admin
South Africa and Rwanda are as different as night and day. South Africa’s population is nearly five times bigger with 52,5 million people versus Rwanda’s 11,4 million. South Africa is Africa’s largest economy with a Gross Domestic Product of US$384,3 billion while Rwanda is among the smallest with a GDP of US$7,1 billion.
South Africa is a multi-party democracy with an independent judiciary and robust media. Rwanda is an autocratic state in which genuine opposition and media leaders are either in prison or exile.
South Africa’s African policy has been mainly to support continental institution-building such as the AU and associated organs, including the New Partnership for Africa’s Development and Pan-African Parliament. Rwanda’s has been mainly internal and external aggression.
For example, between 1998 and 2000, Kenya severed diplomatic relations with Rwanda after Seth Sendashonga, Rwanda’s former minister of the interior, was assassinated in Nairobi.
In 1999 and 2000, Rwanda fought with Uganda inside the Democratic Republic of Congo after the two belligerents invaded that country twice — in 1996 and 1998.
Relations between Rwanda and Tanzania nearly broke down last year after President Jakaya Kikwete suggested Rwanda negotiate with its opposition groups.
Rwanda’s president Paul Kagame responded by saying that he would “hit” Kikwete at an opportune moment. This month, South Africa and Rwanda expelled their diplomats in response to the fourth attempted murder in Johannesburg of the exiled former Rwandan army chief of staff Kayumba Nyamwasa. This was after the murder of exiled former Rwandan intelligence chief Patrick Karegeya in South Africa on New Year’s Day.
Though Pretoria was spitting blood and threatening greater retaliation after the attempt on Nyamwasa’s life this month, it now seems to be keeping an open mind, judging by Zuma’s statement after a meeting in Luanda, Angola, recently where Zuma once again attended a summit of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).
One might have thought, by now, that the intelligence agencies would’ve exhaustively investigated Kigali’s allegations of terrorism by Nyamwasa and Karegeya, but they will evidently do that once again when they have Kigali’s evidence.
The attempted murder case against six nationals from the Great Lakes region for trying to murder Nyamwasa in Johannesburg in 2010 is nearing its conclusion in the Johannesburg magistrate’s court. And this will also put the spotlight on Rwanda’s alleged activities in South Africa.
At the last hearing in January, after a long delay, state prosecutor Shaun Abrahams told the court he had earlier heard one of the defence lawyers, Gloria Matlala, saying the trial had been delayed because she had been waiting on payment from the Rwandese government.
More evidence pointing at Kigali may emerge as the case proceeds over the next few days.
However, the juxtaposition of the eastern DRC and Nyamwasa issues at the Luanda summit suggests that this might be shaping up as one of those familiar dichotomies that South Africa often faces: between its cherished constitutional obligations and the expedience of maintaining peace in and with Africa.
Is South Africa backing off from the confrontation with Rwanda, or was the language of Zuma’s statement after Luanda just diplomatic-speak to mask the fact that South Africa now has regional backing to take further action against Rwanda? The South African government does not seem to be entirely at one on this. It will be interesting to see whether its next move will be against Rwanda — or against General Nyamwasa.
Two related questions arise. Why does South Africa with its moral capital, democratic credentials, size and proven continental leadership appear to be weak and accommodating to an inconsequential aggressor like Rwanda?
Why appease a foreign state whose embassy is a war room of assassins intent on killing refugees on South African soil? The answers are to be found in the nature of African leadership or, to be precise, the leadership vacuum at country level and in continental institutions.
Despite recent democratic gains on the continent, Africa faces an unenviable situation. African countries are either characterised by entrenched authoritarian rulers or fragile democracies in which leaders are preoccupied with domestic agendas. The two realities have had a devastating impact on the AU and associated institutions.
Thrown to the wind is leadership by principles that showed greater promise with the launch of the AU in 2002. Appeasement or yielding to the demands and behaviour of belligerents is back in.
As in the days of the OAU, conciliatory “African values”, even at the expense of justice or other principles, are becoming the norm.
This is the environment in which aggressors such as Rwanda thrive. As they push their luck and there is no one to say “don’t”, they become more adventurous. The more countries turn a blind eye by hiding behind appeasement masquerading as “African values” in dealing with the likes of Rwanda, the more Rwanda engages in what Justice Minister Jeff Radebe mildly termed “illegal activities”. — iol.co.za/ISS.
Online Reporter