A former Belgian senator claims that Belgian politicians are using the DR Congo situation to increase their influence in the UN and EU

Numerous stakeholders have voiced their opinions on the reasons and possible solutions of the ongoing situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which has attracted international attention. In a recent roundtable discussion, longtime observer of the area and former Belgian Senator Alain Destexhe offered his perspectives.

Destexhe provides a historical perspective on Rwanda’s position, Belgium’s role, and the conflict’s wider geopolitical ramifications because he has been closely monitoring developments in the area since the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

He explores the impact of international operations, the involvement of European mercenaries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Belgium’s evolving relationship with Rwanda in this discussion.

What interests do you have in Rwanda and the surrounding area?

Indeed, I visited Goma and Kivu last week, but my fascination with the area dates back to 1994, three weeks before the Tutsi Genocide started.

As the Secretary General of Doctors Without Borders, I traveled here to see Burundian refugees who were then living in Rwanda. Naturally, no one informed me that genocide was being planned, but I was acutely aware of what was going on when it began on April 7. I think I was one of the first to state, “No, this is not just a civil war, not just crimes—this is a genocide against the Tutsi, carried out by the Hutu Power regime at the time.”

As you may remember, the events were first portrayed by the UN and the international community as tribal conflict, civil war, or anything like that.

I was at the camps for refugees in Goma during the genocide, and I was one of the ones who pointed out that most of the people there were murderers, genocidaires, and killers rather than just regular refugees.

With the help of international relief supplies and humanitarian aid, the UN and the world community were effectively permitting them to regroup as an army, Rwanda’s adversary. I condemned that, saying, “This is unacceptable—the UN and NGOs are helping a murderous regime, the former Hutu Power regime.”

Thus, I have been interested in and involved in the Rwandan conflict since 1994 and still am.

Rwanda and Belgium have severed their ties. What do you think Belgium’s actions against Rwanda are about?

It’s hard to describe, even to me. In actuality, the majority of Belgians do not harbor animosity for Rwanda, nor do they harbor any unfavorable feelings about it; in fact, many of them are, to be honest, uninterested in the events occurring in Rwanda.

This animosity, in my opinion, stems from a small Belgian political class that has made the decision to be hostile against Rwanda. The fact that Belgium is a small nation with little clout in international affairs or the European Union (EU) is one of the few explanations I can think of.

Some Belgian politicians could think that they can gain more clout at the UN and in the EU by taking advantage of the Kivu issue.

Alain Destexhe explores the impact of international interventions, the involvement of European mercenaries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Belgium’s evolving relationship with Rwanda.

Many EU nations know very little about Rwanda; nations like Estonia, Slovakia, and Romania have no embassies, no people (except from mercenaries, but that’s a another story), and no political or economic ties to the country. Belgium has historical ties to the area, so when the 27 EU members get together, they usually listen to it.

I can think of no other logical explanation. However, I want to make it clear that the Belgian people do not generally harbor animosity toward Rwanda or Rwandans. No one else save a small political class is responsible for this hostility.

Do you believe Belgium is to blame for the current issue in Congo, considering the history between Belgium and the DR Congo?

No, I don’t believe that. The dynamics of the crisis are unique. The threat to the lives of minority groups, such as the Tutsi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is, in my opinion, the primary concern. That is the crisis’s primary cause.

But I do think Belgium is to blame for the escalation of hostilities between Rwanda and Belgium. In my opinion, Belgium need to maintain total neutrality during this situation. Belgium lacks the moral authority to choose a side or take a statement because of its colonial heritage. Being neutral would be the best course of action.

In what ways has the colonial past influenced the current situation?

It has made a substantial contribution. The current conflicts in Belgium appear to be the result of a narrow political class that has a complete disregard for the past.

For instance, I have no doubt that Belgium’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Prévot, is ignorant of the area’s colonial heritage. He probably isn’t aware that some of Kivu’s Tutsi groups have lived there for a very long time. In the 1930s, Belgian colonization brought others.

When Belgium changed its stance on the so-called “Social Hutu Revolution,” which resulted in the murder of several Tutsis in Rwanda and drove others to escape to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Zaire), a third wave came in 1959.

Belgium doesn’t realize that when these individuals arrived, they became citizens of the Congo. They are not citizens of Rwanda. At the time of Congo’s independence, it was agreed that all people living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be regarded as Congolese.

Belgium is rekindling previously unresolved issues by adopting a firm position against Rwanda at this time. This is foolish and needless.

You visited the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why did you go there in the first place, and what did you discover there?

Yes, I was in Kivu for at least a week. Initially, I discovered that Goma and its environs were significantly more tranquil than I had anticipated. In Europe, people believe that there is conflict and bloodshed everywhere, yet this is untrue. Life appeared to be very normal, even in Goma.

The absence of corruption by the new police and administrative bodies was one significant change I observed. The local community was formerly subjected to maltreatment and extortion by Congolese authorities.
That has now drastically dropped. There aren’t many police officers or M23 members in the city. Apart from the closure of banks by the Kinshasa administration, everything seems to be as usual.

I did not have an escort when I was in Goma. I didn’t feel in any danger. I traveled quite a distance into the area, although obviously you can’t drive too far due to the awful state of the roads.

The terrible poverty in the countryside was one thing that caught my attention. It’s obvious that no Congolese president, from Mobutu to Tshisekedi, has improved the country’s citizens’ quality of life. Rwandan and Congolese rural areas differ greatly from one another; the two populations’ varying standards of living are readily apparent.

That’s how I felt about the trip overall. In addition, I had meetings with Bertrand Bisimwa, Corneille Nangaa, General Makenga, and the M23 leadership. I talked to a lot of regular individuals on the street to learn about their viewpoints.

Additionally, I went to Nturo, a Masisi community that was set on fire by Wazalendo and the Nyatura militia, along with Burundian soldiers. That event was especially poignant and impactful.

When you were a senator, you wrote a report on Belgium’s involvement in the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi. What was the reaction to this report, and did Belgium act on it?

My first novel, which was eventually translated into English, was written in 1994. It was titled Genocide in the 20th Century and Rwanda. The 1994 genocide against the Tutsis was the first undeniable genocide of the 20th century, according to the book’s thesis. This may be argued, of course, but that was my point.

The genocide of the Armenians in 1915, the Holocaust’s persecution of the Jews, and the Hutu regime’s extermination of the Tutsi came before that. This was a highly contentious stance to adopt in 1994, but I made an effort to draw attention to the particulars of what transpired in Rwanda.

I later began to disagree with NGOs’ methods and the notion of aiding people without critically examining who they were actually assisting once I was elected to the Senate. The right individuals were not receiving humanitarian relief in areas like Goma between 1994 and 1996.

I remember that local leaders, known as bourgmestre (District leaders), received food aid toward the end of 1994, and it was dispersed by these leaders. As a result, the populace believed that the same leaders who carried out the massacre were still in power. The structures that had carried out the genocide were unintentionally being strengthened by the world community through its NGOs.

I argued that Doctors Without Borders should withdraw from the refugee camps for this reason. We did depart, but other organizations quickly took our place. Despite the reality that many of the refugees were actually genocide perpetrators, humanitarian help in the camps had at that point turned into a profitable enterprise supported by donations from the world community.

I discovered that Belgium knew a lot more about the genocide than it had disclosed after I was elected to the Senate. Despite having abundant evidence that the genocide was being planned, Belgium, France, and the United States took no action to stop it. Consequently, I advocated for an investigation into Belgium’s conduct, which took around a year and a half to start. Despite initial opposition from the Belgian government, the inquiry was eventually conducted in 1997.

Is the situation today the same, with NGOs calling for refugees to return home and opposing the closing of camps in Goma? Do they sincerely want to assist, or is it just business?

Since I’m no longer working for an NGO, it’s difficult to say. But in my opinion, there is a clear financial incentive to maintain the camps’ operations. Although I haven’t conducted a thorough examination, it appears that many migrants now get their aid in the form of direct phone payments rather than food.

It is now more difficult to determine whether these refugees are still being manipulated or if they have other goals as a result of this change. The M23 was correct, in my opinion, to request that people go back to their homes since that is where they belong. Speaking with a number of returnees, I found that the majority of them were glad to return to their villages since they felt more secure today, particularly with M23 in charge of the region. But they were worried about the three months that would pass before the next crop.

Therefore, I think that in order to help these individuals through this transitional phase, the international community should now supply seeds and agricultural equipment. In order to aid these individuals where they most need it—in their homes—I hope the UN and other NGOs that were present in the camps will now concentrate their efforts.

Returning to the topic of genocide deniers, and even some of their descendants gaining positions of authority in Belgium, what do you think about this?

It’s a difficult problem, particularly in Europe. The idea of free speech is frequently used by those who deny genocide to propagate their prejudices and lies. Because we lack the legal means to adequately counter such denial, it is challenging to combat.

Nevertheless, Belgium did hold at least eight trials against the genocide criminals in Brussels. At first, the administration didn’t want to pursue these trials, thus there was a political battle, but in the end, they were held. I believe that the trials were a good step forward for Belgium.

What are your thoughts on the West’s silence on mercenaries in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Rwanda has long voiced worries about them, but no one really took them seriously.

It’s very incredible, indeed. Furthermore, it’s a moral and ethical matter as well as a legal one. How can people from Romania, who are EU members, be traveling to Africa in 2025 to fight against people who are actually battling for their lives?

These mercenaries were reportedly absent for only two or three weeks. In interviews, some of them have claimed to have been there for up to two years. This is really shameful, in my opinion.

The European Union must to examine its own circumstances rather than condemning Rwanda, in my opinion. This is totally inappropriate. Furthermore, the fact that these mercenaries fought alongside Congolese and UN soldiers against M23 has not received enough publicity in EU nations.

The ongoing connection between the situation in Ukraine and the DR Congo is another ridiculous development in Europe. Maxime Prévost, the foreign minister of Belgium, is especially adamant about drawing this parallel.

The European Union seems to be basing its decisions in this area on the events in Ukraine. However, this is completely irrelevant in this context. Who would be Russia and who would be Ukraine if we were forced to draw such a comparison, which is, once more, wholly unimportant? The Democratic Republic of the Congo is ten times more populated and 90 times larger than Rwanda. Who would be Ukraine and who would be Russia, then? The parallel is just absurd.

Sanctions have been issued by the European Union in droves. However, what impact are these sanctions having on the peace negotiations that the African nations are attempting to hold?

Sanctions have never been effective in history, to start. They just don’t function. Russia is, in my opinion, subject to between 15 and 18 rounds of sanctions, but it still fights.

Generally speaking, sanctions don’t produce the desired results. Second, these sanctions came at a really bad time.

For instance, the sanctions were put in place the day before the Angolan president took the initiative to request that the Congolese government and M23 meet in Luanda. The meeting seemed to be being thrown off course. The timing of the sanctions was terrible, in addition to their mistaken goal.

Additionally, President Kagame met with President Tshisekedi in Doha on Tuesday, March 18, despite the Belgian Minister Prévost’s assertion that Kagame opposes dialogue. So, certainly, there is conversation. This story is just incorrect. I’m baffled by his continued dissemination of these lies.

As Rwandans celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Genocide against the Tutsi, you wrote two novels about the country, one in 1994 and the other last year (2024). Could you explain the significance of these books?

Yes, as I previously stated, the first book sought to educate readers about the fact that what transpired in Rwanda was a genocide that was expressly designed to wipe out a group of people, the Tutsis, rather than a civil war or a string of atrocities.

The second book, written in French and written much more recently, was inspired by a research project I worked on thirty years ago. I returned to see the genocide perpetrators as well as survivors. I went back and talked to people in Nyamata and Bisesero, which I had never been to before. I made an effort to have a general understanding of the lessons that foreigners could learn from this battle experience. Yes, doing that was really touching.

Rwanda’s policy of eradicating ethnic divisions is, in my opinion, the best course of action and the way to go. It’s an excellent policy.

In DR Congo, however, things are different. Hate speech against ethnic groups is still prevalent in Congo, where the word “tribes” is used.

The growth of Kivu and the survival of the Tutsi population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are the problems. The fact that people from different communities under the AFC are now attempting to fight for Kivu’s development and survival in addition to the Tutsi is noteworthy, in my opinion.

The DR Congo’s territorial integrity is no longer at issue. Over the past few decades, Kinshasa has done nothing at all to help Kivu. The people there have the right to live, and that is the current problem.