The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. The List's Host is not
responsible for them in any way. -------------------------------------
"Broke" Rwanda bankrolls FDC; does
it make sense?
By
Ignatius Kabagambe
Monday, 12 September 2005
Uganda opposition politician Maj. Gen. Mugisha
Muntu threw a spanner in the wheels of the Uganda - Rwanda mutual
relations engine by claiming that Rwanda supports his Forum for Democratic
change (FDC). He made the casual remarks while addressing a convention of
Ugandans living in North America.
There is nothing new to Ugandans or Rwandans in what Muntu said
because many other people in Uganda had time and again expressed
outrightly or insinuated the notion that Kigali is in bed with the Ugandan
opposition. The only new element in this school of thought is that this
time it has come from a high profile member of the very opposition. Yet
even this should not be seen as a revealing twist. Keen followers of how
some media sections in Uganda have been covering the issue of the two
countries' bilateral relations ought to have seen it coming.
Talk
about the alleged support has sometimes passed as no news to some people
for the mere fact it has been endlessly harped on by those using it to
achieve different results. But to many others reading or listening to it
is still exciting. The media as well as the opposition know this and thus
the reason we should not have been surprised by Muntu's statement. He
intended to stir the audience. But does Rwanda really support FDC, or
would it matter if they did? For me the second part of this question is
what is important. Given the close historical links between some
members of the Rwandan government and Ugandans, including opposition
politicians, it would be naïve to expect zero ties between Kigali and the
Ugandan opposition. A Rwandan government worth its name should never
envisage trashing a Ugandan opposition leader unless that leader was of
the same breed with Lord's Resistance Army's Joseph Kony. What Kigali
should, and I am sure it does, is avoid involvement in efforts aimed at
toppling an elected government.
The problem with our kind of
politics is that opposition members, no matter what they stand for, are
demonized as anti-people by the powers that be as a way of denying them
electoral favour. We are so selfish and undemocratic by nature to the
extent that when we attain power, we want to retain it even if it means
sacrificing fundamental principles and common sense. Otherwise why would
it be queer for Muntu and company to have individual friends in the
Rwandan government?
In civilised political atmospheres, opposition
groups that wish to access power because they think they can provide a
better alternative to the existing policies are not branded enemies of the
people. They are seen, at least with a hind sight, as well intentioned,
the reason they are fought using appropriate language and methods
generally acceptable. Rwanda may be sympathetic to FDC, the way Uganda
might have been sympathetic to Faustine Twagiramungu during the 2003
Rwandan Presidential Elections. But it is more respectable controlling
ourselves when we learn about such developments than declaring each other
as enemies, the way Uganda did in 2001, even when the said sympathy is not
going to affect the final poll results. In the wake of Muntu's
statement and in line with his diplomatic duties of narrowing mutual
conflicting gaps, the Ambassador of Rwanda to Uganda said that his country
has no agreed working relationship with the Ugandan opposition that can be
termed as support. This could be very accurate. Because Rwanda does not
have to be intimidated into disowning people who, one, could be having
individual friends among its government officials, and two, whose only
"crime" is expressing opposing views to the Kampala establishment.
However, the Ambassador's reaction was in stack contrast with that
of the Movement spokesman, Mr. Ofwono Opondo. He yelled that all along it
was known Rwanda was behind FDC. He boasted that Uganda was able to defeat
mega-rich colonizing Britain and therefore there was no way "broke" Rwanda
could stand a chance of ruling its northern neighbour. Now, broke in
which sense that Uganda is free from? In June this year, a Ugandan
government official said Rwandans had acted like infants by not allowing
President Yoweri Museveni to enter their country with un-declared
fire-arms. Still earlier this decade the Rwandan regime had been called
politically bankrupt by someone from Uganda's highest political office.
Question: Is all some Ugandan politicians can do when faced with mild
fire from Rwanda, is call it all sorts of comical names? Is that
frustration really called for? May be the next time the Movement
contemplates appointing an assistant to Opondo, it should look for someone
with a rich background, who will at least sound credible when referring to
Rwanda as broke. As it stands now, not many people would understand a
situation where Rwanda is bankrolling FDC yet it is supposed to be broke.
But most strikingly, it is strange for the spokesman of a government
supposedly heavy-laden with cash to be a "proud" shoplifter of a Bic pen
and underpants. Does it add up?
