Rwanda is sliding into a new tragedy. And this time we’re funding it

British taxes support a regime that even allies admit uses murder to crush political challenge

9 January 2016

9:00 AM

9 January 2016

9:00 AM

Never lighthearted, my African political exile friend sounded particularly lugubrious on the line from Washington. His voice was low and pensive. For the past few months, he said, he’d been hearing of plans hatched by the regime back home for his assassination. ‘They are very gruesome, very gruesome indeed.’

It was not the first time. In the past he’d always passed the details on to the FBI, which had also called him up several times when they thought he was in danger. This time he hadn’t bothered. ‘I always ask them: ‘What are you doing to protect me?’ and they say, ‘Well, if you see anything suspicious, call 911.’ I’ve come to the conclusion that the people here, or the people in your place, honestly don’t care about our lives.’

I’ve had similar conversations with rather too many of his haunted fellow nationals, dissidents convinced that fleeing the country of their birth has done little to guarantee protection from an African government they dared to challenge. What’s chilling is that the nation concerned is not some oil or diamond giant whose wealth allows it to arrogantly defy international opprobrium, some drug-trafficking republic run by a crazed general. This is no failed state, torn apart by warring militias.

No, it’s orderly little Rwanda, the ultimate ‘donor darling’, and a government that relies on western aid for nearly 40 per cent of its operating budget, much of it provided by the United States and United Kingdom. Its president, Paul Kagame, hobnobs with the likes of Bill Gates, Bill Clinton and the Blairs — Tony advises him on governance and Cherie recently defended his spy chief on war crimes charges in a British court. Kagame so impressed the organisers in Davos that Kigali is due to host the African edition of the World Economic Forum in May.

You might think the intimacy of that relationship would grant western officials some leverage on behalf of the likes of Theo-gene Rudasingwa, founding member of the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) party, who shared his concerns over the phone. Or that Kagame’s regime might think twice before embarrassing its western sponsors. You’d be wrong.

As the man who has run the country since a genocide perpetrated by the late Juvénal Habyarimana’s forces shows signs of becoming permanently entrenched, suppressing all criticism and contemptuous of international opinion, the response by British and US policymakers goes little further than putting their fingers in their ears and singing ‘la la la’.

Any student of the Great Lakes will already be familiar with the claims and counterclaims that have swirled around the region since the 1994 genocide. Well-informed analysts reject the neat theory of the ‘double genocide’, whereby killings of nearly a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Habyarimana’s soldiers and militiamen were somehow morally counterbalanced by the massacres of Hutus committed by Kagame’s advancing Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) rebel movement. But anyone who reads Jason Stearns’s Dancing in the Glory of Monsters can be in little doubt there is copious blood on RPF hands, shed in both Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a complex story, without easily identifiable goodies and baddies.

So Kagame has always been accused of ruthlessness, but the violence was excused in Washington and London on the grounds that Rwanda sat in a tough neighbourhood. A regime that had ended a genocide could not be expected to respect the Marquess of Queensbury rules, the thinking went. But what the international community, mired in guilt for failing to stop the 1994 massacres, fails to register is that the human rights charges now being lodged against Kigali can’t be viewed through the traditional lens of scarred Tutsi survivors hitting out at unrepentant Hutu genocidaires. Like most of Kagame’s most vocal critics today, Theogene Rudasingwa is a Tutsi. He was once Kagame’s chief of staff and Rwanda’s ambassador to the US.

Kayumba Nyamwasa, who was shot in the stomach in a South African shopping mall in 2010 and lives under armed guard in that country, was the Rwandan army’s chief of staff before setting up the RNC. He also is a Tutsi. So was co-founder Patrick Karegeya, former Rwandan intelligence chief, strangled last year in a South African hotel. These men were not saints, but it’s difficult to portray them as genocidaires either, although the regime in Kigali does its best. No, this is a case of the revolution devouring itself, as possible political rivals and successors from within the RPF’s cosy Tutsi elite are systematically eliminated.

Shockingly, national borders count for nothing in Kagame’s campaign of removal and intimidation, a recklessness that can only be premised on the all-too-accurate assumption that western donors whose territorial sovereignty is violated in this way may fulminate in public but never take substantive action.

Not only have US authorities felt impelled to inform Rwandan dissidents on American soil that they are in danger — a congressman recently revealed that they issued a formal warning to Major Robert Higiro, a former Rwandan army officer who exposed Kigali’s assassination plans and was living in Belgium, telling him his life would be in danger if he stayed there.

The British have taken similar action in the past, too. In May 2011, the Metropolitan Police formally warned two Rwandan dissidents living in London that they faced an ‘imminent threat’ of assassination and turned back their suspected attacker, who had taken the coach from Belgium to Folkestone.

Logged by Human Rights Watch, the series of killings, disappearances, kidnappings and jailings appears to have escalated as Kagame’s personal ambition has hardened. Last month, in a referendum whose outcome bore more than a whiff of Ceausescu’s Romania, 98 per cent of Rwandans voted for a constitutional change allowing Kagame to run for a third, fourth and fifth term. In his new year’s address, to no one’s surprise, he confirmed that he would stand. That means he could still be in power in 2034.

The US has made clear its disapproval, with Samantha Power, ambassador to the United Nations, surprisingly forthright on the topic. However, it’s hard to imagine Washington, which puts great weight on Rwanda’s readiness to deploy troops as peacekeepers in African hot spots, putting its aid money where its mouth is.

And what about Britain, due to provide Kigali with at least £75 million in aid in 2015/16? Under Clare Short and Andrew Mitchell, the Department for International Development was an ideologically driven ministry, ready to robustly defend funding to the likes of Rwanda. Today’s ring-fenced budget, legally enshrined at a time when so much public spending faces the axe, should in theory boost institutional confidence. Instead, the department under Justine Greening, who never asked for the job, appears to lack both backbone and moral conviction.

These days it’s virtually impossible for journalists to meet anyone in authority at Dfid, including Greening. Colleagues’ experiences tally with mine. When I asked the press office whether Dfid felt any qualms about funding an African government that was conducting targeted assassinations on its allies’ territory, it sidestepped the question, stressing that no aid goes directly into Rwanda’s Treasury, as though that dealt with the issue. ‘The UK government will continue to make decisions concerning aid to Rwanda based on the government’s commitment to poverty reduction, anti-corruption, transparency, human rights and domestic accountability,’ ran the bland Dfid statement I eventually received after a fortnight of chasing. ‘As part of our bilateral partnership, we regularly raise concerns about civil and political rights in Rwanda and continue to press for reforms in these areas.’

The questions Dfid ducks so determinedly have never been more pertinent. In recent years, the quiet belief has taken hold in aid circles that benign dictators are better at delivering clean water, paved roads and primary education to ‘the poorest of the poor’ — always that justifying mantra — than messy, unstable democracies. Kagame, who used to share the crown with the late Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, now epitomises this development model, a form of idealism that allows for some alarmingly cynical policies.

At the very least, the taxpaying British public should be allowed to debate whether its taxes should be going to prop up a regime that even its closest allies acknowledge routinely uses murder to crush political challenge. A thick grey wall of bureaucratic obfuscation currently ensures it never gets that chance.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Michela Wrong has reported from across Africa. Her books include In the Footsteps of Mr KurtzIt’s Our Turn to Eat and, most recently, Borderlines, a thriller.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Rik

    Ah aid,the essential component that supports every blood-soaked barbarian politician in Africa.The dictators trust fund generously provided under threat of imprisonment by you and me and dispensed by our politicians so they can posture on the world stage.

    • Tamerlane

      Yeah but it comes back to Rolls Royce in good time and they employ a fair few…so you know…it’s a good deal of us too!

      • post_x_it

        1,300 employees – hardly a giant employer. And the profits go to the German owner.

  • Gatabazi JMV

    Those so called politicians who failed here and struggling to do politics in 10,000kms have to agenda for the future of our Rwanda. Whoever wants to know the truth come and see how Rwanda has changed; achievements of Paul Kagame”s Leadership in all sectors talk themselves. Our Unity as Rwandans is our strength. We are focused on our future, we have vision, we have plans, we are committed and we learnt from our history we will never go back. Kagame is then Man of our people a President with full qualities to lead this Country. We have made the right Decision as Rwandans by Changing our Constitution and are ready to face any challenges for the better of our Country. We will always fight for Continuity, stability, Socio economic transformation of Rwanda in full independence. New generation has been promised a bright future and it will be. Thanks for your critics ,we hear them, analyse them and put them where they belongs. We know what did US in time of Roosevelt , we know how Germany needs A Merkel forever, we see how the Middle east is current struggling, The Maghreb region etc.. Let Kagame helps Rwanda to reach a sustainable stage then Power will be transferred peacefully. Rudasingwa, Kayumba, Himbara, Higiro and their allies are useless and those who trust them will be soon very disappointed

    • Tamerlane

      And don’t forget Kagame walks on water and he can turn that water into wine and one time he fed the five thousand and he discovered cures for cancer and Aids. He invented sliced bread, the spinning Jenny and time travel. He has five Nobel peace prizes and has redefined the meaning of love. Oh Yes…he is man most amazing!

    • Henry Settimba

      I wonder what kind of unity Gatabazi are you referring to? I disagree with your claim. Rwandan are more divide than even before? I wish the population was allowed to express it self freely, it is when you would see the reality of divide exists today in the country. It is these very claims of unity disguises the level of silencing the population, especially where the large population only used during public rallies but their wishes never heard. Believe it or not, to be honest disunity is worse than even before. For instance, today Tutsi are divide among themselves, likewise Hutu those silenced inside the country are divide with those in exile; and Twa the same. In fact, what is seen on surface it is a political fix, whereas the divide is boiling beneath local communities.

  • Muheto Simon

    It is possible that if Rwanda were a failed or failing state like many other African autocracies and semi-democracies, rather than a thriving, remarkably efficient one, it might receive less hostile press like this one!!It’s not for genocidaires and their sympathizers kayumba,rudasingwa and many others to define what fits Rwandans. Firstly you should know who they are and their hidden agenda by advancing such allegations.

  • davidofkent

    The answer here, as with all African states, is to stop all of the so-called Humanitarian Aid and let them get on with running their countries as best they can.

    • MathMan

      Without Aid they will kill each other with machetes and not guns.

  • Suzan Bwimbakazi

    The so called opposition activists keep concocting all kinds of dangerous canards with the expectation that lies repeated long enough become the truth. Negativist jackals like some elements in the UN, organizations like Human Rights Watch and their water carriers in some international media look at the remarkable Rwanda’s achievements, the willingness to look forward and forge a better future for ourselves, and try to turn it into something sinister. The negativists are stymied that we have not danced to their tune; that Rwanda and its leadership have not stooped low in total obeisance to Western institutions.Despite every effort of negativists Rwanda marches forward.

  • Michela,

    do you have a view on what would happen if the UK and US withdrew aid and turned hostile?

    the poorest of the poor may be a mantra, but their fate matters. As you say, (some) people in aid circles beleive Kagame is on net better than the alternatives for Rwanda. Can you say more about why they are wrong?

    I don’t have a view (I am ignorant of the detail) but how to treat repugnant regimes like this, who are delivering on some genuinely important fronts, and where there is undoubtedly is scope for things to get worse rather than better if regime falls (on all fronts – murderous political repression included) is surely one of the hardest problems in foreign policy.

    • Henry Settimba

      In fact, murderous repression exists and if you cant see it, perhaps you’re involved in charitable organisations, whose interest as simply depends on such governance which fails it’s citizens. For charitable organisations to thrive. Unfortunately, the trouble with this mission tends to seen as acting as mercenaries. This is because of there is empathy with those facing repression and whose loved ones are either imprisoned without sound conviction or loose their lives to such regimes.

  • Terry Field

    This is a perverse article.
    Funding in Africa is part of the western relationship with the dark and murderous continent.
    That they wish to slaughter each other is unrelated to the presence of, or the absence of funding.
    Africa is pock-marked with slaughter, barbaric incompetence, inability to govern, and general sub-civilised horror.
    The imperial period stopped a very long time ago. The murderous tribal horror that was the dominating culture before colonial civilisation has re=appeared.
    It is THEIR responsibility, their tragedy, their culpability.
    The west, and Britain have NO responsibility, no guilt, nothing to feel bad about.
    The nonsense about the tribal tensions across the border; that is their issue to deal with.

    • Tath_Ngui

      Granted our beautiful African nations do sometimes behave appallingly to each other and their people, I must take exception to the ‘dark and murderous’ bit of your statement. The genocidal imperative, my dear Terry, coming from your allegedly civilised worlds remains unbeaten to this day. The wholesale slaughter of Europeans under the guise of your ceaseless wars, the holocausts,…you obfuscate… you do not call it tribalism, you call it ‘nationalism and sectarianism. But same rubbish. Your civilised people, my dear even managed to invent the concentration camps, and turned human bodies into a commodity for trade (tut, tut). And the reason your governments noses are so up our respective backsides, is not because of the Aid which is miniscule, but our and wealth of our lands, the absence of which in your countries would cause your economies to tank overnight. Of course you are right. Your nations should have no guilt on such matters as Rwanda. Your cultures are incapable of guilt or human responsibility (having practiced washing the blood of the hands for much longer than our own). We only hope we can save our countries in Africa from the insidious and devious pathologies that afflict your lot so that we can retain something of the human soul that has already been emptied in your nations and cultures.

      • Jack

        Well said Tath,I guess,this shows really who the west are!They don’t love us!

      • Terry Field

        The creative killing in Europe and the violent sadism of the powerful is common history and not in contention.
        You fail, however, to respond to my main points.
        As for murderous Africa, a few examples;
        The fifth brigade used in Zim.
        The tribal slaughter in Nigeria
        The tribal slaughter in Congo
        The tribal slaughter in Rwanda
        The tribal slaughter across the sub-saharan belt.
        The tribal slaughter in Kenya
        The tribal slaughter wherever tribes are found, with few exceptions.
        I am always amazed at the gentle way the ordinary regular African forgives and endures abouse, from our folk, from other whites and from their own autocratic, murderous, totally corrupt and quite putrid elites.
        BUT all my points about Africa stand.
        It is a dreadful continent – and it is the fault, now, of the inhabitants.
        The latest round of corrupt misery – Chinese money directly to elite’s Swiss bank accounts, the enslaved populations mining and dying in the process.
        As for management, Nigeria is so rotten that its gigantic hydrocarbon wealth cannot even provide tarmac roads and decent pensions and healthcare; much of it looks from the media to be almost stone-age. And pictures do not, generally, lie.

        • Jack

          I started to think that I may have misjudged you,but I may have reason to do so.In fact,my point is what is that you are trying to mean?That our problems are our responsibility?!Did we tell you otherwise?But stop denying that you know that your governments are the virus spoiling every efforts we put in finding our ways out of the trap your ancestors set for us during colonization and aftermaths.And remember what goes around comes around.

  • Mr Grumpy

    Kagame’s flunkeys out in force. Who says aid doesn’t deliver results?

  • Jack

    “…the dark and murderous continent.That they wish to slaughter each other is unrelated to the presence of, or the absence of funding.Africa is pock-marked with slaughter, barbaric incompetence, inability to govern, and general sub-civilised horror….”@terry_field:disqus,Do you read your self?And realized how ignorant and misguided your thoughts are?We are as human as you! whether you call us dark or whatever you like,You owe to the “sub-civilised people your life,I hope one day you realize it.When we are suffering, it’s because your society is hungry,and your governments trying to subsidize your credits and to keep your lifestyle by selling to the poor Africans arms!You owe to the Africans,the black race and in fact without them you are just nothing!All the horror,diseases,wars,they are caused by your governments…So,sleep we got you stupid.And we don’t even need your gratitude because your aid is just a drop compared to what you steal from Africa!Shame on you!

    • Terry Field

      Your emotional response is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves, and the half-century record of self-abuse, tribe-on-tribe monstrousness, killing, genital mutilation, dreadful abuse of women, elites murdering their own people, with or without western kit…….we all know what Africa is like and how its governing elites behave. Only an African ‘leader’ can say that a shower helps to avoid aids!
      Your response is one massive whine.
      Take responsibility for your own continent’s inhabitant’s behaviour.
      Of course you are human. All too human often, would you not say!
      Without the black tribes we are nothing?!?!?
      You are truly delusional.

      As an example I know just what there Ashanti did you their excessively large numbers of males before the advanced societies stepped to stop the blood-letting.

      You do not even know your own history!!!!!!!
      Political correctness cuts no ice with me.

      • fundamentallyflawed

        Its from the same playbook that blames white men for slavery when it was actually conducted by Arabs and cheerfully followed by black tribal leaders of the time….
        It wilfully and deliberately ignores the fact that Africa is abundant in natural resources that the native populations riven by tribal loyalty have been unable to use and continue to squander for their own interests.

        • Terry Field

          Slavery is alive and well in many North African areas and Arab places.
          I have a friend who is a tribal chief who laughs like a drain when I ask if slavery is ended and says ‘Good God no, how would we manage without it?!?)
          Africa is as it is.
          The locals expose themselves to the world by the actions that we ALL see. Every day.

          • freddiethegreat

            There is a contract between Saudi and Sudan – arms for black slaves.

    • Gilbert White

      North Koreans helped the Shona to murder the Zulus. Made Daesh look like humanists by comparison apparently? You people with your apologies actually stink to high heaven like the EU wallahs next to Mugabe and his armpits?

      • Terry Field

        Not to mention the poor Matabele.
        Fifth brigade???? Remember?
        Muggy’s actions on taking power. Remember????

  • Kato

    Africa and Africans like any other human race, have got bad and good people/leaders. Many comments here intend to portray Africa as a whole to have got bad leaders and bad people while in the west everything is fine.
    On the case of Rwanda, one needs to approach the country with an objective mind in order to understand its story better.
    The country went through a long terrible history characterized by politics of hatred and tribalism that culminated into genocide in 1994 (Again here I would like to make it that genocide has happened in Europe as well, which indicates that all races regardless of the skin color have got good and bad people).
    After genocide, Rwandans came together and put in place different mechanisms to avoid the repeat of what they went through. Among them is banning of any use of hate and tribal speeches, promotion of unity among the people of the country by treating themselves as Rwandans before anything else, setting of a vision (vision 2020) aimed at lifting people from poverty since its one of the causes of conflicts on the continent.
    After setting all that, Rwandans have worked tirelessly to make sure that they achieve the goals. On the way to achieving those goals,Rwandans came up with various [home grown] solutions which have contributed a lot in the development of the country. Such solutions include Gacaca traditional courts to try thousands of genocide perpetrators, TIG, whereby some convicts of genocide, instead of spending all the sentence in prison, they could instead spend part of the period participating in developmental activities in order to build the nation they had destroyed. There’s also Girinka, which is a program to donate a cow to each poor family, Umuganda which is a community work that takes place every last Saturday of the month, and this has contributed a lot in making Rwanda one of the cleanest countries in the world. Rwanda has also banned use of plastic bags as a way of conserving the environment, healthcare coverage has reached above 75% and universal education for primary level is above 90%. Rwanda leads in the world in the number of women in parliament and in every government institutions they don’t go below 30% and corruption is the lowest in Africa (and below most of western countries).
    All this was not achieved because of foreign aid, but by people who feel responsible for their destiny and have worked tirelessly to make it better everyday.
    It’s against this background that, after assessing what have been achieved and what remains ahead, Rwandans have decided that to sustain the momentum and even to achieve more, they should retain the leader under whom they have achieved all this. Tis is different from other places where you find a leader clinging on to power when people are dying of hunger, corruption increases by day yet the leaders are only surrounding themselves with the reaches of the nation. The way Rwandans want to stay a little longer with their president can’t be distinguished from the time Americans requested FDR to stay longer in order to take them through the tragedy they were faced with. This wisdom is not a monopoly of only a wise white person but also a wise black person, whether still an aid dependent or not, but knows where s/he wants to go, can decide so.
    One may be irritated by it, s/he may write whatever articles to portray the decision as barbaric, a backslide of democracy, promotion of autocracy or dictatorship but if the decision was taken by the stakeholders of the country (Rwandans) who have a resole of reaching the intended destination, no one has got the right to deny them their right to choice. Every country has made their choices and they are respected for that. That’s why some countries that are considered to be democracies, some are kingdoms while others are republics, some have term limits while others don’t have, some have constitutions others don’t have…on the other hand, we have got countries that have term limits yet they are not considered democracies.
    Therefore, in the end what matters is what the nationals of a particular country feel is suitable for them since every so called donor will come with his/her own dictates some of which are not even suitable for the recipients and the attempt to accommodate all the dictates will only lead to misery.

    • Henry Settimba

      I wonder what all this, is about? Do you mean when someone else perceives an obvious danger should pass the other side? Where one can see an imminent threat to life and keep quiet? I think as humans we have responsibility to each other either frankly to stand for their cause or to won or criticise anyone subjecting a fellow human being to unnecessarily slaughtering or imprisonment of anyone who dare disagree with leadership policies. This is why my concern here is not to raise racist remarks like other commentators, but to object to any leadership choses to hunt it’s citizens in exile. I’m not at all convinced that a neat line can be drawn between principles and policies of saving Rwandan lives. Therefore, the distinction between bad and good is always determined by the way the leadership treats it’s citizens. It is in the treatment of it’s citizens give hints of what is not working for them, but not clean streets as some of you would to tell us. Of course, being silenced and knowing that you’re hunted in exile for elimination it is the worst experience, one can impose on another fellow human being. We should therefore, stop playing around by hiding behind racist remarks and wake up to reality. To realise the reality how today it might be someone’s fate and next yours.

    • Gilbert White

      Feel for those africans who have to stand in the hot sun all day listening to speeches like the above. We can tell our politicians to leave it out. Africans have to pretend?

    • Kamana John

      Sha umbaye kure mba ngukoze mu ntoki naho ureke aba ba Wrong baravuga ibyo batekerewe n’abashonje ubutegetsi tudateganya kubaha. Ariko ubundi ko u Rwanda ari nyabagendwa yazaje akirebera ukuri akareka gufanira umupira inyuma ya stade cyangwa se basi akumva ibyo abarurimo bamubwira.

      To make them understand what I say above: Rwanda’s borders are open day and night I am inviting Wrong to come to Rwanda and see herself the reality. She will also wish to become Rwandan and see Kagame leading even longer than Rwandans have already proposed him.. Otherwise she behaved like a fan assisting the match standing out of the stadium. .

  • Adam Page

    This article is startelingly naive. If the UK/US withdraw its aid which apparently is 40% of the government’s funds then they will have destabilised the regime. To stay on top Kagame will begin the exact same killings that the article rightly decries.

  • Tamerlane

    ‘In recent years, the quiet belief has taken hold in aid circles that benign dictators are better at delivering clean water, paved roads and primary education to ‘the poorest of the poor’ — always that justifying mantra — than messy, unstable democracies.’

    Kind of true though.

  • AnnGarrison

    I hope these comments are not representative of The Spectator’s audience, because most seem to be racist, ill-informed judgments of African people as a whole. I see little awareness of what the Western world – and China – take from Africa. Much industrial production, including weapons manufacture, could not continue without Africa’s mineral resources.

    • polidorisghost

      “Much industrial production, including weapons manufacture, could not continue without Africa’s mineral resources.”

      Yes, it’s called trade.

    • Gilbert White

      Run of the mill 60’s leftist stuff in 2016?

      • AnnGarrison

        Real politics and intellect aren’t trends.

    • XKeyscore

      “….racist, ill-informed judgments of African people as a whole.”

      Are you speaking from personal experience on the continent or is that an assumption?

    • Mc

      You’re spouting logical fallacies.

      Firstly, what the West and China “take” from Africa had no bearing on the fact that thuggish African leaders and corruption are the core reasons why Africa is a mess. Remember, Western and Chinese company can only gain entry to Africa if the African leaders grant them permission to do so.

      Secondly, the fact that African minerals are important to the global industry also has no bearing on Africans’ sole responsibility for their current mess and their destiny.

      Claiming that Africans don’t have the ability to make the right decisions – as you appear to claim – is racist in itself.

      • AnnGarrison

        I don’t claim that Africans lack the ability to make the right decisions. However, it would be ridiculous to deny that the US and its Euro allies have not backed the overthrow of African heads of state to replace them with others more to their liking. Or that they don’t continue to wield enormous power in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South. The strategic and critical resource interests of the world’s industrial and military power elites are always in play behind the news.

        • Mc

          You are contradicting yourself and again avoiding the fact that Africans are overwhelmingly the cause of their own clustercuss.

          Strange that many other countries seem to manage just fine in being successful, despite all that nasty Western interference. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that those successful countries are run according to the rule of law and not by despots. The West meddles only as much as Africans allow it to meddle.

          • AnnGarrison
          • Mc

            Oh please. The assassination of 1 or other thug by the USA proves nothing. You really need to up your logic and stop blaming others for Africa’s own failings. A number of successful non-African countries have put up with frequent US meddling and managed perfectly well.

          • AnnGarrison

            Did you just call Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected leader of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a thug? And say that the US/Belgium assassination of Lumumba him was insignificant, even acceptable?

            Certainly seems so, and anyone else reading this can decide what they think of that. I don’t see any point in our continuing this exchange. You can have the last word if it makes you feel better.

          • Mc

            Ah yes, a barrow full of more logical fallacies:
            1. Lubumba may have been democratically elected, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a thug (same applies to innumerable thugs who were democratically elected)
            2. Straw man: I didn’t say that Lumumba’s assassination was acceptable

            I suggest you stop acting the idiot and get rid of that “it’s all the West’s fault” chip on your shoulder.

      • freddiethegreat

        “Remember, Western and Chinese company can only gain entry to Africa if the African leaders grant them permission to do so.”
        Or if they purchase them outright, as China has done with Mandela and Zuma

        • Mc

          My point still stands: no one forced Mandela or Zuma into the transaction. If they had integrity and they and their countrymen behaved like Westerners, RSA would be a normal, functional country.

  • AnnGarrison

    Also, regarding this paragraph:

    “Well-informed analysts reject the neat theory of the ‘double genocide’, whereby killings of nearly a million Tutsis and moderate Hutus by Habyarimana’s soldiers and militiamen were somehow morally counterbalanced by the massacres of Hutus committed by Kagame’s advancing Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) rebel movement.”

    That is a misrepresentation of what Michela Wrong calls a “neat theory.” According to the 1991 Rwandan census, there were 590,000+ Tutsis in Rwanda. Not all of them died. The Ibuka survivors group claims that 300,000 lived. That means that 300,000 died. If the number that died was 1,000,000, then 700,000 of them must have been Hutu.

    • Kato

      And in the period you mentioned, due to harassment and persecution, many Tutsis had changed their identity in order to have access to some privileges like education that they were denied through the policy of IRINGANIZA. Relying on such numbers is out-rightly wrong and deliberately ignoring the facts of what was happening on the ground.

      • AnnGarrison

        A census is an official document. You can argue that the numbers were wrong, as you have, and what you say is conceivable, but don’t lecture about facts unless you have something verifiable to share.

      • Kamana John

        Yes, you are right myself I know one family in my village that was killed during the Genocide against the Tutsis in 1994 but they had already got an identity of Hutu as a way of trying to forge peace which they were finally prevented and killed. So, maybe that is the reason why those numbers should not distract people. They should also refer to the data collected during Gacaca jurisdiction whereby victims were identified by local people in every village and the ones who killed them were the witness.

  • polidorisghost

    “And this time we’re funding it”

    I’m developing an intense dislike of this misuse of the collective “we”
    Cameron is using public money to fund it. I am not.

  • Kamana John

    Dear Wrong,

    I am very sorry to say that you might be wrong or have wrong information about Rwanda and Rwandans. We, Rwandans, are tired of such ideology you are propagating all over the world.

    Please be careful with those who are give you information about Rwanda while as you know they are doing nothing for the good of Rwandans except their stomach always hungry of political positions that they do not deserve.

    Today, Rwandans we are mature enough. We experienced bad and good leadership. We shall never accept to close our eyes again that you put the remainders of your lunch in our hands. Either US or UK why not any other developed countries should not pretend that their aids will make us ignore our identity any more. They are legitimate nations and they should let Rwanda enjoy such legitimacy as well.

    We chose to establish legitimate leadership in our own way, they should come and check where we are targeting to reach. If they notice it is not to sustainable peace and development they can stop their conditional aids and leave us safe. Maybe the time will come that we shall wake up by ourselves and be proud of that ourselves as well.

    Rwandans know why we want Kagame to continue ruling and it is our own risk as you wish it to be but, in the contrary, it is our own advantage and not that of Americans nor that of British. When, we died you were there, none talked, now when we rise up you talk.

    If it is not the problem for you to protect your name, Dear Wrong, try to change your mind come to Rwanda and get real information and leave those lies from wild pets that can never do seeing their domestic siblings. I mean those who call themselves opposition parties members. Opposing against Rwandans pretending that you want to rule Rwanda is like shouting near a noisy waterfall.

    Thank you anywhere,

    Kamana, a Rwandan proud of being so and proud of the Rwandan spirit.

    • Sodade Hopeful

      Dear Kamana, please stope using WE because you do not speak in the name of all Rwandans and especially not mine. All of you internet soldiers of the regime from now on when you come to contest any statements made by these journalists or westerners, learn to dispute facts with facts because the proud Rwandan decides narrative is tired and ridiculous. A few Rwandans decide for everyone else and the lethargy, the lack of participation, the fear of even discussing these issues in the country, the state of independent newspaper is appalling and pathetic. Rwandans are lying to themselves if they truly believe that rows of new tall buildings too expensive to rent, and sterile cleanliness is success.. People are still hungry in this country, we are still one of the poorest nation depending on aid for 40% of our budget. Our president is the most expensive and costly to the tax payersRwanda has ever seen with his planes and security. New Taxes are being invented every day. New registrations new reasons to pay. We know the healthcare is very limited although deemed universal. Too many businesses belong to our president personally and to his wife. What is taking place in Rwanda right now is starting to turn more and more into a mascarade and too many people have died for this… It is a tragedy to be honest. The gap between rich and poor is not a gap it’s an ocean. We are so focused on cosmetic changes asking people to improve homes and infrastructure to give “Agaciro” to everything we are forgetting the reality on the ground… People who are running Rwanda for the moment not only do they lack in depth understanding of the country as they came back from wherever they were exiled with too much misplaced ambition trying to apply theories but I am starting to feel they also lack real love for that land. Monoculture is one of those new rules that indeed will make loads of money to the government but leaves farmers hungry. There is no humanity in Rwanda anymore and the essence of what the people were is perhaps gone. If people weren’t so afraid to speak and to loose their livelihood and bread, they will let you know that that 93% is a sham. A nation of cowards forged by decades of successive oppression by power hungry small group of people has forced everyone to just go along with the program as it seems to demand less emotional energy to do that than to speak up for a truly progressive, equal and HAPPY society. My opinion and I m a Rwandan although not as proud as you right now….

      • Kamana John

        No please, I spoke on my behalf but that WE means that whosoever wants or plans to divide Rwandans and rule them will no longer find them as INDIVIDUALS but always as A PEOPLE well united for peace. So that WE comes from the Rwandan spirit. the WE represents domestic pets and not wild pets that do not want to share with their siblings the destiny of their home.

        So I used WE because I find myself committed ready to remain with other Rwandans sharing its achievements as well as challenges. Otherwise, you mentioned many problems most of which were already solved and others in process of being solved. However, the one you forgot and most serious one is that we still have some Rwandans, not to mention My Dear Sodade Hopeful, who do not want to join Rwandans to build Rwanda and prefer to join Wrong to destroy Rwanda.

        Thank you My Dear compatriot,

        • Sodade Hopeful

          I dont care about westerners and i dont mistake their interest for friendship. I know my history. One track mind, cult of personality, denial and hypocrisy is what can and will destroy Rwanda. Not my outspokenness…. we are just spectacle to them doing what we do best, not learning any lesson ever and not overcoming a deep rooted ethnic identity despite pretending otherwise, and repeating the same tired script decade after decade… this is the 3rd republic of Rwanda… in 60 years after independence… and we are being cheered on for cleanliness…and we run with that accomplishment every chance we get… you do get how embarrassing that is right? Let me stop anyway….

  • boiledcabbage

    DFID is the monster, not Rwanda. Anything that is funded to that degree, in Africa, is dangerous. Its like putting 20,000 volts through ordinary cable. There is an inevitable power struggle to get to the Teat and stay there by means fair or foul. Just read the utter nonsense below this…

    • freddiethegreat

      Right. Any country that wants foreign aid should be colonized to make it work.

  • carl jacobs

    The West has no reason to feel guilt about refusing to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. There were good reasons not to do so, and that is why no nation intervened. The death toll may have made those reasons look self-serving after the fact. People after all are loathe to admit unpalatable truths. But if there had been an intervention, it would have been judged by the long-term costs to the intervening power, and not by the now unknowable counter-factual of how many people would have otherwise died. That’s why there was no intervention.

    The 800,000 deaths are used after the fact to justify the neccesity of intervention before the fact. Once intervention had occurred that number becomes unknowable. What then matters is the blood and treasure sacrificed by the intervening power. Is he willing to sacrifice 500 dead to prevent an unknown outcome? 1000? 2000? Should he stay five years? Ten? Twenty? There was no power willing to answer those questions. There was no populace willing to sustain those costs. So nations stayed away. Then the death toll grew and those nations didn’t want to admit that 1000 dead wasn’t an acceptable cost to prevent it. So they mumbled some words of regret.

    Talk after the fact is cheap. No nation was ever going to intervene. The potential costs were just too high.

    • Mc

      “The West has no reason to feel guilt about refusing to intervene in Rwanda in 1994”

      I seriously doubt any politician feels guilty about Rwanda. They may claim to feel guilt, but that’s just good old virtue signalling.

    • AnnGarrison

      The US did intervene. They intervened to have UN troops withdrawn, to make sure their guy Kagame could win the war he started by invading from Uganda in October 1990. Sending troops is not the only kind of intervention; withdrawing them is intervention as well. As for Kagame, he threatened to fire on UN troops if they did intervene. See Reuters, May 18, 1994, http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1994/05/18/605070335/ .

      • carl jacobs

        They intervened to have UN troops withdrawn

        The US pushed for complete withdrawal of UN forces for two reasons.

        1. Minor Reason. The Belgians wanted out, but they wanted political cover. They didn’t want to be seen as running away while others stayed.

        2. Major Reason. The US didn’t want to be dragged into the conflict through the back door. It was afraid that an undermanned or otherwise incapable UN force would get itself shot to pieces, and then cry for rescue. The only feasible rescuer would have been the US – with the prestige of the UNSC on the line. “No UN mission” meant no possibility of a needed US rescue effort.

        their guy Kagame

        Yes, the US was so invested in the conflict in April 1994 that then US Secretary of State Warren Christopher had to look up Rwanda in an atlas to find out where it was located.

        he threatened to fire on UN troops if they did intervene.

        Yes, the problem with the intervention argument is that it never gets operationalized beyond “stop the genocide.” What that meant in practical terms was:

        1. Intervene in force.
        2. Suppress the civil war.
        3. Monopolize violence.
        4. Seize control of the state.
        5. Rule it as a colony (yet somehow virtuously) for an undetermined period of time.

        So you have an unresolved civil war, a large section of the population that still wants to kill another part of the population, a lot of angry people who don’t want you there, and a willingness on their part to shoot at your forces because of it. And then you are stuck. How do you fix it? No one has a clue. That’s why no one wanted to intervene.

        • Sodade Hopeful

          In the 1990s, Kagame studied at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth, Kans., before he returned to Rwanda and seized power in 1994. (More recently, his son Ivan trained at West Point.)
          Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/rwanda-paul-kagame-americas-darling-tyrant-103963#ixzz3wjld8CHW

          The US absolutely aided the RPF to invade and seize the power in Rwanda.
          The genocide was perfect in the sense that it legitimized their invasion and seizing power. The Arusha peace treaty were giving results but the goal was never to simply go home, the goal was always to seize power by any means necessary…They never care about Tutsis in the country…a big lie.

          • carl jacobs

            Kagame studied at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff

            And why is this is important? You aren’t seriously suggesting that taking a class at CGSC in 1989 is evidence that the US was grooming him to take over Rwanda in 1994. CGSC provides professional military education to mid-level field grade officers. It’s primarily for Majors and Lt Colonels. That isn’t the place the US is going to go look for future revolutionary leaders. And he was sent there by the President of Uganda – who also sent Kagame to Cuba for training.

            The US absolutely aided the RPF

            By doing what? The US had just emerged from Somalia. It was heavily embroiled in Haiti and the Balkans. PDD-25 had just been released dramatically limiting the possible scope of US interventions. In the spring of 1994, the US was barely aware that Rwanda existed. It wanting nothing to do with the conflict.That btw is the principle accusation made against the US for its inaction – that it chose not to intervene because it had no interest in intervening. It simply didn’t matter to the US in 1994 who ruled in Rwanda.

          • James

            The US did help Kagame. Please look up the military aid that US provided to Uganda during that war, all of which went directly to Kagame’s RPF. Also, please look into why on October 1st, 1990 when Kagame attacked Rwanda from Uganda, the US prevented the UN from sanctioning Uganda’s invasion.

        • freddiethegreat

          “Warren Christopher had to look up Rwanda in an atlas to find out where it was located.”
          The average dumb as a sackful of hammers politician

  • UnionPacificRX

    Now the continent of Africa has many pan African organizations. the Continent of Africa even has a anthem for that continent. These organizations were created to deal with problems, issues and new ideas that would shape Africa. Among them is to help in solving wars and strife that occurs in any of the 50 plus nations of Africa, many of them are quite wealthy as in Nigeria and South Africa.

    Africa is fast developing and is not some “dark continent” that needs help from every part of the world. Just like the problems that arise in the New world, Asia or Europe there are now well established organizations to deal with them. I do not see why England has to get involved in issues that usually end up being hated and considered wrong by the people of that region.

    • Ollie

      What’s with the anti-English vibe at the end? We already fund Rwanda to a significant amount. The question is should we? Either way it is a decision. The idea that pan-African organisations solve African crises belies the evidence sadly as this very article demonstrates. Vacuous anti-Western sentiment does little more than reveal your lack of thought.

      • UnionPacificRX

        It is pro English. Like the US we get involved with issues in Africa,Asia and the Middle East when they are not our issues. Then when they become our problem as in
        No gratitude from them
        no compensation from them (the US did not get any oil for saving Kuwait. we may not be a mercenary army but if other nations want us to save them then where is the quid pro quo?)

  • Adam Bromley

    Kagame is no democrat and he’s certainly ruthless. But you have to ask the question what is the alternative? The RPF reclaimed Rwanda from savagery of the Hutu Power movement, but was then faced with 10,000s of genocidaires hiding in the refugee camps in the Congo. The Rwanda genocide is unique in human history for the the greatest number of lives lost in shortest space of time. 800,000 dead in six weeks. What should Kagame have done? Let the Hutu Power killers plan for their return to Rwanda? Hold democratic elections in a country where the Tutsis were a minority and many Hutus had participated in the murder? This doesn’t excuse extrajudicial killing or repression, but there are worse alternatives than authoritarian rulers, for example ISIS.

    • James

      I am Rwandan and I think now that it has been 22 years after the Genocide, it is time for democracy and human rights in Rwanda. For your information, the genocide in my country happened exactly because of lack of democracy. So, continuing with dictatorship is only a recipe for more mass killings sooner or later. It is time for democracy and human rights for all Rwandan citizens. That is the only guaranteed way for no more bloodshed in the future. So, having General Kagame change the Constitution recently so he can be a dictator for 40 years is only a recipe for an armed insurrection.

  • Henry Settimba

    After the dust has settled and after reactionary commentators have all made their defence for the type of leadership whose intentions is never to serve all citizens or treat all equally, but to rule by the use of tactics. Let me, then unearth where the leadership problem in Africa lies. This is not exaggeration or said out of envy but simply an observation of many other writer have pointed at before elsewhere.
    So far, the leadership problem should not only be attributed or be seen as only for one country Rwanda at present, but rather a problem begs for a solution from United Nations Assembly. This is the only the wish to hold to power for some Africa head states can be tackled to save lives.
    In fact, holding power in Africa it looks like to be a combination of a natural sense of luck direction among our leaders or a deliberate use of short term goals to win supporters. Yet, the type of support they win shouldn’t give impression to mean national support. This is because short term goal policies targets the leadership wishes to own a certain click aimed at purposely to shield one person’s control of power from any internal or external aggression.
    Having said this, it is how the technic support used to obscure the reality of that hidden from the public and why it is the opposite of expected broad leadership. This is why short term goals are purposely simply serves to protect a few who spokes louder as if it is entire population wishes
    And why always leaders use shortest term policies, purposely to score popularity at the same times wishing to hold on power for ever. In fact, Paul Kagame is copying this from his neighbouring colleague Museveni of Uganda and Museveni to have followed his friend Robert Mugame of Zimbabwe, and now the circle of copycat is Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi and list of copycats is endless.
    So far, the question arise here is that of what can be done to stop this? There are two ways if accepted by those with power to implement them: (1) for leaders like Paul Kagame if he wishes to be remembered as a true liberator of his people is to call for Rwandans still opposing him to seat on a round table and workout the way forward can settle differences and agree to disagree on some issues but best of all to find out a common vision for long-term political stability in the country.
    (2) If, those leaders wishing to hold on power for ever refuses to stepdown and prefers to remove term limit enshrined in Constitutions, then Universal law surround the term Sovereignty must be revisited to reverse away United Nation can intervene in a situation where such leaders becomes A STAMBORING block national interests.
    Needless to say, if nothing is done to reverse this vicious order where self-styled liberators will continue to defy the majority wishes by hiding behind Sovereignty and technic of general election as if it was population’s wishes. Furthermore, if UN does not realise the need stop this power game Africa will continue to move forward and backward. Why? Simply because the only chance to remove any dictator the only option left is to use arm to remove them.
    To me it is very sad that our global leaders are also to blame for luck of care of duty to save civilians always caught up in these political struggles. Since, there are ever victims of these struggle where civilians dies in big numbers, where buildings are destroyed and economy subsequently gets affected as well.
    I wish therefore, to conclude by saying that if global powers if do nothing to reverse hidden political technic used by dictators on the continent purposely to blind donors of foreign aid who at the same time play a role of keeping dictators longer in power. Then countries like Rwanda are destined to remain in circles of killing each other for long time, while the rest of the world simply watches.

    • Ollie

      Too long and tedious to read. I saw social construct and moved on…

      • Henry Settimba

        Simply a sign of frustration and powerlessness

  • “Rwanda is sliding into a new tragedy. And this time we’re funding it”

    Who do you think funded the 800,000 murders in 1994, the purpose for the carnage to (1) discourage oil and gas exploration in central Africa in order to assist Russia’s hydrocarbon based economy;* and (2) tarnish the reputation of the West, which stood by watching as hundreds of thousands of Rwadans were deprived of hands, limbs and heads.

    The following is a discovery I made in April 2015 regarding the fake collapse of the USSR, and what that fraudulent collapse proves about the institutions of the West…

    When Soviet citizens were liberated from up to 74 years of horrific Marxist-atheist oppression on December 26, 1991 there were ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR, proving (1) the ‘collapse’ of the USSR is a strategic ruse; and (2) the political parties of the West were already co-opted by Marxists,** otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ruse.

    ZERO celebrations, as the The Atlantic article inadvertently informs us…


    Notice, however, the Kremlin staged anti-government demonstrations that took place in Russia (and other Soviet republics) in the years immediately preceding the ‘collapse’, yet ZERO celebrations after the ‘collapse’!

    For more on this discovery see my blog…


    The above means that the so-called ‘War on Terror’ is an operation being carried out by the Marxist co-opted governments of the West in alliance with the USSR and other Communist nations, the purpose being to (1) destroy the prominence of the West in the eyes of the world, where the West is seen (i) invading nations without cause; (ii) causing chaos around the globe; and (iii) killing over one-million civilians and boasting of torture; (2) close off non-Russian supplies of oil for export, thereby increasing the price of oil, the higher price allowing oil exporting Russia to maintain economic stability while she modernizes and increases her military forces; (3) destroy the United States Armed Forces via the never-ending ‘War on Terror’; the ultimate purpose of the aforementioned to (4) bring about the demise of the United States in the world, opening up a political void to be filled by a new pan-national entity composed of Europe and Russia (replacing the European Union), a union ‘From the Atlantic to Vladivostok’;*** which will (5) see the end of NATO.

    The political parties of the West have long been co-opted by Marxists, otherwise the USSR (and East Bloc nations) couldn’t have gotten away with the ‘collapse’ of vanguard Communism ruse.

    Now you know how Bolshevik Russia survived in 1917; how the West ‘lost’ China to the Communists in 1949; why the Eisenhower administration turned a deaf ear to the anti-Communist Hungarian uprising in 1956; why the Eisenhower administration in 1959 was indifferent to the Castro brothers’ Communist fidelity, actually used the CIA to overthrow the Batista government; why the Nixon administration abandoned Taiwan for Communist China, and signed treaties/provided economic aid to the USSR; why the Nixon administration refused to tell the American People that over 50% of North Vietnamese NVA regiments were actually Chinese People’s Liberation Army soldiers (attired in NVA uniforms, and proving that the Sino/Soviet Split was a ruse, as KGB defector Major Anatoliy Golitsyn told the West back in 1962), thereby (1) ensuring the Vietnam War would be lost; (2) destroying the prominence of the United States abroad and at home; (3) breeding distrust between the American people and their government; and (4) securing Communist victories in Southeast Asia. Working in the background within the political parties of the United States and Great Britain were Marxist agents doing their best to (1) ensure the survival of Communist nations when they popped up; and (2) sabotage any policies that would bring down a Communist nation. That’s why after the fake collapses of the East Bloc nations and USSR there was no mandatory Western verification process to ensure the Communists weren’t still in control.

    Now you know why not one political party in the West requested verification of the collapse of the USSR, and the media failed to alert your attention to this fact, including the ‘alternative’ media. When determining whether the ‘former’ USSR is complying with arms control treaties, what does the United States do to confirm compliance? Right, the United States sends into the ‘former’ USSR investigative teams to VERIFY compliance, yet when it’s the fate of the West that’s at stake should the collapse of the USSR be a ruse, what does the United States do to confirm the collapse? Nothing!

    The fraudulent ‘collapse’ of the USSR (and East Bloc) couldn’t have been pulled off until both political parties in the United States (and political parties elsewhere in the West) were co-opted by Marxists, which explains why verification of the ‘collapse’ was never undertaken by the West, such verification being (1) a natural administrative procedure (since the USSR wasn’t occupied by Western military forces); and (2) necessary for the survival of the West. Recall President Reagan’s favorite phrase, “Trust, but verify”.

    It gets worse–the ‘freed’ Soviets and West also never (1) de-Communized the Soviet Armed Forces of its Communist Party officer corps, which was 90% officered by Communist Party members; and (2) arrested/de-mobilized the 6-million vigilantes that assisted the Soviet Union’s Ministry of the Interior and police control the populations of the larger cities during the period of ‘Perestroika’ (1986-1991)!

    There can be no collapse of the USSR (or East Bloc nations) without…

    Verification, De-Communization and De-mobilization.

    The West never verified the collapse of the USSR because no collapse occurred, since if a real collapse had occurred the West would have verified it, since the survival of the West depends on verification. Conversely, this proves that the political parties of the West were co-opted by Marxists long before the fraudulent collapse of the USSR, since the survival of the West depends on verification.


    The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
    * The 1990 Iraqi war being another Marxist operation to benefit Russia’s hydrocarbon based economy.

    ** The failed socialist inspired and controlled pan-European revolutions that swept the continent in 1848(1) taught Marxists and socialists a powerful lesson, that lesson being they couldn’t win overtly,(2) so they adopted the tactic of infiltration of the West’s political parties/institutions. In the case of the United States…(continue reading at DNotice)…


    *** ‘Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans. We are by no means indifferent to developments in united Europe.

    That is why Russia proposes moving toward the creation of a common economic and human space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean – a community referred by Russian experts to as “the Union of Europe,” which will strengthen Russia’s potential and position in its economic pivot toward the “new Asia.”’ – Vladimir Putin (2012).


    • Henry Settimba

      At the first glance, I had not understood where you’re coming from. But, at the second reading the message received. It appears be every well organised conspiracy theory, if it is the case.

      • “It appears to be every well organised conspiracy theory, if it is the case.”

        Not a conspiracy “theory”, a conspiracy fact. Every observation I make is a fact, from there being ZERO celebrations throughout the USSR when it ‘collapsed’ on December 26, 1991 (that observation alone should elicit shock if it’s the first you’ve heard of it), to the inexplicable failure of the West to VERIFY the ‘collapse’, that is the West placing its fate into the trusting hands of persons who now claim to be ‘former’ Marxists.

  • yodaddy51

    The man flees his country then expects the US to look out for him? Let him get his own bodyguards

    • Henry Settimba

      Come on Yondaddy51, at least be serous. How do you expect a freeing poor journalist to afford for a bodyguard?

  • davidshort10

    How is it that a writer and journalist at the level of Ms Wrong cannot talk to a minister of the British government? It is shocking.

    • Henry Settimba

      First and foremost, minister are quite aware about how everything happens in the region, but as you may know people’s lives don’t matter where there economic interests. Secondly, if you are trying to put across information may not be of interests to media houses, then, one is compelled to use any available means to inform voters in Western countries, tax payers and the rest people in the world to know. This is why you should not be concerned because is simply helping helpless people, for instance those hunted down for strangling by Rwanda government.

  • Jos van Oijen

    It’s a pity that Michela Wrong doesn’t bother with fact checking and just repeats what she hears or reads. As if rumors become facts simply by recycling them. Unfortunately these days we also see Human Rights Watch evolving a habit of repeating information from newspaper stories and re-tweeting nonsensical messages without any further research, not realising they are in turn a source for journalists, scholars and judges. The judge deciding on the extradition case of five genocide suspects in England for instance recently mixed up the Nyamwasa and Karegeya cases and declared the son of a genocide suspect who also happens to be a nephew of Froduald Karamira to be a credible witness, although such family ties alone should be reason for treating his information with caution. This trend is very confusing, not just for ordinary readers, but also for politicians and the growing number of uncritical scholars around the world. It’s understandable that people are disappointed with developments in Rwanda and sometimes take this very personal because they may have had unrealistic expectations in the past, but there can be no understanding or sensible debate without staying true to the facts.