Kagame victim of own success

The world tends to hold him to very high, sometimes unrealistic standards

Over the last one month, a rebellion has been ragging in eastern DRC against the government of President Joseph Kabila in Kinshasa. As I write this article, over 40 armed groups, some of them former members of the Congolese army, have taken up arms against his government. However, international diplomatic activity, media coverage and human rights campaigns have been focused on one rebel group, M23 and one country, Rwanda and its president, Paul Kagame, for allegedly sponsoring the rebellion. Even an interested observer may easily think the rebellion is taking place in Rwanda, not DRC. Why is Kabila against whom mutineers and rebels are battling for control of the DRC missing in the news?

Even if we accept, just for argument’s sake, that Rwanda/Kagame are the real force behind – not just M23 – but all the 40 rebellious groups in DRC, would that take focus from Kabila and his government? Last year, there was rebellion in Libya openly supported by NATO whose planes bombed that country every day. However, the focus of the news and diplomacy did not move away from Libya’s ruler Muammar Gadaffi. Equally today, there is a civil war in Syria with the rebels enjoying the active support of the USA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – with money, arms and propaganda. However, the news coverage is not about those sponsoring the civil war but about the subject of that civil war, President Bashar Asaad.

One could say that perhaps Rwanda/Kagame is the centre of diplomatic activity and news coverage because of their interest in Congolese minerals. But again, when the US went into Iraq, there were widespread accusation of her interest in its oil as the driving motive of the invasion. Last year, there was a lot of news and analysis that NATO’s invasion of Libya was driven by its oil. However, in both cases Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi remained central figures in the story. Hence, the Congo rebellion may be the first in human history where the person at the centre of the news is not the concerned president but the one alleged to be sponsoring the rebels.

The accusations against Rwanda at the Security Council were not presented by Kinshasa but by a UN “panel of experts.” Consequently, even Kinshasa today seems to think the rebellion is not an internal problem but a Rwandan problem. May be this is the reason Kabila proposed at the Kampala summit a “neutral force” to enter his country and fight the rebels and mutineers for him. In many ways therefore, the international community and the news media are helping Kabila avoid responsibility for the problems inside his country. By blaming Rwanda, the media and the international community are actually helping Kabila disregard genuine domestic grievances and thereby undermining his incentives to seek internal political accommodation.

Of course the leaders of DRC are not stupid. They may suspect or even believe that Rwanda is behind the rebellion by M23 and perhaps other groups as well. But they know that many other groups rebelling against Kinshasa have no links to Rwanda whatsoever. In any case, Kinshasa is aware that the mutineers and other rebels have grievances as well. It is of course difficult for Kinshasa to admit its role in sparking these rebellions. However, hiding behind Rwanda may obscure its responsibility in the short term but does not solve its problem in the medium to long term.

So what are the problems with governance in Congo that simulate and stimulate rebellion? Is Rwanda the creator of these problems or an opportunist taking advantage of them? Does Kabila preside over a democracy akin to that of Norway or Sweden that creates rebellion-proof politics? Even Norway last year had its own massacre from a fanatical right wing man – meaning no country is immune to insurrection. If we admit that DRC has serious internal governance problems, can these simulate rebellion? How does a blanket condemnation of Kigali help us craft a solution?

I think Kagame is a major source of trouble for DRC; albeit by default. Under his presidency, Rwanda has made a dramatic turnaround in a very short time. This has inspired many in high and low places; in politics, academia, religion and the media. Kagame/ Rwanda have thus become global super stars. But it has also mobilised many in envy and jealous. Who is Kagame/Rwanda to be so globally feted? The more Rwanda/Kagame get praise, the more others stalk them for any slip. Its success means Rwanda often gets held to very high and sometimes unrealistic standards. And like all strong brands, the success of Kagame has attracted many opportunistic groups and interests that seek to promote their own brand by attacking Rwanda at every opportunity.

This also means that Rwanda’s success becomes a problem for Congo. First, everyone knows that Rwanda has strong and legitimate interests in the Congo given the institutional dysfunctions in that country. They know that Congo poses – not just a tactical or even strategic threat to Rwanda – but rather an existential threat. In geo politics, there is the concept of the “margin of error” which refers to the ratio of a mistake and the consequences of it. When a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences then you have to be hypersensitive. I suspect those who accuse Rwanda of involvement in DRC do not need much evidence. They just extrapolate from the threat it faces to conclude – not that it is involved – but rather that “it has to be involved.”

But this also means that those blaming Rwanda/Kagame are actually hurting Congo. They are undermining the process of internal evaluation that Congo needs to craft a solution for itself. They are helping Kabila avoid responsibility to his people and country. They are encouraging him burry his head in the sand and imagine that his people are happy with him and it is Kagame either directly invading his country or indirectly sponsoring rebellion against him. And the worst mistake for Congo is to ignore the internal sources of discontent, pretend they do not exist and shift blame to external factors. This is the mistake of the international community.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (57) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Where does the AU stand ?
written by D.Oduki, August 18, 2012

Where does the African Union stand on this ?
Does it share the same views as the UN experts ?

...
written by Omeros, August 18, 2012

Andrew - you know very well that I respect both you and your writing. But this piece is frankly not worthy of you. You say this: "The accusations against Rwanda at the Security Council were not presented by Kinshasa but by a UN “panel of experts.”" Play the ball and not the man. If you think the conclusions of the UN report to be defective, then you should explain why you think them to be so and put forward better evidence to illustrate your view. That, at a minimum, is your professional duty as a skeptic of the UN in this debate. Don't expect the scare quotes around the words 'panel of experts' to do for you the work of argument or for sophisticated people (your readership) to be persuaded by such a cheap rhetorical trick, which is beneath you.

...
written by Omeros, August 18, 2012

The trick may well undermine you since sophisticated people may reasonably conclude that your reluctance to rebut with evidence the conclusions of the panel of experts suggests a lack of good grounds for arguing against those conclusions. I do not mean to suggest that you do not have sound reasons for questioning the UN's work. It may well be that you have conducted your own evidence-gathering exercise on the conflict in the Eastern DRC the results of which undeniably falsify the UN's contentions. However, the point is that there is no way of telling what your objections are if you do not take the trouble to mention them or even think it worth mentioning them.

...
written by Omeros, August 18, 2012

"First, everyone knows that Rwanda has strong and legitimate interests in the Congo given the institutional dysfunctions in that country. They know that Congo poses – not just a tactical or even strategic threat to Rwanda – but rather an existential threat." Both propositions that you make are highly controversial and merely declaring your claims to be matters beyond dispute does not make them so.

...
written by Omeros, August 18, 2012

"In geo politics, there is the concept of the “margin of error” which refers to the ratio of a mistake and the consequences of it. When a small mistake can have catastrophic consequences then you have to be hypersensitive." You sound like a Debka editorial. On what basis are you calibrating the level of existential threat and what, for these purposes, is the 'margin of error'? What margin would no longer justify "hypersensitivity"? What do you even mean by "hypersensitivity"? When Likudniks use that term they normally mean the use of every ruthless tactic of occupation, from the use of checkpoints to the carrying out summary executions of terrorist suspects. What do you mean?

Mwenda take a deep breath
written by Rajab Kakyama, August 18, 2012

Mwenda sounds like a rabid puppy. But lets sort first things first. Fact(1) DRC is a vast Country with enormous natural resources. Fact(2) The government of Kabila has no control over, almost is non-existent in the Eastern part of Congo. Fact(3) Rwanda claims that the genocidaires of 1994 ran into Congo and are organising another invasion from there. Without the application of strict science, if Kabila is non-existent in the Eastern part of Congo then, who are the rebels fighting in Congo? It so seems that the regime in Rwanda has decided to mask the Congolese civilians into "genocidaires" that way, it seeks for reasons to have its ugly face in Congo and then use the advantage to plunder more resources. For instance Rwanda exports silicon even though it has no deposits of this resource.

...
written by Omeros, August 19, 2012

"Even Norway last year had its own massacre from a fanatical right wing man – meaning no country is immune to insurrection." This sentence is an embarrassment. Breivik's killing spree does not amount to insurrection. Breivik may be a mass murderer and a terrorist. But his narcissistic crimes do not amount to insurrection. He will probably spend the rest of his days in a secure hospital.

In response to Omeros
written by Andrew M. Mwenda, August 19, 2012

Regarding the allegations against Rwanda, Kigali issued a point-by-point rebuttal to all and each one of them and it was published in The Independent, `The East Africa but not in the major western media who propagated the allegations loudly. There was not need for me to repeat them in a 1,000 word column. In fact my interest is even not in the facts of the matter but the way they are presented. I am surprised Omeros, that you do not find it odd that a president against whom rebellion has emerged in his country, whether foreign funded or not, is not the subject of the news. I give examples of Gadaffi and Saddam to explain this. The article was meant to provoke thinking

...
written by Dian Kenneth, August 19, 2012

Who does one believe: Andrew Mwenda who writes from the comfort of his office in Kampala and Kigali, or UN that has forces and experts on the ground working right in the eye of the storm in the DRC? Andrew, please stop deluding yourself that we (your readers) are so cheap to be swayed by a mere rhetoric by the likes of you. I am sure, you don't also believe what you write because you are fond of developing assertions: ".......just for argument's sake ........" - a recombinant symbol of your belief in the asserions.