Media
Mr. Church argues that the media in Asia is strictly controlled and that the government determines whether news-reports are factual and truthful. The problem is that, an oligarchy regime that has been implicated in mass killings cannot be trusted with the responsibility of filtering the news.
An example of what Kagame expects from the media is the Kigali New Times which only reports what is good by the judgement of the RPF.
Frankly, liberating the press is the only remaining hope for uniting Rwanda and preventing a future genocide.

Identity Politics
Even those who try to re-write history agree that Rwanda has always had three recognized tribes. The Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. As proven in the past and agreed upon by the RPF, these tribes have the ability to coexist together peacefully. Conflict occur when one tribe tries to take advantage of the other. (mind you, I am not denying that Rwandans are not specific individuals far from tribes). In Rwanda today, the RPF tries to Tutsify Rwanda and denies the existence of other tribes so as to consolidate power without being criticized. This finds evidence in the high numbers of Tutis in the high positioned jobs.
I also agree with Viroch, that banning ethnic based association does no good to the TWA. These are a group of pygmies that is near extinction. Both tribes, hutu and Tutsi, exploit them. Recognizing the Twa will help in making them equal players in the political and economic scene.
Gacaca as an Instrument of reconciliation:
Gacaca would be good if it was not politically motivated. By this I mean that, Gacaca loses its credibility by failing to prosecute members of the Tutsi tribe suspected/ accused of committing genocide.
If Gacaca cannot unify Rwandans then it serves no purpose other than to justify the existing propaganda that Hutus are the bad guys.
I am also thankful to church for bringing the statistics of the Hutu people accused of genocide in mind. He gives a number of 700,000. I think the government should be more realistic in tabulating factual numbers. Otherwise how many victims are in Europe, the rest of Africa. Does it mean that half the Hutu population took part in genocide?
While I agree with church that the international community wouldn’t support Rwanda if what Viroch is saying were true. I believe the western governments fund African governments for a wide range of reasons, from humanitarian to pity and that funding is not always deserved. Museveni of Uganda is a recipient to a huge fraction of international aid, although his government does not meet even the minimum expectations of a democracy. In the last presidential election, the international observers ruled out that it was neither free nor fare but went ahead to fund the government.

Democracy:
Are we expecting too much from Rwanda when we shout against human rights abuses and cry for democratic reforms? Is 14 years a short period for a country to achieve changes in Human rights?
Habyarimana inherited a government that had suffered severely from the Hutu enslavement. I always think that it is pity from the part of the international community that allowed him to build a dictatorship. The same must not be allowed to happen in Rwanda again.

Is Paul Rusesabagina really a threat?
What amuses me is the the movie hotel Rwanda was well received in Rwanda. It was showed to the whole cabinet in the presence of Paul Kagame and was screened in Kigali. Years later, Rusesabagina started challenging the Rwandan dictatorship, and that is when the Anti-Rusesabagina campaign started. Could Kagame have( at least in the early stages) believed that Rusesabagina was a hero. At-least evidence seems to imply so.

What is needed in Rwanda:
Only borrowing a leaf from Burundi will help heal Rwanda. Rwanda may seem to be doing well but its just an active volcano that may erupt anytime. The international community MUST invest in pro-democratic social organizations. Britain and United States can use their influence in persuading the Kigali regime to allow other political parties to operate.
Journalists Must be protected and be allowed to operate without threats.
The refugee problem (though silent) must be addressed. Rwanda has about 20,000 refugees in Zambia, Malawi and South Africa. Others are in Congo, Europe and the United States. Many more continue to flee everyday.
A peaceful way of disbanding the FDRL must be persuade. Maybe the Rome declaration or any other mediation team. If neglected, the FDLR problem may cause a future stumbling block fro Rwanda. Yet, forcing them to give up militarily may amount to genocide as many of them are members of one ethnic group. A few in their midst were members of the FAR but many are young adults who are tired of being refugees and wont return until Kagame recognized the need for a genuine reconciliation which according to them involves recognizing the Hutu victims of RPF killings in Rwanda and Congo.
I think there are more issues but I will stop for now waiting for anyone to comment on my views.

guys, there is nothing too small to sew the hearts of those who were touched by the Rwandan Genocide.

I have just finished reading both your arguments, and it is very a very interesting debate indeed. Why did the debate stop? It’s been over a year, and I am keen to find out what stopped it all, as there dont seem to have any conclusion.

I am Rwandan, but mostly grew up in Switzerland and South of England. I visit my family back in Rwanda as much as I can, as my last time there was during the Christmas period of 2006.

I came across the whole debate of the ‘Rusesabagina hate speech’ from family and friends, and I am trying to understand it all. I am neither for or against the debate, as I havent done enough research to bring an opinion.

However what disturbs me, is an already alarming year of 2008 for Africa as a continent. I realise that the ”African Identity” is really an issue. Sekou Toure believed in the ‘’reconstruct of the African Personality’’. Im currently reading ”Africa by Guy Arnold” to understand more the complexity of African Govertments, from its history after independence across many countries.

I realise that Africa is a continent and there are very diverse African countries. Time and time again we hear of no democrasy in Rwanda, Kenya, Sudan, etc…Given its circumstances, I am not surprised that full democrasy has not reached in Rwanda: it has only been 14 years.

Anyway, I was just wondering as to why the silence.

Thanks!

Jini, St-Louis (Missouri, USA)

We are not a human rights organization or policy organization.

Thanks for your further comments and hopefully we can extend this conversation to a meaningful forum.
I have written about a number of governments in Africa. My goal is place Africa in context that it can be discussed with some level of accuracy. Based on your some of comments, I am assuming that you might even live in Rwanda.

I am a professional analyst. I try not to advocate or have a strident position. I am open to all information. I hope there is no misconception that our organization is not a human rights organization, or a policy organization. We do research for various investors (I have done work for an American and a group in Dubai) and certain foreign embassies who want political analysis. We make our living being objective. Before you respond to that, please note that was the reason why I constantly stressed in my articles about Paul Rusesabagina that there were personal discussions. I have a team of analysts who work for me and I did not want their views compromised.

Also a few people have made reference to my motives when I talk about Gacaca or decentralization. When I wrote an editorial urging African Union troops in Darfur (July 2006) as the quickest way to provide human security I was flooded with hate mail from America all suggesting that the Khartoum government had paid me. As it turns out I was right. In the end after counless more lives lost it was an African Union solution.

The same goes for Uganda. In my analysis, I suggested that a third term for Museveni might be appropriate since they needed time for a political transiton and their is always the issue of the control of the UPDF. However, the issue remains if he will leave office in 2011 and I recognize that. When I said tha people said that my friends in the Ugandan government had paid me off.

So let us take Rwanda now and take it point by point remember that I have been researching the region and Rwanda for early two and half years.

Gacaca.
My comments about Gacaca are not a support for the Kagame government although I understand someone could see it that way. My comments are based on the reality and not the myth. Gacaca is a very challenging program. The point that I want to stress is that it is supported by the International Community. It has been studied by countless professionals. I have many freinds in the rule of law sector who say they are working day and night to ensure that if reconciliation is possible they will try to achieve it. The comment above about accused not being represented by lawyers is a good example of Rwanda must be placed in context. There are over 700,000 accussed and there are 150 lawyers in the country. It would be impossible to provide a lawyer and the traditional process that it is based on did not require lawyers. I believe we can argue all day that it does not meet international standards but we should come up with another alternative before we criticize. Of course the alternative, was to declare blanket amnesty. Rwanda is a society with a history of revenge killings and it was the chief who settled these issues and once it was ruled no revenge could take place. Gacaca is an attempt to handle this issue. The process has had problems and there have been attempts to fix them. As an analyst I have no information that it is not an honest attempt at reconciliation. The comment that it has not reconciled the people is premature I think. It is not finished yet. We need to ask the international community that has funded the process why the support it if your view is correct.

Press Freedom and Political Freedom

I definitely see why someone who is from the US or another country would be able to make comments. As an analyst I place the situation in context of other places I have lived. I lived and worked in Malaysia and they have the same situation. They had extreme communal violence in 1969 and today you can not write an article about race or ethnic group in a negative way. They do have political parties purely based on race or ethnic group. Matter of fact you can not cross from one to another unless you are part of that ethnic group. it is for this reason I can understand the Rwandan government model. Now let me stress that most scholars recognize that Identity Politics is not good for a nation. Tanzaniaa has achieved this goal and within reason it is working there. For those who do not know it, Dar es Salaam is the cradle of the Ugandan, South Sudan and partly Rwandan revolution. I point this out because I have interviewed members of the RPF state that buildig a nation of Rwandans was an early goal of the RPF and they preached this to all new recruits.
To the best of my knowledge, it was not something they made up the second they gained power so that they could use it to limit political freedom. Let me clearly state that as an analyst that I very open to other information that is based on fact.

It appears to my analysis that the primary areas that have been targeted that relate to press freedom have been comments about Gacaca and ethnic identity. I think we also need to understand something that I learned in Asia. Concepts of press freedom are different. Malaysia would allow you to publish anything but you had to have the facts and be right. Yes, I definitely understand how that creates self censorship. I am simply explaining the context. There have a few cases of journalists complaining about press freedom regarding reports of corruption. These have been handled in the courts.

It is true that there is tension in Rwanda and in an Asian context I believe one could argue for the current restrictions. I believe much of the diplomatic community sees a steady positive trend. I will grant you that it may not be as large or fast as some people would like. My comment is that I understand the context. I believe the current US, Netherlands and UK approach of working with the government in partnership is the correct approach and it will ensure the fastest progress that way.

As to decentralization, once again I see it as an international community supported program. To make negative comments about it is to deride members of the diplomatic community which include US UK and Netherlands that may believe in this effort and believe it will accomplish the goals established. You should ask them. I am stating what my initial analysis is and like Gacaca it is not finished so it is difficult to determine if it is what the critics say.

My message is tha we should work in partnership and not alienate. We should understand Rwanda in context. It has experienced devastation and it attempting to come back. The international community can assist as a partner.

Regards
William Church

P.S. Correction: I mentioned a restrictive NGO bill that was pending farther above; it is actually a repressive press/media bill that is pending. My apologies.

It is normal that when one makes a statement that one should have proof. Please let us work together and explore this issue. Mr. Rusesabagina made a very serious charge.
This is not about our position on the Kagame government. It is about saving lives.
Let us not polarize but look for the evidence.
I do research in the region and do not see the evidence on the first hand.
If you have detailed evidence of a planned genocide which is exactly what Mrl Rusesabagina said you should share it.

Further:

Its interesting that you lay the repossibility on Paul Rusasabegina to “prove” that genocide is underway in Rwanda, or that there will yet be another Genocide.

That is where your thinking fails.

keith harmon snow

Did Paul Rusasabegina really make those comments? WOW! Thats something. I bet he knows something about what he is talking about, since he lived through it.

Indeed, Mr. Church: WHere do you get your information? Samantha Power? General Romeo Dallaire? Philip Gourevitch? Elie Weisel?

How long have you been paying attention to the Rwanda issue and where did you get your perspective? Sounds like you have been eating a lot of mainstream propaganda?

You write:

>>Finally, this is my call for readers of this article to get involved and take a stand on any side of this issue. >>Rusesabagina’s next two speaking engagements in the United States are at Mercyhurst College and Villanova >>University, in Eire and Villanova, Pennsylvania respectively. I propose that both of these schools should provide a >>balanced program of views, since there is considerable controversy surrounding Rusesabagina.

You sense of balance is skewed. What is “balance” in a world driven by power and busineess intersts? What is balance in a world where people are generally overwhelmed with (black) propaganda? What is balance when all we have been given for the past decade (and more, since it began in October 1990, not April 6 1994) is “those poor tutsis, the Jews Of Africa” blah blah blah…

Mr. Rusasabegina is not guilty of hate speech: if anyone is, you are. Because telling the truth is not “hate speech” but by your definition “hate speech” is anything you dont want to hear, it seems.

Who pays you? Where do you get your funding? Which companies are you shareholder or director in? What is your “interest” in this? If it is merely “the truth” then you have some serious work to do.

You wrote:

>>I have asked well-respected clergy to speak out on hate speech and now I urge you to ask your religious leader to speak out and take a stand. I call on Catholic Social Services to explain why their facilities and staff may have been used to generate a personal attack on me and not engage in a meaningful discussion of hate speech.>I have asked the diplomatic community and human rights organizations to speak out against hate speech.

The HRW report highlights ongoing tensions between persons awaiting trial for genocide-related crimes and genocide survivors, including killings and reprisal killings by both persons awaiting trial and genocide survivors (as well as the disappearance/alleged killing by police of suspects accused of these killings during police custody). HRW does not delve into who is Hutu and who is Tutsi in these killings and reprisal killings, and that is probably very wise to avoid fanning the flames. It seems Rusesabagina is going out of his way to mke this a Hutu-Tutsi affair (irresponsable). Regardless of Rusesabagina’s supposed comments, this is truly scary stuff.

I would add that genocide never starts off as “genocide.” First the government defends abuses as “security measures” against threats to peace and national security. Then as the abuses continue to attract the attention and concern of analysts and the diplomatic community on the ground, some give the government the benefit of the doubt and label the abuses as indiscretions. As government disappearances and killings continue, usually a rebel group sprouts up if one did not already exist (like Kagame’s RPF rebel group came to the fore in the 1980s and 1990s to overthrow a government it accused of being oppressive). The international media sometimes takes note, and if things worsen, mass killings are first labeled as squirmishes between rebels and government forces (even if villages are slaughtered by the government). Let’s hope the Kagame government is not allowed to continue to disappear and kill its political opponents and that a rebel group (other than the FDLR in Congo) or radical genocidal uprising is not triggered by the brutal repression.

Could Reuters be more responsible? I haven’t read the article yet, but I’m sure you are right (although at least they are giving coverage to the tiny African state, and at least underlining the fact that things are not as improved as everyone likes to pretend they are in Rwanda).

If you want to ‘break your silence’ about the real threat, you chose the wrong target…Is Rusesabagina the real threat to Rwanda? No. He is not keeping a lid on free expression (which is a safety valve and necessary for healing) and intimidating civil society and political parties (leeping them in irrelevance) — that would be the Kigame regime holding the lid tight

Rusesabagina is hardly known in Rwanda despite being a hero in the West. Most Rwandans have only heard of him because of a smear campaign by the Rwandan government with help from the pro-government New Times (the government is afraid, and rightly so, that the opportunistic Rusesabagina will run for president in 2010 — that is, if the Kagame government doesn’t discredit him or have him die in a car “accident” first).

While I do not agree with the Rusesabagina quotation you cited and criticized (”Since 1994, Tutsis have been killing Hutus, and even now there are many who are being killed, or who simply disappear,” he said. “Everything has been taken over by the Tutsi. The Hutu who are 85 percent of the population are intimidated.”), I fail to see how that constitutes hate speech.

The definition of hate speech as used by international courts (per recent cases) requires that the speech be shown to contribute directly to violence, which is difficult to do in the best of circumstances. Is there any evidence to suggest that his quote directly contributed to any violence? Not that I am aware of. Unless you present such evidence, your use of the term “hate speech” is irresponsible (so perhaps you have something in common with Rusesabagina).

(Note: The ongoing killing of genocide witnesses has been occurring for years and cannot be blamed on Rusesabagina. In fact, in addition to blaming the radical killers of the genocide witnesses, some groups, such as the country’s influential genocide survivor association, fault the Rwandan government for not taking effective measures to protect witnesses in gacaca.)

You said: “Rusesabagina’s claims of continued government killings have been refuted by three different Rwandan human rights organisations: National Human Rights Commission (NRC), League for Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (LIPRODHOR), and the Federation of Leagues and Associations for the Defence of Human Rights in Rwanda (CLADHO).”

On the above point Rusesabagina is right (although he goes too far when he turns it into a Hutu-Tutsi diatribe). The Kagame government (the security forces and LDF) have killed several persons during each year of its increasingly authoritarian rule (this is well documented, as I’m sure your think tank is aware), although it is unclear (and probably doubtful) that these government abuses targeted Hutus only (chances are, though, that most were Hutus since Tutsis only make up roughly 15% of the population). As for the NGOs you cited, they are a poor choice of information and lack credibility. The diplomatic community in Kigali is acutely aware that each of the very groups you cited has been either coopted by the Kagame regime or backed into submission and self-censorship due to an ongoing campaign against civil society (which is seen by Kagame as a threat to his hold on power; see the State Department’s annual human rights reports from 2004 and 2005), which resulted in 2004-2005 in the “dismantling of domestic human rights NGOs,” the fleeing of LIPRODHOR’s leaders (still in exile), and the widely alleged government coopting of LIPRODHOR, per the State Dept.’s 2005 report).

As for gacaca, it is no doubt an enormous task at hand to judge thousands and thousands of genocide suspects. That said, the gacaca process is criticized by Hutu and Tutsi alike. Lawyers are not allowed to represent defendents for crying out loud. Plus, the process has been abused more than most would like to admit by persons (including local officials) using it to gain property from those they acuse and settle personal disputes (witch hunt). It has some merits for sure, but it has not been successful at all in achieving its goal of reconciliation.

I do not agree with your point about decentralization, which is nothing more than windowdressing for the West. While it ha the gloss of power to the grassroots people, it is actually the consolidation of power by very sly means. The decentralization process is designed, for starters, to make it more difficult for NGOs to register (now they will have to register in each administrative district across the country under ridiculous and varying requirements, making excuses to shut down NGOs plentiful. Then there is no chance of seeing the rise of a healthy civil society that is willing and able to criticize government policites and challenge the Kagame regime). It is also meant to make it more difficult for a real opposition political party to emerge before the next elections in 2008 and 2010. Kagame won the last election with 95% of the vote - those are Stalin numbers, and he wants to keep it that way by handpicking the local-level folks who run things at the cell level, who can stop an opposition before it lays any strong grass roots.

I agree that those outside Rwanda (diaspora) are not objective and are liable to exaggerate. However, it’s not as if those inside Rwanda are any more credible - they are the ones who are intimidated into singing the praises of an authoritarian government.

Re: identity politics, Rusesabagina’s attitudes and resentment are partly if not mostly a product of the Kagame regime’s strident refusal to allow people to discuss openly questions of identity and inequality of opportunity for ethnic groups such as the Batwa, whose rights have suffered since Kagame made it illegal for organizations to be associated on the basis of ethnicity. I understand that Kagame is paranoid for a good reason (the threat of another genocide and the need to protect his power), but his policies are harmful and misguided, and the healing process cannot take place when everyone is forbideen from even mentioning their background for fear of being arrested for the ill-defined charge of “divisionism” and “genocide ideology.”

If you want to “break your silence” about something that is an immediate threat to Rwanda, I think it is our silence over Kagame’s harmful authoritarianism in which we are complicit, and which we must break if we truly care about democracy and human rights. Genocide guilt is keeping us silent, and its time to put our guilt to something constructive by speaking out against the lack of political space in Rwanda and the abuses of the Kagame government.

The issue that was developed by Rusesabagina is his claim there is a genocide underway and that the Rwandan government is killing Hutus right now as we type.

Please respond without name calling or other tactics that have been used in the last few weeks

While Rusesabagina should not frame his argument in terms of Hutus and Tutsis, many respected analysts have said that Paul Kagame’s government is so stridently trying to prevent the free exercise of ethnic identity and so determined to use vaguely defined laws against “divisionsim” that unintended and frightening consequences likely lie ahead (plus all those around Kagame who were potential threats his tight grip on power have mysteriously disappeared). Have you not read the U.S. human rights reports on Rwanda? Are you going to dismiss that report as rubbish as you did Human Rights Watch report? How about reports by the Bartelsmann Transformation Index, Amnesty International, the FIDH, the Organisation mondiale contre la torture - are all these also rubbish? Per the U.S. human rights report, he Rwandan government’s respect for human rights is “poor.” This assessment comes from people on the ground who know the country. Do you live in Rwanda, and would you dispute the U.S. report?

The U.S. decision to give Rwanda Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) Threshold status is about politics not human rights. You cite the MCA Threshold status as if that is proof of respect for human rights, but Rwanda got Threshold not the full compact status, meaing that its human rights record is still too poor for full MCA compact status but there is hope that the GOR has the political will to improve it. At the moment there is no guarantee of MCA funding yet, and the U.S. may pull the plug on Rwanda’s MCA status if the government’s human rights record does not improve soon. While Rwanda should receive gratitude for contributing troops to Darfur, it should not get MCA or a pass on human rights from the U.S. for contributing troops.

I fear you are allowing your Western genocide guilt and admiration for Kagame’s economic successes to cloud your sense of objectivity. While Rusesabagine is personally invested in this debate, you also seem very personally invested (perhaps I am as well, but at least I’ve done the research). While Rusesabagine may be going too far in one direction, you risk sounding naive when you defend the Kagame government as if it were saintly - it is far from it. Sure it’s better than the genocide, but don’t Rwandans deserve better than what they are getting under Kagame — beatings by police, political prisoners, unfair politically influenced trials, arbitrary arrest & detention, and heavy restrictions on press freedom and NGOs? If the authoritarian tendencies of Rwanda’s government remained unchecked, who is to say another genocide is not possible? I hope that’s not where all this is headed, but we never thought Darfur would be possible either after all we supposedly learned from World War II.

Just what is your relationship with the government of Rwanda? Are you a lobbyist? You sound a bit like one in your strident defense of Kagame. I would thin that an objective observer and a self-proclaimed researcher would have more facts at hand about the Kagame government’s repressive character, and more balance in his approach to this important issue. Rusesabagina doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth, but he could have a point (albeit one that is expressed in a poor choice of terms).

Anyway, let us hope that Rwanda does do as well as you predict in 2007. Most analysts and academics predict a further decline of democracy and human rights in Rwanda (and the restrictive NGO bill that is now pending is only one small reason), but I hope they are wrong. Somehow I think that’s wishful thinking based on what’s been happening though.

With kind Regards,

Vivien.