As Israel marked 60 years of existence, world leaders gathered in Jerusalem to congratulate Israelites, but also to exchange views on how to tackle challenges the world community faces.
In a forum called “Facing Tomorrow”, globalisation, its pros and cons took centre stage.
Our own President Paul Kagame was there to reiterate Rwanda’s vision, stating that joining “regional partners in strengthening regional infrastructure and beyond for realising greater integration – which is the pathway for reaping more dividends from globalisation”, is a national priority.
Over all he appreciated how, like never before, individual world units are interdependent on knowledge, human intellect and talent, technology, investment, innovation, trade and finance.
While these are not evenly distributed, Kagame acknowledged the opportunities offered by globalisation to the less privileged communities to tap into the wealth of the developed ones.
On the other hand he lamented the bully stance sometimes taken by some among the powerful against the weak, calling it arrogance and urging fellow leaders who do not subscribe to the concept of ‘more-equal-rights for the rich’ to resist it.
The other critical characteristic of the muscular world is the ability to ignore the weak when calamity strikes. This indifference, however, bad as it is, is not as immoral as attempting to suppress those who against all odds try to rise above their hopelessness.
The most vivid example is Rwanda’s suffering the Genocide in 1994 because countries with resources to prevent or stop it after it had started, preferred to look the other way. Rwandans mobilized themselves to stop it, but in the process paid a heavy price of more than one million lives.
Out there people were saying it was our business. However, it becomes unthinkable when some among the fence-sitters extend their jurisdictions to indict Rwandan leaders who are busy steering their country out of the genocide ditch.
This globalisation of jurisdictions is one trend that we must resist with passion. We wish it was administered not only by the rich against the poor, but amongst the rich as well. Then we would call it less absurd.