The Politics behind the EU-Rwanda Deal(s) and its Consequences
On the 14th of October, the news emerged that the EU is in the final stages of a discussion to award €20 million to the Rwandan army for its operations in Mozambique – where it is fighting insurgents in the oil-rich Gabo Delgado province. It would be the second time in two years that the EU awards this amount under the European Peace Facility (EPF): it also did so in December 2022. At that time, the decision was met with anger in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as it was already documented by the UN how the Rwandan Defense Forces (RDF) were supporting the M23 rebellion in Eastern DRC. In the meantime, this support has become clearer, with the last report from the UN Group of Experts from June 2024 extensively documenting the RDF operations with M23 in Eastern DRC. The news of potentially another €20 million is therefore met with anger in Congolese politics and society, primarily directed at the EU.
It is a question which puzzles many: why does the EU want to award €20 million to the Rwandan army, in the midst of its violations of international law in Eastern DRC? This piece will unpack this question and reflect on the consequences for the regional dynamics and the EU.
CLICK “VIEW PDF” BELOW FOR ACCESS TO FULL POLICY BRIEF
(Photo credit: Dati Bendo / European Union, 2023 / EC – Audiovisual Service)
14 March 2025
RIGHT OF REPLY
« Ms. Arnould is surprised that the author of the article, who attributes to her a major influence on the definition of European policy towards Rwanda, never sought to contact her to gather her perspective. The author relies primarily on articles published on the Africa Intelligence (AI) website, which repeat rumors and hearsay, a practice that does not seem to meet the minimum ethical and professional standards required of academic researchers.
The articles referenced by the author all come from a single media outlet (AI), against which a defamation complaint has been filed. As far as the Knack article is concerned, on Mrs Arnould ‘s request, a right of reply has been published by the magazine.
This being specified, the assertion according to which “These articles describe her as being close to Kigali, and of pushing an agenda favourable to Kigali. In this context, it has been reported that there is concern among member states about the perceived pro-Rwandan stance of Borrell.” is wacky. As explained hereabove, the articles to which the author refers are all from one and the same media (AI), taken up by a certain Belgian press (Knack). Regarding what the author qualifies as “concern among Member States”, this is again an assertion that is inflated in a biased way in order to damage Mrs Arnould’s reputation.
Furthermore, the statement that “the relative disinterest of Borrell in Africa, giving Arnould quite some freedom and leverage” is surprising, given that Josep Borrell has been the most active and present EU High Representative in Africa since the creation of this position.
The same applies to the claim that “this overall situation is also seen as related to the refusal of the Belgian candidate for the position of the EU Great Lakes Representative, which was not wanted by Rwanda” which is inaccurate, as this was by no means the sole factor leading the EEAS to republish the position in question.
The assertion that “Arnould urged the second instalment of €20 million to Rwanda under the EPF” is also false and reflects a misunderstanding of the functioning of European institutions and the institutional roles of the various actors in such processes. EPF decisions are taken unanimously by the Member States upon the proposal of the EEAS (and not by the HRVP Cabinet).
Finally, the claim that “Interestingly, all publicly available freedom of information requests to see the communication between Arnould and the Rwandan authorities – here and here – have not yielded any results” is false. The response provided by the EEAS on 4/7/2024 is, in fact, included in the very link that the author references. »
14 March 2025
Response by the author, Prof. Dr. Kristof Titeca
Point 1: Ms Arnould claims that “the author relies primarily on articles published on the Africa Intelligence (AI) website, which repeat rumors and hearsay, a practice that does not seem to meet the minimum ethical and professional standards required of academic researchers. The articles referenced by the author all come from a single media outlet (AI), against which a defamation complaint has been filed. As far as the Knack article is concerned, on Mrs Arnould’s request, a right of reply has been published by the magazine.”
The policy brief clearly states that “During discussions over the past years with EU diplomats and analysts in the region, one name keeps being mentioned: Maud Arnould (…)”. In other words, AI or Knack were therefore not my only, or main source (and neither were other media which also have written about the role of Ms Arnould in this dossier). Given that this was a policy brief, I did not go in details with regards to the methodology – i.e. the EU diplomats and analysts referred to – but I’m happy to be able to elaborate here.
First, five diplomats from EU member states, independently of each other, brought up the role of Ms Arnould, as explained in the article. These diplomats were based in various locations – both in Europe and Africa – and repeated and expanded on this claim throughout the past 2 years.
Second, diplomats were not the only source for these claims. Several other actors, such as EU officials, analysts and journalists, were also sources. These all repeated this claim, independently of each other.
In other words, saturation and triangulation – two key-concepts in qualitative research methodology – were widely fulfilled to make this statement.
Point 2: Ms Arnould’s right of response states that “The same applies to the claim that ‘this overall situation is also seen as related to the refusal of the Belgian candidate for the position of the EU Great Lakes Representatives, which was not wanted by Rwanda’ which is inaccurate, as this was by no means the sole factor leading the EEAS to republish the position in question.”
I’m glad to read this, as we in principle agree here. Ms Arnould acknowledges the Rwandan influence, but states that this was not the only factor. I also agree that this was not the only factor, but according to my interviews (see above), this was the most important one. Allow me to state that I find it worrying – both as an academic and as an EU citizen – to read an acknowledgment of foreign interference in EU decision-making.
Point 3: Ms Arnould’s right of response states that “The assertion that ‘Arnould urged the second instalment of €20 million to Rwanda under the EPF’ is also false and reflects a misunderstanding of the functioning of European institutions and the institutional roles of the various actors in such processes. EPF decisions are taken unanimously by the Member States upon the proposal of the EEAS (and not by the HRVP Cabinet).”
This is an oversimplification of EU decision making processes, conveniently sidelining the role and influence of the HRVP and its cabinet. The HRVP is also the vice-chair of the Commission and is in continuous contact with the member states: he/she for example is always present at Foreign Affairs Council meetings and other relevant Councils meetings.
Point 4: Ms Arnould’s right of response states that “Finally, the claim that “Interestingly, all publicly available freedom of information requests to see the communication between Arnould and the Rwandan authorities – here and here – have not yielded any results” is false. The response provided by the EEAS on 4/7/2024 is, in fact, included in the very link that the author references.”
This is quite a striking and intentional misinterpretation of ‘result’. ‘Result’ in this context means actual insight into the communication between Ms Arnould and the Rwandan Authorities. Let me therefore repeat and rephrase my claim: Freedom of information requests to see the communication between Ms Arnould and the Rwandan authorities were met with a refusal by the Commission: these exchanges were not released.