Category: Uncategorized

In 1996, in what can only be described as a masterclass in moral inversion, Reyntjens penned a postscript to the now rightfully dust-coated “Les réfugiés rwandais à Bukavu au Zaïre: De nouveaux Palestiniens?” — a book by Catholic priest Philippe de Dorlodot, published by L’Harmattan.

Philippe de Dorlodot, the Catholic priest who compiled this book, selected as postscript writer none other than Reyntjens, Belgium’s envoy to the imaginary International Fellowship of Genocide Apologists.

With affiliations to three Belgian universities—Antwerp, U.L.B., and K.U. Leuven—Reyntjens gives the illusion of academic gravitas while repackaging the narratives of genocidaires as scholarly wisdom.

The result is a text that doesn’t simply dance on the graves of victims but tries to resuscitate their murderers as political interlocutors.

One can almost hear the violins playing in the background as he mourns not the over one million Tutsi murdered in cold blood, but the reputational damage to the genocidal establishment. Never has euphemism been so criminal.

With affiliations to three Belgian universities—Antwerp, U.L.B., and K.U. Leuven—Filip Reyntjens gives the illusion of academic gravitas while repackaging the narratives of genocidaires as scholarly wisdom.

It was a work of exquisite absurdity, masquerading as humanitarian concern while serving as a comforting lullaby for genocidaires.

The postscript, by the self-appointed Belgian arbiter of Rwandan moral geometry, is as revealing as it is revolting. These were not innocent civilians in search of asylum; many were architects, engineers, and executioners of genocide.

Among the supposed “New Palestinians” were none other than Théodore Sindikubwabo (President of the genocidal government) and Jean Kambanda (the Prime Minister of that very regime).

It is a text in which murderers become diplomats, genocide is referred to as a “tragedy,” and mass killers like Nkurunziza Ananie of RTLM are presented as unjustly exiled, teary-eyed political actors.

The book’s title alone, De nouveaux Palestiniens?, screams for mockery. The suggestion that the Hutu refugees—many of whom were fleeing not persecution but justice for their role in the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi—were somehow equivalent to Palestinians, reeks of moral distortion.

Which genocide did the Palestinians commit? To my knowledge, none.

The analogy collapses under its own illogicality. Unlike the Palestinians, the Hutu refugees—especially politicians, the military and militias— had just vacated a state machinery that had been weaponised to annihilate an ethnic group.

There are ordinary analysts, and then there are necromancers of moral equivalence like Reyntjens. In a world where genocide can be misdiagnosed as a mere “tragedy,” Reyntjens plays the pathologist, not to examine the corpse of truth, but to mislabel the cause of death and pin the crime on the rescue team.

It takes a special kind of intellectual dishonesty to turn a book largely written by genocidaires and their sympathisers into a philosophical treatise, to decorate it with moral relativism, and then to top it off with a postscript that reads like a eulogy for Hutu Power.

Reyntjens’ 1996 postscript to the book is not just unwise; it’s a stunning success in the genre of genocide apology disguised as academic neutrality. But Reyntjens’ postscript deserves its own museum wing in the Hall of Infamy for Ethical Bankruptcy.

One is tempted to wonder whether Reyntjens, had he been operating in 1946 Europe, would have urged the Allies to include Himmler in post-war negotiations, for the sake of “demographic balance.”

Would he have suggested that Jews negotiate with Himmler and Goebbels to broaden the base of the post-Nazi German government?

Reyntjens’ postscript does not analyse. It anaesthetises. He assures readers that since April 1994, Rwanda has endured not a genocide—the most heinous crime against humanity—but a “catastrophe,” a “tragedy.”

Tragedy, you see, is comfortably vague. Hurricanes are tragic. Earthquakes are tragic. But genocide? That requires accountability, clarity, and the inconvenient naming of names.

There exists enough evidence to prove this was the language adopted by genocidaires’ propaganda machinery since their defeat in 1994.

Reyntjens will have none of that. He prefers the soft lighting of euphemism and academic fog.

In his defence of genocidaires huddled in Bukavu, he endorses the claim that all who crossed the border of Rwanda to South Kivu as the “new Palestinians.”

This rhetorical device—comparing those who organised, directed, and executed mass murder to a driven out and stateless people—is either breathtaking in its cynicism or tragically sincere. Either way, it defies parody.

One of Reyntjens’ most repeated tricks is his liberal use of the term “civil society.” He writes that in Bukavu, this amorphous civil society “reaffirmed its vitality, analytical capacity, and objectivity” by first denouncing the killing of Tutsi (a brief moment of decency!) and then, much more enthusiastically, condemning the RPF.

This includes Archbishop Christopher Munzihirwa and François Nzabahimana of the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy RDR— which in reality was a retirement club for genocidaires rebranded as human rights defenders. He praises (RDR), a political front for genocidaires in exile, as part of this vibrant civic chorus.

Reyntjens has the audacity to say that these upstanding figures initially denounced the genocide against Tutsi but later condemned the RPF for a “selective genocide.”

Selective genocide? What’s next? Retroactive war crimes by the victims? The idea that the RPF, which stopped the genocide, somehow committed an alternative genocide—while the real genocidaires were sipping Primus in Zaire and forming political parties—is nothing short of hallucinatory.

But Reyntjens is no stranger to conjuring new categories of crime when old ones don’t serve his narrative.

Reyntjens applauds these voices for opposing what they call a “selective genocide,” a term that performs the rhetorical equivalent of setting the fire and blaming the fire brigade.

The RPF, in his telling, are not the liberators who stopped the bloodletting, but “terrorisers” who displaced innocents and stole property.

The idea that survivors could not accept a power-sharing deal with machete-wielding maniacs seems to escape his analysis. For Reyntjens, the solution to Rwanda’s woes was simple: negotiate with the people who tried to exterminate the Tutsi.

To elevate leaders of genocide to the status of political interlocutors is akin to nominating the American Charles Milles Manson for a Nobel Peace Prize. But Reyntjens, unfazed by morality, is more interested in peddling a thesis than reckoning with atrocity.

In a crescendo of poor judgment, Reyntjens writes: “The texts emphasise the necessity and urgency of political negotiations aimed at broadening the political and social base of the Rwandan government so that it can inspire confidence.”

Really? Who exactly should RPF have shared power with? People, fresh from instructing Interahamwe militias on how best to slice a baby out of its mother? The prescription from Reyntjens is clear: Rwanda should have invited the arsonists to keep burning the house.

Worse still, he calls for the Rwandan Patriotic Army to be “confined to barracks” and for UNAMIR to create security zones.

Yes, the very same UNAMIR that spectacularly failed to stop the genocide when it mattered is now being asked to police the victors while war criminals roam free. This is not just tone-deaf; it’s a requiem for reason.

Reyntjens’ primary objection to the RPF was that it refused to negotiate with genocidaires.

He laments that the RPF didn’t allow for a greater role for UNAMIR (yes, the very force that watched the genocide unfold and left Tutsis to be butchered), or agree to confine the Rwandan Patriotic Army to barracks.

His logic is unshakeable: the people who stopped the genocide must be sidelined so that the people who perpetrated it can return to reclaim their “dignity.”

To anyone familiar with history, this proposal is laughable. One does not ask Jews in 1945 to share power with the SS. One does not invite Pol Pot to co-chair a truth and reconciliation commission.

But Reyntjens’ Rwanda is not a real place. It is a theoretical sandbox, where abstractions float free from blood, and where lives lost are footnotes to be skimmed over.

He claims the RPF rejects negotiations because it would be disadvantaged in a competitive political process. An argument or idea from Rwandan genocide ideologues.

Apparently, it is the crime-fighting hero that should step aside for the arsonist, lest the latter feel excluded. Reyntjens argues this with the tone of a man unaware of how deeply unserious he sounds. Then again, perhaps he knows.

Reyntjens concludes his eulogy-for-genocidaires with a dire prophecy: unless the RPF negotiates with the murderers, the exiles will return by force, destabilise the region, and unleash a wider war.

He even predicts that the route will go through northern Burundi and into Kivu, risking twenty million lives. The subtext is clear: give genocidaires a seat at the table, or else.

It is a peculiar sort of moral blackmail. The people who created the refugee crisis, orchestrated mass murder, and continued to plan insurgency from Zaire are not the problem.

The problem, Reyntjens insists, is the RPF’s stubborn refusal to legitimise them.

One could almost admire the audacity, if not for the stench of rotting ethics that wafts from every sentence.

He reduces Rwanda to a playground for demographic arithmetic. He warns that Kagame might be assassinated by a Tutsi if he dares to return land to returning Hutu refugees, as if to insinuate that Tutsis are inherently vengeful.

Reyntjens then ventures into economic analysis, claiming that RPF leaders reject political settlement because of “the politics of the belly.” According to him, they are afraid of losing their spoils to returning refugees.

Apparently, fighting through jungle and blood, liberating a nation on the brink of extinction, and rebuilding from scratch was just an elaborate real estate scam.

The depth of cynicism here is stomach-churning. He speaks of “politics of the belly,” a phrase to suggest that the RPF governs not with ideals, but with appetite.

That people who saved a country from annihilation are reduced to schemers in Reyntjens’ warped economic fantasy shows us just how far moral depravity can be dressed up in academic robes.

This is not analysis. It is a caricature. Here you have the academic who befitted a handmaiden to hate.

What is most vexing is not Reyntjens’ insistence that the international community pressure Rwanda to negotiate with genocidaires. It’s that he cloaks these ideas in the garb of objectivity.

He claims to be a scholar, not a partisan. But when you consistently dismiss the voices of genocide survivors, amplify the propaganda of mass murderers, and treat genocidal ideology as a legitimate political platform, you are not neutral. You are complicit.

Reyntjens may scoff at this. He might say that he has criticised both sides. But only a moral contortionist could look at 1994 Rwanda and conclude that the main threat to peace came from those who stopped the slaughter.

History has not been kind to Reyntjens’ predictions. Paul Kagame is the President. Rwanda has not imploded. It has rebuilt its cities, transformed its economy, and fostered reconciliation on its own terms.

It has done all this while being lectured by European academics who once argued it should invite its killers back home with tea and biscuits.

Reyntjens’ intellectual descendants still whisper in policy circles and publish their “balanced” takes. They are the sort who believe that being fair means giving equal weight to truth and lies, to genocide survivors and to perpetrators.

But their influence wanes with every Rwandan child who goes to school, every woman who leads a company, and every community that chooses peace.

The pathology of genocide denial may persist, but Rwanda’s prognosis is strong.

Reyntjens once fancied himself a diagnostician of Rwanda’s problems. In truth, he is less a doctor and more a funeral director of truth. His postscript in a 1996 book is not a serious political analysis.

It is a love letter to moral relativism, a eulogy to accountability, and a dark ode to the old colonial logic that believes Africans must always be managed, never trusted.

But history is not written by postscript. It is written by those who survive, rebuild, and remember. And long after Reyntjens’ dusty books are forgotten, Rwanda will remain—not as a tragedy, but as a triumph.

A Postscript to the Postscript

Let’s revisit this gem of prophecy from our esteemed Belgian saviour: 'The military route [for refugees’ return] would likely pass through northern Burundi.' A curious insight. Not speculation—certainty. Not 'might' or 'could,' but 'would.'

How exactly did the Professor come to this cartographic clairvoyance? Divine inspiration? Hutu-Power Google Maps? Or did the RDR or Brigadier General Gratien Kabiligi or Colonel Aloys Ntiwiragabo fax him the game plan ahead of time with a smiley face?

What kind of academic writes about planned military invasions in the future tense—as if he’s read the battle plan—and then blames the defenders when it happens?

He knew. He knew. And instead of sounding the alarm on genocidaires plotting their comeback, he blamed the very people preparing to defend against it. There’s a word for that. Complicity. Intellectual complicity dressed in tweed and tenure.

Reyntjens was wrong. About nearly everything. Rwanda did not collapse into further genocide. The RPF did not become a dictatorship of fear.

The country welcomed millions of refugees, restored order, pursued justice, and became a model for reconciliation and development. Kigali is not ruled by fear but by functional urban and rural planning, peace, and prosperity.

Meanwhile, Reyntjens remains entombed in his echo chamber, scribbling screeds that try to mask his bitterness over the fact that the murderers he saw as political actors are now behind bars or buried by history.

The tragedy is not that he wrote such things, but that they were published, cited, and believed by many who saw a Belgian surname and assumed wisdom.

But history is unforgiving to the dishonest, and it now casts Reyntjens not as a scholar of the Great Lakes but as a cautionary tale of what happens when ideology strangles reason.

He diagnosed cancer but blamed the surgeon. He witnessed a genocide but indicted its responders. He saw perpetrators in exile and wept for them while their victims were still being buried. For that, history will not absolve him.

As we write, President Paul Kagame, the man Reyntjens once described as 'Kigali’s strongman,' who would be killed, is still alive, much to the despair of doomsayers and pseudo-academics like him.

Not only alive, but leading a Rwanda that defied every apocalyptic wish Reyntjens penned in the '90s. A country that rose from ashes not through bargaining with exterminators, but through visionary governance, education, justice, and yes, decisive military protection.

Meanwhile, where is Reyntjens? Buried beneath a mountain of footnotes that aged as poorly as dairy on a sunlit Belgian windowsill.

The man who once claimed 'the worst is yet to come' now watches, impotent and irrelevant, as the worst failed to arrive.

Filip Reyntjens should have been Rwanda’s Nostradamus. Instead, he became its Nostradumbass.

His entire body of commentary on Rwanda reads like a rejected Monty Python script:

Genocidaires are displaced victims.

The liberators are the real danger.

The future belongs to those fleeing justice, not those rebuilding their country.

Even Nostradamus didn’t get that many prophecies wrong in one chapter.

Let’s say it plainly. Reyntjens’ academic legacy is not analysis—it’s advocacy. Not scholarship—but sabotage masquerading as thought. His work is not objective, not honest, and certainly not harmless.

It is a thin veneer of legality painted over a grotesque admiration for genocidal 'order' and a pathological fear of African agency, particularly when that agency does not dance to Belgian tunes.

He called Rwanda’s rebirth a nightmare scenario. The real nightmare would have been listening to him.

So let him write. Let him revise his footnotes and retreat to his armchair of irrelevance. Rwanda marches on, not because of Reyntjens—but in spite of everything he ever believed.

The author is a Rwandan Genocide Scholar.

With affiliations to three Belgian universities—Antwerp, U.L.B., and K.U. Leuven—Filip Reyntjens gives the illusion of academic gravitas while repackaging the narratives of genocidaires as scholarly wisdom.

Tom Ndahiro

In a strongly worded statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Rwanda accused the DRC, supported by certain ECCAS member states, of instrumentalising the regional bloc for its own political agenda. The move, according to Rwanda, became evident during the 26th Ordinary Summit held on Saturday in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea.

Rwanda says that during the summit, its rightful turn to assume the rotating chairmanship of the organisation, as stipulated under Article 6 of the ECCAS Treaty, was deliberately bypassed in favour of the DRC.

Kigali described the development as a continuation of a pattern of exclusion and disregard for the rules governing the community.

'The distortion of the organisation’s purpose was once again evident… where Rwanda’s right to assume the rotating Chairmanship… was deliberately ignored in order to impose the DRC’s diktat,' the statement read.

This is not the first time Rwanda has raised concerns over its treatment within ECCAS. The government referenced a letter previously addressed to the Chairperson of the African Union in which it protested its 'illegal exclusion' from the 22nd Summit held in Kinshasa in 2023, under DRC’s presidency. The letter, Rwanda said, went unanswered and no corrective action was taken by the community.

Citing a consistent violation of its rights under ECCAS’s constitutive texts and a lack of institutional accountability, Rwanda concluded there is 'no justification for remaining in an organisation whose current functioning runs counter to its founding principles and intended purpose.'

Established in 1983 and headquartered in Gabon, ECCAS brings together 11 countries: Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Rwanda, and São Tomé and Príncipe.

Rwanda’s withdrawal marks a major shift in the region’s diplomatic landscape, particularly at a time when relations between Rwanda and the DRC remain tense due to broader geopolitical and security concerns in the Great Lakes region. While the M23 rebel movement continues to tighten its grip in North and South Kivu provinces of eastern DRC, Rwanda has repeatedly raised concerns over the Congolese government’s collaborations with FDLR, a group formed by the remnants of the perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

Kigali maintains that the Congolese army’s continued engagement with the FDLR not only undermines regional peace efforts but also contravenes multiple agreements aimed at dismantling genocidal forces operating in the region. Rwanda views this alliance as an existential threat to its national security and stability.

Kinshasa, on the other hand, continues to accuse Rwanda of supporting the M23 rebel group’s offensives. Kigali has repeatedly dismissed the allegations, insisting that they serve to deflect attention from the real issue, which is the DRC’s failure to address the presence of armed groups within its territory.

In a strongly worded statement issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Rwanda accused the DRC, supported by certain ECCAS member states, of instrumentalising the regional bloc for its own political agenda.

Wycliffe Nyamasege

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) concluded there were “no reasonable grounds” to lay charges in the November 2024 shooting, which drew outrage from the Rwandan-Canadian community and sparked months of calls for accountability.

Kabera was shot multiple times on November 9, 2024, in the hallway of his Main Street West apartment building after police responded to reports of a man appearing to carry a handgun and behaving erratically.

According to the SIU report, Kabera was holding a replica firearm and advanced toward the officers before being shot. He was hit by eight bullets and died in hospital hours later.

'The object in the complainant’s possession was not an actual firearm, although it did give the appearance of being a genuine semi-automatic pistol,' said SIU Director Joseph Martino.

'The officers reasonably believed their lives, and those of nearby residents, were in danger,” he added.

The decision to clear the officers has left Kabera’s grieving family and members of the Rwandan diaspora dismayed.

In a statement released through their legal counsel, Falconers LLP, the family expressed their disappointment: 'Erixon was loved by many and is deeply missed by his family, friends, and his community both in Canada and in Rwanda. We are disappointed with the findings of the investigation and are considering our legal options.'

Kabera, who worked as a Resource Officer with the Canada Revenue Agency and held leadership roles within the Rwandan community, including serving as Vice President of the Rwandan Community Abroad in Toronto, was remembered as a gentle and dedicated man who championed youth empowerment and cultural healing.

His brother, Parfait Karekezi, described him as a confidant, mentor, and friend. 'Erixon was everything to me,' he said in an earlier interview. 'I don’t even know how I’m going to live with this.'

The SIU report said police fired as many as 24 rounds after Kabera exited his apartment holding the replica gun at waist level. One officer also deployed a Taser. During the altercation, one officer was wounded in the head by a bullet fired mistakenly by the other officer.

While the SIU acknowledged the officers’ mistaken belief that they were under fire, the family has long questioned whether the police response was proportional and why alternative de-escalation measures weren’t used.

“The initial narrative presented to the public was both misleading and damaging,” the family stated in November, referring to a police update that initially suggested an exchange of gunfire. The SIU later corrected that, confirming only police discharged weapons.

In the over 200 days it took to complete the investigation, community leaders, including Alain Patrick Ndengera, Chairperson of the Rwandan Community in Canada, called for transparency and independent oversight.

'If any police officers are found to have acted wrongly, they should face the courts,' Ndengera said.

The Hamilton Police Service acknowledged the 'profound impact' the shooting has had and offered to meet with Kabera’s family and Rwandan community leaders 'when the community is ready.'

But for many, the conclusion of the investigation offers little closure.

'They killed him like a dog,' Kabera’s brother Yves Ikobe said in a past interview, recounting bullet holes left in the apartment wall and the trauma his family has endured.

Wycliffe Nyamasege

Building on the achievements of the first phase, the current phase will continue supporting 299 women from the initial cohort and introduce 300 new participants, bringing the total number of direct beneficiaries to 599.

The initiative, which targets communities in Mushubati and Gihango sectors, will benefit more than 2,800 individuals in total, with an investment of USD 1,773,841 (equivalent to approximately Frw 2.55 billion).

This project represents the second phase of KOICA’s broader UPG — Kira Wigire program, implemented by World Vision Rwanda to empower vulnerable communities in Rutsiro. The first phase ran from 2021 to 2023, focusing on socio-economic development and self-reliance.

The project will provide training through programs like 'Hinduka Wigire' and 'Kora Wigire', alongside capacity building in agriculture, livestock farming, savings and loan group formation, and market and financial institution linkages.

One of the beneficiaries from the first phase, Vestine Munezero from Congo Nil Cell in Gihango Sector, shared her journey of transformation.

She said, 'I used to live in a house made of unplastered bricks that made me feel ashamed, and my husband had abandoned me. Since we were organized into savings groups, I’ve renovated my house, bought chickens, goats, and rabbits, and I’m now able to afford school fees for my children. I’ve achieved all this in just three years through this project.'

Pauline Okumu, National Director of World Vision Rwanda, praised the partnership with local leaders and KOICA, stating that the initiative aligns with national development goals.

She highlighted how the project complements government planning, particularly by empowering citizens through savings groups and income-generating activities.

Kim Kwonho, Deputy Country Director of KOICA Rwanda, echoed these sentiments. He emphasized that the first phase had brought significant improvements in nutrition, economic resilience, and overall well-being among women-headed households.

In the second phase, KOICA views the 599 women not just as beneficiaries, but as entrepreneurs capable of driving meaningful change in Rwanda.

Emmanuel Uwizeyimana, Vice Mayor for Economic Development in Rutsiro, also commended KOICA and World Vision, noting the project’s role in expanding livelihoods.

“This is a great project that has helped our citizens lift themselves out of poverty. As residents of Rutsiro, we consider this project our own because over the past three years, we have witnessed remarkable improvements in the livelihoods of our community. We encourage beneficiaries to continue working hard to achieve even greater results and to target international markets with their products,” he noted.

Impact data from the first phase shows remarkable progress. Between 2021 and 2023, the proportion of households eating two meals a day rose from 35% to 72%, and those consuming a balanced diet increased from 6.7% to 57%.

Community based health insurance coverage improved from 83.6% to 97%, while households saving at least Frw 5,000 per month jumped from 3% to 47%, with some saving up to Frw 44,000 monthly.

Furthermore, contributions to Rwanda’s national long-term savings scheme, Ejo Heza, rose from 0% to 69.5% among beneficiaries, demonstrating the project’s effectiveness in promoting financial security and self-reliance.

Pauline Okumu, National Director of World Vision Rwanda addressing participants of the event.

The project will provide training through programs like 'Hinduka Wigire' and 'Kora Wigire', alongside capacity building in agriculture, livestock farming, savings and loan group formation, and market and financial institution linkages.

Kim Kwonho, Deputy Country Director of KOICA Rwanda emphasized that the first phase had brought significant improvements in nutrition, economic resilience, and overall well-being among women-headed households.

Women are supported through income generating activities.

Building on the achievements of the first phase, the current phase will continue supporting 299 women from the initial cohort and introduce 300 new participants, bringing the total number of direct beneficiaries to 599.

IGIHE

In the phone talks initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump, Xi said that recalibrating the direction of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations requires the two sides to take the helm and set the right course, adding that it is particularly important to steer clear of the various disturbances and disruptions.

Noting that at the suggestion of the U.S. side, the two countries’ lead officials recently held an economic and trade meeting in Geneva, Xi said it marked an important step forward in resolving the relevant issues through dialogue and consultation, and was welcomed by both societies and the international community.

The two sides need to make good use of the economic and trade consultation mechanism already in place, and seek win-win results in the spirit of equality and respect for each other’s concerns, he said, adding that the Chinese side is sincere about this, and at the same time has its principles.

The Chinese, Xi said, always honour and deliver what has been promised, urging both sides to make good on the agreement reached in Geneva. In fact, China has been seriously and earnestly executing the agreement, Xi added.

The U.S. side should acknowledge the progress already made, and remove the negative measures taken against China, he said.

The two sides should enhance communication in such fields as foreign affairs, economy and trade, military, and law enforcement to build consensus, clear up misunderstandings, and strengthen cooperation, Xi added.

Xi emphasised that the United States must handle the Taiwan question with prudence, so that the fringe separatists bent on “Taiwan independence” will not be able to drag China and the United States into the dangerous terrain of confrontation and even conflict.

Trump said that he has great respect for Xi, and the U.S.-China relationship is very important.

The United States wants the Chinese economy to do very well, and the United States and China working together can get a lot of great things done, he said.

Trump said the United States will honour the one-China policy.

The meeting in Geneva was very successful and produced a good deal, he said, adding that the United States will work with China to execute the deal.

The United States loves to have Chinese students coming to study in America, Trump said.

Xi welcomed Trump to visit China again, for which Trump expressed heartfelt appreciation.

The two presidents agreed that their teams should continue implementing the Geneva agreement and hold another round of meeting as soon as possible.

In the phone talks initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump, Xi said that recalibrating the direction of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations requires the two sides to take the helm and set the right course.

Xinhua

While diplomatic ties were formally established in 1971, it was in 1995, following then Vice President Paul Kagame’s first official visit to China, that the relationship became more active across trade, political and investment fronts.

'It has been an exciting journey and we have seen a lot of results in many spheres of national life,' said Rwanda’s Ambassador to China, James Kimonyo, in a recent exclusive interview with IGIHE.

'Thanks to the excellent relations between Rwanda and China, we’ve moved from engagement to action,” he added.

That action is increasingly evident in the area of trade. In 2019, Rwanda was exporting only about $35 million worth of goods to China. By 2024, that number had jumped to nearly $160 million, an increase of over 350 percent in just five years.

The range of Rwandan products entering China has also diversified, from coffee and tea to chilli and other non-resource goods, all benefiting from China’s zero-tariff policy for least developed countries. China, meanwhile, continues to export close to $500 million worth of products to Rwanda annually, underscoring a growing but still imbalanced trade relationship.

But the real shift, according to Ambassador Kimonyo, is in direct investment. Between November 2023 and May 2024, more than 26 Chinese companies visited Rwanda, many of them returning with concrete investment proposals.

'The quick move by the companies is an indication that they are already weighing and they are so excited about the investment opportunities that Rwanda is presenting,' Kimonyo said.

He confirmed that China was the leading contributor to foreign direct investment in Rwanda last year, ahead of India and the United States.

'This all begins with what our government has done in terms of creating a very conducive, attractive environment for investment,' he said.

'The Chinese are very conscious, very aware and very excited, sometimes skeptical at first but once they see what’s on the ground, the interest becomes real.'

The surge in investor confidence aligns closely with China’s own evolving policy direction. During its recently concluded Two Sessions political meetings, an annual gathering similar in function to Rwanda’s Umushyikirano, China placed new emphasis on what it calls 'high-quality development' and 'new forces of production.' These themes center around environmentally sustainable growth powered by innovation and advanced technology.

'As much as China’s transformation has moved very fast, they want to make sure it does not come at the expense of the environment,' said Kimonyo. 'So whether it is agriculture, it has to be climate-smart agriculture. If it is construction, the buildings have to be smart. In transport, there’s a big push toward electric vehicles. And in manufacturing, it must not damage the environment.'

For Rwanda, this vision offers not just a template but an opportunity to align national development goals with international investment standards.

'We stand to gain because of the innovations China has put in place,' Kimonyo said. 'And the companies bringing those investments to Rwanda should also be able to ensure that what’s happening in China today in terms of high-quality development is what also happens in Rwanda.'

President Paul Kagame’s participation in the 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit in Beijing underscored that alignment. During his visit, Kagame met with President Xi Jinping to review ongoing cooperation and discuss future collaboration in key sectors including infrastructure, agriculture, education, health and digital technology.

'The goal is to ensure our young people access cutting-edge education and that the skills they acquire here are going to be useful in our labor market,' Kimonyo said, referencing the education deals discussed during the summit.

As part of the long-term strategy, Rwanda is seeking both public and private investment from China. Public partnerships are being pursued in areas like health and energy, while the private sector is expected to drive growth in manufacturing, agriculture, and digital services.

'We know Rwanda has embraced the private-led growth philosophy,' Kimonyo said. 'So engaging with the private sector and increasing the number of companies investing in Rwanda is going to be very critical for us going forward.'

People-to-people exchange is another pillar of the relationship. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, Rwanda had around 2,000 students in China. While that number dipped during the global shutdowns, it has since rebounded to nearly 1,000 today, most of them pursuing advanced education. A smaller group is active in private business or employed by local Chinese companies, contributing further to the economic link between the two nations.

Looking ahead, Ambassador Kimonyo believes the next phase of Rwanda—China cooperation will be defined by smart partnerships and shared values around innovation and sustainability. He emphasized that as China refines its economic model to address climate and efficiency concerns, Rwanda is positioning itself to absorb the best of that experience.

Relations between Rwanda and China today are characterised by a surge in new business interest and shared ambitions for sustainable development.

According to Rwanda’s ambassador to China, James Kimonyo, more than 26 Chinese companies visited Rwanda between November 2023 and May 2024, many of them returning with concrete investment proposals.

As part of the long-term strategy, Rwanda is seeking both public and private investment from China. Public partnerships are being pursued in areas like health and energy, while the private sector is expected to drive growth in manufacturing, agriculture, and digital services.

President Paul Kagame and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, met during Kagame’s participation in the 2024 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) Summit in Beijing.

Christian Mugisha

The draft, introduced after months of mediation in Doha, was intended to build momentum toward ending the years-long conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. But according to an AFC/M23 representative who spoke to Reuters, the proposal is 'not recent and has not been updated for over a month.”

The source further indicated that the proposal 'takes more into account Kinshasa’s expectations' than the rebels’ own positions.

The talks, mediated by Qatar with backing from Washington and African leaders, have seen limited visible progress.

Some delegates from both camps have reportedly left Doha for consultations with their leadership, further casting doubt on the immediate trajectory of the process.

While one source briefed on the negotiations suggested the discussions had entered a 'deeper phase,' with both parties engaging on the root causes of the conflict, voices within the AFC/M23 delegation remain sceptical.

Qatar moved to mediate the conflict between the rebels and President Félix Tshisekedi’s administration following the capture of large swathes of eastern DRC, including the cities of Bukavu and Goma.

The conflict has been ongoing for years. The rebels accuse the Congolese administration of poor governance, persecution, and the marginalisation of Kinyarwanda-speaking communities in the east.

The AFC/M23 rebel coalition accuses the Congolese administration of poor governance, persecution, and the marginalisation of Kinyarwanda-speaking communities in the east.

Wycliffe Nyamasege

The escalating feud marks a stunning turn in a relationship that once saw the world’s richest man play a key role in Trump’s second-term administration and re-election effort. But what had been an uneasy partnership imploded this week in public, with blistering criticism exchanged across press conferences and social media platforms.

'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump’s threat came as tensions boiled over following Musk’s vocal opposition to a sweeping tax and spending bill championed by the president.

Musk, who previously led Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and donated nearly $300 million to support his campaign and GOP allies in 2024, responded sharply.

Just minutes after markets closed, following a staggering 14% drop in Tesla stock that erased over $150 billion in value, Musk replied 'Yes' to a post on his platform X that called for Trump’s impeachment.

It was a previously unthinkable gesture, given the Republican Party’s control of both chambers of Congress.

The rift had been building. Days earlier, Musk denounced Trump’s legislation as a 'disgusting abomination' that would dangerously inflate the national debt, now at $36.2 trillion.

While Trump initially refrained from responding, he broke his silence Thursday during a press appearance with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, expressing “very disappointed” feelings about Musk.

'Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don’t know if we will anymore,' Trump told reporters.

As the president spoke, Musk hit back on X, asserting: 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election.' He also accused Trump of 'ingratitude' and warned that the president’s economic policies, including his signature tariffs, would push the U.S. into a recession.

Further inflaming tensions, Musk appeared to reference Trump’s name in connection with the Jeffrey Epstein files in a cryptic post on X.

The files refer to recently unsealed court documents from a long-running case involving Epstein, a disgraced financier accused of running a sex trafficking ring involving underage girls.

The documents list names of high-profile individuals alleged to have had ties to Epstein. While Musk did not elaborate, the implication that Trump may be connected to the scandal added fuel to an already volatile exchange.

Meanwhile, the clash sent shockwaves through financial markets and the political landscape. Tesla’s historic single-day stock plunge rattled investors, while lawmakers expressed concern about how the feud could impact the Republican Party’s cohesion ahead of the midterms.

'Musk was a major player in the ground game last cycle,' one GOP strategist told Reuters. 'If he sits out the midterms—or worse, turns on us—it’s a huge problem.'

Musk’s threats to decommission key assets from SpaceX, including the Dragon spacecraft used in NASA missions, also alarmed government agencies. Though he later walked back that statement, the uncertainty underscored how deeply intertwined Musk’s companies are with federal operations.

From influence to isolation

Just last week, Trump had given Musk a ceremonial Oval Office send-off after his resignation from the Department of Government Efficiency. Yet behind the scenes, tensions had been growing, particularly after Trump rescinded the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to lead NASA.

According to White House aides, Musk had begun to lose influence within the administration even before the public fallout, as senior officials worked to curtail his control over staffing and budgeting.

While Trump now insists that Elon 'was wearing thin,' Musk’s team has stayed mostly silent. A White House statement called the split 'an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted.'

Still, the damage may be lasting. Musk has hinted at launching a new political movement and pledged to withhold future campaign donations. On Tuesday, he warned voters to oust any politicians who 'betrayed the American people.'

Whether this political divorce is permanent or merely a prelude to a truce or part of Musk’s plan to distance himself from Trump’s controversial reforms remains to be seen.

In a dramatic unravelling of one of Washington’s most unconventional political alliances, Elon Musk on Thursday appeared to endorse calls for President Donald Trump’s impeachment, just hours after Trump threatened to sever all U.S. government contracts with Musk’s companies.

Wycliffe Nyamasege

President Idriss Deby announced the decision in a Facebook post on Thursday, June 5, declaring the suspension a matter of national dignity.

'I have instructed the government to act in accordance with the principles of reciprocity and suspend the issuance of visas to U.S. citizens,' Deby wrote.

'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give, but Chad has its dignity and pride,” he added.

The announcement comes in response to Trump’s recent order reinstating and expanding travel restrictions on foreign nationals from 19 countries, including Chad, citing national security threats, terrorism risks, and poor cooperation on immigration enforcement.

Chad was placed under a full travel ban, meaning most of its citizens are barred from entering the United States. Other African nations under similar restrictions include Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea, Libya, the Republic of the Congo, and Equatorial Guinea. An additional three—Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Togo—face partial bans targeting tourist, student, and business visas.

The U.S. administration cited high visa overstay rates and poor vetting infrastructure in Chad as reasons for its inclusion. According to the Department of Homeland Security, certain visa categories from Chad had overstay rates exceeding 50 percent.

President Trump, in a video statement, said the bans were necessary to protect the U.S. from 'foreign terrorists and other threats,' citing a recent terror incident in Boulder, Colorado.

'We don’t want them,' Trump said bluntly, referring to migrants from countries flagged in the executive order.

'We cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.'

President Idriss Deby announced the decision in a Facebook post on Thursday, June 5, declaring the suspension a matter of national dignity.

Wycliffe Nyamasege