Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times published an excellent piece last Wednesday on the relationship between Rwanda and the Congo, the site of one of the worst human rights situations currently on-going in the world. It’s impossible to understand the Congo without factoring in Rwanda and its own tragic history, most recently on display with the 1994 genocide.
“Rwanda’s stake in Congo is a complex mix of strategic interest, business opportunity and the real fears of a nation that has heroically rebuilt itself after near obliteration by ethnic hatre,” Gettleman writes. He is especially good on the stark contrast between two coutries that share so much:
The two-minute walk takes you from one of the smallest, tidiest, most promising countries on the continent, where women in white rubber gloves sweep the streets every morning and government employees are at their desks by 7 a.m., to one of the biggest, messiest and most violent African states, home to a conflict that has killed more than five million people, more than any other since World War II.
While Congo is vast, Rwanda is packed. While the Congolese are often playful, known for outlandish dress and great music, Rwandans are reserved. While Congo is naturally rich, Rwanda is perennially poor. Yet Rwanda has emerged as a darling of the aid world, praised for strong, uncorrupt leadership and the strides it has made in fighting AIDS and poverty.
On the long list of challenges for President-elect Obama, Africa — the Congo/Rwanda, Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabwe, AIDS — seems among the thorniest, but also the one where he is uniquely able to make positive, long overdue steps…