There was a certain inevitability about the end of Britain’s affair with
President Paul Kagame of Rwanda. This extraordinary man cast a spell over
every International Development Secretary from Clare Short to Andrew
Mitchell.
8:00PM GMT 30 Nov 2012
They saw a visionary intellectual – almost a philosopher king – with a genuine
zeal for the betterment of this country.
But Rwandans
have a more sophisticated view of the man who has dominated their country
since he ended the genocide in 1994. They remember that Mr Kagame spent his
formative years waging a pitiless guerrilla war against brutal regimes,
first in Uganda and then Rwanda.
Abroad, he dons a sober suit and leads seminars at Harvard Business School. At
home, Mr Kagame appears in military fatigues, jails critics and rules with
the authoritarian and ruthless streak of a soldier steeled by years of
combat.
Until Friday, Britain had always focused on the “philosopher king” side of Mr
Kagame. Sooner or later, reality was always going to intrude.
After 16 years of meddling in the Democratic Republic of Congo – Mr Kagame’s
first invasion of his neighbour was in 1996 – the penny has finally dropped.
He is determined to secure Rwanda’s western frontier against the anarchy
prevailing in Congo and benefit from this unfortunate country’s mineral
wealth.
To that end, Mr Kagame is prepared to sponsor war in Congo, even if that means
driving 500,000 people from their homes.
Last week, I interviewed two men who served in the Rwandan army during its covert deployment in Congo in support of the “M23” rebel movement. This campaign culminated in the fall of Goma, the biggest city in eastern Congo, last Tuesday.
There is one further harsh reality. Unusually, Britain favoured Mr Kagame with “general budget support”, meaning that most UK aid went directly into his government’s coffers. Until Friday's decision, he would have received £37 million in this way in 2012. That money, like earlier largesse, probably would have been spent on education, health and other worthwhile causes.
But it also amounted to a financial cushion for Mr Kagame, freeing up resources for him to spend in other areas. Indirectly and inadvertently, Britain ended up subsidising his ambitions in Congo. Put bluntly, Britain funded a regime that was wrecking Congo, and then paid the United Nations to clear up the mess.
For years, we subsidised both the arsonist and the fireman. That unhappy era has finally ended.
SOURCE: THE TELEGRAPH
Last week, I interviewed two men who served in the Rwandan army during its covert deployment in Congo in support of the “M23” rebel movement. This campaign culminated in the fall of Goma, the biggest city in eastern Congo, last Tuesday.
There is one further harsh reality. Unusually, Britain favoured Mr Kagame with “general budget support”, meaning that most UK aid went directly into his government’s coffers. Until Friday's decision, he would have received £37 million in this way in 2012. That money, like earlier largesse, probably would have been spent on education, health and other worthwhile causes.
But it also amounted to a financial cushion for Mr Kagame, freeing up resources for him to spend in other areas. Indirectly and inadvertently, Britain ended up subsidising his ambitions in Congo. Put bluntly, Britain funded a regime that was wrecking Congo, and then paid the United Nations to clear up the mess.
For years, we subsidised both the arsonist and the fireman. That unhappy era has finally ended.
SOURCE: THE TELEGRAPH
