President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo is reported to have said at a press conference that he is now amenable to peace in his country’s east. Ordinarily that would be good news. However, I doubt anyone will be cheering the sudden and uncharacteristic change of tune.

Few can fall for this change – from a bellicose stance, the promise to bomb Kigali to dust, remove Rwanda’s president from office and free the "long suffering Rwandans to enthusiastic waving of the olive branch.

ALSO READ: DR Congo’s Rwandophone question: What US govt, SA, Tanzanian leaders have said

The change, at any rate in rhetoric and only for a brief moment, comes after an eventful past week.

President Salva Kiir of South Sudan and currently chairperson of the East African Community (EAC) Heads of State Summit visited Rwanda, Burundi and DR Congo to find ways of reducing tension and putting the peace process back on track. The EAC brokered what is commonly called the Nairobi process led by former Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta.

The African Union Chairpeson, Amb Faki Mahamat, in a statement on February 21 made three key points about the conflict. One, he said, "the integrity, security and stability of all states in the region must necessarily be assured, and the lives of the civilian population protected.”

ALSO READ: South Africa sends 2,900 troops to DR Congo despite censure by main opposition party

Two, he reiterated that there will be no military solution to problems and disagreements within the African family.

Three, he called on all foreign powers "to completely abstain from interference in the internal affairs of all African countries, notably those in the Great Lakes region. This came after the United States and France issued statements condemning M23 rebels and asking Rwanda to stop its alleged support for M23 and withdraw its troops from DR Congo.

Tshisekadi is unlikely to have been responding to those events. Still, it raises some questions that would be asked in a normal situation where the behaviour and conduct of leaders is predictable.

Is it because he has seen the light and been converted to peace or the light has been thrust in his face and he has no choice but to see? Or, perhaps, it is mere rhetoric that could change when the mood suddenly swings in a different direction.

Maybe the Southern African Development Community (SADC) forces have discovered what the East African Community Regional Force (EACRF) before them did; that they were not told the truth and are now telling their governments so, which, in turn, let their concerns be known to Tshisekedi. If they have come to this conclusion, aided in no small measure by domestic politics in their countries, they may be unwilling to engage in offensive action against the M23 rebels.

Heavy battleground losses in men and equipment, especially by Burundian forces, could also be weighing heavily on the mind of commanders who may be reluctant to fight a war whose cause they do not understand.

Perhaps the man has some sense after all and is smarter than he is given credit for. He used the anti-Rwanda stand to enhance his standing among Congolese and win votes. However he did it, he got his votes and is in power. The hostile stance is no longer necessary.

We know, of course, that Tshisekedi has had no such change of heart. Why should he when the powerful nations still treat him with kid gloves and choose note to see his weaknesses? He actually gets emboldened.

In any case, the word peace does not come easily to his lips. At the same press conference where it did for a brief moment, probably inadvertently or as a convenient response to a question about not carrying out his threats against Rwanda, he quickly reverted to type and went into a customary rant against the country and its leaders.

The statements by the United States and France seem to have made him think that there is no reason for peace now. They cried foul because their man was not having it all his way on the battlefield. The two statements are remarkably similar, suggesting an agreed common position.

Both make the same unreasonable demands. For instance, they order Rwanda to put down its defences in the face of an obvious threat to its security posed by the FDLR, now embedded in the Congolese army.

They also misdirect their concerns and skirt the real issues: the absence of the Congolese state in the east of the country and resulting governance vacuum, the nationality and security question of Rwandophones in DR Congo, and refugees in neighbouring countries.

They are also soft on DR Congo, which they give no such orders.

These same countries have been silent about the atrocities in eastern DR Congo committed by government forces and its allied militia or against Rwanda. No such concerns or orders when in the last two years they have bombarded densely populated areas indiscriminately. Apparently, that poses no risk to civilians. But defensive positions of another country do.

When Rwandophones are lynched and their flesh eaten by cannibalistic mobs on the instigation of highly placed officials, that is just fine. The mobs are only having fun. It is the same when they descend on their livestock and chop the cattle, with machetes, in the cruellest manner. That can pass. It is insignificant.

The thousands of Congolese languishing in refugee camps in neighbouring countries, driven into exile by their own government and the FDLR, apparently do not exist, or are not worth fighting for.

It seems the West does not see the mercenaries fighting on DR Congo’s side, the motley collection of Mai Mai and for-hire-Burundi troops driven by an anti-Rwanda ideology.

Worst of all, they see little wrong with the Congolese army, FARDC, integrating FDLR in its ranks even when their genocide ideology and intentions are well known. It does not matter that they designated FDLR a terrorist organisation. In one sentence, they acknowledge the sort of creatures they are. In the next, they say, well, that was in the past.

Nothing about threats by Tshisekedi and Burundi’s Evariste Ndayishimiye to invade Rwanda, change its government and "liberate” Rwandans.

It is as if the West lives in an Orwellian world where fiction becomes fact, memory is erased or made to disappear into a hole, and the powerful can alter reality at will to suit their interests. The two countries that issued statements last week are indeed powerful and can write history the way they want, although the real history does not disappear.

They can order people around and issue threats but cannot turn right into wrong, and vice versa. One thing they definitely cannot do is to order people to walk to or wait meekly for their slaughter. When no one will look out for you, you learn to do it yourself. Rwandans know that only too well.