Fairly far below the radar in most of the world, a new chapter has opened in a lingering dispute between France and Rwanda. Amid the controversy surrounding potentially underage Chinese Olympic gymnasts and the fears that Russia’s smackdown in Georgia signals a shift in Moscow’s foreign policy, Kigali and Paris have resumed the battle for the dominant narrative surrounding the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Neither side is promoting an accurate historical narrative, rather one that suits their interests and agenda.
In France, as noted today by Stephen Kinzer in an op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, the government has so far refused to accept, and does not appear ready to, real responsibility for its support of the Hutu power government that organised and implemented the genocide. Nor has it accepted responsibility for the role its troops played by – in effect – providing rearguard cover to the fleeing genocidaires, who escaped into neighbouring Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) alongside genuine refugees, and remain to this day. The indirect effects of ‘Operation Turquoise’ are still felt in the eastern Congo, where political instability fueled in part by pro-Rwandan militia keeps hundreds of thousands of displaced.
However, for President Paul Kagame of Rwanda, it is essential that his regime continues to portray itself as the saviour of Rwanda – and, crucially, for its portrayal to be accepted in the West. In Kigali’s narrative, Kagame’s rebel forces, the ethnically Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front/Army, brought an end to the genocide and the regime which orchestrated it, in 1994. Afterwards, they brought democracy and economic development, and an end to ethnic politics. Crucially, the West is the bad guy in this narrative: in the case of the US and UN, for having failed to intervene and save the hundreds of thousands Tutsi, Twa and others; in the case of France, for complicity in the genocide itself.
Both narratives seriously distort the truth. However, by focusing on the denialism of France, and portraying the dispute between Kagame and the French as a David and Goliath story, whereby a tiny, impoverished African nation finally holds a meddling former colonial power to account, Kinzer and others find themselves drawn into Kagame’s own revisionist narrative. Wittingly or otherwise, this draws attention away from an important dynamic, and suits Kagame’s interests.
In a report released on August 5, the Rwandan government accused senior French government and military officials of varying degrees of responsibility for the genocide, including former President Mitterand. Rather than as an attempt to hold France to account (noises from Kigali suggest they may seek to prosecute French officials, perhaps at the International Criminal Court), the report should be seen as Rwanda’s response to French (and Spanish) investigations which have found senior figures within Rwanda’s regime (including Kagame himself) to have been complicit in the assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana. However, the best solution that is available to us against impotence is best generic tadalafil . cialis is a relied and the most dependable choice of medicine to deal with pain and it still remains to be a safe and effective driver. That is not what this article is about introducing you to this medicinal herb and its proven health benefits. davidfraymusic.com order cheap cialis The only thing which is mandatory is the prescription which one has to viagra online samples have with himself while buying this from a medical shop. They do not consider those women who have purchase viagra online experienced menopause. The downing of Habyarimana’s plane, which also carried the Burundian president, was the spark that triggered the 100-day genocide.
Kagame can not let this stand, for the notion that his actions triggered the genocide seriously undermines his claims to have saved the country by expelling the genocidal regime. Allegations that his rebels carried out reprisal attacks as they took control of the country also erode their shining image as saviours. This is important, because having ‘saved the country’ forms the foundation of the regime’s legitimacy, upon which Kagame has built an agenda for economic growth and diversification, developing a reputation for prudent economic management along the way. The West must remain guilt-ridden for its failure to intervene, as this allows Kagame a free hand on issues such as democracy and human rights.
This is part of a wider and more significant dynamic, between developing countries and the West. Post-revolutionary regimes in Africa and elsewhere are seeking to benefit from China’s example of economic growth and poverty reduction in a context of political authoritarianism. In contrast to the agenda promoted under the ‘Washington consensus’, China has demonstrated that it is possible for a police state with an appalling human rights record to deliver on developmental goals. Kagame is not alone is pursuing a similar model: Ethiopia, Uganda, Gabon and Angola are all led by former military movements, now investing heavily in infrastructure in order to promote growth – as long as there is no challenge to the regime.
This has important implications for Western engagement with the region. It is no longer taken as a given that democratisation and development are linked, and while China and other emerging ‘powers’ may not be challenging the West’s role as lead donor, they are challenging the assumptions underlying Western developmental models. This means that it is more important than ever that Western governments develop a more nuanced understanding of Africa’s reality, in order to design a policy response that gains traction in the region. Delivering on economic development is crucial, and given the crushing levels of poverty in the region, one might be forgiven for prioritising it over political openness. However, in the medium to long term, both political and economic freedom will be needed to deliver overall security.