Last week Barney Ronay published an article in The Guardian UK with the title “Does Arsenal’s Visit Rwanda shirtsleeve deal remain a ‘compelling fit’? He was referring to Rwanda’s sponsorship deal with Arsenal Football Club where the latter promotes the “Visit Rwanda” brand. This is indeed a worthy question for debate. Unfortunately, Mr. Ronay does not address it with reason. As a result, he allows hostility towards the Rwandan government to lead the way in his framing of the debate and ends up misleading. He gets out of the gates with a bizarre formulation that “the situation there [in Rwanda]” is of “international concern”. By this, he refers to unsubstantiated allegations of “deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture raised by the UK government that, in his view, should compel Arsenal to rescind this mutually beneficial partnership with Rwanda. These allegations were dead on arrival when their main source that the UK government relied on was Human Rights Watch (HRW). Rwanda has been the cemetery of HRW’s reputation through a series of blunders that were documented by former U.S. official, Richard Johnson, who demonstrated that HRW has an axe to grind against the Rwandan government and that its advocacy on Rwanda is “a political advocacy which has become profoundly unscrupulous in both its means and its ends”. Scholars like Phil Clark have questioned the organisation for its shameless advocacy that has persistently opposed the transfers and extraditions of genocide suspects to face justice in Rwanda, to say the least about dubious reports where “victims of “extrajudicial killings” turned out to be alive. But it’s not just Rwanda that has buried the phony organisation whose reputation has sunken after a series of blunders, including rampant corruption. In other words, this is not an organisation whose work any serious entity would reference as a basis for taking decisions that affect mutually beneficial relations. On the contrary, it warrants a decision on the part of Arsenal FC to reinforce its partnership with Rwanda by not only committing to “raising awareness of the country as a luxury holiday destination” but, more importantly, to actively challenge those, like Ronay, that wish to sabotage Rwanda’s incredible story of “culture, heritage and transition.” This would demonstrate the kind of moral clarity that eludes Ronay and Human Rights Watch. Maybe with time Arsenal would bring some clarity to Ronay. First, no reasonable person still believes, for instance, that Paul Rusesabagina was “bundled on to a plane in Dubai to face what his family has called a sham trial on terrorism charges” as Ronay continues to insist despite evidence that includes Bishop Niyomwungere’s testimony that even Rusesabagina could not challenge when given the opportunity to do so during his court hearing last week proving that the terror suspect found himself in Rwanda on his own volition without any iota of coercion. As a result of these proceedings, no reasonable person still believes that Rwanda had no legitimate grounds to bring the terror suspect before the courts despite what until that time were distractions pushed by the mainstream media that attempted to render insignificant Rusesabagina’s publicly stated and unreserved support to the FLN terror grouping. Ronay suggests that by partnering with Rwanda Arsenal risks damaging its reputation when in fact it is The Guardian whose standing as a credible newspaper is damaged by rehashing his discredited views. This is despite the wise remarks of fair-minded readers whose well-intentioned commentary is a cautionary tale for The Guardian in its quest to preserve its reputation. On its part, The New York Times has salvaged its reputation with the publication of Joshua Hammer’s insightful piece on the Hollywood “hero” turned terrorist leader. In light of the evidence against Rusesabagina, the focus should shift to transnational terrorism and how to enhance cooperation to fight it. Freedom House’s distorted advocacy, which Ronay regurgitates uncritically, attempts to frame the fight against terrorism as “transnational repression.” Rather than advocate for the apprehension of terrorists wherever they may be, this thinking is a shot in the arm of terror groups; it blurs the line between legitimate and legal actions by the Rwanda government and dubious allegations of human rights violations. The war global war on terror, if it really also includes the protection of African lives, could use more clarity and less confusion. The sooner the better for this kind of clarity for everyone involved. That’s because as more evidence is uncovered in Rusesabagina’s case, questions will arise as to why this man was not arrested sooner, in Europe or America, despite an international arrest warrant issued by Rwanda. This indifference will shed further light on the question of why other terrorist groups that are hell-bent on overthrowing the government of Rwanda through violent armed struggle, including remnants of genocidal forces, continue to find safe haven mainly in Europe, as Honourable Andrew Mitchell has underscored regarding the obligation of the United Kingdom, for example. If everyone took their responsibility seriously, it would bring an end to the status quo of indifference to criminality, by those who purport to believe in the rule of law, and ensure that these criminal groups that have evaded accountability since are brought to book. After all, these are what the commonwealth values are about: to bring suspects to court, any court, even when others summarily execute them. As a member of the commonwealth, it’s important that Rwanda’s culture and heritage constitute these shared values. In this regard, Arsenal is a pioneer in bringing Rwanda to the British people and helping to indirectly challenge negative perceptions about the Rwandan people. Three years after the deal, contemptuous arguments that question Rwanda’s investment on grounds of its low-income and aid recipient status have lost track and Ronay should know this much since he recognizes “that the campaign has been a success, lifting overall tourism numbers by 8%” and that “Rwanda has a functioning tourist industry”. The debate should now shift to how to continue this partnership in the midst of a pandemic that has affected the tourism industry worldwide and in terms beneficial to both partners. But such debate cannot take place in the toxic environment created by the likes of Ronay and facilitated by The Guardian.
