RSS
Print This PageA Dissenting View on Paul Kagame
I have been reading Roger’s fascinating missives from Rwanda with great interest and agree with much of what he has to say. But I have to demur from the claim that “Kagame is personally invested in making Rwanda a country that is committed to reconciliation, human rights and self-sufficiency.” Self-sufficiency, perhaps — there is no question that Rwanda has experienced significant economic growth over the past decade, although it is important to emphasize that, according to USAID, “[a] majority of the population lives on less than $1 per day and nearly nine in ten live on less than $2 per day.”
As for Kagame’s investment in reconciliation and human rights? Here is the summary paragraph from the State Department’s 2008 Country Report on Rwanda — which was one of its better years:
Significant human rights abuses occurred, although there were improvements in some areas. Citizens’ right to change their government was restricted, and local defense forces (LDF) personnel were responsible for four killings during the year. Violence against genocide survivors and witnesses by unknown assailants claimed at least 16 lives. There were reports of torture and abuse of suspects, although significantly fewer than in previous years. Prison and detention center conditions remained harsh. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained persons. Prolonged pretrial detention was a problem, and government officials attempted to influence judicial outcomes, mostly regarding the community-based justice system known as gacaca. There continued to be limits on freedom of speech and of association, and restrictions on the press increased. The government limited religious freedom, and official corruption was a problem. Restrictions on civil society, societal violence and discrimination against women, recruitment of child soldiers by representatives of a Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)-based armed group, trafficking in persons, child labor, and restrictions on labor rights occurred.
As for democracy, if Rwanda gets good marks, it’s only because the bar is set so low in the region. Here is the State Department again:
National Electoral Commission (NEC) rulings restricted the ability of the PSD and the PL to effectively spread their message, allowing the RPF to dominate the 22-day electoral campaign. The media devoted the bulk of its coverage to the RPF. There were credible reports of local government interference with PL and PSD rallies and meetings, and security forces briefly detained several campaign workers.
According to observers many voting stations opened early, did not make proper use of forms, and did not initially seal ballot boxes. Observers were often prevented by NEC and other government officials from monitoring the ballot counting above the polling station and polling center level (the first two levels). The Civil Society Election Observation Mission observed in its Statement of Preliminary Findings that “in a significant proportion of cases, it was not possible to confirm the accuracy of consolidated results at any stage beyond polling center consolidation.”
In 2003 President Paul Kagame won a landslide victory against two independent presidential candidates, receiving 95 percent of the vote in a largely peaceful but seriously marred election.
The constitution provides for a multiparty system but offers few rights for parties and their candidates. According to the 2006 African Peer Review Mechanism report, released by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, a mandated initiative of the African Union, the country had made significant progress toward political pluralism, but parties were still “not able to operate freely” and faced legal sanctions if accused of engaging in divisive acts. The government’s continuing campaign against divisionism discouraged debate or criticism of the government and resulted in brief detentions and the holding of one political prisoner, former minister Ntakarutinka.
All political organizations were constitutionally required to join the Forum for Political Organizations, which continued to limit competitive political pluralism, according to the 2006 APRM report. Despite a June 2007 law allowing political parties to open offices at every administrative level, local officials on occasion reportedly prevented opposition meetings preceding the September parliamentary elections, citing improper paperwork or venue booking conflicts. During the year there were no reported efforts to form any new parties or efforts by the government to deny registration to any party.
And, of course, we cannot forget Kagame’s multiple invasions of the Congo, using the need to hunt down the FDLR as a pretext for illegally exploiting Congo’s natural resources — leading the UN to describe Kagame as one of the “godfathers” of such exploitation — and his unwavering support for Congolese rebel groups such as the RCD and Nkunda’s CNDP, which has led to suffering on a scale not seen since WW II.
Related Posts
6 Responses
Trackbacks and Pingbacks
- There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.
Mr. Heller,
Anyone who understands the reality in Rwanda and the overwhelming goodwill that Kagame and his government has for addressing the shortcomings you mentioned would agree with Kagame’s view on BBC’s Hard Talk on March 17, 2009 that most of the critics from the West are either naive and ignorant about the developments in Rwanda and in the region or simply serve interests known to them in undermining Rwanda’s achievements. After my response below, I hope to hear from you where in the above two categories you belong!
First, to state that the report of the US State Department is the right yardstick is absurd. Everybody is aware that there are more political motives in these reports than is wanting to give true state of affairs. The report also unconsciously contradicts and undermines itself.
For example alleging that many genocide survivors were killed during 2008 and attribute that to Kagame, is insensitive and cruel to say the least. Who are genocide survivors? Due to whose efforts and sacrifice did they survive? It is Kagame and his comrades that safed the people you alleeged to having been killed during 2008 and it is the agents of FDLR who committed the 1994 genicode against the Tutsi and are now based in Congo that infiltrate and kill these survivors to ensure as many witnesses as possible are eliminated if they are to return in Rwanda. And you believe the same report that says Rwanda’s concerns in the Eastern Congo are a pretext??
You seem to give credit to the report with regard to proplonged pre-trial detention. I want to agree that in some instances the legal period provided is exceeded by maybe 24-36 hours before a suspect is brought to court. Do you know the number of cases courts have to hear bearing in mind the magnitude of participation in genocide and how many suspects are concerned? And what moral ground anyway does the US Department of State have (or atleast then had) to condemn prolonged pretrial detentions yet it has it’s scandals (Guantanamo Bay)?!
Last September, Rwanda became the world’s number one is promoting women participation in decision-making decisions. 56.5% of Parliamentarians are women; the Chief Justice (No. 3 in Government) is a woman; the Chief of Police is a woman; the Chief of National Revenue Authority is a woman; atleast 41% of cabinet minsters are women; the same or more %age is the case at all decision-making levels; what dicrimination against women are you or your “best” report talking about?
Poor conditions in detention facilities? Just last week, the UN Court in Sierra Leone, after an extensive study on Rwandan prisons concluded that the conditions are far beyond the minimum and, as a result, it is going to transfer some of its convicts to serve their senteces in Rwanda. Is this court headed by a Kagame nominee? I also find a contradiction when you say some reports indicate that more than 50% of people live below poverty line and you condemn a state for not providing luxury life to prisoners when even bonafide citizens are struggling! I think the government should be saluted for what conditions it has put in place.
Attacks on DRC: Do you follow news? Only yesteray, international media (BBC, Lajazeera, etc…) reported thousands of Congolese fleeing attacks by FDLR who are returning to their positions which they lost to a joing operation by DRC and Rwanda Defence Forces a month a go. So you are saying FDLR does not exist or is not a threat? It is an armed group, supported ofcourse by some powerful western powers with vicious interests and given a chance they can go back and saw mayhem to Rwanda, finish off the survivors of genocide, and you think Rwanda has no legitimate reason so attack them? Or is it the fact that Rwanda has a few times entred DRC instead of waiting for the FDLR to come and kill civilians inside Rwanda? Why doesn’t the US wait for Al-Quaeda and Hamas to start operations on US soil?
Just to say your basis of judgement is flowd; it would be best for you and anyone else to appreciate the complex situation Kagame and his government inherited, appreciate the fact that he is reaching to his neighbour in Congo to work together to stabilize their countries and region and concede, that Kagame and his government have done a lot to reconstruct the country. Freedoms yes might be restricted to achieve a certain level of social cohesion, this is not peculiar to Rwanda. Even the judging nations still do restrict certian freedoms and they definately were even more restrictive in the process of their development many years back.
at 10:12 am EST Frank Kayitare
Sorry, I”m not wasting my time responding to someone who can, without a trace of irony, write that Kagame “is reaching to his neighbour in Congo to work together to stabilize their countries and region.”
at 10:29 am EST Kevin Jon Heller
Mr Heller,
It is disappointing that you should not grace readers with a reply.
Rather than explicitly condone President Kagame, I think Mr. Kayitare points out the complexities and depth of Rwandan domestic and regional policy that you overlook. In particular, Mr Kayitare raises a compelling issue regarding the double standards that some Western powers use to judge ‘developing’ states that do not entirely comply with their agendas.
As Stephen Kinzer asserts in A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It, it is a pity to buy into one or other polemic about Kagame’s role in Central African affairs.
at 11:38 am EST Sophia Dawkins
Indeed Sophia, I believe this is a forum through which people exchange views and facts and so would expect Mr. Heller to respond to my version.
On the following link, Mr. Heller can see that I have facts on Kagame reaching out to President Kabila (DRC) and them implementing joint efforts to stabilize the region and their countries: http://luna.newstin.com/rel/us/en-010-010547862
at 3:51 pm EST Frank Kayitare
Sophia,
I have, I think, a pretty good record responding to readers. But there are simply times when there is no point in responding — namely, when a reader’s understanding of the facts of a situation are so dramatically different than mine that we have no common ground to discuss our political differences. I should not have been so pointed in my comment above, and if Mr. Kayitare is prepared to admit that, whatever Kagame may be doing now in the DRC (and I still disagree that his latest efforts are in any way genuine or in any way productive), Rwanda’s invasions of the Congo and support for the Congolese rebels is one of the reasons so many people have suffered and died there, then I am more than happy to address some of his other points.
at 6:14 pm EST Kevin Jon Heller
I don’t understand when Mr. Heller says that Kagame’s latest efforts in DRC “are not genuine and not productive”.
The best starting point, I think is to give a very brief background of Rwanda/DRC conflict to other readers.
When the forces that committed genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 were defeated, they crossed into the DRC with the help of the French armed forces that were then stationed in South Western Rwanda in a guised mission ”Operation Tourquoise”; a mission that officially was supposed to protect fleeing civilians, but in reality was about protecting the genocide regime and it’s forces, giving them refugee from the advancing Rwandese Patriotic Army (then a rebel group that stopped the genocide).
These genocide forces crossed into DRC with atleast 2 million Hutu civilians; the Tutsi civilians that trusted the French and fled to the Zone Tourquoise never made it to the DRC or any other country of refugee, the French gave them up to the militias to be slaughtered.
Also, these forces entered the DRC very heavily armed (a phenomenon that I have never heard of elsewhere in the laws governing refugee status); they had fighter jets, armoured cars, long range missile launchers and all sorts of arms they had at the battle field in Rwanda.
Once in the DRC, they re-organized themselves into battle formations, started infiltrating in Rwanda, staging ambushes to motorists (targetting public transport buses and killing passengers); attacked schools and seperated Tutsi kids from Hutu kids, killing the Tutsi (there are so many of these cases between 1994-97, but google the most ugly attack on a school called Nyange Secondary School on 18th March, 1997)!
For all these years (1994-1997), Rwandan government urged the DRC government and international community to dismantle the military operations of the genocide forces (now grouped into what is called FDLR); these pleas fell on deaf ears of both the international community and Congo governments. Ofcourse the message was clear, Rwandans didn’t matter! We know the reaction when a few hundred Americans died in the September 11, 2001 attacks! For the Congolese government, am sure it was a question of Rwanda is a very small, less resourced country, they can’t afford to solve this issue militarily, so we can give our good friends a base to reign terror in Rwanda.
I must say I am so proud of most of Kagame’s actions, attacking DRC in 1998 was the best he has ever done. Rwandan Defence Forces decided to deal with this threat on their own, because no one was listening or interested. They entered DRC in 1998; in a just a few weeks, atleast 1 million of the civilians that were held hostage by the genocide forces were repatriated, most of the military bases were dismantles, and yes, the then DRC government was overthrown. This struck not the DRC that thought Rwanda, a country 90x smaller than DRC with not much natural resources could defeat them; it was more so to the international community who witnessed Rwanda, once again, solving their problems on their own.
Unfortunately, the new government that took power in 1998, did not learn a lesson that they cannot afford to let genocide forces loam around freely in their country. Ofcourse the 1998 war had not eliminiated all the militias, most of them hid into DRC jungles, but Rwandan government hoped that the new DRC administration would address the issue; it never was the case. The new government got assistance from especially France in exchange for not daring to address the issue of FDLR; and that is what happened, that is why Rwanda still has concerns with the DRC.
Latest effors
Since 1998, Rwanda and DRC governments have been on bad terms for reasons explained above; infact Rwanda again entered DRC in 2001 for a short period to repulse again the then growing strong military opertations of FDLR; but these forces were never routed out completely. The above facts made both governments enemies definately.
But, between October and December 2008, the diplomats and military leaders of Rwanda engaged their counterparts in DRC; atleast 8 bilateral meetings between Foreign Affairs ministers, Defence Ministers, Chiefs of Defence Forces and Heads of Intelligence in both countries; most meetings were held on Rwandan soil. Rwanda wanted to share it’s concerns about the increasing military activity and strength of the FDLR, planning without doubt to one day invade Rwanda. Rwanda shared the intelligence information it had; which was too accurate for DRC to deny by the way.
Talks did not only focus on dealing with the FDLR, but opening up again, diplomatic relations with DRC; having embassies to help deal with this issue diplomatically. This was agreed in principle, infact Rwanda has already named it’s Ambassador to the DRC, the DRC hasn’t named anyone as their representative in Rwanda; this ofcourse is delaying the resumption of diplomatic ties.
Something positive though did come out of these talks. The DRC government acknowledged that they have failed to deal with the FDLR and agreed to a joint military operation between their forces and Rwanda Defence Forces against the FDLR, see a link I sent yesterday in my short response. The government of DRC agreed to a one-month joint operation, after which Rwandan Defence Forces would retreat back to Rwanda; and this is what exactly happened, and I call this a genuine will by Kagame, he could have chosen not to leave the DRC if he did not mean peace (we both know he has been there not even on any one’s consent).
This one month operation achieved many things that the UN Mission in Congo (MONUC) has failed to achieve in the past 10 years of its presence in the DRC, despite it being the world’s largest UN “peace-keeping” mission of 17.000 troops and US$1billion annual budget! The Mandate of this mission is primarily to disarm the FDLR and repatriate them to Rwanda; since 1999, they have done NOTHING except trade arms for minerals with the FDLR they are supposed to disarm: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/SNAA-7PV7FA?OpenDocument
The fact that Kagame and his government put in efforts to negotiate resumption of diplomatic ties, managed to get an agreement of the DRC government for a joint operation that in one month demolished atleast some of the FDLR strong military bases; captured hundreds of FDLR combatants, repatriated atleast 7000 civilians held hostage by the FDLR, I call that productive and a sign of genuine will on Kagame’s side.
Now, give readers your side of the story!
at 4:57 am EST Frank Kayitare