Sir, - The Irish Government gives aid to the Rwandan government. The Rwandan government supports the rebels in Zaire. The rebels in Zaire are alleged to be committing massacres. Thus, according to John O'Shea of GOAL, the Irish Government should reverse its policy: he says "it is an that Irish people's money may be contributing to the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children" (Irish Times, April 25th). He has a point - all aid, however well intentioned, can end up doing more harm than good. And John O'Shea, should know this very well - aid supplied by GOAL, good intentions notwithstanding, has been deeply embroiled in the power politics of central Africa for years.
To understand how this came about, it's necessary to understand the recent history of Rwanda. Between April and June 1994, the then Rwandan regime led the massacre of up to one million of its own people. Most of the dead were from the minority Tutsi ethnic grouping, though members of the majority Hutu grouping who were opposed to the Hutu extremists in power were also killed. A rebel army the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) - succeeded in militarily defeating the government forces and ending the genocide in July 1994. As the RPF advanced across the country, millions of Hutus fled the country, mostly to camps in Zaire - some feared retribution for their part in the genocide, while many others were persuaded to flee by the propaganda of the old regime. The forces of the former government fled with the civilians and quickly established themselves as the rulers of the newly created exile camps, from which they recruited and trained new followers and launched murderous counter-attacks back into Rwanda. It was these camps which the Zairean rebels recently closed.
While the camps were open, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as GOAL (as well as official donors, such as the UN agencies) concentrated their aid on the refugees rather than on the victims of the genocide who were left behind in Rwanda. By mid-September 1995, 20 times more aid had gone to refugees outside the country than to support the plan for refugee resettlement within the country.
A World Bank mission to the camps in early 1995 noted that (t)here is an underlying power structure based on a committee of 15 or 17 members, made up of former government, military and business leaders . . . which still controls most of what goes on in the camps". These were the power structures through which GOAL and others worked and, even with the best will in the world, their work could not help but lend legitimacy and material assistance to those power structures.
No-one denies that there was a genuine dilemma here should NGOs relieve distress even if it means indirectly supporting a vicious government in exile? But John O'Shea did not seem to even acknowledge that any dilemma existed. For example, writing in the Irish Press on April 24th, 1995, he claimed: "Two groups are intent on destroying each other. . . Last April, the Hutu tribe turned on their Tutsi neighbours and butchered 800,000 of them
The Tutsis are now bent on revenge. . . When the Tutsis subsequently took power, the Hutus fled". This article ignored a lot of things, including the fact the genocide was not a spontaneous "turning" of one group on another but a carefully planned, officially sponsored programme - implemented by the elements in control of the refugee camps. Whatever his intentions, John O'Shea's article indirectly lent support to the old regime by diminishing its responsibility for the genocide.
It is absolutely right to draw attention to how humanitarian aid can support abusive authorities. But can John O'Shea not recognise that the contradictions he highlights apply to his own efforts also? There are no easy resolutions to these dilemmas - most aid workers acknowledge the problems and try to come up with reasonable compromises. Unfortunately, John O'Shea's strident rhetoric often contributes little that is constructive to the debate. - Yours, etc.,
Ravensdale Park,
Dublin 12.