Blog

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?

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.