On Tuesday morning, as I had my morning cup of fresh Rwandan Arabica coffee, I received a Whatsapp notification on my phone that, as soon as I read the headline’, I knew I would not enjoy the rest of my breakfast. It was an article published by HRW (Human Rights Watch) titled ‘DR Congo: killings, rapes by Rwanda-backed M23 rebels’. Reading the overly long article, I felt my blood pressure rise, and rise again.

After giving it more thought and taking a few deep breaths, I was able to relax a bit. Why? Because I knew exactly what the authors of the article were doing.

As communicators, there are many principles that are drummed into us when we are learning the communication/journalism profession. Among the myriad of principles that they teach us is to find the right story ‘angle’. A story ‘angle’ is the specific perspective taken when reporting or presenting something. It is about finding the unique thing that will make the story compelling and engaging to the audience you want to engage with. It shapes the narrative and highlights the most important aspect.

So, without even getting into the meat and potatoes of the article, and using our knowledge of angles, what do we deduce? First, we must understand that the vast majority of the world’s population doesn’t know or care about rebels killing and raping Africans in Africa. After all, wasn’t it former French president Francois Mitterand who was reported saying, following the killing of over one million Rwandans, that "dans ces pays-là, un génocide n’est pas trop important” (in those kinds of countries, genocide is not very important)?

With that in mind, by adding ‘Rwanda’ to the story about M23 rebels, HRW gave the article a heft that it would not have had if they had just about the rebel movement’s actions. For close to 30 years, since the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi and entry into government by the RPF, Rwanda has been a rightly called a media darling. Not a ‘darling’ because all the stories written about it were positive but rather because by adding ‘Rwanda’ and/or ‘Kagame’ as an angle to a story, writers could almost guarantee international interest (and therefore the most important thing, publication).

Another lesson that was taught in communication school was how to separate provable facts from unproven claims by using the word ‘alleged’ when writing something. This was a class that whoever penned the article certainly missed. Here is an example of this; HRW writes that "the Rwandan army has deployed troops to eastern Congo to provide direct military support to the M23”. Ignoring the fact that Rwanda has, on countless occasions, denied this, what evidence is there to show that RDF deployed to support M23 as HRW says? If indeed RDF has deployed, it probably did so to confront the real, deadly, ever-present FDLR threat.

To cement HRW’s credibility challenge,the authors accused M23 of summary executions and then, in the very same sentence, admitted that they weren’t sure about what they just said. Think I am lying? Here it is: "Human Rights Watch also received credible reports of over a dozen other summary killings by M23 forces, but because of access and security constraints, COULD NOT independently corroborate them”.

Documenting eight unlawful killings and 14 cases of rape by M23 between November 2022 and March this year, victims that HRW interviewed told tales that I simply couldn’t wrap my head around. Recounting her experience, a 46-year-old woman said that while fleeing the fighting in Mushaki, she was raped by four fighters. Her testimony is that as she was being sexually assaulted, one of them said to her, "we’ve come from Rwanda to destroy you”. I am often not one to pooh-pooh a sexual assault story, but it is my belief that this ‘testimony’ was added to tarnish Rwanda’s name. Please note that despite the fact that Rwanda is one of the biggest troop contributors for UN peacekeeping missions, not a single Rwandan peacekeeper has ever been alleged to have committed sexual violence.

What I found most worrisome about the entire article was just how much leeway HRW gave DRC’s government. The United Nations Joint Human Rights Office (UNJHRO), reported that, as a single actor, DRC state agents committed 38% of all instances of sexual violence committed in Eastern DRC. The other 62% are committed by the over 250 armed groups in the area. With these facts in mind, I came to the conclusion that HRW’s East and Central Africa team simply wanted to get its name in the headlines. And using ‘Rwanda’ was the fastest and easiest way.

I would have been frustrated and angered by these tactics if I didn’t know that the only reason that they used them was because ‘Brand Rwanda’ sells like hot cakes in international media. In other words, our success in nation building is the very reason why HRW cannot help but keep our name in their mouths. And that is a good thing.

The writer is a socio-political commentator