President Paul Kagame, in an interview with Jeune Afrique, while responding to a question of whether he is concerned with threats of sanctions and a possible withdrawal of foreign aid to Rwanda, stated that: Between dealing with existential threats and dealing with threats to punish Rwanda, without a second thought, I will turn my guns to the existential threat. The fact that FDLR – a millitia linked to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi and whose declared intention is to overthrow the leadership in Rwanda – continues to receive support from the Congolese army, FARDC, and other international and local actors, to prepare and launch attacks on Rwanda is a recurring threat that is too serious to be ignored. However, for unknown reasons, some people are unable to appreciate the fact that the presence of FDLR in eastern DR Congo is an existential threat to Rwanda. Additionally, DR Congo’s deliberate choice to perpetuate a flawed narrative that coerces other actors to ignore Rwanda’s concerns has further complicated the situation. The same flawed narrative has prevented some people from understanding the kind of injustices and violence that forced thousands of Congolese Tutsi to live in refugee camps for more than 25 years. Those who have come forward to make some statements on the situation have variably reminded Rwanda to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity’ of DR Congo. International law is based on the presumption of sovereign equality of states. Art. 2(1) of the UN Charter provides that states shall act in accordance with, among others, on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. In paragraph 4 of the same article, states are prohibited from the use of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. However, in its Article 51, states are not prohibited from using their inherent right of self defence, individually or collectively. We are not short of enough evidence showing incidences where FDLR has launched attacks on Rwandan territory using DR Congo territory as a safe haven. This has been exacerbated by the fact that FARDC and the Force de Défense Nationale du Burundi (FDNB) are collaborating with FDLR in their fight against the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC/M23), a rebellion that is fighting against bad governance and tyranny, especially against the persecution of the Congolese Tutsi. Taking this collaboration together with declarations made by the presidents of DR Congo and Burundi, expressing their intentions to overthrow the Rwandan government, it is fair to argue that Rwanda is justified to undertake some security measures including the use of force. The principle of state sovereignty is about power and authority to self-govern. It is a right of a state to rule itself without external interference. It presupposes the existence of a territory, population and government. The existence of a government that exercises that sovereignty donates the ability to control one’s territory. Therefore, what the government in place does is important to the understanding of the extent to which state sovereignty can be observed, at the exclusion of external actors. I would like to argue that the conduct of DR Congo does not provide enough guarantee to its neighbors – in particular Rwanda – to not be interested in its internal affairs. The principle of good neighborliness – a principle of international relations that is intended to ensure that neighboring states maintain a peaceful-co-existence – should require a state that has failed to prevent its territory from being used as a base for attacks against its neighbouring countries to collaborate with those victim states in dealing with those non-state actors. This is important as it would provide assurances that the state that is the origin of the threat is not part of the plan to destabilize the victim state. Otherwise, if a state from which the threat originates is unable or unwilling to control non-state actors that threaten the security of its neighbors and does not consent to external intervention risks attracting the victim state into invoking its right to self-defence. This should be simple to understand. It is true that states are believed to be equal, and every state is sovereign, but international law is also interested in how such sovereignty is exercised. An Africa of good governance is an outstanding aspiration of AU Agenda 2063. For the peace and security of Africa, we need individual African states that are well organized, but we also need better collaboration between states and other non-state actors and international organizations. Collaboration between different actors is important in this period where sovereignty is increasingly being challenged. It is obvious that sticking to sovereignty and territorial integrity would not do much in fighting non-state armed groups and cybercriminals who do not respect territorial jurisdiction. Rwanda has entered several agreements with DR Congo on the issue of FDLR, and all these agreements have not been implemented, and yet they were reached under the mediation and supervision of different countries and the UN, which today seem to be interested, for whatever reasons, in flawed narratives. I hope Rwanda will not abdicate its primary responsibility of guaranteeing Rwandans their right to non-repetition of the genocide against the Tutsi. Thomas Dorfter refers to organized hypocrisy of the international community where he explains that UNSC members generally prefer decisions over inaction. Hence, they accept compromised decisions, which resemble usual decision practice in similar crisis situations. At the same time, a lack of interest still hampers implementing these decisions.'’ There is nowhere such an explanation makes more sense than in DR Congo. I do not agree anymore that DR Congo or UN Forces could not have defeated the FDLR, if there was a will to do so. If they can find them to collaborate, they could as well have fought them. This brings me back to suggest that even if international actors are important, the principle of good neighborliness should require neighbors to collaborate in resolving cross-border disputes. Otherwise, 30 years of an unending cycle of violence is too much to ignore. Even if it is easy to sympathize with the Congolese population that has endured this conflict for this long, it is important that we put things into proper perspectives. The primary responsibility is on the Congolese government, and the international community which has had its forces in the country for decades without making any positive impact. For Rwanda, the situation is, unfortunately, a clear dilemma. As Walter Lippmann notes, a nation is secure to the extent to which it is not in danger of having to sacrifice core values, if it wishes to avoid war, and is able, if challenged to maintain them by victory in such a war. The unity of Rwandans which FDLR is a threat to cannot, and should not, be compromised, for the safety of the nation and social cohesion of Rwandans. It is important that we appreciate the fact that security is not only about the protection of territory and interests. It is also about values of the people that make up a nation. Preserving the unity of Rwandans is a vital value because of the history of the genocide against the Tutsi. And it is a security threat to tolerate a group that is responsible for such a genocide.
