According to an ancient Chinese military treatise, the Art of war, "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles”. One thing is certain, Rwanda knows its strengths and weaknesses as well its enemies.
However, most of its detractors do not know much about this country. This ignorance, to a large extent, explains the misadventures and miscalculations of some "critics.” But ignorance is not to be confused with stupidity.
Ignorance can be treated by trying to be informed and overcoming acquired or self-imposed mental barriers, such as racism. Stupidity, on the other hand, has no remedy.
Which of the two, ignorance or stupidity, explains the position of those recklessly defending fallen "hero” Paul Rusesabagina after his arrest?
I will illustrate with two examples in two British newspapers. The Guardian published an article "They want to shut down his voice ': how did Hotel Rwanda dissident end up on trial?" The Times published an opinion "Strong men like Kagame take us for fools".
Beyond the redundant and unjustified accusations of human rights violations levelled against Rwanda, all unrelated to the cause of the arrest, there’s nothing to convince readers that famously talkative Rusesabagina was wrongly targeted by the Rwandan justice system.
The Guardian, not for the first time, publishes thinly veiled prejudice and unsubstantiated, questionable "beliefs” of Rwanda’s detractors, in a campaign to portray a self-declared leader of dissident political party with armed militias, as a victim of harassment and intimidation.
The hitjob by The Guardian was so glaring that Andrew Mitchell, a UK Member of Parliament, felt compelled to intervene to reframe the debate in terms that corresponds to reality.
Mr Mitchell exposed the hypocrisy of The Guardian by explaining why Rusesabagina was arrested and why his crimes would almost certainly fall under terrorism laws in Britain.
He also challenged the paper to instead put its energy to good use by advocating for the arrest of five genocide fugitives currently roaming freely in Britain despite repeated efforts by the Rwandan government to bring them to account.
In a mighty feat, Roger Boyes’ repugnant commentary in The Times manages to outshine the Guardian. His earth-shattering insight is attributing Kagame’s historical significance to "easing western guilt at its own hopelessness” by stopping the Genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda. Whoa! Talk about centering oneself.
Ok, assuming that such guilt exists, shouldn’t it be applied to apprehend suspected genocide perpetrators in the UK? And isn’t the fact that they remain untouchable, after killing more than a million people, evidence that no such guilt exists?
Again, assuming that western guilt does indeed exist, and that it is expressed through development aid, as Boyes seems to suggest, does the guilt work only on condition that funders of armed groups, like Rusesabagina, are left to kill more Rwandans unbothered?
Shouldn’t that guilt help ensure that no more Rwandans are be killed with impunity, and that those who sponsor and celebrate their killings are not given sanctuary in the homeland of those burdened with surplus guilt?
Because none of this is true, there is no such thing as western guilt.
Those who stood by as people got butchered aren’t comfortable with the fact that they would stand by again. The most striking indication that they still wouldn’t act differently is that they continue to protect genocide perpetrators and leaders of armed militias.
Aid is not guilt. It is a foreign policy tool. If aid was for improving the lives of recipients, then it has done what it ought to do given the list of Rwanda’s socioeconomic achievements that Boyes lists, and which he concedes that the government has delivered.
However, by denigrating Rwanda’s political choices and its need to guarantee security for its citizens, diplomatic correspondent Boyes clumsily attempts to arrogate aid for political control. Ironic, since he doesn’t seem to have much control over the political situation closer to home.
The truth is, nobody takes Boyes or donors for fools as no promises are made beyond the targets for which aid is sought and given.
On the contrary it is Boyes fooling himself when he believes that aid gives him a right to dictate Rwanda’s political choices – at least not until he admits that aid is a license for donors, journalists, NGOs etc, to meddle in the political affairs of a recipient country.
Sadly, Boyes’ attitude is shared with others. Consider this from The Guardian article, "any trial could be a delicate exercise for the Rwandan government, as prosecutors would have to present convincing evidence to the international community without revealing too much about the methods of Rwanda’s security services”. Who is the "international community” to whom Rwandan courts must "present convincing evidence”? Indeed, is the suspect in this trial the Rwandan government or Rusesabagina?
Does Roger Boyes, and others like him, take Africans for fools?