Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)

Remarks by His Excellency Paul Kagame, President of the Republic of Rwanda at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).

The President argued that contrary to the 'old narrative' of African security and development, the continent warrants the term 'New Africa'. The prospects for peace and security and improving socioeconomic fundamentals have markedly improved. Challenges remain, but must not overshadow the achievements.

---

DISTINGUISHED LADIES AND GENTLEMEN; It is my pleasure to be here today at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and to share with you some insights on the prospects for peace, security and development in the New Africa. It is also a great honour for me to launch RUSI’s African activities. I trust that this is the beginning of a productive relationship between this organisation and its continental counterparts in research and policy analysis on issues of mutual interests.

In my presentation today, I make the case that since we entered the new Century our continent has undergone positive changes to warrant the term “New Africa”. My thesis is that the prospects for peace and security – and indeed the fundamentals for socioeconomic and political development have greatly improved. While challenges remain, significant achievements have been made.

Before discussing the New Africa, it is important to highlight the main features of the “Old Africa” so as to contrast them with the new and more promising continent.

The story of Old Africa is traceable to the slave trade and colonial rule. In contemporary history, however, it is traceable to African political leaders, governments, and generally to the nation states that emerged at the end of the colonial phase. We may summarise the main features of the Old Africa as reflecting the following:

Hurriedly assembled and ill-prepared political elites from the ranks of undersized middle classes that were to lead African countries into post-independence;

Fragmented and miniscule nation states whose boundaries were arbitrarily and artificially drawn by colonial powers;

Economic systems, infrastructure and trade regimes tied to former colonial masters, as opposed to logical regional markets into which they geographically belonged – resulting into exceedingly low level regional integration;

Single commodity economies largely devoid of industrial sophistication to produce the simplest of products;

Weak and in some cases total absence of institutions of higher learning to supply local labour markets with technical and professional cadres; absence of a critical mass of human capital, and generally inadequate local skill base to provide institutional foundations for incoming African governments and private sector organisations;

High level external influence on individual African states in the context of the cold war that pitted the Western Alliance and the Eastern Bloc. Both sides created proxies in Africa – further complicating the already balkanised and linguistically-divided Africa.

Into this highly unstable socioeconomic and political environment arose what we now call “old Africa” characterized by immense poverty, corruption, inept leadership, tribalism, nepotism, ignorance, inter and intra-state conflicts, internal displacements, refugees, and an untold number of millions of lost lives.

Perhaps the main facet of the “Old Africa” was the premier continental body – the Organisation of African Union (OAU) and its approach to peace and security. The constitution of the OAU was a compromise between African leaders who advocated the primacy of individual nation states in continental peace and security matters, and those calling for a combined military and defence strategy, as well as a common foreign policy and diplomacy among African states. The primacy of the individual nation states appears to have been upheld as confirmed by the clause in the OAU Charter that sustained “non-interference in the internal affairs of states".

This OAU principle proved costly in human lives in the Old Africa. The non-interference and non-intervention clause simply meant that member states turned a blind eye to their neighbours – even when gross human rights violations occurred. The clause became particularly convenient for a variety of one-party regimes and military dictatorships for glossing over atrocities of various kinds and scales.

Before describing the New Africa, it is important to give a context and conditions that created it.

It is evident that as Africa moved into the late 1980s and early 1990s both domestic and external factors were contributing to the opening up of political space – often amounting to outright challenge to military and one-party regimes alike. Among the first to fall was Benin's military government in 1989 – the same year the Berlin Wall fell, and soon after, the end of East European communist experiment. The utility of African proxies to external powers ended with the collapse of the Eastern bloc.

The removal from power of the apartheid regime in 1994 became another major step in the transition to democratic rule on the continent. Throughout the 1990s, demand for multiparty politics by Africans in all parts of the continent begun to bear fruits.

In the case of Rwanda, we faced a regime characterized by ethnic and genocidal ideology – two dogmas that were actually put into practice in 1994, resulting in a senseless loss of over 1 million Rwandans. The roots of these ideologies are traceable to colonial rule as well as to post-colonial civilian/military regimes that dominated Rwandan politics up to 1994. The socioeconomic and political work undertaken since the defeat of the genocidal regime in 1994 up to 2003 provided the basis for reconciliation as well as for the new Constitution – which, in turn enabled us to hold the first ever Presidential and Parliamentary democratic elections in Rwanda in 2003. Today we are a country at peace actively seeking greater prosperity – and in an increasingly peaceful region.

NEW AFRICA

The New Africa begun, therefore, in both domestic and international contexts. Individually and collectively, African leadership understood that the dividend and savings earned from changes of the 1990s and 2000s would enable our continent to easily confront our most important challenges – peace, security, stability and development.

A consensus was reached by the African leadership that the OAU was out of step with the new realities with regard to the multifaceted challenges. The OAU was subsequently replaced by the African Union in 2002 and given a broader and more focussed mandate to actively address African challenges more vigorously. Its Peace & Security Council (PSC) came into force two years later in 2004 as a standing decision-making organ of the AU for prevention, management and resolution of conflicts.

The PSC’s mandate includes the promotion of peace, security and stability in Africa; anticipation and prevention of conflicts; undertaking peace making and peace building functions; and developing a common African defence and security policy. The PSC is supported by the Commission, the Continental Early Warning System, the African Standby Force, the Panel of the Wise, and the Military Staff Committee.

The achievements of the AU and its Organs are considerable in terms of building and sustaining peace and security on our continent. We may summarise some of the accomplishments as follows:

First, a Solemn Declaration on a Common African Defence and Security Policy was adopted in 2004. Its principles include among others (a) the right of the AU to intervene in member states, pursuant to the decision of the AU Assembly in respect to grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity as well as a serious threat to legitimate order; (b) indivisibility of security of African state – that is to say, the security of one African country is inseparable linked to the security of other African countries, and the continent as a whole. Accordingly the threat or aggression on one African country is deemed to be a threat or aggression on the others and the continent as a whole.

Second, the African Union’s Non-Aggression and Common Defence Pact was adopted in 2005, with the following objectives: (a) to promote cooperation between the member states in areas of non-aggression and common defence; (b) to promote peaceful co-existence in Africa; (c) and to prevent conflicts of inter-state and intra-state nature.

Third, the African Standby Force, one of the organs of the PSC is evolving; its role is to enable the PSC to perform its responsibilities with respect to the deployment of peace support missions and intervention of the AU in member states in cases of gross violations of human rights; it is the implementing mechanism of the decisions of the Peace and Security Council. The process of establishing the regional standby brigades is advanced in all five regions of Africa.

Four, the AU has independently carried out peace support missions in Burundi, Darfur, the Comoros during the elections; the AU has also intervened in Togo and Sao Tome Principe to reverse military seizure of power.

It is important to note that in the New Africa the concept of peace and security has been rendered more holistic by incorporating in them good governance and development. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) are the principle chosen instruments for development and good governance.
NEPAD is a collective African vision and action plan aimed at re-inserting Africa in the international political economy – where Africa is a real partner with the global community. The pillars of the vision revolve around addressing supply side constraints that hinder the continent to engage the rest of the world effectively. Regional and continental programs for elimination of these hindrances are well underway.

We realise that peace and democratic dividends can only be useful if we focus more on economic challenges by confronting especially the following in the context of NEPAD:

Consolidating good governance, and improving economic management through reformed and capacitated policymaking institutions and agencies that reflect greater meritocracy and professionalism;

Developing and retaining intellectual and human capital in line with the requirement of a knowledge- and skill-based global economy;

Fostering dynamic domestic and regional markets, and generally pursuing private sector-led development strategies for greater wealth-creation;

Improving national and regional infrastructure for larger markets that permit increased wealth-creation and export capacities in the context of international trade;

Drawing into Africa broad-based Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) that is innovative, involving technology transfer and greater employment opportunities – beyond the exploitation of raw materials.

Africa in this context seeks to become a genuine actor in the international political economy, and to state its case in matters of international trade, development, and peace and security. This requires a single African voice in all international institutions, including the United Nations and its Security Council, the World Trade Organisation – among others. It is in this respect the African Union seeks a permanent representation in the United Nations Security Council. The vision of the New Africa is that of a continent able to design, implement and pursue its political, economic, and security imperatives in these organisations – all aimed at improving African lives.

For its part, the APRM provides the means for individual African leaders to subject themselves and the countries they lead to their peers for critical reviews aimed at improving governmental as well as corporate governance. A number of countries have already undergone this exercise and incorporated advice, good practices and criticisms into corrective measures. Rwanda is among the very first countries to undergo the APRM process. We have learnt a great deal – and also became a good source of good practices. Other African countries are scheduled to follow this path.

Let me now comment on the Rwandan perspective and role in peace building. In the case of Rwanda, we lost up to a million lives in the 1994 genocide. The perpetrators of this crime rendered our region unstable by their presence and operations in neighbouring countries in much of the 1990s up to the present. Although this problem has subsided in the recent past, it is not fully resolved. With this legacy, including our strong belief in a socioeconomic rebirth of our continent, we became an active participant and partner in peace-building efforts of the New Africa.

We are currently involved in almost all regional peace initiatives, including the East African Standby Force. We have participated in peace keeping in Sudan – in Darfur with the African Union peace keeping effort, and in Southern Sudan with the United Nations peace keeping initiative. We have participated in peace keeping in Comoros as well as in Liberia. In Rwanda, we believe that we cannot afford self-satisfaction with our modest achievements whether nationally, regionally and continentally. Unrelenting engagement with fellow Africans and the international community for sustainable peace and improved developmental results must remain the core of our agenda.

By way of conclusion, let me state that notwithstanding our accomplishments in the New Africa, we still face both internal and external challenges in the implementation of AU and NEPAD visions and programs.

With regard to internal challenges, first and foremost is the question of political will and commitment – an issue that we Africans must always emphasize. The internal challenges also include the lack of technical capacity for program articulation, institutional framework for implementation and adequate human and financial resources for our programming.

In the case of external challenges, securing adequate financing for AU and NEPAD has to involve external finance – to supplement and complement domestic resources. We are fully aware that we cannot rely on entirely on national, sub-regional and continental resources alone to achieve our goals. We are also aware that international partnerships often involve conditionalities – some well-intentioned and some not so well-meaning and sometimes reflecting counter agendas.

All in all, there is no question that African leaders and Africans in general recognize the responsibility of owning our problems and challenges. What we need is more and more commitment and perseverance with regards to the agenda we have developed for ourselves.

Nevertheless, I do not hesitate to confirm to this audience that the prospects for peace, security and development in Africa have greatly improved in the recent years. There can be no denying that the pace towards greater African ownership and implementation of peace and security measures continues to gather momentum. Rwanda is a great believer in these changes. We will continue to contribute to these goals and objectives within our means and capabilities.

Lastly, it is my pleasure, Ladies and Gentlemen, to launch the African activities of the Royal United Services Institute. I thank you.