Rwanda 2018: changing a reputation with summitry diplomacy
Last month, 44 state leaders met in Kigali, Rwanda, to sign a free trade agreement that might revolutionise world trade.
Don’t worry Nige, Britain was not involved. Rather, the 44 leaders were all African. Africa has a serious problem with trade, as only 10% of the continent’s commerce is ‘Intra-African’. However, by creating the African Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) the African Union will bring together 1.2 billion consumers in a tariff free market.
Whilst things didn’t go perfectly, as Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, refused to sign, there seems to be a mood of optimism surrounding the deal. Moussa Faki Mahamat, the African Union’s chair person, said it represents ‘a glorious challenge … which calls for the courage to believe, the courage to dare, the courage to achieve’. There’s hope the CFTA will pave the way for a customs union, a single currency and freedom of movement.
However, what intrigues me about the CFTA is where it was signed: Rwanda. The small central African country seems to be using diplomacy to demonstrate its relevance to the world. Summits after all bring with them the world’s media and it’s most powerful men.
Consequently, they create a sense that the host matters, and many countries and kings have exploited this tactic to assert their importance throughout history. For example, in 1955 Bandung, Indonesia, hosted a conference for representatives from 29 newly independent African and Asian countries. Traditionally conferences were held in prominent European capitals. The Conferences of Vienna (1814-15) and Paris (1919) have gone down in history as not just sites of peace-making, but also as demonstrations of where the power was.
As the US rose in importance conferences steadily shifted across the Atlantic. The Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire) settled the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), whilst the Washington Conference (1921-22) attempted to place limits on the interwar naval arms race, and the San Francisco Conference (1945) created the United Nations.
Thus, the Bandung Conference displayed to everyone how the post-war world was changing. Decolonization was a thing, and power was no longer restricted to white men in Europe and North America.
Medieval kings also had a habit of using summits to indicate a power change. Soon after King Edward of the Anglo-Saxons absorbed Mercia (think the centre of England) into his realm in 918, he met with all the other major British rulers, including the King of Scots, the leader of Viking Northern England and several Welsh rulers. Likewise, in 1200, the year after he became King of England, King John met with Phillip Augustus of France to negotiate the Treaty of Le Goulet. The idea was that by bringing together multiple groups the meetings would become the closest thing the medieval period had to global news. Thus, any power changes, like a new king ascending the throne, would become widely known. This would both increase the king’s prestige, as well as their claim to their new title.
To return to Rwanda, the decision to host the CFTA conference corresponds with state’s improvements over the past two decades. Economically Rwanda has gone from strength to strength. Money has been used to help the country’s most impoverished citizens, and consequently the UN Development Index ranks it as the most improved country over the last twenty-five years. Moreover, the government has clamped down on corruption. The Transparency International Index claims Rwanda is the 48th least corrupt nation in the world, making it less corrupt than Italy and Greece. Therefore, last month’s conference brought the world’s eyes to Rwanda, where they witnessed a modern state that deserves to be taken seriously.
However, for Rwanda the conference was about far more than just telling the world that it matters. This is because for most people Rwanda is not a country, but the site of a horrific genocide. On April 6th 1994 Hutu extremists in the Rwandan government began killing members of the Tutsi minority group. Just 100 days later one million Rwandans were dead, 1/5th of the country’s population. Rwandans have gone to great lengths to deal with their past. Memorials have been erected and ever year there is three months of official mourning. The conference is another response to the genocide. It’s no coincidence that Rwanda is often described as the ‘Switzerland of Central Africa’. By hosting diplomatic summits Rwanda is showing that it is no longer a place of conflict and terror, but a peaceful country, open to the world.
Rwanda is still far from perfect. Like many African countries it has been accused of exploiting the troubled Democratic Republic of Congo. Furthermore, the President, Paul Kagame, is suspected of suppressing political opposition. He won last October’s election with 98.63% of the vote, a worryingly high number.
He was only able to stand for re-election because in 2015 he changed the constitution, removing the two term limit. The US said it was ‘disappointed’ in response to this change. Thus it was not just thoughts about the genocide, but more recent international criticisms, that Rwanda hoped to address by hosting the free trade agreement’s signing.
Despite these issues, there seems to be optimism amongst Rwandans that things are moving forward. When asked about Kagame, Pacifique Bonheur, a guide at the capital’s genocide memorial museum, was largely positive: ‘He wants young people in charge. He wants a post-ethnic generation. He’s just not sure yet that the right people are there to take over. But if you come back in five to ten years, I don’t think he will be in charge’ (Day, Michael, ‘How Hell became a success story’, i, 7 April 2018, pp. 32-33).
Perhaps we won’t have to wait long before we’re buying our overpriced Toblerones and pocket-knives from Central Africa, not Switzerland.
Bibliography
‘Africa agrees deal for Continental Free Trade Area’, BBC, 21 March 2018: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43489255 . Accessed 9 April 2018.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in English Historical Documents c. 500-1042, ed. by Dorothy Whitelock (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955), pp. 135-236.
Day, Michael, ‘How Hell became a success story’, i, 7 April 2018, pp. 32-33.
Giles, Christ, ’44 African countries agree free trade agreement, Nigeria yet to sign’, CNN, 23 March 2018: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/22/africa/african-trade-agreement-world/index.html . Accessed 9 April 2018.
‘A hilly dilemma’, The Economist, 10 March 2016: https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21694551-should-paul-kagame-be-backed-providing-stability-and-prosperity-or-condemned . Accessed 9 April 2018.
The Annals of Roger de Hoveden: compromising the History of England and of other countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, ed. and trans. by Riley, Henry T, 2 vols (London: H.G. Bohn, 1853).
Shimazu, Nako, ‘Places in diplomacy’, Political Geography, 31 (2012), pp. 335-36.
 |
| ‘Never again! Get me a sack of dead fish, three pints of Newkies and a few packs of Marlboros. I’m sorting this shit out!’ |
Don’t worry Nige, Britain was not involved. Rather, the 44 leaders were all African. Africa has a serious problem with trade, as only 10% of the continent’s commerce is ‘Intra-African’. However, by creating the African Continental Free Trade Area (CFTA) the African Union will bring together 1.2 billion consumers in a tariff free market.
Whilst things didn’t go perfectly, as Nigeria, Africa’s largest economy, refused to sign, there seems to be a mood of optimism surrounding the deal. Moussa Faki Mahamat, the African Union’s chair person, said it represents ‘a glorious challenge … which calls for the courage to believe, the courage to dare, the courage to achieve’. There’s hope the CFTA will pave the way for a customs union, a single currency and freedom of movement.
 |
Hang on a second padre you’re forgetting the big question: what colour will the passports be? |
However, what intrigues me about the CFTA is where it was signed: Rwanda. The small central African country seems to be using diplomacy to demonstrate its relevance to the world. Summits after all bring with them the world’s media and it’s most powerful men.
 |
Sadly ‘men’ is not a sexist Freudian slip, but a factual reflection of the conference. |
Consequently, they create a sense that the host matters, and many countries and kings have exploited this tactic to assert their importance throughout history. For example, in 1955 Bandung, Indonesia, hosted a conference for representatives from 29 newly independent African and Asian countries. Traditionally conferences were held in prominent European capitals. The Conferences of Vienna (1814-15) and Paris (1919) have gone down in history as not just sites of peace-making, but also as demonstrations of where the power was.
 |
They were also a lovely excuse to buy a new hat |
As the US rose in importance conferences steadily shifted across the Atlantic. The Treaty of Portsmouth (New Hampshire) settled the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), whilst the Washington Conference (1921-22) attempted to place limits on the interwar naval arms race, and the San Francisco Conference (1945) created the United Nations.
Thus, the Bandung Conference displayed to everyone how the post-war world was changing. Decolonization was a thing, and power was no longer restricted to white men in Europe and North America.
 |
To be fair to white men, they haven't given up yet! |
Medieval kings also had a habit of using summits to indicate a power change. Soon after King Edward of the Anglo-Saxons absorbed Mercia (think the centre of England) into his realm in 918, he met with all the other major British rulers, including the King of Scots, the leader of Viking Northern England and several Welsh rulers. Likewise, in 1200, the year after he became King of England, King John met with Phillip Augustus of France to negotiate the Treaty of Le Goulet. The idea was that by bringing together multiple groups the meetings would become the closest thing the medieval period had to global news. Thus, any power changes, like a new king ascending the throne, would become widely known. This would both increase the king’s prestige, as well as their claim to their new title.
To return to Rwanda, the decision to host the CFTA conference corresponds with state’s improvements over the past two decades. Economically Rwanda has gone from strength to strength. Money has been used to help the country’s most impoverished citizens, and consequently the UN Development Index ranks it as the most improved country over the last twenty-five years. Moreover, the government has clamped down on corruption. The Transparency International Index claims Rwanda is the 48th least corrupt nation in the world, making it less corrupt than Italy and Greece. Therefore, last month’s conference brought the world’s eyes to Rwanda, where they witnessed a modern state that deserves to be taken seriously.
However, for Rwanda the conference was about far more than just telling the world that it matters. This is because for most people Rwanda is not a country, but the site of a horrific genocide. On April 6th 1994 Hutu extremists in the Rwandan government began killing members of the Tutsi minority group. Just 100 days later one million Rwandans were dead, 1/5th of the country’s population. Rwandans have gone to great lengths to deal with their past. Memorials have been erected and ever year there is three months of official mourning. The conference is another response to the genocide. It’s no coincidence that Rwanda is often described as the ‘Switzerland of Central Africa’. By hosting diplomatic summits Rwanda is showing that it is no longer a place of conflict and terror, but a peaceful country, open to the world.
Rwanda is still far from perfect. Like many African countries it has been accused of exploiting the troubled Democratic Republic of Congo. Furthermore, the President, Paul Kagame, is suspected of suppressing political opposition. He won last October’s election with 98.63% of the vote, a worryingly high number.
 |
You jel bro? |
He was only able to stand for re-election because in 2015 he changed the constitution, removing the two term limit. The US said it was ‘disappointed’ in response to this change. Thus it was not just thoughts about the genocide, but more recent international criticisms, that Rwanda hoped to address by hosting the free trade agreement’s signing.
Despite these issues, there seems to be optimism amongst Rwandans that things are moving forward. When asked about Kagame, Pacifique Bonheur, a guide at the capital’s genocide memorial museum, was largely positive: ‘He wants young people in charge. He wants a post-ethnic generation. He’s just not sure yet that the right people are there to take over. But if you come back in five to ten years, I don’t think he will be in charge’ (Day, Michael, ‘How Hell became a success story’, i, 7 April 2018, pp. 32-33).
Perhaps we won’t have to wait long before we’re buying our overpriced Toblerones and pocket-knives from Central Africa, not Switzerland.
 |
Switzerland your reign of terror is over! |
Bibliography
‘Africa agrees deal for Continental Free Trade Area’, BBC, 21 March 2018: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-43489255 . Accessed 9 April 2018.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, in English Historical Documents c. 500-1042, ed. by Dorothy Whitelock (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1955), pp. 135-236.
Day, Michael, ‘How Hell became a success story’, i, 7 April 2018, pp. 32-33.
Giles, Christ, ’44 African countries agree free trade agreement, Nigeria yet to sign’, CNN, 23 March 2018: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/22/africa/african-trade-agreement-world/index.html . Accessed 9 April 2018.
‘A hilly dilemma’, The Economist, 10 March 2016: https://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21694551-should-paul-kagame-be-backed-providing-stability-and-prosperity-or-condemned . Accessed 9 April 2018.
The Annals of Roger de Hoveden: compromising the History of England and of other countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, ed. and trans. by Riley, Henry T, 2 vols (London: H.G. Bohn, 1853).
Shimazu, Nako, ‘Places in diplomacy’, Political Geography, 31 (2012), pp. 335-36.
Comments
Post a Comment