A lot has been happening. The urban myth, which is not a myth, is that the FPR, Rwanda’s liberating party, does not sleep. That is rather reassuring, because it seems that its self-appointed enemies do not sleep much either.

The news cycle this time of year is always a whirlwind. During Kwibuka, it seems that all those opposing our survival are out for blood. A myriad of excuses is used to justify this fixation, and why it amplifies seasonally. Thus far I have counted the 2024 elections, CHOGM, the welcoming of asylum seekers and the imprisonment of a convicted terrorist, among the justifications for vilifying our leadership this commemoration period. And this time around, bizarre lows have been sunken to.

I have seen (bad) (and foreign) movie actors stake a voice in our security matters, the picture of Paul Rusesabagina regrettably slapped on their chests. They posed, brave-faced and aloof, in support of a man that in fact tormented the genocide survivors that he lied to have defended, during the very months that these survivors once endured the unconceivable.

I have witnessed as institutions that undeniably know better, have sidestepped the accurate appellation of the Genocide – The Genocide Against the Tutsi – revoking its victims the decency of acknowledging the cause and means of their targeting. They know that it is these distinctions that render the victims’ experience a genocide, as opposed to the unpredictable, senseless violence that it remains trendy to expect from Africans.

The timing is all very intentional. Nevertheless, there is shocking cruelty of butchering our stories so frequently, so intentionally, so strategically, when most survivors aren’t even asking for justice, or for solace, or for empathy, but merely demanding the truth that they are entitled to. It is refused. What is offered instead, is gaslighting. Those that have suffered are confronted with blatant lies on the institutions to which they owe the end of their suffering.

There are lies of insolence and casualness that aim to provoke frustration.

This is how drastic polarization and community fragmentation, with all their risks, are orchestrated; the more indifferent a party appears to the truth, the more fact-based exchange will feel pointless. The more insignificant we find honesty, in delimitating the parametres of worthy exchange in a dignified society, the more we are tempted by the salacious, self-indulgent appeal of fake news, clickbaiting, or even deceitful "academic” research.

A friend of mine, who lives outside of Rwanda, recently sent me a BBC article on the partnership between Rwanda and the UK, which will relocate some asylum seekers in the UK, to our country. 

I suspect that it is his journalistic background that allowed him to sense the gap left by "unsaids” throughout the BBC story. But not everyone has repeatedly witnessed lazy journalistic maneuvering, and therefore can easily spot it. Or worse still: not everyone cares for a methodical critical analysis of the crises, and the resulting policies, that do not affect them.

You may have come across the complete fabrication of Genocide survivors' ejection from their lodgings to make space for Afghan refugees. It is quite literally a lie, and it is alarming to consider how easily convinced its publishers expected readers to be. It is almost as if – for it is that – they have been lying this casually about Rwanda for years.

The Daily Mirror did not interview the man that they claimed to have spoken to about this eviction. He took to Twitter to negate their story, and the hostel that they are speaking of, has been closed for 5 years.

The BBC/Mirror/CNN stories regarding the UK-Rwanda partnership have all had questionable tonality, to say the least. As one reads their more "neutral” articles, the question "what gives Rwanda the authority to welcome refugees?” hangs in the air, unanswered. The "Are they not refugees themselves?” shyly trails behind, but its presence is felt nonetheless. Both questions are hinted to but snubbed with reason: they are fundamentally racist queries.

Why is Rwanda welcoming refugees?

Because it is willing and able, as it has attested to, for the past two decades. The competency of Rwanda to welcome refugees is no secret. As of 2020, Rwanda had welcomed over 160,000 refugees, the majority of which from neighboring countries (DRC Congo and Burundi).

Rwanda has adhered to the application of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, developed under the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2016.

This framework was designed, according to the UN, to support countries and communities that "host large numbers of refugees”.

In 2021, the UN commended Rwanda for being the first country in the East and Horn of Africa, and Great Lakes’ Region, to develop thematic action plans for each pledge under the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, despite the covid-19 pandemic, and its exacerbation of the refugee crisis.

Cynics will call these impressive strides an elaborate PR scheme. They will claim, for instance, that they aim to distract from last year’s sentencing of Paul Rusesabagina, crooked businessman, double-genocide theorist and FLN terrorist, to 25 years of jail.

However, pretending to be bothered with humanitarianism for cheap, time-sensitive social media marketing, is the hobby of others. We must leave the avengers and those that have signed their cheques to these strange priorities; Rwanda has been too busy attempting to make space for humans in need of humane treatment, to spend so much effort and money on narrative creation.

In 2019, a wave of refugees from Libya was welcomed into Rwanda where, according to UN reporting, they were provided with accommodation, food, water, medical care, psychosocial support, and language classes. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, praised Rwanda for its "continued solidarity and generosity, giving hope to vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees in Africa in dire need of protection and safety.”

And that is precisely the point, isn’t it.

Rwandans understand what it means to be in dire need of protection and safety, but to have the world, specifically the most powerful countries - the ones we are told hold the monopoly on morality and the sole means to act – turning their backs on us.

We understand the weight of the word refugee in countries where this status has been synonymous with exploitation, insalubrity, poverty and other forms of dehumanization – perhaps more so than anyone else.

And no; the countries that have been subjecting refugees to exploitation, insalubrity, poverty and other forms of dehumanization, despite presenting themselves as champions of humanity, are not necessarily a better home for a refugee, than Rwanda is.

Also; perhaps we should all just take a deep breath.

We are talking about relocating from the UK, not being refused entrance to heaven. I understand that many of us seem to equate the two, but my brothers and sisters in Christ, colonization was 8 decades ago; self-love is an option, specifically after so much has been invested, in our country, to defend our right to it.

Rwanda, Africa’s Most Inspiring Success Story, is pledging with its partnership with the UK, that it is committed to acknowledging the dignity of all humans, whether or not in need of a new home. Is there really a sensational discovery here? It has been doing so for over two decades.

That is the problem with ignoring the features and local politics of the countries you claim authority over. You do not listen as they "go on and on about unity”, about its incredible power and necessity. Therefore, when they act upon this pledge to acknowledge the humanity of every human, you are sadly the only one left dazed, and unaware.