The ongoing crisis in DR Congo has drawn international attention, with various stakeholders weighing in on its causes and potential resolutions. Former Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe, a long-time observer of the region, recently shared his insights in a roundtable discussion.
Having followed events in the region closely since the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, Destexhe offers a historical perspective on Belgium's role, Rwanda's position, and the broader geopolitical implications of the conflict.
In this conversation, he delves into Belgium's shifting relations with Rwanda, the involvement of European mercenaries in DR Congo, and the impact of international interventions.
What are your interests in Rwanda and in this region?
Yes, I was in Goma and Kivu last week, but my interest in the region started in 1994, just three weeks before the Genocide against the Tutsi began.
I came here as Secretary General of Doctors Without Borders to visit Burundian refugees who were in Rwanda at the time. Of course, nobody told me that genocide was being prepared, but when it started on April 7, I was very aware of what was happening. I believe I was among the first to say, "No, this is not just a civil war, not just crimes--this is a genocide against the Tutsi, carried out by the Hutu Power regime at the time."
You may recall that the international community and the United Nations (UN) initially presented the events as civil war, tribal warfare, or something similar.
After the genocide, I was also in Goma, in the refugee camps, and I was among those who pointed out that many of the people there were not ordinary refugees--most were murderers, genocidaires, killers.
The international community and the UN were essentially allowing them to reorganise as an army, as Rwanda's enemy, with the support of humanitarian aid and international relief supplies. I denounced that and said, "This is unacceptable--the UN and NGOs are helping a murderous regime, the former Hutu Power regime."
So, my interest and involvement in the Rwandan crisis dates back to 1994 and continues to this day.
Belgium and Rwanda have cut ties. In your opinion, why is Belgium acting this way toward Rwanda?
Even for me, it's difficult to explain. The truth is that most people in Belgium are not enemies of Rwanda, they don't hold negative sentiments toward Rwanda, and to be frank, many of them are not particularly interested in what is happening in Rwanda.
I believe this hostility comes from a small political elite in Belgium that has decided to be antagonistic toward Rwanda. I don't see many reasons for this, but one possible explanation is that Belgium is a small country with limited influence in international affairs or within the European Union (EU).
Some Belgian politicians may believe that by leveraging the crisis in Kivu, they can increase their influence at the UN and within the EU.
In the EU, many countries have little knowledge of Rwanda--countries like Estonia, Slovakia, or Romania don't have embassies here, they don't have citizens here (except for mercenaries, but that's another discussion), and they have no political or economic interests in the region. So, when the 27 EU member states gather, they tend to listen to Belgium because of its historical ties to the region.
That's the only rational explanation I can see. But I want to emphasise that there is no general hostility from the Belgian population toward Rwanda and Rwandans. This antagonism comes from a small political elite--no one else.
Given the history of the DR Congo and Belgium, do you think Belgium is responsible for the current crisis in Congo?
No, I don't think so. The crisis has its own dynamics. To me, the main issue is the threat to the lives of minority groups, including the Tutsi in DR Congo. That is the root cause of the crisis.
However, I do believe Belgium is responsible for increasing tensions between Rwanda and Belgium. Personally, I think Belgium should remain completely neutral in this crisis. Given its colonial past, Belgium has no moral authority to take a stand or pick sides. The best course of action would be neutrality.
How has the colonial past contributed to what we are seeing today?
It has contributed significantly. The small political elite in Belgium, which is responsible for the current tensions, seems to completely ignore history.
For example, I am certain that Maxime Prévot, Belgium's Minister of Foreign Affairs, knows nothing about the colonial past of the region. He likely doesn't know that some Tutsi communities in Kivu have been there for a very long time. Others arrived due to Belgian colonisation in the 1930s.
A third group arrived in 1959 when Belgium shifted its support to the so-called "Social Hutu Revolution," which led to the killing of many Tutsi in Rwanda and forced others to flee to DR Congo (then Zaire).
What Belgium fails to understand is that these people became Congolese citizens upon arrival. They are not Rwandan citizens. At Congo's independence, it was decided that everyone residing in DR Congo at that time would be considered Congolese.
By taking a strong stance against Rwanda now, Belgium is reigniting past tensions that had not been fully resolved. This is unnecessary and unwise.
You took a trip to the DR Congo. What did you find there, and why did you go in the first place?
Yes, I spent at least a week in Kivu. First of all, I found that Goma and its surroundings were much quieter than I had expected. In Europe, the perception is that there is turmoil and war everywhere, but in reality, that is not the case. Even in Goma, life seemed relatively normal.
One major difference I noticed was the absence of corruption by the new administrative entities and Police. Previously, the local population suffered from extortion and abuse by Congolese authorities.
Now, that has significantly decreased. You don't see much of a police or M23 presence in the city. Life appears normal, except for the fact that banks have been closed by the Kinshasa government.
I traveled around Goma without an escort. I did not feel unsafe at all. I went quite far into the region--though, of course, you can't go too far because the roads are in terrible condition.
One thing that stood out to me was the extreme poverty in the countryside. It's clear that from Mobutu to Tshisekedi, different Congolese presidents have done nothing to improve the living conditions of their people. The difference between rural areas in Congo and Rwanda is striking--you can clearly see the disparity in quality of life between the two populations.
That was my overall impression of the trip. I also met with General Makenga, Corneille Nangaa, Bertrand Bisimwa, and the leadership of M23. I spoke with many ordinary people on the streets to understand their perspectives.
I also visited Nturo, a village in Masisi that was burned by Wazalendo and the Nyatura militia, with Burundian soldiers also involved. That was a particularly powerful and moving experience.
You wrote a report during your time as a Senator about Belgium's role in the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi. How was this report received, and did Belgium take any action based on it?
In 1994, I wrote my first book, which was later translated into English. It was called Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th Century. The thesis of the book was that the genocide against the Tutsis in 1994 was the first unquestionable genocide of the 20th century. Of course, this could be debated, but that was my argument.
Prior to that, there was the Armenian genocide in 1915, the genocide of the Jews during the Holocaust, and then the genocide of the Tutsi by the Hutu regime. In 1994, this was a very controversial position to take, but I worked to raise awareness about the unique and specific nature of what happened in Rwanda.
Later, as I became a senator, I started to disagree with the approach of NGOs and the idea of helping people without asking critical questions about who they were really helping. During the period from 1994 to 1996, humanitarian aid in places like Goma was not being directed to the right people.
I recall that at the end of 1994, food aid was given to local leaders--the bourgmestre (District leaders)--and these leaders were the ones who distributed it. This gave the population the impression that the same leaders responsible for the genocide were still in charge. The international community, through its NGOs, was inadvertently strengthening the structures that had carried out the genocide.
This is why I advocated for Doctors Without Borders to leave the refugee camps. We did leave, but we were immediately replaced by other organizations. At that time, humanitarian aid in the camps had become a business, fueled by funds from the international community, yet many of the refugees were, in fact, perpetrators of the genocide.
After I was elected to the Senate, I came to realize that Belgium knew much more than it had let on about the genocide. Belgium, along with France and the United States, had ample evidence that the genocide was being prepared but did nothing to stop it. So, I pushed for an inquiry into Belgium's actions, which took about a year and a half to initiate. The Belgian government was initially hostile to the idea, but we eventually got the inquiry, which took place in 1997.
Is the situation now similar, with NGOs protesting the closure of camps in Goma and asking refugees to return home? Is it about business, or do they genuinely have interest in helping?
It's hard to say, as I am no longer involved in the NGO sector. However, from my perspective, there is a direct financial interest in keeping the camps operational. I haven't done a full investigation, but from what I've seen, many refugees now receive their aid in the form of direct payments to their phones, rather than receiving food directly.
This shift has made it harder to track whether these refugees are still being manipulated or if they have other agendas. I think the M23 made the right decision to ask people to return home, as that's where they belong. I spoke with several returnees, and most of them were happy to go back to their villages because they felt there was more security now, especially with M23 controlling the area. However, they were concerned about the next three months before the next harvest.
So, I believe the international community's role now should be to provide agricultural tools and seeds to support these people during this transitional period. I hope the UN and other NGOs that were in the camps will now focus their efforts on helping these people in their home areas, where they need assistance most.
Let's go back to the issue of genocide deniers, and even some of their offspring finding their way into leadership in Belgium, what are your thoughts on this?
It's a challenging issue, especially in Europe. Genocide deniers often use the concept of free speech to spread their lies and racism. It's difficult to combat this because we don't have the legal tools to fight against such denial effectively.
That said, Belgium did hold at least eight trials in Brussels against the perpetrators of the genocide. This was a political struggle initially, as the government at the time didn't want to pursue these trials, but eventually, they were held. I think it's a positive development for Belgium that those trials took place.
Rwanda had been raising concerns about mercenaries in DR Congo for a long time, but no one really believed them but the West has remained silent on this issue, what is your take?
Yes, it's quite unbelievable. And it's not just a legal issue; it's an ethical and moral one. How is it possible that in 2025, individuals from Romania--members of the European Union--are coming to Africa to fight against people who are literally fighting for their lives?
I've heard that these mercenaries weren't there for just two or three weeks. Some of them have stated in interviews that they were there for as long as two years. I think this is absolutely shameful.
I believe that, instead of criticizing Rwanda, the European Union should look at its own situation. This is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, it has not been adequately publicized in European Union countries that these mercenaries were involved in fighting with the UN and Congolese forces against M23.
Another absurd thing happening in Europe is the constant comparison between the conflict in the DR Congo and the conflict in Ukraine. The Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Prévost, is particularly persistent in making this comparison.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
It feels as though the European Union is making decisions in this region based on what's happening in Ukraine. But this has absolutely no relevance here. If we must make such a comparison--which, again, is completely irrelevant--who would be Ukraine and who would be Russia? DR Congo is 90 times bigger than Rwanda and 10 times more populous. So, who would be Russia, and who would be Ukraine? The comparison is completely nonsensical.
The European Union has been issuing sanctions left and right. But how are these sanctions affecting the peace talks that the African countries are trying to hold?
First of all, sanctions have never worked in history. They simply don't work. I think Russia is under somewhere between 15 and 18 rounds of sanctions, and yet it continues to fight.
Sanctions, in general, don't achieve their intended outcomes. Secondly, the timing of these sanctions was extremely poor.
For example, the President of Angola took the initiative to ask the Congolese government and M23 to meet in Luanda, and the sanctions were imposed the day before this meeting was scheduled to take place. It felt like an attempt to derail the meeting. Not only was the purpose of the sanctions misguided, but the timing was absolutely disastrous.
Additionally, the Belgian Minister Prévost claimed that President Kagame is against dialogue, but Kagame was in Doha meeting President Tshisekedi on Tuesday, March 18. So, yes, dialogue is happening. This narrative is simply wrong. I don't understand why he continues to spread these falsehoods.
You've written two books on Rwanda, one in 1994 and another last year (2024) as Rwandans commemorated 30 years of the Genocide against the Tutsi. Could you tell us about these books and their impact?
Yes, as I mentioned before, the first book aimed at making people understand that what happened in Rwanda was not a civil war or just a series of crimes; it was a genocide deliberately intended to exterminate a group of people, specifically the Tutsis.
The second book, which is much more recent and written in French, was based on an inquiry I conducted 30 years ago. I went back to see both survivors and perpetrators of the genocide. I revisited Nyamata and Bisesero--a place I had never been before--and spoke to people there. I tried to broadly understand what kind of lessons foreigners can take away from this war experience. Yes, it was very moving to do that.
I think Rwanda's policy of eliminating ethnic distinctions is the right approach, and I believe it's the way forward. It's a very good policy.
But it's not the same in DR Congo. In Congo, there is still hate speech against ethnic groups, and they use the term 'tribes.'
The issue in DR Congo is the survival of the Tutsi people there and the development of Kivu. I think the fact that now, it's not only the Tutsi people but also others in various groups under the AFC, who are trying to fight for survival and for the development of Kivu, is significant.
The question is no longer about the territorial integrity of DR Congo. Kinshasa has done absolutely nothing for Kivu in the last few decades. The issue now is that the people there have the right to survive.
