¢linton ¢a$h: Rwanda

We continue our examination of the anti-Clinton documentary Clinton Cash and its allegations.  Today we examine what writer Peter Schweizer has to say about the Clintons' involvement in the African nation of Rwanda.

For those who may not be as old as I am, the decade of the 1990s was a particularly brutal one for Rwanda.  In 1994, nearly 1 million Rwandas were murdered by their government in the name of ethnic cleansing.  To survive this kind of horror is thankfully unimaginable to most people; just as unimaginable is how a country returns to any kind of 'normal' day-to-day life afterward.

In the case of Rwanda, the credit for restoring normalcy goes to the current president, Paul Kagame, who led the opposition forces in the face of remarkable odds to defeat the government forces who were committing genocide, and to unite the country after a time.  To achieve this miraculous result out of such chaos no doubt requires a great deal of heroism, and no small amount of villainy --- and indeed, it's clear that while Kagame is clearly his country's savior, he is far from a saint.

Bill Clinton has publicly praised Kagame --- no doubt for his heroism, not his villainy --- calling him one of "the greatest leaders of our time," and the Clinton Foundation has awarded Kagame its Global Citizen Award.  It seems that Schweizer brings this up solely to paint the Clintons as those who would do business with tyrants, softening up the viewer for darker allegations to come.  Schweizer does say that the Clintons legitimize strongmen such as Kagame to create "commercial opportunities for donors and friends and allies who want to do business in Africa."

Well, maybe.  But the Clintons' support of Kagame is a poor example, considering that Schweizer fails to identify any Clinton "donor, friend or ally" to benefit from this support.  Additionally, the Clintons are far from alone in praising Kagame:

Kagame, credited with commanding the rebel force that put an end to Rwanda’s genocide 20 years ago, has made himself a global celebrity. Bill Clinton hails him as among “the greatest leaders of our time.” Tony Blair calls him a “visionary.” Bill Gates works closely with him. Kagame has spoken at Harvard and received honorary doctorates from a number of universities in the United States and Europe. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also a fan, telling Kagame in May, “I hope many African nations will emulate what Rwanda is doing. I highly commend you.”

In addition to all of this praise, Rwanda has received international financial support, including from the United States --- from both Republican and Democratic administrations.  U.S. aid to Rwanda averaged $12 million/year in the five years after the genocide, increased to $34.7 million/year in the first Bush administration, and jumped to $150 million in 2012.  The intricacies and moral trade-offs involved in determining why the international community might support a strongman like Kagame are quite complex, but I expect it mostly boils down to this: Considering the genocide Rwanda endured 20 years ago, world leaders prefer the stability a leader like Kagame provides to the possible chaos which might result without him.

It's true that there are valid reasons to revile Kagame and his rule in Rwanda.  And one can reasonably question the Clintons motives in publicly supporting him both verbally and financially (Schweizer insinuates that the Clinton Foundation has given money to Rwanda; I have no idea whether this is true).  But given the widespread support for Kagame, including bipartisan support from the U.S. government, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the Clintons' support comes from any nefarious self-interest.