The withdrawal of Juliana Amato Lumumba and Kinshasa’s rallying to the Romanian candidate Dacian Cioloș, in the face of Kigali’s maintenance of Louise Mushikiwabo, highlight the diplomatic contradictions surrounding the leadership of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF). A reflection attributed to Le Drian raises a fundamental question: how far can an organization founded on the sharing of the French language tolerate geopolitical rivalries and infringements on the sovereignty of its members?
The battle for the general secretariat of the OIF is now taking on a dimension that goes beyond mere institutional succession. In Phnom Penh, in the midst of preparations for the 20th Francophonie Summit, two diplomatic approaches are clashing: that of Kinshasa, which agreed to withdraw Juliana Amato Lumumba to support Dacian Cioloș in the name of consensus, and that of Kigali, which is maintaining Louise Mushikiwabo in the race for a third term.
In a reflection devoted to this confrontation, Le Drian highlights a contrast that he considers particularly revealing. The DRC, despite being the largest francophone demographic space in Africa, agreed to sacrifice its candidacy to preserve the cohesion of the organization. Rwanda, despite French diplomatic approaches to Paul Kagame, chose to maintain its candidate.
This difference in behavior raises a question about Kigali’s motivations. According to this analysis, the Rwandan regime’s interest in the leadership of the OIF stems more from the preservation of a lever of diplomatic influence than from a historical commitment to the French language.
This argument finds particular light in the evolution of Rwandan language policy. In 2008, Kigali made English the main language of instruction and administration, relegating French to a secondary position. This orientation was also in line with Rwanda’s rapprochement with English-speaking Africa and the Commonwealth.
The OIF facing its own contradictions
But the reflection goes further and questions the limits of the texts governing the organization. How can an institution that claims to defend peace, democracy, the rule of law, and the sovereignty of nations remain without a sufficiently binding institutional response to an armed conflict involving two of its members?
The case of the DRC and Rwanda crystallizes this questioning. Kinshasa accuses Kigali of military support for the M23 in the east of Congolese territory, accusations supported by several international reports and contested by the Rwandan authorities.
For Le Drian, this situation should push member states to consider a reform of the OIF statutes. He proposes in particular that a state recognized as responsible for an aggression against another member could be suspended from the organization. Such a measure would also concern personalities from that state holding leadership positions within the institution, including the general secretariat.
The objective would be to introduce genuine political and institutional responsibility, so that belonging to the Francophonie cannot serve as diplomatic protection for a state involved in a serious attack on the sovereignty of another member.
Kigali and Paris: the debate on imperialism
Another episode fuels this reflection: the tensions between Paris and Kigali surrounding the maintenance of Louise Mushikiwabo’s candidacy. Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe defended his country’s right to maintain its candidate and denounced French pressure, while Kinshasa’s diplomacy called for reciprocity of concessions.
This confrontation has also revived the debate on accusations of imperialism. In his analysis, Le Drian turns this accusation back against Paul Kagame’s regime, considering that the criticisms leveled by Kigali against Paris must be weighed against the accusations of expansionism and interference weighing on Rwanda in the Congolese crisis.
Basically, this battle for the general secretariat reveals a major difficulty for the OIF: can it continue to present itself as a community of values while letting geopolitical considerations take precedence over its founding principles?
The withdrawal of Juliana Lumumba, the maintenance of Louise Mushikiwabo, and the Congolese rallying to Dacian Cioloș now place Francophone leaders before this contradiction. The Phnom Penh meeting could thus go beyond the simple designation of a secretary-general and open a deeper debate on the future, credibility, and political demands of the Francophonie.
Editorial staff
