The UN Mapping Report, What Next?

With details having been leaked to members of the press and the public, it was clear that no amount of sabotage, pressure or blackmail from anyone would hold back the publication of what has turned out to be the most incriminating report ever, about the activities inside DR Congo, of the many foreign forces who occupied that country from 1997-2003.

But as innocent Congolese tried to come to terms with revelations on the international scene, of what they had previously known for so many years and tried to explain albeit with no success, politicians and state propagandists set out to find ways of toning down the words used. It should be noted that while there has been talk of efforts by the leading suspects in the crimes mentioned in the report, this was never about proving genocide. The UN, following years of suffering meted on Congolese people by marauding foreign armies and local militias thought it important to investigate what many had reported as deteriorating human rights abuses in that part of Congo, a spell dating back to the days when foreign armies entered the country.

So I will not go into arguments of whether the report has been successful in exposing the fact that there was genocide in Congo, who committed it, who the victims were or whether those responsible should be brought to book. The report is clear on these four aspects. For purposes of continuity and justice to those who lost lives or loved ones in the said atrocities (or war if you may) it is important that we dwell on what next, after this.

That the report was leaked to the press and later to members of the public before its publication has its own interesting bits. Speaking to a high profile source in the Rwandan government last week, he told me and I quote “I must say that to us, it is even better the report was leaked. I am not sure if any government whose forces are mentioned in this report, would have felt comfortable finding answers to the press the morning after the report’s publication. It would have been a nightmare”.

To this official the leaking of the report gave the accused governments enough time to plan a rebuttal. The scare mongering and professed threats that we saw from countries like Rwanda and Uganda for instance (threatening to withdraw forces from UN peace keeping missions) was devised as a means of giving the “offenders” room to think about what to say “and if possible to try and through friends in the UN, reach a compromising decision on how to phrase some of the contentious phrases in the report”.

At the end of the day, when the report finally got published on October 1, the damning accusation of a possible genocide committed against Hutus by the Rwandan forces as highly linked to in the draft report, was rather given a very soft dimension and the Rwandan army was not singled out but instead the report chose to use the word “foreign forces”.

Accordingly, it is now up to the DRC to try and seek prosecutions for those implicated if it feels and wants to. And this is where I take issue with international justice. Here, you have innocent civilians (including the young, sickly and elderly) being systematically murdered by the so called “foreign forces” in what can be argued as a deliberate attempt to finish them off, and all you get is a “you can go ahead and press charges if you want” sort of thing.

It gets irritating when you consider that the DRC is led by a gentleman who many know has no underlying intention to upset those who have helped him become who he is, by accusing their armies of the most heinous crime known to mankind. And the other option? Reparations, yes you read that right, reparations?

Did these foreign forces not go into Congo partly to carry out their mission (which is a subject of this report) and to loot? Reparations would be alright if they were what the innocent Congolese who lost their family members and loved ones needed. These people need no reparations; they are more interested in justice, an end to the savagery and the unending many wars that have ravaged their livelihoods. They want to be able to return to their homes, live in peace and be able to go about their daily lives without worrying about unexplained deaths of their sons and daughters or the rape of their wives and children.

The idea of reparations would be not very bad if it did not spell more misery for the Congolese. A country like Rwanda for example whose budget is part sponsored through foreign aid can not, in anyway, get the amount DRC will need to settle the atrocities committed by its (Rwanda’s) army in Eastern Congo. So what would that mean? It means if DRC insisted on reparations, Rwanda would instead find some other reason to go back into Congo, take control of the mineral rich parts of Katanga region, loot as much, sell that (assuming the US and Europe buys it without asking where it came from) to be able to raise enough to settle the reparations bill. We are talking of a good 5 more years of more misery. And who wants this? Certainly not the Congolese people, they have had enough.

There is a clear line between illegal and legal. It is clear that whatever the motive (intent) foreign forces (or Ugandan and Rwandan forces) committed crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes which ought to be punished for. The culprits are well known, these forces were not commanded by some supernatural object, but officers and men who may or may not still be serving in the said armies. For the sake of lasting peace, the world ought besides calling on the DRC to prosecute, insist that if President Joseph Kabila’s government keeps dithering about justice, the international community through and internationally recognised court, should take over the case.

The people of Congo and the innocent Rwandan who had sought refuge in that country deserve to be treated humanely and accorded all the rights that we humans have come to enjoy as per the universal declaration of human rights. Impunity bleeds conflict and a sense of betrayal; it should and must be fought.

…now over to you my little monsters

Did Ban Ki-moon achieve anything in Rwanda?

UN Chief Ban Ki-moon left Rwanda on Wednesday, a very disappointed man but he will at least take solace in the publicity, his trip has engineered for the much talked about report, which surely, now looks set to be slightly modified.

Having been sworn in on Tuesday as the country’s newly elected head of state, President Paul Kagame could not have wished for a better guest. Mr. Moon (great name by the way) has come to be viewed in Kigali as the man who Kigali will need if their defence against what they consider a “flawed” and “utterly irresponsible” report, is to be sustained. They need him much as he (as we have seen in these past days) needs them.

Ban Ki-moon unlike his predecessor Koffi Annan is slightly preferred in Kigali. He is seen as a softer option, one that Kigali will effectively manipulate when need be. In contrast with Annan  – who Kigali still sees as someone who was indifferent to its (Kigali’s) demands to transfer genocide convicts to serve their sentences in Rwanda –  Mr Moon is still new and has so far not annoyed Kagame to proportional extents. He is thus seen like some one said to me today “someone they could work with”.

His quick visit to Kigali was thus not by accident. Kigali wanted this so badly to try and beseech him to consider not going ahead with the publication of the report, or to at least, change the wording and phrasing, in a way that is not as incriminating. Whether they achieved this, no one really knows. Even my ever so alert sources were beaten to the details of this meeting. The meeting took a short while and even when they emerged out of the room, no one seemed ready for any questions. Tough!

Somewhere within Moon’s organisation lies a document that most of the world except Kigali, would rather, it were published.  It is a draft document detailing what happened in the Congo between 1993-2003, whether the atrocities committed there, much as they are definitely crimes against humanity, can be classed as genocide against Hutus. There are many at the UN who would like to see the report released once and for all so the furore about it can come to an end.

Not so fast, says Rwanda. Kigali knows the report exists. It is also aware of the allegations contained therein, same as Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and a few more Central African countries but it wont bulge until it has had it, its way – hopefully.

With so many having had a fair share of the details of this report, one may as well ask, why bother? Well, someone is bothered because an official report is very different from a draft report. While the latter can be trashed, it might not be as easy to completely disregard a certified copy of a report especially when the official seal of approval is from an organisation like Mr. Moon’s.

Moon told journalists after his meeting in Kigali with President Kagame that he is “disappointed” the report was leaked.  Notice his careful diction here. “Disappointed”, yes, a relevant word to use! And who can blame him? He might as well have got the same word from the general he had just met.

Everyone is disappointed. The people of Rwanda, Congo, Burundi, Uganda and everywhere in the world are indeed disappointed.  Disappointed because they see an organisation that in trying to please some risks disappointing everybody.

It is going to be hard for the UN to come out of this mess, unless of course it takes action, and now. The UN may stand accused by Kigali for its failure to intervene in Rwanda in the months leading to the 1994 genocide but that is no reason for it to dither on what to do regarding this report – if at all the report is there.

Disappointment will come if courtesy of blatant blackmail and the fear to lose out on about 3000 peacekeepers supplied by Rwanda throughout the world, the UN decides to shelve the report, claiming for instance that it never existed just like they did with the Gersony report. Disappointment will come if it is proven that the current hullabaloo about the report is actually engineered to hide the bare truth that is prevalent in the report. Disappointment will be when those who have lost their loved ones, and after waiting for so long so see some justice delivered on their behalf, get to learn that this route to some justice is doomed because someone has threatened the adjudicator with putting him/her off the feed,  if he goes ahead with the case. And disappointment will be if it is proven that actually the Rwandan state through their army officers did not actually commit crimes against humanity in the Congo.

And this is why I say, cut the crap Moon. If this is a report which you know to the best of your knowledge as having been commissioned and conducted by people who your organisation considers competent enough for the job, bring it on. If you are buying time to try and look for replacements wherever after realising that this is a report that might incriminate some of the people you have previously used or are probably still using as peacekeepers, then say so. Otherwise those behind closed-door meetings with people who clearly part of the investigation raise questions as to whether people should trust the final product as being unaltered. True there will always be copies of the draft if anything but like I said, it is the final official document, which counts.

Over to you my little monsters…

Rwandans; Is Kagame willing to give power to You?

By Eleneus Akanga

The planning had been as meticulous as the voting that preceded this event. Having successfully come through as winner of the predictable presidential election on August 9, this was a day Kagame and his supporters knew was coming. And boy, did they plan.

After all, Kigali is known for its pristine and tidy streets, so most of their job was already cut. A few decorations here and there and everything would be in motion. People were asked to turn up in numbers and business in the city, especially near the national stadium came to a standstill. If you did not make it to the stadium due to heavy security or venue capacity limits, you had no reason not to stay at home and watch it on national television. Giant screens were erected around for those that would claim they did not have televisions at home.

Somewhere across town, the cult figure that is Paul Kagame prepared to cut his cake and serve it, as dignitaries from far and near, ensconced themselves in comfy seats, waiting to witness history. Oh yes, history! History because not long, someone would stand in their midst, take his oath and become the first ever head of state to assume a second seven year term in office. To put this in context, that is 2 years short of 3 presidential terms in any of his neighbouring countries and 2 years short of a possible 4 American Presidents, assuming each served only one term, or 2 if each served the legally accepted 2 terms.

This was a day that had come right on the heels of mounting pressure on Kigali. Pressure – resulting from heavy criticism of a regime and government that the guest of honour understands as being on the right path. If there was going to ever be an opportunity for President Kagame to put one past his critics or for Kigali to express how confused and angry it is at those who continue to question its style of leadership, his overall judgement, or his role in the politics of the region, this was it.

And he took the invite it with open arms. “It is difficult for us to comprehend those who want to give us lessons on inclusion, tolerance and human rights. We reject all their accusations. Self-proclaimed critics of Rwanda may say what they want, but they will neither dictate the direction we take as a nation, nor will they make a dent in our quest for self determination,” he roared.

With his face grimacing in what some will have viewed as fear as opposed to his cowboy seriousness, the one time member of Africa’s new brood of leaders continued:

“These external actors turn around and promote the dangerous ideas of those who have fallen out with the system; ignoring the choices of the majority of our people … it is evidence of hypocrisy and a patronizing attitude towards our entire continent”.

For all his greatness and his one time grand vision for the country, President Kagame remains a peculiar character. For reasons well known to him, he views critics as self styled. He has never understood or blatantly chooses to ignore that critics are what any one needs to be perfect. He has this feeling that for some weird reason or a deliberate sort of raison d’être, certain people hate him and his people. And he can’t stand these critics leave alone the thought of getting lessons from them.

As someone who is understood to have brought an end to the genocide (some contest this), Kagame would rather he earned maximum praise. He sees Rwanda as his brain child, a nation which needs him so badly, that without him, it would extinguish away in flames. He also sees the world, as gradually ganging up against him by siding with or lending a few ears to his critics. And for this he wants a fight.

The Kagame we saw today is the Kagame we saw some 3 years ago in front of dignitaries at then Hotel Intercontinental, chastising and directly telling off dignitaries most notably the French ambassador to Rwanda at the time for his country’s decision to prosecute some of his men. Now, fighting for fellow countrymen is a sign of solidarity, but this fight has got to be both reasonable and appropriate. President Kagame needs to know that sometimes, over reaction, can come through either as a sign of guilt or weakness.

While I understand his anger and his desire to put his point across, I am not overly convinced that he has to use his swearing in ceremony to moralize his beatitudes.  Anyone would be angry. Everyone human would be so angry if after years of innocence, their army as well as their person suddenly stood accused of crimes against humanity – especially by an organisation they themselves accuse of folding its arms against them when they needed help. Angry rhetoric is no solution. While it may help send a clear message to your accuser to expect a tough fight, like I said before, it risks creating the impression that the noisemaker is wary of something.

Mr. President, everyone remembers how easily you swept through the election, winning 93 percent of the vote. We know too that according to you, dependency on aid and not the lack of democracy is Africa’s major problem. Is it not fair that after all these years in power, you should return power to the people as provided for in the constitution, decentralise power and provide for free speech and press freedom. And that way, “we the people” can have a proper debate on the way forward for this wonderful nation that you so easily are tilting towards a dictatorship?

To Be or Not to Be; Is the story changing in Rwanda?

By Eleneus Akanga

Some things, you just can’t buy. You either have them in abundance or they are scarce and rare. Their abundance often scams recipients into comfort zones where everything is assumed constant until that time when supply becomes skewed.

Then, we start reacting differently. Some people blame their handlers while others choose to place all the blame on others. Yes, others because it is easier to blame someone else than take full responsibility ourselves.

Most Rwandese of my age have grown up to the story that 16 years ago, their countrymen took to the streets and villages killing fellow countrymen on a scale never witnessed anywhere in the world. In what we have known as the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Rwanda is said to have lost close to 1,000,000 people, mostly Tutsis and moderate Hutus when the Interahamwe militia went on rampage. And that it was the Rwandese Patriotic Army under current president Paul Kagame who brought this sad chapter to an end by taking over Kigali in July 1994.

President Paul Kagame has built his reputation on this very fact and his government has been systematic as they have been consistent, in pressing forward this version of the story. With ending the genocide under his belt, President Kagame has seen his image soar and has rightfully won a host of accolades for his overall performance as Rwanda’s head of state.

Many around the world including former US president Bill Clinton were not shy to refer to him as one of the best leaders Africa has seen. He was on all accounts, a man of great integrity, so highly regarded across the globe that 8 months ago, any criticism of his style of leadership or version of events –as happened in 1994 – was bound to be viewed as nothing but a disgruntled rant from naysayers.

Just last month, President Kagame’s government came under heavy criticism for stifling free speech when it suspended two local newspapers Umuvugizi and Umuseso in the run-up to presidential elections. Then as the world opened their eyes up for the apparent lack of democracy in a country that had a couple of months earlier suspended and refused a visa to a Human Rights Watch researcher for a discrepancy in visa documents, Rwanda refused to register the country’s only genuine opposition parties in FDU-Inkingi and Democratic Green Party of Rwanda.

The coincidental shooting of Jean Leonard Rugambage the Umuvugizi editor whose publication happened at the time to be investigating the suspected assassination of Lt. Gen Kayumba Nyamwasa, a former army Chief of Staff in a foreign country and the murder of Andrew Kagwa Rwisereka, the vice chairman of the Greens did not help matters. Kigali and Kagame came under the spotlight.

But as bad press (or the truth) depending on how you look at it continued to come in, Kagame and his men tirelessly worked on his re-election. He pulled crowds each day on campaign rallies and as expected won comfortably with over 93 percent of the vote, giving him another seven year term.

For some time, the Rwandan story as told by the RPF and Kagame has stood unchallenged as we know it. Those who have dared question the official story have either been charged under the genocide law for negationism and genocide denial as with Victoire Ingabire, Bernard Ntaganda and a host of opposition party supporters arrested during a demonstration. American law Prof. Peter Erlinder had to endure a spell in a Kigali jail for expressing his opinions on what he thinks the Rwandan story should be.

But if the events in Rwanda in the run up to, during and after the elections have not provided the current government with something to really think about, the revelation that the national army may have committed crimes tantamount to genocide against Hutus in Congo will surely give everyone in government something to help argue.

A leaked report from the UN high commissioner for human rights says that after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Tutsi-led Rwandan troops and their rebel allies killed tens of thousands of members of the Hutu ethnic group inside the Congo.

If this is true, it brings into fore a hitherto untold version of the Rwandan story. It would appear that a government whose image has been created on bringing an end to the Rwandan genocide is the same government whose forces committed yet another.

According to the leaked report, “The majority of the victims were children, women, elderly people and the sick, who were often undernourished and posed no threat to the attacking forces.” The report goes on to say the crimes committed by Rwandan forces amount to “crimes against humanity, war crimes, or even genocide.”

It is the heaviest ever statement ever written against the Rwandan government. We all remember how Kigali reacted three years ago when French Judge Jean Louis Bruguire issued arrest warrants for members of the Rwandan government; we remember too how the same government reacted when a Spanish judge accused Kagame and his men of atrocities. To think that Rwanda will let this go without a proper fight is akin to forgetting so easily, for if there is anything Kagame is so afraid of at this moment in time, it is a damning report showing or even suggesting complicity in an atrocity he has so effectively used against his enemies both real and purported.

Honey Moon Over?

Rwanda has long claimed it attacked Hutu camps in eastern Congo to pursue those responsible for the killings of over 800,000 Tutsis in the Rwandan genocide. But the report marks the first time the UN has accused Rwandan forces of deliberately attacking the tens of thousands of Hutu civilians who also had fled. For some time, Rwanda has received good coverage and good press from most western countries partly because Kagame was seen as a good chap to work with. Secondly the guilt of forsaking Rwanda in 1994 when she needed the international community’s help has curtailed the West’s moral ability to criticise the guy who is known largely for stopping the genocide.

No wonder Kigali was quick to dismiss the report. The country has threatened too, to withdraw any of its servicemen from UN peacekeeping missions if the report is published. Why threaten if you know you have nothing to do with what is alleged in the report? Either way, withdrawing troops would serve as testament that Rwanda is doing the right thing; there obviously would be no moral right for a country whose forces are genocide perpetrators to then go ahead keeping peace. Maintaining deployed troops in their designated locations will also bring into question whether accused troops should really continue in positions where they are paid for by an organisation in whose report they stand accused of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Way Out

I was speaking to one of the officials in Kigali yesterday and he seemed to agree that this is a very damning report. He however contends that it might help bring to into line, the possibility if there ever was, of the ruling RPF (majority of which are Tutsis) to sit down with Hutu representatives for an open debate that will seek to establish what actually happened.

He did not want to add any more voices to this assertion just like he asked me not to even think of quoting him. But even with such an open debate, the atrocities committed in Congo if proven to be true and linked to the Rwandan forces would call not only for open debates but successful convictions at the Hague.

I have even had my old friends in Kigali trash the report and instead heap the blame on the UN for in the first place; failing to pass UN Resolution 1706 that would have seen the organisation send more troops to Rwanda. It is one of those very old classic colonial thoughts where we Africans tend to easily refuse to accept responsibility and instead shift the blame to others. For, the question is not why the UN failed to send more troops but whether as a nation whose people had lived together and spoke the same language, we should have been involved in the kind of savagery that we found ourselves into before, during and now, after the genocide?

Over to you my little monsters…

Poll puts Rwanda under scrutiny

Reuters and AlertNet

NAIROBI, 11 March 2010 (IRIN) – Rwanda’s upcoming presidential elections has cast a spotlight on its democratic credentials, with observers warning that allegations of intimidation of opposition leaders could mar the process.

“It is a very important event for our country because it is the second time we are electing a head of state,” Chrysologue Karangwa, President of the Electoral Commission, told IRIN. “The people are preparing themselves for it.”

Observers say the prevailing political environment restricts opponents of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

“Rwanda needs to allow the democratic process, to create political space for everybody,” a Nairobi-based regional analyst, who requested anonymity, said. “Otherwise the elections will be a fait accompli. That will undermine Rwanda’s democratic growth.”

Paul Kagame has been president since March 2000, after leading the RPF to power in July 1994 and ending the Rwandan genocide. The slaughter of more than 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus was by far the bloodiest chapter in a long power struggle between the minority Tutsis and majority Hutus.

In August 2003, Kagame won 95 percent of the votes in the first national elections since 1994. His main competitor, Faustin Twagiramungu, won 3.5 percent.

Kagame is widely expected to be nominated again as the RPF flag-bearer in the 9 August election, but recent incidents involving other potential candidates have fuelled concerns that the poll will not be fair.

Election questions

“It is very difficult to imagine any opposition candidates who can get a significant share of the votes,” Thomas Cargill, assistant head of the Africa Programme at Chatham House, said.

“The RPF dominates political life in Rwanda, but it is good for Rwanda to start going through the motions.”

He warned, however, that elections sometimes delivered only a semblance of democracy. “Like Ethiopia and Uganda, the governments of the day need to maintain the strings of power in some kind of democratic process. So you need an opposition.

“These governments tread a fine line – allow the opposition to operate and field candidates, but in a way that does not readily give them any chance,” he added.

Aid workers in the capital, Kigali, and in Goma, in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), are concerned about the potential fallout.

“A political crisis in Rwanda could trigger a humanitarian problem, including displacement across borders,” an international security observer at an aid mission in Goma told IRIN.

“There is also the unresolved question of armed Rwandan militias in DRC.”

The alleged “lack of political space” in Rwanda is frequently cited by the Hutu diaspora, refugees and such DRC-based militias to justify their refusal to return home.

Karangwa insisted nothing would disrupt the polls. “I can assure you the forthcoming elections are going to be free and fair,” he told IRIN on 10 March. “We are working towards that objective and are totally open.”

Jean Paul Kimonyo, a policy adviser to Kagame, writing in The New Times newspaper of 9 March, said the country was on the right political track. “The issue here is how do you ensure political cooperation when confrontational politics will almost certainly lead to renewed violence?

“Under President Kagame’s leadership, Rwanda has persistently ensured ownership of its nation building process by its citizens. It is much more challenging but certainly more promising.”

Impressive gains

Rwanda has, since 1994, recorded impressive gains towards the Millennium Development Goals, according to the UN Development Programme. Primary school enrolment, for example, is now 97 percent of all school-going age children.

Family planning, according to the World Bank, has tripled in the last three years, while assisted deliveries have increased from 39 to 52 percent. The use of insecticide-treated nets is up by 70 percent, and under-five mortality has fallen by 30 percent.

Policies and laws that guarantee equal opportunities for men and women, according to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have resulted in Rwanda holding a world record of women parliamentarians: 56.3 percent, just ahead of Sweden at 46.4 percent.

This year, according to Finance and Economic Planning Minister John Rwangombwa, the economy should grow by 7-8 percent, up from 5.5 percent in 2009.

Nevertheless, Rwanda “needs to open up and encourage past wounds to heal positively”, a diplomat in the capital, Kigali, told IRIN. Advocacy groups claim a lack of respect for basic political and human rights, and harassment of perceived political opponents.

According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an Indian NGO, article 13 of Rwanda’s constitution, which makes it an offence to engage in “revisionism” or “negationism” [denial of genocide], has been “broadly defined to include anyone who disagrees with the ruling RPF’s account of the genocide”.

“CHRI is deeply concerned at the continued restrictions and threats to opposition parties in the run-up to Rwanda’s Presidential elections,” it said in 6 March statement.

Referring to a 25 February warning by the security ministry that politicians who “slander the country” or are “against public unity” would be punished, it called for “immediate steps to ensure respect for the basic, universal rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly of opposition parties”.

Attacks on opponents

The 3 February attack on Victoire Ingabire, president of the United Democratic Forces party, and her aide Joseph Ntawangundi, by a mob in Kigali was the most visible example of opposition harassment so far, the Nairobi analyst said. Attacked while reportedly collecting party registration documents, she reportedly lost her passport, while Ntawangundi was severely beaten.

Ingabire returned to Rwanda in January, after living in Europe for 16 years. During a visit to the Gisozi Genocide memorial site, she upset survivor groups by alluding to the killing of Hutus, 85 percent of the population.

The day after the attack on Ingabire, Frank Habineza, president of the Green Party, reported being threatened. Earlier, the leader of the Ideal Social Party, Bernard Ntaganda, was called before the senate to answer accusations relating to propagation of genocide ideology.

Soon after, local government minister James Musoni warned politicians “who violate the constitution and the rule of law by politicking along ethnic lines. Whatever they do should not be a stumbling block to people’s peace, unity and security,” he said in a press statement.

“Politicians and all those who wish to practise politics are not allowed to do anything that undermines the sovereignty of Rwanda and its citizens.”

The attack on Ingabire, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said, “appeared to have been well coordinated, suggesting it had been planned in advance”.

“The Rwandan government already tightly controls political space,” said Georgette Gagnon, HRW’s Africa director. “These incidents will further undermine democracy by discouraging any meaningful opposition in the elections. On several occasions, the government has used accusations of participation in the genocide or ‘genocide ideology’, as a way of targeting and discrediting its critics.”

Karangwa denounced HRW. “That woman has not been beaten, not at all,” he told IRIN. “I do not believe the entire Human Rights Watch report. In our country there is no intimidation or harassment of opposition leaders.”

Kigali resident Joseph Barigye said Ingabire had “provoked” people. “The memories [of the genocide] are still fresh, so one needs to talk to people carefully,” he told IRIN. “And that is the reason Kagame will win again.”

Silencing critics

Ingabire, in an interview with The EastAfrican newspaper on 15 February, said: “Kagame’s government is not ready to accept opposition. This is why they sent young men to beat me and my aide two weeks ago – which was a true reflection of the lack of democracy and freedom of expression in Rwanda.

“This treatment extends to all opposition politicians,” she added. “We are not enemies. Instead, he uses the genocide ideology against us. The genocide took place 16 years ago and now is the time for democracy.”

Kagame told a recent news conference that Ingabire had “gone too far in abusing the country’s goodwill in attempting to destroy [Rwanda’s] positive steps”, but “whoever tries to act in contradiction to what the laws say will not be given room”.

Meanwhile, there are concerns about Kagame’s relations with the media after he publicly accused unnamed journalists of conspiring with two former military officers he accused of carrying out two recent grenade attacks in the capital.

“Kagame’s televised warnings will help silence critics prior to the August presidential election,” wrote Tom Rhodes, Africa programme coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists, on the organization’s website.

“With pro-government media outlets outweighing the country’s beleaguered private press, the chances of balanced election coverage are now slimmer than ever,” he added.

Chatham House’s Cargill said Rwanda’s past had to be put in context. “There are clearly some authoritarian tendencies within the Rwandan state, but Rwanda is coming from a place few countries have to been in recent years,” he told IRIN. “Still, there is a need for balance because the government is using all the advantages of incumbency.”

Can Victoire Ingabire fix Rwanda’s Political Puzzle?

Little known but committed Victoire Ingabire is a woman of all seasons. She has since her arrival back in Rwanda been trying to familiarise herself with the developments so far in a country she left 16 years ago. A career accountant-turned politician, she hopes, subject to the registration of her political party, to contest the forthcoming presidential election this August. Many agree she stands no chance but her introduction into the Rwandan political fold has already created a few surprises. Government propagandists under different pseudo names are already engaged in a tarnishing campaign to ensure all she says is never believed. Already, her political aide has been arrested and jailed over a Gacaca court conviction that Ingabire’s supporters and sympathisers believe is faked.

But as Kagame prepares to assume yet another seven year term, the world has been introduced to a politically charged mercenary type of society where opposition politics is only present on paper. It appears Kagame and his men are more at ease with the already established and very disorganised nine political parties who they know and have always controlled so easily. They are not ready for a party whose leader has been brave enough to raise critical issues. As part of a more detailed story to follow in one of the leading newspapers in the UK, I asked Ingabire about her thoughts on recent events:

You have been a subject of constant criticism from several government spin doctors and there is every indication you may not get to register your party, do you still believe it is possible?

I have indeed been subjected to all sorts of harassments from government sponsored media and services. But I have so far managed to keep on with my agenda of registering my party. Given the kind of hurdles that I have gone through, I can not rule out any scenario. The government may reject the registration application of my party on flimsy reasons, in order to hang on power. It is clear that the ruling party is not ready for competition of ideas, in a genuine multiparty system.

The fact that one of your aides has been charged with a genocide crime and imprisoned as a result must surely make you doubt and fear for your life. How have the events of the past weeks affected your overall desire to bring to Rwandans what you think they deserve?

The rough beating and subsequent arrest and detention of Joseph Ntawangundi brought to limelight the true colour of our government. In a rule of law, we expected the assailants to answer for their deeds, more so when the government claimed that they had been arrested. Instead, the victim was arrested and jailed, as if to cover up the assailants. We were both targeted by the mob and I narrowly escaped. I would have been equally beaten if I had been caught. Yes I fear for my life, as any human being, but this will not derail my desire and determination to bring changes in Rwanda.

You are a strong lady, aren’t you? Who is Victoire Ingabire?

I can not gauge my strength, I leave it to others. As for my background, I am 42 years old, married and mother of three children. I hold a degree in Commercial and business administration which I got in Holland, where I worked in private sector. I majored in Enterprises management. My political career started in late nineteen. I was also involved in many NGO’s activities. I believe in no violence as a way of bringing political changes.

Elections will be here in 6 months time but yet one would think Uganda will be voting earlier than Rwanda. What do you think is the reason for no morale about the coming elections in Rwanda?

Previous elections held in Rwanda in 2003 and 2008 were marred by massive rigging. This was confirmed among others, by EU observers in their report. Since the composition of the electoral commission has not fundamentally changed, there is no guarantee of a more transparent election. This is the reason why we are calling for a broad based electoral commission and an electoral code that has the blessing of all political parties involved in the election. The ruling party can not be a judge and jury. The recent resignation from the ruling party of the chairman of the electoral commission is a mere smoke screen move, to hoodwink donors and it is our prayer that some of these things get sorted out. He still is member of the party which does not change much.

Reports from both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International seem to hint on the excessive lack of political space in Rwanda viewing dissent as anti-progress. Is that a view you share especially after spending a few weeks in the country now?

I totally share the assessments of HRW, as far as political space is concerned in Rwanda. Freedom of expression and equal access to public and private media is paramount for democratic elections. No issue should be a taboo. People should be free to challenge the government on its achievements and generally the way it conducts its affairs. Government critics should not be treated as enemies of the nation, but as watch dogs. Democracy is a universal commodity. It should not be twisted merely to suit interest of a group or political organisation. This is what I am struggling for.

There is this allegation that FDU-Inkingi is connected to FDLR which has been labelled a terrorist organisation by the US, tell us this is true?

These are fabrications aimed at tarnishing my image and delaying the registration of my party. Of late, government lobbies have been going around, brandishing a UN experts report as evidence. This UN report which by the way was heavily criticised by Tanzania and Burundi, is so biased that it went to the extent of saying that the commander in chief of FDLR is my brother! This is rubbish? The report further alleges that I am connected with FDLR because I attended a meeting with FDLR members in Barcelona. The so called Barcelona meeting took place under the auspices of a Spanish NGO and was attended by Rwandan of all ethnic groups, including RPF well known individuals from Rwanda. This can be cross-checked from the minutes of the meeting. The agenda of the meeting was to see ways and means of organising an inter Rwanda dialogue. How came these RPF members who attended the meeting are not labelled FDLR supporters? The truth of the story is that the government does not want a true dialogue and want to demonise any dialogue initiative that is not under it iron fist. Had the Barcelona meeting been a conspiracy meeting, the organisers would have not invited delegates from Rwanda including staunch supporters of the ruling party.

What do you want and wish for Rwanda?

Peace, stability and reconciliation. I don’t want to see any more Rwandan being killed as a result of his ethnic, religious, region or political origin. I don’t want to see any more Rwandan seeking asylum abroad, or living in makeshift camps around Africa or being hunted like animals in neighbouring countries.
I want an independent judiciary and state machinery that pays allegiance to a cause, a nation, and no more to an individual or political organisation. I want a Rwanda where there is a rule of laws and equal economic opportunities. This is my dream.

After the attack on you a few weeks ago, do you now feel safe? We read in the papers that you have written to the president for security, what is the latest on this?

It is the duty of any government to ensure security for its entire citizen. This is what I expect from my government. I am not begging for favours.

If winning had to be about you (FDU) merging with the Green Party of Rwanda, and that is of course assuming that you both get registered, would you welcome a coalition?

Let’s not cross the bridge before reaching it. For the time being the issue does not arise. But I can assure you that I will support any move that can bring changes in Rwanda. I am not struggling for my own ego, but for the good of my countrymen. I share the Green party thirst for freedom and democracy.

Rwanda angry at Uganda over fugitive General

The warming Uganda-Rwanda diplomatic relations appeared headed for trouble once again after Kigali formally protested to Kampala at the weekend over reports their run away former army commander, Lt. Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, is allegedly hiding there.

Rwanda’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Ms Louise Mushikiwabo, told reporters last evening that her government had registered its “concern” with officials of Uganda’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs and that of Local Government as well as security chiefs. “The authorities took my concern and said if they get information that is of interest, they will let our government know,” she said, referring to the contested whereabouts of Gen. Nyamwasa.

Up until his flight on Friday after an annual retreat of diplomats in Kigali, the general was the country’s ambassador to India and previously served as the first commander of the Paul Kagame-led Rwanda Patriotic Forces, after the 1994 genocide.

Uganda’s Defence Spokesman, Lt. Col. Felix Kulayigye, said he is “unaware” if the fugitive is being sheltered in Kampala, as alleged, and referred this newspaper to Mr Sam Kutesa, the Foreign Affairs Minister. “I am trying to seek details from security but we are also looking for him. But why do you want him?” Mr Kutesa said by phone. With Uganda formally denying the general’s presence in the country, Rwanda said it was not yet suspecting any mischief since Kigali had been “assured it would get maximum cooperation”.

Reports are that Gen. Nyamwasa’s issue, a diplomatic nightmare for Uganda, will form the highlight of discussions at a Joint Permanent Commission meeting due in Kampala, on Wednesday, which will review security and bilateral ties between the two counties.

Asked if Rwanda-Uganda relations had been damaged, Ms Mushikiwabo, who is also spokesperson of the Rwandan government, said: “I don’t think the flight of one person can dent our relationships that have been solid for long.” “Our two countries have much more in common that a fugitive can destroy.”

Peoples of the two countries are bonded in many ways, trade and shared heritage and culture inclusive. For instance, Uganda was the principal backer of the RPF guerrilla movement that brought the current Kigali leadership, and President Paul Kagame to power.

However over the years, political rivalry and suspected bruised ego of some of the leaders in either country threw the bilateral relation into a mess with armies of the two countries fighting one another several times in Kisangani during the 1997-2003 in Democratic Republic of Congo, which they had both joined as allies.

– DM

CPJ: 2009 the bloodiest year for African journalists since 2000

New York, December 17, 2009—2009 has been the bloodiest year for media professionals killed in the line of duty worldwide since 1992, and has seen the highest death toll for journalists in Sub-Saharan Africa in this decade, according to an annual analysis of media fatalities worldwide released today by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). In a week marking the anniversaries of the unsolved murders of journalists Norbert Zongo of Burkina Faso and Gambian Deyda Hydara, the report denotes that none of the perpetrators of the 2009 journalist murder cases have been brought to justice.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, 12 journalists have been murdered in direct relation to their work this year, just one less loss of life than the heavy toll recorded in 1999, which was largely caused by Sierra Leone’s civil war. This time, Somalia’s ongoing conflict claimed the most victims, but other journalists were murdered while investigating local corruption in Nigeria and Kenya or covering the political crisis in Madagascar. CPJ is investigating the cases of two other journalists in Republic of Congo and the Democratic Republic of Congo to determine whether their deaths were related to journalism.

In Somalia, nine local journalists were murdered or killed in combat situations. Throughout 2009, violent Islamist extremists waged a terror campaign against the Somali press, threatening and murdering journalists and seizing news outlets. “The nine deaths in Somalia are a tremendous loss for the tiny band of journalists who risk their lives every day just by stepping out into the street,” said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney, who helps oversee CPJ advocacy in the region. “Their courageous reporting exposes them not just to crossfire and random violence but to targeted killing by insurgents who want to control the message.”

Worldwide, at least 68 journalists were killed for their work in 2009, the highest yearly tally ever documented by CPJ. This figure was largely due to an election-relatedslaughter of more than 30 media workers in the Philippine province of Maguindanao, the deadliest event for the press in CPJ history. The worldwide tally surpasses the previous record of 67 deaths, recorded in 2007 when violence in Iraq was pervasive and media fatalities there were common. CPJ is still investigating 20 other journalist deaths worldwide in 2009 to determine whether they were work-related.

“This has been a year of unprecedented devastation for the world’s media, but the violence also confirms long-term trends,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “Most of the victims were local reporters covering news in their own communities. The perpetrators assumed, based on precedent, that they would never be punished. Whether the killings are in Iraq or the Philippines, in Russia or Mexico, changing this assumption is the key to reducing the death toll.”

The enormity of the Philippine massacre is unparalleled. Twenty-nine journalists and two support workers were among the 57 people brutally murdered in a November ambush motivated by political clan rivalries. The deadliest prior event for the press came in Iraq in October 2006, when 11 employees of Al-Shaabiya television were killed in an attack on the station’s Baghdad studios, CPJ research shows.

The Maguindanao killings, while extreme, reflect the deep-seated climate of impunity in the Philippines, where long-term law enforcement and political failures have led to high numbers of journalist murders and low rates of convictions over two decades. For two years running, CPJ has identified the Philippines as one of the world’s worst nations in combating violence against the press.

Four journalists were killed in Pakistan during the year, among them Musa Khankhel, a local television reporter known for his critical coverage. Abducted while covering a peace march in a militant-controlled area near the town of Matta, Khankel was tortured and then shot repeatedly.

As in past years, murder was the leading cause of work-related deaths in 2009. At least 50 journalists were targeted and slain in retaliation for their work, representing about three-quarters of the deaths in 2009. Eleven journalists were killed in crossfire while in combat situations, while seven died while covering dangerous assignments such as police raids or street protests.

Many of the deadliest nations for the press in 2009 have long-term records of violence against journalists and high rates of impunity in those attacks.

Three journalists were murdered in Russia, which has had a high media fatality rate over two decades. The 2009 victims included Abdulmalik Akhmedilov, a Dagestani editor who sharply criticized government officials for suppressing religious and political dissent. He was found shot, contract-style, in his car. In September, CPJ issued a report,Anatomy of Injustice, examining the high number of unsolved journalist murders in Russia, prompting government pledges to re-examine several cases.

Two journalists were slain in both Mexico and Sri Lanka. In Durango state, Mexico, assailants abducted crime reporter Eliseo Barrón Hernández from his home as his wife and two young daughters watched. His body, a gunshot wound to the head, was found the next day in an irrigation ditch. Barrón had just broken a story about police corruption.

Here are other trends and details that emerged in CPJ’s analysis:

Ø      The 2009 toll is up more than 60 percent from the 42 deaths recorded in 2008.

Ø      All but two of the 2009 victims were local journalists. While local reporters have long been more vulnerable to deadly violence than their foreign counterparts, the divide has never been wider in CPJ’s annual assessment.

Ø      Print journalists constituted 56 percent of the toll, indicating that print media continue to play a front-line role in reporting the news in dangerous situations. Although CPJ research has found a notable decline in the number of print journalists in jail, it has charted no comparable drop in fatalities among print reporters, editors, and photographers.

Ø      In addition to the murders in Maguindanao, CPJ recorded three other work-related deaths in the Philippines in 2009. In all, 32 journalists and two support workers were killed in the country during the year.

Ø      Two journalists died of neglect or mistreatment while imprisoned on work-related charges. Novruzali Mamedov died in an Azerbaijani prison after being denied adequate medical care, while Iranian blogger Omidreza Mirsayafi died in Evin Prison under circumstances that were never fully explained.

Ø      At least two journalists were reported missing during the year, one in Mexico and the other in Yemen.

Ø      Nine freelance journalists were among the 2009 victims. The proportion of freelancers was consistent with past years.

Ø      Other places with media fatalities were: Afghanistan, Colombia, El Salvador, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Nigeria, the Occupied Palestinian Territory, andVenezuela.

CPJ began compiling detailed records on all journalist deaths in 1992. CPJ staff members apply strict criteria for each entry; researchers independently investigate and verify the circumstances behind each death. CPJ considers a case work-related only when its staff is reasonably certain that a journalist was killed in direct reprisal for his or her work; in crossfire; or while carrying out a dangerous assignment.

If the motives in a killing are unclear, but it is possible that a journalist died in relation to his or her work, CPJ classifies the case as “unconfirmed” and continues to investigate. CPJ’s list does not include journalists who died from illness or were killed in accidents—such as car or plane crashes—unless the crash was caused by hostile action. Other press organizations using different criteria cite higher numbers of deaths than CPJ.

CPJ’s database of journalists killed for their work in 2009 includes capsule reports on each victim and a statistical analysis. CPJ also maintains a database of all journalists killed since 1992. A final list of journalists killed in 2009 will be released in early January.

CPJ is a New York–based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit http://www.cpj.org.

Why FDLR’s Murwanashyaka is a hero

Yesterday, i awoke to the news that Ignace Murwanashyaka, leader of the notorious Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (known by its French acronym, the FDLR) a rebel outfit that has terrorised life out of DRC and Western Rwanda residents had been arrested in Germany.

I was happy but not amused. Happy because, Germany, (a power which had always backtracked on an official arrest warrant) had finally exercised its mandate. Happy because, while the FDLR as a force might not be defeated with this incredible arrest, the action is a big nip in the bud that will more likely weaken the savage outfit. And i call it savage for reasons.

Now, you might think the arrest of a top FDLR’s commander should come as big news to anyone who has lived in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, followed its politics, and or at least has relatives there – for those not in Africa any more. Hell no!

And this is why i am fundamentally different from most of my colleagues.  You see, these days, i have started drinking coffee. Every morning before entering the office, i grab a cup of it at my nearest Starbucks outlet and will very often end my day with another, if my friends insist! It was at London’s Caffè Vergnano 1882 last evening, that i met this guy whose utterances and serious support for the arrested rebel chief made me wonder if really, Murwanashyaka was or is a hero.

First, he asked me not to refer to the arrested FDLR leader as a rebel chief but instead Doctor. I thought this was odd, but was willing to respect the man if indeed he is a doctor. Secondly, he argued that the same Murwanashyaka that i was referring to as a rebel and confrontational figure was indeed pro-peace. He went on, “while MONUC might have given protection to Congolese citizens and Rwandan refugees living in Eastern Congo, Murwanashyaka’s FDLR made sure Rwandese were not left out. He stood for the rights of those Rwandese whose lives have been made horrible by events in Kigali. To us and those who have met him, he is a hero”.

A hero? You surely are kidding about this one mister, i told him. But my colleague is not the type to believe even the simplest of explanation. Despite labouring to explain the atrocities committed and meted on DRC and Rwandese civilians by the FDLR, he still stuck on his argument to the point when we parted. In this country, he is entitled to his opinion and i can understand why he thinks so, but only because am too liberal!

There must be something about heroism that most Rwandese are ready to misuse the word even if the facts are crystal clear. Today, so many of us are so intent on being labelled heroes or at least labelling those they know, so. In the US, Paul Rusesabagina made headlines when he was labelled or granted hero status by the Bush administration for his role in saving lives at Hôtel des Mille Collines during the genocide. Brilliant gesture indeed if you were one saved, but his story has since been dissected to levels that leave us wondering if he really is or the Americans got it wrong. But lets leave this for another day!

In 2008, Rwanda Defence Forces (RDF) awarded medals to forty-nine war heroes, for their bravery and resilience in the campaign to liberate the country. In July, 2009, the country also awarded medals to President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Federal Republic of Ethiopia and the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere of Tanzania for their contribution in the liberation of Rwanda.

To put this into context one has got to know why these medals were handed over or continue to be handed over and whether they (medals) mean anything more than just pieces of bronze, gold or silver. I figured out from my chat with the guy i have been talking about above, that there seems to be a race to name as many heroes as possible in any of the camps available in the Great Lakes region. It is tricky, while majority Rwandese know of FDLR as a band of thugs so keen to destabilising their country irrespective of some relative peace, the FDLR and sympathisers see their fighters as nothing short of heroes, fighting a regime in Kigali, which they believe is the fountain of all their suffering in Congo.

And like i told the guy, Ignace Murwanashyaka can only be called a hero is looked at as an Interahamwe. He chose to lead an army part if not all of which, is composed of the very ruthless fellows that wrecked havoc in Rwanda by spreading and conducting mass murders during the genocide. His ideals might not be the worst but as long as he still remains known to most as the leader of the FDLR, his chance of convincing many a Rwandese that he can deliver and save lives to gain hero status, are all but limited.