Saturday, July 28, 2012

M7 Supports M23 Insurgency

Today William Wallis and Katrina Manson quote a 'Senior official' from the great lakes region in the Financial Times who claims that ridiculing Kagame isn't the way to get him to do things. This senior donor official goes on to assert that withdrawing money, as the US did, was the wrong move, they should have asked Kagame to rein in the rebels and states:
'Kagame is the only one in this region who can make this happen. In Congo, Kagame is the game changer, not Kabila'
No further details are given on the background of this senior donor official. In light of suspension of aid by the Netherlands and the statements and actions by the US I assume senior officials from these countries don't contradict their government's policies. We can also exclude the Nordic countries, along with India, while these countries called to delay the cash transfer due to concerns raised in the UN report (as quoted in previous article by William Wallis and Katrina Manson).
The senior donor official isn't from the  the Foreign and Commonwealth office either, as we can deduct from that same article by William Wallis, Katrina Manson and Matt Steinglass. Likely neither from Germany, which decided today to suspend aid to Rwanda as well.
This same senior official goes on to claim the only restraining force in the region is Rwanda and that the UN isn't going to do anything. It makes me very curious to know who this 'senior donor official' might be.

Dutch journalist Koert Lindijer mentioned the argument by this 'senior official' that we supposedly need Kagame to rein in the rebels and added that the Netherlands has apparently decided otherwise.
However, the argument that we need Kagame to rein in the rebels in Kivu fails to take into account the role Uganda and Burundi are playing in the region. Uganda's President Museveni claimed at the African Union meeting in Adis Ababa:
'The problem in Congo is not Rwanda. It is internal. Congo has been messed up by the United Nations and other international players'
Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda represent a majority in the East African Community and could well be coordinating their diplomacy in the region. Uganda might even be supplying troops to the M23 insurgency. At the same time several Ugandan (online) journalists are heavily involved in spreading Museveni's version of panafricanism which blames 'the west' for everything that goes on in Africa in general, and Congo in particular.
To get an idea of the rhetoric coming out of Uganda and Rwanda, read the article by Rwandan Anglican bishop John Rucyahana, organiser of the M23 insurgency and leader of a Intore re-education camp, posted (again ?) on the website of The New Times last week:
'Africa’s leaders should wake up and shake off the colonial imposition bequeathed on her by the Western world and learn to work and fight for African dignity and restoration.
The African Union should endeavor to correct all mistakes done on Africa with all the energy within its power and ability. Those damages which are thought to be beyond repair can be redeemed productively.
For example, the problem of Congo is uncalled for, and D.R. Congo alone has the duty to put an end to the strife. If the Congolese do not recognise the people in Eastern Congo as their fellow Congolese, the African Union should give them the option for a referendum to choose where they should belong.
Finally, the African Union should redeem its dignity and shape Africa’s destiny and stop being manipulated and exploited by her former colonial exploiters.
In conclusion, Africa should condemn very strongly and reject the European effort to re-colonize Africa by use of International Courts and other means being used to threaten the Sovereignty of African leadership.'
Doesn't sound like someone who is interested in spreading the gospel. Was the Anglican church in Uganda and Rwanda hijacked by revolutionaries during the nineties? It certainly is a possibility we shouldn't discard.

No comments: