Who let the dogs out on Rwanda?

THIS has been the season of The Letter. Unless you have been in a coma since the end of August, you will have been assailed by what is said about the 28 August letter which President Museveni wrote to Clare Short, British Secretary of State for Overseas Development. The letter was leaked to me nearly two weeks ago, but such was my non-interest in the matter that I put it aside without bothering to read it. Besides, of course, it had not been written to me, and I happen to belong to the old school that shudders at the thought of invading people’s privacy in this way. Not that I haven’t once or twice done it myself, but the last time was a long time ago and in another country and, besides, the one to come off worst was myself. Served me right! But yesterday, especially since it had even been locally published in full, I opened “my” copy. Reader, I wish I had done so before! It is a sober, reflective, communication, which any responsible leader of a country should (nay, ought to) write, considering the gravity of the situation. Of course it was still wrong in principle that people leaked it in the first place, and that those to whom it was leaked had treated it as they did. It is said that they printed thousands of copies and sent them all over the world. But that has always been their style! Who leaked the thing? People I respect (and many I don’t) have pointed the finger at London. For me I cannot believe that career diplomats could have been responsible. They had very little to gain, and a great deal to lose (their careers, for instance) if caught out. But politicians are another matter. I could see one of them (wild horses wouldn’t drag the name out of me!) thinking that the leakage could actually “concentrate minds” towards a common good. For what is at the heart of the President’s letter is the slide towards danger, where below the silence dangerous plots are being hatched. He starts off, “I am embarrassed to have to communicate with you about the deteriorating situation in the bilateral relations between Uganda and the Government of Rwanda, led by President Kagame.” He is in no doubt: “Rwanda is planning aggression against us either using proxies or, even, directly.” He gives his reasons, including “some Ugandan Army officers who ran from here...to Rwanda.” If he believes all this, what should he, or any other responsible leader, do? In his case, the answer is twofold. He asks for help: “If you can do something to persuade Mr Kagame from his dangerous course, it would be good for the region.” Also, he wants Britain’s understanding, given the situation, for Uganda to want to increase military spending; at present a paltry 1.9% of GDP. Some have pointed to Museveni’s “rough” language. Good God, here is a man who has fought justified wars of one kind or another for nearly thirty years. Does he want more? “...We have just defeated the protracted terrorism organised against us by Sudan...We cannot countenance nor tolerate another round of terrorism...” That is sensible and right. Here is a man who wants to spend his last term prefessionalising his army. Does he want to be sidetracked by what is reported as Ugandan rebel training camps in neighbouring countries? We are told of wonderful gadgets which can track unusual movements, down to the wave of your hand. Let them say who is training and who is not. Time for Uganda to better itself meantime pours away as if from an unclosed tap. And you say Museveni’s tongue is rough? Museveni always looks for opportunities to talk, latterly “in Arusha and at ...the SMART Partnership...Mr Kagame did not come to either”. Happily, this coming week will see refereed talks in London between Uganda and Rwanda; between Museveni and Kagame. Hold your breath. * * * I really wanted to give big space to the news that parliamentarians had given themselves what many saw as whopping increases and perks. The headlines talked of new salaries of sh4.7 million per month, plus a one-off government transport facilitation of sh20 million. These were figures at which many whistled in disbelief, including yours truly. But, and many will think I have finally lost the plot, there are ways of looking at the figures which show that the members of Parliament have not been as greedy as perceived. The salary itself has moved from sh1.1 million per month to 1.46. Per diem expenses (based on a Fairway Hotel room) have moved from sh80,000 to sh104,000. Mileage (twice a month) has moved from sh800 to 1,000 (murram), 700 to 800(tarmac). Sitting allowances, per sitting, for committees not plenary, 15,000 for chair, 12,000 for vice and 10,000 for members. Constituency offices (including staff) sh150,000 per month; 200,000 for special cases. The transport facilitation, which seems high, is realistic when the cost of buying vehicles is taken into account, and the fact that any further costs are met by MPs. But there are questions. Will honourables be honourable about signing in for the day and staying in? This money is not salary. Why did they not accept that the Budget had not allowed for their demands, as Government pointed out? Don’t they care that what they are asking for is likely to sink the economy and destroy the Budget? Couldn’t they wait? We shall say more.