This question implies that there could be some circumstances where such imperialism could be seen as positive. Probably, and in a relative way, depending on where one stands either at the receiving or giving end.
Rwanda led by President Paul Kagame has been accused several times, with sufficient evidence for its guilt, of invading and maintaining its presence under different forms in the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC].
Such repeated interventions and disguised occupations of part of DRC have caused millions of deaths and large scale displacements of populations. And unfortunately, the ordeal does not seem to end.
When on Tuesday June 19, 2012 the Rwandan President Paul Kagame, during his monthly press conference, categorically denied any support he might be this time around giving to the rebel group M23 in Eastern Congo, he reminded me of Philip Gourevitch, New York Times journalist, while referring to the way Rwanda under the Rwandan Patriotic Front political leadership portrays itself on the international scene.
It was about the Mutsinzi Report which again was full of fabricated evidences to investigate responsibilities in the assassination of former President of Rwanda Juvenal Habyarimana. The NYT journalist explains:
… the report on Habyarimana’s plane is the latest in a yearlong string of diplomatic and political moves that show the new Rwandan government achieving a level of sophistication, skill, and effectiveness in commanding international respect that has rarely, if ever, been seen before in Africa.
Is the rumbling this Monday of the Rwandan president against evidence of his support to M23 rebel group part of that sophistication Gourevitch talks about? I think so.
It is not different from NATO bombing Libyan infrastructures, enabling the killing of civilians through local militias and rebels, while pretending to be on a humanitarian mission; and finally ending up with oil contracts when Gaddafi is killed.
All imperialisms are bad, even from its captains’ perspective if they had any human consideration of their brutal actions. They are selfish and ruthless in pursuing their interests. They don’t care about the number of their casualties on the way to their objectives.
But what is most wrong with Rwandan imperialism over DRC [officially only part of it] is that the conflict situation it has created has been the most deadly in African history of the last two decades.
Maybe because it is black people dying at the hands of one of their own though supported by other imperialists elsewhere, it does not matter. As long as such attitude serves their ongoing interests.
But one historical question arises relatively. Was Adolf Hitler confronted too late? Could damages had been limited if the then influential countries of the time had told him to behave politically appropriately much earlier?
These are the same questions history will ask of those particularly in the West who today are letting Paul Kagame carry on illegally occupying Eastern Congo. They should logically bear the same responsibility as him before an impartial court, provided they were able to stop him.