For three stays, starting on July 21, the President of the Republic of Congo, Denis Sassou Nguesso, was in Rwanda on a state visit. In addition to addressing a joint session of Parliament and touring Rwanda Institute of Conservation Agriculture (RICA), he witnessed the signing of economic accords that had tongues wagging from Brussels to Kinshasa.

Although the accords signed included some pertaining to the management of economic entities, the strengthening of cultural ties, investment protection, and mining, it was the one granting Rwanda over 11,000 hectares of land for agricultural purposes that created the most controversy. Mind you, Congo-Brazzaville has 10 to 12 million hectares of arable land, of which less than 5% is used for farming; so, the concession that was granted to Rwanda was but a smidgen of the total available land. However, what I found interesting was witnessing the amount of vitriol that the accord unleashed in comparison to the actual deal.

I was left wondering, what exactly about the concession that was awarded to Rwanda rubbed people the wrong way. Was it the amount of land? Probably not. After all, it wasn't as if there wasn't enough land to go around in Congo-Brazza; their population density is 18 people per square kilometer (in comparison Rwanda’s is just over 535 people per square kilometer).

Was it about the people getting kicked off the land? Again, probably not. Would it be a win-win for both Congo-Brazza and Rwanda in terms of agricultural production and food security? Yes. Had similar deals been struck before? Yes.

In 2008, the South Korean firm Daewoo Logistics announced plans to buy a 99-year lease on a million hectares in Madagascar with the aim of growing five million tonnes of corn a year by 2023. The planned production was mainly earmarked for South Korea. That very same year, Qatar reportedly requested Kenya to lease it 40,000 hectares of land to grow crops. The Daewoo Logistics deal later fell through due to political opposition but the principle behind the deal (a win-win arrangement) was based, in my opinion, on smart thinking. What was wrong with partnering with trusted friends to create value, especially if you lacked the financial and skills resources?

So, if the issue wasn't the land itself or the land-lease concept, what could it be? In my view, it was the fact that it was Rwanda that was on the other side of the negotiating table. If it had been rich South Africa (or Canada or Saudi Arabia) there wouldn't have been similar headlines.

My belief is that by signing the land lease deal with Congo-Brazzaville, Rwanda was, in boxing terms, fighting above its weight. What weight class is Rwanda supposed to be in, you will ask. With a small, poor, and densely populated country, we are supposed to be ‘mosquito weights’.

We are supposed to be an insignificant international player with nothing to offer the globe, never mind a coherent foreign policy that marries traditional, ‘boring’ diplomacy with security and economic partnerships. In other words, what Rwanda is doing is acting like the middleweights and heavyweights of the global order. It's seeking allies beyond its traditional backyard and unapologetically fostering business ties between it and its new friends.

I'd taken it for granted that this move on Rwanda’s part was going to rub some international players (and their NGO and media acolytes) the wrong way. After all, the racism and neo-colonialism that were at the heart of the global order are well-established in my mind.

What surprised me was just how many African commentators have decided to join the anti-Rwanda brigade. Fellow Africans are having no qualms about using tropes that delegitimize the Rwandan leadership (like calling the government a ‘regime’). They blithely dismiss Rwandan voices speaking on their lived experience and they engage in conspiracy theories (like whispering that Rwanda is exporting its people to land-rich nations to reduce land pressure). And worst of all, they unashamedly spout the nonsense that all of Rwanda’s development is predicated on plunder and violence in DR Congo and international aid.

It is my belief that this is a manifestation of self-hate and negative programming. Why can’t Africans seek trade? Why must they live in squalor? Why shouldn't they negotiate with global players with self-assurance? Why can't they have nice things? Why can't they speak for themselves and determine their interests?

Until Africans assume the best of each other and stop looking at each other as mortal enemies, the road toward Africa’s development will be much harder to travel than it ought to be.

The writer is a socio-political commentator