By William Church
Â
Â
This article is a continuation of a discussion that started with the article “Rusesabagina, Genocide and Identity Politicsâ€, published on the 15th of January 2007. The core issues of that article centred on comments by Paul Rusesabagina made to Reuters; comments in his book, An Ordinary Man, and a March 2006 interview with Rusesabagina in Brussels.
Â
The core issue is the appropriateness of Rusesabagina’s comments and views in relationship to the current tensions in Rwanda.
Â
The recent Reuters article quoted Rusesabagina as saying:
Â
“Actually we are not very far from another genocide…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.”
Â
In addition, in An Ordinary Man, Rusesabagina makes the claim that Rwanda is ruled by a Tutsi elite and any Hutu who cooperates is an “empty suit.†He has also stated, during an interview, that President Kagame’s forces caused the genocide when they started the 1990 rebellion. In essence, he blames the victims for their own death.
Â
Since the 15th of January 2007 article, two significant events have occurred:
Â
First was an overwhelming volume of email in response to the article. Of those responses, approximately 70 per cent were favourable, while the rest supported Rusesabagina. The positive responses were logical, well thought-out, and understood that the discussion was framed around hate speech and its effect on current tensions in Rwanda. The remaining responses favoured Rusesabagina and resorted to comments about my character and a few veiled threats. They did not discuss the issue; instead they indulged in personal attacks.
Â
Secondly, Rusesabagina responded to my article in an email entitled, “William Church: Genuine Researcher or Over-zealous RPF Advocate?†(The email was signed by Paul Rusesabagina but the document came from a Microsoft Word document registered to a Pio Ngilik of Catholic Social Services, Dayton Ohio using a Yahoo account) Like those of his followers, his response, or ‘Catholic Social Services’ response, focused on personal attacks and used generalizing techniques to justify his words and views. He used the recent report of genocide survivors being killed and reprisal killings as proof that he was right; in an effort to confuse the issue. He only succeeded in proving my point in a number of areas.
Â
Although most of Rusesabagina’s comments predate a recent Human Rights Report — describing Gacaca witnesses being killed and reprisal killings — Rusesabagina is using that report as proof that he is right. This article will explore that claim and provide counter points in two areas.
Â
Human Rights Watch described the killings in terms of genocide survivors and reprisal killings. They did not mention the ethnic group, nor did they describe the group, allegedly conducting the reprisals in ethnic terms. Human Rights Watch understood the sensitivity of the issue and the current tensions and chose a course that was effective yet neutral and would not stir up future hatred.
Â
Secondly, Rusesabagina described the events as “approaching genocideâ€. A genocide is a government-controlled or inspired program to target a specific ethnic group for the purpose of eliminating that group. Even the most superficial examination of events reported by Human Rights Watch would not support that statement.
Â
The following is an unedited excerpt from Rusesabagina’s response:
Â
“Anyone who’s been following recent events in Rwanda will agree that tensions are rising in several parts of the country. The January 2007 Human Rights Watch report on Rwanda talks about a recent killing in a Gacaca court president in Mwulire, followed by the arrest of three suspects, who later died in police custody. Strangely, the police officers suspected in these deaths have been cleared of any wrong doing. The HWR report also talks about the killing in Rukumberi of a genocide survivor this past November, followed by the reprisal killing of eight innocent villagers nearby, including girls aged 8 and 13, as well as a 70-year old man. If survivors and witnesses are threatened, “prompt and effective law enforcement is the way to deal with this threat, not reprisal killingsâ€, declared Alison Des Forges of Human Rights Watch. Yet, investigations into the circumstances surrounding these deaths are reported to have been sloppy, leaving a “number of important questions unresolvedâ€. Yet, according to William Church, condemning these reprisal killings amounts to spreading hate. “
Â
Rusesabagina is pulling a bit of propaganda slight of hand that suits his own purpose. He is claiming that I am labelling the Human Rights Watch report as spreading hate, thus allowing him to hide from his own quote, which is very different from Human Rights Watch’s. In fact, the Rusesabagina quote I questioned is not the above Human Rights Watch quote, but instead it is the following comments to Reuters:
Â
“Actually we are not very far from another genocide…Since 1994, Tutsis have been killing Hutus, and even now there are many who are being killed, or who simply disappear, Everything has been taken over by the Tutsi. The Hutu who are 85 percent of the population are intimidated.”
Â
He equates his statement — Tutsis are killing Hutus – with the Human Rights Watch report. In fact, Human Rights Watch did condemn the killings and Rusesabagina did not condemn the killings in that quote. Instead, he promotes a view that blames one ethnic group; a view that could clearly provoke more violence.
Â
The Human Rights Watch report describes the killings in terms of survivors and witnesses and others in terms of the police, not ethnic groups. However, Rusesabagina makes a point of saying it is Tutsis killing and intimidating Hutus.
Â
The important point is that Rwandans are dying because of tensions around the Gacaca process and not because of a government-controlled genocide, like in 1994, as claimed by Rusesabagina. His response is in exactly the same language used by the Habyarimana regime. If Rusesabagina was a humanitarian — as he signed his response to this author — then he would decry the loss of any human life, not just that of one ethnic group. It is important to clearly state that, in his book and recent Reuters interview, he does not make that distinction.
Â
The Human Rights Watch report that Rusesabagina clings to as proof does not describe a systematic program of Tutsis killing Hutus and intimidation of Hutus. The Human Rights Watch report describes a limited situation; however, let me clearly state that even the loss of one human life to hate inspired violence is unacceptable
Â
It describes a series of killings that are currently confined to a geographic area and at the rate of 10-30 per year by all accounts. There has been no proof presented to date to support Rusesabagina’s claim of a government program to kill Hutus and such a claim is meant to twist the reality and promote hate.
Â
Rusesabagina’s comments can be seen as hate speech because it appeals to one ethnic group over another and it serves to slant the reporting and does not provide an ethnically-neutral view, like provided by Human Rights Watch.
Â
Rusesabagina’s view represents the old Africa of identity politics and not the new Africa of democratic elections, cooperation and discussion. Rusesabagina has many concerns about the current Rwandan government and he has a free speech right to express those views.
Â
However, it is my opinion that these concerns can be discussed in a manner that does not focus on one group over another and does not disparage an entire group of Rwandans, who are working to rebuild their nation, by calling them “empty suitsâ€. Although Rusesabagina was recently celebrated by Arizona’s Martin Springer Institute as a humanitarian and a shining example of tolerance, his Reuters quote, comments in his book, as well as a 2006 interview with me, betray a different view of Rusesabagina.
Â
I urge Paul Rusesabagina to respond to my discussion without name-calling, as he and his supporters have done in their attacks on me. It seems odd that a person who describes himself as a humanitarian responds to his critics with divisive language and belittles anyone who is a foreigner or non-African, even though they have sincere intentions.
Â
It also seems odd that Rusesabagina resorts to labeling anyone who disagrees with him as a President Kagame advocate or apologist, when the lists of people who have agreed with me include highly prominent lawyers, clergymen, and journalists.
Â
The United States ambassador to Rwanda recently praised the positive human rights and political-space trends in Rwanda. Is the US ambassador also a President Kagame apologist as suggested by Rusesabagina? In addition, the list of other ambassadors and heads of missions in Rwanda who also support Rwanda covers the full spectrum of political thought and views. Are we to believe Rusesabagina that he is only one who knows the truth and professional diplomatic staff have failed to uncover this government program to start genocide as he claims?
Â
I urge Rusesabagina to fully explain his views and stop labeling thousands of people in the government as worthless “empty suitsâ€; a phrase that he stood by and repeated in his response to me. I urge Rusesabagina to stop using the language of division and work for unity. This is clearly the quickest way to prevent another genocide in Rwanda, and conversely, the quickest way to promote more killings is to stir up ethnic hatred and hinder the reconciliation process.
Â
I would like to restate my views from the first article. This is a discussion of the use of hate speech. Absolutely nowhere did I write in my article that I support the current government of Rwanda, as claimed by Rusesabagina. I am moved by a sense of ethics and I am trying to promote a public discussion on this crucial issue. Originally, I questioned the ethics of Reuters (not lashed out, as Rusesabagina claims, which is once again a telling sign of his approach) when they ran the story that provoked this debate; however, now I would like to thank them for bringing this topic to the public so that it can be discussed openly.
Â
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.
Â
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.
Â
I have asked the diplomatic community and human rights organizations to speak out against hate speech. I urge you to ask them why they have not taken a direct stand on this issue in Rwanda. I urge you to ask yourself why you have not spoken out yet on this most vital issue that is gripping the world today, whether it involves the people in Rwanda, or worldwide Christians, Muslims, Hindus and anyone else
Â
Please do not be silent.
Â
The views expressed in this article are the personal opinions of William Church and may not reflect the opinion of this publication or blog. Comments may be directed to wchurch@glcss.org
Â
19 users commented in " Rwanda: Hate Speech and Paul Rusesabagina "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackYou are doing a respectful job, Congratulations!!!! The discussion of the topic is of a high level one and I’d like to thank you for that. This is the way moderate people around the world should discuss problems to solve conflicts. This is not applicable only for Rwanda, but also for Middle East where extremism is a big obstacle or constraint to any reasonable discussion to solve conflicts. I think that there is a way discuss problem without “boiling brain” of people, especially in Rwanda where people are busy with rehabilitating them selves. I think that Rwandans need peace and calm to better handle huge difficulties generated by the 1994 genocide. The Rwanda of today is completely different of the one before the Genocide: reconciliation is a credo and any genocide ideology is fought with all possible energy. Rwandans of today are trying to cultivate this high level of thinking by not spending their time in futile discussion on ethnic origins….but by keeping busy with good work, fighting poverty. That’s what Rwanda need, and it is very amazing to see this picture when you visit Rwanda of today.
So Dear William, I am very happy with the discussion, keep it up with that honorable way of making discussions.
Please don’t fall into any traps of speech lowness from your opponents and don’t give up.
With kind Regards,
Vivien.
Mr. Church,
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.
I find the comments interesting usually for the inability to articulate the framed question.
The framed question is about Hate Speech. Is it hate speech in a Rwandan context to predict a genocide by the current government when there is no proof and especially when the speaker knows that it will incite people to violence.
Is it hate speech to disparage the majority of the population and call them empty suits and say they are worthless because they want to cooperate and rebuild their country.
It is interesting to me that when people want to avoid a discussion they immediately start getting personal and refer to my wester guilt or suggest that I am advocating for the Rwandan government.
So let me repeat my statement.
If Paul Rusesabagina will present proof that there is a current Genocide underway in Rwanda I will retract my statement and do everything in my power to expose it.
The responses I receive are usually just repeating the old charges against the 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
The only name I called you was Mr. Church.
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.
While I certainly do not think there is geneocide going on now in Rwanda, I would conceede to Mr. Hotel Rwanda/Rusesabagina that there are some very troubling signs, as Alison desForges of Human Rights Watch (a regular expert witness at the ICTR) has highlighted in the recently released HRW report on the killing of genocide witnesses in 2006. See the report, released in January 2007: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/rwanda0107/2.htm#_Toc156990491.
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.
Hello
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.
Hello
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
Mr. Snow
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.
Well, I think this is about ‘our’ position on the Kagame government. What is your position on the Kagame government, Mr. Church? Can you break your silence on that for the sake of a higher quality discussion? How can you talk about Rusesabagina and not address the Rwandan government and what’s going on in Rwanda? That seems very odd to not address Kagame at all, and I think that is what makes you vulnerable to claims that you may not be looking at all this objectively. As long as you are not receiving benefits from the Kagame government, I understand that your intentions are probably good (as I think Rusesabagina’s are good), but it seems you are diverting attention from the real problems at hand, which is the authoritarian descent of a post-genocide government and how that threatens to resurect ethnic hatred. Rusesabagina, for all the Hollywoood sparkle surrounding him, is a footnote in comparison to Kagame.
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.
Actually, I just confirmed…there are two bills (!) — one bill pending to further restrict NGOs as well as a separate one pending that would further restrict the press. 2007 is not looking to be a good year for Rwandan, particularly not for civil society/media.
Mr. Viroch
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
There is a correction above I had too many double negatives
We are not a human rights organization or policy organization.
HEllo mr Church,
I’d like to appreciate for the oppoturnity for allowing us to posts same commentS about Paul Rusesabagina.
According to what I’ve red through all the commentS, what I do follow on news about Rwanda I ‘d like to tell you that Paul Rusesabagina is not mardy person,
How he saved alot of people that is how he can’t accept any violance about any human being.
I would like to ask you how many times people complains about the governmeny of Rwanda.
Some Rwandans are out of the Country ie Zaire,Congo Blazaville Uganda e t c they want to go back but the government has refused dialogue with them that they are genociders. I’dlike to tell you that remaining out of the Country will not put this people to pass through justice if exctly this participated in genocide,
They are allot of things to talk about,
But how many times many NGOS reports about the government of Rwanda about Human Right Democracy,
Your problems you do hear you do from heard peaple.
I’d ending by Requesting you that find out in D R Congo Uganda Blazzaville e t c
you will get all the report but don’t take that hero man that he is not serious ,
I’ve appreacieted him for having saved alot of people and still having that heart of fighting viorance Lcaiming Human Right e t c.
Sincerely
Peterson,
Norway
Mr Church and Mr ”Viroch” (?)
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)
Hey everyone. smart ideas come from smart people. I wanted to Thank Mr Church for the hard work you have done– my message is directed to Sebakunzi. people who denied the genocide and its outcome are very many around the world. you are a Rwandan who is disturbed by Rusesabagina’s debate and you found yourself nowhere! neither for or against. you said that you have realized that “Identity” in Africa is an issue— I believe its not the identity itself but the meaning “we” African attach to identity. you also said that you are not surprised that full democracy has not been reached in Rwanda in the 14 years but i think the question would be what happened to the so called democracy since the 1960s? were there any ideas about about democracy? i was just wondering.
guys, there is nothing too small to sew the hearts of those who were touched by the Rwandan Genocide.
Interesting debate between Mr. Church and Viroch. Unfortunately such a debate, no matter how healthy) cannot take place in a country like Rwanda where the press is arrogantly bullied and the populace is forcefully intimidated. I Viroch, that a broader political space is important in building a reconciled Rwanda.
The development talk that MR. Church propagates is old propaganda that has always characterized Rwanda. Habyarimana was, at-least for two decade, praised for developments while he and his cronies were very corrupt and dictatorial. Today, the same argument is a thesis statement for Kagame and his friends.
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.
While the genocide of 1994 was repulsive to its core and should not have had happened, it is important to take note of the voices of discontentment coming from some sections of the Hutu majority in Rwanda today, 15 years later.
Hutus in some places in Rwanda are complaining of job, housing and education discriminations by the Tutsis. Whether or not these claims are real or imagined, they cannot be sidelined because the hate they bred is real.
I’m not attempting to justify the killings of any soul but merely trying to understand why Hutus could have so much hatred towards the Tutsis that they could turn on neighbours, friends and even relatives.
Certainly, we cannot merely claim that the genocide of 1994 was the result of tribal mentality gone awry. No bloodlust can surfaced like that without pre-existing factors pushing it to the surface.
Rwandans and non-Rwandans are not doing Rwanda any good if we are to dismiss claims of Hutu discontentments as merely an attempt to lay blame on the victims.
It does seems that when Tutsis get into power, they do not do much to cultivate Hutu good will. Meanwhile, when Hutus get into power, Tutsis often die.
There is something in the relationship between the Hutus and Tutsis which is simply rotten. Just because we sympathize with the Tutsis for what happened in 1994, we cannot dismiss out of hand the Hutu hatred for Tutsis as madness simply.
Look at Burundi. In this country, virtually all of the country’s Tutsis are in the towns and cities, protected by the country’s Tutsi-dominated army, while the Hutus are in the countryside. In the Burundian capital of Bujumbura, the only remaining Hutu neighbourhood is Kamenge.
What is preventing the Tutsis in Burundi from cultivating Hutu good will ?
sometimes i’m wondering why african people don’t need to go forward in mind.
our ethnic conflicts and blindness can still be tearing us to pieces.
we are all humans and make mistakes,but people of rwanda must know that they are not ready for another president apart from this one.
this is the naked truth from my heart,you know what people of drc congo wish they had a president like theirs.
they don’t have to joke with mr KAGAME PAUL,is a gift from the LORD JESUS CHRIST.
It’s 2010 now…June. Apart from the splendid World Cup starting this week in S.A, no genocide has taken place in Rwanda, as Rusesabagina had asserted. although a lot of debate has gone on, apart from saying the same things in circles, none of Church’s critiques have dared to answer his question- Is there an upcoming genocide brewing in Rwanda?
if there is no genocide, has Rusesabagina retracted his statement? Is he ready to apologize to the Rwandans for speaking dividing allegations? Is he ready to state as to why he uses allegations to divide Rwanda?
or is he somewhere cooking up another allegation?
Leave A Reply