It is Christmas day and I am sitting in a modern coffee shop in the Union Trade Centre right in the centre of Kigali, the capital of Rwanda.  Behind me sits a group of English/French expats introducing a new arrival to the cultural differences and subtleties he needs to be aware of.  To my side, are two sharply dressed young men speaking animatedly in a mix of Kinyarwanda, Swahili and French.   Two white travellers in baggy harem trousers are snapping photos of the incredible view of the sprawling city below. Across the room, a large family enjoy their Christmas meal from the traditional Rwandan buffet and the little girl is pointing across at me whispering “umuzungu” (white person) to her mama. This is my new home.

Seeing as I am to spend a year here, I thought it would be fitting to speak a little bit about the country Rwanda and its history and progress.  Rwanda has been on the international map for a variety of reasons, most start and end with the genocide in 1994.  Talking about the genocide is difficult; there are so many unanswered questions.  Who shot down the President’s plane? What were the real roles of the RPF, France and the CDR? There are so many ideas, thoughts and opinions – loaded, naturally, with a lot of emotions- it is hard to separate the truth from it all.  There are some things we may never know but the brief (generally) agreed on history is below.

The capital of Rwanda, Kigali.

The Genocide: Rwanda’s death:

This account is based on the information at the Gisozi Genocide Memorial in Kigali. I am aware of other conflicting accounts but have chosen to use the national history that most Rwandans adhere to.

The infamous ethnic clash between the Hutus and the Tutsis is well-known in the public sphere; in fact before the arrival of the Belgian colonialists they were merely classist terms.  Tutsi literally means ‘owner of 10 cows or more’, and people could change from a Hutu to a Tutsi and vice versa depending on their economic status.  The colonial machine worked quickly to change this into an ethnic divide, meticulously justifying their approach by citing differences between skin tone, nose length and also intelligence.  They tended to place some Tutsis in higher positions and give them social preferences such as better access to education, although generally both Tutsis and Hutus did not benefit from the Belgian reign.  Colonial influence was enough that by the time independence arrived there were increasing tensions between Hutus and Tutsis. By 1957, Rwandan themselves were beginning to cite the differences between Hutus and Tutsis.  Sporadic, periodical violence between Hutus and Tutsis blotted the pages of Rwanda’s newly found independence throughout the decades preceding 1994.  The Rwandan civil war, starting in 1991, between the Tutsi-sympathetic Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and the government helped to strain relations and increase fears and hatred towards Tutsis.

It has become clearer that the genocide was planned systematically by the government’s leading party Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (CDR), although it is debated whether President Habyarimana was involved.  National radios and newspapers incited racial hatred towards Tutsis and in 1993 a list was drawn up of ‘traitors’ who were to be executed.  Reports of specialised camps equipping young men with weapons and training them to kill Tutsis reached even the UN, although no action was taken on this.  The French government, despite being aware of ethnic tensions, sold weapons to groups in Rwanda and many Rwandans today still believe the role France played in the genocide is larger than previously thought.   The spark finally arrived when President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down and he and the President of Burundi were killed in the crash.  Hours later, the genocide began.  People on the traitor list were hunted and killed in their own homes, and the violence quickly spread as groups of Interahamwe (following orders from government officials and the Presidential Guard) began killing in horrific and brutal ways.

The international community, rather than assisting, only came in to evacuate foreigners.   One of the most heart-breaking facts is that the number of UN troops used to evacuate westerners could have been enough to stop the genocide and preserve peace. The killing only stopped when Kagame’s RPF invaded Kigali and took over, placing Kagame as President. It is unclear how many were killed in the genocide; the number ranges between 800,000 and over 1 million depending on sources.  Many people were never able to find out what happened to friends or family, and to this day people are still searching for news of their loved ones.   As the beautiful and moving Gisozi Genocide Memorial puts it, ‘Rwanda was dead.’

The mass graves at the Genocide memorial in Kigali.

The mass graves at the Genocide memorial in Kigali.

The Rebirth:

Knowing the destruction and death that occurred only 20 years ago, it is amazing the steps that Rwanda has taken.  The Rwandan government is serious about development; they want to become a middle-income country by 2020 (a goal that could still be achievable) and it is on track to reach most of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals.  Looking at the statistics, it is estimated that 97% of all children attend primary school and the GNI per capita has increased by 40% from 1980 to 2012.  Rwanda scores highly on gender equality; the cabinet is roughly 1/3 female, the percentage of boys and girls attending school is more or less equal and the government even funds entrepreneurial women without familial support.  Transparency International has rated Rwanda’s corruption level as negligible.

The development of a country is never a simple story but the quiet optimism of the Rwandan people is infectious.  What is most interesting is the idea of healing that seems to permeate the country.  People my age and over have in their memories some of the most horrific acts that have been known to humankind.  As Paul Collier has shown, it is easy for any country, especially a developing one, to slip back into a spiral of civil war, violence and destruction.  This has not happened in Rwanda, largely because of this emphasis on healing.  Everywhere there are memorials with the words etched upon them ‘Never again’.  Up to 2012, Locals tried genocidaires (people who committed genocide) in their own communities in grassroots people’s courts (Gacaca courts).  Genocidaires who are repentant can serve half their sentence doing community work in the very places they once slaughtered people.  This article even details stories of genocidaires working hand in hand with the very people whose families they killed. The country’s past is ever-prevalent, but the pull of the future is stronger.  There are no Hutus or Tutsis anymore; instead, there are Rwandans.

Faces of the Future.

Faces of the Future.


The NGO and the Celebrity: A Dying Romance?

Since its release in late November, Band Aid 30’s new single stormed the charts and raised more than £1 million in just a few minutes for the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. It also attracted widespread criticism from commentators who were less than pleased with the third return of lyrics such as ‘Do they know it’s Christmas time at all?” – (a rather ridiculous rhetoric seeing as Christianity is the most practised religion in Africa at the moment, and Sierra Leone and Guinea are predominantly Muslim countries making the question completely irrelevant to the Ebola epidemic). But it is interesting that 29 years ago the first release of Band Aid received generally positive views, how widely it has been condemned it has been condemned this time.The Band aid story is part of a wider debate about celebrities and their involvement in NGOs; a controversial, complicated subject that no one seems clear about. The ‘celebrigod’ burst onto the development scene after the first release of band aid, but could their day be over? Is mass fundraising moving elsewhere to mobilise the masses?

There are many problems with band aid, the most obvious being the lyrics. In the original 1984 version, if you were to take Geldof at his word you would believe Africa to be a barren area where ‘no rain or rivers flow’ and ‘nothing ever grows’ thanks to the menace of the ‘burning sun’. This time round, the lyrics have been modified slightly but the infamous Christmas question still remains amongst other gems such as ‘where to comfort is to fear, where to touch is to be scared.’ We can at least be thankful this time they’re only talking about West Africa (only a mere 6 million km squared or so) rather than the entire continent. Of course, these lyrics feed into our unhelpful stereotypes on Africa and Africans, the dangers of which I wrote about last month.
But aside from the lyrics, the entire act has been criticised as self-righteous and patronising, that feeds into the uncomfortable idea of westerners as the ‘white saviour’. Al Jazeera ran a piece calling for Bob Geldof to ‘back off’, arguing that in fact West African artists had already released two much more fitting anthems for Ebola. ‘Africa Stop Ebola’ warns listeners about the dangers of touching dead bodies (one of the ways Ebola can be contacted) and urges people to go to the hospital (something many are too afraid to do.) Aside from this, others have questioned the ability of band aid to raise a large enough amount of money to have an effect. Proceeds raised by Band Aid 30 will not solve the Ebola epidemic, and fundraising efforts were already well-established by the time the recording was released. Médecins sans frontières had already raised 20 million pounds by November 2014.
So why does Band Aid exist? And why do celebrities so often become spokespeople for NGOs and crises abroad? Celebrity activism is largely regarded to be a recent idea; in 1984 Band Aid’s first release sparked a huge surge of celebrities taking on global campaigns for themselves. By having a celebrity on their side, an NGO could reach a large, loyal fan base over specific emergencies or appeals. Furthermore, many NGOs have justified their use of celebrities through their ability to influence political figures, who seem to enjoy brushing arms with the latest chart topper. An NGO can use the celebrity to create a spotlight over an issue that may need attention, which can generate large amounts of donations, support and even policy change. As Bob Geldof put it during the first Band Aid release, “This is not Charity. This is finely tuned politics.”
The flipside of this, of course, is the fact that celebrities can only often be used for ‘quick-fix’ campaigns that may not be the answer to the problems they are attempting to solve. The Ebola epidemic is a classic example; celebrity attention focusses on the immediate curing of and prevention of the spread of the disease. While this is extremely important and does need to be stopped, there is little or no focus in the media world on the overarching problem – the lack of infrastructure within these countries that allowed the disease to spread so quickly. Professor William Easterly has pointed out that celebrities’ altruistic intentions may do more harm because one issue gets an overwhelming (albeit fleeting) focus while others are not even discussed in the public sphere.

It is striking how for Band Aid it has been third time unlucky; the media has been quick to brand it as ‘patronising’ and ‘self-indulgent’ and there has been a vast range of criticism from different sources including NGOS themselves. Why this sudden change in the wind? The fact of the matter may be that the age of the activist-actor and Samaritan-singer may be over. With new platforms like social media becoming a quick and effective way to spread one message to many people, NGOs may have found another ‘quick-fix’ solution that doesn’t involve flying Kiera Knightley out to South Sudan. Campaigns such as the Ice Bucket Challenge have flooded the internet in the past year and mobilised hundreds of people that otherwise would not have donated to that particular charity; something that celebrities have been used to achieve in the past. Over the coming years, it will be interesting to see how NGOs tap into the massive fundraising potential that social media could possess and the affect that it may have on the influence of celebrities’ roles in crises appeals.

This isn’t to say that social media fundraising does not have exactly the same if not more issues, but it could well skip out the celebrity ‘middleman’ and harness the fundraising power of selfie-lovers. There will always be questions about the sustainability, ethics and effectiveness of large-scale, ‘quick-fix’, appeal fundraising, but are we witnessing a shift in approach by NGOs? Is this the end of the celebrity and the NGO? Watch this space…