Category: Opinion

  • Surge in food prices drives Rwanda’s April inflation to 6.3%

    The monthly publication, which tracks changes in the cost of goods and services across the country, revealed that urban CPI rose by 6.3% and rural inflation surged to 6.9%. The urban inflation serves as the headline index for monetary policy decisions.

    Food and non-alcoholic beverages were the largest contributors to inflation, with urban prices in this category rising by 7.9% year-on-year and 2.7% month-on-month. This category carries a significant weight of 27% in the CPI.  

    Among the steepest increases was the price of meat, which surged 33.8% in urban areas and 35.5% in rural areas compared to April last year. Vegetables, a key staple in Rwandan households, also saw significant hikes—8.5% annually in urban areas and 6.6% in rural regions.  

    The fresh products index, which includes seasonal items such as fruits and vegetables, recorded a striking 14.6% annual rise. In contrast, energy prices saw a slight 0.7% decline on an annual basis, helping to moderate overall cost pressures.  

    A rise in restaurant and hotel charges also contributed to the surge in inflation, with prices increasing by 14.7%, according to NISR. While substantial, restaurants and hotels have a smaller weight of 9% in the CPI calculation compared to food.

    Prices of housing, water, electricity, gas, and other fuels (with a weight of 21%) went up by 3.3%, while transport prices (with a weight of 12%) grew by 3.8%.  

    On a monthly basis, Rwanda’s CPI increased by 2.3%, a noticeable jump from March, signalling continuing upward pressure on consumer prices.

    Meanwhile, core inflation, which excludes volatile items like fresh food and energy, rose by 4.4% year-on-year, suggesting broader underlying price increases.  

    The data is crucial in helping policymakers monitor inflation as part of broader economic stabilisation efforts.  

    Among the steepest increases was the price of meat, which surged 33.8% in urban areas and 35.5% in rural areas compared to April last year.

  • Tutsi bones in flower vases on the altar

    In the parishes of Kiziguro, Karubamba, Mukarange, Nyarubuye, and Kibungo—which were the only ones I had visited—death had become a permanent resident. Corpses lay strewn across altars, rotting in pews, piled in silence beneath the Stations of the Cross.

    The air was so thick with decay that even breathing felt like betrayal—an act of life in places meant to preserve it. The stench clung to the nostrils and the soul. No incense burned anymore, only the putrid odour of genocide.

    The air in eastern Rwanda no longer smelled like soil or rain. It reeked of death.

    I was there. I smelled it. I stepped over blood-soaked Bibles. I sat on pews where killers prayed before slaughtering families.

    And I conversed with others as though life were continuing, while in truth, we were living in a nightmare where the cross had become a machete, and the altar a butcher’s table.

    To this day, I sometimes question my sanity for having survived it— for having watched so much death take place, precisely where life was supposed to be sacred.

    Something within me had begun to erode—not just my sense of smell, which had been dulled by the overwhelming stench of death—but my grasp of reality, of sanity, of the meaning of faith itself.

    The country I once knew, a land steeped in Christian rituals and piety, had become a crucible of unspeakable horror.

    I stood as a witness—not just to the killing, but to the collapse of meaning where it was supposed to be strongest: inside the churches.

    The rot of bodies, many already decomposed, lay scattered in and around the Catholic churches I mentioned— and in nearly every public place that once symbolised community.

    But it was the churches that betrayed me the most. The houses of worship became slaughterhouses. The same walls that once echoed with prayers and hymns became chambers of screams, of begging, of agony.

    In those weeks of April and May, the unthinkable became routine. Tutsi were hunted like animals. And worse, they were killed in the places they thought they would be safe—houses of worship, convents, mission schools.

    Such spaces in Rwanda had become graveyards with altars.

    The crucifixes looked on, silent and splattered with blood. By the first week of May, I began to question my own sanity. How could I still talk to others—have conversations—while surrounded by such horror?

    Were we no longer human? Or had humanity retreated from Rwanda altogether?

    I have struggled with this betrayal ever since.

    I want to bear witness to this. To say that I was there. That I remember the smell, the sounds of birds and crickets, the silence of the world. And most painfully, I remember the silence of the church.

    One image, even today, haunts me beyond measure. It is at Nyarubuye where hundreds of my relatives were killed by the genocidaires.

    At Nyarubuye Church, where hundreds had sought refuge, the killers did not just stop at murder. They desecrated the dead with chilling creativity.

    I remember most vividly the altar at Nyarubuye church. When the killers came, they did not just murder the bodies—they debased what was left. Bones—femurs, tibias, ulnae, scapulae—were lovingly arranged in flower vases.

    Not discarded, but displayed. On the altar. The killers, maybe some of them catechists, deacons, or “brothers in Christ,” carried out this grotesque performance with twisted delight. What were they thinking? I still do not know. But I cannot forget.

    I stood there. I saw it. The vases meant to hold symbols of life and beauty were now filled with symbols of brutality and contempt. What were they thinking?

    I still do not know. But the sight shattered something in me. It shattered my soul, my ability to associate the church with anything divine.

    It was a ritual of mockery, an abomination. Maybe they thought they were making an offering. Possibly, they thought they were decorating their victory.

    Perhaps they thought nothing at all. What is real—the extermination of the Tutsi was a continuous process.

    Some years later, I read David Gushee’s words in his essay, “Why the Churches Were Complicit: Confessions of a Broken-Hearted Christian”.

    I felt seen. I felt heard. Gushee names what I witnessed: the utter bankruptcy of a faith that had become performative, tribal, and hollow. He saw the same rot I smelled.

    To this day, I know people who struggle with liturgies. They find it hard to sing hymns, not because they lack faith in God, but because they lost faith in those who claimed to speak for Him.

    They saw the robes stained with blood. They smelled death inside sanctuaries. They were witnesses as scripture was used not to liberate but to lynch.

    Gushee describes himself as a “broken-hearted Christian.” That is the only kind many can be now.

    A Christian who is not broken by the genocide, not wounded by the failure of our institutions, is not paying attention.

    Jesus said in Matthew 23:27, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”

    That was Rwanda in 1994. A whitewashed tomb. A nation full of Bibles and catechisms, but also full of hatred, bigotry, and pusillanimity.

    This is why so many of us questioned our faith. Not because we had stopped believing in God, but because the people who claimed to speak for Him had become death dealers.

    They had used His name in vain — not with casual profanity, but with deliberate and determined betrayal. And that, I believe, is the worst blasphemy of all. I had to call it quits.

    For years, I could not set foot in a church. The smell of incense made me nauseous. The sound of choirs triggered flashbacks.

    The reading of scripture often felt like a defamation. How could I trust these words when those who preached them had shown so little integrity?

    Eventually, as a post-confessional atheist, I began to read the Bible again, but this time with new eyes. To read about Jesus, not just the lamb, but the lion who overturned the tables of corrupt religion.

    I realised that questioning faith after the Genocide against the Tutsi is not apostasy. It is honesty.

    Today, I no longer ask, “Where was God in 1994?” It is none of my interest. I ask instead, “Where were God’s people?”

    How could so many call themselves Christians while organising extermination campaigns, while locking families in churches and setting them on fire, while swinging machetes and praying before bed?

    How did the commandment “You shall not murder” become negotiable? How did the beatitude “Blessed are the peacemakers” get buried beneath genocidal propaganda?

    The truth is painful: Christian teachings in Rwanda had been distorted or misconstrued — or perhaps, worse, selectively manipulated to baptise ethnic hatred.

    Instead of standing up against evil, many church leaders blessed it. Instead of opening the doors of refuge, they locked them and handed the keys to the killers.

    Since the end of the first week of May 1994, I have changed my mind. I decided not to believe in the hollow religiosity that teaches forgiveness without truth and justice, unity without memory, piety without protest.

    What I believe now is much simpler, and much harder: that if God exists and is love, then anything that masquerades as faith but breeds hatred is heresy, sacrilege. I’m hedging.

    When I was young, I was taught in Sunday School that Christianity, which does not resist evil, is not Christianity at all. That, unless the Church repents not just in words but in truth—naming names, examining theology, changing its pedagogy, it will betray again. It is safer not to be naïve.

    What I know is that by the end of May 1994, many were broken beyond belief. They were now aware that the churches that taught Rwandans to love were the same churches that locked Tutsis in and called the killers.

    Some priests pointed out the Tutsi to be killed. Some held prayer services in the morning and joined killing squads in the afternoon. And that many more simply looked away.

    Where was the voice of love? Where was the voice that said, “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13)? Where was the courage to say, like the prophet Isaiah, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20)?

    Instead, we heard nothing. Or worse, we heard betrayal cloaked in piety.

    In the years leading up to the genocide, the seeds of hatred were planted even in religious education. Our faith institutions became complicit, whether by omission or outright participation.

    I cannot count how many times I saw bodies laid before the crucifix. The Christian symbol of salvation, desecrated.

    It became impossible to look at the cross without remembering the bodies beneath it. The wood of the cross and the wooden benches of the pews were soaked in blood.

    Many survivors have recounted the terror of the machete, the screams that died in their throats. I remember those, too.

    But what haunts me is this: how did a people so saturated in Christianity become the architects of such evil? How did the message of love and salvation curdle into a culture of annihilation?

    Yes. What we saw made us question not just people, not just politics, but the core of faith itself. The image of Jesus, once a source of comfort, became unbearable to look at.

    His wounds were no longer symbols of redemption—they were reminders of betrayal. His commandment, “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Mark 12:31), seemed to mock us in the blood-soaked aisles where neighbours hacked neighbours, children killed classmates, and pastors handed over entire flocks to slaughter.

    In Rwanda, love was dull. A neighbour was not someone to appreciate and trust anymore, but someone to fear, someone to betray.

    I wept when I read what Gushee wrote. Because I had lived it.

    The betrayals came not only from machete-wielding mobs, but from priests who opened the gates to the killers, from nuns who turned away the wounded, from so-called Christian neighbours who whispered where we hid.

    The scriptures, supposedly full of love, justice, and compassion, were hollow in those moments.

    Where were the sermons of resistance? Where were the voices crying out in the wilderness, preparing the way not for killers but for justice?

    A faith that does not resist evil is no faith at all. A Gospel that does not protect the innocent is not Good News—it is a tool of betrayal.

    Where was love?

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud… It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:4–6)

    Where was this love? Where was it when children were hacked to death in front of their mothers? Where was kindness when babies were smashed against church walls to save bullets?

    Where was the truth when priests told lies to save their own lives? Where was love when the altars of the Lord became tables on which bodies were dismembered?

    The killers were not aliens. They were baptised. They had taken communion. Many sang in choirs. Some led Bible study.

    Yet they sharpened their machetes and swung them with resolve. They hunted infants with a diligence one would expect of someone on a holy mission, not of salvation, but of annihilation.

    Some of them sang Christian songs while killing. I remember hearing a hymn being hummed, “Yesu ni we Mucunguzi wanjye”—Jesus is my Saviour, while a mother and her three children were butchered at Mukarange.

    Survivors remember the killers’ faces. They joked. They laughed. They placed bones in vases. They stepped over corpses to reach the altar as if reenacting a parody of the Mass.

    The Book of 1 John tells us: “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar” (1 John 4:20). By this measure, Rwanda in 1994 was full of liars. And the Church—our Church—was the enabler.

    We must tell the truth: Christianity in Rwanda was deeply complicit in the genocide. Not just by omission, but by commission. By silence and by speech. By acts of cowardice dressed up as spiritual neutrality.

    And we must also tell another truth: no ritual, no sacrament, no church title can replace the core of the Gospel, which is this — “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).

    I am not writing these things to condemn all Christians. Where were the Christians who laid down their lives?

    Yes, a few existed—and they shine like stars in a dark sky. Some sheltered the hunted. Some gave their lives. But the silence of the majority was deafening.

    The truth is that many churches in Rwanda in 1994 became dens of death.

    Jesus said, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness… it is no longer good for anything” (Matthew 5:13).

    The church in Rwanda lost its saltiness. It became tasteless. Useless. Dangerous.

    Gushee is right: structures, garments, books, liturgies—all these can become tools of evil if they are unmoored from love, from truth, from courage. And in Rwanda, they were.

    What happened in Rwanda should never be read merely as a failure of politics. It was a failure of discipleship. A failure of theological imagination. A failure of moral courage.

    Somewhere along the way, the Church in Rwanda forgot that love is not just a sermon, it is a stand. It is refusing to stay neutral when evil demands compliance.

    It is risking everything to protect the image of God in others, especially when that image is under assault.

    I remember a testimony about a man in Karubamba who quoted scripture as he prepared to kill. “You shall not suffer Amalek to live,” he muttered, invoking ancient genocidal commands.

    He was twisting scripture into a sword, baptised in blood. Yet he considered himself a Christian.

    Others carried rosaries, crosses, hymnbooks—as they hunted their neighbours. I was told about a young woman—barely 16—hiding in a sacristy.

    A group of boys found her, dragged her out, and raped her repeatedly under the crucifix. Afterwards, they shoved a splintered pew into her body. They were singing a church hymn when they did it.

    Gushee helps me articulate this anguish. He writes with broken-hearted clarity, “The Churches were there. The Christians were there. And they did not stop it.”

    Indeed, the problem was not that Christianity failed to reach Rwanda. The problem was that its message had become distorted, even reversed.

    The teaching of love became a vehicle for hate. The virtue of courage was replaced by cowardice. And animals began to look more human than people did.

    When I imagine what was in the eyes of those who killed children with machetes, I no longer see human beings. It is something else—emptiness, a void where humanity had once been.

    But these were people baptised in the name of Christ. They had taken the Eucharist. Some had even preached the gospel. What happened?

    Gushee hints at it: religious identity, without moral transformation, is meaningless.

    Scripture is not magic. It is not a spellbook. It is a call to conversion. And when it is twisted, it becomes a weapon. We saw this in Rwanda.

    Jesus said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21). We had many who said, “Lord, Lord.” In fact, they did the opposite.

    They hid behind liturgy while sharpening machetes. They gave sermons and then gave orders to kill. They sang hymns and then sang songs of hate.

    The book of James says, “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17). I believe Rwanda was a nation of dead faith. Faith that did not resist evil, but accommodated it.

    And so, if I may ask, what did Rwanda’s Christianity mean?

    What does it mean to build cathedrals in a country where priests can call for the extermination of a people?

    What does it mean to teach theology if it cannot stop genocide? What does it mean to preach about love and then deny shelter to a fleeing child?

    The presence of churches guarantees nothing. Faith without courage, faith without love, faith without truth—it is worse than no faith at all.

    Let the Church weep. Let it repent. Let it never forget. Let it never again allow hatred to masquerade as holiness.

    Because I remember the bones in the vases. I still imagine the killers who smiled when they were doing the most abominable.

    We must ask ourselves: Do we preach a gospel of comfort or of courage? Do we build churches to serve God or to serve power and individual political, social and economic interests? Do we teach love that costs something, or love that excuses everything?

    Where was the courage of Isaiah 1:17: “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed”? Instead, we heard silence. Or worse, we heard complicity.

    And yes, there were exceptions — a few brave souls who sheltered the hunted, who paid with their lives to protect their neighbours. But they were the exception that proved the rule: the institutional Church, by and large, was not only silent. It was guilty.

    I remember a testimony where a priest used Paul’s words not to teach humility, but to urge compliance with mass murder.

    The priest quoted Romans 13 to justify obedience to the genocidal government: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.”

    How did love come to mean hate? How did the virtue of courage get replaced with cowardice? How did shepherds become wolves? At what point did Rwanda’s sacred spaces stop being temples of hope and become slaughterhouses?

    Before the killers arrived at churches, many Tutsis ran there thinking they would find protection. The logic was simple: they won’t kill us in front of the cross. But they did.

    In front of the crucifix. In front of the Virgin Mary. In front of holy water fonts and Eucharist chalices. The killers came singing hymns. They came with rosaries in their pockets and blood on their hands.

    I began to ask myself questions no sermon had prepared me for. Could this faith be real? Had we believed in a lie?

    What kind of God allows His name to be used to justify this? Why did the churches not become Noah’s Ark for the hunted Tutsi? Why did they become their tombs?

    Even now, I shiver remembering the children crying beneath church pews, only to be silenced forever. I shudder at the memory of the flower vases with bones.

    What kind of blasphemy was this? Not just a moral failing, but a theological collapse.

    The teachings of Jesus—radical love, self-sacrifice, compassion for the marginalised—were twisted into tribalism, cowardice, and complicity.

    Jesus wept at the tomb of Lazarus. But in Rwanda, many of His followers cheered as tombs were filled.

    “Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10)

    The blood of Rwanda’s victims cries out still. Not only for justice, but for truth. For confession. For accountability.

    To every preacher who remained silent: your silence was not neutral. It was permission.

    To every church that remained open during the killing, then claimed ignorance: your walls bear witness.

    To every believer who thinks the Church’s reputation is more important than its repentance: remember that Jesus overturned the tables in the temple—not out of hate, but out of righteous fury.

    Faith torn apart

    In 1994, churches demonstrated the spinelessness of silence. “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” (Ephesians 5:11)

    Yet the Church did not expose the deeds of darkness. It accommodated them. It blessed them by its silence. It shielded perpetrators behind its sacraments. Cowardice reigned where courage should have stood.

    The religious hierarchy failed us. Bishops offered platitudes. Priests ran away or collaborated. The faithful, scared and confused, clung to crosses that brought no help. The silence of the Church, like that of Cain after killing Abel, became deafening.

    We had reached a point where animals seemed more dignified than humans. A cow could pass a roadblock unharmed. A dog could wander a neighbourhood and live. But a Tutsi child? A Tutsi infant? Their crime was to exist.

    A genocide survivor recalls seeing an Interahamwe pet a dog right after finishing off two young Tutsi girls. The gentleness he extended to the animal was in stark contrast to the hatred he inflicted on the humans.

    What had become of us? What had the Church taught—or failed to teach—for such moral collapse to occur?

    By May, one genocide survivor told me, her prayers had grown bitter. She no longer prayed for safety. She no longer believed in divine protection.

    She only prayed that she might not go mad. That her soul, torn and hollow, might survive one more day. She prayed for death to come quickly if it had to come. She envied the dead, who had escaped the horror.

    Psalm 23 once comforted many: “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.”

    But in 1994, the valley of death was not a metaphor. It was literal. And the Tutsi feared evil, because evil was present, and God seemed very much absent.

    Thirty-one years later, one survivor still struggles to sit in a church without flashbacks. He still cannot say “Amen” without remembering how many said it before being slaughtered.

    He still flinches when he hears certain hymns, remembering the killers who sang them with bloodstained hands.

    What allowed this to happen? Was it not a theology that prioritised ritual over righteousness? That emphasised obedience over conscience? That confused piety with holiness?

    Gushee’s grief rings true when he says:

    “The desecrated churches and parish houses and seminaries and church schools and prayer books and Bibles of Rwanda will survive (unlike the murdered people who once used them) as the enduring memorial to this fact.”

    But I would add this: They are not the only memorial.

    We, the survivors, are also memorials. We carry the memory in our bodies, our minds, and our broken faith. And we will not let the world forget.

    I carry that desecration in my soul. I carry it as a stain that no amount of prayer or preaching has yet erased.

    To the global church, I say this: Do not congratulate yourselves on the number of baptisms or the size of your choirs.

    None of that guarantees anything. Rwanda was baptised in blood, not because it lacked religion, but because it lacked courageous religion backed by a colonial power.

    It lacked prophetic faith. It lacked the kind of discipleship that says “no” to evil even when it comes dressed in priestly robes.

    To the churches of the world, beware. Beware of hollow piety. Beware of nationalism dressed in liturgy. Beware of tribalism hiding behind creeds.

    Beware of a faith that refuses to speak when it matters most. Because the next genocide may not come with warning signs. It may come with choirs. With candles. With prayers.

    It may come again, unless we remember what happened in Rwanda. And unless we finally, truly, dare to believe that love means courage.

    That faith means resistance. And that no altar, however adorned, is holy if it is silent in the face of evil.

    Never again is a promise. Not a slogan. And not just to the world. But to the Church.

    If this is not evil, then nothing is.

    If we cannot learn from the Genocide against the Tutsi, then the Gospel has failed in us.

    If the bones placed in flower vases do not haunt us, if the stench of death in sacred places does not humble us, then our theology is ash.

    It is dust. It is nothing.

    This is not merely history. It is a warning.

    The writer is a Genocide Scholar.

    ke-3.jpg

  • Crisis twins? Zelensky and Tshisekedi in the mirror of war

    Such is the case with Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Félix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), two presidents facing intense security crises who have, time and again, chosen nearly identical paths in how they respond to unrest within their borders.

    Despite leading countries shaped by distinct histories and geopolitical pressures, the two have responded to domestic conflict in remarkably parallel ways—fueling criticism that their hardline approaches may be deepening, rather than resolving, the crises they face.

    This has left both Ukraine and the DRC entrenched in drawn-out wars with no foreseeable end.

    The spark that reignited the flames

    Both the Ukraine-Russia war and the DRC-M23 conflict saw renewed escalations in the early 2020s, despite having roots in earlier unrest.

    Ukraine’s conflict reignited in February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion, citing NATO expansion and the need to protect Russian-speaking populations in Donbas.

    Likewise, in November 2021, fighting resumed between the Congolese army and the M23 rebel group, which later allied with the AFC (Alliance Fleuve Congo) in December 2023.

    This coalition claims to defend the rights of Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese, alleging targeted marginalization by Tshisekedi’s government.

    Dialogue dismissed

    Early in both wars, opportunities for peace existed. Ukraine was reportedly close to signing a peace agreement before British Prime Minister Boris Johnson intervened, allegedly advising against it. Zelensky has since rebuffed Russia’s calls for talks, stating that a nation under attack cannot be expected to negotiate with its aggressor.

    Tshisekedi has taken a similar stance. Despite numerous regional and international calls to engage with M23/AFC, he has refused, classifying the group as a terrorist organization.

    Zelensky continues to frame Ukraine’s struggle as a fight for democracy, while Tshisekedi frequently accuses Rwanda of backing M23—an allegation Kigali denies.

    Use of mercenaries

    Foreign military involvement has also shaped both conflicts. In 2024, Russia revealed over 4,000 foreign mercenaries were fighting in Ukraine—many believed to be supported by NATO member states. These countries have also provided Ukraine with financial aid and advanced weaponry.

    Similarly, Tshisekedi’s government enlisted support from over 280 European mercenaries, some of whom exited through Rwanda in January 2025.

    Reports estimate as many as 800 mercenaries, including Romania’s RALF group, were present in Goma. DRC also welcomed troops from SADC countries and Burundi, many of whom decided to withdraw after battlefield losses to AFC/M23.

    Territory lost, positions hardened

    Despite international support and militarized approaches, both leaders have suffered substantial territorial losses.

    As of 2024, Russia controls approximately 20% of Ukrainian territory, including key regions like Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, displacing millions.

    In DRC, AFC/M23 now controls most of the eastern provinces, including the strategic cities of Goma and Bukavu, and has established de facto administrative authority over much of North and South Kivu.

    Human cost of prolonged conflict

    The military toll has been devastating. Ukraine is estimated to have lost up to 1 million soldiers, with an additional 100,000 desertions, according to reports Russia cites—though Kyiv disputes these numbers.

    The DRC’s toll is similarly grim. Over 2,500 soldiers from the national army and allied militias reportedly died during the battle for Goma alone.

    Desertions have also plagued Congolese ranks, with several troops captured and sentenced to death for fleeing combat.

    Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine and Félix Tshisekedi of DRC responded to domestic conflict in remarkably parallel ways.

    Seeking sympathy, avoiding responsibility

    Rather than embracing introspection or compromise, both Zelensky and Tshisekedi have positioned themselves globally as victims, appealing to international partners for support while deflecting blame for internal failings.

    Zelensky continues to frame Ukraine’s struggle as a fight for democracy, while Tshisekedi frequently accuses Rwanda of backing M23—an allegation Kigali denies.

    Critics argue both leaders have shown reluctance to accept accountability for the underlying domestic fractures fueling the conflicts.

    Strategic minerals and superpower interests

    Both Ukraine and the DRC are resource-rich nations, which has shaped their relationships with the United States and other Western powers.

    Ukraine and the U.S. recently signed agreements granting access to Ukrainian natural resources, as part of post-war reconstruction efforts.

    Similarly, in early 2025, Tshisekedi’s government was reportedly exploring ways to leverage Congolese minerals in exchange for military and diplomatic backing against M23 and pressure on Rwanda.

    A late turn toward dialogue

    After years of intransigence, both leaders appear to be softening their stances. Zelensky has signaled a willingness to engage in peace talks with Russia, while Tshisekedi has similarly opened the door to dialogue with AFC/M23.

    In both cases, the United States has expressed interest in facilitating negotiations, marking a potential shift from armed confrontation to diplomatic resolution.

    Whether these talks will succeed remains uncertain, but for now, they offer the first genuine glimmers of hope in conflicts that have long resisted compromise.

    Ukraine and the U.S. recently signed agreements granting access to Ukrainian natural resources, as part of post-war reconstruction efforts.

  • Equity Group, AGF expand partnership with USD 500m framework to accelerate MSME financing

    This transformative move builds on a longstanding partnership between the two institutions and aims to unlock up to $1 billion in lending for MSMEs in the region, with a projected impact of creating or sustaining more than 50,000 jobs.

    Building on a robust collaboration established in 2018, which was later enhanced in 2020 with a $75 million facility, this renewed partnership represents the largest single guarantee engagement in AGF’s history. It targets MSMEs in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Tanzania, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with plans to extend to future Equity Group subsidiaries over the next 10 years.

    The framework will be implemented in three phases, starting with an initial USD 115 million tranche already committed to the five core subsidiaries. It will cover loans to MSMEs, with a focus on women-owned, youth-led, and green enterprises. To date, the AGF–Equity partnership has unlocked over $160 million in loans for nearly 2,000 MSMEs, including 500 women-led and 900 youth-led businesses.

    “This expanded partnership with the African Guarantee Fund underscores our shared vision of empowering MSMEs, which are the backbone of African economies,” said Dr. James Mwangi, Managing Director and CEO of Equity Group. “By enhancing access to finance and promoting sustainable business practices, we are investing in the future of our communities, preserving jobs and driving inclusive growth across the region.”

    The initiative reflects a broader strategy by Equity Group to align its lending with high-impact sectors and support its Africa Recovery and Resilience Plan (ARRP), which emphasizes strategic partnerships and collaborative development. According to Dr. Mwangi, “We see a unique opportunity to deepen our focus on high-impact SME sub-sectors, including agriculture, women- and youth-led enterprises, among others.”

    AGF Group CEO Jules Ngankam also emphasized the depth of impact expected from the renewed partnership. “By supporting the bank to accelerate SME financing, we envision several development impact indicators, including increasing the number of people employed and engaged in businesses and growth of enterprises from one stage to another, for instance, from Small to Medium enterprises,” he said.

    Part of the initiative’s strength lies in its alignment with the African Development Bank’s Affirmative Finance Action for Women in Africa (AFAWA) Guarantee for Growth program.

    This program aims to unlock up to $3 billion for women-led businesses in Africa. Through the AGF–Equity partnership, women entrepreneurs will benefit from increased guarantee cover and receive technical support via the Equity Group Foundation, helping to close the persistent gender finance gap.

    The partnership also places environmental sustainability at the core of its mission. Through AGF’s Green Guarantee Facility and Equity’s support for coastal and freshwater livelihoods, both organizations are championing green and blue economy activities that promote sustainable use of natural resources.

    In addition to financial support, AGF will continue to build capacity within Equity Group through specialized training programs, focusing particularly on gender-smart investing—an area that is increasingly crucial for ensuring inclusive growth.

    Equity Group, a Pan-African financial services powerhouse listed on several stock exchanges, has grown to serve over 21.6 million customers with an asset base of $13.96 billion. Its diversified portfolio spans banking, insurance, fintech, investment, telecom, and social impact. In 2024, it was named the second strongest financial brand in the world by Brand Finance.

    AGF, backed by major development institutions including DANIDA, AfDB, AFD, and the Mastercard Foundation, has already unlocked more than $5 billion in SME financing through 250 financial institutions in 44 countries. Its model of risk-sharing and capacity-building has made it a cornerstone of SME development in Africa.

    Equity Group Managing Director & CEO, Dr. James Mwangi (Left) and African Guarantee Fund Group CEO, Jules Ngankam (Right) display a signed agreement to scale up transformative partnership with USD 500 Million guarantee facility to accelerate MSME financing.Equity Group Managing Director & CEO, Dr. James Mwangi (front Left) and African Guarantee Fund Group CEO, Jules Ngankam (front Right) sign an agreement to scale up transformative partnership with USD 500 Million guarantee facility to accelerate MSME financing. Standing behind them from L-R: Equity Group Chief Strategy Officer, Brent Malahay, Equity Group Chief Operating Officer, Samwel Kirubi, African Guarantee Fund Board Chairman, Felix Bikpo and African Guarantee Fund Group Director of Legal and Corporate Affairs, Juneid Kodabux.

  • In commemoration of the 80th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941-1945

    This conflict between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany lasted almost four years, from June 22, 1941, to May 9, 1945. It brought unspeakable suffering and immense sacrifices to our people, with 27 million Soviet lives lost; their memory remains sacred to us. Yet it concluded with a triumphant victory, the capture of Berlin, and the signing of the Act of Unconditional Surrender by Germany.

    The Great Patriotic War was part of World War II, a global conflict where the Axis Powers – Germany, Japan, and Italy – faced off against the Allies led by the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

    This “war within a war” stood out for its unprecedented scale (the Soviet-German front was the most significant and concentrated in terms of forces, determining the outcome of the global conflict), unparalleled ferocity (the Nazis literally considered our ancestors subhuman and committed monstrous atrocities against them), irreconcilability of goals (for both sides, the fate of their state hung in the balance, and for the Soviet people, it was also about physical survival).

    Therefore, for RussiaVictory Day is not just an anniversary of a significant historical event but essentially a “second birthday.” Many Russians believe that without it, there would be no us today, passing on the veneration of the heroism of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers from generation to generation..

    This holiday is truly national and will remain so for a long time, which explains the special attention it receives from the leadership of our country and most former Soviet states, even 80 years after the victory.

    “However, what relevance does a war, so important to you but very distant from the African continent, have to do with us”? – Africans might ask. Surprisingly, the connection is direct, as the Soviet Union’s triumph in the Great Patriotic War and the subsequent formation of the global socialist bloc paved the way for Africa decolonization.

    Without the presence of a powerful alternative force that unconditionally supported national liberation movements, former colonial powers might not have so quickly acquiesced to the independence of their colonies. Moreover, the support provided by socialist states, led by the USSR, to African countries in achieving real independence and fighting apartheid was crucial.

    There is another aspect of the Soviet people’s victory over Nazism that is particularly relevant for Africans today. Contrary to the narrative presented by the West that portrays the Soviet-German conflict as a “clash of two totalitarian regimes,” the Great Patriotic War was fundamentally a confrontation between two diametrically opposed ideologies.

    While communism evolved from European humanist ideals, Nazism was based on a man-hating theory of racial superiority, not just of the “white” race over “colored” peoples but of the “Aryan race” (to which Hitler and his followers added Germanic peoples, including Anglo-Saxons) over all others.

    The fact that the Soviet system categorically rejected the notion of racial inequality, despite its harshness in some other aspects, while such ideas often found influential supporters in the West, including the US and the UK, cannot be refuted by our opponents.

    When the General Assembly of the United Nations passes resolutions calling for action against Nazism and racism, regularly proposed by Russia and its allies, the voting results are quite predictable. Western countries and their close allies vote against adopting these documents, whereas African states, including Rwanda, consistently support them.

    The narrative that “that war was a white people’s quirk,” occasionally heard from African intellectuals, is also unfounded. Especially given the ongoing “battle for historical truth” between Russia and the West, which includes the recognition of the mass extermination of Soviet people by Nazi Germany, its allies, and collaborators during the Great Patriotic War as genocide.

    Before dismissing the lack of an internationally recognized definition of genocide at the time, it’s worth noting that the actions of the Ottoman Empire against Armenians in 1915 are widely recognized as genocide and so about massacres of Herero and Nama people by the Germans in the beginning of the XX Century.

    The number of victims among our compatriots is unprecedented in world history, and the entire Russian people were destined for extinction by the Nazis had they succeeded in their aggression.

    What lesson from that Great Victory is most relevant today? Perhaps the one that Russia’s adversaries have failed to learn over centuries (Hitler was far from the first to try to subdue Russia): it is futile to attempt to subject our country to your will, to impose foreign orders and values on its people, or expect to strengthen its own security at Russia’s expense.

    The outcome is always tragic – Polish King Sigismund of the 17th century, Swedish King Charles XII of the 18th century, French Emperor Napoleon of the 19th century, and the ill repute Fuhrer of the “Thousand-Year Reich” of the 20th century could all attest to this. Those who today aim to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia” should remember this.

    But another lesson is maybe equally important. The victory over Nazi Germany was achieved largely through the unity of all forces rejecting the absolute evil it represented.

    Russia remains grateful to our former allies for their solidarity and assistance, proud of our contribution to saving humanity from Fascism. We consider the United Nations, established as an aftermath of the war, to be an enduring common asset, despite its shortcomings, serving as a cornerstone of international relations.

    In our country it is believed that reforming the UN to ensure adequate representation of the “Global South” in its key mechanisms is achievable if confrontational trends in global politics can be overcome. We are ready to collaborate with those who recognize the inevitability of change and are willing to meet halfway towards finding reasonable compromises.

    Sixteen years after the Great Victory, a song emerged in the Soviet Union and the title speaks for itself: “Do Russians Want War?” Its lyrics, providing a clear answer to this question, have been etched into the memories of entire generations of Russians.

    A nation that lost every seventh citizen in less than four years cannot want war; they will wage it only when there is no other choice left. But if it comes to that point, they will fight until victory, fervently desiring peace but prepared to wait for it and pay dearly for their security and the triumph of justice as they understand it. One can love, be indifferent to or hate Russia, but the “genetic code” of the country, shaped by more than a thousand years of history, remains unchanged.

    The author of this article, Alexander Polyakov is the Ambassador of Russia to Rwanda.

  • Why is SADC not grateful to Rwanda?

    The SADC forces entered eastern DRC under the SAMIDRC mandate, officially on a so-called peacekeeping mission. But in practice, they aligned themselves with the Congolese government and the FDLR—a militia notorious for its role in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi and its ongoing efforts to destabilize Rwanda.

    Intelligence reports confirmed that the joint forces’ base was not only used for operations against M23 but also served as a command post for planning attacks against Rwanda—despite the fact that Rwanda is not linked to M23’s cause, even though some foreign actors have tried to force that narrative.

    While these troops claimed their objective was to neutralize M23, their posture, movements, and equipment on the ground suggested a broader readiness for confrontation—including with Rwanda. Long-range missiles were reportedly positioned near the Rwandan border, aimed in Rwanda’s direction.

    Despite all of this, when these forces were defeated and needed to exit Congolese territory, Rwanda acted with maturity. The very country they had once viewed as a threat facilitated their safe withdrawal. Rwanda provided a secure and humane corridor—via Rubavu, the very town they had shelled, to Rusumo. It could have refused.

    It could have insisted on logistical delays or demanded security reviews. But it didn’t. Rwanda’s tragic past has taught it the true cost of hardship—and that’s why, wherever support is needed, the answer is a resounding yes. That’s why the request from the TCCs in SAMIDRC for the safe withdrawal of their defeated soldiers was honored. Both the troops and their equipment are being escorted until they safely exit Rwandan territory.

    There was no official statement of thanks. No acknowledgment from the SADC bloc. Just silence—as if Rwanda’s gesture were an expected obligation rather than an exceptional act of regional solidarity. I watched the media briefing organized by the Ministry of Defence of South Africa in collaboration with the SANDF this Sunday, but it ended without even a mention of Rwanda’s vital contribution to the ongoing repatriation, which is expected to conclude this month.

    And yet, Rwanda’s role was critical. Goma’s airport had been rendered inoperable by those very forces. The surrounding terrain had been heavily mined by FARDC, FDLR, and allied troops in an effort to block M23—ironically putting SADC forces at even greater risk.

    Without Rwanda’s cooperation, the withdrawal would likely have been nearly impossible, or at the very least, extremely costly. Some of their equipment might not have been evacuated at all. Yet, this crucial support is not acknowledged, with even a simple ‘thanks’ to Rwanda for its efforts and this moment reflects a broader trend of persistent ingratitude toward Rwanda.

    For years, Rwanda has faced unfounded accusations and diplomatic hostility from both regional and international actors. Yet it continues to prioritize peace over provocation. It has facilitated the repatriation of foreign mercenaries—including those linked to European countries. But instead of appreciation, some actors have called for sanctions on Rwanda, often based on politically motivated or biased narratives.

    The lack of recognition from SADC is not just an oversight—it reflects deeper insecurities within the region. Rwanda’s progress since the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi is remarkable by any standard.

    In less than three decades, the country has rebuilt from devastation to become one of the most admired, stable, and efficient states on the continent. Its achievements in gender equality, anti-corruption, digital innovation, public health, and cleanliness are globally recognized.

    Instead of learning from Rwanda’s model, some African governments remain trapped in outdated rivalries—resorting to sabotage, smear campaigns, or proxy warfare in an attempt to “cut Rwanda down to size.”

    This destructive mindset has prevented them from showing gratitude to a nation that provided safe passage to their troops, who had been decisively defeated by rebels simply fighting for survival.

    Rwanda has much to offer to any nation willing to learn: governance reforms, social cohesion policies, digital transformation models, community-based security frameworks, and more. Rwanda opens its arms to genuine learners and guests. But those who arrive with hostile intentions will be handled accordingly.

    Africa cannot build a shared future with a divided mindset. We must begin to recognize and uplift success where it exists—not sabotage it. Rwanda’s resilience should be seen as a lesson, not a threat. It is time for African leadership, including within SADC, to act with the maturity the continent demands: acknowledge the truth, own past miscalculations, and give credit where it is due.

    Gratitude is not weakness—it is a mark of strength, and of leadership.

    Rwanda has already shown it.

    Will SADC?

    SADC troops were deployed in December 2023 to support the Congolese military against the AFC/M23 coalition

  • Malicious distortion must not obscure the authenticity of history

    Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit Russia from May 7 to 10 at the invitation of President Vladimir Putin and will attend the celebrations marking Great Patriotic War Victory.

    Historians seldom completely agree with one another even on some of the most important events of the past. There are different views on various historical events such as World War II (WWII).

    With new documents being declassified and new excavations at the sites of the main battles, we are likely to see new theories and hypotheses emerging that will feed more discussions and offer contrarian narratives of the most devastating military conflict in the history of humanity.

    However, there is a clear red line between looking for new facts and deliberately trying to falsify history. The former is a noble quest for truth and understanding, while the latter is a deplorable attempt to revise past events in favor of political goals or personal ambitions.

    An honest scholar entering a research project cannot be completely sure what will be found at the end of the road; an unscrupulous politician presenting a falsified version of history knows perfectly well what picture to present to the target audience. Truth is skillfully mixed with lies, while fabrications are dissolved in real facts to make the picture more credible and attractive.

    The most graphic manifestation of the WWII falsifications is the now very popular assertion that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were jointly responsible for the beginning of the war.

    The narrative equating Nazis and Soviets is nonsensical because it completely ignores the history of fascism in Europe and repeated attempts by Moscow to convince London, Paris and Warsaw to form an alliance against it. Only after the “Munich Betrayal” by the West, the 1938 pact among Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy that forced Czechoslovakia to cede territory to Germany without Czechoslovakian consent, did Moscow decide to go for a non-aggression treaty with Germany to buy itself time before invasion.

    Likewise, the dominant Western narrative of WWII increasingly frames the conflict as a stark moral battle between good and evil. As a result, there is a growing reluctance to fully acknowledge the pivotal roles that Russia and China played in the defeat of Nazi Germany and militarist Japan.

    Neither do they recognize the contributions of communist-led resistance movements in countries like France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Greece. This is largely due to ideological biases that exclude these groups from the dominant narrative of “heroic liberal forces” in the fight against the Axis nations, the coalition led by Germany, Italy, and Japan.

    Instead, the predominant view in most Western countries credits the U.S. as the primary force behind victory, along with limited support from other allies. This reading of WWII has nothing to do with reality, but it nicely fits the now popular Manichean interpretation of world politics.

    Another typical distortion of history is the selective portrayal of the victims of the war, often shaped by a distinctly Eurocentric perspective. Much attention is given to the atrocities endured by Europeans under Nazi occupation or by Europeans in Asia at the hands of the Japanese, while the immense suffering of non-European populations frequently receives far less recognition.

    Every human life is of equal value, and all victims deserve empathy. Even those who served in the German and Japanese armed forces during WWII should not be indiscriminately labeled as criminals; the notion of “collective guilt” must not override the principle of individual responsibility for verifiable war crimes.

    However, it is often overlooked in contemporary Western discourse that the Soviet Union and China suffered the heaviest human cost of WWII – with casualties reaching 27 million and 35 million, respectively. A significant portion of these losses were civilians, and the scale and brutality of wartime atrocities committed on Soviet and Chinese territories far exceeded those experienced in most other regions.

    Contemporary politics inevitably shapes how we interpret the past, as people often seek historical narratives that align with their present-day beliefs and agendas. Yet history should be approached with integrity, not as a tool to justify current political positions. This is not about defending national pride or preserving comforting myths; every nation, regardless of size or wealth, carries both moments of honor and episodes of regret in its historical journey. A balanced national narrative includes both triumphs and failures.

    But when history is deliberately manipulated to serve short-term political interests, we risk blurring our understanding of the present and undermining our vision for the future. Such willful distortion is not only intellectually dishonest but could also lead to grave consequences.

    The Red Square in Moscow, Russia, March 17, 2023. /Xinhua

  • Pass the torch of peace from generation to generation

    Today, the world has undergone dramatic transformations. Technology has connected distant corners of the globe, and globalization has brought nations closer than ever before. Yet, alongside these advances, new and complex challenges have emerged. Global uncertainty is rising, marked by power politics, unilateralism and division in ever-evolving forms.

    As the world reflects on the lessons of history, humanity must confront some urgent questions: How can we safeguard the hard-won peace? How can we collectively address pressing global challenges? And most importantly, how can we forge a shared future for all?

    As noted by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the general debate of the 70th session of the United Nations General Assembly back in 2015, history is a mirror, and only by drawing lessons from history can the world avoid repeating past calamities.

    “We should view history with awe and human conscience. The past cannot be changed, but the future can be shaped. Bearing history in mind is not to perpetuate hatred. Rather, it is for mankind not to forget its lesson. Remembering history does not mean being obsessed with the past. Rather, in doing so, we aim to create a better future and pass the torch of peace from generation to generation,” Xi said then.

    VICTORY OF THE JUST

    On the night of May 8, 1945, Germany signed the surrender document in Karlshorst, Berlin, marking the end of World War II (WWII) in Europe. Meanwhile in Asia, China’s final major campaign against Japan — the Battle of Western Hunan — reached its decisive phase.

    Japan’s surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay on Sept. 2, 1945, concluded WWII, humanity’s deadliest conflict. More than 80 countries and regions, involving roughly 2 billion people, were drawn into the war, with the total casualties at over 100 million and economic losses exceeding 4 trillion U.S. dollars. Against fascist aggression, more than 50 countries, including China and the Soviet Union, formed a united front.

    The world will never forget that as the main theater in the East of the World Anti-Fascist War, China made a national sacrifice of over 35 million casualties in its fight against the majority troops of Japanese militarism. During 14 years of fierce anti-fascist fighting, China engaged and tied down over two-thirds of the Japanese Army, inflicting 70 percent of Japan’s wartime military casualties. These efforts significantly contributed to the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War.

    People from different countries stood with China in the common struggle. China will always remember the international support it received. For example, the U.S. “Flying Tigers” opened up the Hump Route for transporting emergency supplies; foreign doctors such as Norman Bethune from Canada and Dwarkanath Kotnis from India risked their lives to save others; German businessman John Rabe helped protect civilians during the Nanjing Massacre in 1937.

    Equally significant was the Soviet Union’s sacrifice and contribution on the European theater of World War II. From the Battle of Moscow to the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet people bore tremendous hardship and played a decisive role in defeating Nazi troops.

    During the global anti-fascist war, China and the Soviet Union supported each other. Soviet air force volunteers fought alongside Chinese soldiers, during which over 200 of them lost their lives in China. Many Chinese, including Mao Anying, late Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s eldest son, engaged in fighting against Nazi troops during the toughest time of the Soviet Union’s Great Patriotic War. This shared sacrifice forged a deep bond between the two sides.

    The victory of the anti-fascist war shattered attempts of the fascists and militarists to dominate the world, ended the colonial divisions of the world by imperial powers, and laid the foundation for a new vision of global peace and cooperation.

    REBIRTH OF THE WORLD

    This year also marks the 80th founding anniversary of the United Nations. The opening words of the UN Charter — “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind” — stand as a powerful testament to the hard-won lessons of two catastrophic world wars.

    More than just a historical reflection, these words convey humanity’s ardent desire for lasting peace.

    Born from the ashes of World War II, the United Nations represents humanity’s efforts to move away from a world governed by the law of the jungle and a world order of Western-dominated hierarchies.

    From the Westphalian and Vienna systems to the Versailles-Washington system, the old order divided the world into dominant powers, and nations they colonized and oppressed.

    In a historic shift, the UN Charter enshrines the principle of sovereign equality, affirming for the first time in international law that all nations, irrespective of size, strength or wealth, are equal. That became the cornerstone for the postwar international order.

    Anchored in the UN Charter, principles such as sovereign equality, non-interference in other’s internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes and prohibition of the use or threat of force have evolved into bedrock norms of international relations. The UN system’s creation has established not merely institutional platforms for cooperation, but transformed the very architecture of global governance.

    Under the guidance of the spirit of the UN Charter, national liberation movements swept across the globe. Many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America cast off the shackles of colonialism and gained national independence and sovereignty.

    International law thus began to genuinely safeguard the rights and interests of developing countries. A more open and inclusive international community has replaced the West-centric paradigm of an exclusive “civilized nations club,” a solid and far-reaching step toward lasting peace for humanity.

    China has actively participated in founding the United Nations and shaping the postwar international order. On June 26, 1945, China was the first country to sign the UN Charter. Before that, the Chinese delegation strongly defended the interests of small- and medium-sized countries, and insisted that “independence” be enshrined in the UN Charter as the goal of the International Trusteeship System despite pressure from the West. Such efforts exemplified China’s unwavering commitment to defending international fairness and justice.

    The postwar international order has consolidated the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War, established the fundamental norms of modern international relations, curtailed military expansionism, and advanced global peace and development.

    Since its inception 80 years ago, the United Nations has grown into the most universal, representative and authoritative intergovernmental organization in the world, carrying humanity’s shared aspirations for a better future.

    CALL OF THE ERA

    Over the past 80 years, the absence of global-scale wars has allowed the world to enjoy sustained peace. Emerging economies, including China, have risen collectively, while economic globalization has deepened, turning the world into an interconnected “global village” through expanding cross-border exchanges and cooperation.

    At the same time, a new wave of technological and industrial transformation is reshaping economies, societies and international relations. The benefits of this largely peaceful era have created a level of global prosperity unprecedented in human history.

    However, beneath the surface of peace flow some turbulent undercurrents. Unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise, with some politicians in the West obsessed with dividing the world along ideological lines, forming exclusive blocs and fueling a “new Cold War” mentality.

    Even more, the United States openly disregards international norms, engages in economic coercion, imposes punitive tariffs and elevates domestic law above international law.

    Such hegemonic behavior undermines the UN-centered international system, challenges the international order underpinned by international law, and threatens the very foundation of global peace and development.

    As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned, “Everywhere we look, peace is under attack.”

    The world is once again at a crossroads. Should the world uphold multilateralism and seek common ground, or allow unilateralism to grow unchecked? Should the world support more democratic international relations, or accept that power politics rules everything? Should the world follow international law and basic diplomatic norms, or return to a world where the strong dominate the weak?

    History offers the clearest lessons. Firstly, peace must be defended. The terror of Nazi tyranny and the atrocities in Nanjing Massacre showed that war destroys civilization, while peace allows it to grow.

    Secondly, unity is essential for the survival of human civilization. When fascism and militarism were tearing the world apart, the signing of the Declaration by United Nations by 26 nations in 1942 showed that ideological divisions can be overcome, and shared human values can bind nations together.

    Thirdly, the tide of history cannot be reversed or resisted. The fall of colonialism, the end of the Cold War and the rise of developing countries all show that the logic of “might makes right” does not last. A multipolar world is the way forward.

    Fourthly, rules are not tools for the powerful to abuse. Instead, they are the foundation of fairness and justice. The principles in the UN Charter, including sovereign equality and bans on aggression, remind humanity that without rules, the world risks sliding into chaos.

    As a victor in World War II as well as a founder and defender of the post-war order, China has consistently stood on the right side of history and on the side of civilization and human progress.

    From advancing high-quality Belt and Road cooperation to launching the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative and the Global Civilization Initiative, and from promoting a community with a shared future for mankind to offering ideas and solutions for global and regional challenges, China supports true multilateralism through concrete actions. It is working to make global governance fairer and more balanced, while contributing stability and positive momentum to world peace and development.

    The majority of the world has come to recognize China as a pivotal force in safeguarding world peace and stability. As noted by UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher, initiatives China proposed around peace and security, global development and cultural cooperation closely align with the UN’s core mission of peacemaking, humanitarian efforts and global security.

    The concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind” is another key idea that highlights global solidarity and “the world coming together, not pulling apart,” Fletcher told Xinhua, adding that such a concept has created “partnerships that we really need if we’re to meet the challenges ahead of us, including climate change.”

    As partners who fought side by side in World War II, China and Russia continue to work together today to uphold global strategic stability. They coordinate closely within multilateral frameworks such as the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, jointly opposing hegemonism and power politics, and promoting a more multipolar world and economic globalization through true multilateralism.

    Meanwhile, emerging markets and developing countries are rising as a collective force. The awakened Global South is gaining strength, confidence and a greater voice in global governance. The forces for peace and development have never been more robust.

    French writer Victor Hugo once observed: “Memories are our strength. When night attempts to return, we must light up the great dates, as we would light torches.” The significance of marking the 80th anniversary of the victory of the World Anti-Fascist War lies in illuminating the path ahead, and reaffirming humanity’s unwavering commitment to enduring peace.

    At this new crossroads in history, what humanity needs is not the drumbeat of a new Cold War, but the call for cooperation; not claims of civilizational superiority, but a spirit of shared prosperity; not a return to the law of the jungle, but a renewed commitment to a shared future.

    Only by following this path can the world prevent the tragedies of history from repeating themselves and turn the vision of lasting peace and sustainable development into reality.

    A ceremony presenting flower baskets to fallen heroes to mark Martyrs' Day is held at Tian'anmen Square in Beijing, capital of China, Sept. 30, 2024. (Xinhua/Yin Bogu)

  • MTN Rwanda reports Frw1.6 billion profit after tax in first quarter of 2025

    This significant financial turnaround, announced in the company’s results for the period ended 31 March 2025, was fueled by robust revenue growth and reduced depreciation costs.

    The company achieved a 12.3% YoY increase in service revenue, totaling Frw67.2 billion, with strong performances in its fintech and data segments.

    Data revenue rose by 12.2%, propelled by a 33.6% spike in data traffic and growing smartphone penetration, which now stands at 41.8%.

    Popular offerings like GWAMON’ data and voice bundles have continued to drive customer engagement, despite a slight decline in active data users due to heightened market competition.

    MTN Rwanda’s Mobile Money (MoMo) platform remains a cornerstone of its growth, with revenue climbing 28.0% YoY. The platform now serves 5.3 million active users, reflecting strong adoption of advanced services such as payments and remittances.

    “The way Rwandans are embracing MoMo in their daily lives is both a source of pride and a deep responsibility,” said Chantal Kagame, CEO of Mobile Money Rwanda Ltd.

    “As a dedicated partner in Rwanda’s progress, we remain Focused on responsible and inclusive innovation which are key to advancing the country’s ambitious Financial inclusion goals, together.”

    The company’s total subscriber base grew by 2.8% to 7.6 million, while earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) increased by 9.3% to Rwf 26.5 billion.

    However, the EBITDA margin dipped slightly by 1.2 percentage points to 38.9%, impacted by currency depreciation and higher operational costs.

    “We are pleased with the growth and return to profitability,” said Dunstan Ayodele Stober, Acting Chief Finance Officer.

    “We continue our efforts to improve profitability through a disciplined expense efficiency program and value-based capital allocation. As we execute our Ambition 2025 strategy, our focus remains on building financial resilience and driving long-term value for our stakeholders .”

    Commenting on the results, newly appointed CEO Monzer Ali expressed optimism about MTN Rwanda’s trajectory.

    “I am energized by the opportunity to build on our strong foundation[…] I am particularly pleased with our Q1 results, which reflect the strength of our connectivity and platform business together with the resilience of our team,” he said.

    “We remain committed to leading Rwanda’s digital transformation by delivering innovative, inclusive solutions that enable progress for all Rwandans,” Monzer added.

    Beyond financial performance, MTN Rwanda continues to empower communities through its corporate social responsibility efforts.

    The company awarded Rwf 14.5 million to 40 MTN agents under its Level Up Your Biz program, supporting local entrepreneurs with training in digital marketing, finance, and business growth.

    The performance was attributed to the resilience of MTN team.MTN Rwanda headquarters in Nyarutarama

  • Why engaging Tshisekedi in good faith is a strategic mistake

    As peace envoys shuttle between Kigali and Kinshasa, the fundamental absurdity persists—everyone speaks of peace, but no one holds the Congolese government accountable for its war-mongering, internal repression, and toxic ethnic nationalism.

    Let us begin with a small parable. Imagine someone blames the neighbor for burning down their house, and while standing in the ashes, they use the accusation as a campaign slogan.

    But here’s the catch—they were the arsonists. This is not a metaphor. This is Congolese politics under President Félix Tshisekedi.

    On April 18, 2025, the French media house France 24 ran a story headlined, “Washington Urges Rwanda to Stop Supporting M23 and Withdraw Troops from DR Congo.”

    This statement by U.S. Special Envoy to the Great Lakes Region, Massad Boulos, urging Rwanda to “cease all support to M23 and withdraw RDF troops” may appear like diplomatic progress.

    In truth, they mark yet another instance of the international community treating Tshisekedi as a credible peace partner when he is anything but.

    This was just one week after Boulos, while standing on Rwandan soil, brushed aside questions on the same topic, saying, “We are not involved in those details.” Now, however, the United States was not only involved, it was suddenly a moral compass. For good reasons though.

    One must wonder: Is the U.S. foreign policy arm guided by rotating amnesia? Is geopolitics in the Great Lakes region reduced to ping-pong diplomacy?

    Was there any attempt to understand root causes or power dynamics in the region? There was no mention of the genocidaires still haunting eastern Congo under the FDLR banner.

    Yet, this call overlooks the complex tapestry of regional dynamics, historical grievances, and, most critically, the duplicity of a Congolese leadership that has mastered the art of political ventriloquism.

    From ‘Ethnic’ Survival to Political Expression

    And no mention of the fact that the very M23 Boulos wanted disarmed had been protecting Tutsi Congolese civilians from decades of targeted violence.

    The starting point is to master the fabric of Eastern Congo’s turmoil. Let us backtrack.

    The instability in eastern DRC and threats to Congolese Rwandophones, particularly Tutsis, date back to the 1960s. This was long before the RDF or President Kagame.

    American Diplomatic telegrams from 1963 to 1965 already detailed systematic violence against Congolese Tutsis.

    So no, M23 did not invent this crisis. They are merely a consequence of a state that has normalized the exclusion and extermination of its own citizens.

    Then came 1994. The genocidaires who orchestrated the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda fled into eastern Congo.

    Successive Congolese regimes, including that of Joseph Kabila and Félix Tshisekedi, made no serious effort to neutralize them.

    On the contrary, they armed them, politicized them, integrated them into the Congolese army, and sometimes unleashed them on Congolese Tutsi civilians as part of ‘local defense’ militias.

    But here’s what makes it grotesque: Western actors are more outraged by Rwanda’s “alleged” support for M23 than by Kinshasa’s documented, historical and continued support for the FDLR and its splinter groups, whose ideology is openly genocidal.

    What is this if not geopolitical gaslighting?

    M23 began as a resistance movement seeking to protect Tutsi communities from extermination and expulsion.

    Over time, however, its ranks have swelled with Congolese from various backgrounds who are disillusioned with Kinshasa’s abysmal governance, tribal favoritism, and the brutal exploitation of non-Luba ethnic groups in the Kivu regions.

    Today, AFC/M23 is no longer just a Tutsi insurgency. It is a banner under which political dissent, resistance to state abuse, and calls for genuine federalism are gathering.

    Even individuals from President Tshisekedi’s own Baluba ethnic group have joined the movement. It has, therefore, become a national challenge—not a Rwandan conspiracy.

    And yet, instead of engaging in honest dialogue, Kinshasa rages against the mirror.

    A Tone-Deaf Courier of Warfare

    On May 2, 2025, Congolese Premier Judith Suminwa arrived at Ndjili Airport in Kinshasa to receive Congolese soldiers who had been under M23 custody since January.

    These were soldiers who had been captured and treated with dignity. Rather than acknowledge M23’s humane gesture, Suminwa chose war rhetoric.

    She said nothing of reconciliation. Instead, she delivered a chilling message from her boss, President Tshisekedi: “The struggle continues against the enemy and the occupier. The battle for the total liberation of the territory is ongoing.”

    Such tone-deafness would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.

    In any other context, such a statement from a prime minister would be interpreted as a formal rejection of all peace efforts. Yet, the international community says nothing.

    Because, apparently, Suminwa is polite, educated, and French-speaking. Never mind the fact that she speaks the language of conflict fluently.

    The Prime minister was complemented by the army’s mouthpiece of aggression.

    On May 4, 2025, Congolese Colonel Mak Hazukay, army spokesman in the far north, escalated the belligerence. “We reserve the right to retaliate on all fronts if the threat from the rebels and their Rwandan allies persists.” I forgot to say he referred to AFC/M23 as “terrorists” which his seniors have been avoiding.

    Hazukay, it must be noted, represents the same army that has incorporated genocidaires into its ranks, the same army that has suffered multiple humiliations against M23, and the same army that routinely collaborates with FDLR in field operations.

    To hear him speak of ‘retaliation’ is like watching a pyromaniac protest the heat.

    As political discourse scholar Jennifer Mercieca notes, “Bad faith actors use the tactics of the demagogue: distortion, deflection, and division.” Hazukay checks every box.

    This is before entering a masterclass in political bad faith—which brings us to the man of the hour—Félix Tshisekedi.

    One could write volumes about his political dishonesty, his double-speak, and his willingness to sacrifice regional peace for short-term populism. But let us focus on just a few points.

    Tshisekedi came to power not through popular revolution or democratic transition, but through a secret pact with his predecessor Joseph Kabila.

    He owes his presidency to a backroom deal—not the ballot box. And he has governed accordingly: with no legitimacy, no roadmap, and no accountability.

    To mask this fragility, he resorts to Rwanda-bashing. According to Professor Ruth Wodak, a renowned discourse analyst, “Populist leaders often deploy the politics of scapegoating to unify a fragmented domestic base.”

    A master of the theory, Tshisekedi—has scapegoated Rwanda so often that it has become the only plank in his national security strategy.

    But here’s the motivation: he has no interest in peace. Because war allows him to rule without results while accumulating billions of dollars.

    He can suspend elections in eastern Congo. He can blame foreign interference for every national failure. He can parade around as a wartime president. It’s not a bug. It’s a feature.

    Diplomatic Interventions with Blind Spots

    To be clear, recent U.S. and Qatari diplomatic efforts—particularly the Doha framework—deserve credit. For the first time, regional and global powers are sitting at the same table to discuss lasting solutions.

    But let us be pitilessly honest: Washington and Doha are cities far too close to Kinshasa politically and far too far from Goma and Bukavu in reality.

    Any framework that treats M23 as the problem while ignoring the genocidaires of the FDLR, the kleptocrats in Kinshasa, and the system of ethnic exclusion against Rwandophones is disaster-prone. You cannot build peace on fantasy.

    There exists a limitless appetite for minerals—thus creating a moral black hole. Let us not ignore the elephant in the room: the resource curse.

    The world’s powers don’t really care about the Congolese people. They care about cobalt. They want gold, coltan, and tantalum.

    They want cheap access to critical minerals for their smartphones, electric vehicles, and green economies. Stability and human security, for them, is a footnote—unless it affects mining.

    This explains why so many Western capitals issue threats and sanctions against Rwanda while ignoring the complicity of the Congolese regime in harboring genocidaires. Who eventually turned marauders and predators of their own people.

    Seemingly, the stability of human lives is negotiable. But lithium is sacred.

    Let’s get back to the concern of negotiating with a bad faith actor: a fall guy errand.

    In his book Talking to the Enemy, political communication scholar Michael L. Butterworth warns, “Negotiating with bad faith actors who operate outside the bounds of shared facts is not diplomacy—it is appeasement in slow motion.”

    Tshisekedi is not just a bad negotiator. He is a dishonest actor. He uses negotiations to buy time, to rearm, to perform diplomacy without substance.

    The Luanda and Nairobi processes have been undermined not by Rwanda or M23 but by Kinshasa’s refusal to negotiate, its military provocations, and its refusal to disarm the FDLR.

    Tshisekedi talks about ‘sovereignty’ while inviting mercenaries, foreign troops, and genocidaires to his soil.

    To expect peace under his leadership is to expect rain from a stone. It is a political theater of the bizarre.

    Let us not beat around the bush. Tshisekedi, Suminwa, and Hazukay are not stewards of peace. They are custodians of chaos.

    They speak of liberation while collaborating with terrorists. They speak of sovereignty while outsourcing governance to foreign forces.

    They condemn ‘occupiers’ while being squatted on by their own lies.

    Their diplomatic drama has no intermission, no peak, and no certainty.

    Negotiating with President Tshisekedi is akin to playing chess with an opponent who changes the rules with each move.

    His administration’s rhetoric oscillates between calls for sovereignty and overt support for militias like the FDLR, a group with roots in the perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi inside Rwanda.

    Political discourse scholar Dr. Sarah Nouwen notes, “Engaging in negotiations requires a baseline of mutual respect and a shared commitment to truth. Without these, talks become performative rather than transformative.”

    In the DRC’s case, the performative aspect is glaring, with peace talks serving more as public relations exercises than sincere efforts to resolve conflict.

    Hypocrisy and the Death of Reason

    The most galling part of all this is the ease with which powerful Western governments allow themselves to be visibly manipulated.

    Washington demands that M23 disarm and withdraw. Why? But, where? And under what guarantees?

    Who will protect Congolese Tutsis from FDLR extermination? Who will secure the border zones?

    Who will prevent the re-militarization of genocidal groups?

    No answers. Just slogans.

    Just hollow press statements from officials like who think that thirty years of blood, betrayal, and broken promises can be fixed with a press conference.

    In How Democracies Die, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue that “when institutions reward bad faith, the entire system deteriorates.”

    If they’re right, then the Great Lakes region is not merely deteriorating—it’s being sabotaged by those who should know better.

    The international community’s engagement with the DRC often oscillates between interventionist zeal and negligent apathy.

    While calls for Rwanda to withdraw support for M23 may be valid for convenience’s sake, they must be accompanied by a critical examination of the Congolese government’s role in perpetuating instability.

    In the arena of Congolese politics, President Tshisekedi plays multiple roles, each tailored to his audience—be it international diplomats, domestic constituents, or regional allies.

    Yet, beneath the costumes and scripted lines lies a consistent theme: the prioritization of power and corruption over peace.

    Engaging with such a leader requires more than diplomatic overtures; it demands a critical appraisal of intentions, actions, and the broader context.

    As political discourse scholar Dr. Chantal Mouffe asserts, “Democratic politics is not about reaching consensus but about confronting and negotiating differences.”

    In the DRC’s case, this means recognizing the performative aspects of its leadership and seeking genuine avenues for accountability and reform.

    Until then, peace talks will remain a pantomime, negotiations a farce, and the Congolese people the unwilling audience to a never-ending tragicomedy.

    If this were a play, it would be regarded as a dark clowning. Tshisekedi, the unwitting star, delivers his lines with theatrical seriousness, Suminwa performs as a chorus of war cries, and Hazukay brings in the comic relief—if one finds genocide denial funny.

    But this isn’t theater. It’s real.

    Real people are dying. Real communities are being uprooted. Real genocidaires are still roaming free.

    So let us call it what it is: a diplomatic farce.

    The world must stop indulging Tshisekedi’s regime as a legitimate peace partner. It is not. It is the epicenter of the problem.

    And until that truth is accepted, no resolution, no initiative, no envoy—be they from Doha or D.C.—will ever deliver peace.

    You cannot negotiate with bad faith. You can only expose it.

    And laugh bitterly at the tragedy of it all.

    Democratic Republic of Congo’s President Félix Tshisekedi.