The recent diplomatic spat between Belgium and Rwanda is not an isolated incident but rather a symptom of a much bigger issue. It is a part of a long, ongoing struggle between African nations and their former colonial rulers, who seem hesitant to relinquish control.

This tension highlights the lasting impact of colonialism and its modern manifestation, neocolonialism, which continues to impede Africa's development.

Despite the sham, masked as "formal” end of colonial rule, many African nations still find themselves entangled in unequal relationships with their former colonizers.

These relationships, often characterised by economic exploitation and political interference, perpetuate a system where African nations are unable to fully realise their potential.

This ongoing struggle for true independence and self-determination is at the heart of the tension between Africa and its former colonial rulers.

Belgium, a small European country, once presided over vast territories in Africa, including the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Rwanda, and Burundi. These colonies were not acquired for the benefit of the African people, but for Belgium’s economic expansion and prosperity.

When calls for independence rang out across Africa, Belgium resisted fiercely. The colonial administration fostered divisions, manipulated ethnic identities, and violently suppressed nationalist movements. When independence became inevitable, Belgium ensured that the transition was chaotic and that the new governments would remain dependent on their former colonizer.

The assassination and forced exile of nationalist leaders in Rwanda mirrored what had already happened in Congo. In 1961. Earlier on in Rwandan King Mutara III Rudahigwa had been assassinated while being vaccinated to facilitate travel to the UN headquarters to demand for independence. His brother King Kigeli V survived an assassination attempt by the Belgian colonial administration and was forced into exile.

Those who advocated for a true sovereign Rwanda were either silenced or removed. This was not accidental—it was a deliberate strategy to weaken any independent leadership and keep Rwanda within Belgium’s sphere of influence.

The same playbook was used in Congo, where Belgium orchestrated the brutal assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the country’s first democratically elected Prime Minister. Lumumba’s crime was simple; he sought true independence for Congo and wanted its resources to benefit its people.

Belgium, unwilling to lose its economic stronghold, conspired with Western powers to eliminate him. These violent transitions ensured that Belgium could continue to pull the strings behind the scenes, leaving a legacy of instability and dependency.

If Belgium had not colonized Congo and Rwanda, would it be the country it is today? The answer is a resounding no. Belgium’s wealth was built on the exploitation of African resources, particularly Congo’s vast mineral wealth.

King Leopold II's infamous rule of the Congo Free State, characterised by genocide, forced labour, and plunder, was instrumental in transforming Belgium's economy from its humble origins into am economic powerhouse is today. Even after the so-called formal independence, the exploitation never stopped.

Today, Belgian companies, some of them with state origin and their proxies continue to dominate the mining sector in the DR Congo, particularly in diamonds, gold, and cobalt. While DR Congo remains one of the richest countries in terms of natural resources, its people see little benefit from this wealth.

Instead, Belgian firms, along with other Western corporations, control extraction, pricing, and trade, ensuring that profits flow to European markets while the DR Congo remains in poverty and turmoil.

Consider Antwerp, Belgium’s diamond capital. Antwerp is one of the largest diamond trading hubs in the world, yet Belgium does not mine a single diamond. How is it that a country with no diamond mines controls the global diamond trade while Congo, which produces these diamonds, remains economically crippled? The same is true for gold, coltan, and other minerals vital to modern technology. African nations produce them, but Belgium and other Western countries control the profits.

This dynamic reveals a fundamental injustice. If a producer of a commodity has nothing to show for it while someone else reaps the benefits, then something is inherently wrong. This definitely cannot be free trade—it is economic subjugation masked as commerce.

Neocolonialism is the continuation of colonial exploitation through indirect means. Instead of ruling African countries directly, former colonizers use financial institutions, multinational corporations, and political influence to maintain control. Belgium exemplifies this strategy in multiple ways.

Belgian multinational corporations continued to dominate key sectors in Rwanda, Burundi, and the DR Congo. These corporations extract resources cheaply and sell them at high prices on the global market, ensuring that wealth accumulation benefits Belgium, not where they produced.

Belgium has historically meddled in the internal affairs of its former colonies, supporting leaders who align with its interests and undermining those who do not. This interference has fueled instability, civil wars, and political assassinations. Belgium’s dominance in diamond and gold markets despite not being a producer highlights the neocolonial chokehold on Africa’s wealth.

Belgium’s financial and banking institutions also facilitate the illicit trade of African resources, ensuring that profits do not return to the continent. Like other former colonial powers, Belgium plays a role in keeping African nations trapped in cycles of debt through international financial institutions. High-interest loans and structural adjustment programs weaken economic sovereignty and ensure continued dependence.

The legacy of Belgian colonialism and its ongoing neocolonial strategies have left its former colonies in a state of perpetual crisis. Rwanda, Burundi, and the DR Congo have suffered from wars, genocides, and economic instability—consequences directly linked to Belgium’s interference. The division which fueled the 1994 Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and now in the region, was exacerbated by Belgium’s colonial policies of ethnicisation.

The current conflicts in the DR Congo can also be traced back to Belgian interference, its insatiable exploitation and its colonial legacy built on a governance system steeped in divisions and political mediocrity.

Former colonial rulers desire to maintain their privileged economic position comes at the cost of African lives. The same pattern of destruction seen in Rwanda, Burundi, and Congo is evident in other former colonies around the world. Countries that have freed themselves from direct rule still find themselves unable to determine their own economic and political futures.

Rwanda’s recent diplomatic tensions with Belgium are not just about political disagreements—they represent a broader struggle for self-determination. Contemporary Rwanda, has pursued policies aimed at reducing foreign influence and asserting national sovereignty. Belgium’s

condescending and greed driven resistance would not be unexpected; losing influence over Rwanda would mean losing economic privileges and very likely influence across the region.

This "little country” is not just an old colonial power trying to maintain historical ties—it is a former robber trying to keep its loot. The discord between Rwanda and Belgium should be understood in this light. Rwanda is attempting to break free from a system designed to keep it subservient. Belgium, like other former colonial powers, does not want to lose its grip and set a detrimental precedent.

The problems that afflict Africa today cannot be understood in isolation of its colonial past. Former colonisers like Belgium did not simply withdraw from Africa; they left behind systems of economic control and political manipulation designed to keep African nations dependent.

Rwanda’s strained relationship with Belgium is part of a larger struggle for true independence—a battle against a system that ensures Africa remains rich in resources but poor in reality.

Until African nations can fully control their own economies, manage their resources, and break free from foreign manipulation, the promise of independence remains unfulfilled. Belgium, a country that owes its prosperity to African labor and resources, continues to benefit from a system that exploits the very nations it once ruled. This is not a partnership—it is an extension of colonial robbery.

If Rwanda’s current stand against Belgium signals anything, it is that Africa, at least some in Africa are waking up to the realities of neocolonialism. It is a message that there are those in Africa, who will no longer stand in this duel with the barrel facing them. It doesn't make sense to punch yourself in the face just because someone stronger than you is kicking you in the gut.

To paraphrase one of their erstwhile neighbours and liberators across the channel "We shall fight in the mountains, we shall fight in the valleys, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the lakes and rivers; we shall never surrender." Surrendering is a non option; for those who have been hunted for sport, violently driven out of their homes, humiliated, dehumanised, but survived extermination, there is no worse death!

True development in Africa requires more than just political independence; it demands economic liberation. African nations must unite to reclaim control over their resources, break free from exploitative trade agreements, and dismantle the financial structures that keep them tied to former colonial masters. The future of Africa must be determined by Africans—not by those who once robbed them and still seek to profit from their suffering.

The Author is an African Scholar, Analyst, Economic and Political Commentator