise, as it is so difficult to decide between the necessity to remember and the equally vital imperative to forget. And any human being who looks at this moment in African history must inevitably feel shame for the atrocities committed in Rwanda. The Rwandans themselves might wish they could abolish that period in human history. One could even wonder if sometimes the victims do not feel as guilty as their executioners for those primitive massacres in the Land of a Thousand Hills. It is against this abomination that the Rwandans set to work to make their country’s name desirable, to associate it primarily with economic achievements...
Hence the "Visit Rwanda" label with PSG, Arsenal, and all these international conferences, seminars...
Exactly... There is also the possibility of Formula 1 being organized in Kigali soon, which is quite extraordinary. To answer your question, it is not by refusing to wallow in pain that one instrumentalizes the genocide. On the contrary, what I see are survivors defiantly telling the killers: you lost because we are stronger than death. Today, in Kigali and elsewhere, the outward signs of a bustling social activity are striking with all these buildings, highways, five-star hotels that seem to have sprung up overnight. Just fifteen or twenty years ago, the capital of Rwanda looked no better than Diourbel or Kaolack, but if the former exiled dignitaries returned today, they would neither find their homes nor traces of the massacres. This urban transformation sometimes gives me the impression of a Freudian slip, an unconscious desire to erase, as much from the real world as from memories, the crime scene, I mean the crime of genocide. Perhaps this is the desire the Rwandans confess when they say they prefer their country’s name to be associated with economic achievements rather than the barbarity of 1994. Given Rwanda’s recent history, this choice is entirely understandable - it is almost an almost desperate embrace of life.
Has this choice paid off?
Yes, but perhaps it begs the question whether this “operation amnesia” has exceeded all expectations, is a victim of its own success, unfortunately.
What do you mean, “unfortunately”?
I use this word mainly thinking of the very young, those born after the genocide. They were meant to be protected, but they might fail to grasp the extreme gravity of their own history. There’s a balance to be struck between reparative amnesia and obsessive remembrance, and it’s certainly not easy.
How do you see the outcome of the conflict? A Rwandan friend living in Canada, with whom I talk a lot, told me the other day that she hopes the DRC will now agree to discuss with the M23 so that peace can return. Is that realistic?
It might be a little idealistic, but it’s necessary. And I would even add that it’s necessary now more than ever. Whenever these conflicts break out on the continent, one must always call for cooler heads to prevail, whenever the opportunity presents itself. It’s too easy to call for arms when you’re not personally at risk; everyone knows that in all these wars, it’s the poorest and the youngest who pay the heaviest price. That being said, peace and unity on the continent have become almost a condition for its survival. Watching Trump 2.0 in action, it feels like, out of the blue, strange, dark times hang over our heads now. We are entering a new era, and even the fall of the Berlin Wall may pale in comparison. Trump is trying to convince us that any Rubicon can be crossed in international relations, that might is right. There was once a fragile but effective code of ethical conduct among nations, albeit often hypocritical and it no longer exists. We should not, however, waste time crying over a completely helpless Europe. The lesson to be learned from the current turbulences is that Africa could do some course correction, to set itself on a new path. If the African continent remains weak, its nations caught in the deadly spiral of senseless conflicts, what could keep a declining, moribund Europe from coming back to exploit its resources? And Trump himself, whose attacks against Pretoria surely didn’t come out of nowhere? Now is the time to remember the prophetic words of Cheikh Anta Diop: “Africa must, if only out of clear-sighted self-interest, shift toward its federal destiny.” One could not say it better: tragedies like the one unfolding in Eastern Congo weaken us all, and expose us to the rabid greed of other nations. If history hasn’t prepared us to understand this, then all hope is lost.
Are there Western actors behind this renewed tension in the Great Lakes region, interested in stoking the flames?
That’s an interesting question, I alluded to it a while ago, barely scratching the surface, but now you give me a chance to go deeper. Rwanda is accused of acting on behalf of Western powers, of being their hitman in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I must admit how people get that into their heads baffles me. The Western powers have never needed anyone to siphon off Congo’s resources; they’ve always done it in perfect collaboration with the country’s political elites, and we should never believe that this has changed since Mobutu’s overthrow. Regarding Eastern Congo, we are indeed talking about a rich but very small region—about 120,000 km²—an almost invisible dot in the vastness of Congo. On the other hand, the same Western powers keep attacking Kagame, and by the way, all diplomatic channels between Kigali and Brussels have been closed off. And you’ve probably noticed the Western media’s obsessive insistence on the connection between Rwanda and the M23. It’s as if it’s absolutely forbidden to mention the M23 without immediately adding the tag, “Rwanda-backed.” That is the case in all the languages of the world—Arabic, Italian, Kiswahili, and Wolof. Moreover, who can really believe that if these Western countries had thrown in their weight behind Kagame, European mercenaries would go in such large numbers to fight against Rwanda? Private security contractors are not all brawn and no brain, they also pay attention to geopolitical trends—they don’t act randomly. So, everybody is aware of the deafening media silence surrounding the shameful expulsion of these "Affreux", as these soldiers of fortune were once called. Rwanda allowed them to return home without glory —from Kigali airport! — but at least safe and sound. But in Africa, rare and conspicuous as it is to mete out such humane treatment, this act of decency went unnoticed.
What might be the sources of the hostility you sense, in the West, against Rwanda?
Denialism remains particularly strong in some influential Western intellectual circles, and their interpretation of events in Eastern Congo or anything related to Rwanda is heavily influenced by their denial of the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsis in 1994. On February 7, Mark Townsend and Michela Wrong—a furious denialist—signed an astounding article in The Guardian reporting on a so-called heavy loss of life suffered by the Rwandan soldiers in Goma. The other day, I watched a Member of the European Parliament, Belgian I believe, wildly bash Rwanda, and it was as though he was about to burst into tears during his vitriolic speech. To me, he was primarily the symbol of a certain Western guilt regarding the victims of the 1994 genocide: even after more than thirty years have elapsed, these Westerners are happy that the Tutsis of Rwanda, abandoned to their fate, are now seen not as innocent victims but as merciless executioners. In the end, everyone relieves their conscience as best they can.
Should we today fear the worst in the DRC or expect a certain normalization in the medium or long term between Kinshasa and Kigali?
You remember, at one point, very harsh words were exchanged in the media between Presidents Ramaphosa and Kagame? Personal attacks at such high level are rare, quite exceptional in fact, but everyone knew the verbal spat would never escalate into direct confrontation between the soldiers of their two countries. Things quickly returned to normalcy, although for years to come the blood of the 13 South African soldiers who fell in Goma will likely fuel animosity and mistrust between Kigali and Pretoria for a long time to come. Moreover, the speed with which the African Union took up the matter offers hope for a lasting political solution, even though in the last few hours, the M23 has taken control of Bukavu. In any case, none of the parties has an interest in a general mayhem. But in the end, it is up to Kinshasa to fully recognize the citizenship of the Rwandophone Congolese and disarm the FDLR, which ultimately harms them more than it does Rwanda. Eastern Congo may well be the last place on earth where the state almost openly encourages the daylight massacre of its own citizens simply because of their ethnic background. This Congo is not the one we all dream of: a pacified country that has fully recovered from Lumumba's assassination and the thirty-two years of Mobutu’s kleptocratic devastation, a Congo that pulls the continent up rather than drags it down. It is impossible to understand that such a gigantic country, endowed with so many resources, is reduced to calling upon Burundi to protect it from Rwanda. When everything is said and done, this will remain the heart of the problem.
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY EL HADJI MOUSTAPHA DIOP