In November 1991, Kangura- a Kinyarwanda and French-language magazine in Rwanda, that served to stoke ethnic hatred in the run-up to the Genocide against Tutsi, on its 26th issue cover page was a photo of machete and a headline “what weapons shall we use to win ‘cockroaches’ for good?” Although machetes in Rwanda served as garden tools, it was common knowledge that they were more of a Hutu power symbol in their plan to exterminate Tutsi. They also happened to be the prime instrument of killing during the 1994 Genocide against Tutsi. Now, 28 years after the Genocide, videos of people believed to be Congolese are being circulated all over social media, sharpening their machetes, spitting out words of hate for Rwandans, Rwandophones, and sometimes Tutsi people in particular. “Kagame is too much. This time you will see us,” one spectacled young looking man said with so much zeal, wearing two machetes on his belt and sharpening two others. Experts warn that if no intervention is made, this incitement could be catastrophic because we have seen this before, says Genocide scholar Tom Ndahiro, who gave an example of Kangura, and other media in Rwanda that incited hate to the extent that the Genocide was possible. “When you see people sharpening their machetes, when a police commander is sending a message to officers he leads to mobilise people to use machetes, is exactly what we witnessed in 1994. Congo is just a lesson of a lesson unlearned,” Ndahiro said. He also said the only difference is that it is now being done in a different country, and that we now have social media, where the world has no excuse to say they have not seen what is going on. “It was hard for the world to see the gravity of the hate propaganda (before the Genocide), although there is no excuse for having failed to respond. But what we are witnessing today, especially on social media, there is hardly nothing one can fail to learn that there is hate, propaganda, and incitement to violence and genocide,” Ndahiro added. This was echoed by Eric Ndushabandi, a professor of political science at the University of Rwanda who told The New Times that the use of machetes and hate speech- which goes with the genocide ideology that made possible the genocide against Tutsi in 1994 is still circulating and propagated by FDLR and other extremist rebels in Eastern Congo. “The triggers like the case of M23 attacks in Eastern DR Congo is again using Tutsi people as scapegoat to justify the genocidal ideologies, instrumentalised by some political parties and their leaders for political interests,” Ndushabandi said. Indeed, for close to 30 years now, there has been consistent collaboration between the Congolese military, FARDC, and the FDLR, a Rwandan genocidal armed group based in eastern DR Congo. The FDLR comprises remnants of the perpetrators of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. After killing more than one million people 28 years ago, they fled into eastern DR Congo, where they have been tolerated and preserved by the DR Congo. It is therefore not a surprise that a campaign led, and being circulated by FDLR sympathisers would make sure their signature weapon, machetes, are used. Two researchers on conflict and justice in the Great Lakes region, Felix Mukwiza Ndahinda and Aggée Shyaka Mugabe, co-authored a 2022 study; “Streaming hate: Exploring the harm of anti Banyamulenge and anti-Tutsi hate speech on Congolese social media.” In this study, they unpack how social media platforms facilitate interactions between diverse actors; leaders of armed groups, public officials, and the diaspora. They argue that “novel transboundary networks of identity are emerging where hateful narratives and conspiracy theories are created, refined, and disseminated to larger audiences.” “Mediatised hate speech fuelled the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda nearly three decades ago, yet anti-Tutsi rhetoric is still circulating in the Great Lakes region, albeit under a radically changed media and political landscape. Social media and online platforms facilitate the proliferation of inflammatory and discriminatory discourses whose impact on violent conflict remains uncertain,” the study says. Ndahinda and Mugabe suggest sanctioning, limiting access to social media platforms for identified offenders and an agenda for inclusive peace incorporating messaging. “Possible interventions cover ‘banning, punishing, or deleting hateful content online,’ flagging inaccurate information as well as identifying appropriate tools for behavioural change where sectarian hate speech is replaced by a more inclusive peace messaging,” the report says. Although these researchers acknowledge available challenges - such as the fact that some languages are not in the pre-existing languages supported by Google Translate, they argue that action needs to be taken by the public and private actors in the DRC and abroad, including foreign countries where Congolese radical networks operate and social media service providers. “Complementary studies are needed on the impact of hate speech and conspiracy theories on violence, the appropriate responses to the phenomenon, and on the commodification of hate speech, including financial incentives behind the proliferation of social media (mainly YouTube) channels of hate,” they conclude. Ndahiro said that the international community’s resistance to condemn or even punish people inciting hate and violence makes them feel tolerated.
