Observers may have reported that they found evidence of possible vote tampering, vote inflation in regions of the country favourable to the incumbent President Joseph Kabila, and instances of vote suppression in areas known to be bastions of support for the opposition – but that is as far as it gets.

No one can say they were surprised by the Congo Electoral Commission announcement last week that incumbent President Joseph Kabila had won the election. Not even Tshisekedi supporters. For a while they knew this was coming. They cried foul, demanded that there be a transparent election, impartial electoral commission and monitors to ensure that the incumbent does not “steal the election”. All to no avail.

So as expected, when the results finally came out, Daniel Ngoy-Mulunda of the Electoral Commission made it known to the world that president Kabila (with a small p) with 48.9 percent of the vote had emerged winner with “President Tshisekedi” (with a capital P) at 32 percent coming second. It was official and it probably will remain so.

In most democratic countries, such a close poll would have been reason to celebrate. Who gets such close election results unless the country’s electoral process is democratic and the major institutions functional. But DRC is only democratic simply in name. The people who should have been celebrating their countries incredible democratic moment (no poll has been more close in Africa) were instead organising to take to the streets protesting what they saw as a “massive stitch up”.

That someone who barely got 50 percent of the total vote should go on to rule the country is another issue  and perhaps one I should leave for another day. Most constitutions in Africa are written in such a way that when it comes to national elections and choosing who to become president, the winner must get over 50 percent of the vote or there will be a re-run. Not in DRC. DRC is a special case and like I said I will leave this very issue for another day.

But why am I going into all this? You see on Thursday last week (Dec 8th) I stumbled upon an online story on Igihe (an online publication based in Kigali) that some suspected arsonists (read protesters) had attacked and tried to burn down the Rwandan embassy in Paris. After the incident, a statement signed by Ambassador Jacques Kabale, was reportedly issued asking Rwandans living around the town where the embassy is located to stay calm, and give a deaf ear to rumors about Presidential elections of DR Congo which is suspected to be the cause of the attack.

It seemed to me that this was an odd thing for the Congolese to do (if indeed they were the ones who had attacked the Rwandan embassy in Paris).

Then on Sunday (Dec 11th) I woke up to news that Scotland Yard had made 139 arrests following a demonstration in central London over the election result in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What? In the Paris story, the suspicion was that the attackers or the arsonists if you may, were unhappy with the way Rwanda continues to interfere in the politics of their country. Now I do not represent the government of Rwanda and even if I did I am no Louise Mushikiwabo (she is good at what she does) but if I had an issue with my neighbour or if my neighbour was constantly poking his finger into my face, torching his embassy in a foreign country is the last thing I would want to do. And this is irrespective of the provisions of the Vienna Convention.

But let us be clear here. It would be unfair to blame the Congolese opposition for the incident in Paris (if it even ever happened given that it only was picked up by igihe.come). While it is possible that some disgruntled elements within the Congolese diaspora were responsible for the Paris incident and intended it as a way of showing their disgruntlement against what they see as a frivolous foreign policy by Rwanda, it helps their cause not.

That alongside the events in London yesterday where Congolese protesters having turned up in numbers to exercise their fundamental right began to damage property, including cars and shops, as well as threatening members of the public has if anything, done more harm than good to their cause.

I sat down for a coffee with a good friend of mine (who is English and considers himself well connected to the Lib Dems) and throughout our conversation, he just could not understand why the Congolese would dare do such in London. “I don’t know what you think but I have always had this feeling that the Congolese  are a disorganised lot. I mean just loo at the amount of resources these guys have got but still their country has lacked any sense of direction”, he said to me.

I think they have lost it is what I said to him. The Congolese have lost it. You do not seek sympathy through destruction. Yes DRC has had its fair share of problems, foreign interventions and the race for minerals notwithstanding but there seems to be a general lack of initiative among the Congolese to find home grown solutions to their problems. The idea of blaming others for all their ills has got to stop. This is not easy of course given the amount of exploitation that goes on in the Congo and also the fact that everyone appears to want a bit of Congo. But surely, there has to be a way of expressing their concern (and especially outside DRC) in ways that are civil and ways which will not further alienate those involved casting them as hopeless crazy people.

But who knows? In a country that has been plagued by war crimes committed by foreign forces, excessive mineral looting and more than 6 million deaths, and all these at the silent watch of the powers that be,  perhaps acting crazy is not such a gruesome idea – after all? Can it really honestly be said that the Congolese are losing it or have they been pushed to breaking point?

Over to you my little monsters…

Joseph Bideri (bless him) was able to manage a grin last night as he headed home after a long bad day at the office but the former RPF chief propagandist knows things could have been a lot worse – but for some brilliant CYA moment.

Yes and before you begin scratching your head, CYA or (Cover Your Ass), is a common term used in overly litigious societies like the US to refer to the idea that whatever the situation, one MUST always remember not to leave themselves too exposed – refer to the law of torts.

The news yesterday morning that The New Times Editor-in-Chief had been detained following hours of interrogation at the hands of CID officers shocked even the finest of the TNT faithful but to many this was not surprising news. In a country where intolerance to corruption (again depending on how you define intolerance to graft) is somewhat an assumed mantra, reports of even the mightiest of all going behind bars are not that uncommon. So when it dawned on all that Bideri had been taken in, there was a sense of well, “not surprising”.

And like I wrote a few months ago, Mr. Bideri in yesteryear Rwanda was the cowboy with powers to succeed the laws of the land. While he will have been shocked by his questioning and subsequent detention at Kicukiro Police Station, he will have not been surprised. As someone who has been in the system for a while, he knows the terms of reference. Work for us and we will support you, challenge us or fall out with one of those who matter and you will be lynched.

There are a host of reasons as to why Mr. Bideri could have been summoned. Despite his unswerving service to the regime in Kigali, the man has had his own mishaps. Some versions (not official) claim he stole so much from the public coffers when he was the Managing Director at Rwanda Office of Information (ORINFOR). Late last year, there were reports that the reason he had fled to Canada was partly to do with allegations he had presided over a spell of tax evasion at The New Times. Again, I must emphasise that these were allegations and in most cases rumours which never got followed up by the relevant government agencies.

Part of this is the reason many will have been surprised to hear that Mr. Bideri was behind bars potentially staring at a possible fast route to the infamous Kigali 1930 prison.

So What Happened?

It is difficult to tell exactly what happened at Kicukiro Police Station. I tried contacting a few folks back in Rwanda and not even the insiders know what exactly happened. It seems Mr. Bideri’s arrest was never on the cards (as in imminent) until it happened so even insiders were surprised. What we do know though is that his interrogation began at the CID offices in Kacyiru before ending up in an arrest and detention at Kicukiro. From this we can deduce that whatever the case, Bideri’s arrest was engineered or conducted with the knowledge of someone within the National Security Service (NSS) who as we also now know, was working in cahoots with the Rwanda Police Inspector General Emmanuel Gasana.

After hours of waiting, a disheartened Bideri began to demand answers from his interlocutors. His demands fell to deaf ears probably because there was never a proper charge sheet and the powers that be for all that time were trying to find something to associate with the TNT boss. Given his experience working with the system in Kigali, he became aware of what was likely to happen and realised tha the only way out was jail.

It was then that Bideri being the smart boy he is, decided to text a reporter at the AfroAmerica publication to report he was being put under arrest. The former propagandist also realising that his tormentors had been so delusional to leave him with his phone contacted his work place to let them know what was goin on.

According to The New Times, “Bideri telephoned the Ag. Managing Editor, James Munyaneza, at around 7p.m, and told him he had been arrested over stories The New Times published recently about the ongoing controversy revolving around Rukarara hydro power project in Nyamagabe District, Southern Province.” The news of course came as shock to the young folks at the newspaper and while they normally would have let it go, the journalist in James Munyaneza (one of the few remaining real journalists in the country) saw an opening and wanted the matter reported. The other version has it that Bideri personally asked for the story to be published. And whatever happens now, when all this is done with, Bideri might look back and thank his stars that the story of his arrest and detention came out in the pro-government newspaper.

Story Pulled Down

Those holding Bideri were still smarting from the fact that they had scored one past their nemesis only to be overwhelmed by the amount of interest his arrest was generating on the web around the world. Rwanda remains a very tricky nation and one which given what happened in 1994, continues to attract attention, not least too because of the regime’s crackdown on free speech and freedom of expression. Thus any story about freedom of expression in Rwanda usually generates so much traffic and interest. As people took to on-line forums to debate and make sense of what they were reading and hearing, the police and NSS realised the story had moved faster than they thought. Bideri was already 3-0 and the reaction was well in his favour.

Already, both CID and the police had struggled to find answers to the question :why is he being held. Their answer: “You will get to know all the details tomorrow” was not cutting it. The tomorrow they were talking about had arrived and they still didn’t have answers. The New Times, the newspaper which the regime has consistently used to push stories against those it wants to destroy and bring charges on had also been compromised by its boss. It was already leading with the story the Bideri had been detained.

This would have been fine but there was another problem. While the NSS and Rwanda police would have preferred a stronger and more compelling charge against the big man, The New Times and all the other publications which picked up the story had already projected the charge as being something to do “Rukarara stories.”

Rukarara Stories?

Probably until (yesterday) not so many people outside Rwanda had paid that much interest to the Rukarara project. Not any more. Rukarara Hydro Power Plant which was meant to help solve Rwanda’s power shortage problems has turned out to be a money spinner for spineless politicians and businessmen who are only intent on fleecing the country out of even the little we borrow. While the government has sunk over 23 million dollars into the project (originally projected to produce 9.5 MW) Rukarara is struggling to even produce a meagre 5 MW. Incredible given the amount which has been spent on the project.

And according to the powers that be, The New Times’ mistake it turns out, was commissioning reporters to tell stories in a way “which portrays the project as a total failure and the government as having not delivered.” So Bideri, was indeed being done for allowing stories about the project to be published in a way that made it look like the country whose regime prizes itself on efficiency and good service delivery was failing or had failed to deliver on a power plant – despite spending millions of dollars on the project.

What Next?

Bideri may have woken up from his dream but he just like those of us who are familiar with the dealings in Kigali, will be well aware that this is not the end of his nightmare. There are powerful dark horses towering over bodies of weak pawns on what many see as the unpredictable Rwandan game of chase. Along the way some will be crushed, others will survive. While I cannot wish jail for a man who for the sake of his daily bread has had to do all sorts of things including engaging in smear campaigns against perceived and real enemies to the Rwandan regime, I owe it to him to remind him (and those like him) that in Paul Kagame’s Rwanda, no one is indispensable. Bideri should count himself lucky that he was able to Cover His Ass in time. This time he was lucky, the next he may not be as much. From experience (JB Sanyu, Eddie Rwema, David Kabuye and Ignatius Kabagambe) the top job at Rwanda’s mouthpiece is not the easiest of them all. The good news for Monsieur Bideri is that he was always part of the people who sacked all his predecessors. Perhaps he is “unsacakble” but I am not sure he is “unjailable”. Now that he has survived, he should get to the very bottom of the Rukarara Project to unearth the real problem or the same Rukarara Project will be the last government project for which report he ever presides over as TNT boss. At least he has some sympathisers. Canada anyone?

Over to you my little monsters…

The script most of the world has about Rwanda is of a nation on the verge of losing what it has gained since 1994. Not surprising. Sixteen years ago, Rwanda, many will agree looked a complete write off. The mess that was the genocide had left the country on its bare minimum, with no clean water, no hospitals, no justice system or infrastructure and a people who saw themselves as either victims or perpetrators.

So much needed fixing. The marauding Interahamwe had been defeated, the killings halted and a new government promised so much in terms of development and getting the country back on track. At the centre of all this, a certain Maj. Gen Paul Kagame, was pulling the strings. After successfully leading the force that took over Kigali, he embarked on forming an inclusive government, with the aim of uniting Rwandans. Not to credit him for trying or at least for the economic progress that Rwanda has witnessed during this period, would be unfair.

There is going to be the argument about the time spent in power. People can rightly argue that he has had so much time to do what he has done, and that with as much aid that Rwanda has received during his tenure, any fit-for-purpose human being would have performed.

This may be true but you still would have needed someone with character. While President Kagame has the character, has had the luck, agility and steady fastness, he truly is no saint. So often, he has been discovered as wanting in statesmanship, democracy and ability to engage perceived enemies.

Mr. Kagame is from the school of thought who consider dissent as being irrational, uncalled for, and therefore, something which must be fought. To Kagame, leaders are meant to be respected and any divergent views must be expressed directly through stipulated channels (in most cases, composed of his most trusted lieutenants) and on which he has ultimate control. In doing so, he has centralised power, creating or promoting a circle of top trusted friends, who many see as the inner circle, that is out to make or break Rwanda. Remember, this is a government, which accused their predecessors of promoting the infamous “Akazu” a top circle grouping of Juvenile Habyalimana’s trusted cadres, believed to have executed the genocide.

So, when Hilary Clinton, says that “We really don’t want to see Rwanda undermine its own remarkable progress by beginning to move away from a lot of the very positive actions that undergirded its development so effectively,” she has a point.

Culture of Silence

Rwanda’s problem has been and continues to be the inexplicable silence embraced by her citizens who despite having mixed feelings about what is going on inside their country choose to either pretend that everything is right, or keep numb about all. Silence in Rwanda, is a virtue. Anything said, risks being misinterpreted for the bad and after years of experience, Rwandans have learnt to gag themselves, or control their speech. It is a culture not only of silence but self censorship as well.

While silence insulates some of the prevalent anger from some members of society at say such things as governance issues, imbalance in power, lack of political space or a not very fair policy, some say, on unity and reconciliation, it encourages pretence. In Rwanda today, there are people who believe that the government should have borrowed a leaf from South Africa’s handling of apartheid, when dealing with genocide and its effects. But because such rhetoric risks being interpreted as a way of inciting public anger, a possible crime under the genocide ideology law, many choose to stay silent and instead moan about it to friends and relatives under closed doors. The government then, gets the feeling that the policy is working when in actual fact, it is the silence and the fear of persecution or being wrongly misinterpreted, which are keeping argument, at bay.

Normally, when members of the public are so afraid to speak out, the onus falls on the media to express people’s views. But the media in Rwanda remains dysfunctional. Weeks after a critical journalist was shot under circumstances that we may never establish, another, Saidati Mukakibibi, has been arrested for comparing Kagame to Hitler. The state maintains her writings would have incited public disorder and promoted divisionism. I asked a government minister if Kagame has become so incomparable that trying to find a comparison amounts to a criminal offence. On top of insisting that I don’t quote him, the minister believes “the police should not have over reacted to someone’s personal opinion although the president deserves respect”. Hitler, the minister added, “can not be the best comparison you can have”.

If Hitler is worse a comparison, then who is, I asked?  He hung up before answering. My chat with the minister goes to explain what many struggle to see with Rwandan politics. In Rwanda, you either, dance to the melody of “Kagame is Lord”, “the best we ever had” and keep your bread, or challenge his views and risk being done for either corruption, genocide or immorality. If a minister finds it hard speaking to journalists, even when he is giving a plain statement, imagine how it must feel being a local and standing out to challenge the establishment, inside Rwanda?

Is there hope?

A friend of mine asked me this particular question the other day on Facebook. While I believe in hope being abundant, I know it takes some convincing to tell people it is there when you have pregnant mothers being imprisoned for attending peaceful demonstrations, opposition party members like Bernard Ntaganda, the founder president of PS-Imberakuri being denied their constitutional right to bail and some opposition party activists simply disappearing, as in the case Andrew Kagwa Rwisereka of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

The future looks not so clear and I am sure there are so many Rwandans out there, who would love to see Clinton, demand freedoms from Rwanda’s iron man, instead of meandering around diplomatic language and deploring the fact that Rwanda is in danger of losing what it has gained since 1994.

America, just like other Western countries should rethink their relationship with Mr. Kagame, not for his sake but that of democracy and Rwandans.  Like Timothy Kalyegira put it the other day, for all the fine wine, decorations and music at a wedding party, it is resolving differences, balancing needs and compromises that are the core of a marriage.

Over to you my little monsters…

By Gerald Caplan

The editors of ‘Remaking Rwanda’ tell us they are presenting ‘a comprehensive account of post-genocide reconstruction…Debates on contemporary Rwanda are often polarized and polarizing,’ they understand, and promise to do better. ‘We have tried to offer a more nuanced appraisal, though one that is ultimately critical.’

Such a book would be welcome, even indispensable, to illuminate a country and especially a government that attract wildly different points of view. But this is not that book. Despite the promise of its editors, ‘Remaking Rwanda’ is another pure example of how utterly unbalanced the RPF’s critics can be, so blind to their own biases they apparently cannot even recognise them. Only such blinkers can explain how a book that is anti-Kagame from the first to the last page, that entirely fails to mention, let alone record, the miracle of reconstruction that has taken place in the country in the 17 years since the genocide, can be presented as comprehensive and nuanced.

Don’t get me wrong. It is only right and proper to recount, as a number of chapters do, the disappointing record of human rights violations and democratic abuse that has characterised much of the RPF’s period of governance as well as the notorious record of the Rwandan Defence Force in the Congo. Indeed, this book was completed prior to the squalid events of the past 18 months or so, more or less the period surrounding the 2010 presidential election, so that this period is not included. Throughout 2010, in what sometimes seemed like an unending torrent, story after story poured forth of beatings, killings, attempted killings, harassment, arrests, abuse and intimidation of politicians, journalists and former comrades who had in common their opposition to the RPF government.

Of course in a tragic sense, the RPF’s human rights record is just one more example of the way so many of Africa’s leaders have betrayed their people for the past half-century. But there are two reasons why the RPF so often comes under fire. First, if it is held to a higher standard than most of its peers, which it often is, that’s because their leaders have always presented themselves as operating at a higher standard than other governments. Second, while Rwanda has genuine security needs that might call for harsh measures, few of the human rights and democracy violations and few of the killings in the Congo can be justified by these needs.

So there has been no shortage of reasons to criticise Kagame and his government, and Straus and Waldorf had little difficulty pulling together the work of some 18 foreign scholars and eight human rights activists, supplemented by two Rwandans, all of whom share a deep loathing for Paul Kagame and his government. All have spent time in Rwanda, many of them (even some that go overboard) contain important information, and many of their criticisms seem to me justified. In the end, this makes the unrelenting negativism and the total lack of balance all the more disappointing.

For the volume contains not a single essay, and barely a single word, recounting the astonishing recovery the country has made since July 1994 and demonstrates little or no sympathy for the enormous, almost intractable, challenges the RPF government has confronted since then. When in history has a post-conflict government, taking over a devastated and traumatised nation, been faced with the spectacle of survivors resuming their lives in the very same community (or on the same hill) as those who tried to exterminate them?

This failure is a shame. It sets the book up for easy dismissal both by the Rwanda elite, in the contemptuous way they demonstrate for criticism of any kind from outsiders, and by the blindly adoring political, corporate and religious VIPs whom Kagame has attracted. But how can they take seriously a book that offers not a clue why so many African visitors to Rwanda envy Rwandans so deeply? They return home railing bitterly at the failure of their own governments to provide the services Rwandans take for granted like safe, clean, orderly cities, decent roads, and officials and cops who do their jobs without demanding bribes.

Readers would learn nothing about the modest health insurance available almost universally, the professional care that mothers get in giving birth, the milk that malnourished children receive, the all-but universal enrolment of all children in primary education, the vast expansion of higher education, all with no one asking about their ethnicity. They’d know nothing of the relative sophistication of its HIV/AIDS program, the efficiency of the public service, the professionalism of government ministers, the pleasure UN agencies and foreign embassies find in working with a government that actually works.

They’d have no idea Rwanda was one of the four countries in sub-Saharan Africa to meet the Millennium Development Goals on sanitation. They’d never know that most corruption has been eliminated, that women play a major role in all aspects of governance, that violence against girls and women is being combated, that attacks on gays, unlike in so many African countries, were quickly snuffed out by the government, that capital punishment has been abolished, that Rwandan soldiers and police officers play a significant role in UN and African Union peacekeeping operations.

These things matter when you’re judging a government. It doesn’t mean that they compensate for, or minimise, the abuses noted earlier. But they are integral to a genuine overview of a very complicated country that cannot be described in either the one-dimensional blackness of some of its critics or the purer-than-pure whiteness of its local partisans and foreign groupies.

One might also have thought that in 25 essays on post-conflict Rwanda, at least one could be devoted to the phenomenon of genocide denial. Yet in the entire volume there are fewer than two pages on the subject, tucked into an essay by Lars Waldorf. And might we not reasonably have expected a chapter or two on the real menace from unrepentant Hutu extremists in the west and the FDLR criminal militia in Congo whose leaders operate freely in Europe and the United States? And on the threats from those muzungu like Gerard Prunier and disaffected diaspora Rwandans who openly promote the bloody overthrow of the Kagame government. Rwanda remains vulnerable in real life, but not in the pages of ‘Remaking Rwanda’.

OPPOSITION POLITICS AND THE GACACA EXPERIMENT

Perhaps it is the passionate hostility to the RPF government on the part of so many of the contributors that leads them to so many distortions, oversimplifications, double standards, and such lack of perspective and context. Take, for example, Joseph Sebarenzi, one of the two Rwandans represented in the book, a Tutsi genocide survivor who later fell out with Kagame, fled, and wrote a damning book about his experience.

It is perverse of Sebarenzi to claim that presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire returned from Holland to Rwanda in 2010 intending to mount her campaign based on ‘constructive opposition’. It is only too evident that Ingabire, who was known to consort in Europe with some dubious allies, pitched up determined to provoke the government, as both her statements and her relationship with American lawyer Peter Erlinder did. Erlinder, a long-time active denier, surely was begging for trouble when he suddenly materialised in an already tense country to assist Ingabire. In my view, government officials were strategically foolish in both cases for taking the bait and for their wretched treatment of Ingabire, her assistant and Erlinder.

Indeed, ‘Remaking Rwanda’ co-editor Lars Waldorf, in his essay on how the RPF has exploited genocide (undoubtedly true at times), agrees. In choosing Erlinder as her lawyer, he observes, Ingabire ‘showed spectacularly poor judgment or perhaps something more sinister. Either way, it played straight into the government’s hands, seeing to confirm some of the charges against her.’ Far more of such empathy for the government’s perspective would have made this book considerably more convincing. But there is precious little.

Or take the chapter on the plight of the multitude of prisoners locked up after the genocide by Carina Tertsakian, a human rights activist. That they were held in abysmal conditions I’ve never heard anyone deny. Here’s Tertsakian’s conclusion: ‘Just as prisoners were at the bottom of the government’s list of priorities in the years following the genocide, so former prisoners remain at the bottom of the pile today…There is no recognition of the hardships they have suffered and, correspondingly, no support for them whatsoever. There are no counseling services, at least none that they feel able to use, as they tend to assume that these are reserved for genocide survivors…’

Frankly, this sounds like a delusional rant from someone from a galaxy far far away. Prisoners are at the bottom of the priority list in virtually every country in the world, rich and poor. No prize for guessing how many of them receive counseling services or help finding a job.

The gacaca experiment is duly covered in ‘Remaking Rwanda’, and the assessments are predictably negative. Personally I have been persuaded by Phil Clark’s latest study that these harsh judgments and those by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are largely unfair. (See my review of Clark’s ‘The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without Lawyers’, in Pambazuka News,) Clark was a speaker at one of the conferences on which ‘Remaking Rwanda’ is based but he has no article in the book. I have no idea why.

Human Rights Watch’s show-no-mercy approach to Rwanda, which characterizes too many of the essays in ‘Remaking Rwanda’, was spectacularly demonstrated again as recently as June with HRW’s latest gacaca report, ‘Justice Compromised: The Legacy of Rwanda’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts’. Leslie Haskell, the author, introduced her report to an audience in Kigali. Despite the title, Haskell told the audience that she didn’t actually believe gacaca was a failure though she did think the courts had violated some rights. Asked what alternative to gacaca she would have recommended, she surprised her listeners by saying the gacaca courts were really the best solution to Rwanda’s challenges. Finally, the Dutch ambassador, Frans Makken, told Haskell that he considered the title of her report to be quite inappropriate and that he found the entire document to be ‘harsh, unfair and unbalanced’. That stands as a general indictment of a great many HRW reports on Rwanda over the past decade, and those of Amnesty International too for that matter, both of which are cited often by contributors to ‘Remaking Rwanda’.

WELCOME DEVELOPMENTS?

In Rwanda in July, a well-connected friend and other officials insisted to me that the government was well aware of the bad press it had been receiving for its abuses of democracy and human rights and was taking active steps to address them. For example, prompted by Cabinet, parliament is about to pass a Freedom of Information Bill, described by the organisation ARTICLE 19, which campaigns for free expression, as ‘one of the hallmarks of government accountability to its people because it facilitates citizen participation in decision-making processes’. The group is cautious, going no further than stating that the bill offers ‘a glimmer of hope’ for more free expression in Rwanda.

Welcome developments are also afoot in the field of media, at least officially. Rwanda TV and Rwanda Radio are to become public broadcasters instead of state broadcasters, in theory a world of difference to be enthusiastically embraced. But even in countries where the public broadcaster is a key component of the broadcasting system, such as Canada, no government ever appreciates being criticised by the broadcaster that the same government funds. Of course the funds belong to the country, not the government, but it’s a distinction many governments tend to forget. Some Rwandans themselves wonder whether their government will end up allowing anything like the independence that the BBC and CBC have. We will know soon enough.

The government is also moving to introduce self-regulation for the media in place of state regulation. Ending government interference in media content should be a huge step forward. But if self-regulation merely means self-censorship, with wary journalists censoring themselves when it comes to criticising the government and the president, it will be dismissed as merely a propaganda stunt by a government that still can’t abide criticism by a free press.

There is also an initiative to modify the much-criticised genocide ideology law, used too often to silence any criticism of the government and to disqualify opposition politicians who can’t possibly be considered promoters of genocidal ideology. But the balance is a fine one – the right to free expression but not the right to incitement. This is a real issue, not to be scoffed at. Freeing the Rwandan press in the early 1990s by then-President Habyarimana led directly to the emergence of flagrantly anti-Tutsi hate media, which played a central role in the subsequent genocide. No one in government forgets this, nor should they be expected to. While the government must learn that not all disagreement is subversive, good-faith critics of the government (and many critics show little good faith) must recognise that not all criticism is legitimate dissent, especially in Rwanda.

Whether these related initiatives are anything more than an elaborate public relations exercise designed to counter the negative attention Rwanda has attracted in the past year is too early to say. We can simply hope.

ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

A repeated theme of ‘Remaking Rwanda’ focuses on the ongoing economic problems that Rwanda faces and I applaud the essays that make this point.

‘Rwanda’s high growth rates are deceptive in that they hide large and growing inequalities between social classes, geographic regions and gender…Wealth is concentrated disproportionately in the hands of a small group, primarily anglophone returnees from Uganda…That trend appears only to be getting worse…Economic progress has been particularly limited in rural areas; the benefits of economic growth remains concentrated in the hands of a small class of agricultural entrepreneurs while the majority of Rwandan peasants confront worsening living conditions.’

An Ansoms, a specialist on poverty and inequality in the Great Lakes region, is appropriately trenchant here as she brings together two areas that have received inadequate attention from outsiders, agriculture and ideology:

‘The new elite portray the solution to rural poverty as a matter of adopting “a good mentality”. The president frequently states that each citizen has a responsibility to overcome her own poverty…The Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation refers to the peasant’s ignorance and resistance to productivity-enhancing measures that go beyond traditional subsistence farming. This elite view disregards the institutional barriers that small-scale peasants face such as land scarcity, climactic change, crop diseases, limited options to diversify incomes, no cash reserves, and the lack of safety nets…There is a profound mismatch between the Rwanda elite’s ambitions and the rural realities on the ground.’

These are important points well worth making. But again a larger perspective would have been useful. Increased inequality has become a characteristic that defines our era. (I write as the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon spreads around the globe.) What’s true of Rwanda could be said about most of the world. This is no singular misdeed of the Kagame government, as these essays almost imply. Yes, growing inequality is largely a function of the free market dogmas the Rwandan government so zealously embraces and which ‘Remaking Rwanda’ resolutely fails to explore. But the analysis applies equally to all those governments around the world that have succumbed to the false promise of neoliberalism as peddled by much of the economics profession and the IMF and World Bank.

THE CHALLENGES AHEAD

There is great self-satisfaction among RPF officials and supporters about the remarkable strides their country has made in the past 17 years. In July 1994, or even when I first visited the country five years later, today’s progress would have seemed literally unimaginable. From that point of view, the self-congratulations that characterises any gathering of the elite is quite understandable. But the line between a realistic sense of accomplishment and hubris, or excessive, distorting pride, is a thin one, as some of the leadership have begun to understand. There may even be an internal struggle within the government between hard-liners who will hear no criticism of any kind and those who know the government has made serious mistakes that must be faced up to. The need to find the right balance between legitimate security needs and acceptable dissent is not a simple one, but it is urgent.

Of course other immense challenges still flow directly from the genocide. As both Armenians and Jews can testify, even after 96 and 66 years the burdens of such a catastrophe do not disappear. Seventeen years is just a beginning. Issues of justice and reconciliation, of security, of survivors’ needs both material and psychological, all are still urgent and difficult.

But there are other hard trials yet to face. For all its post-1994 progress in so many areas, Rwanda has a long way to go. If it’s UN Human Development Index is trending up, it’s because it was so far down; even now, it stands only at 155th of 172 countries measured. If steady advances in health care and rudimentary social services have occurred, two studies released in 2009 reported that half of Rwandan children suffered from malnutrition and 51 per cent of those under five suffered from moderate or severe stunting. If Rwanda is doing better than other African countries in approaching some of the Millennium Development goals, these data on hunger and malnutrition place it among the 10 most affected countries globally, even worse off, unbelievably enough, than DR Congo. While campaigns to stop violence against women are to be applauded, their need was great; as of 2008 figures, 31 per cent of females were experiencing violence, most often from a partner or husband. A Gallup Poll last year found that 79 per cent of Rwandans see rape as a major problem.

Rwandans proudly trumpet their determination to be self-reliant and dependent on no outsiders, yet half of the country’s budget comes from foreign aid. For 2009-10 that budget was under $1.5 billion for a country of over 10 million people (and a birth rate growing far too fast), with GDP at about $12 billion. Singapore, the government’s avowed role model, equally resource-poor, has a population of under 5 million, a budget of around $30 billion and a GDP at $290 billion. Rwanda remains one of many very poor undeveloped African countries.

Earlier this year, writing in the Guardian, Stephen Kinzer, author of ‘A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It’, summed up a view held by many foreigners of good will who have Rwanda’s best interests at heart:

‘When President Paul Kagame of Rwanda won re-election in August [2010], he could look back with pride on his accomplishments. Rwanda has emerged from the devastation of genocide and become more secure and prosperous than anyone had a right to expect. The central task of his second seven-year term, which by law must be his last, is to add broader democracy to this security and prosperity.’

Anyone who has read Kinzer’s book knows of his admiration and respect – though not blind respect – for Kagame. Yet here he pleads with Kagame to forfeit the authoritarianism that was perhaps once justifiable, to end the ‘paranoia and ruthlessness’ that a guerilla war may have necessitated, and to embrace instead ‘tolerance, compromise and humility’. What Rwanda needs, he too agrees, is much more political space.

‘[Kagame] still has the chance to enter history as one of the greatest modern African leaders. There is also the chance, however, that he will be remembered as another failed African big-man, a tragic figure who built the foundations of a spectacular future for his country, but saw his achievements collapse because he could not take his country from one-man rule toward democracy.’

Just as it was the absence of political will that led the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council in 1994 to abandon Rwanda, so it is now the political will of the RPF government that will decide the future of the country. The leadership speaks eloquently about Rwandans determining their own destiny, shaping their own fate. In terms of creating a genuinely democratic culture constrained only by legitimate security issues, it has a reasonable opportunity now. For worse and for better, Rwanda has made history repeatedly in the past 17 years. For better or for worse, it is bound to make history again.

Among President Paul Kagame’s modest list of western promoters, there is perhaps no equal match for Gerald Caplan’s loud, spirited and consistence defense of the regime. Caplan defiantly refuses to reconsider his position even when faced with the clearest evidence that Kagame is treading towards the wrong direction of history. As such, his writing in particular, “Rwanda 17 years later: what is the truth” need to be read with deserving caution.

Many of Kagame’s advocates have jumped off the bandwagon or are abandoning “the sinking ship” to borrow from Saif Al Gadaffi’s premonition. One of them, Stephen Kinzer earlier this year cautioned Kagame in light of the increasing concerns of grave human right violations .Kinzer, is Kagame’s well known biographer whose flattering view of “Rwanda’s rebirth and the man who dreamed it” has gained wide publicity. Like many others, he has had some serious rethinking.

On January 22nd this year, in the heat of the Arab spring, Kinzer penned an article arguing that, “Kagame’s authoritarian turn risks Rwanda’s future”. In Kigali, it was not well received. Kinzer might be a close friend, but the regime did not appreciate the criticism he raised. Instead, the government-run newspaper issued a combative response with an equally matching arrogant title, “Kinzer didn’t get it!” They blamed him for being incapable of understanding the “realities of Rwanda’s troubled past and thus fails to understand her chosen path to a brighter future”. Ironically, the same newspaper had faithfully reprinted all his praise-full columns, including one written in the same month attacking Human Rights Watch for espousing “human rights imperialism” because of their unyielding criticism of Kagame’s dictatorship.

Predictably, the regime continued launching a series of attacks against Kagame’s biographer. At times it seemed to get too personal. For cautioning Kagame, Kinzer got quickly vilified as another ignorant muzungu (“white person”) easily susceptible to manipulation. If Caplan were to criticize Kagame even in the slightest way, I am sure his case would follow a similar fate. This is neither an exaggeration nor a matter of speculation. Re-imagining Rwanda, the book Caplan sharply criticizes, is written in memory of Allison Des Forge, whose book was the first comprehensive account on the genocide. Before her death, Kagame had already declared her persona non grata–and she was never allowed to visit again. Her only crime was to criticize Kagame and the RPF. Unfortunately, such is the reality of Kagame’s Rwanda, something Caplan continues to ignore.

Caplan the lone Academic

Caplan has defied the winds of change. At present, he regards himself as the one remaining and truthful defender of the Rwanda genocide’s narrative. That is why he believes it is his duty to counter the “foreign groupies” who authored “Remaking Rwanda: State Building and Human Rights after Mass Violence”. Caplan considers the more than two dozen academics to be “blinded to their own biases“. Another individual he considers blinded is the French academic, and expert on Rwanda, Gerald Prunier. Since Prunier is not one of the contributors of the volume, one wonders why Caplan deemed it fitting to attack him in this essay. Grudgingly, he accuses Prunier and the “disaffected diaspora Rwandans“of openly promot[ing] the bloody overthrow of the Kagame regime. For an academic of his repute, it is rather disheartening that no single citation is given to back what are otherwise serious allegation.

To be fair, Caplan’s concern for genocide denialism exceptionally stands out. In the past, he has zealously confronted those he suspected of being sympathizers of negationism. After the publishing of Edward S. Herman and David Peterson’s book The Politics of Genocide, Caplan was the most vocal among those who scorned the book. He accused the two academics, and other genocide deniers of “gleefully drink[ing] each other’s putrid water”. Moreover, in the same commentary, he adviced them (the deniers) to start reading and quoting the genuine authorities on the Rwanda genocide. Among the long list of names he gives are: Scott Straus, and Catherine Newburry, who are among the contributors of this volume. What has changed? One is tempted to ask.

It is important to mention that even in his criticism of Herman-Peterson he has failed to mount a formidable challenge. Herman-Peterson argue that the conventional narrative of the Rwandan genocide has turned the victims and the perpetrators upside down. They claim that Paul Kagame is responsible for genocide having started a war of aggression, assassinated two sitting heads of state and killed many Hutus both inside Rwanda and in the DRC. I believe there is evidence to support at least two of the claims.

As I have argued previously, Kagame is the most obvious culprit in the murder of the former president. To judge whether the 1990 invasion of the RPF was legal or not would largely depend on the extent to which Uganda aided them. So far, few accounts of Rwanda genocide have expressed a keen interest in this question. Regardless of whether the invasion was necessary or not, it is important, I believe, to consider asking the questions previously poised by Rene Lemarchand whom Caplan identifies as the “doyen of the historians of Rwanda and Burundi. The questions are, “Would the genocide have happened without the RPF invasion?” And also, “would the genocide have occurred had the 1994 assassination of Habyarimana not occurred”. Lastly, while Herman-Peterson have the right to contest the official narrative, they are wrong if they deny that the genocide against Tutsi did not occur.

It is my opinion that crowing the Rwandan genocide story with misinformation and lies only helps to further undermine the genocide itself. There is enough evidence from witnesses (here Scott Straus’ contribution is invaluable) that the genocide against Tutsi was well coordinated from top-down. However, this does not absolve the RPF of its own responsibility. Neither does it imply that everything the RPF says should be taken in at face value. There is no contradiction here, if there is evidence, one can believe that the 1994 genocide against Tutsi happened and still condemn the RPF for their role in it. Similarly, and as evidence seems to show, the RPF might have ended the genocide against Tutsi (in Rwanda), but gone ahead to perpetrate another one against Hutu (in the DRC).

Unfortunately, sometimes it appears as if Caplan is no longer interested in the question of the Rwanda genocide. Of Course this is quite puzzling if considered that Caplan was among the pioneer academics who wrestled with this question. In 2000, he was commissioned by the African Union to investigate the Rwanda genocide. The results were an impressive, lengthy document which he title, “Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide”. The document is important because it gives a comprehensive discussion of the genocide while exploring the failures of the international community as well. However, the 293 paged documents falls short on at least two important counts. (1) it does not handle the question of Habyarimana’s assassination, (2) it discuss the atrocities committed by the RPF troops both in Rwanda and in the DRC. In other words, it does not deviate from the officially rubber-stamped narrative.

Seen this way, Caplan’s function sometimes appears to have been reduced to that of a Spanish inquisitor, relentlessly trying to defend the canonized truth. But how can we claim to have perfect knowledge of a genocide, which occurred less than two decades ago and whose perpetrators are still being tried? I suspect that such a strategy, which obviously supports the Status Quo, is meant to stifle dialogue and conversation on the tragic events that have wrecked our country. The laws against genocide ideology and denialism, heavily criticized by rights groups, are nothing but an affront on intellectual freedom and a naive desire to control history. In this context, the words of US editor Charles A. Dana are particularly useful: “Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth or the only truth”. It is laughable that some people would claim to have a monopoly on how history should be understood.

17 years later, what is the truth?

In his scathing critique of Remaking Rwanda: State Building and Human Rights after Mass Violence, Caplan asks “what is the truth?” However, a more objective question would have been “what are the facts?” If the question is posed this way, Caplan’s essay might begin to make much more sense. Both the authors and Caplan essentially agree on a few facts. They contend that Rwanda’s human rights situation has failed to improve, and that the regime is not significantly different from the previous one. In the words of Aloys Habimana the African director of Human Rights Watch, the “the dancing is still the same even though the stage has undergone a switch of dancers” (354).

The only sections of the book that might qualify for a serious diversion from RPF’s dogma are the contributions of Filip Reyntjens, “Waging (civil) war abroad” and “Bad Karma: Accountability for Rwanda Crimes in the Congo” co-authored by Jason Stearns and Federico Borello. Specifically, the three allege that the Rwandan army committed possible genocide against members of the Hutu ethnic group in the DRC. Surprisingly, Caplan a devoted scholar of genocide ignores this monumental allegation in his entire critique of the book. His reasons, though unstated are not so difficult to see. If Kagame is accused of genocide by such organizations as the United Nations, then defending him against those who criticize his poor human rights record might be futile. Hence, it is easier to ignore the charges all together and this is exactly what Caplan opts to do.

Caplan’s other point of contention is that the authors of the volume have failed to appreciate the complexities of Rwanda. Perhaps they could have done so, he argues, had they invited more Rwandan scholarsr rather than relying on Mzungu. There is some fairness in this critique. Rwanda’s story is often overwhelming told by westerners and Rwandans are rarely accorded the opportunity to weigh in. However, even allowing Rwandan to articulate their story does not seem capable of appeasing him.

Two of the contributors, Aloys Habimana and Sebarenzi Joseph are Tutsi survivors and human rights activists. Yet, Caplan thinks it is enough to dismiss them at whim for their alleged “passionate hostility to the RPF government”. The only substantive critique of the two authors, Caplan offers, is fitted into a singular paragraph in which he attacks Sebarenzi for his alleged support of Victoire Ingabire’s cause. In particular, he is outraged at Sebarenzi for suggesting that Ingabire represented “constructive opposition”. Perhaps Caplan is not ready to seeing Hutus and Tutsi uniting for democratic reform, but many of us believe that this is where the future of Rwanda lies.

Democracy vs. Economic growth

Caplans biggest disagreement with the authors of Remaking Rwanda is that they failed to acknowledge the achievements of the Rwandan government. He draws a list of the accomplishments that begins to sound like a platform for the dictatorship’s re-election campaign. It may well be true that Kagame has provided clean water and decent roads, but is that enough to justify political oppression, murder and disappearances? Since he is writing at a time when despots who enthusiastically swam in this kind of political logic are being dislodged by their citizens, one might have expected that Caplan would have thought twice.

Take the example of Libya before the fall of Muammar Gadaffi. The regime provided services earning impressive awards that would make Kagame salivate with jealousy. His country ranked an impressive 53rd on the Human Development Index and 70th on the quality of life. The regime had zero external debt. Moreover, electricity, education and health care was provided free of charge to all citizens—among a long list of other benefits. Of course there are many differences between Libya and Rwanda, but the point here is that economic development should not be used as a justification for political oppression.

Does Kagame have the right to muzzle the press?

On media the struggle for media freedom in Rwanda, Caplan noted that: “Freeing the Rwandan press in the early 1990s by then-President Habyarimana led directly to the emergence of flagrantly anti-Tutsi hate media, which played a central role in the subsequent genocide. No one in government forgets this, nor should they be expected to.” If this is true, it is partly due to the immense pressure from the RPF at the time demanding free speech. In any case, it is not free media that is responsible for fanning hate. On the other hand, there was never free media in Rwanda–not even during Habyarimana’s days. The media was always attached to partisan interests—mostly close to the ruling party. Unfortunately, in this regard, not much has changed in Rwanda in today. Newspapers that write non-RPF sanctioned stories are continuously being ejected.

The media reforms that Caplan boasts about, would be welcome if they were real. In the past, the government has announced ambitious reforms, but in practice little has changed. At the moment, there is a serious media crisis in Rwanda as all the independent media is virtually absent and their journalists are either dead, in exile or imprisoned. If the government wants their reform-packed rhetoric to be taken seriously, a good way to start would be to release journalists currently serving sentences due to illegal sentences.

Outside the rhetoric meant to appease donors; however, the government shows no sign of relenting. In June 2010, journalist Jean Leonard Rugambage was gunned down as he drove to his Kigali compound. In May 2011, Jean Bosco Gasasira the editor of Umuvugizi was sentenced to two years. His paper was banned and an imitation of it was started by government intelligence agents. The situation is alarming, but the likes of Caplan having little to lose, ignore our plight. How different are they from the Belgian troops that abandoned helpless Tutsis at the verge of their deaths? This is a question for them to answer.

One such media reform hoax was the 2005 establishment of the Media High Council to serve as a self-regulatory organ. Unfortunately, the council has become a cozy bed for Kagame’s allies, who use the platform to terrorize independent journalists into conforming. Upon realizing the scam that it was, and due to mounting pressure from her parliament, Britain decided to halt funding. It later turned out that Rwandan authorities had been using this organ as a tool to further political repression. There is no reason to believe that this is no longer the case.

Finally, the reforms would mean nothing if the constitution—the highest law in the land, continues to deny people their reasonable right to free speech. A report by Amnesty International titled, “Safer to Stay Silent: The Chilling Effect of Rwanda’s Law on “Genocide Ideology” and “Sectarianism” released last year brings to light this struggle. Of particular concern, is the vague definition of genocide ideology in a manner that “constitutes an impermissible restriction on freedom of expression under international law”. It appears that this law can be used to punish even children as young as 12 years old.

When the above draconian laws are supplemented with the regular ingando (“indoctrination”), they fulfill the function of instilling fear into the general population with the sole agenda of controlling discourse. Here, it is worth noting that after Victoire Ingabire called for the prosecution of RPF officers suspected of having participated in massacres, she was immediately charged under the genocide ideology law. When a citizen cannot complain about the wrongs of his/her state, you they are living under a crazy dictatorship.

Gay and Women Rights in Rwanda.

The insinuation that gay people have rights in Rwanda is, at best, a creative work of pure fiction. Granted, Caplan is right to suggest that a proposed amendment to criminalize people who “encourage or sensitize people to same-sex sexual relations or practice” were never considered. However, there is no explicitly clause that safeguards gay rights. In reality, gay people face discrimination on a daily basis from a society that is less accepting. Anti gay sentiments are rife in religious circles and policemen have arrested individuals for being gay (OHCHR). Instead of painting a rosy picture that is nonexistent, Caplan would have done better—urged the government to consider making the necessary reforms for our gay brothers and sisters.

Throughout history, some of the most heinous regimes in this world have scored great achievements in transforming their societies. It is true that there have been improvements in the situation of women in Rwanda; however, their access to political power has largely been misunderstood. Indeed, in a nation where political competition is severely curtailed, claiming that women have the highest representation in parliament has little or no meaning. In Rwanda, women can only be powerful in as much as they accept to be used as political tools by the ruling regime.

If they are the majority in parliament, it is not due to popular mandate, but it is due to their devotion to the ruling party or their being selected as a party ornament. Such an arrangement might help win Kagame international awards, but it does not help the cause of democratic reform in Rwanda. Neither does it satisfy the feminist conceptualization of a fully, independent and powerful woman. In fact, these women are (sadly) used as tool by the ruling elites to hoodwink the international community in favor of an anti-reformist agenda. The manipulation goes this way, “we have the highest number of women in parliament, why should anyone lecture us on democracy?”

Lastly, power in Rwanda is highly concentrated in a few hands, most of them ethnically Tutsi and with close ties to the military. Furthermore, women are lowly represented within the army structures. This is a concern that vibrates even among diplomats in the capital. As such, unlike in democratic countries, parliament in Rwanda lacks any actual powers. It can as well be said to be a branch of the executive.

Conclusion

The process of democratic reform is unstoppable human quest. Though some people may choose to ignore it, the suffering and oppression is too apparent. Even more, the so called “economic transformation” will not weaken our resolve for freedom. It is just is just a question of time, we believe. In the meantime, the international community better be on the right side of history. For, to borrow the words of Samora Machel, “A luta Continua!”

Source: http://newsrwanda-nkunda.blogspot.com/

But as Kigali prepared to let the day pass with as less pomp as has been the case over the years (notice that under the current regime October 1, has been celebrated with less ado), Theogene Rudasingwa, – a former Chief of Staff to President Paul Kagame, dropped a bombshell. In a statement released on his Facebook page, Rudasingwa (who it must be remembered is a former Rwandan ambassador to the United States) claimed that President Kagame not only is responsible for the death of Juvenal Habyarimana as he (Kagame) was the overall operations commander of the RPA at the time of the former president’s death, but that he (Kagame), “told me that he was responsible for shooting down the plane” – the plane in question here being the Falcon 50 jet (Reg No 9XR-NN) belonging to the Government of Rwanda and in which Presidents; Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi were travelling.

A powerful and indeed extra-ordinary revelation if you ask me. But before we go any further, let’s try to make sense of this claim.

When news about the claim started pouring out all over the internet, I tried contacting a few big shots I know in Rwanda to see if they would speak to me over this. Some did respond in an angry manner telling me to mind my own business and forget Rwanda. Others were dismissive of the news but one of them stood out. I will not say who but I can confirm he is a very senior official.  He did mention something which made me realise that I still have so much to learn about the dealings in Rwanda.

(Mr.) “Rudasingwa”, my source said “should not be taken serious because he is another deluded fool who like most of you and your ilk suffers from political excitement, excessive amnesia or perhaps the lack of it. You lot can continue to yap and yap but the truth remains that in Rwanda, we continue to match on. If indeed he was told by the president how about you ask him why it has taken him all this time to bring this out? And trust me he won’t have any answers to this. He is just someone who for reasons only known to him, and in part due to his greed, corruption and dishonesty fell out with the regime, and will now do anything to bring down what Rwandese have laboured to build, for years”.

I know most of this was a very hushed reaction to a statement that will and must be rubbing Kigali the wrong way but we cannot deny the fact that therein lies some good question – and until its answer has been found, Mr. Rudasingwa’s claim shall remain questionable. Yes, I say questionable but let’s not forget that questionable does not necessarily mean incorrect.

There are perhaps so many questions that Mr. Rudasingwa’s revelation will raise but one does stand out: Why now? The story of who actually downed the Falcon 50 and by so doing ended the lives of two presidents, and all on board including three French nationals has been running for over 17 years now. It has become part of Rwanda’s history although under the present circumstances, few will be learning about it in school (refer to the suspension of the teaching of Rwandan history in Rwandan schools). When Abdul Ruzibiza, first claimed to be privy to the actual shooting down of the said plane, Kigali reacted furiously. This was in 2006 and Mr. Rudasingwa was well in a position where he could, as he has now, added his voice to the hoarse groans of Ruzibiza. Imagine the reaction this would have received then? Imagine the amount of legitimacy this would have given the Ruzibiza testimony had a former Rwandan Ambassador to the US, and Secretary General of the RPF come out in support of the then less known former army Captain?

If we are to assume that Mr. Rudasingwa is right and that indeed President Kagame did confide to him that he (Kagame) had ordered the shooting down of the Falcon 5o, what happens next? What happens to the “details and facts” as gathered on the subject in the famous Mucyo Commission which after about 18 months of deliberation, research and inquiries, “established” that the idea of bringing down the plane “was the work of Hutu extremists who calculated that killing their own leader would torpedo a power‐sharing agreement known as the Arusha Accords?”

What happens to the French and Spanish indictments on members of the RPF and RDF which were partly based on Ruzibiza’s testimony? What happens to the new and revisited friendship between Rwanda and France who having severed relations over the indictments have since claimed to have buried the hatchet and agreed to work together “normally”?

And why did Mr. Rudasingwa choose to release his statement on a day which as a former comrade in the Rwandan army and by all accounts a historical, meant to commemorate the first attempt by Rwandan refugees and exiles to go back to their motherland? Is he so gullible not to have realised what attention this was bound to cause?

And what of Kigali? Usually, they come up in arms against any statement, news story or sound bite that is critical or contrary to the idea of praising the country’s achievements over the years. This time however, some four days after the sensational claim, we are yet to hear even a word from Kigali. Could the silence be a result of having had enough or is it a sign of admission knowing who Mr. Rudasingwa is or has previously been? Is it that they feel Mr. Rudasingwa has become so unbelievable that few will take notice of what he has to say? Or are they having been startled by the bombshell, planning a more measured rebuttal? Could it be that their main men at Racepoint are on holiday and thus until one reports to duty, Kigali has chosen to stay silent? Or is it a case of self censorship as has become the norm in Rwandan media?

If it turns out that what took the Mucyo Commission 18 months and about 166 witnesses to establish could have been unearthed by a single phone call or email to one of Rwanda’s former Ambassador, does the government get to pay the tax payer back for having “wasted” state resources and money on an inquiry whose results might have been got rather cheaply with the right people being questioned?

It remains to be seen why Mr. Rudasingwa chose Facebook to announce what clearly remains an astonishing revelation if indeed it is true. Rwanda is an oral society. In Rwanda the word of mouth is what matters. There is every possibility that what remains in terms of proof that President Kagame did indeed confess to having ordered the shooting down of the Falcon 50 is just Rudasingwa’s word. While this is hardly any hard evidence will most likely be inadmissible in most court rooms (especially international tribunals where if anything the case against Kagame might go) it does leave the suggestion – and based on how Rwandan courts or public inquiries conduct their business – that Kagame might at some point in the future be brought to book in Rwanda. What happens then if as a former head of state he is found to have been responsible for the downing of the plane? Remember as an oral society, the inquiry, or trial if any will just like the Mucyo Commission have to be based on witness testimonies most of whom will be saying such things as “I was told”, “I saw”.

Remember too that there are people who claim that it was the shooting down of the plane which caused the genocide (Kigali calls these negationists or where it suits, genocide deniers). I call them liars. Whereas an argument can be made that the shooting down of the plane did spark the genocide just like the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand is said to have sparked World War I, in my opinion, one loses the plot by claiming that without the downing of the plane, the genocide would never have happened. No. From my discussions with a few Rwandans (depending on how extreme or pro a given ethnicity those you speak to may be) I have come to realise that the role of the plane in the Rwandan story remains very contentious and a point of departure to some as far as our country’s history is concerned.

This is why whoever has something to say about the plane, who shot the plane and what the plane shooting led to must do so with caution and most importantly with facts based on tangible evidence. I wrote some months ago about the Habyalimana death which continues to haunt Rwanda. I argued then that it is crucial that the truth is established once and for all. The truth regarding the events leading to the shooting down of the plane. When the Mucyo Commission report was published in August 2008, some in Rwanda hoped and believed that the report findings would put to rest what clearly has been a protracted saga/story. It didn’t. And part of the reason it did not is because it is only believable depending on which side of the story one wants to be. Given that Rwandans are people who over the years have decided to be on select sides while acknowledging in public that we are on the same side, this is and was never surprising.

This is why I think and believe that Mr. Rudasingwa, if anything must substantiate his claims. He must be willing to present himself to a credible judge, at a credible court and give his statement under oath – if he duly and clearly believes it. Then let justice follow its course. As it stands, his is another of those extra ordinary claims that we have come to regard as part of the Rwandan story. These days, it is even difficult to know which is which. Lt. Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa and Col. Patrick Karegeya escape and flee for dear life and the next thing we hear is that Kayumba used to be a thief who stole soldiers money and tractor spare parts, that Karegeya was untrustworthy and made a deal with Felicien Kabuga (Rwanda’s most wanted fugitive). Really? And we are told these by some leading public officials within the establishment in Kigali. Are we really to believe that Gen. Kayumba stole tractor spare parts and fertilizers? That Col Karegeya (under whose watch Rwanda had the best intelligence system in Africa) was a deceitful man – and that their (Karegeya and Kayumba’s ) story came to light after they had fled the current regime? My source did ask to ask Rudasingwa why he decided to come out this late. I probably should ask him why his government’s spin masters, only decided to come out on Col. Karegeya and Gen. Kayumba and by the way Maj. Rudasingwa, after the two had long left Kigali?

For those who have previously read Animal Farm, you will recall that at the end of the day, long after the animals had taken over the stewardship of Manor Farm from MAN, most could not believe the tyranny of some PIGS. They looked from pig to man, from man to pig and from pig to man again – it was impossible to tell which was which. There will be some Rwandans and peace loving people out there today who quite frankly must too be looking and looking and until some of the questions I raise above have been answered, they will continue to find it impossible to tell which is which.

Over to you my little monsters…

Details on a South African Civil Aviation Authority document show that on January 6, 2011, Repli Investment No 29 (PTY) Ltd, the South African registered company (co owned by Paul Nyirubutama, Paul Manasseh Nshuti and Sekoko Hatari) and to which ownership of the controversial jets has since been attributed, exported the Bombardier Aerospace BD700-1A10, only to re-import it 20 days later. Such obviously would seem to have been a very costly exercise given that it will have attracted duties from the revenue office as well as value added tax.

Efforts to try and get the details from the South Africa Revenue office were unsuccessful although they did return one email saying “they do not discuss individual transactions”. Whatever the case, the amount will have been sizeable given that South Africa charges an average of 20% as duty with VAT at 14%.

Rwanda and indeed Repli refuses to confirm how much was exactly paid for each of the two executive jets although estimates going by the market rate have put the cost of each at approximately $50 million. It would appear that up to $14 million worth of VAT alone might have been paid on one jet when it was exported and then re-imported.

A source in Kigali confirmed that indeed there had been a re-importation because “first somehow, someone believed that the delivered jet was not up to the agreed standard but also because there was a disagreement as to its interior design. A bit bizzare for a jet to be returned at such an expense but as this very source added, “the trouble was that there was a certain standard was needed and there was obviously someone who wasn’t particularly happy with the delivery. Plus remember these were jets which meant not only to transport the head of state but some notable VVIPs. Those incharge wanted the best value for the money”.

Value for the money indeed. And who can fault them. Considering that most private jets cost between $6 – 50 million, at 50, the Bombardier is among the best there is. If only the payment had not been drawn from state coffers. In a March 7, 2010 letter to the South African Times, Jean Paul Nyirubutama, the Counsellor in the High Commission of Rwanda, denied the jets were owned by the Rwandan government (or indeed President Kagame as many believe). Nyirubutama insisted “investments towards the ownership of the aircraft were made by private Rwandan interests and not by the government”. Very questionable indeed if you consider that three of the assumed owners had until then remained unknown businessmen in Rwanda. A friend of mine laughed one time when I told him that a group of three Rwandan businessmen were behind the purchase of the jets.

Apart from Sekoko Hatari, the other two have been and remain public servants. Many remember them as having and still being not as established to secure millions of dollars to purchase the executive jets “and that is even if it involved obtaining a loan,” one source added. “Tell me where would a man like Nshuti get the collateral to stake for any bank to give him or his business partners over 5 million dollars leave alone 100 million. I will not be fooled into believing this hogwash. It is a lie and the real owner must be having a laugh as these pawns take the heat. It is crazy, it is crazy Akanga.”

And you do not have to go far to see some sense in what this source was trying to say. Conducting big time business in Rwanda is as easy as conducting business in Italy. But whereas in the latter you have to have the blessing of Silvio, in the former, you must be willing to sacrifice for Kagame. It is that simple.

Many have been in this position before. Those who have successfully conducted big business in Kigali are the ones who have allowed the ruling party (read RPF under Tristar) to be part of their businesses. Either that or there is no business. Of course the government insists there is more to doing business in Rwanda than just knowing the right people – or being close to the main man – and in fact Rwanda has on two occasions posted some good scores with the World Bank business index for the favourable place to invest (thanks to the extensive PR courtesy of Racepoint et al). It has been projected and sold as the place where it takes less time to start up a business than it takes to secure a meeting with a high ranking minister.

What those details never tell you though is that in reality the opposite is true. Rwanda is also a place where it takes probably the exact same time to have your business crippled or plan squeezed. Local entrepreneurs will attest to this. Ask any government official why there still is only one  television station in the country 17 years after the genocide. The answer is a typical one – “remember the role of the media in our history?”. They will never tell you that on three occasions the government has been approached by sane investors (clearly different from the crazy Hasan Ngezes of yesteryear) and on three occasions the truth has been that the demands in terms of shares to the ruling party have been astronomically anti-business leave alone media independence.

But before I meander into the beatitudes of the incredible business climate that is Rwanda, I wonder if any of the many defenders of the regime in Kigali will at least come clean here once and for all on how much the two jets are costing us as a nation and whether there is a system in place to ensure that whatever was spent to satisfy the demands of our dear head of state. Some will say there is need for concern given that even with the jets story and furore it caused last year, monsieur PK has a year later chosen again to spend like a Saudi Prince, and again from our coffers, spending an imperious $20,000 a nigh suite in one of New York’s finest hotels. Will someone at least remind him that some of his people are struggling to raise enough for the brilliant Mituele, or even buy uniforms for their sons and daughters to attend his much publicised UPE schools, deep down in the village.

For now, I will whine and whinge but I must continue to work my socks off if I am to remain resident in my present address. I am also energized by the belief that as a student, life will get easier once I am done with my studies. Then, I so hope, to start earning more, and possibly buy myself a house.

But why all this rent and bills nonsense? You see as a Rwandan student who has been struggling all year around with my tuition, accommodation and food, I was shocked to learn that just this week my president travelled to the US for a UN meeting and spent £12,000 a night on a hotel room. It might have begun as a rumour but the thought of a man who in August 2010 was voted into power by an electorate 60 percent of which according to UNDP live in poverty (and 42 percent in absolute poverty) splashing out on luxury while on a foreign mission is yet to sink in.

When news first broke that President Kagame ( who many still praise for using aid money so effectively and being a down to earth head of state) was living in an expensive presidential suite at the luxurious Mandarin Oriental, those with a highly bent inclination to the regime in Kigali rejected the news as “utter tabloid gossip”. I remained sceptical but was never surprised. With African heads of state, anything is possible and one should never rule out anything unless they are absolutely sure.

Now that the hitherto rumour has been confirmed to be indeed the truth, I await the Rwandan government explanation as to the reasons behind this reckless expenditure. Four times I have tried to get in touch with those in the know in Kigali and no one wants to speak. Not even my most trusted source. An email to an old trusted general yesterday over the matter elicited a response akin to the kind you would expect from a chicken thief who’s been caught red handed drinking from the neighbour’s alcohol pot. “Hands off please”.

The news that the president of a begging state managed to sleep in a hotel which even the British PM (even though the UK might have afforded) thought expensive, will continue to astonish the world but as we await an inquiry into the Mandarin Oriental spree (accountability) questions must be asked as to whether our leaders are worth what they claim to stand for.

There is more to President Kagame than just the tough talking strict disciplinarian he has been portrayed as. While his peers in East Africa were being ostracised for spending fortunes on extravagant presidential motorcades and SUVs, Kagame’s admirers pointed to his well managed small convoy (usually consisting of his car, two land cruisers carrying his body guards and a third vehicle clearing traffic). However, the same man who on the face of it appears to be modest and down to earth, not so interested in a pomp lifestyle akin to most heads of states in Africa, was discovered to have spent more than 100 million dollars purchasing two executive jets - which he continues to use to ferry him for all his trips to and from Europe and the Americas.

No one denies the fact that presidents must and ought to be protected. In the case of Rwanda where the position of the president reigns supreme, and given the country’s history, one might understand the need to ensure that the head of state stays safe and well. And if the protection can be only achieved through hiring and residing in a safe hotel, then so be it. But such protection must be within a certain context, reasonable and some will say, necessary. If President Kagame had for example been visiting Kabul or Mogadishu where as we know security concerns are high one might understand the need to hire or reside at an expensive hotel. But this was the US. Many will say, one of the safest countries in the world. American authorities including the FBI and CIA will have known in advance that dignitaries from all over the world were coming to stay so you can rest assured their security was granted.

It will have been safe to stay in any of the good hotels around, just like some other heads of state or prime ministers did and  not necessarily the most expensive there was. A more modest hotel room of say £3000 would have done just fine. While it still would have been four months worth of my rent and enough to cater for a year’s Universal Primary Education tuition for 3000 Rwandan children, it would have been reasonable.

But does it really matter if a sitting head of state from a poor developing country decides to splash out on a trip out of his land? Should we really care that President Kagame while on a trip to the US suddenly decides to literally “sleep and eat like a queen or King”?

Some have argued that the president may have been outrageous with his hotel bill but we should not forget the fact that he was also in the US to solicit some business and investment for Rwanda. Indeed one outrageous argument was advanced just yesterday that the US trip followed the French trip from which Kagame raised close to 3o million Euros in investments and grants to Rwanda. The idea being that with all this money raised, £12,000 on a room should not be seen as a bad move. I wont say this sort of reasoning is stupid because it is.

As an offender, Kagame is entitled to a defence but this sort of defence is utterly out of order. First it negates the fact that this is not about where Kagame stayed but how much he paid to stay there and whether this was the best option possible. Secondly, it assumes that the money raised was for Kagame and therfore he had authority over it forgetting the fact that the aid advanced or grants given were forwarded to Rwanda as a State not its head of state.

I am not sure the government will want to get to the bottom of this but I wish those in charge could. If it was to turn out for example that PK footed the £12,000 – a night hotel bill from his own pocket, then like myself and my rent, he can sit down and hope for the same next time or even better if he works hard and earns more. Otherwise events in New York have only helped heap more scorn and ridicule to an exposed dancer whose moves people were already beginning to doubt. Someone had better call Racepoint. Over to you my little monsters…

Press Release

28 July 2011

The Burundian government should immediately release two prominent lawyers jailed amid an ongoing dispute with the government, Amnesty International said today, as a national lawyers’ strike continues.

Head of the Bar Association Isidore Rufikiri was arrested on 27 July after speaking at a rally in the capital,Bujumbura. Burundian lawyers are on strike this week to call for the release of their colleague, Suzanne Bukuru, who was arrested on 15 July on charges of “complicity in espionage” after speaking to French journalists about a case of alleged rape.

“Arresting these lawyers violates the right to freedom of expression,” said Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty International’s Africa Programme Director.

“The Burundian authorities must immediately release these lawyers and allow them and others to practice freely. “The way they handle this will be a litmus test for the credibility ofBurundi’s justice system.”

The prosecution summoned Rufikiri to the Court of Appeal on 27 July, and interviewed him on charges of “insulting magistrates”, apparently referring to comments he made about judicial interference at a lawyers’ protest on 25 July.

Following this questioning, Rufikiri was taken directly to Mpimba Central Prison.

Bukuru was also summoned by the prosecution on 15 July, in relation to a case where she is representing five girls who allege they were raped by a French national living inBurundi. The accused was found guilty on 25 July and sentenced to 25 years in jail and a €14,000 fine. He is appealing the sentence.

Bukuru was questioned about having put her clients in touch with French journalists visitingBurundibefore the verdict. She was charged with an unrelated and spurious offence of “complicity in espionage”, which carries a life sentence and can only be applied to foreigners and in times of war.

Bukuru was immediately transferred to Mpimba Central Prison and the court will rule on 1 August on whether to grant bail.

The prosecution also questioned Edras Ndikumana, a correspondent for Radio France International (RFI), about his role in putting French journalists in contact with Bukuru.

Background

The independence of the judiciary in Burundi is regularly compromised through political interference. Magistrates are sometimes penalized by being relocated to different provinces for taking decisions seen as unfavourable to the executive.

The United Nations Independent Expert on the human rights situation in Burundi, Fatsah Ouguergouz, cited problems with judicial independence as one of the key weaknesses of Burundi’s justice system in his May 2011 report.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers not only state that lawyers must be allowed to carry out their work “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference” but also expressly recognizes that they are entitled to freedom of expression including “the right to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights”.

Rwandese nationals across the  world and indeed other nationals who have been at the receiving end of the heavy handed former National Intelligence Security Service (NSS) chief, Col Dr. Emmanuel Ndahiro, could hardly hide their joy. Many took to internet forums and online publications to express their happiness.

To them, it must have somehow felt like justice was being served. And who can blame them. When you have been intimidated, tortured, maimed or harassed by a person as powerful as Dr. Ndahiro, any action that seeks to make him less popular can be easily confused as a remedy.

So there we had it. Maj. Gen Karenzi Karake, who last time we heard was being rounded up for misconduct, was now replacing the most powerful man in Rwanda today.

The good doctor (or Doctor Evil to some) was sent to the ministry of defence – what for? This we are yet to learn. Col. Tom Byabagamba, who previously headed the elite Presidential Guard Brigade and who not long ago was reported in local media to have fallen out with President Kagame before being sent on study leave, came back in as the chief of the newly created anti-terrorism unit. Yes, Kigali needs this unit, given the number of grenade attacks around the country in recent months!

And who else to complete a great gimmick. Col Dan Munyuza – who the online version of Umuvugizi – says he is the man whose voice is heard on the recorded telephone conversation between 3 Rwandese plotting the killing of Col. Patrick Karegeya in South Africa and “many more others”, was served as the pudding to what to me, has been a dodgy buffet of a reshuffle.

By appointing Col. Munyuza as head of foreign intelligence, the Commander in Chief was simply stating quite clearly that no matter the evidence (supposing he is proven to be the man on the phone in that telephone conversation on Umuvugizi),” the Butcher of Kigali” as some have since labelled him is still a close and trusted confidant of PK when it comes to foreign intelligence missions.

If we stop and pose for a second, it becomes clear that this was never a reshuffle as in the real meaning of the word but a change of guard. Reason I think people should not be too quick to celebrate.

Very few will have forgotten that not so long ago, the Rwandan government came on the radar of not one but two countries: (South Africa and the UK) as having sent hit squads to eliminate its perceived enemies resident in those said countries. If this was not embarrassing enough, the idea that the said missions – which were meant to be secret by the way- had not only gone wrong but also left enough clues linking them to Kigali should under normal circumstances, have warranted the arrest and questioning of those involved – or at worst, a resignation. But these are not normal circumstances, nor are we talking humanity here. People will say, hey do not be too judgemental, the case is being investigated in SA and until there is proof that these attempted killings were engineered or originated in Rwanda, the suspects remain free people. Really? Well why not, lets give them the benefit of the doubt. In a more democratic setting, such an accusation (and it is a big accusation) would have at least prompted an inquiry. It is or at least has been so damaging to the country and we can not allow a few bad apples to spoil the image of the nation. But who cares? Instead, we had a classic government denial and the dear Louise Mushikiwabo stating very clearly that the government of Rwanda does not threaten the lives of its citizens wherever they live. How I wish this was true.

Many will have thought that revelations in the numerous newspapers around the world that something strange and as sinister had been planned by the Rwandan Intelligence on citizens in foreign countries should have provided PK with enough ammunition to attack whoever was in charge. Never. In today’s Rwanda, the bespectacled Dr. is as powerful as his bespectacled Commander in Chief. Besides being cousins, the two share so much in common and unless you suffer from dementia, it would be naive to even begin to believe that this is a reshuffle that has any major effect as to the overall state policy. To those who have suggested that it signified PK’s lack of trust in his most trusted lieutenant, you better think again.

Exactly the very reason I think personally, that those celebrating should hold their guns. Because if this was not some gimmick, Dr. Ndahiro and his group should now be behind bars. Plotting the murder of, or sanctioning the elimination of Rwandan nationals wherever goes not only against the provisions of our Constitution but also is in breach of the duties and responsibilities of those holding public office. I do not remember anywhere in the oath that our public officials take before assuming office, where it is written that they pledge to engage in the elimination of fellow citizens. And don’t even begin talking about that nonsense called national security because that does not cut it.

Sending the Dr to the ministry of defence is another way of saying ” well as long as you do my biding, I will never forsake you”. But behind the politics of the recent reshuffle, we mustn’t forget the fact that some innocent Rwandans will have lost their lives and no one has the right to end another person’s life irrespective of political position. I say Rwandese deserve accountability and we must demand it now.

Remember in 1998, aware that the world was beginning to realise his war against the Hutus, the government (some will say Kagame) carried out a reshuffle appointing then Lt. Col Emmanuel Habyarimana the minister of state in charge of defence. Yes, in charge of defence (a post that has since disappeared and which honestly was as useless as anything but only aimed at cooling down tensions and part of an elaborate appeasement policy).

That was in 1998, and so much has happened since but if you asked me if that or the reshuffles that followed had any bearing on the betterment of the wrongs of the time, my answer is a clear no. Politics is a game and Paul Kagame is at centre court! He will be celebrating that his latest attempt to serve aces against an opponent (a world that was opening up and beginning to question his moral authority to lead given his aides’ dark history), seems to have worked. As for those celebrating the reshuffle as a good gesture or move towards sanity, I ask you to read between the lines.

There is more to fooling people than doing the right thing.