So when I joined the team last month, I mentioned that I work in development. That means I move around to different countries, to work on various projects. And in two weeks, I will be moving to Rwanda, in Central Africa.
A couple of notes on this, for those who find such things interesting.
1) Rwanda is not exactly a household name. It’s a small country — about the size of Israel or Albania, a bit bigger than Wales — and right in the exact middle of Africa, just off the equator. If the name strikes a bell, it’s most likely either for the horrific 1990s genocide; or for gorillas; or, more recently, for the British government’s dubious plan to ship asylum seekers there.
This is a shame, because Rwanda is an extremely interesting country. For starters, it has one of the fastest growing economies in the region. A generation ago, it was one of the absolutely poorest countries in the world; today it’s near the top of the bottom decile, and by 2030 it will officially be “lower middle income”. And if you spend some time in Kigali, you’ll understand why. There’s not the frenetic energy you encounter in some other African capitals. Instead there are clean streets, paved roads without potholes, people obeying traffic laws, and a general sense of determination and — there’s no other word for it — discipline. Rwandans are organized, and they plan ahead.
A single minor example: Rwanda started with the usual African pattern of growing a few crops (coffee, tea), doing some mining, and exporting those primary products. But they have no intention of keeping that pattern. Rwanda has an industrial policy, and it is methodically implementing that policy. They import palm oil from the DR Congo, and turn it into everything from paint to pharmaceuticals. They import scrap metal from Tanzania and Kenya, run it through a couple of local smelters, and export it to Congo as rebar. They’re working hard to climb the value chain on everything from potato chips to roof tiles.
As a development guy, this is extremely interesting, and I’m really looking forward to engaging with it.
2) In case it’s not clear from the above, Rwanda is safe, clean, and has no significant security issues. They’ve also done an amazing job of cutting back on tropical diseases. (Which, for a Central African country, is no easy task.) So, no need to say “keep safe!” or any such. Kigali is literally safer than Seattle or Glasgow.
3) On a personal note, I’ve been freelancing for the last year, and I’m really looking forward to full-time work again. The nature of my job is that I run large development projects, usually for USAID. This is both a career and a profession. It requires a bunch of particular skills, some of which take a while to acquire. So when I’m working, I’m paid pretty well. But I have exactly zero job security and no assurance of continued employment after a project ends. In fact, it’s finding another position immediately after a project ends is the weird exception: it’s much more typical to be thrown back into unemployment or freelancing. So, as a career, it’s gig economy. High end professional / white collar, but still gig economy.
To be clear, this is a description, not a complaint. We don’t love the instability and insecurity, but it comes with the career, and we’ve learned to work around it. That said, consider it another “who’s in the precariat” data point.
4) Other than that, AMA.
{ 26 comments }
Mark 02.14.24 at 10:06 pm
Not exactly a household name? It’s certainly a name that chills just about anyone who is affected by, or cares about, UK immigration policy. And however rosy you might want the picture to be, the UK government has been compelled to write legislation defining Rwanda as “safe” precisely because UK courts found this not to be necessarily the case.
RobP 02.15.24 at 4:31 am
Great! Should be challenging but rewarding.
Don’t miss Khana Khazana for great Indian food, or Repub Lounge. Plenty of other great places to eat!
awgcooper 02.15.24 at 4:45 am
As a young adult, I remember the genocide whizzed by (one of the fastest average daily death counts ever, right?) and then, a few years later the NURC began which – please correct me if I am wrong – has achieved a good deal. Even to a fairly ignorant observer such as myself, it seems like the societal reconstruction has been quite meaningful.
I will be very interested to hear, over time, your observations about how everyone in the present lives with the facts of recent history, both those who lived through it and those born afterwards. As the first commenter I hate to be raising the most blindingly obvious query especially given how, as per your post, Rwanda has faced the future so decisively and should not be defined by the events of 1994. Still it’s hard to avoid the subject.
I wish you all the best for the new project!
Doug Muir 02.15.24 at 9:02 am
“however rosy you might want the picture to be”
— I’m not a fan of the current Tory government, nor of their immigration policy. But as a matter of plain fact, Rwanda is a country with an extremely low crime rate. Feel free to google the statistics, but TLDR: you’re literally safer walking around Kigali than walking around Cardiff.
Doug M.
Matt 02.15.24 at 11:57 am
I’m not a fan of the current Tory government, nor of their immigration policy. But as a matter of plain fact, Rwanda is a country with an extremely low crime rate.
For what it’s worth, there’s not necessarily a contradiction here, as it’s possible for a country to have a very low crime rate and also to be unsafe for refugees, because the country itself engages in persecution or would not provide protection for those who would be persecuted by others.
CP Norris 02.15.24 at 12:21 pm
This is, ah, this is on shaky ground.
Dave 02.15.24 at 12:44 pm
“You’re literally safer walking around Kigali than walking around Cardiff” is not what the UK courts were talking about. Rather, they are talking about Rwanda’s “safety” for political refugees/ opponents of oppressive state regimes. The ruling had nothing to do with personal safety on the streets.
DavidtheK 02.15.24 at 1:23 pm
I have a friend on FaceBook, an American “oleh” to Israel, who does a lot of solar projects in Rwanda. I think that’s making Rwanda a leader in conversion to sustainable energy. Possibly ahead of many western countries.
Doug Muir 02.15.24 at 1:29 pm
“This is, ah, this is on shaky ground.”
Well, I’ve been to Rwanda and have worked with Rwandans and now I’m moving there to live and work. So, it’s one man’s opinion, but it’s based on more than a casual impression.
I’ve also visited and worked in… give me a moment. [counts on fingers] About fifteen other sub-Saharan African countries, including Senegal, Guinea, Uganda, DR Congo, Tanzania, Burundi, and Ethiopia. So when I compare Rwanda to other countries around the region, again, it’s based on more than a casual impression.
Doug M.
Doug Muir 02.15.24 at 1:50 pm
“The ruling had nothing to do with personal safety on the streets.”
— Wait the legal system is using a word formally, as a term of art, so that it doesn’t have the same meaning as in casual speech or (say) a blog post? Astonishing.
More seriously, I see the potential for confusion, but guys — don’t be mad at some random dude on the internet pointing out that Rwanda has low crime. I’m quite aware that this has little to do with whether the British government should be sending refugees there.
Doug M.
engels 02.15.24 at 2:23 pm
Surely it does have to with personal safety but only for specific groups of people, of which our host is presumably not a member (although that’s still consistent with a low crime rate).
OT but I’ve sometimes wondered at what point disabled people in UK would be able to argue it isn’t safe and to claim asylum elsewhere.
Robert Weston 02.15.24 at 3:01 pm
Doug, first of all, compliments on moving to an extraordinarily interesting country. I traveled to Rwanda for work over a ten-year period, so I’ll be looking forward to reading your thoughts as you move through your assignment. Very briefly, though:
I get the sense that Rwanda as a deep hold on Western elite imagination, not just because of the Genocide and of the regime’s claims to have fostered reconciliation. Rather, I suspect Western foreign policy communities have a deep, emotional attachment to Rwanda because they see it as the one African country that has successfully followed the development playbook, more than sixty years after decolonization. It helps that the Kigali government is so incredibly good at talking the talk their Western interlocutors like to hear: Decentralization, female empowerment (a REALLY big one), entrepreneurship, good governance, and so forth.
Which is not to say the regime doesn’t have its merits: Paul Kagame, the Rwandan president is widely acknowledged as a brilliant man, and his regime is capable of truly innovative policies and solutions, such as those you outline in your OP. Attempts at building a mutual health insurance system also come to mind. The question, of course, is the extent to which the regime’s claims match reality.
Again, compliments and safe travels. I’ll be looking forward to your posts.
Rachel 02.15.24 at 4:54 pm
Doug, we are so thrilled for you all – and I hope this means we will have the chance to visit (or if we are here in NBO, have you HERE!). Can I ask which project and for whom? Again << happy dance >> Hope to see you and Claudia in 2024!
Doug Muir 02.15.24 at 7:18 pm
“The question, of course, is the extent to which the regime’s claims match reality.”
How much do any regime’s claims match reality?
I will say that the economic growth numbers are impressive, especially for a small landlocked country, with few natural resources, in a very rough neighborhood. They’ve been accompanied by equally impressive gains in literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. etc. They’ve reduced malaria by over 90% in the last decade! That would be an accomplishment anywhere, but in rainy central Africa? Bit of a wow.
Now tbf some of Rwanda’s neighbors have also racked up some impressive gains. On the other hand, Rwanda had a no-kidding Year Zero, with over a million people dead or fled and government and economy both utterly shattered.
There’s a lot to unpack here, which we won’t do in this single comment thread. But wrt female empowerment, one data point: my deputy on the project will be a Rwandan woman, a very competent and successful engineer.
Doug M.
LFC 02.16.24 at 2:18 am
From the OP:
To what extent do people in the development field think in regional, or even continental, terms? It’s good that Rwanda has an industrial policy, but wouldn’t it be even better if all countries in the region were working toward diversified economies (perhaps they are to some extent, IDK), mixing primary-product exports with industries that manufacture for the home market and/or for export (or are a part of global supply chains)?
During the heyday of the NIEO, developing countries’ demands focused to some significant extent on a fairer deal for their primary-product exports, notoriously subject to price fluctuations and sometimes to barriers in the form of, e.g., govt subsidies to domestic producers in rich countries, or other non-tariff barriers. Now that some ‘developing’ countries have been, to use the OP’s phrase, climbing the value chain, perhaps (?) it should be kept in mind that export of primary commodities will continue to play a role in many economies and that the difficulties faced by those sectors, esp given climate change, shouldn’t be neglected or forgotten.
Robert 02.16.24 at 12:07 pm
“I’m not a fan of the current Tory government, nor of their immigration policy. But as a matter of plain fact, Rwanda is a country with an extremely low crime rate. Feel free to google the statistics, but TLDR: you’re literally safer walking around Kigali than walking around Cardiff.”
The crime rate is not the whole story. Many places that are safe for citizens, tourists, and other desired visitors, are not safe for migrants, or refugees, or people of the “wrong” ethnicity or faith.
Chris Bertram 02.16.24 at 5:24 pm
Probably worth quoting from the recent UK Supreme Court judgement (para 76):
Doug Muir 02.16.24 at 6:38 pm
Okay so that’s six different comments focusing on the Tory plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
I appreciate that this is The Most Important Thing About Rwanda for you guys. I completely understand why it’s triggery for you. But are you seeing the optics here? I mean, an African country is mentioned, and… all you can talk about is the dumb thing a Western government is doing that involves that country?
There is literally nothing else you can ask or say about Rwanda? This is all you guys want to talk about?
Doug M.
J-D 02.17.24 at 7:19 am
Well, not for me. That’s why I made no comments about that.
You want me to ask you questions about Rwanda? Okay. Of course, you don’t have to answer all of them, or even any of them.
What are the current demographic trends? Given that overpopulation has been considered by some to be one of the factors that contributed to the genocide, do current trends give any cause for concern? Do current demographic trends make a significant shift likely in the population shares of Hutus and Tutsis and what are the implications if they do?
What kind of significance does the distinction between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa have for people in Rwanda? What effect, if any, is there on their attitudes to people in neighbouring Burundi, where there is also a distinction between Hutu, Tutsi and Twa?
Which groups of people are subject to discrimination, oppression or persecution, and what forms of discrimination, oppression or persecution are they subject to? Which groups oppose the government, and how does the government treat its opponents? Which groups support the government, and how does the government treat its supporters? What are the chances of a change to to the political situation, and how might it come if it came?
What are the civil liberties and human rights issues? Why was Rwanda admitted to the Commonwealth despite the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative finding that it did not meet the criteria for admission? Why did Rwanda even want to join the Commonwealth? How has its admission affected Rwanda, the Commonwealth and relationships between Rwanda and nearby countries (the ones that are Commonwealth members and the ones that aren’t)? How does Rwanda interact with nearby countries?
Do you give any credence to the theory that the government changed the flag just to show off that they could change the flag?
Chris Bertram 02.17.24 at 7:36 am
@Doug “all you can talk about is the dumb thing a Western government is doing that involves that country? There is literally nothing else you can ask or say about Rwanda?”
In fact, in posting that paragraph from the UKSC judgement, I focused on the Rwandan government’s practice of “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”, its poor human rights record, and its credible plans to kill dissident Rwandans overseas.
J-D 02.18.24 at 4:44 am
As well as all my questions, I have one thing to say about Rwanda, relating to the genocide. I remember from that time reports using the description ‘Tutsis and moderate Hutus’ for the people who were being massacred. I wondered then and I still wonder now what people imagined could be ‘moderate’ about being a Hutu. I thought about it some more just now and I thought about how I would understand the description ‘moderate Tamil’ in relation to the Sri Lankan Civil War (when it might have been used, or then again it might not have been–I don’t remember either way). The issue in that civil war was the political status of the Tamil-populated areas of the island, and so I suppose the description ‘moderate Tamil’ might have been used for people who favoured greater autonomy for those areas without full independence. In Rwanda, however, as far as I understand it, what was at issue was whether Tutsis should be massacred. If the meaning of ‘moderate Hutus’ was ‘Hutus who didn’t think Tutsis should be massacred’, then I have qualms about using the word ‘moderate’ to describe the political position ‘our neighbours should not be massacred’.
engels 02.18.24 at 9:15 pm
There is literally nothing else you can ask or say about Rwanda?
Any thoughts about the suspension of Héritier Luvumbu?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/17/rwanda-suspension-congolese-footballer-heritier-luvumbu-uk-asylum-seekers-policy
Doug Muir 02.22.24 at 2:23 pm
“Given that overpopulation has been considered by some to be one of the factors that contributed to the genocide, ”
— So you probably don’t realize it, but you’re repeating a bit of genocidaire propaganda here.
The first outbreak of violence in Rwanda-to-be came in 1959, under the Belgians. At that time, over 100,000 Tutsis were driven out of the country into neighboring Uganda. These refugees immediately became a sticking point in every conversation about a lasting settlement.
Tutsis wanted a settlement that would let these people come home. Some Hutus also were open to this. But a great many Hutus had profited from the expropriation of Tutu lands and businesses. These people formed a hard core of resistance. And since “we want to keep the stuff we stole” wasn’t a good look, they said that, oh, they’d be okay with letting those Tutsis back except, you know, Rwanda is too /crowded/ now. It’s overpopulated, there’s just no room any more!
This became a talking point for the Hutu hardliners for years — and in the years preceding the genocide, it evolved from “There’s not enough room in Rwanda to let the 1959 refugees back” to “There’s not enough room in Rwanda, period… and something should be done about that.”
It goes without saying that this was nonsense on stilts. In 1994, on the eve of the genocide, Rwanda had a bit under 7 million people. It was about as densely populated as that notorious hellhole, the United Kingdom (Scotland included). Today it has about 14.3 million people — more than twice as many — in exactly the same area. And their per capita GDP is about three times higher than it was in early 1994, and every human resource indicator has dramatically improved.
So, no, overpopulation wasn’t a factor.
Doug M.
SusanC 02.22.24 at 8:44 pm
I thought “moderate X” usually has the implication that the author thinks X’s who are not “moderate” are complete lunatics, and e.g. they are supporting genocide is exactly the kind of thing that is implied by the phrase.
This rule might not apply to “moderate Republicans” … on the other hand maybe it does, (The implication in this case being the non-moderates think the US government is run by a cabal of Satanic pedophiles, and are mostly currently in jail for attempting to overthrow the government).
J-D 02.23.24 at 9:11 am
Again, I’m not sure that ‘moderate’ is the best way of expressing ‘not complete loons’.
Thanks for the information about the population issue, I had no idea the population now is twice what it was then. That’s the kind of thing I like to know.
SusanC 02.26.24 at 9:58 am
Our very own John Holbo on Twitter:
“But when even ‘moderate’ R’s are all preaching the most hair-raising paranoid nonsense, …”
Clear example in the wild of “moderate” meaning “I think the others are complete lunatics”. With added bonus of him accusing the ‘moderates’ of being lunatics as well.
Comments on this entry are closed.