RWANDANS DEMAND CHANGES TO JOINT GOVERNANCE

C O N F I D E N T I A L KIGALI 000259

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/11/2017
TAGS: PREL PGOV RW
SUBJECT: RWANDANS DEMAND CHANGES TO JOINT GOVERNANCE
ASSESSMENT

REF: A. KIGALI 204

B. KIGALI 113

Classified By: CDA Cheryl J. Sim, reason 1.4 (B/D)


1. (C) Summary: Joint Governance Assessment (JGA) Steering
Committee Co-Chairperson and Minister of Local Government
Protais Musoni called an urgent meeting of the Committee
March 26 to discuss the Government of Rwanda's (GOR) concerns
with the first draft of the assessment. Ministers and other
GOR officials took turns criticizing the document while
members of the diplomatic and donor communities as well as
the consultants responsible for the assessment took pains to
defend it and argued for an end product that was both
independent and credible. The meeting concluded on a tense
note, with Minister of Finance and Economic Planning James
Musoni threatening to pull out of the JGA process if it was
tied to budget support or "compromised Rwanda's sovereignty,"
and suggesting Rwanda might not accept conditional budget
support. The GOR does not appear to be willing to accept a
report that differs from the GOR's own historical
perspective. As a result, the donor community is becoming
increasingly pessimistic that the JGA process will result in
a credible report. End summary.


2. (SBU) Opening the March 26 emergency meeting of the JGA
Steering Committee, Committee Co-Chair and Minister of Local
Government Protais Musoni (World Bank representative Victoria
Kwakwa is the other co-chair) described the GOR's "strong
reservations" with the JGA report and the need for GOR
ownership of it. Ministers and other GOR officials present
then proceeded to criticize elements of the report, repeating
and elaborating on their initial negative reactions (ref A).
Their greatest area of concern was what they described as
"politically motivated factual inaccuracies" in the report,
particularly in sections relating to Rwandan history.
Without citing any examples, Ombudsman Tito Rutaremara
claimed he found 103 items to contest, and lamented the lack
of "scientific evidence" for the report's claims. He then
called for the inclusion of the GOR's response to the report
in the document itself. Minister of Finance and Economic
Planning James Musoni revived his earlier arguments against
the report, suggesting there might be a need for a separate
forum with donors in which to discuss Rwanda's history.


3. (C) Minister Musoni further said the presence in the
report of quotations from Freedom House, Human Rights Watch
and Filip Reyntjens among others who are generally critical
of the GOR would constitute the GOR's endorsement of their
points of view and argued for their removal. With tensions
rising in the room, Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama
asked participants "to remain friendly," but he too
criticized the report as not factually correct. He said the
report should "avoid areas of historical contention" and
instead suggested that a "scientific measure against
international standards" would be a better approach for the
document. He ended by mentioning his problems with the
International Legal Assistance Consortium report (ILAC - ref
B) and asked the consultants to rewrite the JGA report.
Minister of Local Government Protais Musoni pragmatically
called for "an effective program at the end of the JGA
process," and a useful baseline. Other officials, including
the newly-appointed Minister of Information Louise
the newly-appointed Minister of Information Louise
Mushikiwabo and head of the National Commission for Human
Rights Sylvie Kayitesi also added their voices to the choir
of GOR discontent.


4. (C) Members of the diplomatic and donor community once
again found themselves defending the report and the
independence of its authors. The Belgian Ambassador began by
citing Ambassador Arietti's comments in the earlier meeting
on the report (the report needs to be credible and acceptable
to the international community to be of any value - ref A),
then said the report was the result of a team effort. He
suggested that "strong divergences" between the GOR and
donors on the report should not have an impact on the report
itself, but rather be shown in a separate document. He
emphasized the importance of the independence of the
assessment team, and the need for the report to be forward
looking and focused on the indicators. The Dutch Charge
similarly expressed support for the JGA process and praised
the report as balanced and sound in its provision of
historical context.

5. (C) The Swedish Head of Mission suggested that while the

GOR needs the confidence of international investors that a
credible report can encourage, perhaps historical information
could be included elsewhere. He pointed out the need for
some historical content in the JGA process, citing the GOR's
own tendency to dismiss analyses of Rwanda that lack such
contextual elements. The DFID country representative
strongly defended the independence of the consultants, and
said all external comments should only be incorporated into
the report at their discretion. She cautioned the GOR
against pushing for a "watered-down" report that would not be
useful in addressing Rwanda's detractors.


6. (C) During the course of the discussion, a representative
of the consultant team that drafted the JGA report became
increasingly frustrated by the litany of criticism being
directed against his team's efforts and the lack of
opportunity he was initially given to respond. The
consultant defended his team's neutrality and asserted they
had no political agenda. He acknowledged the GOR's concerns
with the report's treatment of Rwandan history, its sequence,
and some quotations used. He welcomed written GOR and donor
comments, which he noted had not been received during the
comment period, and expressed willingness to address
concerns, including possibly removing certain historical
material or quotations while maintaining historical context
and a range of balanced sources.


7. (C) As the meeting drew to a close, the discussion touched
on the importance of the JGA indicators for budget support
from some donors. James Musoni threatened to pull out of the
entire JGA process if it was tied to budget support or
otherwise "compromised Rwanda's sovereignty," and suggested
that Rwanda might not accept conditional budget support. In
a firm reply, the DFID country representative maintained the
need for the indicators for continued funding support.
(Note: DFID is Rwanda's largest budget support donor. End
note.)


8. (C) Comment: To the apparent dismay of many of the donor
participants, the "urgent meeting" of the JGA Steering
Committee did not introduce new information or push the
process forward, but only provided the GOR with another
opportunity to express its unhappiness with the JGA draft
report. While it may just be posturing, the GOR does not
appear to be willing to accept a report that differs from the
GOR's own historical perspective. As a result, the donor
community is becoming increasingly pessimistic that the JGA
process will result in a credible report. The next draft is
due out at the end of April. End comment.












SIM