It has been sometime since we last met, and it is a pleasure to connect today.

We are delighted that Rwanda’s diplomatic community as well as our own presence abroad has grown. This reflects Rwanda’s vision and intention that open our doors to the world for collaboration, innovation and mutual growth.

The year 2024 was meaningful for Rwandans. We marked the dual anniversary of Kwibuka30 and Kwibohora30 followed by national elections.  It was a very busy year for us, but productive as well.

Over the last three decades, you have been with us every step of the way and we  see you as stakeholders and as partners in our transformation journey. This is why moments like this —  when we get to interact —  are valuable and we want to express our gratitude first and foremost to you all.

We have benefited from this collaboration, which has also brought a lot of support to Rwanda, for us to be able to continue making progress on this transformation journey we have undertaken in the last 30 years.

For  the North, we have had very good collaboration, support, and good results originating from that. From the South we have had extremely beneficial and helpful relationships with our brothers and sisters on our continent. It has been a good journey with everyone, and I take this moment to thank you all very much for this.

First of all I want to take time with you, to express to you my understanding of many things. This is an opportunity I can’t miss.  Let me update you on some of the key issues regarding peace, security, politics and governance in our region.

One: In our relationship with each other and the globe as it is divided, there are people —  and maybe rightly so — who talk a lot about values and interests so that those must be fulfilled: I actually agree. We should all have certain values that guide us through whatever we do and over many years.

But when you say that, what do you really mean? Do you mean values and interests for some and not for others? Or you mean values and interests that should apply to all of us irrespective of where we come from?

Now, if you have taken responsibility — a global responsibility to say that there are certain values you are going to insist on, that you are going to push for as hard as you can, and those values will also come along with the interests as we know them — still that’s fine. But it also gives you a responsibility to really walk the talk or to mean what you are saying. If you’re talking about values, then I’m sure you mean that and the first person to respect those values are those who emphasize them. But as we see things happening across the world, and I will not talk so much about other parts of the world —  I confine myself to our part of the world, the region and continent — then I also raise another question: Is there a moment where the values, where the interests people talk about, become incompatible with the truth, with the facts, or with evidence? I don’t think they need to be incompatible. It’s actually possible to drive hard for values that you believe in, even mind so much your interests, but at the same time those could very easily be served by truth, evidence, and facts as you interact with other people and other parts of the world.

Let me give some examples. I had the opportunity recently to address journalists and bringing up questions that are important. On my mind, there is this problem we have in our region.

There are many problems across the continent, but let me talk about our region. I’m going to do that because Rwanda bears disproportionately a huge amount of burden relative to our responsibility in any wrongdoing, if at all. And again, it plays out like that selectively and on the basis of the disparities that are in the world, where evidence, facts, even what is right, don’t really matter. What matters is what somebody else must say, irrespective of whether what they are saying takes into consideration facts, evidence, or truth.

The problem we have in Eastern Congo has brought in so many countries to be part of it —  from our continent but even more from outside our continent —  involved in one way or another and unfortunately many times the wrong way. And this wrong way, we are told, must be the one to prevail.

If you want to really address a problem, there is no better way of doing that than bothering to look at and addressing the root cause of that problem. It doesn’t matter how powerful you are, you just stick to the basics: of facts, of evidence, and of reality. You just don’t come in because you’re powerful. The evidence is simple.

We have had UN peacekeepers in that country for close to three decades. When they went there to address problems, means there are still problems to address, or that actually the first problems to address were not addressed. Otherwise, why would you stay in a place purported to address a problem, and you are there for close to 30 years? Normally you would come in, and maybe it takes you five years, maybe it takes you ten, and you would exit because you have addressed the problem that brought you there.

So what are the returns of that investment — of such a big force, under such a big body like the UN, and so much money spent on that — what is the return on that investment, other than continuing to have problems getting worse? That also shows or maybe even proves why Rwanda has to carry the burden of this problem. It is a way of escaping responsibility.

That is the shortest and easiest answer when people ask why have you been there for this time and you still want to be there? It means you didn’t address the problem. So, the easiest answer is no. But Rwanda keeps being part of the problem.

Well, what that means is that maybe you should get rid of Rwanda — find a way of removing it from the map. Just find a way, like it happened 30 years ago. Rwanda was being destroyed to the point where it should not be existing anymore. And again associated with that, the very people who murdered people here in Rwanda, those who carried out the genocide, still exist, are still armed, are still practising the ideology of genocide in our neighbourhood in Eastern Congo, supported by the government and leaders in that place, on the watch of this international community that talks about values, that talks about interests, that deployed this UN force into Congo to actually eradicate among others that problem that originated from here, be it the genocidaires or the ideology itself. And people do it with impunity. And then arguments start.

We have had arguments through different quarters of this international community: “Oh, you mean this FDLR, these genocidaires, but are they there? Are they still there? But we are told there are a few”. When you say:  no, but you see it even in broad daylight — the statements made by government leaders — and you are wondering whether they still exist, whether they are there, or what they are doing? You still pretend after 30 years?

Now the problem becomes: “Rwanda is in Congo, you have forces in Congo, you are occupying Congo”. In this day and age, and even with Rwanda and its capacity, are we people who can actually do that, with that limited capacity of ours? But even why? What came first? Is it this problem that we have to deal with? Daily and regular threats against our country and relating to our history? Or because of that, or in addition to that, we now want to become people who can go and occupy places? Really? Can people convince anybody that they even believe it, or they are using it simply as an excuse?

Even if you believe it, why don’t you find a way of denying Rwanda this excuse and remove these people from there? Because that is even in the mission that took there the UN peacekeepers. What happened?

Talking about ourselves, I leave many others out of this continent outside of it: I know leaders when I see them. I also know idiots when I see them. You can imagine the combination of both of them, and the disaster it is. If you are a leader and an idiot, it’s a disaster, an absolute disaster.

It is even worse, even more dangerous, if the very people who hold the power in their hands decide that they will be manipulated and played around for some interest by idiots.

I have had interactions with many of our leaders on the continent and among other things we talk about is if we don’t take ourselves and what we do seriously, nobody will. Nobody will take us seriously and we will always remain just neither here nor there and people doing with us whatever they want without any of us asking why, what is this? And then in the end, we start complaining: “this is racism”. I think we are the ones who drive ourselves in that kind of situation.

There are things we need to be rejecting and doing so openly and without fear or favour. Why? Why can’t we do that? Why are we not that kind of people? Why do we even need to have a problem like that one in eastern Congo, needing a solution from the UN, and from some other countries? Why? There’s no explanation.

At another level, we have a mix of all kinds of things, and that’s why we open up ourselves for manipulation. You have seen or you know of a so-called “group of experts”. What do they do? What are they experts in, actually? They’re experts in what?

You don’t need to be an expert in anything. You just have to toe the line of those using you, and of those who put you in place, including the very people from whom originates this problem as of the history that goes way back to colonial times: The colonial times that divided our people here in Rwanda, in our region, and elsewhere. So they come, and they are the experts to explain the problem.

Do you know why these Kinyarwanda-speaking people are in eastern Congo? By the way, we have the same situation with Uganda. The southwestern part of Uganda has a whole district with a big population of Kinyarwanda-speaking people. And when I’m talking about Kinyarwanda-speaking, I’m not talking about just speaking Kinyarwanda. These are people even who are relatives. There are people in this country, as we speak, who have their uncles and grandfathers who live across on the other side of the border, and others who live here in Rwanda. Like, for example, in Uganda, there has never been a problem to do with that district. It has never caused a problem between Uganda and Rwanda. No, they are taken as Ugandans, and we accept that. We’re not claiming anything.

Why is it not the same with eastern Congo? There are simply Congolese who hail from Rwanda as of history, or whatever other ways they happen to have gone there. It’s a fact. But if you are going to have an expert who is associated in a wrong way with this history to come and say the problem is something else, not what it is exactly, don’t you have a problem? So are you going to be able to address the root cause of this problem when your first thing is to distort the facts and evidence?

So that’s why it is easy to blame Rwanda for it. We didn’t draw borders. By the way, even the genocide ideology that I referred to earlier originates from that beginning of the history. That’s where it comes from.

So we go on and on. For how long? If you think Rwanda is in eastern Congo causing problems, would you mind bothering to understand why would Rwanda be in eastern Congo fighting there? Why? You need to answer that. It will lead you maybe to some of the things you need to address and not run away from. But to simply keep making statements, threatening, and doing all kinds of things: let me tell you, we have been there. We have paid our highest price ever in our lives — this genocide. I don’t think we can be made to suffer in all kinds of ways.

We will never, never, never go back to paying that similar price we paid 30 years ago. It doesn’t matter how powerful anybody is.

Maybe it will come to a point, if anyone insists on that. Then that is maybe one way of wiping Rwanda off the map because we will not yield an inch. Never.

But we can work together to look at the causes if we are ready to listen to each other and address that problem the right way. But if there’s somebody who is saying: “no, me I don’t want to address it that way. I want to address it my way” and says, “you see, if you don’t allow me to address it my way — I will deny you this, I will deny you that — and I will take it to China, I will take it to Russia. Rwanda is something we can do away with, don’t worry”. That is called babysitting: babysitting leaders and not pushing them to take their responsibility, but it won’t work one way or the other. It will not take us Rwanda back where we started from 30 years ago. No way. I know, of course, there are even some who after 30 years are still questioning: “what happened? Who killed who?”. The sort of pretence that exists is just what gives us that justified anger and above all the energy to fight back sufficiently.

Now again, to the values:  Here they come and say “you see, we understand you, we see everything is ok, but we are failing to explain why Rwandan forces are said to be in Congo. And I asked them: “Even before we are sure of what we are talking about, can you explain to me why FDLR is in Congo and being supported by the government of Congo. They have brought in Burundi under the same ideology, supposedly to fight M23, which is of Tutsi ethnicity, therefore related to Kagame and others: “These ones have no chance of living. They need to be gotten rid of”.

You leave all of that intact, and then you come to complain about Rwanda possibly having a force in eastern Congo. What do you think you’re really talking about? And then you say, “ok, the defensive measures that Rwanda has taken should be removed, and we shall make sure that we get rid of FDLR”, which has been there for 30 years, and they have not gotten rid of it. And then you say: “ we shall convince the government in Kinshasa. After all you know it is not the president who is the problem. It is his advisors. You know these ones who are openly talking about genocide ideology are just some people. We are going to tell him to take care of them and to put them aside”.

Do you really think you are talking to kids? Why would you even be talking to anybody like that? So, “let’s leave the problem as it is, you Rwanda be silent about it, and we’ll see how we can address it”.

And then recently: “we didn’t to go to Luanda”. I’m friends with Angolans and the president,  but that was not a visit of that kind. It was a visit to address problems. It was not a visit to have an opportunity to take pictures. No, it’s not going to be the case. The problem must be addressed and it can be addressed. We all need peace. Rwanda actually needs peace more than anybody because we have already tested the lack of it and the meaning of that.

And then to see the the double standards and hypocrisy that add up to really nothing. You know we talked earlier about elections we had here. People tell us they want democracy everywhere. They encourage elections. The person who is causing problems in this situation I’m talking about between Rwanda and DRC has never twice been elected. And you know it. You know it. This is why I was saying it doesn’t matter the evidence, it doesn’t matter the facts,  it doesn’t matter the claim. It’s just what you think applies to you for that moment for your benefit. The rest doesn’t matter.

This man was never elected first. He didn’t at all, and you know it. So, I’m not telling anyone, only that you don’t talk about it publicly —  I’m talking about it publicly. That’s the only difference. You know it. The second time nothing happened, and you know it.

What values are you telling us that you beat up some people for and  others you don’t know what to do? So you think I realize that and really respect you for it, or even listen to what you tell me that doesn’t add up to anything?

I don’t want to claim too much, but I think you understand and report rightly what needs to be reported. But in the capitals, there are people who say “no, we want this to happen like this” — it doesn’t matter what you tell them. But while that can happen, it affects you the least, and it affects me the most.

I can’t afford to behave the way you want me to behave in dealing with this problem. I can’t. It’s life and death to me and my people. For you it’s just something you talk about so you can call and give instructions while you are playing football, tennis or golf.  It is as simple as that for you, but for me it’s just a blink at the wrong time, and it’s life and death for me.

I’m just saying: please also understand us and the people you’re dealing with. We are not the same old idiots you dealt with 50 years ago. We are not. Not at all. Not anywhere near that.

If you espouse these values that are so much talked about, I want again to say there is no incompatibility in espousing these values that you talk about, and I agree with, and even fulfilling your interest. There’s no incompatibility. Abiding by these values also must cost you something.

At the same time,  I remember the story about AGOA: the African Growth Opportunity Act, which we were part of. But little did we know that  it was  to serve some of us more than others, and what I mean is this: As Rwanda, we made a mistake of saying that we have found some way of growing our textile industry because we wanted to reduce and even get rid of what we call “Caguwa”. These are second-hand clothes. We would be shipping tons and tons of this. We said we can’t grow our industry when we are giving preference to this. We did it believing that this provision for AGOA was to help us make progress.

What was unfortunate is that we had agreed with some countries in the region to do that, and then before we realized, all the countries we had been discussing this matter with and agreeing to this approach had been persuaded into reversing their decision and didn’t tell us. The next day we were being struck off the list of those countries who benefited from AGOA just because of Rwanda’s “stubbornness”: “how dare you refuse caguwa? How did you refuse caguwa to enter your country?”

From that time, it’s several years ago to this day, but those with oil and abundance of minerals and so on —  and who are not “stubborn” —  those are the ones who continue to benefit.

I  pointed out all those things so you can just get a feel of what is it that is happening: what is it that is right and what is it that is wrong for one to do and to make progress? You can’t be sure. You can’t be yourself, you can’t decide for yourself, and you have to wait until somebody says: “I want you to do this, you should be doing this”, including telling you that you should be making yourself open to some vulnerabilities like “you keeping quiet, you should do nothing about dealing with insecurity around your borders”.

Insecurity around my borders affects me. It doesn’t affect you, it affects me. You’re not even ready to help me to deal with my situation. They started striking us off some lists of beneficiaries. When they found out that it was not the case — something to do with child soldiers — I convened a meeting and called commanders and asked: do we have children in our army? I have never heard of this issue, and they said “ no, there is no truth in that”.

We have operations in Mozambique, and in the Central African Republic. And by the way, for Central African Republic, we were asked by the country to go and help. We were also asked by developed countries that we should help and we agreed. When we agreed and went there, the country that asked us to help even airlifted us to that place — we never heard from them a few months after.

And then we were asked to do the same in Mozambique. We said, we are able to do what we can do, but we can’t do everything. With Rwanda’s limited resources, we can’t afford to finance our operations there — it either has to be the country where we are running the operations or partners who want peace there, and who have made investments there by the way. We were left on our own.

When it came to some help that came from the European Union, it came grudgingly, and we asked: Why are you grudgingly assisting us? And they said: “Some people are saying you are in Congo”. But I said: “Let’s put that aside. Here we are in Mozambique. Are you going to punish Mozambique for our crimes, offenses, and doing what you don’t like in DRC? It is a bizarre situation. Why don’t you take care of Mozambique and help them? For us, we are helping Mozambique. If you are helping us help Mozambique, you are still helping Mozambique. It has nothing to do with Congo. For Congo, we shall handle that with you and anybody else who is interested on the merits of that situation”.

In short, and in summary, and I should end here in a moment.  Somebody needs to give a direction. You can’t have things going in all directions. If you want peace, there is a way to get peace ,and that is addressing the root causes and doing things the right way. If you want development, you need peace and then you empower and allow people who need development to move in the direction. You can discuss and agree, but allow them to drive that.

If you are talking about interests: I have said values, the right thing. Whatever it is —  the truth, the evidence —  is not incompatible with interest. But if you drive it in the direction that is messy already and think that is the right way, I think we end up with nothing.

Again, I want to thank you —  those partners of us who are here in the room, with whom we have done many interesting things together and some of which have tremendously benefited our country.

We want that to continue. We will do our best wherever we can, but we will also not agree with everything, and it’s normal. We might disagree, but we can also always find ways to resolve matters where we don’t agree. That would be everybody’s wish and again I thank those partners who helped us during the Marburg virus that we have overcome. I very much appreciate the help that came our away and working together.

I wish you once again a very happy New Year. I hope the year 2025 will be prosperous, fruitful and a very good one for all of us.

All the best to you.