The potential creation of a new currency for BRICS countries would shift the focus away from the US dollar as the trade transaction currency. The ambitious proposal, together with Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration as president of the BRICS bank, the New Development Bank, promise to be an alternative to the conditional investment loans of the World Bank and the IMF.

The following is an excerpt of a piece originally published in April, shortly after Lula da Silva’s visit to China. You can read the full article here.

In September 2006, on the occasion of a UN General Assembly , the foreign ministers of Brazil, China, Russia, and India began to outline what would be a grand trade and monetary support agreement. In 2010, at a meeting of the presidents of these countries in Brasilia and a year later in China, it was ratified and began to shape what is now known as the BRICS , a nucleus to which South Africa was added.. Although at first they demonstrated the will to produce greater dialogue between the member countries, over the years the agenda began to contemplate a broader agreement at the international level and, above all, economic and financial associations in strategic sectors such as energy, agriculture and scientific and technological development.

The visit to China made last week by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to his colleague Xi Jinping was more than one more step in this integration process. In addition to important commercial and financing agreements signed, the abandonment of the dollar as an exchange currency and trade with national currencies (Chinese yuan and Brazilian real) was announced, which constitutes a great leap towards the de-dollarization of the planet.

“Every night I wonder why all countries are forced to do their trade backed by the dollar – Lula commented – Why can’t we do our trade backed by our currency? Why don’t we bet on innovation? Who decided that the dollar was the currency?, after the disappearance of gold as parity”.

Elvin Calcaño , a political scientist at Polititank , commented to El Ciudadano that “since 1945, after the end of World War II, the United States remained the great power. And it was thus that, based on their specific interests, the current global governance scheme on international politics and economics was designed. Hence institutions such as the IMF and World Bankthat respond to that design ultimately. In this framework, the dollar has always been an instrument of power for the United States in the world sphere. Used, as we have seen so much lately, as a coercive element to discipline and overwhelm, through unilateral economic sanctions, those countries that act outside their geoeconomic interests. Countries like China, Russia, Brazil, India and others in the BRICS orbit are now trying to get out of that design. From their interests that also have them. In the geopolitical sphere, what moves is power and specific interests between the parties. Another thing is the justifying speeches”.

Calcaño added that “Lula’s trip to China must be seen in the context of the geopolitical vocation of the current president of Brazil; which he amply showed in the previous two terms of his government. Lula, from a leftist perspective, has a sovereign vision of foreign relations. Which, being Brazil a regional and world economic power of global weight, generates strong repercussions when such characters come to power. On the other hand, you have to look at it in terms of the geopolitical struggle between the United States and China. Brazil seeks its own space within the framework of this dispute based on its interests; which tend to be, in many sectors, convergent with China, but divergent with the United States. Finally, this visit by Lula to China, for what motivates it and the world scenario that frames it,

Replacing the United States

In the state of Bahia, an old Ford car factory that was recently closed will be reopened with Chinese capital from the BYD brand, a firm that will produce electric and hybrid cars. The new Chinese plant accounts for the change in global economic powers, previously restricted to the countries of the north of the world.

The agreements signed between Brazil and China mainly concern renewable energy, the automotive industry, agribusiness, information technology, health and infrastructure. In fact, Lula visited the Huawei Technologies factory, which has been operating in Brazil for 20 years and currently supplies 5G technology. The Chinese technology firm since the time of Donald Trump has suffered a series of boycotts and sanctions in the United States.

China is currently Brazil’s main trading partner. Bilateral trade during 2022, despite the distance between former president Jair Bolsonaro and the Chinese government, was $170 million dollars, which doubles the figures exchanged between the United States and Brazil. The trade balance between China and Brazil left a surplus of US$ 30 billion (R$ 157 billion). If on the one hand the Latin American country exports to China soybeans, corn, sugar, coffee, meat and iron, among other products; the Asian giant brings manufactured products to Brazil and generates investments in infrastructure projects.

Brazilians and Chinese are also working together to launch satellites, such as those corresponding to the Sino-Brazilian Terrestrial Resources Satellite (Cbers) program, which between 1999 and 2009 has put six devices into orbit.

The end of the dollar as a currency for commercial transactions and the potential creation of a new currency for the BRICS countries was contested by the former US ambassador to Brazil, Thomas Shannon, who argued that the idea could upset the US government.

“When I go to talk to the United States I am not worried about what China might think. I am talking about the sovereign interests of my country. When I come to speak in China, neither do I. I worry about what the United States thinks. This is how the United States, China and all countries do it” – was the response of the Brazilian president.

Dilma Rousseff at the Head of the BRICS Bank

Another important step for Brazil was assuming the rotating presidency of the BRICS bank, New Development Bank (NDB), a position that began to be held by the economist and former president Dilma Rousseff, an event held at the agency’s headquarters in Shanghai and attended by Lula.

The NDB was created in 2014 and since then it has approved US$32.8 billion in financing for 96 infrastructure and sustainable development projects in 9 countries, including Bangladesh, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay, in addition to the BRICS countries.

Rousseff’s promotion by Brazilian diplomacy reflects the interest in establishing a solid relationship, which would allow Brazil and other countries in the region to have more alternatives and without conditions of neoliberal reforms of the economy, conditions set by loans from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The political scientist and professor of international relations, Bruno Lima Rocha, believes that Brazil, through the NDB, will seek Latin America as its geopolitical and economic place. “Brazil’s relations with China and with the BRICS are going to be a very important point of Lula’s foreign policy in his third term – the analyst commented to El Ciudadano – It is not by chance that Dilma is indicated to be president of the BRICS bank. If Brazil has the position of the BRICS leadership to make a collateral system of guarantees for the integrated customs currency of Brazil with Argentina as an experiment to advance international trade at an intra-Latin American level without going through the dollar, I believe that the BRICS will operate as the fundamental axis of this notion of development, if not sustained it is at least sovereign.

Lula’s bet is related both to his political experience, having been imprisoned in a trial without evidence pushed by the United States and raised by former judge Sergio Moro, and to the possibilities of his government, internally conditioned by a parliament in which he does not have a majority and the neoliberal policies of a Central Bank empowered by Bolsonaro.

Lima Rocha comments on the matter that “it is necessary to understand that this possibility of the BRICS was one of the most important external push factors for the Bridges Project of the Obama government that resulted in the Lavajato lawfare and brought down Dilma at the beginning of her second government. It can thus be said that the size of the BRICS challenge was fueled by Washington.

The analyst adds that Rousseff’s role will be paramount. “Dilma’s presence in the NDB will be essential to boost the semiconductor industry, operate international chains where Brazil does not enter only as a seller of grains or minerals. This on a macro level. On the other hand, the bank of the BRICS and the Eurasian economic axis complements itself without needing the others. China, India, Russia and even Pakistan can produce everything a modern 21st century society needs. And this has to be an important part of the BRICS policy to put a leading industry to compete with the economic and financial axis that SWIFT manages, for example”.

For his part, Pierre Lebret, political scientist and Master in international relations from La Sorbone, highlights that China and Brazil are important trading partners. He considers it important “that the countries of the South organize themselves, have a voice again and are key players on the global scene. The war in Ukraine is reordering the global geopolitical map. That is why this visit is important, Lula’s return opens a new stage and clearly this must allow the establishment of the bases for integration, for the promotion of a multipolar world”.

Lebret adds that “South-South cooperation will be strengthened, particularly within the framework of the BRICS. The South must also act to avoid scenarios of confrontation between powers. The past shows us that this type of scenario has very serious economic, social and political consequences for the peoples of the South. I also believe that it is important for Brazil to act on the global scene without ceasing to think about Latin America, so that Latin American integration itself has a chance to prosper”.

For Elvin Calcaño, the appointment of Dilma Rousseff at the head of the BRICS bank “is a clear step towards a global geo-economy outside the hegemony of the dollar. Fundamentally from the convergence between emerging and consolidated powers that, outside the western orbit dominated by the Anglo-Saxon North Atlantic axis, are moving towards other designs of world economy”.

Lula’s Peace Club

One year into the Russia-Ukraine war, China put up a 12-point peace proposal . For his part, Lula since he began his round of meetings with leaders, such as Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron and Olaf Scholz, made the end of the conflict an important point of conversation.

In the meeting held with Xi Jinping, Lula, in addition to criticizing the shipment of arms to the war, returned with his proposal that a group of neutral countries mediate in the peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. “It is necessary to constitute a group of countries willing to find the way to make peace. That is to say, I talked about it with the Europeans, I already talked about it with the Americans”- the Brazilian president maintained.

Regarding the shipment of arms, Lula commented that those who deliver arms to Ukraine are “fomenting the war.” She argued that “America must stop encouraging war and start talking about peace. It is necessary for the European Union to start talking about peace, so that we can convince Putin and Zelensky that peace is in everyone’s interest and that war for now only interests both of us.”

The political scientist Pierre Lebret comments that “Lula has always been characterized by carrying out humanist, progressive projects, by implementing policies to fight against hunger and poverty. This war is taking root in the collective mind as an ongoing conflict, and is a threat to global stability. A peaceful outcome is an imperative, and for this reason an initiative like the one being proposed by the Brazilian president must be highly considered, firstly, because the civilian populations are paying too high a price, secondly because it is a war that has a global impact, and thirdly because the nuclear risk is still valid. The Brazilian mediation proposal with other countries not involved in the conflict seems to be an opportunity that neither Russia, nor Ukraine, nor Europe should reject”.

The Game to Two Sides of Lula

At the beginning of March, Lula spoke with Volodymyr Zelensky by videoconference , who took the opportunity to invite him to Kiev, to which the Brazilian president replied that he was willing to go to the Ukrainian capital at an appropriate time, adding that the return of peace would facilitate said meeting.

On that occasion, Lula expressed his readiness for any effort to bring together a group of nations willing to talk with both parties to the conflict. A few weeks earlier, breaking the tradition of abstaining in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Brazil voted in favor of a resolution condemning Moscow for the invasion of Ukraine, approved by 141 countries, 7 against and 33 abstentions. On the occasion, Lula stressed that “Brazil defends the territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Brazil was the only BRICS country, along with India, Russia, China and South Africa, to vote against Russia . While India, China and South Africa abstained.

Despite his position in said vote, Lula’s two-sided game also implies having contacts with Russia. For that, he sent his main adviser on foreign relations , his former foreign minister Celso Amorín , to visit France and Russia recently.

Starting this Monday, Brazil also received the visit of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov , who anticipated his visit to Latin America by publishing a letter in newspapers such as Folha de São Paulo in which he argued about the urgency of defending a multipolar world .

A few days ago, Lula told reporters at the Planalto presidential palace that “this war has gone too far” and urged China to play an active role in the peace negotiations.

“What does Putin want? He can’t keep the Ukrainian land. Perhaps the Crimea will not be discussed, but what he recently invaded is going to have to be rethought ”- Lula said and then added that“ Zelensky cannot have everything he thinks he may want either ”.

However, the peace proposal put forward by Lula was not well received by the Ukrainian authorities. The foreign spokesman, Oleg Nikolenko, although he appreciated “the efforts of the Brazilian president to find a way to stop the Russian aggression”, maintained the position of unrestricted respect for the Ukrainian sovereign territory and the recovery of Crimea as a condition for the end of the conflict.

Subsequently, the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky , reinforced his position against peace. Through a video he maintained that “the world should know: respect and order will return to international relations only when the Ukrainian flag returns to Crimea.”

This recent Sunday Lula returned to the subject. “I think the construction of the war was easier than the way out of the war will be,” she said.

He then added that “President Putin does not take the initiative to stop. Zelensky does not take the initiative to stop. Europe and the United States end up contributing to the continuity of this war. I think we have to sit at a table and say enough is enough, let’s talk because the war has never brought and will never bring benefits”.

Similarly, Western countries are pressing for Brazil to limit its participation in the new BRICS bloc. For this Lula invited by the Japanese minister Fumio Kishida to visit Hiroshima, where the next meeting of the G-7, which brings together the richest economies in the world, will take place between May 19 and 21. Although it is not the first time that Lula has attended these meetings, having already participated in 2004 and 2009, the invitation responds to an effort by the United States and Europe to undermine the new multipolar pact.

Lula is also expected to take advantage of this occasion and the next scheduled visits to Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom to promote the peace proposal.

–

This article was first published by Progressive International.

On June 1, 2023, Senegalese courts finally ruled on the Sweet Beauty case, in which Adji Sarr, a young woman employed at the Sweet Beauty massage parlor, had accused Ousmane Sonko, a 2024 presidential elections candidate and the leader of the African Patriots for Work, Ethics and Fraternity political party (Pastef), of rape and making death threats against her in February of 2021.

Sonko was acquitted of the death threats, but the rape charges were requalified into that of corrupting the youth. He was sentenced to two years in prison and fined 600,000 CFA francs (1,000 USD). They also ordered him to pay 20 million CFA francs to Adji Sarr (33,000 USD). Ndèye Khady Ndiaye, the owner of Sweet Beauty, was sentenced to two years imprisonment for incitement to debauchery. They fined her 600,000 CFA francs as well, and ordered the closing of Sweet Beauty.

Following this verdict, violent unrest shook Senegal for days, resulting in people’s deaths, widespread sexual assault, and the ransacking of public and private property. According to official sources, more than 20 people died, 500 were arrested, and eight cases of sexual violence against women were reported, as well as numerous cases of missing persons.

Many, especially feminists, were troubled by the verdict, which they found ambiguous and confusing. Whichever way one looks at it, this verdict deals a significant blow to the fight for women’s rights in Senegal, particularly with regards to the gains that have been made towards criminalizing rape. In this case, rape was not ruled out, but was reclassified as a corruption of youth charge instead. However, the unhealthy nature of Ousmane Sonko’s sexual relationship with Adji Sarr has been established.

According to legal experts, the corruption of youth charge refers to an adult who imposes a form of moral constraint or psychological pressure on a young person under the age of 21. At the time of the incident, Adji Sarr was 19 and Ousmane Sonko was 46. Given Adji Sarr’s precarious social status, this verdict suggests that there was illicit sexual contact between the two, but Sarr was not raped by Sonko.

Rape is one of the most challenging crimes to prove, especially because in Senegal, a sexist legal system places the burden on survivors to prove they were raped. Those who believe in the word of survivors like Adji Sarr, conclude that Ousmane Sonko’s public profile and notoriety helped him win a favorable ruling from the judge who re-characterized a set of facts which would have resulted in  a crime punishable by ten years imprisonment.

However, Ndèye Khady Ndiaye’s criminal conviction shows that the massage parlor was not intended for licit activities. The massage parlor’s packages, such as the “body-body”, “happy ending” had sexual connotations. Some say that although this is not a morality trial, but it is suspect that a 46-year-old man and member of parliament who is aspiring to be president, would frequent—late at night and during a COVID-imposed curfew—a shady massage parlor where a socially and economically vulnerable 19-year-old woman was working in a profession that made her an easy sexual prey.

Rape is widespread and commonplace in Senegal, and the men accused are rarely convicted. The verdict on the Sweet Beauty case shows that Senegalese judicial authorities (who are predominantly men) seem reluctant to apply the recent law criminalizing rape. As a reminder, despite the decades-long struggle led by women’s associations to criminalize rape in Senegal, the courts previously considered rape a simple misdemeanor The law instituting its criminalization was only voted for in January 2020, after several cases of rape followed by murder that happened in the country in the previous years. The frequency of rape charges being reclassified as misdemeanors illustrates the reluctance of the courts to apply the recent law.

All the discussions and actions surrounding the trial and its verdict reveal many social realities in Senegal, not least the vulnerability of young girls in a patriarchal environment fortified by the exploitation of their vulnerability. The socio-economic fragility of young women like Adji Sarr, places them at the crossroads of several oppressions, at the heart of which are sexism, classism, and sexual exploitation. Deteriorating living standards also particularly weakens young people and women, who are doubly affected. The radicalization of political discourse and the closure of civic space contribute to silencing women. We are witnessing the advance of a self-centered male discourse in which the grievances of Senegalese women remain on the periphery and are not considered.

By using this private affair for political ends, both sides—the opposition and the ruling party—are united on one point: to undermine women’s voices and weaponize their bodies. Their instrumentalization of Sarr’s case accentuates their subordination in a misogynistic society. The entire country is caught between the whims of two powerful men. Furthermore, President Macky Sall’s silence on whether or not he intends to run for a third term disadvantages women and highlights their vulnerability. His silence has served as a pretext for politicizing a private affair between two Senegalese citizens. Adji Sarr’s body is thus tossed between the two leaders’ camps and used as a punching bag.

In recent weeks, national and international media has broadcasted a misogynistic show in which Senegalese men, including high-profile intellectuals, engage in a duel of words in the media, invisibilizing Adji Sarr and trivializing her rape. Many Senegalese people, including Ousmane Sonko, do not even know what constitutes rape. In the collective imagination, rape is just flirtation that goes too far.

By making fun of his victim’s physical appearance with abject remarks such as “If I had to rape, I would not rape someone who looks like a monkey who had a stroke,” Ousmane Sonko reveals how he considers sexual assault to be a form of flattery, a favor granted to any worthy woman. Beyond the animalistic caricature of her  and  the ableism of his words, Ousmane Sonko ignores that rape is neither romantic nor about sexual attraction. Rape is about power and control and has nothing to do with the victim’s appearance. Otherwise, babies and toddlers would not be sexually assaulted. An example of this is the current case of the 36 girls aged between six and 16 who have been sexually abused by a Koranic teacher near Touba.

Furthermore those who accuse Adji Sarr of being manipulative are being sexist and infantilizing. These allegations suggest that women cannot formulate accusations on their own. It reinforces sexist stereotypes and minimizes the voices of women who report sexual violence. This assumption also questions the value of the words of rape survivors. Every time a rape survivor comes forward, she must put in much physical and psychological effort. Just as there is no typical rapist, there is not a perfect survivor. Each survivor works through her trauma differently and remakes her life in her own way. Adji Raby Sarr is no exception. Nor is Mr. Sonko, even if he is known by the sobriquet “mu sell mi,” The Holy One.

Rape is a weapon of domination, and women are the first to pay the price. Over the course of the recent unrest, eight women were raped: three students at the Assane Seck University in Ziguinchor, and five others by hooded men who attacked the Columbia hotel bar in Diamniadio. Women’s bodies have been commodified and turned into public property to be plundered like the commodities stolen during demonstrations by looters; to be grabbed and consumed at will.

Senegalese women’s voices must free themselves from the grip of politicians craving power. The facts surrounding the Sweet Beauty case must be reported in their unforgiving truth, notwithstanding the assumptions, prejudices, preconceptions, and stereotypes that they embed. Their chronology leaves no doubt in the mind of a free thinker. Senegalese politicians exploited a private affair for their own political ends and to shield a political leader from having to answer for his actions. That the same affair was used by the other side to eliminate a political adversary is possible, especially given the country’s recent history. Politicians have undermined women’s voices and bodies by mixing politics and private affairs.

The reputation of the Senegalese state as an exceptional example of democracy in Africa is nothing but a mirage. It has been built to the detriment of women, women who have not been able to express the suffering they endure on a daily basis in a hypocritical society. We are witnessing the expression of Senegalese masculinity in perfect hegemony against a backdrop of the destruction and abuse of women.

–

This post is from a partnership between Africa Is a Country and The Elephant. We will be publishing a series of posts from their site every week.

During the years that preceded the genocide against the Tutsi, there was an increase in hate speech against people of Tutsi ethnicity and those who did not hold views similar to those of the government.

Members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a rebel group made up of Rwandan refugees that had launched an attack against the Rwandan army in the early 90s, were described in the media and by some government officials at the time as Inyangarwanda or enemies of state and as Abana b’inyenzi or children of cockroaches.

Rwandans of Tutsi ethnicity and members of the opposition not affiliated to the ruling party were repeatedly described as inyenzi, or cockroaches, as inzoka or snakes, and as ibyisto or spies. During the genocide these people were targeted, hunted down and killed.

After the genocide and the ensuing civil war that was ultimately won by the RPF, legislation that forbids the formation of political parties along ethnic lines and that punishes speech deemed hateful or promoting ethnic or racial division was passed. Moreover, over the decades, various high-ranking officials in Rwanda have been heard calling on the youth to actively participate on social media to neutralize, to refute and to fight against those who talk about things that are not relevant, that are not in line with Rwanda, or who share untrue stories that aim to spread the genocide ideology.

These measures have done nothing to counter hate speech, particularly against those who dare or are perceived to challenge the Rwandan government’s narrative or policies.

I know this because I have experienced it.

I returned to Rwanda from exile in the Netherlands in January 2010 intending to register my political party and run in the upcoming presidential election. On the day of my return to Rwanda, I visited the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre in Gisozi and gave a speech urging unity and reconciliation. I said that for Rwanda to experience true reconciliation, we need to recognise all crimes committed in Rwanda, including the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi and the crimes against humanity committed against the Hutu. My opinion was based on United Nations Report S/1994/1405.

Just three months later, I was arrested and dragged into a politically motivated judicial process. The courts in Rwanda convicted me of “grossly minimizing the genocide” and  “conspiracy to harm the existing authority and the constitutional principles using terrorism, armed violence or any other type of violence”. I appealed to the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, which ruled that the Rwandan state had violated my right to a fair trial. In 2018, I was released early by presidential pardon, after eight years of detention, five of which I spent in solitary confinement.

Since my release, I have continued to advocate for the establishment of genuine democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law in Rwanda. My detractors have also been working hard on social media to turn the public against me and discourage me in my struggle by constantly using hate speech against me, describing me as a “genocide denier”, a “terrorist” and a “tropical nazi”. A TV Channel in Rwanda called My250TV has even gone as far as to openly state that “I should be arrested at least and killed at best”.

Three years ago, I flagged the use of hate speech against me to the agents of the Rwanda Investigation Bureau and was assured that the concerned individuals would be impressed upon to cease their actions. However, the campaign of hate against me continues unabated.

Since my release, I have continued to advocate for the establishment of genuine democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law in Rwanda.

As soon as I published an op-ed that argued that having the largest number of women in parliament is not enough to liberate women in Rwanda and that without political reforms Rwandans would continue to seek refuge abroad, Rwandan officials of ministerial and ambassadorial rank as well as members of parliament joined in the smear campaign against me and publicly stated on social media that I support a “genocidal ideology” and that my speech is inciting yet another genocide in Rwanda. Others have even gone as far as claiming on international platforms that I had escaped justice for acts of genocide.

Hate speech is not only deployed against me; It is deployed against anyone. No one is spared —Rwandan or foreigner—who dares or is perceived to challenge the Rwandan government’s narrative or policy. We are referred to as abanzi b’igihugu or enemies of the state, as ibigarasha or waste, as those who imbibed the genocide ideology with our mothers’ milk.

Hate speech is also used against Rwandan refugees who have not returned to Rwanda, their refusal to return constantly attributed to their guilty conscience because of the crimes of genocide they committed in Rwanda. Moreover, in the same way that members of the RPF were described as children of cockroaches when they were fighting to return to their motherland, the descendants of public officials of the regime overthrown by the RPF are today described as “children of genocidaires”—but only when they challenge or question the Rwandan government.

Freedom On The Net 2022 has also observed that social media accounts with government affiliations regularly harass individuals who post online comments considered critical of the government. It reports that the Rwandan government has mobilized social media users to counter the views of individuals deemed to be “enemies of the state”. This so-called “Twitter Army” has systematically attacked and discredited individuals and media outlets that criticize the government. It also explains that these social media users are rewarded for their attacks with appointments or nominations to jobs at government institutions and private companies that have ties to the ruling party.

It is, however, important to also highlight the use of hate speech against Rwandan authorities by some of their opponents who described them as abavantara or foreigners and Inyenzi or cockroaches.

This so-called “Twitter Army” has systematically attacked and discredited individuals and media outlets that criticize the government.

What the foregoing demonstrates is that Rwanda has yet to attain reconciliation. It also shows that the country’s elites are failing to engage in healthy debate on the real issues confronting Rwanda today in a manner that reflects mutual respect and Rwandaness. It also gives the impression that the priority in Rwanda is to silence dissenting voices and restrict the freedom of expression.

But it does not have to be this way.

To counter hate speech, Rwanda needs to develop an efficient judicial system, one that is independent and able to competently enforce sanctions against anyone who uses hate speech. To avoid mimicking the situation prevailing in pre-genocide Rwanda, senior officials calling on the youth to use social media to challenge Rwandan government opponents must be explicit in the manner in which the youth should go about doing this. It should be in a manner that eschews hate speech and that reflects Rwandan cultural values of dignity, unity or Rwandaness, and nobility, as highlighted in the Rwandan Cultural Values in National Development, a document published by the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission.