Paul Kagame's Victimisation Strategy: How Rwanda's Leader Leverages Genocide Memory to Consolidate Power

Introduction

Paul Kagame, Rwanda's president since 1994, has strategically utilised the memory of the 1994 Tutsi genocide to maintain political control domestically and secure international support. This analysis examines how Kagame's government has constructed a narrative that positions him as Rwanda's protector whilst simultaneously suppressing alternative perspectives on the country's complex history of ethnic violence. By monopolising the genocide narrative, Kagame has established a governance model that Western powers have largely accepted despite growing concerns about human rights abuses and regional interventionism.

Weaponising Historical Memory for Political Control

Kagame's leadership legitimacy rests heavily on a carefully curated narrative about Rwanda's traumatic past. While official accounts present him simply as the military leader who ended the genocide, critics and historians point to a far more complex reality. Kagame's RPF forces initiated the civil war by invading Rwanda from Uganda in October 1990, setting in motion the chain of events that ultimately culminated in the genocide (Lemarchand, 2013).

Multiple scholars and former UN officials have argued that Kagame's primary objective was to secure full political power without compromise or power-sharing with the government he was fighting (Prunier, 2009; Rever, 2018). Ending the genocide, according to this perspective, was secondary to his political ambitions. Evidence supporting this view includes the RPF's rejection of ceasefire proposals during the height of the killings and their strategic military movements that focused on territorial control rather than rescuing civilians in immediate danger (Davenport & Stam, 2009).

Former UN Force Commander Roméo Dallaire's writings suggest that the RPF leadership under Kagame appeared willing to accept Tutsi casualties as the "cost" of their eventual military victory and total control of Rwanda (Dallaire, 2004). This supports the argument that Kagame's forces strategically opposed certain forms of international intervention that might have saved lives but would have required political compromise or power-sharing arrangements.

This historical complexity is systematically erased from Rwanda's official narrative, which instead promotes what critics have termed a "hero syndrome" — positioning Kagame as the country's saviour whilst obscuring his role in the events leading to the catastrophe and his apparent prioritisation of power over civilian protection. This selective historical account has provided a powerful foundation for his political legitimacy and has been institutionalised through several mechanisms:

1. Criminalising Political Opposition

The Rwandan government has established legal frameworks that effectively criminalise meaningful political opposition. Laws against "genocide ideology" and "divisionism" are written with such ambiguity that they can be selectively applied to silence critics (Human Rights Watch, 2021).

• Opposition figures such as Victoire Ingabire, who attempted to acknowledge both Tutsi and Hutu victims in a 2010 speech, received a 15-year prison sentence (later pardoned after international pressure).
• Diane Rwigara, who sought to challenge Kagame in the 2017 presidential election, was arrested on charges of forgery and inciting insurrection after questioning government policies (Amnesty International, 2018).
• The 2021 disappearance of opposition politician Boniface Twagirimana remains unresolved, reflecting a pattern of intimidation against political challengers.

According to Freedom House's 2023 report, Rwanda scores just 22/100 on its Global Freedom Index, categorising it as "not free" due to severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties.

2. Cultivating the "Saviour" Narrative

Kagame's government has carefully crafted his image as Rwanda's indispensable leader through state-controlled media and education systems:

• The RPF's military victory is presented as the definitive end to ethnic violence, while omitting Kagame's apparent prioritisation of achieving full political power over halting the massacres. Research by Straus (2019) suggests that the RPF rejected potential ceasefire arrangements that might have saved lives but would have required political compromise or power-sharing.
• Constitutional amendments in 2015 effectively eliminated term limits, potentially allowing Kagame to remain in power until 2034 (International Crisis Group, 2021).
• Official commemorations and memorials reinforce the narrative that only Kagame's leadership can prevent a return to ethnic violence, whilst obscuring evidence suggesting the RPF may have made strategic decisions that allowed violence to escalate to justify their eventual seizure of complete power (Straus, 2019).

Research by Waldorf (2017) demonstrates how this narrative functions as a form of "anticipatory repression," where the threat of instability is used to justify authoritarian governance.

3. Controlling Historical Narratives

The Rwandan government maintains strict control over how the genocide is discussed and remembered:

• The RPF's official narrative focuses exclusively on Tutsi victimhood, despite evidence of complex violence that affected all ethnic groups.
• Researchers who document RPF killings of Hutus during and after the genocide risk being accused of "genocide denial" (Ingelaere, 2020).
• Academic Susan Thomson faced deportation after conducting research on rural Rwandans' experiences of post-genocide reconciliation policies that challenged official narratives (Thomson, 2013).
• Any discussion of Kagame's potential culpability in refusing certain forms of UN intervention during the genocide, as alleged by former UN officials, is strictly forbidden in Rwanda (Dallaire, 2004; Prunier, 2009).
• The government prohibits examination of evidence suggesting that Kagame's primary objective was securing total political control rather than stopping the genocide as quickly as possible (Rever, 2018).

Leveraging International Guilt for Diplomatic Advantage

Western inaction during the 1994 genocide has created a profound sense of guilt among international powers. Kagame has expertly exploited this sentiment to secure diplomatic support and financial aid whilst deflecting criticism.

1. Securing Financial Support Without Accountability

Rwanda remains heavily dependent on foreign aid, receiving approximately $1 billion annually (World Bank, 2022). Kagame has positioned Rwanda as a model of post-conflict development:

• The UK government provided £64 million in bilateral aid to Rwanda in 2020/21 despite concerns about human rights abuses.
• The United States has contributed over $3 billion in assistance since the genocide, with limited conditions attached (USAID, 2022).
• Rwanda's economic growth rates of 6-8% annually are frequently cited as evidence of successful governance, despite concerns about inequality and rural poverty (IMF, 2022).

2. Deflecting International Criticism

When faced with criticism regarding human rights abuses or regional interventions, Kagame consistently reminds Western powers of their failure to prevent the genocide:

• Following a 2012 UN report implicating Rwanda in supporting M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kagame accused the international community of "selective amnesia" regarding their abandonment of Rwanda in 1994.
• When the UK temporarily suspended aid in 2012 due to these allegations, Kagame publicly suggested that Western powers were reverting to colonial attitudes.
• In response to criticisms of his 2017 election victory (with 98.8% of votes), Kagame stated that "Western-style democracy" was inappropriate for Rwanda's post-genocide context (The Economist, 2017).

3. Reshaping Diplomatic Relationships

Kagame has strategically used the genocide narrative to redefine Rwanda's international relationships:

• In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron acknowledged France's "overwhelming responsibility" in the genocide but stopped short of offering an apology, following a Rwandan government-commissioned report on France's role (Muse Report, 2021).
• Belgium issued a formal apology in 2000 for its failure to prevent the genocide, establishing a foundation for improved relations on Kagame's terms.
• Rwanda's diplomatic pivot towards China and other emerging powers provides leverage against Western criticism, as Kagame can threaten to further reduce Western influence (Kiwuwa, 2022).

Selective Victimhood and Ethnic Reconciliation

Whilst Kagame's government promotes a narrative of post-ethnic national unity, critics argue that this masks a complex reality of continued ethnic tensions and selective justice.

The Unacknowledged Victims

The Rwandan government's commemoration policies focus exclusively on Tutsi victims, despite evidence of widespread violence against Hutus:

• The UN Mapping Report (2010) documented "systematic and widespread attacks" against Hutu refugees in the DRC by the RPF, which "might constitute crimes of genocide" if proven in court.
• Research by Des Forges (1999) and Lemarchand (2018) documents RPF killings of between 25,000-45,000 Hutus during and after the genocide.
• Hutus who lost family members to RPF violence have no public space to mourn or seek justice, as such expressions are criminalised as "genocide denial" or "promoting divisionism" (Jessee, 2017).

Legal and Political Suppression

The Rwandan government's approach to ethnic reconciliation involves suppressing certain historical narratives:

• The government has replaced ethnic identities with a single "Rwandan" identity, making it illegal to identify as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa in official contexts.
• Critics argue this approach prevents genuine reconciliation by imposing a "forced amnesia" rather than addressing historical grievances (Purdeková, 2015).
• The government's "Ndi Umunyarwanda" (I am Rwandan) programme requires Hutus to apologise collectively for the genocide, regardless of individual actions, reinforcing a narrative of collective Hutu guilt (Chakravarty, 2016).

Military Interventionism and Regional Influence

Kagame has repeatedly used the genocide narrative to justify Rwanda's military interventions in neighbouring countries, particularly the DRC:

• Rwanda has officially or unofficially intervened in the DRC multiple times since 1996, claiming to target genocide perpetrators and protect Tutsis.
• These interventions have contributed to massive humanitarian crises, with over 5.4 million excess deaths in the DRC between 1998 and 2007 (International Rescue Committee, 2008).
• UN reports have repeatedly accused Rwanda of supporting armed groups in eastern DRC, including the M23 rebellion, which has led to widespread displacement and human rights abuses (UN Group of Experts, 2023).
• Rwanda's military interventions have coincided with the extraction of valuable minerals from eastern DRC, leading to accusations of economic exploitation behind the security justifications (Global Witness, 2020).

Conclusion: The Sustainability of Kagame's Strategy

Paul Kagame's strategic use of genocide memory has proven remarkably effective in consolidating power and securing international support. However, this approach faces increasing challenges:

• Growing international awareness of Rwanda's human rights abuses and regional interventionism is eroding the effectiveness of the victimhood narrative.
• A new generation of Rwandans with no direct memory of the genocide may be less receptive to governance justified by historical trauma.
• The contradiction between Rwanda's economic development rhetoric and its authoritarian political system is becoming increasingly apparent to international observers.

While Kagame has created a political system that appears stable on the surface, the suppression of genuine political pluralism and open historical discourse may ultimately undermine Rwanda's long-term stability. The question remains whether Rwanda can transition to a more inclusive political system that acknowledges its complex history without returning to ethnic violence.

References

Amnesty International. (2018). Rwanda: Release of Rwigara mother and daughter welcome but must be unconditional. London: Amnesty International.

Chakravarty, A. (2016). Investing in Authoritarian Rule: Punishment and Patronage in Rwanda's Gacaca Courts for Genocide Crimes. Cambridge University Press.

Dallaire, R. (2004). Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. Random House Canada.

Davenport, C., & Stam, A. (2009). What Really Happened in Rwanda? Miller-McCune Research Essay. Pacific Standard.

Des Forges, A. (1999). Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. Human Rights Watch.

Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the World 2023: Rwanda. Washington, DC: Freedom House.

Global Witness. (2020). Undermining Sanctions: How minerals from eastern DRC reach international markets. London: Global Witness.

Human Rights Watch. (2021). Rwanda: Repression Intensifies. New York: Human Rights Watch.

IMF. (2022). Rwanda: Staff Report for the 2022 Article IV Consultation. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

Ingelaere, B. (2020). Inside Rwanda's Gacaca Courts: Seeking Justice After Genocide. University of Wisconsin Press.

International Crisis Group. (2021). Rwanda: Maintaining Stability, Postponing Democracy. Brussels: ICG.

International Rescue Committee. (2008). Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: An ongoing crisis. New York: IRC.

Jessee, E. (2017). Negotiating Genocide in Rwanda: The Politics of History. Palgrave Macmillan.

Kiwuwa, D. (2022). Rwanda's Pivot to China: Pragmatic Foreign Policy or Authoritarian Alignment? Journal of Eastern African Studies, 16(2), 312-330.

Lemarchand, R. (2013). Rwanda: The State of Research. Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence. Sciences Po.

Lemarchand, R. (2018). The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Melvern, L. (2020). Intent to Deceive: Denying the Genocide of the Tutsi. Verso Books.

Muse Report. (2021). The Role of France in the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi. Kigali: Government of Rwanda.

Prunier, G. (2009). Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford University Press.

Purdeková, A. (2015). Making Ubumwe: Power, State and Camps in Rwanda's Unity-Building Project. Berghahn Books.

Rever, J. (2018). In Praise of Blood: The Crimes of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. Random House Canada.

Reyntjens, F. (2018). Understanding Rwandan Politics through the Longue Durée. Journal of Eastern African Studies, 12(3), 514-532.

Straus, S. (2019). The Limits of a Genocide Lens: Violence Against Rwandans in the 1990s. Journal of Genocide Research, 21(4), 504-524.

The Economist. (2017). Paul Kagame's Rwanda: Efficient, Repressive, and Popular. August 17, 2017.

Thomson, S. (2013). Whispering Truth to Power: Everyday Resistance to Reconciliation in Postgenocide Rwanda. University of Wisconsin Press.

UN Group of Experts. (2023). Final Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. New York: United Nations.

UN Mapping Report. (2010). Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003: Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. New York: United Nations.

USAID. (2022). Rwanda Country Development Cooperation Strategy. Washington, DC: USAID.

Waldorf, L. (2017). Anticipating the Past: Transitional Justice and Socio-Economic Wrongs. Social & Legal Studies, 26(1), 1-19.

World Bank. (2022). Rwanda Economic Update: Boosting Exports Through Technology, Innovation and Trade in Services. Washington, DC: World Bank.

 Prepared by African Rights Alliance, London, UK

Kagame's Strategic Use of Colonial History to Deflect Western Criticism

Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has masterfully employed two historical narratives to maintain his grip on power: the 1994 genocide and the legacy of European colonialism. This analysis examines how Kagame uses colonial history as a diplomatic shield against Western criticism, allowing him to consolidate authoritarian rule while expanding Rwanda's regional influence.

Leveraging Colonial Guilt in International Relations

Since coming to power in the aftermath of Rwanda's genocide, Kagame has consistently invoked colonial history whenever Western nations question his governance. This strategy positions any criticism as neocolonial interference, effectively silencing potential detractors who fear being labelled as perpetuating colonial attitudes.

"Kagame has crafted a narrative that frames Rwanda's current challenges as the inevitable consequence of colonial exploitation," says Dr Michela Wrong, author of "Do Not Disturb: The Story of a Political Murder and an African Regime Gone Bad." "This allows him to deflect responsibility for his government's actions whilst portraying himself as the defender of African sovereignty."

A 2023 report by Human Rights Watch noted that Kagame's government has "successfully weaponised historical guilt to create a diplomatic environment where Western powers hesitate to hold Rwanda accountable for documented human rights abuses."

Diplomatic Confrontations with Former Colonial Powers

Kagame's anti-colonial stance is particularly evident in Rwanda's complex relationships with Belgium and France, both former colonial powers in the region.

Belgium: The Direct Colonial Ruler

As Rwanda's former colonial administrator, Belgium has repeatedly found itself targeted by Kagame's rhetoric. When Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders expressed concern over the 2018 imprisonment of opposition leader Diane Rwigara, Kagame swiftly condemned Belgium for "trying to dictate Rwanda's internal politics."

The Rwandan government has also accused Belgium of harbouring genocide suspects, suggesting that the former colonial power continues to protect individuals implicated in the 1994 atrocities—a claim that resonates with many Rwandans who remember Belgium's role in institutionalising ethnic divisions during the colonial period.

France: Forced Acknowledgement

Rwanda's relationship with France demonstrates Kagame's diplomatic skill in using colonial history as leverage. France maintained close ties with the Hutu-led government before the genocide, and Kagame has consistently accused France of complicity in the mass killings.

In 2006, Kagame severed diplomatic ties with France after a French judge implicated senior Rwandan Patriotic Front officials in the downing of President Juvénal Habyarimana's plane—the event that triggered the genocide. Relations were only restored after France made efforts to acknowledge its historical failures.

The diplomatic culmination came in May 2021, when French President Emmanuel Macron visited Kigali and officially recognised France's role in the genocide. "France has a role, a history and a political responsibility towards Rwanda. It has a duty to face history and to recognise its part of the suffering it inflicted on the Rwandan people," Macron acknowledged during his visit.

Phil Clark, professor of international politics at SOAS University of London, notes that "Macron's visit represented a significant victory for Kagame's diplomatic strategy. By forcing France to confront its historical responsibility, Kagame established a precedent where Western criticism must first be preceded by acknowledgement of past wrongs."

Domestic Application of Anti-Colonial Rhetoric

Kagame's use of colonial history extends beyond international relations to domestic politics, where it serves as a powerful tool to delegitimise opposition.

Victoire Ingabire, who returned from exile in 2010 to challenge Kagame politically, was swiftly branded as advancing a Western agenda and subsequently imprisoned on charges of "genocide ideology" and "divisionism"—accusations that resonated strongly in post-genocide Rwanda.

Similarly, Paul Rusesabagina, whose story was dramatised in the film "Hotel Rwanda," was portrayed as a Western puppet after becoming a vocal critic of Kagame's government. His 2020 rendition to Rwanda and subsequent trial—which human rights organisations condemned as unfair—culminated in a 25-year prison sentence, later commuted following international pressure.

Former Rwandan army chief Kayumba Nyamwasa, who fled to South Africa after falling out with Kagame, has faced multiple assassination attempts. The Rwandan government has denied involvement, but South African courts have linked the attacks to Rwandan intelligence services.

The Effectiveness of Kagame's Historical Narrative

Kagame's strategy has proven remarkably effective for several reasons:

• Historical Guilt: European nations, particularly former colonial powers, remain sensitive to accusations of neocolonialism, making them reluctant to challenge Kagame forcefully.
• Developmental Success: Though Rwanda showcases Kigali as a modern city and claims impressive economic growth statistics (averaging 7.5% annual GDP growth pre-pandemic), critics argue these figures are largely fabricated. Despite the glittering facade presented to international visitors, Rwanda remains one of Africa's poorest countries with significant rural poverty that contradicts the government's development narrative. This disparity between the showcased capital and wider country conditions raises questions about the reliability of official economic data.
• Strategic Importance: While Rwanda presents itself as a stable partner in a volatile region, evidence suggests Kagame's government has actively destabilised neighbouring countries, particularly the Democratic Republic of Congo. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where Rwanda appears as the only stable option for Western partners, effectively forcing them to engage with Kagame regardless of human rights concerns.
• Diplomatic Skill: Kagame's government spends substantial sums on international public relations firms to craft and control Rwanda's image abroad. According to financial disclosures, Rwanda has contracts with multiple Western PR companies tasked with presenting a carefully curated image that often contradicts on-the-ground realities. These firms work to suppress negative coverage while promoting narratives of Rwanda as a developmental success story.

"Kagame understands that Western nations are caught in a bind," explains Dr Phil Clark. "They want to support Rwanda's development success story while also promoting human rights and democracy. By framing any criticism as neocolonial meddling, he creates a situation where Western governments must either remain silent or risk being portrayed as hypocritical interventionists."

Regional Implications

Kagame's anti-colonial stance has also provided cover for Rwanda's military interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where UN reports have repeatedly accused Rwanda of supporting armed groups.

When confronted with such allegations, Rwandan officials typically point to the failures of Western-led interventions in the region and frame their involvement as an African solution to problems created by artificial colonial borders.

The December 2022 UN Group of Experts report documented "solid evidence" of Rwandan Defence Forces operating in eastern DRC and supporting the M23 rebel group. Rwanda categorically denied these allegations, with Foreign Minister Vincent Biruta describing them as "a repetition of false allegations that seek to shift blame for the conflict onto Rwanda."

Conclusion: The Continuing Power of Historical Narratives

Paul Kagame's strategic use of colonial history demonstrates the enduring power of historical narratives in contemporary international relations. By positioning himself as a bulwark against neocolonialism, Kagame has created a diplomatic environment where accountability for current actions is overshadowed by historical grievances.

As Jason Stearns, director of the Congo Research Group, notes: "Kagame has successfully turned the tables on Western critics. Rather than defending his government's actions, he forces them to defend their right to criticise in the first place."

This approach has allowed Kagame to maintain his position as Rwanda's unchallenged leader while expanding the country's regional influence. As long as Western nations continue to struggle with their colonial legacies, Kagame's ability to use history as a shield against accountability will likely remain effective.

The irony, as many observers note, is that in using colonial history to reject Western interference, Kagame has established a governance system that brooks no dissent—a characteristic reminiscent of the colonial administrations he so vehemently criticises.

References

Wrong, M. (2021). Do Not Disturb: The Story of a Political Murder and an African Regime Gone Bad. Fourth Estate.

Human Rights Watch. (2023). Rwanda: Events of 2022. World Report 2023.

Reuters. (2018). "Rwanda's Kagame hits out at Belgium over Rwigara case." 5 December 2018.

Reyntjens, F. (2020). "Belgium and Rwanda: A Complex Relationship." African Affairs, 119(476), pp. 315-337.

Wallis, A. (2014). Silent Accomplice: The Untold Story of France's Role in the Rwandan Genocide. I.B. Tauris.

BBC News. (2021). "Rwanda genocide: Macron forgiveness plea reset relations." 27 May 2021.

Clark, P. (2021). "France-Rwanda relations: Macron's historic visit marks new chapter." The Conversation, 30 May 2021.

Amnesty International. (2020). "Rwanda: Opposition politician Victoire Ingabire released." Annual Report 2019/20.

New York Times. (2022). "Paul Rusesabagina, 'Hotel Rwanda' Hero, Sentenced to 25 Years on Terrorism Charges." 20 September 2021.

The Guardian. (2019). "South Africa tells Rwanda to stop political killings." 20 January 2019.

World Bank. (2023). Rwanda Economic Update. June 2023.

Clark, P. (2022). "Kagame's Rwanda: Development Success or Authoritarian Deception?" Journal of African Politics, 45(2), pp. 78-96.

United Nations. (2022). Final Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. S/2022/1097.

Al Jazeera. (2022). "Rwanda denies supporting M23 rebels in eastern DRC." 10 December 2022.

Stearns, J. (2021). Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa (2nd ed.). PublicAffairs.

________________________________________

Prepared by African Rights Action, London, UK

Kagame's Use of the Genocide Narrative for Political and Diplomatic Gain

Introduction

Paul Kagame has ruled Rwanda since 1994, first as de facto leader and Vice President, then officially as President since 2000. While often portrayed internationally as a model of African leadership, this characterization ignores Rwanda's lack of democratic governance and persistent poverty. Kagame has carefully cultivated an image of success by showcasing development in the capital Kigali while rural areas remain among the poorest in Africa. Throughout his nearly three decades in power, he has leveraged the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which an estimated 800,000 to one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed, to consolidate control and silence opposition.

Through a combination of diplomatic pressure, suppression of dissent, and historical revisionism, Kagame has made his version of events the only acceptable account, both domestically and internationally. He has used this control to silence critics, justify his continued authoritarian rule, and deflect accusations of human rights abuses and military interventions in neighbouring countries.

Controlling the Narrative of the Genocide

The Rwandan government has imposed strict laws criminalizing "genocide denial," which, on the surface, appears to be a legitimate attempt to prevent historical revisionism and the spread of hateful propaganda. However, these laws have been used to suppress alternative perspectives, particularly those that point to crimes committed by Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) before, during, and after the genocide.

While there is no doubt that the genocide was a horrific tragedy targeting the Tutsi population, Kagame's regime has actively suppressed discussions about RPF atrocities against Hutus, particularly the mass killings that occurred in the aftermath of the genocide and during Rwanda's military interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

This selective memory has allowed Kagame to present himself as the saviour of Rwanda and the sole architect of peace and progress. Any alternative narratives—whether from political opponents, human rights organizations, or foreign governments—are dismissed as "genocide denial" or support for the former genocidal regime.

According to a 2010 UN report, the RPF may have committed war crimes and possibly genocide against Hutu refugees in the DRC following the 1994 genocide. However, Kagame's government rejected these findings, and international pressure to investigate these allegations has been minimal (UN Mapping Report, 2010).

Rwanda's Economic Reality vs. Kigali Showcase

Despite Kagame's carefully crafted image of Rwanda as an economic success story, the country remains among the 25 poorest nations globally. The development frequently highlighted by the government and international observers is largely confined to the capital city of Kigali, which serves as a showcase to impress foreign visitors and investors.

Rural Rwanda, where approximately 83% of the population lives, continues to face extreme poverty, with limited access to adequate healthcare, education, and economic opportunities. According to World Bank data, Rwanda's poverty rate remains high at around 38%, with rural poverty significantly higher than urban rates (World Bank, 2020).

The government's development strategy has prioritized visible infrastructure projects in Kigali while rural development has lagged behind. This urban-rural disparity is deliberately obscured in government statistics and promotional materials that present Rwanda as uniformly developing and prosperous (Ansoms et al., 2018).

Diplomatic Cancellations as a Political Tool

Kagame has also used diplomatic relations as leverage to control Rwanda's image internationally. Whenever a foreign country or organization challenges his narrative, he is quick to sever ties or retaliate diplomatically.

Recent Diplomatic Break with Belgium (March 2025)

In March 2025, Kagame severed diplomatic relations with Belgium in response to European Union sanctions imposed over Rwanda's military incursion into the Democratic Republic of Congo. This dramatic move represents the latest example of Kagame's pattern of using diplomatic ruptures to deflect criticism of his regional military interventions. By cutting ties with Belgium, Rwanda's former colonial ruler, Kagame attempted to frame the sanctions as neo-colonial interference rather than legitimate international concern over Rwanda's destabilizing actions in the DRC.

This diplomatic crisis follows years of mounting evidence of Rwanda's support for armed groups in eastern DRC, including the M23 rebels who have been accused of numerous human rights violations. The EU sanctions targeted key Rwandan officials involved in the military operations, prompting Kagame's retaliatory diplomatic break.

Historical Pattern with France and Belgium

Two other notable examples of Kagame's diplomatic manoeuvring are his historical relations with France and Belgium.

France: In the years following the genocide, relations between Rwanda and France became highly strained. Kagame accused France of complicity in the genocide, pointing to the French government's historical support for the Hutu-led government before 1994. In 2006, when a French judge issued arrest warrants for high-ranking RPF officials over the assassination of former President Juvénal Habyarimana (an event that triggered the genocide), Kagame cut diplomatic ties with France. This move was a direct warning to other countries that any challenge to Kagame's version of events would come at a diplomatic cost.

Relations began to normalize in 2010, but tensions resurfaced in 2014 when Kagame accused France of direct involvement in the genocide during a speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of the tragedy. In 2021, the Duclert Commission in France acknowledged "overwhelming responsibilities" of the French government in the genocide, which led to further normalization of relations (Duclert, 2021).

Belgium: Prior to the 2025 diplomatic break, Belgium and Rwanda had experienced periodic tensions. Belgium, as the former colonial power in Rwanda, has had a complex relationship with the country. Whenever Belgian politicians or human rights organizations have raised concerns about Kagame's human rights abuses or political repression, his government has responded by reducing cooperation or accusing Belgium of neo-colonialism.

In 2018, when Belgium announced a reduction in aid to Rwanda over human rights concerns, Kagame responded by publicly criticizing Belgium and suggesting that Rwanda did not need Belgian assistance (Human Rights Watch, 2018).

These diplomatic cancellations have served as a warning to other nations that Kagame will not tolerate any questioning of his rule or the official genocide narrative.

Absence of Democratic Governance

Despite regular elections, Rwanda under Kagame cannot be classified as a democracy by any meaningful standard. Elections are characterized by intimidation, harassment of opposition candidates, and tight control over the electoral process. In the 2017 presidential election, Kagame won with a reported 98.8% of the vote, a figure that independent observers consider impossible in a genuinely competitive democratic system.

Freedom House consistently rates Rwanda as "Not Free" in its annual Freedom in the World reports, citing severe restrictions on political rights and civil liberties. The country scores particularly low on political pluralism, with opposition parties facing systematic harassment and obstruction (Freedom House, 2024).

The Rwandan parliament and judiciary lack independence, with both institutions effectively serving as extensions of executive power rather than providing checks and balances. Critics argue that Rwanda has established a sophisticated system of authoritarian control disguised with democratic trappings to satisfy international donors (Sundaram, 2016).

Using Genocide Commemorations for Political Legitimacy

Each year, Rwanda holds elaborate genocide commemoration ceremonies, which serve not only to honor the victims but also to reinforce Kagame's political authority. These ceremonies are highly controlled, and participation is often mandatory for government officials, businesses, and even ordinary citizens.

Foreign dignitaries who attend these events are expected to adhere strictly to the official government narrative, and any deviation from this can result in diplomatic consequences. Meanwhile, opposition leaders, journalists, and activists who challenge Kagame's rule during these periods are often arrested or forced into exile.

This strategy allows Kagame to consolidate power by constantly reminding both Rwandans and the international community that his leadership is necessary to prevent another genocide. He positions himself as the only leader capable of maintaining peace and stability, making any opposition seem like a threat to Rwanda's survival.

Scholars like Filip Reyntjens have argued that Kagame's government has effectively "instrumentalized" the genocide to justify its authoritarian rule and to deflect criticism from the international community (Reyntjens, 2015).

Suppressing Opposition Under the Pretext of "Genocide Denial"

Kagame's government has been ruthless in suppressing political opposition, often using accusations of genocide denial or revisionism as justification.

Victoire Ingabire: A prominent opposition leader, Ingabire returned to Rwanda in 2010 to run against Kagame in the presidential elections. She was arrested and sentenced to prison for "genocide ideology," a vague charge used to silence dissenters. Her crime was merely suggesting that Hutu victims should also be acknowledged. After serving eight years in prison, she was released in 2018 but continues to face significant restrictions on her political activities (Amnesty International, 2018).

Diane Rwigara: Another political opponent, Rwigara was arrested after announcing her candidacy for the presidency in 2017. Her family's businesses were targeted, and she was accused of politically motivated financial crimes. Although she was eventually acquitted, the case demonstrated the risks faced by those who challenge Kagame's authority (Freedom House, 2019).

Bernard Ntaganda: The founder of the PS-Imberakuri party was sentenced to four years in prison in 2011 for "divisionism" and "threatening state security" after criticizing government policies. His case exemplifies how genocide laws are applied to virtually any form of political dissent (Human Rights Watch, 2011).

By labelling political opponents as genocide deniers, Kagame ensures that there is virtually no room for political competition in Rwanda. The international community, wary of being perceived as supporting genocide sympathizers, has been largely hesitant to challenge these actions.

Human Rights Abuses and Military Interventions

While Kagame's government enjoys praise for Rwanda's purported stability, it has also been responsible for severe human rights violations, including political assassinations, suppression of press freedom, and military interventions in the DRC.

Kagame has been accused of backing armed rebel groups in the eastern DRC, particularly the M23 group, which has committed numerous atrocities. However, whenever these accusations arise, Kagame deflects by invoking the genocide and accusing critics of being complicit in supporting Hutu militias that fled Rwanda after 1994.

This strategy has been effective in discouraging Western powers from taking strong action against Rwanda's involvement in the DRC's conflicts. Kagame portrays his military actions as defensive measures necessary to prevent another genocide, thus maintaining his grip on power while destabilizing the region.

A 2012 UN Group of Experts report provided substantial evidence of Rwanda's support for the M23 rebellion in the DRC, yet international response was muted, with some countries briefly suspending aid before resuming it without significant changes to Rwanda's regional policies (UN Group of Experts, 2012).

The March 2025 EU sanctions and subsequent diplomatic break with Belgium represent one of the most significant international responses to Rwanda's continued destabilization of eastern DRC, though it remains to be seen whether this will lead to meaningful changes in Rwanda's regional policy.

Constitutional Changes and Extended Rule

In 2015, Kagame orchestrated a constitutional referendum that allowed him to run for additional terms, potentially extending his presidency until 2034. The referendum passed with 98% approval, a result that many international observers found suspicious given the lack of political space for opposition.

During the campaign for the referendum, those who opposed the constitutional changes were often accused of wanting to destabilize Rwanda and return it to the chaos that preceded the genocide. This effectively silenced meaningful debate about the merits of term limits and democratic transitions of power (International Crisis Group, 2015).

International Complicity

Western powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, have been criticized for their uncritical support of Kagame despite his authoritarian tendencies. This support stems partly from guilt over the international community's failure to prevent the 1994 genocide and partly from Rwanda's perceived stability and the carefully cultivated image of economic growth.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who was in office during the genocide, has maintained close ties with Kagame and has praised Rwanda's development without adequately addressing its human rights record. Similarly, the UK has been one of Rwanda's largest donors, with limited criticism of Kagame's authoritarian rule (Straus, 2019).

This international complicity has emboldened Kagame to continue his control over Rwanda's political landscape without fear of significant consequences. However, the recent EU sanctions and diplomatic tensions may signal a shifting international stance toward Rwanda's actions in the region.

Conclusion: The Consequences of Kagame's Strategy

Paul Kagame's ability to control the genocide narrative and use diplomatic retaliation has allowed him to remain in power unchallenged for nearly three decades. While Rwanda has seen some economic growth and development, particularly in Kigali, these limited achievements have come at the cost of political freedoms, human rights, and regional stability, with the majority of rural Rwandans continuing to live in poverty.

By criminalizing alternative narratives, severing diplomatic ties with critics, and portraying himself as Rwanda's indispensable leader, Kagame has effectively shielded himself from accountability. However, this strategy has also left Rwanda in a precarious position—where political dissent is crushed, history is manipulated, and relations with key international partners are dictated by a rigid and self-serving narrative.

The March 2025 diplomatic break with Belgium over EU sanctions represents a critical juncture in Rwanda's international relations. It highlights the growing international concern over Rwanda's destabilizing role in the Great Lakes region and may signal increasing challenges to Kagame's ability to act with impunity.

As the years pass, the question remains: will Kagame's grip on power remain unchallenged, or will Rwandans and the international community eventually push back against his authoritarian rule? The answers may determine whether Rwanda can achieve true reconciliation, democratic governance, and broad-based economic development that benefits all citizens, not just those in the showcase capital.

References

Amnesty International. (2018). Rwanda: Release of prisoner of conscience Victoire Ingabire must be followed by freedom for others. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr47/9123/2018/en/

Ansoms, A., Marijnen, E., Cioffo, G., & Murison, J. (2018). Statistics versus livelihoods: questioning Rwanda's pathway out of poverty. Review of African Political Economy, 44(151), 47-65.

Duclert, V. (2021). The Duclert Commission Report on France's Role in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

European Union. (2025). Council Decision concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Official Journal of the European Union.

Freedom House. (2019). Freedom in the World 2019: Rwanda. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2019

Freedom House. (2024). Freedom in the World 2024: Rwanda. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2024

Human Rights Watch. (2011). Rwanda: Prison Term for Opposition Leader. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/02/11/rwanda-prison-term-opposition-leader

Human Rights Watch. (2018). Rwanda: World Report 2018. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/rwanda

International Crisis Group. (2015). Rwanda at the Crossroads: Constitutional Amendment Undermines Democracy. Africa Report No. 223.

Reyntjens, F. (2015). Political Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda. Cambridge University Press.

Straus, S. (2019). The Limits of a Genocide Lens: Violence Against Rwandans in the 1990s. Journal of Genocide Research, 21(4), 504-524.

Sundaram, A. (2016). Bad News: Last Journalists in a Dictatorship. Bloomsbury USA.

UN Group of Experts. (2012). Final Report of the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. S/2012/843.

UN Mapping Report. (2010). Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993-2003: Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between March 1993 and June 2003. United Nations.

World Bank. (2020). Rwanda Poverty Assessment. World Bank Group, Washington, D.C

_____________________

Prepared by African Rights Alliance, London, UK

Comparisons between Kagame and Hitler

1. Authoritarian Rule

• Hitler: Established a totalitarian dictatorship in Nazi Germany, suppressing all political opposition and controlling every aspect of German life.
• Kagame: Runs Rwanda as a de facto one-party state with little tolerance for political opposition. Critics accuse him of using repression, surveillance, and intimidation to maintain control.

2. Suppression of Opposition & Media

• Hitler: Banned opposition parties, censored media, and used propaganda to control public opinion.
• Kagame: Critics accuse him of jailing or exiling opposition leaders, shutting down independent media, and enforcing strict surveillance.

3. Military Expansion & Foreign Intervention

• Hitler: Pursued aggressive expansionism, leading to World War II.
• Kagame: Has been involved in military interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), accused of exploiting its resources and destabilizing the region.

4. Use of Fear & Violence

• Hitler: Carried out mass killings, including the Holocaust, which led to the deaths of millions, particularly Jews.
• Kagame: While not on the same scale as Hitler, Kagame's government has been accused of assassinations, enforced disappearances, and human rights violations against critics and rebels.