UN Report Leads to more Fallout against Rwanda

Pressure is building on Britain to follow the lead of the Dutch and Swedish governments and end direct budget support to Rwanda. Richard Dowden, the director of the Royal African Society, today joined The Economist in arguing that Rwanda's support of Nkunda, as revealed in the UN's just-published report by the Group of Experts on the DRC, is too serious a violation to countenance. Writing in The Independent, he says that "Kagame denies he [Nkunda] is a Rwanda proxy but the UN report shows he uses Rwandan banks and has had direct support from the army. It also shows how Nkunda's forces operate out of Rwandan territory and recruit soldiers from its army." Whatever claim Kagame makes to be protecting Congo's Tutsi minority, says Dowden, is "undermined by Nkunda's grab for the region's wealth."

The Dutch and Swedes have already announced they will no longer provide direct budget support to Rwanda. Kagame responded to their action by upping the ante: Surviving on handouts is too unreliable, he announced; it was time for Rwandans to prepare themselves for a life after aid. Rwanda's English-language daily The New Times mocked the two EU states for reducing aid even as the EU as a whole was increasing its support for Rwanda: "Now, here is the hilarious bit, both the Dutch and the Swedes, are major contributors to the overall EU budget." We'll see if the New Times' editors still think it's hilarious if Britain cuts its support.

The Economist "Gets It"

The Economist, in an article titled "Paying for Murder," shows that it understands the implications of the latest UN Expert Group report:

Rwanda has often intervened in Congo, arguing that it has done so to protect Congolese Tutsis and to hunt down those Hutus responsible for the genocide. This has evoked the sympathy of foreigners, particularly in the United States and Britain, who have chosen not to examine Rwanda’s actions in Congo too closely.

The UN report makes it impossible for them to look away. Rwanda’s support for the CNDP is fuelling much of the violence. General Nkunda deserves to be in the dock at The Hague for war crimes. The report also shows that both General Nkunda’s lot and the main Congolese-backed Hutu militia, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, have links with mining companies. Both extort large sums of money from mines they control. They also do illegal mining, from which Rwanda profits as well. The booty helps pay the militias to fight, giving them good reason to carry on the conflict.

Rwanda’s government, in particular, depends heavily on Western aid; in the past five years it has received more than $1.6 billion. That should stop until Mr Kagame starts to restrain General Nkunda and his militia. The Dutch and Swedes have given a lead, cancelling their aid to Rwanda in protest against its government’s backing of the murderous general. Other governments, notably Britain’s, which is Rwanda’s single biggest backer, should do likewise until Mr Kagame changes his ways.

The benefit of having The Economist on board is enormous. The recommendations of human rights groups can be marginalized, no matter how accurately they document the abuses. (And I can testify that calls to tighten the screws on Kagame have been treated as a non-starter for most of the past decade--at least in the US.) But once the Economist endorses an idea, it automatically achieves a certain level of respectability. It stops being a non-starter and enters the realm of the possible.