Andrew Mitchell,  the former UK Secretary for  International Development, a man who hates the Rwandan Hutu community has been supporting Kagame who is using British taxpayer money to fund wars in DR Congo. He said on BBC  that Kagame did not kill Hutu refugees in DR Congo.

Andrew Mitchell said that he released UK aid to his persona friend Kagame  for helping Rwandan poor people and to enable children to go to school.

But how much of this British aid is reaching the poor in Rwanda? Furthermore, the British aid that was released for Kagame should have been allocated to the 250,000 displaced  poor Congolese people who are now living in refugee camps as the result of Kagame’s support to  the current war in  RD Congo.   Why Andrew Mitchell doesn’t care about the  displaced Congolese children who also need education?

Andrew Mitchell under fire over Rwanda aid

Andrew Mitchell was under further pressure last night after Labour demanded he publish the civil service advice he received over his decision to reinstate Britain's suspended aid programme to Rwanda.
Mr Mitchell used his last few hours as International Development Secretary, before being moved in the reshuffle, to sign off on a plan to hand over £16m of frozen aid.
The UK suspended the payment in June, under pressure from the US and EU, after a UN report said the government of President Paul Kagame was sponsoring rebels in neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Sources suggested that Mr Mitchell was reluctant to suspend aid in the first place because of his close links to President Kagame – and overruled advice from his own officials on reinstating the funding in the last act before being moved to the Whips Office.
Labour's shadow International Development Secretary Ivan Lewis said: "Andrew Mitchell's irresponsible decision to reinstate aid put personal friendship above proper foreign policy considerations and undermines the strong message sent by other donors."
An International Development Department spokesman denied the decision was improper.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrew-mitchell-under-fire-over-rwanda-aid-8191504.html

Why did Andrew Mitchell reinstate aid to Rwanda on his last day at DfID?

The "aid success story" in Rwanda was key to detoxifying the Tory brand. Is that why Andrew Mitchell personally intervened to restore its budget, despite fears that the country is funding violent rebels in the Congo?

By Mike Hale Published 27 September 2012 8:00

• 
•  
•         

Paul Kagame. Photograph: Getty Images

David Cameron used his appearance yesterday at the UN General Assembly to re-confirm British support for increasing aid to meet the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GDP. Coming at a time when billions have been cut from defence budgets dear to Tory hearts, and billions more will have to be cut from welfare, it is a remarkable display of international solidarity. Or is it? While there’s no doubting the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to the poor of Africa, it does not explain why ring-fencing aid is such a high priority in such difficult times.
International aid was critical in redefining the modern Tory party. Aid played, and continues to play, an important part in “Brand Cameron” – which is why there was such anguish when Mitchell went and spoilt it all with his “fucking pleb” rant against the police in Downing Street. As the Daily Mail commented this week: “He lavished billions on foreign aid to detoxify the Tories. Now Mr Mitchell's boorish tirade has set them back years.”
At the heart of the Tory aid project has been Rwanda – a country now boasting impressive growth rates, as it recovers from the genocide of 1994. Having left the Francophone zone behind and joined the Commonwealth, Rwandan president Paul Kagame was an ideal partner for the Conservative Party to embrace.
All of which explains why Andrew Mitchell went through such contortions to reinstate part of the Rwandan aid budget on 4 September, his very last day in office as Secretary of State for International Development. It had been a job he loved – having served as Shadow Secretary for five years before the 2010 election. Before he left, Mitchell took one final decision. Without consulting his senior officials, I understand, he reversed the cuts that had been made to the Rwandan aid budget less than two months earlier.
The decision flew in the face of the professional advice he had received, and Britain’s Western aid partners have privately expressed their outrage at his action. Mitchell’s successor, Justine Greening, was left struggling to pick up the pieces.
The initial aid cut had been announced against Mitchell’s judgement, and was only implemented following considerable pressure from Washington, Bonn and the Hague, which had already made the cuts. It followed extensive evidence from UN experts that Rwandan troops and weaponry were slipping across the country’s border to support some of the most notorious rebels operating in Eastern Congo – the M23 (pdf). Their report was backed by evidence supplied by Human Rights Watch.
Andrew Mitchell resisted imposing the sanction as long as possible, but had finally caved in. The decision was grudgingly taken and slipped out in a press release from DFID on 27 July, while the British press and public were immersed in the spectacle of the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.
Just 53 days after the cut was announced, it was reversed. Explaining this decision, Mitchell said that following the delay in British aid: “. . . I sought assurances from President Kagame that Rwanda was adhering to the strict partnership principles.” President Kagame, a past-master at dealing with Western donors, provided the kind of vacuous assurances he has repeated down the years. Mitchell believed them, announcing as he left for the Chief Whip’s office that: “Britain will partially restore its general budget support to Rwanda.”
The UK remains Rwanda’s largest bilateral aid donor. What is so remarkable about the tenacity of British support, is not that it not just that it flies in the face of years of evidence of Rwandan repression at home or Kagame’s backing for Congolese rebels. It also ignores the evidence of the danger Rwandan government death squads pose to exiles living in London.
In May last year the Metropolitan police took the extraordinary step of issuing several Rwandans with “Threats to Life Warning Notices.” (See an example of one of them here, with personal information redacted.) These stated, in no uncertain terms, that they were in danger of being killed by Paul Kagame’s government.

“Reliable intelligence states that the Rwandan Government poses an imminent threat to your life. The threat could come in any form. You should be aware that othr high profile cases where action such as this has been conducted in the past. Conventional and unconventional means have been used.”

While the Met said it could not provide round the clock protection, it instructed the recipients of these warnings not to carry weapons. Instead a series of measures, including burglar alarms, changes to daily routine and the like were suggested to the frightened exiles.
The British fascination with Rwanda dates back to Clare Short’s time, when she was given the development ministry by Tony Blair following the 1997 election. More than a decade later, long after losing her post, she still took holidays in the country. “The wonderful thing about Rwanda” she explained in 2008 “is that people are full of hope and determination to build a better future.” This, despite repeated warnings from human rights groups of Rwandan political repression, the silencing of critical journalists and repeated interventions in Congo.
Tony Blair took a similar position, continuing to support President Paul Kagame after leaving office through his Africa Governance Initiative. Blair still works closely with the Rwandan president, visiting the country earlier this month.
But Labour’s support only laid the foundations for the Tories, who were soon also won over by Kagame’s cool intelligence and free-market principles. Andrew Mitchell was among the first to be charmed, grasping the part this small Central African nation could play in re-branding the Tory party.
In 2007 he formed Project Umubano. Working in Rwanda and that other war-torn African state, Sierra Leone, the project claims to have sent 230 volunteers – many of them MPs and cabinet ministers - off to sunny climes to do a spot of teaching, building and good works. Stephen Crabb MP was an early convert, describing Kagame as “one of Africa's most competent leaders.”
Among their activities has been the encouragement of that most English of exports, the love of cricket. A Rwandan Cricket Academy was formed and the annual match between Umubano volunteers and a side from the Rwanda Cricket Association was a highlight of every visit.
Umubano was more than just a knock-about holiday in the sun; its real aim was to detoxify the Tory brand. Rwanda provided the prefect backdrop for Cameron to launch his development aid programme in 2007, even if he was criticised for leaving his flooded Witney constituency to do so. As a senior Tory MP complained at the time, "Rwanda always looked a bit like a stunt. Now it looks like a very ill-timed one."
Cameron’s critics were wrong. The strategy paid off, softening the Tory image. The links with Rwanda saw Paul Kagame attend the Tory Party conference in 2007, lavishing praise on his hosts, describing Umubano as an “unprecedented” example of aid.
Just how sensitive the Mitchell camp is about Project Rwanda was recently revealed by the Telegraph journalist, Lucy Kinder, who described how in 2009, as a young volunteer with Umubano she was mercilessly bullied by Mitchell’s staff. Kinder had written an article which was mildly critical. It produced fury from Mitchell and reduced some of his senior aides to tears. Anything that might besmirch the Tory image had to resisted at all costs. "You have betrayed the trust of me and the Conservative Party," Mitchell told her.
The complex web of relations between Cameron, Mitchell and Rwanda perhaps explains why the Prime Minister has continued to support his Chief Whip throughout the “fucking plebs” scandal. The success of “Brand Cameron” owes much to the people of Rwanda. Ditching the architect of Umubano could call into question the Prime Minister’s loyalty to his closet friends and undermine his carefully crafted image.

 http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/why-did-andrew-mitchell-reinstate-aid-rwanda-his-last-day-dfid

UK and US must condemn Rwanda's support for Congo rebellion

Baroness Glenys Kinnock is Labour’s Shadow Minister for International Development in the Lords
A recent UN report reveals the Rwandan government has violated the Democratic Republic of the Congo's (DRC) national sovereignty and breached international sanctions by providing soldiers, weapons, ammunition and financial support to a new rebellion in eastern DRC that began in March.
The UN details how the M23 revolt enjoys direct support from senior levels of Rwanda's government, including the defence minister, General James Kabarebe.
Findings like these should create political shockwaves across Rwanda's donor community. The UK and US in particular, as the country's two largest single donors, have a key role to play. Donor funds constitute 26% of Rwanda's 2012-15 budget and donors should be using the influence this kind of support affords to ensure Rwanda immediately stops supporting the M23.
Instead, the donor community has been largely silent since the report came out. Rather than condemning Rwanda, the US government's first reaction was to attempt to block the report's publication, although it later issued a statement of deep concern. The UK, which this year alone has committed £75m of taxpayers' money to Rwanda, has shied away from public comment and expects us instead to be reassured by personal expressions of "concern" made by the international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, to Rwanda's foreign minister.
The UK's lack of public reaction is astounding. DRC is rated near the of bottom of the 2011 Human Development Index. It has one of the highest rates of infant mortality in the world. In eastern DRC, where the Rwandan-backed rebellion is taking place, civilians have endured attacks, pillage, torture, rape and murder for over 15 years.
The UK Department for International Development's website makes the case clearly, saying the DRC is: "… one of the poorest countries in the world and is said to be the worst county in the world to be a woman … Years of conflict have left the country deeply impoverished, without basic services and infrastructure."
Worse still, Rwanda is backing a rebellion whose leader, General Bosco Ntaganda, is wanted by the international criminal court to face war crimes charges. Since 2009, Ntaganda has seized control of some of the region's richest mining areas. He has built up a highly lucrative minerals trafficking operation. It is highly likely that proceeds from this racketeering have been used to finance the fighting.
Global attention must be brought back on to this issue. The Rwandan government's actions and the new rebellion in eastern DRC cannot be written off as strategically unimportant or – worse – as Congo fatigue.
In 2008, the last time rebels threatened to attack Goma, the then Labour government's foreign secretary, David Miliband, flew to the region for emergency talks with the DRC president, Joseph Kabila. Today's situation demands similar high-level intervention from our government, and not only through negotiations. That does mean, in the first instance, public condemnation. Our government should be reaching out to other states in the region so that they too call upon the Rwandan authorities to change course.
This article first appeared on The Guardian’s 'Poverty Matters' blog

http://www.labourlords.org.uk/uk-and-us-must-condemn-rwandas-support-for-congo-rebellion