"Hate Speech" in the DRC: A Symptom of Aggression, Not Its Cause

"Hate Speech" in the DRC: A Symptom of Aggression, Not Its Cause

Authors:
Sam Nkumi, Chris Thomson & Gilberte Bienvenue
Improve Africa, London, UK

Introduction: Reversing the Diagnosis

What some international actors today describe as "hate speech" in the Democratic Republic of Congo is primarily a direct consequence – not the cause – of military, security, and economic aggression by Rwanda that has persisted for nearly three decades.

To demand that an aggressed population express its anger, suffering, and sense of injustice in sanitised language whilst its territories are occupied, its civilians massacred, its millions displaced and abandoned, and its resources plundered with near-total impunity, amounts to an inversion of responsibilities that deserves to be denounced.

I. Rwandan Aggression: The Primary Cause of the Crisis

A Multifaceted Military Occupation

Eastern DRC suffers from permanent aggression characterised by:

• Direct presence of Rwandan forces (RDF)
• Creation, training, and support of armed groups
• Illegal and systematic exploitation of Congolese minerals
• Institutional destabilisation of the Congolese state

Pathologising the Victim

Reducing Congolese popular anger to "hate speech" amounts to pathologising the victim's reaction instead of naming the aggressor. This approach displaces blame and criminalises suffering rather than identifying its source.

II. The Instrumentalisation of Accusations of "Anti-Tutsi Hate Speech"

A Deliberate Political Strategy

The Rwandan regime systematically uses accusations of "hate speech against Tutsis" as a political instrument with multiple functions:

1. Justify aggression: present the military occupation of eastern DRC as a "protective" measure
2. Reverse roles: transform the aggressor into a victim and the victim into a potential aggressor
3. Criminalise all criticism: equate any denunciation of Kigali's policies with ethnic hatred
4. Establish ethnic hierarchy: impose the superiority of one ethnicity over other Congolese populations

A Strategic Lie with Dramatic Consequences

This instrumentalisation constitutes a political lie aimed at:

• Masking the reality of aggression: diverting attention from massacres, pillage, and occupation
• Protecting a privileged ethnicity: justifying privileges and impunity at the expense of other Congolese communities
• Legitimising violence: presenting massacres of other ethnicities as acts of "preventive self-defence"
• Imposing silence: prohibiting any criticism of Rwandan policy under threat of being accused of genocide

The Reality: Political Criticism, Not Ethnic Hatred

It is fundamental to establish a clear distinction between:

• Organised ethnic hatred: an ideological construction aimed at dehumanising a group based on its identity
• Legitimate political anger: denunciation of an aggressor regime, its armed forces, and its destabilisation strategy

When Congolese denounce Rwanda, the RDF, Paul Kagame, or their allies, they are not engaging in ethnic hate speech: they are describing a political and military reality experienced daily. They criticise:

• A regime and its expansionist policy
• An army and its documented crimes
• Armed groups and their violence
• A strategy of occupation and pillage

This political criticism cannot be confused with an ethnic attack.

Equality of Congolese Ethnicities: A Non-Negotiable Principle

All ethnicities in the DRC, including Congolese Tutsis, have the same rights and the same dignity. No ethnicity can claim superiority or privileges at the expense of others.

Legitimate protection of a community cannot justify:

• Aggression against a sovereign country
• Massacre of other populations
• Military occupation of territories
• Establishment of ethnic hierarchy

The Real Question

The true question is therefore not: "How do we combat hate speech in the DRC?"

It should be: "Why does the international community tolerate a regime instrumentalising ethnic protection to justify an aggression that massacres, displaces, and impoverishes millions of Congolese of all origins?"

III. The Solution in Accordance with International Law

Rational and Legitimate Demands

Resolving this crisis requires clear measures, known and in accordance with international law:

1. Withdrawal of RDF: end to all Rwandan military presence, direct or indirect
2. Dismantlement of armed groups supported by Kigali
3. Cessation of pillage of Congolese natural resources
4. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC

The day aggression ceases, the grounds for "hate speech" will disappear on their own, for lack of fuel.

IV. Moral Inversion: Moralising Victims, Protecting the Aggressor

A Double Injustice

Demanding that Congolese moderate their language without compelling Rwanda to end its aggression constitutes a double injustice:

• It displaces responsibility onto the victim
• It criminalises the expression of suffering
• It protects the strongest at the expense of the weakest

No society under sustained aggression can remain emotionally neutral. World history demonstrates this without exception.

The Blockade of Humanitarian Aid by Paul Kagame: Additional Violence

Paul Kagame's refusal to authorise the opening of Goma airport to humanitarian aid is not a technical detail but a deliberate political act with dramatic consequences:

• Prolonging famine
• Worsening epidemics
• Condemning displaced populations
• Transforming suffering into a weapon of war

This obstruction of humanitarian access by the Rwandan president does not stem from security considerations, but from collective punishment of a civilian population. It perfectly illustrates how Rwandan aggression also manifests through control of vital corridors and the instrumentalisation of human suffering.

V. When Suffering Becomes "Hate Speech"

A People Deprived of Everything

Millions of Congolese have lost:

• Their loved ones in massacres
• Their destroyed villages
• Their future prospects
• Their fundamental dignity

Yet they are asked for silence, their pain is requalified as "hate speech", naming those responsible is criminalised.

A Survival Anger, Not an Ideology

Congolese do not demand glorification of violence. They demand:

• Security for their families
• Recognition of the truth
• An end to impunity
• The elementary right to live on their land
• The right to mourn their dead without criminalisation

When a people has been aggressed for three decades and its children die whilst the international community debates semantics, anger is not hatred: it is a cry for survival.

VI. The Unacceptable: Applauding the Aggressor, Censoring the Victims

An Indefensible Double Standard

The international community demands that Congolese applaud those who:

• Occupy their territories
• Pillage their resources
• Destabilise their institutions
• Indirectly provoke famines

Whilst explaining to them that their words constitute the real problem.

No society in the world would have accepted such an injunction: not Europe under occupation, not Ukraine today, nor any other people confronted with prolonged aggression.

Naming Reality Is Not Hatred

Affirming that Paul Kagame's regime bears major responsibility in the tragedy of eastern DRC does not constitute ethnic hate speech. It is a documented political observation, lived and experienced by millions of civilians.

Denouncing Paul Kagame, the RDF and their strategy is not attacking Tutsis. It is criticising:

• A head of state and his political decisions
• An army and its military operations
• An expansionist and predatory strategy
• A system of impunity that protects criminals

The instrumentalisation of "protecting Tutsis" to justify massacres of Hutu, Hunde, Nande, Nyanga and other Congolese populations constitutes the true perversion.

True hatred consists of:

• Letting populations die and reproaching them for crying out
• Blocking humanitarian aid and demanding gratitude
• Silencing the victim to protect the aggressor
• Establishing ethnic hierarchy that dehumanises the "others"
• Massacring in the name of "preventive protection"

Conclusion: Dignity Before Diplomacy

A Choice for the International Community

The international community must choose between two irreconcilable positions:

• Either it truly defends human rights and international justice
• Or it continues to protect a narrative that humiliates and criminalises victims

It cannot demand silence from a starving, displaced, and bereaved people whilst demanding gratitude towards those who contribute to their suffering.

The Path to True Peace

Peace does not begin with censoring pain. It begins with:

1. Effective end to aggression
2. Opening of humanitarian corridors
3. Accountability and justice
4. Restoration of dignity to populations

As long as these conditions are not met, accusing Congolese of "hate speech" will remain not only an erroneous diagnosis, but a morally indefensible position.

Summary

"Hate speech" in the DRC is not a cultural or ethnic pathology. It is the political symptom of an unresolved aggression.

The accusation of "anti-Tutsi hate speech" wielded by the Rwandan regime is a strategic lie aimed at:

• Justifying military aggression
• Criminalising any legitimate political criticism
• Establishing an unacceptable ethnic hierarchy in the DRC
• Protecting the impunity of the true perpetrators of mass violence

Treating the symptom without eliminating the cause is doomed to failure.

RDF out of the DRC: peace in language will follow peace in arms.

It is as simple – and as demanding – as that.