Think tanks and research groups are often perceived as neutral institutions dedicated to providing objective, data-driven insights into global issues. Ideally, they bridge academia, policymakers, and the public, analyzing current events, anticipating crises, and proposing informed solutions.

However, their claims of impartiality often clash with the reality of their funding sources—be it governments, private donors, or corporate sponsors—which can subtly influence their conclusions. This inherent tension raises questions about how "rigorous" or "unbiased" their methodologies truly are.

Take, for example, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), a think tank that describes itself as "independent and impartial." ACLED recently published a report titled "The Rwanda Defense Force (RDF) operations abroad signal a shift in Rwanda’s regional standing."

Superficially, the report reads as a rigorous analysis of Rwanda’s involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). However, a closer look reveals a narrative crafted to cast Rwanda as a predatory actor in the region.

The report selectively frames Rwanda’s military actions as unilateral, wealth-driven operations while conveniently ignoring crucial historical and geopolitical contexts.

The Convenient Oversight of History

ACLED’s analysis begins by summarizing Rwanda’s military evolution, noting its interventions in the Congo Wars of the late 1990s and its subsequent contributions to multilateral peacekeeping missions.

Yet the report conveniently omits the fundamental reasons Rwanda deployed forces to Zaire (now DR Congo) following the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.

In the aftermath of the genocide, genocidal forces fled into Zaire with active support from France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The genocidaires were allowed to settle near Rwanda’s borders, launching terror attacks while hiding among civilian refugee populations.

Despite Rwanda’s repeated appeals to the international community to address this threat, inaction forced the country to act unilaterally, teaming up with Mobutu’s opponents to neutralize the genocidaires.

This context is essential to understanding Rwanda’s actions, yet ACLED’s researchers bypass it entirely, reducing Rwanda’s interventions to simplistic narratives of resource exploitation.

They fail to mention that Rwanda’s army at the time was not only composed of the victorious Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) but also integrated members of the defeated genocidal regime who had surrendered.

This complex, post-genocide reconciliation effort is pivotal to understanding Rwanda’s military ethos and its broader state-building project.

The Role of UN Experts: Parallel Narratives of Convenience

Just as think tanks like ACLED craft narratives aligned with the interests of their backers, UN Expert Panels often operate under similar dynamics. These panels, ostensibly neutral and evidence-driven, are tasked with producing reports to inform the international community, particularly the powerful nations within the UN Security Council.

However, their selection processes and mandates frequently reflect the geopolitical agendas of these influential nations.

In the DR Congo, UN Expert reports have been used to echo allegations against Rwanda, reinforcing claims made by think tanks like ACLED. These reports often cite unverified sources or incomplete data to support narratives that align with the interests of dominant Security Council members.

Like ACLED, UN Experts selectively frame their analyses to prioritize the strategic interests of powerful nations, such as maintaining access to DRC’s vast mineral resources, while sidelining the nuanced realities on the ground.

This alignment between think tanks and UN Experts creates a reinforcing feedback loop, where unsubstantiated claims are recycled and amplified. Western governments, armed with these "expert-backed" narratives, justify their positions and actions, further marginalizing African voices and perspectives.

Rwanda’s Exemplary Governance: A Threat to the Narrative

Western commentators and think tanks often struggle to reconcile Rwanda’s governance model with their preconceived notions. Post-genocide Rwanda has built a unique form of homegrown democracy that prioritizes consensus over competition, aiming to rebuild a society shattered by division.

This system has yielded extraordinary results: universal health coverage exceeding 96%, near-universal access to clean water and electricity, and one of the lowest corruption rates in Africa.

Rwanda’s achievements in security, education, and economic development have made it a beacon of stability and progress on the continent.

This stability and success are mirrored in the ethos of the Rwandan Defense Forces (RDF), which have earned international respect for their discipline, efficiency, and "pro-life" character.

This ethos is not incidental; it is a reflection of a military institution operating within a state characterized by high standards of governance and a well-articulated vision of national resilience.

Such a foundation enables the RDF to maintain its integrity and credibility, even in the face of unfounded accusations like those levied by ACLED and other think tanks.

Yet, this success challenges Western narratives that equate good governance with liberal democracy. Rwanda’s refusal to fit this mold has made it a target of criticism, often framed through reports by think tanks that fail to grasp the country’s unique political and historical realities.

ACLED’s report, for instance, accuses Rwanda of leveraging its military interventions for economic gain, ignoring the ideological foundation of Rwanda’s Pan-Africanism—a commitment to collaboration, self-reliance, and regional stability.

The DR Congo crisis: A manufactured blame game

In the case of the DRC, Western governments have amplified think tank reports like ACLED’s to justify their own geopolitical interests.

The report alleges that Rwanda’s support for the M23 rebel group is driven by economic motives, claiming that Rwanda benefits from controlling strategic roadways and mining sites. However, these allegations lack concrete evidence and ignore key facts:

1. The FDLR, remnants of the 1994 genocidal forces, continue to operate in eastern DRC with support from the Congolese army (FARDC).

2. DRC’s President Félix Tshisekedi has publicly declared his intention to "take down" the Rwandan government, effectively a unilateral declaration of war.

3. Anti-Rwandan hate speech and incitement against Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese communities have reached alarming levels, leading to widespread violence and displacement.

Rather than addressing these root causes, Western governments and think tanks have chosen to scapegoat Rwanda, aligning with narratives that suit their strategic interests in DRC’s resource-rich chaos.

A call for intellectual honesty

The instrumentalization of think tanks to advance geopolitical agendas undermines their credibility and the very principles of intellectual rigor they claim to uphold. Reports like ACLED’s serve not as impartial analyses but as tools for shaping narratives that justify external meddling while vilifying local actors like Rwanda.

Similarly, UN Expert Panels, though purportedly neutral, function as extensions of powerful nations’ interests, reinforcing biased narratives through their findings.

Rwanda’s governance model, its commitment to Pan-Africanism, and its interventions in DR Congo deserve fair and balanced scrutiny. Anything less is a disservice to the people of Africa and the global quest for justice and truth.