Five questions for our donor friends

Two years ago, at the height of Presidential elections, the Western media painted a gloomy picture on the situation in Rwanda and portrayed this nation as one headed into a deep ditch.The hostility was so ferocious. Headline after headline with content that pointed to a nation on the verge of collapse or at the brink of war. To an outsider, Rwanda was headed for the gallows.That came and passed.Fast forward and two years later this hostility has re-emerged. This time, seemingly well coordinated from a command post manned by the so-called human rights organization. The western media which parades itself as the icon of impartiality, accuracy, balance and non-judgmental is again doing the opposite by ganging up against Rwanda over some flimsy accusations. None has taken time to independently verify these allegations.Somehow, Rwanda seems to have gotten used to this open hostility. However, what is different this time round is when rumours are relied upon to shape decisions that affect inter-state cooperation as the case with the recent move to either delay or hold aid to Rwanda.And for this I want to pose a few questions to our donor friends.First: Since time immemorial, we have learnt to believe that the values of fair justice are values that these developed nations hold in high esteem. Any injustice in whatever form and wherever it might be implanted is simply fought because their society is built of a firm foundation of these values. But here comes a scenario where the Accuser is at the same time the Prosecutor and again the Judge as we see in the report of the Group of Experts (GoE) and our friends decide to keep a blind eye towards this injustice.The GoE report is very clear on who they lined up for interviews. DRC intelligence sources, anonymous Congolese officials, defecting rebels, Prisoners of War---all whose impartiality or credibility is highly questionable. The so-called experts did not waste any minute getting a voice from the accused and from onset, Rwanda is rendered guilty. Therefore by hastily holding Aid based on such one-sided report, the principle of innocence untill proven guilty is lost on Rwanda. Which begs the question, if this is not the worst form of injustice, then what is?Second: Let’s play the devil’s advocate---blind ourselves and go by the rumours that Rwanda has a soft spot for these M-23 rebels. We all know that Congo is home to a cocktail of rebels including the notorious FDLR that is listed as a terrorist group by the Americans.How come it is normal to extend support to FDLR and a sin to have any links with M-23? Why would you crucify one for speaking to M-23 and deliberately ignore the one arming and financing the FDLR? Why does the GoE report mention nothing about the FDLR? Again if this is not the worst case of double standards, then what is?Third: As far as I know, this country is not governed by a bunch of rogues – the kind that will say this today and do the opposite tomorrow. It’s governed by some smart minds who stick to principles. If the decision is in the interest of this state, then it’s not in their character to back track or renegade on their promise. Why would you think that Rwanda which invested so much in cultivating and consolidating its partnership with the DRC under ‘operation umoja wetu’ eventually aim to undermine it?Fourth: When you talk about aid effectiveness, the message that cuts across is accountability for this support and effective utilization of these resources. Rwanda is a shining star when it comes to issues of aid effectiveness and hence accountability. But looking at the latest decisions, one thinks that Rwanda is being punished for doing the right thing? What has support going to agriculture, health or education got to do with rebels in DRC? Who says aid cut to Rwanda is a gate-pass to peace in DRC?Finally, we’ve all heard that this was an interim report meant to be completed with Rwanda’s position. Why then the rush to release a draft report whose content makes a good script for a Hollywood movie? Why didn’t our development partners accord Rwanda the chance to respond and base their decision on fair ground? The whole thing looks suspicious and makes one wonder whether it has anything to do with the rebels alone. M-23 is a mere smokescreen.The bitter truth is that we still need this aid. We will still be tossed around like door-mats for the sake of keeping these taps flowing. The only motivation we get from such gestures is a determination to work hard and commitment to weaning Rwanda off aid in the near future.On twitter @aasiimwe

Opinions

Five questions for our donor friends