Rwanda : Reflections from a Safe Distance - By Dr. Vincent Degennaro

http://magazine.nd.edu/news/36205-global-doc-safe-distance/

-- 
 
 

Global Doc: Safe distance

BY DR. VINCENT DEGENNARO JR. '02 

PUBLISHED: DECEMBER 12, 2012 POSTED IN: ALUMNI BLOGS AND SOCIETY & CULTURE 

I don't like Rwanda. I never have. It's taken me a long time to admit that, but I'm finally comfortable with it. Of the 40 or so countries I have been to, Rwanda may be the only one I didn't like. To be fair, it is the only country outside the United States where I have ever spent more than three months, and that kind of proximity and intimacy allowed me to get to know the country from many different angles, including the ugly underbelly.

It has nothing to do with living without the creature comforts of hot showers, sleeping in different beds every night or constantly being eaten by bugs. Working in global health for the last 10 years, I've long since become accustomed to living with a different standard than in the United States, and it never really bothered me to begin with. In fact, living in Rwanda is much easier than places like Honduras, where there is a constant worry for personal safety, or Haiti, where you can't rent a decent air- conditioned hotel room no matter how much money you have. Rwanda, especially Kigali, is "developing country lite," a good place to get your feet wet in global health and development work that offers proximity to the poor with most of the comforts of home.

Something about Rwanda struck me as off from when I first arrived, a constant unease, a feeling like wearing an overly starched shirt. There was an immediate sensation of being in Pleasantville, a perfect place on the surface with a dark soul. I initially shrugged it off as a remnant of the genocide, a ghost from the past that still haunted the present. Later, I started chasing the dark spirits down the corridors of the hospital, but they always stayed just out of reach. As more attention focused on my work in treating cancer patients, the spirits stopped hiding in the shadows and eventually started pursuing me.

I like the Rwandan people — honest, generous, and loyal — but a heavy emphasis is placed on race, albeit under the surface. More than any other country of dark-skinned people, Rwanda made me feel odd, like an animal in a zoo. No matter where I went, Rwandans stopped whatever they were doing, stared as I walked by and, without fail, said, mzungu (white person or foreigner). The contrast in skin color is just as great in Haiti and Uganda, but only rarely in those places have I been stared at or greeted with the equivalent of mzungu. There was little, if any, malice behind the singling out of foreigners in Rwanda, and maybe Rwandans were simply more open about their acknowledgement of the differences between us, staring instead of casting sidelong glances, but it was constant, making me feel less welcome, less like they believed in our common humanity.

Rwandans follow orders and procedures to a fault, even if the rules contradict their own self-interest. On some level, the consistency was comforting, knowing that every form must have every box checked, that deadlines would be strictly adhered to. Frequently, however, the inflexibility was maddening and interfered with the care given to patients, as adherence to the procedures and rules trumped a patient's life. As a doctor, I could not stand to watch patients die because of regulations, and my big mouth repeatedly landed me in trouble for speaking my mind.

Rwanda is the darling of the international donor community — progressive, organized and largely devoid of corruption, and most members of the government genuinely care for their people. On the other hand, the government does not tolerate dissent, to the point of paranoia, and they can be capricious in decision-making. Writing that sentence, I'm afraid for my friends with whom I worked that are still in the country, and genuinely worried that the government might react negatively to the organization I worked for. They are obsessed with the outward perception of their performance, and dissonance is not tolerated in Rwandan culture on any level. The Rwandan government doctors statistics on health indicators to impress their donors, and since they generally rank low on the corruption scale, the statistics are often accepted by donors as fact.The New York Times and Boston Globe have called them out for the practice, but they have stuck by their inflated figures, and little has changed.

Recently, rebels in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, supported financially and militarily by the Rwandan government, restarted a campaign of raping and pillaging, largely over disputes of who controls the rights to the diamond and gold mines in the border region. The Rwandan government denies any responsibility, but the international community has condemned their actions and withdrawn some of the financial aid that makes up half of the Rwandan government's budget. As the foreign funding disappeared, the health budgets were cut, resulting in doctor and nurse shortages in the rural areas. Rather than pull back their support for the rebels, the Rwandan government doubled down and started a "solidarity fund" to replace the funds through domestic sources. Officials strongly suggested, stopping just short of an order, that everyone in the country donate 10 percent of their annual salary, more than a month's paycheck, to the fund. The government held charity auctions with the rich and powerful of Rwanda, each trying to demonstrate their patriotic zeal, but really hoping to secure their company's access to business, none of which gets passed without government approval.

Rwanda is in significantly better shape than many of their neighbors because of the singularity of purpose of the government, but at what cost? The feeling of being watched and the permanent unease that enveloped me for 18 months in Rwanda has melted away; I've traded it for feelings of constant insecurity in Haiti. It is entirely possible that I will never be welcomed back in Rwanda if the wrong person reads this diatribe, and I'm finally at peace with that.

---

For more information, visit:
BBC, Boston Globe, NY Times

---

Vincent DeGennaro is an internal medicine doctor and a global public health specialist in the Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School. See his An American Doctor in Rwanda blogs.

Growing Support for Peace in the Congo

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here Growing Support for Peace in the Congo The capture of Goma by the Rwanda-backed M23 militia in November sent shock waves throughout the Congo and the Great Lakes Region of Africa. Due in large part to external pressure, the militia returned control of the city to the Congolese government and peace talks have begun between the M23 and the government. However, the M23 militia remain within miles of the city and is believed to have many of its men in the city disguised as civilians. Moreover, M23 is still in control of several other key cities that they have captured in the North Kivu province of the Congo. The United Nations Group of Experts (GOE) reported that Rwandan Defence Forces participated in the  capture of the city of Goma  as they have in previous cities taken by M23. "Throughout  its  current  mandate,  the  Group  has  repeatedly  concluded  that  the  Government  of Rwanda  (GoR) ,  with  the  support  of  allies  within  the  Government  of  Uganda,  has  created, equipped,  trained,  advised,  reinforced  and  directly  commanded  the  M23  rebellion.  The information initially gathered by the Group regarding the recent offensive and seizure of the North Kivu Provincial town of Goma strongly upholds this conclusion."  Click here (PDF) for report! Despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating Rwanda's involvement and command of the M23 militia, the response from the international community remains tepid and inadequate. Peace talks, resolutions, reports, summits and Congressional hearings may be held, however, stability will be unattainable if the illicit networks and militia backed by Rwanda and Uganda are not dismantled. The lack of political will at the international level to hold accountable the key leaders responsible for the instability and suffering in the region (particularly Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Joseph Kabila of DRC) has helped to perpetuate the conflict in eastern Congo. Friends of the Congo spokesperson, Kambale Musavuli shares in a New York Times Room For Debate commentary and on Al Jazeera's Inside Story the role the international community can play to help advance peace and stability in the region. We are quickly approaching the global consensus needed for concrete and meaningful action to be taken to fully address the crisis in the Congo. The pressure must be kept up at every conceivable level of the international community to keep Congo on the agenda until the country is set on a path to peace and stability. Visit FOTC's, Congo crisis section to participate in ongoing actions and access the latest updates, news, reports, resolutions and events.  Please see below recent developments as the momentum grows: 1. U.N. Ambassador Questioned on U.S. Role in Congo Violence,    By Helene Cooper, New York Times Read>> 2. The United Nations Group of Experts send letter to the Security Council documenting Rwanda's role in the capture of the city of Goma Read (PDF)>> 3. United Nations Security Council extends sanctions on M23 militia Read>> 4. United States Senate voted to sanction those helping M23 in Eastern Congo  Read>> 5. The United Kingdom withholds £21m million in aid to Rwanda Read>> 6. Southern African Development Community tackles Congo Crisis Read>> 7. The African Union Peace and Security Council Communique on DRC Read>> 8. Council of European Union Statement on the DRC Read>> 9. United States Congressional Hearing on the DRC Watch>> Read testimony by Asst. Sec. of State for Africa, Johnnie Carson>> Read other Congressional Testimonies>> 10. Africans Act 4 Africans call on African leaders to stand up for Congo Read>> Support the work of Friends of the Congo by making a financial contribution: Join the global movement in support of the Congo. Keep abreast of the latest updates via Twitter. Join us on Wednesday, December 19 for Congo Holiday Benefit Concert & Mixer in New York City Friends of the Congo Friends of the Congo email: info@friendsofthecongo.org phone: 202-584-6512 web: http://www.friendsofthecongo.org   Forward email   Friends of the Congo | 1629 K street, NW | Suite 300 | Washington | DC | 20006

http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/12/congo-and-the-making-of-canadian-foreign-policy/   Congo and the Making of Canadian Foreign Policy by Yves Engler / December 11th, 2012 Thank you, Julian Fantino. The International Co-operation Minister caused a ruckus last week when he said that the Canadian International Development Agency should actively promote the country's interests abroad rather than primarily focus on poverty reduction. Fantino defended "aid" that was given to groups partnering with Canadian companies building mines around the world. He said CIDA has "a duty and a responsibility to ensure that Canadian interests are promoted." While some commentators suggested the former Toronto police chief stuck his foot in his mouth, we should thank Fantino for his comments because they raise some important questions that Canadians seldom talk about. How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid? As the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy I know the answers to these questions can be controversial and complex. A short essay is certainly inadequate to properly address the subject. But a short story about Canada's relationship with one of the poorest countries in the world might help answer these questions. According to the CIA, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the planet's lowest (228th in the world) per capita Gross Domestic Product. Coincidently (perhaps), this same country, Africa's largest by land mass, may possess more mineral wealth ($24 trillion by one calculation) than any other. So, what sort of relationship does Canada, home to the most mining companies in the world, have with the Congo? Since April 2012, Rwanda has reasserted its military control over a large chunk of the Congo. Rwandan troops and the M23 militia group it sponsors recently captured Goma, a city of a million people in the mineral rich east part of the country. While Rwanda's proxies have now withdrawn to the outskirts of Goma, top officials in the city and province have been removed in place of individuals more sympathetic to Kigali (the capital of Rwanda). In one of a number of insightful reports the Globe and Mail's Geoffrey York notes "a [new] layer of administrators, informers, police and other operatives [have been put in place] who will bolster M23's economic power in the city — including their grip on the trade in 'blood minerals'." Rwanda's actions in the Congo have already led to significant suffering. About 650,000 people have been displaced from their homes over the past seven months and there have been many reports of looting, rapes and assassinations. In the days after Goma was captured the Red Cross said it picked up 62 bodies from the city's streets. An ally of Washington and London, Paul Kagame's Rwanda government has repeatedly invaded the Congo over the past 16 years. In the worst instance, a 1998 Rwandan (and Ugandan) invasion sparked a multi country war that lasted five years and caused millions of deaths. Peer-reviewed studies by the International Rescue Committee found that up to 5.4 million people were killed as a result of the conflict. An October 2010 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the Congo from 1993 to 2003 charged Rwandan troops with engaging in mass killings "that might be classified as crimes of genocide." Ottawa has been decidedly ambivalent towards the recent Rwandan-sponsored war. Over the past six months Foreign Affairs has published four press releases on the matter but only one sentence mentions Rwanda despite the UN reporting that Rwandan troops are once again involved and that the country's defence minister commands the entire operation. That sentence reads: "We are extremely concerned by continuing allegations of Rwandan support of M23 and urge the immediate cessation of any form of assistance." There is more in the four press releases that criticizes the relatively powerless Congolese government than Rwanda. In fact, one is little more than an attack against the government in Kinshasa. In a statement about "the increasing instability in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo" Foreign Affairs urges "the Congo to ensure the protection of human rights is central in their daily deliberations." With no mention of Rwanda or the M23 it goes on to state: "The rapidly rising number of displaced persons and refugees is a troubling trend and needs to be addressed immediately." Over the past year the Conservative government has produced more statements and comments critical of Congolese president Joseph Kabila than of the M23. "Canada Concerned by Post-election Situation in Democratic Republic of Congo" and "Minister of State Valcourt Encourages Reforms in Democratic Republic of Congo", noted two of the statements. During an October trip to the Francophonie summit in Kinshasa, Prime Minister Harper and his staff repeatedly complained about the Kabila government's human rights record. After meeting representatives of the political opposition Harper described the "complete unacceptability of failures in the electoral process and the abuse of human rights that are taking place in this country." While there are major question marks surrounding the legitimacy of the December 2011 Congolese poll in which Kabila was re-elected, it was certainly as free and fair as the most recent Rwandan election. But when Kagame "won" re-election in August 2010 the Conservatives' release noted that "Canada commends the people of Rwanda on participating in their country's presidential election …" The harshest criticism in the statement was that Canada was "concerned" by violence, "intimidation of political opposition" and "restrictions on the media." While Rwanda is in Ottawa's good books the Conservatives are generally hostile towards the Kabila government. Kabila angered Western countries when he signed a $6 billion resource-infrastructure deal with China in 2008. The Conservatives are also concerned about the government's move to regain control over the country's natural resources, including the $3 billion in Canadian mining investment in the Congo. During the recent Francophonie summit in Kinshasa Harper called on Kabila to improve the country's business climate, "especially in the natural resources sector." At the G8 in June 2010 the Conservatives inserted an entire declaration to the final communiqué criticizing Kinshasa's treatment of foreign investors because the Congo revoked a mining concession held by Vancouver-based First Quantum. Months earlier Ottawa began to obstruct international efforts to reschedule the country's foreign debt, which was mostly accrued during more than three decades of Joseph Mobuto's dictatorship and the subsequent war. Canadian officials "have a problem with what's happened with a Canadian company," Congolese Information Minister Lambert Mende said, referring to the government's move to revoke a mining concession that First Quantum acquired under dubious circumstances during the 1998-2003 war. "The Canadian government wants to use the Paris Club [of debtor nations] in order to resolve a particular problem," explained Mende. "This is unacceptable." But the Conservatives did not stop with trying to obstruct the Congo's debt forgiveness. They also took the issue to other international forums. The Financial Post reported: "Harper will raise the case of Vancouver-based First Quantum Minerals Ltd. with representatives from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other governments that do business in the DRC." Just the Conservatives looking after "Canadian interests" one could argue. And this pro-corporate meddling in the Congo is nothing new. It's certainly not the first time Canada has worked against the Congo's population, which remains impoverished despite almost a century and a half of foreigners "developing" the country's resources. In the early 1890s Halifax native William Stairs led a 1,950-man mission to conquer the resource-rich Katanga region of the Congo on behalf of Belgium's King Leopold II. The Royal Military College in Kingston maintains a plaque devoted to Stairs' work even though he was notoriously racist and barbarous. Some 10 million Congolese were killed under Leopold's rule. Canada also played an important role in the UN mission to the Congo that facilitated the murder of independence leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961. Apparently a Canadian officer handed Lumumba over to the CIA and Belgium operatives who would later dispose of the prime minister. We ask again: How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid?   Yves Engler is the author of Lester Pearson's Peacekeeping: The Truth May Hurt. His latest book is The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper's foreign policy. Read other articles by Yves, or visit Yves's website.   This article was posted on Tuesday, December 11th, 2012 at 8:00am and is filed under "Aid", Canada, Democratic Rep. Congo, Mining, Rwanda, Terrorism (state and retail).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/susan-rice-and-africas-despots.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&smid=fb-share&adxnnlx=1355311597-3%2Fux+xCgMre1yHBVtU1CWQ&   Op-Ed Contributor Susan Rice and Africa's Despots By SALEM SOLOMON Published: December 9, 2012 ON Sept. 2, Ambassador Susan E. Rice delivered a eulogy for a man she called "a true friend to me." Before thousands of mourners and more than 20 African heads of state in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Ms. Rice, the United States' representative to the United Nations, lauded the country's late prime minister, Meles Zenawi. She called him "brilliant" — "a son of Ethiopia and a father to its rebirth." Few eulogies give a nuanced account of the decedent's life, but the speech was part of a disturbing pattern for an official who could become President Obama's next secretary of state. During her career, she has shown a surprising and unsettling sympathy for Africa's despots. This record dates from Ms. Rice's service as assistant secretary of state for African affairs under President Bill Clinton, who in 1998 celebrated a "new generation" of African leaders, many of whom were ex-rebel commanders; among these leaders were Mr. Meles, Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Jerry J. Rawlings of Ghana, Thabo Mbeki of South Africa and Yoweri K. Museveni of Uganda. "One hundred years from now your grandchildren and mine will look back and say this was the beginning of an African renaissance," Mr. Clinton said in Accra, Ghana, in March 1998. In remarks to a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that year, Ms. Rice was equally breathless about the continent's future. "There is a new interest in individual freedom and a movement away from repressive, one-party systems," she said. "It is with this new generation of Africans that we seek a dynamic, long-term partnership for the 21st century." Her optimism was misplaced. In the 14 years since, many of these leaders have tried on the strongman's cloak and found that it fit nicely. Mr. Meles dismantled the rule of law, silenced political opponents and forged a single-party state. Mr. Isaias, Mr. Kagame and Mr. Museveni cling to their autocratic power. Only Mr. Rawlings and Mr. Mbeki left office willingly. Ms. Rice's enthusiasm for these leaders might have blinded her to some of their more questionable activities. Critics, including Howard W. French, a former correspondent for The New York Times, say that in the late 1990s, Ms. Rice tacitly approved of an invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo that was orchestrated by Mr. Kagame of Rwanda and supported by Mr. Museveni of Uganda. In The New York Review of Books in 2009, Mr. French reported that witnesses had heard Ms. Rice describe the two men as the best insurance against genocide in the region. "They know how to deal with that," he reported her as having said. "The only thing we have to do is look the other way." Ms. Rice has denied supporting the invasion. More recently, according to Jason K. Stearns, a scholar of the region, Ms. Rice temporarily blocked a United Nations report documenting Rwanda's support for the M23 rebel group now operating in eastern Congo, and later moved to delete language critical of Rwanda and Uganda from a Security Council resolution. "According to former colleagues, she feels that more can be achieved by constructive engagement, not public censure," Mr. Stearns wrote recently on Foreign Policy's Web site. Ms. Rice's relationship with Mr. Meles — which dates from 1998, when she was a mediator in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to prevent war between Eritrea and Ethiopia — also calls her judgment into question. In fairness, in her eulogy, Ms. Rice said she differed with Mr. Meles on questions like democracy and human rights. But if so, the message did not get through; under Mr. Meles during the past 15 years, democracy and the rule of law in Ethiopia steadily deteriorated. Ethiopia imprisoned dissidents and journalists, used food aid as a political tool, appropriated vast sections of land from its citizens and prevented the United Nations from demarcating its border with Eritrea. Meanwhile, across multiple administrations, the United States has favored Ethiopia as an ally and a perceived bulwark against extremism in the region. In 2012 the nation received $580 million in American foreign aid. Eritrea is no innocent. It has closed itself off, stifled dissent and forced its young people to choose between endless military service at home and seeking asylum abroad. But I believe that the Security Council, with Ms. Rice's support, went too far in imposing sanctions on Eritrea in 2009 for supporting extremists. President Obama has visited sub-Saharan Africa just once in his first term — a brief stop in Ghana. One signal that he plans to focus more on Africa — and on human rights and democracy, not only economic development and geopolitics — in his next term would be to nominate someone other than Susan Rice as America's top diplomat. Salem Solomon is an Eritrean-American journalist who runs Africa Talks, a news and opinion Web site covering Africa and the global African diaspora. A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 10, 2012, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: Susan Rice and Africa's Despots.

US Guilt Over The Rwandan Genocide Is Leading To Another Bloody Foreign Policy Disaster

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-guilt-over-the-genocide-in-rwanda-is-leading-to-another-foreign-policy-failure-2012-12     How US Guilt Over The Rwandan Genocide Is Leading To Another Bloody Foreign Policy Disaster Chris McGreal, The Guardian | Dec. 12, 2012, 1:53 PM | 467 | 1 inShare0 Email More Share on Tumblr 0 inShare Email Share on Tumblr digg AP Photo/Brennan Linsley Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) soldiers look at the coffin containing Staff Sgt. Edward Mugenzi, a comrade killed the previous day by Interhamwe guerrillas at Gisenyi army barracks, in Rwanda's troubled northern region, Sunday, August 17, 1997. Eurozone crisis live: EU clinches breakthrough deal on banking union What is love? Five theories on the greatest emotion of all | The panel Sally Bercow faces Lord McAlpine high court battle Syria conflict: Assad fires Scuds - live updates Government pays Libyan dissident's family £2.2m over MI6-aided rendition The United States is allowing one tragic foreign policy failure to compound another. Eighteen years ago, President Bill Clinton watched passively as the Hutu extremist regime in Rwanda oversaw the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. His administration refused even to utter the word genocide for fear it would oblige the US to intervene. Clinton wasn't alone. One of the leaders of the Tutsi rebels fighting the genocidal regime told me at the time that during his attempts to persuade the UK government to intervene at the UN, he concluded that British officials regarded the Tutsi victims as little more than ants. The French spent their time trying to get the UN to authorize action that would have propped up the Hutu extremist leadership because they feared the alternative would diminish Paris's influence in central Africa. The aftermath was a searing experience for Clinton, his Africa gurus and national security advisers – one of whom is now the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, who may well replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state – that has continued to shape American policy toward Rwanda. When the fighting ended, the true cost of western inaction was laid bare at the mass graves. The scale of the killing was mind-boggling. I saw it first hand a church in the small town of Kibuye, where 11,000 were murdered in a single day and 10,000 more were killed the following day in the football stadium. So it was only natural that, driven by a large dose of guilt, the US, Britain and other western countries – although, tellingly, not France – should throw their backing behind the man who put an end to the genocide and promised to build a new Rwanda: Paul Kagame. Nearly two decades later, though, guilt over the genocide has led the west to stand by while another crime is committed – this time, by Kagame and his forces in neighboring Congo, where they are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, some say millions. Finally, Britain and Europe are waking up to this, following the comprehensive UN investigation charting Rwanda's role in creating and arming a Congolese rebel group, M23, led by a man wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges. But the US still hesitates to tell Kagame that one crime does not justify another. The Rwandan leader inherited an incredibly difficult situation in 1994. As a Tutsi, he was viewed with suspicion by the Hutu majority, which feared retribution. Kagame had not only to rebuild the country but to bring the guilty to justice, with meager resources, while promoting reconciliation and ridding his country of officially sanctioned anti-Tutsi hatred. He has done better than might have been expected given the obstacles he faced. Early on, Kagame also had to contend with the Hutu extremist forces, which fled into what was then neighboring Zaire and continued to threaten Rwanda. Washington and London were unflinching in their support when, in 1996, Rwanda invaded Zaire to clear the sprawling UN refugee camps that housed the genocidal forces running murderous cross-border raids and threatening to kick start a new genocide. That invasion was justified – but support for Kagame should have been tempered by the actions of his army, which hunted down and massacred Hutus who failed to return to the Rwanda. Many of them could be regarded as a legitimate enemy. But many were not, including the thousands of women and children slaughtered by the Rwandan military and its proxies. This was also the start of the mass rape by armed groups that has since plagued eastern Congo. The Rwandan military, with its allies from Uganda and Burundi, then turned to the extremely lucrative plunder of Congo's valuable minerals. That was the point at which the US and Britain should have made a stand. Instead, they turned a blind eye. It was right that the west's policy should be guided by guilt over the original genocide. It was right to support Rwanda's reconstruction. But that tiny country's future and the stability of central Africa have not been served by Washington and London's years of unquestioning support of Kagame on the grounds that he has a good record on reconstruction and development (in expanding rural healthcare, getting children into school and building programmes to help small-scale family farmers), while all but ignoring what he is doing across Rwanda's western border. The Americans and the British have more recently been prepared to chide Kagame privately for closing down political space – which means no effective opposition has been allowed to develop to challenge his lengthy rule. Opponents have been jailed on the spurious grounds of spreading genocide ideology, and dissenters have been driven into exile. But on Rwanda's involvement in Congo, there has been virtual silence. Who knows how many have died there – some studies put it in the millions – but various forces allied to the Rwandans have been responsible for years of murder, mass rape and forms of ethnic cleansing. This is tragic in its own right. But it is also not good for Rwanda's future because it is contributing to the very instability it says it intervened in Congo to prevent. After 15 years of invasions, insurgencies and trauma, a generation is emerging in eastern Congo that blames Rwanda for its suffering. And when those Congolese talk about Rwandans in this context, they often mean Tutsis. Kagame has influential friends. Bill Clinton continues to defend him, describing Kagame as "one of the greatest leaders of our time" and Rwanda as "the best-run nation in Africa". It's hard to imagine that view doesn't have some influence on his wife, the US secretary of state. Similarly, Rwanda policy is also strongly influenced by Susan Rice, who has spoken of her deep regret at her part in American inaction during the genocide. Kagame also has a strong supporter in Tony Blair, who runs a foundation in Rwanda, which places officials in the president's policy unit, the prime minister's office and the cabinet secretariat. Two years ago, I asked Blair about Kagame. The former British prime minister called the Rwandan president a "visionary leader" and a friend. He said allowances had to be made for the consequences of the genocide and suggested Kagame's economic record outweighed other concerns: "I'm a believer in and a supporter of Paul Kagame. I don't ignore all those criticisms, having said that. But I do think you've got to recognize that Rwanda is an immensely special case because of the genocide. Secondly, you can't argue with the fact that Rwanda has gone on a remarkable path of development. Every time I visit Kigali and the surrounding areas you can just see the changes being made in the country." But a sound economic policy hardly justifies the years of abuses in Congo. Rwanda has legitimate concerns about who and what is across its border. The remnants of the Hutu extremist forces are still there, twisting a new generation with a genocidal ideology dressed up as a liberation struggle. The Congolese government has not proved able, or particularly willing, to assert its authority over the region. But Kagame, for all his denials about intervention in Congo, is contributing to that instability and the continued suffering of large numbers of Congolese, while jeopardizing his own country's future. Tellingly, this week, a US intelligence portrait of how the world may look in 2030 says that Rwanda is at high risk of becoming a failed state by then. Even Britain – the most stalwart of allies to Kagame from the days when Blair's international development secretary, Clare Short, was a cheerleader for the Rwandan president – has decided to take a step back by withholding aid. This week, a coalition of campaign groups and think tanks have written to Barack Obama accusing him of a failed policy over Rwanda and calling on the president to withhold non-humanitarian aid and impose sanctions against Kagame's defence minister and other Rwandan officials with ties to Congo rebels. The letter is signed by 15 organisations, including George Soros's Open Society Foundations, Global Witness, Freedom House and the Africa Faith and Justice Network. Human Rights Watch has made a similar call following its own detailed investigation of crimes against humanity committed by Rwandan-allied forces in Congo. The Obama administration should heed the call. Kagame's legitimacy comes less from highly-manipulated elections than from the recognition he gets at home and abroad as the man who stopped the genocide. Washington should now tell him that no longer gives him a free hand in Congo. This article originally appeared on guardian.co.uk Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-us-guilt-over-the-genocide-in-rwanda-is-leading-to-another-foreign-policy-failure-2012-12#ixzz2Ew4g4GMr