I admire the writer’s enthusiasm and of course his vision. However, when you started your piece, you inquired whether Rwanda was a landlocked country?
Believe me, I am not going to take you through some undergrad geography lessons, I’m sure you’re well informed. What I want to point out is that a country such as Rwanda with no immediate access to the seas/oceans, you name it, suffers immensely.
You provide IT as the answer, but I disagree. IT is not going to be the answer for every Rwandan problem. If we implant that as our everyday solution, we are bound to suffer the same fate as Panasonic (story for another day).
Presenting a problem of landlocked should not be accompanied by IT as a solution. There are more practical ideas that can link us to the waters for easy and speedy business processes. I am talking about investing in railways. This is one way that could cut transport costs in shreds, save time and offer employment opportunities in due course.
Now, in this case, IT can be a facilitator of the process, but not the main prerequisite! I guess what I am saying is that in Rwanda we are in danger of ironically “copying”.
Jay, London, United Kingdom
Reaction to Carlos Mwizerwa’s commentary, “Rwanda can rise above challenges of being landlocked”, (The New Times, July 30)
IT can never be the answer for every Rwandan problem