Regional
Kagame: ‘Congo leaders cannot make Rwanda the scapegoat’
M23
rebellion, a showdown with Félix Tshisekedi, criticism from the international
community, reception of migrants, but also longevity in power and the Rwandan
presidential election of 2024... An exclusive interview with Rwanda's president
Paul Kagame.
Politically,
diplomatically, and economically, Rwanda wants to box in a category that is
superior to it, gaining access through sheer force of will and strictly
enforced governance.
Ever
more hotels, ever more malls, ever more order, cleanliness and security...
Second, only to Cape Town in the number of congresses and conferences, Kigali
offers itself up as the face of Rwandan success.
If
in terms of notoriety and brand image, Rwanda Inc. now seeks to replace the
thousand mass graves of the Tutsi genocide, it is to Paul
Kagame that we owe this transformation, undoubtedly unique.
Flipside
It
is certainly one view, visible to any visitor to the capital.
But
there is another view of Rwanda, the one held at present by Félix Tshisekedi,
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) government and a good part of its civil
society.
That
of a bellicose Rwanda in the image of its leader: predatory, which feels
cramped in its borders, a compulsive interventionist, whose threatening shadow
reappeared a little over a year ago in the east of the DRC in the form of a
rebel movement, the M23, the strings of which Kagame pulls like a
Machiavellian puppeteer.
It
does not matter that this movement presents itself as an armed Banyamulenge
self-defence group. These Rwandophone Congolese from the Tutsi community,
largely victims of discrimination for a quarter of a century, are orphans of
the broken promises of integration concluded in 2009 and in 2013 with Kinshasa
authorities.
According
to the Congolese president, these rebels are terrorists, just good enough to be
parked on the slopes of the Sabyinyo volcano if they cannot be sent back to
where they came from: Rwanda.
Powder
keg
Suffice
it to say that the withdrawal of the M23 from the positions it occupies in
North Kivu is not going to happen tomorrow. Suffice it to say, too, that
between Kigali and Kinshasa, any direct or indirect negotiation is a matter of
wishful thinking.
It
was therefore logical that most of the interview given to us by Paul Kagame on
January 17, in a bare living room in Urugwiro village, the seat of the
presidency in Kigali, should be devoted to this urgent dossier.
Even
if this 65-year-old head of state, in power since 2000, could not escape a few
questions about his longevity: in all likelihood, Kagame will run for a fourth
term next year.
In
your New Year’s speech a month ago, you said the situation in eastern DRC was
“worse than ever”. Is that still true today?
Paul
Kagame: Allow me to do a bit of history, as it is
difficult to understand the current situation out of context. The eastern DRC
has been in a state of almost permanent instability since 1994. At the time,
nearly two million Rwandans had fled the country to take refuge there.
The
majority of them have since returned to Rwanda, but a minority have remained
there, which still constitutes a factor of insecurity for us today. Added to
these are the hundreds of Congolese armed groups operating in this region. Most
are self- defence militias formed on ethnic bases.
For
more than two decades, the UN has maintained, with billions of dollars, a force
supposed to stabilise the two Kivus, with, as we can see, a derisory even non-
existent result. As it was necessary to find someone responsible for this
failure, Rwanda is the scapegoat. It is so in the eyes of an international
community that has failed, and it is so for the Congolese leaders, who are only
too happy to find an excuse for their own incapacity.
You
can say that Rwanda is part of the problem in the East maybe, but how can you
say it is the one and only problem? It is simply dishonest and, above all,
totally counterproductive.
As
long as external powers and successive Congolese governments sing this refrain,
there will be no lasting solution to the ills that plague eastern DRC. It is
absolutely clear to me that the responsibility for this situation lies first
with the Congolese authorities, and then with the Western countries involved in
the creation of the problem.
Take
the example of the terrorist group FDLR [Democratic Liberation Forces of
Rwanda]. How do you explain that it is still active, 29 years after the
genocide, despite the continued presence of Monusco? At the end of 2019, this
group carried out another deadly attack in Kinigi, in the tourist district of
Musanze, killing 14 civilians before finding refuge on the Congolese side of
the border.
The
fact that we consider it our responsibility to eradicate these individuals wherever
they are – and no one will prevent us from doing so – is only the consequence
of the impotence of those who were meant to do the job in the first place.
Because, I assure you, in my lifetime and in the lifetime of future
generations, there will never again be a genocide in Rwanda. If we had to fight
for it with bows, spears, and stones, it will not happen again.
Do
you consider that the claims of the M23 are founded and justify an armed
rebellion?
At a
summit in 2022, I asked President Félix Tshisekedi the following question:
“Let’s not waste our time beating around the bush. Do you consider the members
of the M23, their families and the tens of thousands of refugees from the same
community as them, as Congolese or Rwandans? He answered me, in the presence of
the other Heads of State: “They are Congolese”.
Congolese
of Rwandan origin or culture perhaps, but Congolese citizens, just as there are
districts in southern Uganda populated by Rwandan-speaking Ugandans without
this posing the slightest difficulty. Therefore, if their integration in the
Congo raises a problem, why should we be responsible?
On
the other hand, where it has an impact on us is when hundreds of families
driven from their homes after being stigmatised as “Rwandan” or “Tutsi” come to
take refuge here. These Congolese nationals who are victims of ethnic
discrimination number nearly 80,000 in Rwanda. ” Go home! they were told. But
their home – and for many for well over a century – is the eastern Congo!
The
Kabila government promised to settle this matter. Nothing happened. The
Tshisekedi government made the same promise, and M23 leaders travelled to
Kinshasa, where they stayed in their hotel for four months without anyone
getting a meeting. The M23, mostly refugees in Uganda, therefore felt cheated
and justified in resuming the fight to assert their rights.
Put
yourself in the place of these people, born and raised in Congo, whose parents
and grandparents were born on Congolese soil and who are told to return to
where they came from before colonisation and before the very existence of
borders! And imagine what Africa would become if everyone played this dangerous
game.
Add
to this hate speech from the Congolese government, administration and
politicians, and the similarity between this situation and that which prevailed
in Rwanda in 1994 is obvious.
Members
of the M23 rebel group during the handover of Rumangabo military camp in
eastern DR Congo as part of the implementation of the Luanda Mini-Summit
resolutions. The facility was handed over to the East African Stabilisation
Force.
You
deny any intervention by your army alongside the M23. Would you go so far as to
say that you have no influence over Sultani Makenga and his men?
The
accusation that I would intervene in the Congo matters little to me. It is
neither the first nor the last. The important thing is to know why I would
intervene. If you don’t ask yourself this question, you are missing the point.
The
answer is simple: the threat posed to our security by the activity of a group
imbued with a genocidal ideology such as the FDLR is clearly likely to lead us
to intervene on Congolese territory, without apology or notice. When you’re
attacked, you don’t wait for instructions from your attacker or his protector
on how to react.
As
far as the M23 is concerned, I may indeed speak to its leaders. After all, they
are on our borders, and the Luanda and Nairobi processes, which recommend
dialogue with all armed groups, including this one, are clear.
I,
therefore, sent messages of appeasement to the M23, asking its leaders to stop
fighting and withdraw from the localities they occupied. Which they accepted.
The problem is that the Congolese army took the opportunity to attack them,
before being defeated once again.
I
thought the FDLR had become a marginal group. That’s not what you seem to
say...
The
FDLR is integrated within the FARDC [Armed Forces of the DRC] and that is where
the problem lies. This state of affairs does not prevent us from claiming our
legitimate right to extinguish the fire at its source, wherever it is, with or
without anyone’s consent.
Don’t
you feel isolated on the international scene?
Isolated
from what, and isolated by whom? Forget this story of isolation. When you have
the support of 100% of your compatriots, it doesn’t make sense.
How
can this crisis be ended?
On
the one hand, the M23 must stop fighting. On the other hand, and
simultaneously, the Congolese government must seriously study its demands and
respond to them. The Kinshasa authorities must also put an end to anti-Tutsi
hate speech and no longer threaten these populations by sending them back to
Rwanda when they are at home in Congo.
Rather
than lending a sympathetic ear to the story of the Congolese side and listening
only to their version, the external powers concerned should help Congo to
integrate these people. Rwanda is not an empty space in which a neighbouring
country believes itself authorised to get rid of the populations it persecutes.
The
M23 was accused of committing crimes against civilians, notably in Kishishe, at
the end of November 2022. Do you condemn these abuses?
I
condemn all abuse, wherever it comes from. I simply note that the crimes
committed by the FDLR and the FARDC are not, or very rarely, documented. Why?
In reality, there is no impartial arbiter in this matter, and this is one of
the crux of the matter.
Did
President Tshisekedi open Pandora’s box by inviting, at the end of 2021,
Ugandan and Burundian troops to fight rebel groups in the East alongside his
army, without involving or informing Rwanda?
Let’s
say it gave a clear sign of his intentions.
The idea
of involving neighbouring countries, including Rwanda, in solving the problem
of armed groups came from us and was at the heart of our discussions with the
Congolese authorities, at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020.
The
fact that Kinshasa finally decided to exclude us means that the Congo has
neither the desire nor the intention to resolve the particular case of the
FDLR.
The
same logic based on bad faith presided over the DRC veto of Rwanda’s
participation in the East African regional force under Kenyan leadership. As
long as the Congolese government considers that it can manage the FDLR without
us, there will be no solution.
Regional leaders during the mini-summit held in Luanda, Angola in November. DR Congo has been accused of reluctance to implement resolutions agreed upon during this summit.
Your
last meeting with Félix Tshisekedi dates back to September 2022, in New York,
at the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron. With no known results.
Between you two, trust seems broken. Why?
This
proceeds from all that I have just told you. For us Rwandans, the presence of
genocidal forces on our borders is a serious matter of national security. We
discover that our neighbours are collaborating with our enemies, and you would
like us to trust them?
During
a meeting with young Congolese at the beginning of December 2022, Félix
Tshisekedi explicitly wanted you to leave power and said he was ready to help
the Rwandan people to “get rid” of their “retrograde leaders”. What’s your
reaction?
It
is his right. And that is indeed what he is trying to do by collaborating with
the FDLR, which he needs on the military ground. For the rest, I would like to
know how he intends to go about it.
The
anti-Tutsi, anti-Banyamulenge and anti-Rwandan diatribes are officially
condemned by the Congolese government, which claims to make allowances between
your regime and the Rwandophone populations. Isn’t that the whole difference
from the situation that prevailed in Rwanda in 1994?
The
facts speak for themselves. I do not believe in the fable of isolated
individuals or groups guilty of hate speech. These speeches are encouraged by
the Congolese government. We cannot, on the one hand, create the conditions for
such speeches to be made and, on the other hand, pretend to condemn them.
The
DRC is in an election year, with a presidential election announced for the end
of 2023. Do you think this prospect plays a role in the crisis with Rwanda?
This
is obvious, insofar as this situation offers fertile ground for all political
one- upmanship.
Instead
of campaigning on the proper use of the immense wealth available to the DRC and
on using it for the benefit of the population, which we know poses a problem,
they prefer to attack Rwanda. It’s the easiest way to escape responsibility.
What
are the conditions for a just and lasting peace in the East?
There
is just one condition. Congolese leaders and politicians must have the courage
to face the situation and work to resolve it, without constantly seeking
pretexts and excuses outside the country. Nowhere in the world has a just and
lasting peace been built on evasiveness.
Is
this a governance issue? of security? both at the same time? It is up to the
Congolese to respond and take responsibility.
Would
you tell them that you are not the devil you are portrayed to be?
I
have nothing to tell them about myself. Do you seriously think that the
structural problems facing the DRC – governance, resource management,
responsibility and accountability... – appeared the day the RPF [Rwandan
Patriotic Front] and Kagame came to power in Kigali?
Do
you believe for a second that I am responsible for the fact that 1% of
Congolese benefit from the wealth of their country and that 99% are excluded?
Or the fact that nearly 120 armed groups proliferate in the East?
Everyone
has their problems, and you will never hear me tell my compatriots that their
problems are the fault of the Congolese.
To
the latter, I would like to say this: the Congo is a great country in terms of
its population, its geography, its resources, and its culture, but it must also
be great in terms of its capacity to manage its own affairs and transform
itself.
Listening
to those of their leaders who portray me as the devil to avoid facing their own
responsibilities or out of simple demagoguery will not change their situation.
Your
relations with Uganda have improved. Do you now trust President Yoweri
Museveni?
We
actually have very good relations, even if there are still a few points to
settle between us. But nothing we can’t face together.
And
with Burundi?
I
see real progress. As you know, there are Burundian refugees here, and with
regard to this file, the leaders of Bujumbura have taken their
responsibilities.
However,
Burundi considers some of these refugees as opponents, even coup leaders...
Yes,
this problem remains, and it is not the only one. But the will to resolve it is
there, and that is the main thing.
Rwanda
has exported its security know-how to the Central African Republic and
Mozambique. Are you satisfied with the result in these two countries?
Nothing
is perfect, but I think the results are well above average. Both in the Central
African Republic and in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, where our intervention
prevented terrorism from spreading to other provinces, insecurity has decreased
significantly. Our know-how is not only military. Our country, which has
experienced total destruction, has experience to share in nation-building in
all areas.
Rwandan
peacekeepers in Mozambique have been credited for the return of relative calm
in the restive northern part of the southern African country
Do
you plan to deploy troops in northern Benin to help the country’s army deal
with incursions by jihadist groups?
It
is not excluded. Our cooperation with Benin is intense and multifaceted,
including in defence and security. Its level is such that there is nothing that
we cannot consider together.
You
presented Rwanda as a “country with solutions” to solve the global migration
crisis and, to this end, concluded agreements with Great Britain, Denmark and
Israel under the terms of which you welcome – temporarily or not – the migrants
that rich countries do not want. What do you say to those who believe that this
offer is above all driven by financial and geopolitical considerations, as well
as by the desire to improve your image in the field of human rights?
I
have a hard time understanding these reviews. Why don’t they focus, first of
all, on the origin and the reasons for these migratory movements? Why, once
again, blame Rwanda when it provides the beginnings of a solution?
When
I held the presidency of the African Union, in 2018-2019, the drama of the
migrants who flocked to Libya in the hope of reaching Europe appeared to me in
all its brutality: at the mercy of smugglers and traffickers, condemned to risk
their lives on makeshift boats, reduced to slavery by gangs of militiamen,
imprisoned, mistreated...
The
idea, which I first submitted to the international organisations concerned, was
to propose other places of transit, starting, of course, with my own country.
Rwanda is not rich, but it can offer migrants incomparably better living and
security conditions than those they know in Libya. That’s how it all started.
Agreements
have been made, and the migrants we accommodate in our reception centres have
three possible choices. Either they obtain asylum in a European country, which,
after investigation, grants them legal status, or they return to their country
of origin because they believe that they ultimately made a mistake by leaving
it. They may decide to settle in Rwanda. We are certainly a small country, but
we can absorb a few thousand more people.
Therefore,
I ask a simple question: is it good or bad? And what credible alternative do
those who criticise us offer?
Your
personal relations with Emmanuel Macron are good. However, France has added its
voice to those of the United States, Canada, Belgium and the European Union,
which are asking you to stop intervening in eastern DRC. Are you disappointed?
This
position was based on bad information and it was not necessary. Those who
express themselves thus should bear in mind the sensitive aspect of this
dossier. It is not good to react irrationally, just to please one party at the
expense of another.
When,
at the invitation of President Macron, I agreed to meet Félix Tshisekedi last
September in New York – and although the latter devoted a large part of his
speech to the United Nations General Assembly to Rwanda – it was because I
thought that Emmanuel Macron was driven by a sincere desire to contribute to
solving the problem. I, therefore, hope that France will be able to approach
this dossier in a better and more appropriate way.
Many
observers were surprised by the scathing tenor of the response you made to
Antony Blinken, the American Secretary of State, and to those who, like him,
are calling for the release of opponent Paul Rusesabagina, who was the manager
of the Hôtel des Mille Collines during the genocide. Only an invasion of
Rwanda, you said, would be able to liberate him. Does this mean that you are
not ready for any measure of leniency?
The
word “invasion” is obviously not to be taken seriously. It was just an image to
make it clear how much this case touches a particularly sensitive point for us.
Paul Rusesabagina is a Rwandan. He is more Rwandan, in any case than Belgian
[he has dual nationality] or American. The fact that he gained some notoriety
following the film Hotel Rwanda and that he criticises me does not pose any
problem to me in itself and does not require any comment on my part.
But
the facts for which he was prosecuted and convicted speak for themselves, and
the evidence gathered against him is overwhelming. He was the leader of an
anti- Rwandan group associated, in word and deed, with the genocidaires of the
FDLR. Members of his own group came to testify at the trial, and he himself
admitted it. These are facts; those who are waiting for us to release him do
not deny them.
Their
attitude, therefore, amounts to saying: “OK, whatever you blame him for,
release him, we demand it. And we should answer them: “Yes, sir”? This type of
pressure may work elsewhere, but not in Rwanda. Considering as secondary and
negligible all that we have experienced is like trampling on us and reducing us
to nothing.
While
it is accepted that the Rwandan government is justified in prohibiting hate
speech of the type that led to the genocide of the Tutsi, many observers
believe that, 29 years later, current laws and practices go beyond this
legitimate objective and that they serve to prevent dissenting opinions from
being expressed. Isn’t it time to loosen the screws and lift the lid?
This
analysis may sound sensible, but it is completely out of context.
Assuming
that you are right, I could answer you that, compared to the countries – and
there are many of them – where there is neither progress nor freedoms, we have
at least one of the two, recognised by all. But you are wrong. I was watching a
German documentary the other day about Rwanda’s progress. It ended with this
question: “At what price?”
As
if, on the one hand, we made sure that Rwandans benefit from progress and that,
on the other, we made them pay for it with their freedom or that we strangle
them to serve them breakfast. As if progress here could only be achieved at the
expense of freedom.
It
does not mean anything. Go and meet Rwandans, question them, and do all the
polls you want. If their results say that 90% of people think there is progress
but no freedom, then I’ll agree with you and we’ll act on it. But if they say
they enjoy both, will you keep asking me that question?
The
next presidential election in Rwanda will take place, in principle, in August
2024. Will you be a candidate for your succession?
Yes
and no. It’s a possibility, but I’m not sure.
For
your compatriots, there is no doubt that you will be...
Without
a doubt. But, in the end, it’s a decision that I will take alone, as a free
man.
You
have been Head of State for almost 23 years, but many people think that in
reality, you have been the strong man of this country since 1994. How do you
fight against the erosion of power?
Simply
by being myself. I do not pretend to know everything, I am not in power for any
personal gain and I do not forget that I am a human being like the others.
I
know that power can corrupt, but you can abuse it from the first year of your
first mandate as well as after 10, 15, or 20years. Admittedly, remaining in
power for a long time increases this possibility, but, ultimately, it is not
the duration that defines a dictatorship, it is the fact of hanging on, whether
the people like it or not, and it is the lack of results. Hence the importance
of democratic control offered by a free election and respect for the choice of
citizens. If they think you should stay in power, that’s their right.
“It
is safer to be feared than to be loved,” writes Machiavelli in The
Prince. Do you agree?
No.
A leader does not need to be feared or loved. He needs to be respected.
Don’t
you care to be liked by your countrymen?
One
can be loved and have done nothing for it. What matters to me is to be
respected for what I have accomplished. And if I ask to be respected, it is
because I respect myself and I respect others.
This
interview was first published by Africa Report.
Source:
www.newtimes.co.rw