The former Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP, stopped payment of general budget support to Rwanda in July 2012.This was because of concerns about the role of Rwanda in the M23 rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In September he re-instated half the aid as general budget support, and paid the other half directly to the education and agricultural sectors. Although there were concerns about the decision making process and whether the decision was correct. Mr Mitchell assured the Committee that he carried out consultations within the both Governments of the UK and Rwanda before making his decision. The new Secretary of State agreed that the decision-making process had been robust.As part of this process, the Prime Minister set out three conditions for the restoration of aid which the Committee believe to be reasonable and consistent with the aid agreement between the UK and Rwanda Governments. These were 1) Rwanda should engage constructively in the peace process, 2) it should publicly condemn the M23 Group and 3) there should be continuing ceasefire in the Kivus and practical support to the M23 should end.Among the main conclusions are : in the light of Rwanda's progress towards the Millennium Development Goal targets and its poverty reduction efforts, DFID should continue to provide aid to Rwanda; but as the Prime Minister's conditions have not been met, general budget support cannot continue; The Government of Rwanda should comply with all three of the Prime Minister's conditions before further general budget support is disbursed; Until then, DFID should consider alternative channels to deliver its aid.

Includes statistics.

When the United Nations sanctions a humanitarian relief operation, how can the numerous and diverse UN, Non-Governmental Organizations and military elements be coordinated? What are the practical, political and institutional considerations and impediments? What can be learned from previous experience? This is a volume of practitioner perspectives: the views of distinguished individuals from all of the concerned professions, including former Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and Force Commanders, as well as senior UN officials and representatives of the NGO community.

In 2013 almost half of Africa's top aid recipients were ruled by authoritarian regimes. While the West may claim to promote democracy and human rights, in practice major bilateral and international donors, such as USAID, DFID, the World Bank and the European Commission, have seen their aid policies become ever more entangled with the survival of their authoritarian protégés. Local citizens thus find themselves at the receiving end of a compromise between aid agencies and government elites, in which development policies are shaped in the interests of maintaining the status quo. Aid and Authoritarianism in Africa sheds light on the political intricacies and moral dilemmas raised by the relationship between foreign aid and autocratic rule in Africa. Through contributions by leading experts exploring the revival of authoritarian development politics in Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Cameroon, Mozambique and Angola, the book exposes shifting donor interests and rhetoric as well as the impact of foreign aid on military assistance, rural development, electoral processes and domestic politics. In the process, it raises an urgent and too often neglected question: to what extent are foreign aid programmes actually perpetuating authoritarian rule?

Political conditionality involves the linking of development aid to certain standards of observance of human rights and (liberal) democracy in recipient countries. Although this may seem to be an innocent policy, it has the potential to bring about a dramatic change in the basic principles of the international system: putting human rights first means putting respect for individuals and rights before respect for the sovereignty of states.

Through a rigorous critique of the dominant narrative of the Rwandan genocide, Collins provides an alternative argument to the debate situating the killings within a historically-specific context and drawing out a dynamic interplay between national and international actors.