It has been a case of two tales of events in Rwanda and Uganda the last few days. First, it was the ministers of foreign affairs of the two countries hosting diplomats accredited to each country in very contrasting fashion. Then three days ago it was the markedly different response by the two countries to the fatal shooting of two men at the common border. Just over a week ago, Uganda’s minister of foreign affairs, Sam Kutesa, met diplomats in Kampala to address them on relations with Rwanda. There was nothing new in what he said. No mention of his government’s support to terrorist groups working to destabilise Rwanda, the arrest, detention and torture of hundreds of Rwandans, or economic sabotage. Instead he made a formal statement reaffirming good neighbourliness and denying any ill intentions towards Rwanda. He might as well have saved his breath. His audience had all the information about the things he did not mention. Both he and they knew that Callixte Nsabimana, alias Sankara, a self-confessed terrorist, had been arrested and what he had said. They were all aware of what the FDLR duo arrested at the Uganda-DR Congo border had revealed about Uganda’s support for them. A junior minister in Mr Kutesa’s ministry had been their host and guide in Uganda and had escorted them to the border. It is not too long ago that President Museveni admitted meeting officials of another terrorist outfit, the Rwanda National Congress (RNC), at State House in Entebbe. There must have been bored yawns and stony faces during his tale of lies and denials. Not a single spark of interest from a new angle they had somehow missed or new facts they would be rushing to cable home. At about the same that Mr Kutesa was telling his tall tales, his Rwandan counterpart, Dr Richard Sezibera, was taking diplomats on a tour of Nyungwe Forest and Birunga national parks. He did not have to spin a yarn of any sort. He simply let them see for themselves. They trekked through the forest, trudged up the steep volcanoes and were rewarded with wonderful sighting of the many bird species and a meeting with the magnificent gorillas. Not a trace of boredom or having to endure rehashed lies. Yes, there were tired limbs and sore muscles but this was more than balanced by the pleasure, sights and safety and truthfulness of it all. In their own words, expressed in a running commentary of tweets, the entire excursion was worth it. Never heard similar remarks following Kutesa’s briefing. The two diplomatic events could not have been more different. It was not simply a question of style, but rather more of substance. They showed the wide gulf between the way the two countries conduct public affairs. Kutesa knew he was not being truthful, yet he went on anyway with his tale. Why? First, it is his job to speak for his country and give it the most attractive image. Should that involve lying? Of course, not, but that is a moral call that is increasingly difficult to make in an environment where morality has taken leave. Second, the diplomatic fiction was directed at a domestic audience, largely ignorant of the real story and fed on a narrative of a little, poor and insignificant Rwanda. This narrative is rooted in a perception from the past, when Rwanda was indeed a lightweight country famous for sending labourers and refugees to its northern neighbour. Trouble is, Rwanda is no longer the little, poor neighbour, dependent on the bigger one for survival. Third, this was an attempt to influence media reporting, portraying Uganda’s supposed innocence and Rwanda’s belligerence. And so the government of Uganda steers clear of the real issues that are at the root of the deteriorating relations and dwells on the false story of the border closure at Gatuna and alleged espionage. The Ugandan media, even that which calls itself independent, has swallowed this line and uncharacteristically avoids reporting anything that contradicts it even when they know it to be true. Dr Sezibera, on the other hand, did not have to create a false narrative. He only took the diplomats on a tour of the country’s attractions. He followed the proven Rwandan way: of providing evidence and facts on which judgement can be based. Then three days ago, the same differences in approach to issues were on show again following the killing of two men, a Rwandan and a Ugandan at the border. Both the Uganda Police, in a statement, and the ministry of foreign affairs, in a Note Verbale, accused Rwanda’s security forces of incursion into their territory and murdering two people. In what seems to have become standard practice, the media in Uganda reported the contents of the diplomatic note before it was delivered to Rwanda. Remember President Museveni’s letter to President Kagame in March that was in the Ugandan media before it got to its destination? Again the intention is clear: shape the narrative, make Rwanda appear the aggressor and so prepare the Ugandan public for possible reprisal. Rwanda’s response to the same incident gave more details of what had actually happened, the circumstances surrounding it, and the steps taken by administrative and security organs of both countries in the affected area. And so we had two sets of tales: one to hide facts, the other to expose the truth; another to create a casus belli where it does not exist, the other to defuse tension and promote harmony. And that’s the essential difference. The views expressed in this article are of the author.
