Among the factors that perpetuate the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), must be counted its misrepresentation in the media, Western media in particular. It has become unavoidable to conclude that the misrepresentation is more disinformation than inadvertent.
Disinformation does not of course, have to entail fabrications to pervert the truth, it can be choosing to leave out facts that would throw light on that truth. Examine almost every Western news outlet, and it would be more likely to find a hen with teeth than any mention of the verifiable, incontestable, self-evident causes of the DRC crisis in these outlets.
The clouding of issues is itself wrapped in great sophistication and sanctimony about journalistic balance, but more often than not however, the reality is that for Western media, almost without exception, the DRC is where journalistic ethics are entirely discarded.
Examples of disinformation abound, but we need look no farther than the recent articles from the Guardian Newspaper in the UK, and France’s RFI. Both seem more interested in convincing their readers of a preferred narrative, than giving them anything that comes close to the facts of the story.
“DRC says EU’s mineral deals with Rwanda is ‘obvious double standard’” was the Guardian’s headline, starting as it would go on. The entire article is a farcical, seemingly desperate determination to inject legitimacy in the DRC’s claim that Rwanda, is the cause of the instability in their country and should face international sanctions.
Felix Tshisekedi’s campaign to “isolate” Rwanda has consumed the entire energies of the DRC government and untold financial resources. There is not an international gathering the Congolese head of state has not attended, and irrespective of the objective of the meeting, for Tshisekedi, it is always an opportunity to demonise Rwanda. Many a lobbyist has become rich, thanks to these anti Rwanda efforts. Congolese largess has also reportedly swelled the pockets of Western politicians whose integrity goes only as far as their venality begins.
At its best, journalism questions and holds establishments to account. It is however, beyond any argument that for much of Western media, when it comes to reporting or commenting on the crisis in the DRC, they simply follow the preferred narrative of the establishment in their respective countries.
And for almost all Western establishments, this narrative is informed by the apparent imperative to infantalise Congo’s Felix Tshisekedi. Nothing must be said to cause him to throw a tantrum, because that might mean the West losing control of Congo’s riches, which have captured Western imaginations for the best part of two centuries, since Leopold II salivated over his “magnificent African cake.”
When it comes to their policy on Africa, the West is for all intents and purposes a monolith. When nearly two centuries ago, during the so called scramble for Africa, Leopold II of Belgium, grabbed all of Congo and large swathes of what was then Rwanda, each Western nation did look to its own interests, but they also acted in concert, and saw Africa and Africans in the exact same way. Much has altered since then, but in many ways, little has changed. Each Western nation still has its Africa policy, but all share a common underlying view of Africa and Africans.
It is this shared view that explains the absurdity of Belgium, now not only running the DRC’s foreign policy, but almost every European nation’s policy towards Rwanda. Belgium wants to curry favour with the DRC’s Felix Tshisekedi, and the price is demonizing Rwanda. To pay that price Belgium invites other European nations to do Tshisekedi’s bidding, which they duly do. And for these countries, out of the window it seems, goes what had hitherto been amicable and in at least one case, close relations with Rwanda.
Much to the DRC’s exasperation however, Rwanda is more than just weathering the intended storm, it is even basking in sunshine, so, the campaign continues, ever more feverishly, with Western media on hand to amplify and broaden it far and wide as only they can.
The Guardian echoes DRC foreign minister, Therese Kwayikamba Wagner’s somewhat outlandish comparison of Rwanda’s alleged involvement in the DRC conflict, to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, the DRC foreign minister, urged the EU to levy much stronger sanctions against Rwanda, which has fuelled the conflict in eastern DRC, describing the bloc’s response to violations of DRC territory as ‘very timid’”.
The newspaper’s assertion that Rwanda “fuels” the conflict in Congo, pleases Congo’s President, Felix Tshisekedi, who is shrewd enough to know that as long as the likes of the Guardian, strengthens his allegations, encouraging his finger pointing at Rwanda, he will continue to have a distraction from his failures of governance at home. And the Guardian’s entire article could not have been more in the service of Tshisekedi, if he had commissioned it.
The inevitable cororally of effectively shilling for Tshisekedi, is that the newspaper finds itself obliged to either gloss over or twist facts that are inconvenient to the narrative it has determined to reinforce. Throw in a degree of lazy, contemptuous offhandedness about the subject, and the reader would be better informed if they had not read the paper’s offering.
“The DRC and Rwanda signed a peace deal in June, brokered by the US and Qatar, aiming to end the decades-old conflict, which escalated early this year when the Rwanda-backed M23 rebel group seized swathes of DRC territory…But deadly attacks on civilians have continued and a deadline to reach a peace agreement missed in August” the paper informs us.
Which “decades old conflict”? does the Guardian mean, does it know, has it bothered to ask, do the basic research, does it care? The paper clearly conflates the conflict within the DRC with strained relations between Rwanda and the DRC. It is those relations and their causes, chiefly the DRC’s support of the genocidal so called Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), a genocidal armed group formed by the planners and perpetrators of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide Against Tutsi. In fact, it is a gross understatement to characterise the collaboration between the FDLR and successive governments of the DRC as mere support.
The FDLR long ago became not only an integral part of the DRC national army, FARDC (Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo), but also part of what passes for administration in the Eastern part of the DRC, which it controlled. Significantly, the FDLR introduced the genocidal ideology that underpinned the mass murder of over a million men, women and children, in Rwanda, into Congolese society.
It is in large measure this ideology that led to the rise of what would become AFC/M23, or the Congo River Alliance/March the 23rd Movement. What had been day to day discrimination of Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese, turned into deadly genocidal attacks, pushing these communities to take up arms to protect their communities.
In the Washington agreement, Felix Tshisekedi’s government pledged to work to dismantle the FDLR, to end the sporadic attacks against Rwanda. Even as they put pen to paper however, both sides knew full well that the FDLR worked hand in glove with the Congolese government. Many recorded attacks against Rwanda, were in effect FDLR/FARDC attacks.
In the unlikely event that through the verification mechanisms agreed in Washinton, the DRC assures Rwanda that what can be accurately described as FDLR/FARDC attacks can be eradicated, then Rwanda would agree to stand down its defensive measures, which have effectively meant having its troops on alert along the Rwanda-DRC frontier. That is the Washington process. The Doha process mediated by Qatar, is to some extent related to the Washington agreement but it is not the same.
Whereas the Washington agreement aims to resolve the underlying reasons for the strained relations between Rwanda and the DRC, the Doha process seeks to bring together the Congolese AFC/M23 group and the DRC government against whom they fight. In many ways even mentioning Rwanda, let alone involving it in this process, is a distraction from the causes of what is an inter Congo conflict, between the Congolese government and a section of the country’s community.
When the Guardian coyly whispers that “deadly attacks have continued,” they are withholding the fact that those deadly attacks are by a combination of FARDC/FDLR, the so called Wazalendo armed groups, who alongside foreign mercenaries from Europe, South and North America, form a coalition that is under the direction of the DRC government.
Equally, when in their article, Rfi refers to the FDLR as a “Rwanda armed group hostile to Paul Kagame’s regime,” they are giving a perfunctory nod to journalism’s duty to inform, while serving Tshisekedi’s agenda with half truths. Whether it is in relation to the disagreements between Rwanda and the DRC or the inter Congolese conflict, the FDLR are at the very heart of the crisis in the DRC, and by extension the region, a fact over which every Western news outlet skates. The constant reference to Rwanda’s government as “Paul Kagame’s regime” is a hackneyed attempt to delegitimise the position of a head of state, who enjoys greater legitimacy with the nation he leads than arguably any other political leader on the planet.
The “DRC says” type of disinformation, as the Guardian headline begins, is a more grave matter than just misinforming readers. By amplifying Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi’s claims against Rwanda especially, Western media reinforces his intransigence in refusing to make peace with AFC/M23, prolonging misery in the DRC.
And when, without question, Western media simply cuts and pastes France’s insistence that AFC/M23, be referred to as “Rwanda-backed M23” [HYPER LINK] they are consciously giving weight, encouraging Tshisekedi’s claims that he cannot negotiate with AFC/M23, because they are “Rwandan.”
Far from reporting on the DRC crisis, Western media’s pernicious distraction from the facts has made them a part of the problem, rather than throwing light on it.
