Thoughts on Rwanda

This post is in response to a statement about the way Paul Kagame and Rwanda have been portrayed in the British press. 

---

It's true that the Guardian and other news outlets have taken a particular interest in painting President Kagame in a certain light. The same can be said about Rwanda and Rwandans themselves. What this seems to stem from is a lack of understanding of the historical and cultural realities in Rwanda, overlaid with a healthy serving of arrogance and ignorance. 

Rwanda today is a model of development. In the last five years one million people have overcome poverty, 92% of the country has health insurance, child mortality rates decreased by 50% between 2005-2010 and now stand at 54 deaths per 1,000 live births. GDP growth has been at about 8% for ten years and the decrease in those living below the poverty line over that time indicates that the wealth is being spread more evenly than in many countries with similar figures. Transparency International ranks Rwanda better than Italy and Greece for corruption. 

Remember that in 1994 Rwanda was the poorest country on the planet. At that time there was a complete collapse in all social, political and economic structures thanks to the most brutal and efficient killing machinery the world has ever seen. Around one million people were murdered in 100 days - a figure even the Nazis could not attain. 

All of Rwanda's achievements have occurred at a time of significant population growth - around 3 million additional people in the last five years alone. Development of this kind can only be achieved if it is citizen centric. In Rwanda, there is the concept of agaciro. It roughly translates to personal dignity. And just as it was the complete lack of agaciro that facilitated the genocide, it has been its rebirth that has allowed Rwandans to once again stand tall and proud. There is no dignity in not being able to feed your family, there is no dignity in watching your child die needlessly and there is certainly no dignity in being denied the right to speak up and out against injustice. 

The notion of agaciro now so permeates society that anyone you talk to will know exactly what you mean when you say the word. Two weeks ago the President held a town hall Q&A session with about 2000 students from the country's universities. It was supposed to be an hour or two long. It ended up going for five. The questions and comments ranged from complaints about why the government hadn't yet processed recent payments of the equivalent of Youth Allowance, concerns about the way the ICC treats African countries and a request for funding for a community radio station to be re-established on the uni campus. Students expressed appreciation for the work Paul Kagame has done in rebuilding and reuniting the country since 1994 but also disappointment at the fact that the Minister of Education and other leaders in the sector didn't spend more time hearing from students about the issues they faced. The students were both complimentary and critical of the government. Somehow I doubt that any of them would have felt able to criticise the President and his government to his face if they thought they had tyrannical dictator in their midst. What was clear was the agaciro in their eyes and their keen desire for progress. 

But here is where things get interesting. I can tell this story, which to me is so representative of the leadership of Paul Kagame and the spirit of the country, but in one fell swoop someone else can say that Rwanda's progress has only been possible because of a dictatorial government and a lack of personal freedoms. It's a strange thing that we, at least in the western world, seem to agree. It's as if that idea is a puzzle piece just waiting to fit into the right spot in our minds. I've come to think that it's our preconceived ideas and stereotypes about African countries that drive this. How on earth can an African country be doing well? It must be a dictatorship they say. There must be human rights abuses. Surely something is wrong we think. It's these biases we need to overcome if we are to truly, and respectfully, engage with Rwandans, Congolese, Tanzanians and all those who have less material wealth than developed nations. 

I would be the last person to say that Rwanda is perfect. Too few people have access to electricity; I don't agree with the abortion laws, too many children are malnourished; too little focus is placed on environmental issues and it is unacceptable that ten people needlessly died in torrential flooding this week. But these are issues faced by almost every country on the planet. Cutting aid to the most effective user on the continent is no way to solve those issues, nor the problems of the Congo. 

This brings up the the allegations of Rwandan support for the M23 rebel group in the Eastern DR Congo to which some countries, including the UK, have attached their decision to suspend general budgetary support. I'm not going to attempt to cover earlier events relating to then Zaire (now Congo) because they have to do with centuries old colonial territorial decisions, the genocide, cholera outbreaks and around 30 different militia and rebel groups that operate in the eastern part of the country alone. But on the current issue a few things should be clarified. The claims made in newspapers like the Guardian and the Telegraph are taken from a report compiled by a UN Group of Experts. The group is responsible for producing reports on the situation in the Congo for the UN Security Council, and on any breach of a ban on supporting rebel groups in the Congo. The Group of Experts for the Congo only interviewed Congolese security services, military and civilians. The testimony they provided was allegations of Rwandan involvement - a sighting at a bar, boot tracks in the mud, trucks near the border. The Group of Experts spoke to Rwandan officials for 30 minutes before the draft report was leaked to the media. A comprehensive rebuttal from Rwanda was ignored. A final version of the report was leaked, this time to Reuters, the day before the UN Security Council vote for which Rwanda was on the ticket. Any reading of the situation makes it clear that there are other forces at work than fact-based report making. 

My advice to people interested in this issue is to read the Group of Experts report, and the Rwandan rebuttal, investigate the background of the members of the Group of Experts, learn about the Congolese domestic political situation and also about the failure of the UN's 1.3 billion dollar a year peacekeeping force based in Goma. If you take the time to understand a little of the political nature of the situation, you'll quickly become sceptical of the allegations against Rwanda. 

For those who agree with the aid suspensions, here are a few questions that I think are important. Which part of the Group of Experts report convinced you that with-holding aid was the right thing to do? Which part of Rwanda's rebuttal didn't adequately respond to the accusations? Do allegations equal evidence? Should foreign governments make international development and foreign policy decisions based on media interpretations of a situation and domestic politics? And finally, is tied aid a respectful way to engage with development partners?

Rwanda is unique. It's a country that has risen from the ashes of genocide to become a success story. Against all the odds. It's a country where young people have the chance to hold their leaders to account, face to face. It's a country where personal dignity has allowed millions to reclaim their lives from the trap of poverty and rid their lives of violence. It's a country where the air is so thick with opportunity you can feel it. 

Before judging Rwanda, and it's President, take some time to reflect on the lens that you see the world through. It is often our personal biases that cloud our views. That was definitely the case before I was exposed the reality of life in this part of the world and the factors that have shaped it. And one thing I've learnt is to be sure to reserve judgement before taking in all the facts. It's easy to get caught up in media hype but it's much harder to get to the heart of the matter. And that's what we should all be aiming for.