On the subject of Kagame, it has been interesting to note the inherent racism that gets applied in the judgements--often well meaning--folks on either side of the aisle (the aisle being those who support what he is doing and those who are against it). Many assume that he cannot dio what he is doing because he is African and all Africans are supposed to be corrupt.

I ran into the same bias when it came to explaining that Kagame's army could take Zaire anytime it wanted to. I found it amusing in 1998 when the Wash post called me looking for a story. They wanted me to "confirm" that US military training had enabled the RPA to take Zaire. I laughed at the reporter and told her "the Boys" as they call themselves were quite capable of doing what they had done without US assistance. The same thinking puts too much stock in his brief stay at Fort Leavenworth; the US Army can hardly claim credit for Paul Kagame's military genius.

Kagame makes folks uncomfortable because he is not asking for help with conditions. He had rather have investments in his country than foreign assistance. He has great distrust of NGOs and the IO development community because he has seen them become self-perpetuating entities. When I dealt with him and his senior officers, they asked for training first. When it came to material, they looked for basics: transport and communications. He did not want a long shopping list of equipment; he didn't want anything that came with strings or a note to be called in later.

He angers folks like Human Rights Watch because he does not do what they want him to do. He may select a course that allows some compromise. Or as he sometimes does, he sets his mind and that's it--usually. He also is politely blunt. He does not do the African political two step. Often the most important things Kagame says are what he does not say. It infuriates many who cannot hear a refusal without it being said.

Kagame is all about self-sufficiency and serious behavior. read Kinzer's book about his crackdown on government officials with their Mercedes. He had the police stop them at traffic lights and then they impounded their cars--the cars were sold and the money put back in the budget. He has forbidden any members of his famlly to serve in the government. The quickest way to be purged from the government is to attract his attention via corruption.

As much as Kagame dislikes French policy in Africa and in particular in Rwanda, he is not about to become the lead in expanding Anglophone Africa. That charge was a favorite of the French in the 1990s. Nor is Kagame about to become a newer version of Mobutu. To paint him as a proxy of the US means simply you have never met him. I believe that Museveni assumed that he would be able to use the Rwandans when he wanted to; it took open fighting between Ugandan and Rwandan forces in the Congo to end that illusion.

Now this is not to say, Paul Kagame is a saint. He is driven in his single mindedness and so far he has managed to adhere to a strngent code of behavior. He is ruthless in his determination to keep Rwanda moving and a large part of that means controlling the tensions that are never very far beneath the surface. Those tensions come from both sides and he is in the middle. It is a pressure cooker. I am in the camp that says the situation demands a firm hand and Kagame doing better than 99.99% of the rest of the population could or would do. I don't agree with the characterization of him as a dictator; his leadership is drawn from communal consent within the RPF.

So far he has done well. I hope that he continues to do so.

Tom