The newly installed Belgian government, having taken office just a few weeks prior, has engaged in an unprecedented offensive against Kigali while the Rwandan diplomacy positions itself on equal footing.
However, far from being justified by clear motives, this conflict seems to have been manufactured, pretending to defend the territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) without any foundation.
When discussing "International Law," it becomes crucial to examine the past. Belgium, with its tumultuous history related to the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, has little legitimacy to make accusations against Rwanda, especially since past events reveal a biased dynamic.
At a time when thousands of lives were at stake, Brussels chose to turn its back on its humanitarian obligations, abandoning populations to their fate. This silence from the past only reinforces the perception that International Law operates on two speeds, favoring some while neglecting others.
Current Belgian policy, marked by sanctions against Rwanda, raises ethical questions. Who are the real destabilizers in this region? The accusations of destabilization presented by Brussels mask a deeper complexity.
By its decisions, Belgium seems to play into political interests, ignoring the true dynamics at play: internal conflicts, genocidaires at large, and millions of Congolese fleeing incessant violence. By sponsoring media that perpetuate hate, it supports the same forces that previously contributed to the collapse of peace in the region.
Actions by Kinshasa, which has armed groups with a tragic past, also challenge the morality of the Belgian position. The complicity of the DRC in supporting extremist elements underscores the hypocrisy of certain Belgian politicians who see themselves as arbiters of peace.
Who is truly responsible for the destabilization? Is it Rwanda, which is simply trying to protect its territory, or Belgium, trying to control a narrative and maintain influence over regions it has long dominated?
This aggressive stance of the Belgian government against Rwanda cannot be separated from the fears it raises among certain politicians regarding the emergence of a strong and autonomous Rwanda. After all, Belgium's colonial history still weighs heavily on its international relations, and a prosperous Rwanda would question the legacy of a system that has consistently sought to maintain the underdevelopment of African nations.
The behavior of Belgian diplomats seems symptomatic of an attitude steeped in arrogance and distrust. By sidelining Rwanda from discussions and failing to acknowledge the repercussions of their sanctions, Belgian authorities can be seen as mere divisive actors in the Great Lakes region of Africa.
The time has come to reconsider these unilateral approaches. Instead of sanctions, Belgium could demonstrate courage by advocating for sincere dialogue that respects the aspirations of African populations. Rather than continuing down a spiral of tensions, nations must find common ground to build a peaceful and prosperous future for all parties involved.
Ultimately, it is essential to choose dialogue over conflict, understanding over suspicion, and listening over accusation. This path is the only one capable of initiating lasting peace and ensuring that the mistakes of the past do not recur.
Jean-Pierre Peeters
