The Economist blares racist narrative on Rwanda

The Economist enlightened its hostile editorial about Rwanda

There are individuals or organizations who have, and continue to, openly show enmity towards Rwanda and its leadership, mainly President Paul Kagame. One of these notorious and unrepentant offenders is the London-based publication, The Economist.

As Rwanda gets ready to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), in June, some media in the West, including this weekly newspaper owned by The Economist Group, have been busy mudslinging Rwanda so the venue could be changed, or the event cancelled. But it all is a futile effort. Commonwealth countries have full confidence in Rwanda, and President Kagame, to successfully host the event. 

Peddling its poisonous narrative about Rwanda, The Economist recently published another op-ed titled: “Paragon or Prison? The furious debate about Rwanda and its autocratic president.” Such an alarmist headline depicting Rwanda and its President in bad light is only aimed at creating outrage and harsh criticism, maligning Rwanda and its leadership.

They continue to describe this resilient and progressive nation's President as autocratic and Rwanda as a small poor country, as if the size and economic status is a disease.

President Kagame once said: “We are a small country, but we are not small people."

The numerous articles published by The Economist about Rwanda shed light on the hostile editorial this British publication adopted against Rwanda. Kagame is a duly elected President. And The Economist should respect the will of majority Rwandans who chose him as their leader.

The writer of the recent article wrongly believes that “the regime has also attracted unwelcome publicity by kidnapping someone famous: Paul Rusesabagina, who was portrayed in the film “Hotel Rwanda” saving hundreds of Tutsi people during the 1994 Genocide.

This is, among other things, a clear case of Western double standards. If The Economist was doing serious journalism and not biased and lazy armchair journalism like many in the West do, they would keep silent because they know very well from the ongoing trial of Rusesabagina and others, that for years, that so-called “hero” funded terrorist outfits, notably the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR).

Evidence was gathered by the FBI and the Belgian Police and transmitted to Rwanda. Doesn’t Rwanda as a sovereign nation have the right to track and apprehend whoever is intent on doing harm to national sovereignty just like Britain, the US and any other country would do?  Rusesanagina’s Hollywood made heroism should not blind the world from his involvement in funding terrorism. Hollywood made heroism is neither a passport for immunity nor impunity. 

If we go by The Economist’s reasoning, Britain and the US should not be fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Somalia.

The article is also full of racist arguments. They note that Kigali streets are clean, in a small and poor country as if one expects Rwandans to live in a filthy, unhealthy environment.  Rwandans made their choices early on to preserve the environment. Again more shocking is the way the writer denigrates the toughness Rwanda showed in handling the Covid-19 pandemic, and talks of harsh consequences for anyone breaking official guidelines.

Rwanda had two major lockdowns because of the rise in Covid-19 cases. Rwandans accepted the pain, and the bet paid off. People came out of the lock-down and life is progressively returning back to normal.

But countries in Europe including Germany, France, and The Netherlands are still experiencing an uptake in Covid-19 cases and have imposed an extended period of lockdown. Will the Economist criticize these European countries the same way.

The writer relies on information provided by Rwandan dissidents like Serge Ndizeye, a radio journalist on the online Radio Itahuka that belongs to the terror group - Rwanda National Congress (RNC).

It smacks of poor judgment to quote such an activist regarding the assassination of Seif Bamporiki in South Africa, and without any shred of evidence, blame it on Rwanda.

Concerning Rwandan matters, it is strange to see that this debasing article quotes the old Belgian Professor Filip Reytjens! What good can he say about Rwanda when he was a legal adviser of the genocidal regime?  He only thrives on the White supremacist arrogance - that since he worked for the Habyarimana government, he is an expert on Rwanda, on the Great Lakes Region, and Africa!