By Silence Charumbira
For decades, Western aid has been portrayed as a benevolent force, a catalyst for humanitarian relief and economic development. Yet, recent events expose it as a strategic tool of control rather than a neutral force for good. Nowhere is this contradiction more evident than in the UK’s decision to freeze aid to Rwanda over allegations of supporting M23 rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), while continuing to fund Kinshasa’s government—a regime that has failed to control over 250 armed militias and actively collaborates with genocidal groups.
The Humanitarian Catastrophe the West Chooses to Ignore
The DRC is home to one of the worst humanitarian crises globally, yet international outrage is conspicuously muted. With over seven million internally displaced people, daily massacres, and entire regions controlled by armed factions, the situation has spiraled into a humanitarian disaster of staggering proportions.
A 2023 UNHCR report described eastern Congo as one of the most dangerous places on earth, where women and children endure systemic violence. The country harbors some of the world’s most notorious armed factions, including the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR)—a genocidal militia responsible for attacks inside Rwanda and deeply embedded in war crimes; Mai-Mai factions, known for extreme brutality and alliances with warlords; Wazalendo ethnic militias, a loose coalition tied to Kinshasa and local warlords; and the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC), which, instead of stabilizing the region, has been implicated in collaborating with armed groups, including the FDLR.
Despite this, UK aid to the DRC remains uninterrupted. If aid were truly about humanitarian relief, it would not flow into a government that has done little to protect its own citizens. If it were about stability, Western donors would demand results before signing new checks. Instead, aid to Kinshasa continues, while Rwanda, a country that has achieved some of the most remarkable development gains in Africa, faces sanctions.
Rwanda’s Sovereignty: A Challenge to Western Power
Rwanda’s recent suspension of its 2024-2029 development cooperation with Belgium, condemning the European country of interfering with regional peace efforts and politicizing development finance, provides a stark revelation: Western hostility toward Rwanda is not just about M23 or the DRC, but about Rwanda’s refusal to be subjugated by Western powers.
It is not Rwanda’s policies that unsettle Western powers, but Rwanda’s defiance of a long-standing hierarchical relationship, where donors dictate terms and African nations comply. Rwanda is proving that an African country can refuse to be managed, refuse to be lectured, and still thrive.
A Pattern of Control
Throughout history, Western powers have used aid as a political tool, rewarding obedient states while punishing those that assert their independence. The aid-recipient relationship is designed to ensure that African governments “consult” Western capitals before making decisions that impact their own citizens.
A leader who aligns with Western interests is rewarded with development funds, loans, and favorable press. A leader who diverges from the prescribed path is isolated, sanctioned, and smeared.
Aid as a Political Tool: Who Really Benefits?
For decades, foreign aid has been framed as an altruistic gesture, a transfer of wealth from developed nations to struggling economies in the Global South. Western leaders and institutions have positioned aid as a moral obligation, a means of alleviating poverty, fostering economic growth, and stabilizing fragile states.
Yet, when we examine the patterns of aid distribution, a different reality emerges—one where financial assistance often serves geopolitical interests rather than developmental goals.
As economist Dambisa Moyo argued in her book Dead Aid, Africa has received over a trillion dollars in aid since the 1960s. Rather than catalyzing prosperity, this influx of foreign funds has entrenched dependency, weakened governance, and perpetuated economic stagnation. Many African nations remain highly reliant on donor funding, often at the expense of building sustainable revenue streams through industrialization and trade.
This is by design. Aid is leveraged not to uplift, but to dictate.
The Western model of aid is not designed to foster independence but to maintain influence. It ensures that African governments remain financially tethered to institutions that dictate their policy direction, prioritizing external approval over the needs of their own citizens. It discourages industrialization in favor of short-term aid inflows, creating a cycle of dependency that is difficult to break.
The Zimbabwe and South Africa Precedents
Some might remember the case of Zimbabwe in recent decades. The West’s sanctions, imposed in response to the actions of Robert Mugabe’s regime, effectively turned the country into a pariah state. While Mugabe’s government engaged in deplorable acts, the measures taken by Western powers and the narrative they crafted caused more harm than good. The very people they claimed to protect bore the brunt of economic collapse, hyperinflation, and international isolation. The suffering of ordinary Zimbabweans became collateral damage in a geopolitical chess game that had little to do with democracy or human rights and everything to do with control.
More from Africa News 24
Today, South Africa finds itself in a similar position. Accusations of genocide against the Afrikaner population, despite the absence of credible evidence, have fueled discussions of sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and economic isolation. These claims are fictitious, yet they are gaining traction in the same way Western narratives about Zimbabwe, and now Rwanda, shape global perception. We see a pattern: a group of policymakers sitting thousands of miles away, crafting policies with no real understanding of the realities on the ground. They claim their actions are meant for good, and perhaps they genuinely believe that, but history has shown that they often do more harm than good.
Africa’s Moment of Decision
The UK’s selective targeting of Rwanda while continuing to fund a failed state like the DRC is not about human rights or governance. It is about control.
This is not just about Rwanda—it is about the future of Africa’s sovereignty.
Africa stands at a crossroads. It can either continue to accept externally imposed rules, perpetuating a cycle of dependency, or take charge of its own destiny. The time has come for the continent to assert its sovereignty, build self-sufficient economies, and redefine partnerships on its own terms.
The world is watching. Africa must decide: Will it continue to play by rules set for it, or will it finally take ownership of its own future?
Silence Charumbira is an international journalist based in Maseru, Lesotho. He has worked with multiple reputable organisations like The Guardian, CNN, and the Associated Press (AP) among others. He writes on diverse topics including China-Africa relations. Views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the publication.
