My weird feeling about U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities

My participation in the Unity Club meeting of June 27 gave me a different perspective on the real challenges facing Rwanda, the impact of being present in the moment. Being in the room offered a rare opportunity to closely observe honest conversations on issues of social cohesion, peace, and security in Rwanda. The speakers were encouraged to candidly express their opinions and share their lived experiences, and more importantly, the audience provided immediate feedback – spoken and unspoken. ALSO READ: When sanctions become strategy: The limits of economic pressure in eastern DR Congo This interaction was a unique experience. And I sincerely thank the organizers for the invitation. The conversations were structured into two complementary panels, in addition to the opening and closing remarks by the President. ALSO READ: Rwanda’s impossible choice The first panel was a conversation—testimonies—on the culture of discrimination and persecution against Tutsi that preceded the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. The second panel focused on the liberation struggle and the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)’s campaign to stop the genocide. These conversations exposed Rwanda’s traumatic historical periods through the lived experiences of speakers, while also demonstrating the resilience of a people in the face of evil and their determination to ensure that genocide never happens again. ALSO READ: The bad and the ugly of the UN in the Great Lakes region One of the speakers, Lt. Col (Rtd) Augustin Nshimiyimana, a former member of the Kinshasa-backed genocidal militia, FDLR, gave a detailed account of the nature of a genocidal force operating in eastern DR Congo. He shed light on its financial, operational, and diplomatic networks around the world, detailing connections with the governments of Burundi and DR Congo in spreading hate ideology against the Tutsi. ALSO READ: We are misreading the FDLR threat: It is dangerous incubator of genocide ideology, not just an armed group As an ardent observer of Rwanda and commentator, the Unity Club meeting came at a moment when I was still reflecting on the role of the United States (US) in resolving the conflict in eastern DR Congo. Two days before the gathering, the US had issued sanctions against two Rwandan individuals and four entities, following earlier sanctions imposed in March 2026 against the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its senior military officials for their alleged role in supporting the AFC/M23 movement. ALSO READ: Who sanctions the sanctioners? The missing accountability in international affairs I have written about this subject several times from different angles here, here, here, here, here and here. But to be honest, I remain puzzled. I remain puzzled by the international community’s continued choice of ignorance. For example, I have not been able to understand the reasons behind the United States’ ambiguous position and its apparent desire to continue creating confusion after confusion, frustrating an agreement it helped to establish. ALSO READ: Nduhungirehe: Rwanda ‘disappointed by biased US mediation’ in DR Congo crisis The Washington Accords clearly stipulated practical steps for each state to undertake. In a logical sequence, the Democratic Republic of Congo should neutralize FDLR before Rwanda disengages. It is well known that the genocidal militia is committed to a military campaign against Rwanda and that it pursues an ideology aimed at the extermination of Tutsi communities. Given that Rwanda has suffered genocide at the hands of the same forces, it is understandable that it cannot remain idle. ALSO READ: Govt backs RDF defensive posture amidst ‘one-sided’ sanctions by US International law provides states with the right to self-defense in the event of an armed attack on their territory. There is ample evidence on record showing that Rwanda has suffered multiple attacks originating from the territory of DR Congo. One may argue that these attacks are committed by FDLR, a non-state actor, and are not attributable to the state of DR Congo. There are three aspects to consider in this argument. ALSO READ: Following the money: Inside FDLR's war economy and the networks that sustained it First, Article 51 of the UN Charter, which refers to a state’s “inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs,” does not require that the attack be conducted by another state. Second, the state of origin has a duty to prevent or neutralize attacks threatening other states. DR Congo, as a source of such threats, can do this on its own or authorize – and, or, work with – Rwanda to address those threats. This could have built trust between the two countries and dispelled suspicions regarding Rwanda’s intentions. Otherwise, the fact that FDLR plans and launches attacks against Rwanda from DR Congo’s territory could be seen as inviting Rwanda’s response. ALSO READ: Kagame: Rwanda faces impossible choice to tolerate or defend against FDLR Third, the UN Charter entrusts the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with the duty to maintain international peace and security. If the United Nations had fully exercised that mandate through its mission in DR Congo, MONUSCO, Rwanda would not have such claims to make. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that the persistent conflict in eastern DR Congo is due to DR Congo’s weaknesses in ensuring that its territory does not become a safe haven for negative elements against its neighbors, and that the international community has not been sufficiently helpful. In my view, this is a generous conclusion. A more accurate conclusion may be that the Congolese government has made an intentional political choice to actively collaborate with FDLR, making it complicit in the genocidal militia’s attacks against Rwanda. This also complicates the role of the United States. It creates a dilemma to US between acknowledging that DR Congo is responsible for the conflict – at the risk of its economic interests – and acting ambiguously, at the expense of truth and Rwanda’s security concerns, as evidenced. It is in this context that the U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities can be interpreted. The understanding that the mediator has interests in the outcome of the mediation has long troubled me. However, after attending the Unity Club meeting, I came to better understand the seriousness of the threat posed by the existence of FDLR, as well as many other challenges Rwanda still faces, to the extent that at one moment I forgot about the U.S. sanctions. The U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities are, in my view, unfair. But they are part of the broader security threats concerning Rwanda’s survival as a nation. My strange feeling is that it is by addressing these more fundamental challenges – threats to national survival – that Rwanda will effectively deal with those sanctions. The writer is a senior lecturer at University of Rwanda’s School of Law.

Opinions

My weird feeling about U.S. sanctions against Rwandan individuals and entities