At the heart of the agreement lies a deeper truth: Rwanda, under President Paul Kagame, has positioned itself as a decisive, reliable partner in an era when global supply chains â€" particularly for critical minerals â€" are emerging as central to national security strategies.
With growing instability in traditional supply routes and the strategic overreach of China in Africa, nations that can guarantee secure and ethical sourcing of vital minerals are becoming indispensable.
It is notable that both the Trump administration and strategic players like Qatar recognised this shift early.
While the Trump White House's broader foreign policy often drew controversy, its push to decouple from Chinese mineral supply chains now looks prescient.
Qatar, too, has been quietly investing in African partnerships that favour stability and security over sentiment, aligning well with Rwanda's disciplined approach.
During the signing ceremony, Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe projected unmistakable confidence. His composure reflected a country that understands both its regional importance and the global strategic vacuum it can help fill.
DRC Foreign Minister Ms Kayikwamba, in contrast, appeared ill at ease, fully aware that engagement with Rwanda is now a necessity, not a choice.
Yet despite these clear signals, the United Kingdom appears determined to misread the moment. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, aligning the UK with Belgium's traditionally paternalistic approach toward Rwanda, has backed measures that seek to "punish" Kigali for what is, fundamentally, a rational defence of its security interests.
It is a grave miscalculation
The era in which Western capitals could dictate African affairs has long passed. Kigali's insistence on "security first" is neither ideological nor aggressive. It is a matter of existential policy. Without security, there can be no economic development, no foreign investment, no regional stability.
By appearing to side with Belgium against Rwanda, the UK risks alienating one of the few genuinely stable and capable African governments.
Precisely when it needs such partnerships most. In a post-Brexit world seeking to "go global," burning bridges with Rwanda is a strategic blunder that could leave London increasingly isolated in a region where influence is rapidly shifting.
Moreover, Rwanda has options. Strategic suitors â€" from Qatar to Turkey to the Gulf states are already offering Kigali alternative avenues of support. The longer London delays, the harder it will be to reestablish trust on equal footing.
A policy U-turn is still possible and necessary. Britain must engage Rwanda with respect and strategic clarity, recognising that Africa's new leaders are not seeking charity or instruction. They demand partnerships based on mutual interest, security, and shared prosperity.
The Rwanda-DRC agreement is not an anomaly; it is a blueprint for the future of diplomacy in Africa, pragmatic, security-driven, and multipolar.
Those in Washington and London who still see Africa through outdated lenses of dependency and instability will find themselves outmanoeuvred by those who adapt faster.
President Kagame's government has demonstrated that small states, when well-led and clear in their objectives, can shift global dynamics.
The United States building on the strategic instincts of the Trump years and forward-thinking partners like Qatar are already adjusting. The question is whether the UK, and Europe more broadly, can do the same before it is too late.
About the Authors:
- Claude R. Rwarugwizangoga is an expert in Mathematics for Post-16 Education and a commentator on African strategic affairs, based in the United Kingdom.
- Emanuel Karemara is a journalist specialising in African regional dynamics and geopolitics, currently reporting from London.
Claude R. Rwarugwizangoga and Emanuel Karemara
