Democracy Watch - Rwanda

FDLR behind Tuesday's Grenade Attack in Kigali?

2012-01-05T18:04:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, 4 January, grenade attacks rocked Remera, Kigali at approximately 640pm in the evening. Two died, at least 18 people required hospitalisation to treat their wounds. Graham Holliday of Reuters tweeted that he saw people missing limbs when he visited the hospital (his report here), but none of that news has been reported by the Rwanda authorities. Follow him at @noodlepie. A doctor treating some of the victims estimated at least 32 injury cases.

The statement of the Rwandan police firmly states that those individuals behind the blast will be brought to book. Grenade attacks were common in the run up to the 2010 presidential elections. These blasts are the first we've heard of in eighteen months (the last being in July 2010, in western Rwanda, not in Kigali).

According to the BBC's report on the blasts, Rwandan security forces believe the Kivu-based FDLR rebel group is responsible for the attacks.

Yet, the evidence from the ground does not directly point to the FDLR as security forces claim. The target of vegetable sellers in Remera, on the opposite side of Kigali from the Presidential Palace, and the homes of senior members of the government in Kivoyu, does not match up. True, Remera is not far from the Ministry of Justice and the Parliament, but the target was ordinary Rwandans at they shopped for their evening's dinner on the way home from work, not government installations. Surely the FDLR leadership would target a more impactful location for the blasts if he had the intention of destabilising the government? As Kigaliwire reported, 'Nyabisindu [in Remera sector] is like many non-descript, dirt track areas of Kigali. The kind of place where local folk sell fruit and vegetables in front of shops and houses and workers sit outside for a Primus or a Fanta in the evening'.

If is is the FDLR, why did Rwandan security forces round up vegetable sellers and beat them for information on who planted the blasts. If the government knows it is FDLR, then why target sellers? Perhaps because it thinks that vegetable sellers in Remera are collaborating with the FDLR?

That makes little sense. If Rwanda is as peaceful and secure as the government claims, how could FDLR operatives make it all the way to Kigali, while winning over the hearts and minds of ordinary Rwandans selling their wares at market.

I don't know who is behind Tuesday's grenade attacks. I hope that a blind insistence on the culpability of the FDLR does not blind analysts and security forces to the possibility of other actors carrying out the deed. Whoever is behind the blasts, the effect at the local level is likely the same: striking fear into residents of Kigali.

Where will Kagame's Rhetoric Take Rwanda?

2011-12-16T21:18:00.001-05:00

It has been a wild couple of weeks for Rwanda's President, Paul Kagame. American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, offered a speech full of glowing praise for the country's institutional and economic development on 23 November 2011. In the final few paragraphs of the speech, Rice, who believes 'friends should speak frankly to friends', encouraged Rwanda to open up its political space so that 'the deepening and broadening of democracy can be the next great achievement of this great country and its remarkable people.' Word from folks resident in Kigali states that President Paul Kagame was so angry about Rice's nudge for greater political expression that he did not receive her as a diplomatic guest at Urugwiro Village. An insult to one of Rwanda's biggest donors? Perhaps. This is the least interesting part of the story.

I thought Kagame's immediate reaction to the speech showed his true stripes. He is the embodiment of Rwanda and to insult the country is a direct and personal attack on Kagame himself as father of the nation. A clear sign of his increasing megalomania is the outrage he showed for Rice's gentle words. Indeed, she could have come out much stronger against many of the regime's current oppressive practices, not least of which is the farcical trial of Victoire Ingabire. The government is so clearly involved in this trial that I hear from foreign journalists on the ground that even they can't cover it, for free of ending up in 1930 prison themselves! Leaving aside whatever you may feel about Ingabire and her culpablity, she still deserves a free and fair trial.

It wasn't until days later, allegedly during Kagame's participation in a Kigali-city umuganda clean-up that he began to rant about 'so-called friends or those among us who consider themselves extraordinary'. A quick diversion: If you look at these photos of Kagame at his Flickr site at umuganda you'll readily suspect that none of the people in images are peasant Rwandans (e.g., abakene (poor, living on less than $1/day) or abatindi (vulnerable, living on less than $0.50/day). Notice the western style of dress, the covered shoes and new rubber boots, wrist-watches, and other trappings of success. The audience members in these images reflect nothing of the peasantry I consult in my own research -- poorly nourished with weathered faces and bodies that belie their actual age, dressed in threadbare clothes, with little if any opportunity for socio-economic mobility. My guess is that the folks we see in these Flickr photos are part of the entourage of sycophants (willing, delusional or otherwise is another matter) that travel around, in the employ of the ruling RPF, to put the best possible spin on everything Kagame says and does. Word on the street in the US is that Rwandan sycophants, some of whom are on RPF-sponsored scholarships, receive between $250 and $1500 per protest. (These numbers taken from Rwandans resident in the US who protested at the HQ of the Lantos Foundation in early November because of its prize for Paul Rusesabagina; folks spoke openly to me about this, expressing themselves freely I suppose although we both know Kagame would definitely not approve!)

Back to the task at hand. During umuganda, Kagame spoke only in Kinyarwanda, meaning that Susan Rice may yet know about his anger towards her remarks in Kigali just a few days before. Key excerpts from Kagame: 'If you promote equality among people, and you are the first in the world in terms of gender equality -- by lifting up women who had never before reached such a level, if you tell me this is not democracy, if you tell me this is not respect of human rights, you certainly are sick' I guess I am also 'sick' (meaning sick in the head, i.e., deranged) as the equality of women in parliament has yet to trickle down to women in the hills. Indeed, I think it remains fair to say, as I did in an editorial published in The Guardian (co-authored with Erin Baines and Stephen Brown) in 2008 that 'even as women's visibility in politics is at an all-time high, their ability to shape the future of the country, ironically, has not improved. Parliamentarians – be they male or female – actually have very little power to legislate on behalf of their constituents. They have little room to develop policy or even to debate openly; space for free and open political expression is limited'. Instead, what I think we are seeing from Kagame is his an acknowledgment that his gender policy is only for elite women, and for elite women who toe the RPF line. Susan Rice surely knows this, but said nothing about it, opting instead for a more diplomatic statement of 'friends talking to friends.' Someone who is receptive to criticism sees it for what it is, considers the advice, reflects upon, perhaps seeks counsel from others, and finds ways to improve the situation. We see none of this emotional or political moderation from Kagame, and that is the worrying aspect of his leadership at the moment. Indeed, his rhetoric is reminiscent of the ramping of political language we saw before the 1994 genocide. Surely, this is food for thought for anyone concerned about peace in Rwanda.

President Kagame continued with his vitriolic reaction to Ambassador Rice. He said,'every person among the eleven million of Rwandans can speak whenever he/she wants and whatever he/she wants, because we continuously empower them in terms of freedom of speech. But I cannot accept you saying that there about hundred or hundred fifty people that we prevent from speaking – and to whom the right of reply is not allowed. What type of people are those? Why [should we allow them to speak]? Among them there are those who say useless things, and some of them even say destructive things. If you say things that destroy the Rwanda we are building, we shall destroy you. We don’t need to apologize to anyone about that; the only problem is that we don’t do it [destroy them] sufficiently (my emphasis).

Is this thinly veiled threat not worrying to anyone in the international community? Do we not remember the many warning signs, both rhetorical and programmatic, that presaged the 1994 genocide? I believe we are at a critical juncture in Rwanda's postgenocide evolution. President Kagame has entered a phase of political extremism. Threats to 'destroy you' if you speak out need to be take seriously. Indeed, the word on the street among Rwandans at home at abroad is that the murder exiled journalist Charles Ingabire in Kampala on 2 December 2011 was to send a message to silence critics. I am not entirely convinced of this myself as the Kagame regime has been killing its own since it took office in July 1994. One only need to consult the writings of Filip Reyntjens to learn of the killing machine that supports the Kagame regime (see in particular his excellent January 2011 article in African Affairs). Either way, Ingabire is dead, and a full independent investigation is needed.

At any rate, we know that Kagame is furious with the international community (and perhaps Susan Rice in particular). He made a speech at Rwanda's 9th National Conference on 15 December 2011. The tone is his voice is chilling as he tries to equate the press freedom that the international community desires to letting the planners and implementers of the genocide 'to go scot free'. Please email me and I will send you the .mp3 file. The last eight to ten minutes are in English. Listen for yourself. I am keen to hear what others think. To my ear, Kagame is throwing down the gauntlet in a veiled battle cry. It is the spectre of renewed conflict that is worrying, and this is something those of us working for peace in Rwanda, and the region, need to think about as the 2017 elections are less than five year away (and Kagame has already started posturing -- my money is on his running for a third term).

What can be done at this stage to not only avoid conflict, but open up freedoms of expression and assembly while reducing socio-economic inequalities in pursuit of sustainable peace?

Rudasingwa's Political Aspirations?

2011-12-11T17:55:00.003-05:00

For the past several months, one of the founders of the Rwanda National Congress (RNC), Theogene Rudasingwa. has made a number of statements about both his falling out with President Paul Kagame, and a series of RNC Strategies for Reforming Rwanda. All of these statements, and supporting documents can be found in Rudasingwas's Facebook page.

I am personally skeptical about Rudasingwa's sincerity and integrity. His various pleas and calls to actions are long on rhetoric and short on concrete steps to enact the necessary steps to return Rwanda to its former glory. His most recent post (cut-and-paste in full below) prompts me to write this post, as it is nothing short of a call for regime change, and is perhaps the most revealing of Rudasingwa's main posts, and media appearances. Just google his name. Much will come up. Little will be learned except insights into an individual who clearly has an axe to grind with Kagame and who manipulates international audiences in much the same way as the man he hopes to overthrow. It is a very worrying time in Rwandan politics as its elites are sabre rattling while the population starves.

"WHAT IS IN A NATIONAL ANTHEM: CAN WE FIND A SYNTHETHISED FLAG AND NATIONAL ANTHEM OF THE FUTURE RWANDAN NATION?

Both anthems are beautiful. Both evoke strong passions. Each speaks to the passing away of the old order, and the establishment of the new. Both extol the beauty of this ancient nation of Rwanda. Rwanda is our only home that we love so much that we sometimes want to deny others the right to love it. It is ok to love Rwanda Rwacu. It is ok to love Rwanda Nziza. It will be ok to love a possible Rwanda Rwacu, Rwanda Nziza, a synthesised anthem of the future free, democratic and prosperous Rwanda.

Today I am announcing two prizes, each worth 5,000 $:

1. A concept of a new Rwandan flag that incoporates some themes from the old and new Rwandan flags.

2. A new concept of lyrics and music of a new national anthem that incorporates some themes from the old and new national anthems.

Rwandans and non-Rwandans free to compete for one or both prizes.

The winners will be announced on 1st January 2013.'

Rice has Left, the Round Up Begins?

2011-11-25T08:28:00.005-05:00

From the RNC Africa Chapter Facebook page. My comments are in [square brackets]

Breaking News. Early hours of this morning [25 November, following the departure of American Ambassador Susan Rice], the suburbs of the capital City of Rwanda, Kigali, residents were woken up by soldiers and police deployed by the defense minister James Kabarebe and his boss President of Rwanda Paul Kagame. The deployment of more that 2000 soldiers and policemen took place mid night in suburbs mostly habituated by Hutus and Moderate Tutsis [are there areas where government opponents congregate?], whom the government rebelled “ Bagati Mujisho”. The term “ Bagati Mujisho” refers to people who don’t side with government’s ideals. “We don’t know what police are searching for, but the fabricated roomers are that people are hiding Rwanda National Congress operatives as well as ammunition in their houses” said Mukanoheri. This comes after the visit of the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan E. Rice. In her speech, at the Kigali Institute of Technology, she said “Yet, the political culture in Rwanda remains comparatively closed. Press restrictions persist. Civil society activists, journalists, and political opponents of the government often fear organizing peacefully and speaking out. Some have been harassed. Some have been intimidated by late-night callers. Some have simply disappeared” You can tell the fear in the eyes of the people in the street. “We are not certain of what might happen tomorrow. People are kept in the dark, we are treated like animals”. Said Vicent Kimenyi as he was boarding a taxi for work in Nyamirambo tax rank. Stay tuned as more and more stories keeping coming in. Uwera – Kigali-Rwanda.

[Can anyone corroborate this account?]

Five College Africa Day 2011 November 5, Smith College Campus Center

2011-10-27T20:01:00.005-04:00

For immediate release: October 26, 2011

Five College Africa Day 2011
November 5, Smith College Campus Center
From drumming and dance to panel discussions and stories, Five College Africa Day offers something for everyone. The sixth annual Africa Day will take place on November 5 at Smith College’s Campus Center.

Dr. Joseph Sebarenzi, former speaker of the Rwandan Parliament and survivor of the Rwandan genocide, starts off the day’s events with his keynote address entitled “Healing After Hardship: Survival and Forgiveness in Post-Genocide Rwanda.”
The address is followed by an afternoon of dance performances and panel discussions that examine African development and studying and working in Africa. There will also be an Africa study abroad and student activities fair.

The day is capped off with a party, featuring music, food and dance with the Smith College African and Caribbean Students Association and Five College colleagues.

Africa Day, now in its sixth year, is organized by the Five College African Studies program. The program, which publishes the highly regarded African Studies Review, is committed to building a better understanding and appreciation of Africa. This popular annual event is one means for spreading that understanding.

Africa Day 2011 takes place at the Smith College Campus Center from 1:00 p.m. into the evening. For more information, visit www.fivecolleges.edu/sites/African.

Also on November 5, the Smith College Art Museum is holding “World Art Day” featuring African art from the exhibit “Crosscurrents: Art of the Southeastern Congo.” On Africa Day the museum is free and open to all from 10 a.m.—3 p.m.

Based in Amherst, Massachusetts, Five Colleges, Inc., is a nonprofit educational consortium created in 1965 to advance the extensive educational and cultural objectives of its member institutions—Amherst, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke and Smith colleges and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

For more information, contact
Kevin Kennedy
kkennedy@fivecolleges.edu
413-256-8316

The Empirical Record on Habyarimana's Death

2011-10-23T08:27:00.008-04:00

On 1 October 2011, Rwanda National Congress co-founder, Theogene Rudasingwa confirmed that his former Rwandan Patriotic Front colleague, Paul Kagame, is personally responsible for downing Habyarimana's plane -- the event that initiated the Rwandan genocide. Certain segments of the Disapora lit up social media sites with sentiments of praise and relief at the willingness and ability of Dr. Rudasingwa to express what has long been an open secret in Rwanda. The academic and policy worlds, in careful assessments of the available empirical record had established as early at 2000 that Kagame ordered the downing of Habyarimana's in a bid to secure political power, not to save Tutsi lives. A good representative article is Kuperman's 2004 "Provoking Genocide: A revised history of the Rwandan Patriotic Front". Indeed, more careful academic work from Guichaoua and Straus suggests that the military actions of the RPF along with its unwillingness to negotiate in good faith at the Arusha Peace Accords, combined with the surprise downing of Habyriamana's plane, meant that extremist elements within the interim government only planned the genocide on the evening of 6 April 1994.

There has been virtually no response from Kigali on Rudasingwa's allegation, although I hear from trusted sources that Kagame is fuming mad. A representative reaction that minimises the historical importance of the downing of Habyarimana's plane comes from one of the many journalists known to be in Kigali's employ, Frederick Golooba-Mutebi. Golooba-Mutebi's article makes the requisite personal attacks on Rudasingawa, urging him to notice that his position is one that divides Rwandans, and is rooted in colonial thinking that promoted exclusionary politics in the first place. As is standard in government-sponsored media, Golooba-Mutebi does not directly engage the empirical claims of Rudasingwa's article; instead he launches into a standard government narrative of the root causes of the genocide, seeking to strip Kagame's personal accountability and minimise the importance of engaging Rudasingwa's allegations.

I think both sides of the 'Who-Downed-the-Plane' debate miss a larger point that is important for Rwandans to know as they seek to build an inclusive polity (the stated goal of both the RPF and the RNC). What happened that day in Arusha, during the power sharing discussions, that made 6 April 1994 the day to bring down Habyarimana's plane? There is no available transcript of the 6 April talks that I've ever been able to find, and folks like Rudasingwa, with intimate knowledge of the political and military posturing and strategy of the RPF before, during and immediately after the genocide, are well placed to reveal something more than which actors downed the plane that started the genocide.

If they could introduce new empirical evidence on why the downing of the plane was the defining event that launched the genocide, and on the motivations and political interests of all the actors to the Arusha Accords (including international observers), we could break ground that not only reveals the culpability of key RPF actors in downing Habyarimana's plane, but shows the political machinations of political leaders in both the Habyarimana and interim regimes that carried out genocide. It could also reveal that the RPF are not the saviours of post-genocide Rwanda, and that its leaders are also responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Without a sincere reckoning of why Habyarimana's plane went down when it did, and why, a big part of the puzzle is missing. Can the RNC and other political actors flesh out the empirical record? Will they?

Shame on You, Foreign Policy

2011-10-21T08:23:00.003-04:00

Shame on you, Foreign Policy, for publishing such an amateurish piece on Rwanda's development success as rooted in order and cleanliness. The author, David Dagan, clearly has little knowledge of Rwandan history, or politics. This type of reporting helps shape the image of Rwanda that Westerns hold, and it is an inaccurate one that in turn bolsters and shapes donor policy. Interesting that this piece comes out shortly after Tony Blair defended his relationship with, and reaffirmed his commitment to the policies and practices of Rwandan President Kagame. International donors may be clueless, but I'd bet that diplomats on the ground in Kigali know full well that the 'successes' of the government come on the back of ordinary Rwandans who are not part of the state machinery.

I agree that the international community is looking for a success story, but not at any cost. What the author perceives as order and cleanliness is actually an ambitious drive to modernise described by James Scott in his "Seeing Like a State". Rwanda is actively engaged in a social, economic and political engineering process that privileges a few (presumably those that this author consulted) at the expense of the many (which the author appears not to have consulted). Without an understanding of the how these policies impact local actors, keeping in mind that even by Rwandan government numbers, 80 - 90% of Rwandans are subsistence farmers who live on less than $1 per day. Indeed, World Bank and IMF number acknowledge that at least 65% of Rwandans live on much much less. Indeed, among the peasant folks I consulted in my own research in the Southwest of the country, the average daily income was only 11 cents per day! I'd like to remind the author that Rwanda's gini coefficient has increased under Kagame. Rwandans are more poor today than there were in 1992 (.44 then vs. .59 now). Rwanda's economic growth is not shared by all, and it is hardly shared equitably. Economic growth should translate into an improved standard of living (see this explanation of the relationship between GDP and poverty)

It is also important to keep in mind that the government controls much of the political, social and economic sphere. Thus, it can demand clean and orderly valleys where poverty reigns because residents know they can be fined up to 10,000 FRW (approx. 17US$) if they do not. Umuganda is a historical practice that is rooted in more than a century of oppressive practices by local officials on the local populations in their jurisdiction. In its current manifestation, umuganda is still seen by many Rwandans as an additional humiliation that serves the government 's agenda.

These are but two glaring examples from the author. I could go on, but suffice it to say, he needs to look beyond the obvious, stop filtering what he does see and experience through a Western lens, and try to identify and explain what he does not see and hear. In a country where authoritarianism is entrenched (not emergent as the author contends), the author should, as any competent political scientist would, look at points of exclusion and inequality rather than blandly praising the government. I suggest he start by picking up the recently published "Remaking Rwanda", edited by Scott Straus and Lars Waldorf.

Take Action for Victoire Ingabire, Rwandan Opposition Politician

2011-10-15T10:08:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, the Rwandan High Court ruled that it had full jurisdiction in the case of opposition leader, Victoire Ingabire. This went unremarked by the international and domestic media, save a few reports from actors sympathetic to the obvious involvement of senior Rwandan government officials in Ingabire's trial. Indeed, almost all of the reporting on Ingabire's case is coming from officials of her FDU-Inkingi party.

Ingabire, of the United Democratic Front, is on trial in Kigali for fomenting insecurity, denying the 1994 genocide and promoting ethnic divisionism. Rwandan security forces detained her in January 2010, in advance of the August 2010 Presidential elections in which the incumbent, Paul Kagame, was re-elected with 93% of the popular vote. Ingabire’s detention meant that her UDF did not stand in the August elections. She will spend 30 years in prison if found guilty.

The purpose of this post is to ask you to take action, namely write to Paul Kagame, to request a fair trial. We need to bring more attention to the flawed nature of this case to the international community, and writing letters of protest to Kagame with a copy to your local politician is a good place to start. I prepared sample text for you to cut-and-paste below.

The Prosecution claim to have evidence of Ingabire’s ‘terrorist’ activities with Hutu rebel groups based in neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. Ingabire’s defence team, a Brit and a Rwandan, had been unable to assess the veracity and validity of the prosecution’s claims because the 2500-page indictment was issued in Kinyarwanda. This was contrary to the defendant’s right to an interpreter, which was required for defense lawyer Iain Edwards to do his job. The indictment was finally translated, but only a few weeks before her trial began in September 2011, leaving her defence team little time to prepare its counter-arguments.

At the same time, it appears that the rule of law, and the right to presumption of innocence are under threat, with senior members of the Rwandan government, including President Paul Kagame, Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Muskikwabo, and Prosecutor-General Martin Ngoga, publically proclaiming victory in the case before the defence had even mounted its argument in court.

Ingabire faces charges of being linked to rebel activity in eastern Congo and that she has uttered hate speech and denies the genocide. Ingabire has called for government recognition that ethnic Hutu are also survivors of the genocide. Since the 2008 Constitutional revision, it has become illegal to refer to the genocide as anything other than the genocide of Tutsi.

Amnesty International and other international human rights organizations have advocated for the Rwandan government to allow for greater freedom of expression. Opposition politicians, like Ingabire, journalists and human rights advocates cannot criticize the policies or activities of the government without fear of swift and severe repercussion. The case of Victoire Ingabire is emblematic of broader trends of repression and oppression in Rwanda, as noted in Amnesty International’s on-going “Allow Criticism to be Voiced” campaign.

Take Action
You can write a letter to President Paul Kagame, requesting a fair trial for Victoire Ingabire. You can also send a postcard prepared by Amnesty International – USA Section calling on Rwanda to allow criticism of the government to be voiced by opposition politicians. Be sure to send a copy to your local politician

His Excellency President Paul Kagame
Office of the President
Kigali
Rwanda
[Date, and your location of residence]

Your Excellency,

I am writing to express my concern for judicial irregularities and lack of respect for the rights of Mrs. Victoire Ingabire of the United Democratic Front. The indictment against Mrs. Ingabire is vague and sweeping. Her legal team has been unable to adequately prepare its defense arguments. In addition, Mr. President, members of your government have publicly spoken out about Mrs. Ingabire’s guilt, which is direct government interference in the judicial process. Such actions raise serious questions about the independence of the Rwandan judiciary, and the ability of Mrs. Ingabire to receive a fair trail that respects her human rights.

I urge you to allow Mrs. Ingabire a fair trial, which means letting her defense team to work unencumbered without fear of government interference in the proceedings.

Thank you,

What News on the Ingabire Trial?

2011-09-13T19:34:00.004-04:00

Is it just me, or is there no international or local reporting on the state of Ingabire's trial. I am not looking for a play-by-play akin to Casey Anthony's recently completed trial in Florida, but would like some updates or status reports or something. Anything.

I guess The New Times has not been instructed to report on the trial? And since independent journalists are all but silenced by Rwanda's Media High Council, I assume these folks are unable to report on the proceedings. Do we even know if journalists, independent or otherwise, are allowed in the court house? Or is it more simple than this -- Kagame's visit to France has eaten up all the available ink and column space?

I'd also like to remind the Rwandan government that its judiciary is on trial here as well. Is a little transparency to much to ask?

16 Years under RPF Leadership, by Karekezi Eduard

2011-09-08T07:37:00.002-04:00

Sharing this post, with permission of the author.

RWANDA INSIDE STORY: 16 YEARS UNDER RPF LEADERSHIP
BY KAREKEZI EDUARD
It is after a sour war of 1990-1994 that ended miserably with thousands if not millions of Rwandan people killed or had left the country, the RPF (the current ruling political party in Rwanda) took power. This human; savage and de-constructing act driven by human inevitable and irrepressible urge to come or cling to power left our society being the most wounded and shattered in the 21st century. Though many were left in a quandary without answers to causes and way forward, some still question the morality of this tragedy which uprooted our social bonds and left our society in tatters. Nevertheless this came to be a food for thoughts for political scientists, anthropologists, conflict resolution practitioners etc. as on the notion that management of post-conflict period can be influenced by how such a conflict ended. It has been crystal clear that when a conflict ended in a zero-sum style and an integrative solution to a conflict was disregarded, then the running of post-conflict period can not only be disastrous but also a seed-bed for future struggles. As the winning side tries to economically, politically and socially asphyxiate the losing one, the latter will only remain with a single option: digesting the defeat by smouldering inside silently. Thus in most cases while waiting for new avenues, survival strategies like total surrender to the winning party are crafted, and by virtue of being victorious, the winner takes all and subsequently pulls the strings. Here is Rwanda where we are.
Since the end of the abovementioned tragedy (war), activities have been undertaken in various domains. These range from infrastructure development, the fruitless and controversial reconciliation policy to toto closure (critical websites, newspapers, debates etc.) of whatever might have disturbed the political diet enjoyed by the ruling political party, the RPF. Aggressive population control mechanisms have been crafted. This is likely to be quickly achieved by the fact that due to unbearable living conditions, people are eager to get cash (10.000 Rfw (1.3 US dollars)) for vascotomy instead of searching for information regarding the policy and effects thereof. Deliberately designed vague and overarching laws were crafted to ensure that whoever dares to criticise the regime fits into a web of genocidaires. This significantly led one man’s meat (self-aggrandizment by the winner) being another one’s poisson (the loser being undyingly silent). Consequently goats (losers) are browsing where they have been tied (somewhere in prisons, refugee camps, rural areas etc.). To fully lock the nation, snippers were posted on the roofs by establishing a National Consultative Forum for Political Organizations in which all registered political parties are locked, and operate at the behest of the RPF.
Nevertheless, it is said that the love of a woman and a botle of wine are sweet for a season but last for a time, the RPF’s credibility recently began and continues to wear thin, the government needs to recalibrate its foreign policy and retool its way of dealing with external world. Wherever president Kagame goes and whoever he visits, we expect the unexpected flabbergasting, acidic stories for a president who has been receiving medals from some unwary leaders. Though he remains obdurate, president Kagame has opted for ‘school diplomacy’ whereby he would largely visit schools and students rather than heads of state who increasingly are becoming aware of his misdeeds committed inside and outside his area of jurisdiction. The unity between African diaspora is becoming more and more growing against him. With this in mind, he fully knows well that odds are stacked heavily against him. Indications are that the diaspora has handcuffed/dwarfed the regime’s drive toward self-posturing as benevolent and people oriented. Definitely this has been one of the causes for recurrent drought spell in Rwandan politics, and to that end, analysts suggest RPF has lost its ideological compass.
General perception on a case of General Kagame Vs. Ingabire
Once in history Lenin said that: “It is impossible to predict the time and progress of revolution. It is governed by its own more or less mysterious laws.” We used to follow from different channels about what this African woman stands for. But no one could gauge the bravery of Madame Ingabire Victoire until she, due to her psychological impulse to be and feel free, her belief that injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, decided to leave her country of exile and returned home to challenge the myths attached to RPF (of being a family for all Rwandese) by taking part in the largely criticized August 2010 presidential elections. Our sense was that the locked political space was going to be navigated. We thought it was the beginning of a genuine debate, constructive dialogue on the problems bedevilling our society. We appreciated her political acumen, her insightful thoughts. A new political dispensation was unfolding. However, it was a high-voltage political odyssey. Even though her philosophy on national reconciliation was irretrievably doubtless; sadly, she was arrested and re-arrested before presenting her political project to the electorate. While consuming this misfortune however, what we have to know is that in any field, professionals use tools to achieve their goals. Doctors use stethoscopes, mechanics use spanners, footballers use boots, teachers use chalk and blackboards etc. In the profession of politics, dictators use institutions to destroy their real or potential/perceived opponents; and subsequently score their political goals. The ruling political party here in Rwanda (RPF) is using the legal system as a technical tool against its potential political opponents. The judiciary system has become a willing appendage of RPF. The decisions of RPF politicians masquerading as judges, often of distant and confusing character, are indeed destroying perceived real opposition parties piece by piece. But equally important to note is that opposition leaders did not enter into politics to play second fiddle. These parties are, though not yet some registered, not led by dim-wit leaders. That is why the peoples of Rwanda think of being currently in a political quandary. In fact it is after realizing that unless it’s bent, a man cannot ride on your back, these pro-democracy took a decisive and uncompromising decision of telling the thruth the power. These pro-democracy, now in detention in one of the notorious prison known as 1930 have unwavering support of the entire population due to their thirst for truth, true truth and human dignity. These prominent opposition leaders are Mr. Ingabire Victoire the Chairperson of FDU-Inkingi a yet registered party along other key opposition leaders Mr. Bernard Ntaganda, the founder and president of PSI-Imberakuri (now split unto two, a move crafted by the ruling party), Mr. Ntakirutinka of UBUYANJA and Mr. Deo Mushayidi (PDP Imanzi) to name a few. The ruling party has used all instruments available to nip these rival political formations in the bud.
There is a German proverb which goes that if you want to kill a dog you must allege that it has rabies. This is what the RPF falsely has been using in order to justify the ill-treatment of prominent opposition leaders. They have been accused mainly of harboring genocide ideology. “genocide Ideology” has been an unimpeachable weapon of choice in its judicial arsenal. It does not need a rocket scientist to confirm that the circumstances under which Madame Ingabire Victoire, the chairperson of FDU-Inkingi found herself in is a result of having dared and called a spade a spade. This is well known by all and sundry. When something is right, it is right regardless of who says it, let alone how or when it is said. What we have to digest is that what Ingabire said on national reconciliation is unimpeachably true and therefore, realistically right. She put forward a clear framework on how solutions can be found to the problems that continue to smould our national psyche. Nevertheless, despite all these political tribulations, she remains the Rwanda’s most valued asset. Despite the suffering endured by these champions of democracy however, usually the unexpected happens. And it is said that the morning sun never lasts the day. Repeating what she said ‘time is nothing when there is courage and determination’. To end this, I would like to say that‘bitter pills may have blessed effects’.

Now dear friend, whoever you are, wherever you are, please you help is needed. People are languishing in prison because of me and you. You never know democracy has become a transboundary issue like HIV. Your voice is needed. We want to hear from you. Not today, not tomorrow, not……!!!!!BUT NOW!!!!!!!!

By Karekezi Eduard
Email: karekezieduard@yahoo.com
Kigali-Rwanda

Wikileaks: US Embassy on Spanish Indictments of Rwandan Officials

2011-09-07T19:34:00.003-04:00

While I agree there is much wrong, and politically-motivated by the Spanish indictment, the analysis of the author of this cable shows that the US Embassy was not overly critical of the current regime....

"US embassy cable - 08KIGALI292

THE SPANISH INDICTMENTS: OUTRAGEOUS AND INACCURATE
Identifier: 08KIGALI292
Origin: Embassy Kigali
Created: 2008-04-24 08:08:00
Classification: CONFIDENTIAL
Tags: PREL PHUM PGOV PINR RW
Redacted: This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks.
VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLGB #0292/01 1150808
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 240808Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY KIGALI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5257
INFO RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 0293
RUEHDR/AMEMBASSY DAR ES SALAAM 1107
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA 1876
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA 0428
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0215
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID 0017
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI 1195
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0471
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 0177
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0117
C O N F I D E N T I A L KIGALI 000292

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/24/2018
TAGS: PREL, PHUM, PGOV, PINR, RW
SUBJECT: THE SPANISH INDICTMENTS: OUTRAGEOUS AND INACCURATE

Classified By: Ambassador Michael R. Arietti, reason 1.4 (B/D)

1. (C) Summary. The Spanish indictment of 40 Rwandan military officers offers an unrecognizable version of some of
the most painful and violent episodes in Rwanda's history, distorting the established record, inventing mass killings,
placing the blame for any misfortune Rwandans have suffered (including the 1994 genocide) on the Kagame government. It is
a bloated political tract, sloppily organized and endlessly repetitive, and, ultimately, a disservice to those Rwandans who suffered real losses from revenge killings by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), the armed forces of the Rwandan
Patriotic Front (RPF). End summary.

2. (SBU) Mission has reviewed an unofficial English language version of the Spanish indictment of 40 Rwandan military officers (several of whom are now dead) issued by Judge Fernando Andreu Merelles in February. This translations was produced by the Rwandan government; we are also in possession of a French language version of unknown provenance. While we do not claim extensive knowledge of the alleged abuses imputed to the RPA/RDF during the 1994 genocide or in the years before or after, we can offer a number of comments on the overall tone and structure of the document, as well as the overarching political theme offered by the Spanish judge.

3. (SBU) The thematic approach of the Spanish judge is evident from the opening paragraphs. The Rwanda Patriotic
Front was founded, according to the judge, not as is conventionally understood as a political organization of refugees, unable to return home and finally deciding upon using military force to do so -- to regain a homeland -- but as a criminal organization consecrated to the elimination of Hutu civilians, the raping of women and girls, abduction, and terrorist acts. According to the judge, the three-fold aim of this terrorist organization was the elimination of the entire Hutu ethnic group, securing of power by force, and the establishment of a Tutsi criminal hegemony over all the Great Lakes region. Those assisting the RPF-RPA included various western powers, principally the United States. In fact, the RDF operated as an instrument of American power, took
instructions from American officials in pursuing its criminal and genocidal assault on the Great Lakes region, and fought side by side with American Green Beret troops in Rwanda, the DRC and elsewhere in the region.

4. (SBU) To this entirely fanciful account of the origins and directing agencies of the RPF, we now turn to the judge's wildly inaccurate, not to say repugnant, description of the origins of the genocide and the carrying of mass slaughter of
civilians in 1994. At no point in the judge's narrative is the Habyarimana regime or extremist elements within that
government at fault -- there is no planning for genocide, no carrying out of prepared massacres, nary a mention of the
insidious and all-encompassing psychological preparation of mass killing by media outlets controlled by extremist
elements. No, in fact, according to the judge, everything is the fault of the RPA. If there were large massacre of Tutsis
anywhere in the country, it was the spontaneous reaction of an aggrieved Hutu population to organized killings perpetrated by the criminal Tutsi band of terrorists, killings intended to both terrorize the Habyarimana government and its Hutu supporters, and to provoke just such a reaction. If a moderate Hutu political leader was killed anywhere in the country (while the RPA occupied a small sliver of territory in the far north), according to the judge, in each and every instance it was the terrorist Tutsi
band of evil-doers, intent upon slaughtering moderate Hutu political leaders and attributing responsibility to the
Habyarimana regime. The larger goals the PRF/RPA had in mind in carrying out such actions, according to the judge, were to "demonize the Habyarimana regime," and "awaken and strengthen inter-ethnic hatred Hutu-Tutsi." In the judge's
mistaken view, the Habyarimana regime was a peaceful, law-abiding government, intent upon bringing good to all
Rwanda's people, if only left alone by the Tutsi hegemonists. The most casual of readings in recent Rwandan history would
affirm what everyone in fact knows: ethnic hatred was stoked for years by Habyarimana extremist elements; however, not for
for the Spanish judge, who apparently believes that ethnic hatred was never previously seen in Rwanda, not until the
RDP/RPA sought to impose its terroristic ideology.

5. (SBU) With a short acknowledgment by the Spanish judge that hundreds of thousands of the Tutsis did lose their lives, somehow, in the mid-year months of 1994 (no attribution of the killings is hazarded), we now arrive, courtesy of the judge, at mathematically stupendous killings by the RPA, following their "criminal" conquest of the country. Upon "usurping power" (from the genocidal rump government that tottered from place to place in Rwanda from April to July, 1994) massive killings began -- from July 1994 to July 1995, "312,726 people were killed in a selectively and deliberate way." The numbers have an interesting
precision: not 40,000 executed in Gitarama, but 39,912. Not 33,000 killings in Butare, but 33,433. The judge does not
explain how such precision was reached. The bodies were subsequently disposed of in exactly 173 mass graves, using
different "methodologies," such as hiding corpses, burning corpses, transporting them in trucks to undisclosed
locations, and using heavy equipment to dig massive communal graves.

6. (SBU) The judge then proceeds to the time of the insurgency in northwest Rwanda, and the sprawling refugee camps in eastern Congo. Again, any casual reader of Rwanda's history would know that Hutu militias, remnants of the defeated Habyarimana armed forces and the Interahamwe, fought tooth and nail with the RPA, and engaged in indiscriminate
killings across the northwest of Rwanda (the RPA engaging in revenge killings of its own, as the RPF itself acknowledges).
Not so for the Spanish judge. According to the judge, there were no attacks upon any portion of Rwanda's population by
Hutu militias operating out of the eastern Congo -- everything was staged by the RPF/RPA. For example, "There
were continued attacks on the Hutu civilian population using a new technique devised by the Office of Intelligence, to
simulate attacks against the civilian population by rebel infiltrators or (Hutu extremists), by attacking civilians in
the area of Ruhengeri." The purpose of these simulated attacks by the PRA, according to the judge, was to "justify a
rapid intervention by the RPA," and the accompanying slaughter of Hutus. According to the judge, the RPA fought
with itself, as a pretext to further planned massacres of Hutus.

7. (SBU) The judge then cites, at various places, various immense numbers of killings of Hutus by the criminal Tutsi
regime since 1994. At one point he cites 1.7 million Hutu victims (thereby doubling the figure of approximately 800,000
victims of the genocide), and at another, 4 million Hutu refugees and Congolese citizens, "the majority of them
Congolese Hutus." While we cannot evaluate each and every incident recorded in the massive indictment, and some may
well concern real killings by renegade RPA troops, we find these numbers, as well as those in paragraph 5, to be
literally unbelievable.

8. (C) Comment. The indictment is very long (182 pages in the French translation), badly organized, and sloppily
repetitive. The narrative repeats itself over and over, hundreds and hundreds of separate paragraphs, covering
ground, recovering it, re-recovering it, a Sisyphean retelling of some of the most painful episodes of Rwandan
history in outrageously inaccurate terms. The indictment dishonors the actual dead, while conjuring up legions of
ghost victims to blame on the Kagame government. There are episodes of revenge killings at the hands of the Rwandan
government, the RPA in the field, that have never been accounted for; yet the overall lack of credibility in the
judge's approach to events undermines his description of specific actions the Rwandan military allegedly committed.
This document does not move the squaring of accounts forward one iota -- if anything it is a disservice to those Rwandans
who seek an accounting for their losses at the hands of Rwandan government troops. End comment.

Ingabire's Verdict?

2011-09-05T13:28:00.008-04:00

The long awaited and much anticipated trial of Victoire Ingabire, the imprisoned de facto leader of the Rwandan political opposition, was due to start today. The judge adjourned court until Wednesday, citing the need for competent interpretation.

Yet, on Twitter, the Government of Rwanda has declared victory in the case, stating that it (not the prosecution) has documents to prove her ties to 'terrorist' groups in the region, and thus her guilt.

Nice to see the government being *this* transparent on its interference in the judicial system. I wonder what diplomats resident in Kigali might have to say on this. My guess is a muted response, particularly since President Kagame recently called international justice two-faced in reaction to the denial of visitors visas for several members of his delegation to France (or at least the timing of his reaction suggests as such).

While some people might find it a bit of a conceptual stretch to link Ingabire's domestic trial to Kagame's visit to France, what I think we are looking at is not justice, but rather fodder for Kagame's duplicitous actions vis-a-vis international criticism of his regime. Indeed, Ingabire's trial corresponds to continued demands from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others to revise and update the genocide ideology and ethnic divisionism laws. The timing of the two events is actually pretty crappy for continued government efforts to show itself as forward looking, progressive and ethnically inclusive. My sense is that we are about to enter an intense period of government propaganda that will further reveal points of weakness in ruling RPF....

FAHAMU Statement on Rwandan Refugees

2011-08-31T20:50:00.002-04:00

PLEASE ACT NOW: Sign-on to Statement Protecting Rwandan Refugees!

On 31 December 2011, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and several states hosting Rwandan refugees are considering invoking the “cessation clause” of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. This is a very unusual and dangerous move that could cause revocation of the refugee status of tens of thousands of people who fled ethnic and political persecution in Rwanda, stripping them of basic rights and exposing them to forcible repatriation and possible persecution. Cessation is premature and should be stopped.

But you can do something about it! Send the FAHAMU Refugee Programme an email indicating that you endorse the statement below. We will carry your views to the Executive Committee of UNHCR and representatives of its Member States at their annual meeting in Geneva from 3rd – 5th October.

Here’s the text:

We, the undersigned, oppose invocation of the “cessation clause” of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees with respect to Rwanda. Thousands of persons fled Rwanda and are currently seeking protection abroad. These are not people escaping retribution from the 1994 genocide; they are those who have been fleeing Rwanda since that event because of the instability, ethnic strife, arbitrary judicial procedures, indiscriminate retaliation, political violence, intolerance of dissent, impunity, and lack of accountability that has followed.

Cessation is a drastic measure that would strip refugees of their legal rights and expose them to forcible repatriation and the risk of further persecution. The Cessation Clause should only be invoked with extreme caution when there has been, according to the Guidelines of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 1) a fundamental and profound change in country conditions such that they no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution, 2) the change is demonstrably enduring and not merely transitory, and, 3) the change enables refugees to enjoy the protection of the government.

Rwanda has made much progress since the genocide but it has not done so through reliable democratic and peaceful means. It remains a fragile, volatile, authoritarian regime with little tolerance for dissent, freedom of speech, or independent human rights reporting. Social and political fissures remain unresolved and the Rwandan government maintains an overtly hostile attitude towards its citizens who have fled. Positive changes need time to consolidate and genuine national reconciliation remains untested. Moreover, since 2009, more Rwandans have been fleeing, not just Hutu, but large numbers of genocide survivors who were never refugees before, as well as officials of the Rwandan government and officers from its army. Now is not the time to revoke protection from Rwandan refugees!

Endorse Now! Send your name, job title, and organizational affiliation as you wish it to appear, along with your country of residence, to Barbara@fahamu.org. If you can endorse on behalf of your organization, church, business, union, or other civic group, let us know—that will be even more powerful! (Otherwise we will just list your affiliation “for identification only.”)

Protesting Kagame Only One Part of the Equation

2011-08-31T16:32:00.004-04:00

I have been contacted in the past few weeks to support Rwandans living in the Disapora to protest President Paul Kagame's upcoming visit to France. I do support such actions in principle, because I think it is important that Rwandans and others interested in peace and security in the country (and region) engage in such protest. It is important to continue to alert members of the international community of Kagame's human rights excesses and continued repression of various political freedoms.

Of late, I am finding the tone and pitch of the language used by members of the Disapora worrying. In some cases, opinion is centred on 'getting rid of Kagame' without much regard to what a post- RPF Rwanda might look like. Certainly, Kagame will have to face justice for crimes committed before and during his tenure, but this day is not around the corner. If anything, it's a long shot to think that Kagame will face international justice, and consequently not a meaningful strategy for change. By 'change', I think these critics mean opening up the political space. Indeed, this is an important issue, but is not in my opinion the most pressing one at this moment. The conditions on the ground simply do not exist for a serious accounting of history, opposition politics, and political freedoms are not ripe.

Instead, I think activists and advocates should be focusing on calling out the RPF on its relations with the peasantry. The 'peasantry' (some 90% of Rwandans) are left out of the gains brought by the country's impressive economic growth. Finding meaningful ways to narrow this gap seems to me to be the most pressing issue facing Rwanda at the moment.

My Reaction to the Reaction to 'Silent Sabotage'

2011-08-20T09:05:00.009-04:00

A few weeks ago, I was invited by an editor at Nairobi's The East African newspaper to publish a short opinion piece based on my recently published article in the journal African Affairs, entitled 'Whispering Truth to Power: The Everyday Resistance of Peasant Rwandans to Post-Genocide Reconciliation'. I readily accepted for two reasons. First, I consider The East African the premier newspaper in the region, and was thrilled to have been asked to contribute to a newspaper I respect and consult on a regular basis. Second, as an academic, I can't reasonably turn down any opportunity to share my research findings. It is simply not in my DNA! You can find the original East African post here.

As I've said before, my work in Rwanda is directed at one broad goal, namely, no more violence by any party, ever. Full stop. Of course this is a lofty ideal, and one that is not easily operationalised. So, I have focused my research on understanding everyday life since the genocide to demonstrate that the 'new' Rwanda is largely being built on the backs of peasants who are not, by and large, sharing in the yearly average of eight percent average economic growth. Socio-economic inequality is a pressing issue, and one that spills into the political sphere that the ruling RPF so desperately seeks to control. This is the position that I write from. I know that academic articles are rarely consulted, and less rarely read, so well-placed opinion pieces are part and parcel of my academic work. Indeed, I moved to the US to work at Hampshire College in large part because of its commitment to social justice issues and its support of faculty who engage in activist-inspired research.

I also write opinion pieces to keep peasant perspectives on the radar screen of folks working in the country -- tourists, students, journalists, diplomats, etc. -- because Kigali is so impressive with its clean streets, low crime, internet cafes, high rises and other trappings of Western success. There is a story behind the carefully crafted and calibrated message of the 'new' Rwanda as one where the institutional structures that created the genocide have been undone (they have not), that Rwandans are reconciled (some are, many are not), and that the country is peaceful and secure (nationally secure, yes, locally peaceful not so much).

It is because there is some truth to the arguments I posit in my opinion pieces that I am subject to the often-vitriolic commentary of Rwandan journalists and other writers (including some working as advisors and/or speech writers in the Office of the Rwandan President). It is rare that my actual arguments are engaged, although this reaction from Jean-Paul Kimonyo on Paul Kagame's presidential website is the first sign of actual engagement of my ideas. Usually, the reaction is more insult than dialogue, like this example from Rwanda's The New Times.

I give these two examples to throw out this idea. If my analysis is as far-fetched as my critics and opponents contend, then why do they spend so much time trying to discredit my writing?

I think the answer lies in a legitimacy crisis. There is an alternate story about Rwanda behind the impressive accomplishments that are put on display, largely for a Western audience. Life for non-elite actors, nearly 90% of the population, is tough. It is a life of fear, harassment and grinding poverty while elites posture for proximity to political power. There is a growing disconnect between peasant realities and government rhetoric about those realities. And therein lies the lack of legitimacy to govern that RPF enjoys in some rural areas in Rwanda.

The acts of everyday resistance that my research identifies does not point to riot, revolt or rebellion. The local dynamics are simply not such to allow for such popular organisations. Instead, the minute and subtle actions that some peasants engage in vis-a-vis the demands of local officials to comply with central government policies reveal one of the most vexing insecurities faced by local and central government officials in postgenocide Rwanda. As individuals who exercise their authority through fear, government officials expect a certain measure of deference and compliance to their demands.

In much the same way, those writers charged with challenging my work also seem to expect my compliance to their spurious arguments. Sadly for them, these reactions are having the opposite effect -- the more they react, the more my work is read.

IRIBA CENTER in Rwanda: A Media Archive to Remember History

2011-07-26T11:53:00.002-04:00

I'm writing to ask you to support the creation of the Iriba Center in Rwanda, a media archive. Hopefully, you are familiar with Anne Aghion's remarkable films on gacaca; the most recent being "My Neighbor, My Killer". I find her style of film-making, which allows Rwandans to speak without any voice-over narrative, renders the complexity of gacaca and reconciliation in Rwanda with great sensitivity. I use her films a great deal in teaching and am amazed that they speak to students who know little or nothing of Rwanda, to Rwandans, and to scholars specializing in the region.

Her final products required literally hundreds of hours of filming in Rwanda over 10 years time. The vast majority of footage she shot did not make it into the films and has been residing under her bed in her Paris apartment. She has been looking for a suitable archive for this footage and decided to create the Iriba Center in Kigali, modeled after the Bophana Center in Cambodia, so that scholars and Rwandans can have access not only to this film footage but also other films and documentation.

She and her collaborators are raising money through a Kickstarter campaign: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1021275587/iriba-center-in-rwanda-a-media-archive-to-remember
Kickstarter is a fundraising website that raises money to launch projects. The goal is to raise $40,000 by August 21. As of this morning, the campaign has almost reached 50%.

I just made my pledge today, and I ask you to consider making a pledge in any amount to support this important project. Even 1$ will make an important difference!

Silent Sabotage: How the Rwandan Peasantry is Defying 'Reconciliation'

2011-07-26T09:28:00.001-04:00

Why would peasant Rwandans resist the government’s post-genocide reconciliation programme, particularly when so many people — donors, journalists, policy-makers and civil society representatives alike — see Rwanda as a peaceful, stable, development-oriented country in the midst of the violent turmoil of the Great Lakes Region?

From the perspective of the rural poor, the answer is that many of them consider the programme unjust and illegitimate as it works against their interests as peasants. This is an important point to consider given that peasants were the main actors in Rwanda’s 1994 genocide as both perpetrators and survivors. Incorporating peasants who lived through the violence of the genocide into the Rwandan policy as participating members is necessary to avoid future mass atrocity.

Rwanda’s programme of national unity and reconciliation is the backbone of the Rwandan government’s reconstruction strategy following the genocide in which civilian Hutu killed at least 500,000 Tutsi – though most estimates hover around a million. Introduced in 1999, the programme aims to create “one Rwanda for all Rwandans,” meaning the government actively seeks to undo Tutsi and Hutu ethnic labels in favour of an inclusive Rwandan one.

The government claims that the programme is successfully promoting ethnic unity as the basis of lasting reconciliation between the country’s main ethnic groups. From the perspective of Rwandan peasants I interviewed, the programme forcibly produces the appearance — but not the reality — of national unity and reconciliation.

Thus obedience to the dictates of the programme is frequently tactical, rather than sincere, as peasants employ various strategies to avoid participation. A look at the resistance of peasants to the programme opens up for analysis the extent to which the government’s rhetoric about delivering peace, justice, and reconciliation to Rwandans is reflected in the lived reality of the populace.

The mandatory activities imposed on peasant Rwandans in the name of national unity and reconciliation (such as the umuganda or community work days, the ingando citizenship re-education camps and the gacaca justice trials) prevent them from tending their fields and engaging in other life-sustaining activities.

That Rwanda’s rural poor do not support the programme of national unity and reconciliation may seem counter-intuitive to those who know of Rwanda’s admirable recovery from the violence of the 1994 genocide, particularly given the country’s impressive economic and institutional gains. Peasant Rwandans resist largely because the programme does not allow for frank or open discussion of how ethnic categories shaped the violence of the genocide, nor is there any official recognition of lived experiences that differ from the official version, in which only Tutsi were victims and only Hutu killed.

Nor does the government allow for public acknowledgment of the existence or experience of Tutsi and Twa perpetrators; Hutu and Twa rescuers; Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa resisters; or Hutu and Twa survivors. Tutsi are rightfully and correctly survivors of genocide, as they were targeted by virtue of their ethnicity, but all Rwandans are survivors of conflict, jostled and shaped by traumatic events over which they had little or no control.

Because the programme of national unity and reconciliation does not acknowledge the multitude of lived through experiences of Rwandans of all ethnicities during the genocide, peasant Rwandans I consulted understood well the risks of speaking out against the programme and so found subtle, indirect, and non-confrontational ways to avoid or subvert the demands of the programme.

A common tactic employed by peasant Rwandans is “staying on the sidelines,” and is embodied in an array of avoidance tactics to keep out of trouble with the local authorities. of all ethnicities shared this sentiment with me. For example, Aurelia, a 39-year-old Hutu widow, says that she actively tries to avoid her local official: “The best strategy is to avoid the authorities. When you see them, they make demands for reconciliation. [My official] knows that I lost all of my people [family members] during the events.”

Another common form of peasant resistance is withdrawn muteness. These are purposeful and strategic acts of silence that peasant Rwandans employ to defy the expectations of the programme in ways that either protect their limited resources or assure their dignity in their interactions with local officials. For example, Trésor, a 16-year-old Tutsi boy, described the purpose of withdrawn muteness as a tactic that sabotages government efforts to promote reconciliation: “Remaining silent is very rewarding because it angers local officials. They ask if we are stupid. They ask why we are so difficult. That is the point. The officials make us get reconciled but I just want to be left alone. Being silent is a good way to avoid the difficulties of life since the genocide. Silence helps us do that in ways that make sense to us, not to local officials.”

The truth is that peasant Rwandans feel that the programme makes their daily struggle to provide for survival more complicated. Rather than blindly or willingly accept state-led directives to reconcile with each another, peasant Rwandans recognise that the policy is yet another form of social control that they strategically avoid so that they can get on with more pressing matters of rebuilding their lives and livelihoods. Domestic and international actors that care about sustainable peace in Rwanda and in the countries of the Great Lakes more broadly need to consider the behaviour and attitudes of rural folk, lest they once again take up arms against neighbours, colleagues, and friends.

Action: Amnesty International Campaign on freedom of speech in Rwanda

2011-06-29T07:29:00.002-04:00

Amnesty International Campaign on freedom of speech in Rwanda, now beginning: Freedom of expression has been unduly restricted for many years. August 2010 presidential elections, which President Kagame won with 93 per cent of the vote, were marked by a clampdown on freedom of expression. The Rwandan government has expressed a commitment to review laws which criminalize criticism, but recent trials of journalists and opposition politicians suggest that Rwanda’s clampdown on critics shows no sign of abating. Ditto the detention of Victoire Ingabire for freedom of expression "crimes".

We have postcards you can mail to President Kagame. Let me know if you would like any, and i've have them mailed to you. This is an important campaign. Or, you can tweet the same to @Paul Kagame and his Foreign Minister, @LMushikiwabo.

For postcards, please contact Ken Harrow at harrow@msu.edu.

You can also "like" Amnesty's Central Africa page on Facebook to keep abreast of this campaign and others in the region.

On Genocide Anniversary, Rwanda Needs Political Reform

2011-04-05T21:51:00.003-04:00

This Thursday, April 7, 2011 marks the seventeenth anniversary of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, where more than 800,000 lives were lost when Hutu-led, state-based militia goaded neighbours to kill neighbouring Tutsis. The anniversary is a time to pause and reflect on the progress the country has made since the genocide, and to ask if mass political violence could again happen in this East African country.

By most accounts, Rwanda is a nation rehabilitated. The institutions of the state have been rebuilt and infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and airports have been restored and in some areas, upgraded. Rwanda is a leader on the African continent in terms of service delivery in education and health. The Rwandan government and a coterie of friends that include Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, western philanthropists, diplomats and donors project this message of rehabilitation and dismiss any critical accounts to the contrary as absurd. The Rwandan government and these “friends of Rwanda” also dismiss the notion that Rwanda’s post-genocide reconstruction and reconciliation policies could be setting the stage for another round of political violence.

Most outsiders fail to recognize the lack of political freedoms and economic inequalities that confront Rwandans who are not members of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). The vast majority of Rwandans—Hutu and Tutsi alike—who survived the genocide remain politically marginalized, extremely poor, and in many cases, traumatized by what they have lived through. Daily life for many is characterized by lack of food, clean water, and affordable and proximate health services, while the elite enjoy European coffee houses, wireless internet hotspots, new housing and shopping malls, accessible health care and other services. The gap between urban elites and the rural citizenry – some 90% of Rwandans live in rural areas – has never been larger.

It is this growing socio-economic inequity between the ruling elite and average Rwandans that makes another round of political violence possible. In order to maintain the peace, international actors active in Rwanda, and the broader Great Lakes Region of Africa, must push the RPF towards a real democratic opening. They must press President Paul Kagame to create space for national dialogue, meaning an open and safe space where all Rwandans can meet to discuss the genocide, and to strategize ways to move forward from the hurt of the past. This is particularly important after the recent release of a UN report detailing allegations of systematic killings of Rwandan Hutu by the RPF in eastern Congo before, during and after the 1994 genocide.

There are two things that the “friends of Rwanda” can do to encourage a more open and peaceful political culture until Paul Kagame is expected to step down in 2017.

The first is to question the current government's ability to manage Rwanda's people and natural resources. The US State Department estimates that by 2020, Rwanda will be home to 13 million people—up from the 11 million in 2011—making it the most densely populated country in Africa with 225 people per square mile. Over 90 percent of Rwandans are subsistence farmers and will be the first to suffer when the central government is unable to respond to their daily needs. The government requires rural farmers to grow coffee and tea for export instead of subsistence crops. A new land policy has decreased peasant holdings to less than a half-acre making it difficult for farmers to feed their families. The RPF does not allow peasant farmers to voice concerns about the agricultural policies and the inequitable distribution of land among government loyalists.

An underfed and disaffected local population is hardly a good starting point toward building a sustainable peace and democracy. The friends of Rwanda, led by Rwanda’s international donors, will need to pressure the RPF in order to ensure that agricultural and land policies are aimed to developing long-term peace and security, not quick gains for party loyalists.

Second, Kagame will need encouragement to engage the diverse political views of the Rwandan diaspora. Kagame must be made to acknowledge that criticisms exist alongside the positive involvement of the diaspora in Rwanda's economic development. As incentive, he can take note of the diaspora’s contribution of nearly US$130 million to Rwanda's economy in 2010 (second only to tourist receipts). To date, Western donors have failed to seriously push Kagame to engage dissident opinion within the diaspora. For Kagame, sincere dissidents who criticize RPF policy are lumped with political extremists such as the FDLR (Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda) rebel group, making it easy to justify their exclusion from the Rwandan political sphere. A sincere distinction should be made, and Friends of Rwanda and donors can encourage government engagement with all sectors of the diaspora as part of the broader strategy of political openness and dialogue.

Indeed, encouraging openness among Rwandans at home and in the disapora is a necessary ingredient to Kagame’s continued reign. The RPF is now under increased scrutiny from its core constituency—educated, urban Tutsi. Many of these individuals, especially Anglophone Tutsi who had returned after the 1994 genocide, have lost faith in the post-genocide reconstruction and development vision of a government that they now consider corrupt and nepotistic. It was significant, and perhaps most worrying for Kagame, that this group of vocal critics includes several senior military officers—among them former army chief Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa and Théogene Rudasingwa, a former major and ambassador to the US, who have both joined hands and formed the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) in December 2010. Analysts believe that Gen. Nyamwasa commands considerable sympathy among the military rank-and-file, making the threat of a coup a possibility for the first time since 1994. Indeed, Gen. Nyamwasa has intimated in recent press appearances that he is prepared to unseat Kagame by force if necessary.

It is critical on this seventeenth anniversary of the genocide that friends of Rwanda begin to push their governments and other international actors to revisit their support for Kagame in order to avoid future violence.

On the Opposition and Insults

2011-01-12T12:42:00.005-05:00

One of the pitfalls of keeping a blog, and a research-centred Facebook page means that all kinds of people feel compelled to comment on my thoughts on politics in Rwanda. I welcome all kinds of viewpoints from all kinds of people, even though some folks are prone to personal attacks, and other non-substantive remarks that don't actually help me think through my evidence and subsequent arguments. Quite the opposite, in fact. Personal attacks leaving me scratching my head in puzzlement because, thanks to and because of technology, I have never met face-to-face with most of my detractors (or my allies, for that matter). How can someone launch a personal attack on someone they have never met? At the same time, when I make such binary statements like, "my detractors" and "my allies", it leads a lot of people to conclude that I am firmly in one camp or another when the reality is that I keep a blog and an open Facebook profile so that I can learn about what people who care about peace and justice in Rwanda think, whether they are Rwandan or not, and whether I agree with their viewpoints or not.

I think its absurd that a non-Rwandan cannot comment on Rwandan society for a number of reasons, not least of which is that in an interconnected and globalised world, we all have a stake in a peaceful Rwanda that sees no more genocide or similar political violence and one that is committed to socio-economic equality. For me, Rwanda's ever increasing gini co-efficient is a direct threat to peace in the country and the region more broadly. In addition, critique is part and parcel of any democratic country, and since Rwanda claims to be a consolidated democracy after two Presidential election (2003 and 2010), then how am I misbehaving? Indeed, I would suggest that by my own standards, Rwanda gets off pretty easy -- you should hear me critique the policies and programmes of my own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper!

All this commentary on insults and opinion to segue into the real purpose of this posting. I have had some very interesting email conversations with individuals (mostly Rwandans, some Congolese and a few foreign academics) about the article I co-authored that compares the rhetorical leadership styles of Habyarimana and Kagame. Unfortunately, the Rwandans I am engaging with are outraged. Those loyal to Kagame are offended that I dare compare him to Habyarimana, and those who long for a return to the days of Habyarimana are offended that I compare the Father of their nation to the likes of Kagame. So I am inadvertently in the middle of a debate I never expected. I want to say to anyone who is interested that I welcome these discussions but will not react at all to personal attacks or similar diatribes. If you want to talk about our methodology, our analysis, our tools of interpretation, or correct this mistake or that, I can't wait to talk to you. If you want to tell me that I am a flaming idiot, and that I should be burned at the stake, then don't be stunned when I don't get back to you.

Now, lest you think that this article has only attracted negative attention, I want to share that I learned something meaningful that is food for thought for Rwanda scholars in particular and GLR scholars more broadly. It seems that the current political opposition (Ingabire, Habineza, and so on) is a threat to Kagame because urban and/or educated Tutsi who were in the country during the genocide and survived it are largely supportive of their politics. Thus, the main constituency that the RPF claims to the international community (and commentators like Kinzer in his recent Guardian article) represent do not actually support its government. So this is a direct threat to the broad-based and grassroots legitimacy that Kagame claims his government holds among Rwandans. This is also an interesting development in the context of Rwandan history. When there are divisions within the ruling elite (in this case not only between RPF elites as evidenced by the recent allegations of treason against former insiders Nyamwasa, Karegeya, Rudasingwa and Gahima but between the RPF and its presumed core consitutency), the odds for politically motivated violence are increased. And this is the point that my co-author and I wanted to make -- Kagame is replicating, perhaps even unconsciously, the power structures that made genocide an option for threaten Hutu elites. And it is here where my research is located, to revealing the power structures that exclude a portion of the population, and the implications of socio-political exclusion.

Similarities between Habyarimana and Kagame

2011-01-09T19:56:00.005-05:00

As the rhetoric of genocide denial and other forms of threats and intimidation that representatives of the RPF continue to put into the public domain heats up, in and out of Rwanda, it seems a good time to reflect on Kagame's leadership style. Central to the international legitimacy that the RPF enjoys is that it is made of up of "good guys" who stopped the 1994. This of course masks the role of the RPF in its own crimes of against humanity, and war crimes before, during and after the genocide. That is a different issue for a different post. Continued international praise, most recently from Tony Blair in The Guardian continues this trend of international tolerance for the human rights excesses of Kagame's regime. Seeing the RPF as the good guys leads many international observers, Tony Blair and others included, to see a radical break in leadership styles between the pre- and post-genocide periods. To this I say, hooey.

A colleague and I recently finished a paper that is currently under review on the similarities in leadership style of both Habyarimana and Kagame. Part and parcel of post-genocide leadership is the assertion of President Paul Kagame that his ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) offers a new way of governing Rwanda so that the "scourge of genocide never again happens" in the country. My colleague and I, among many other observers and analysts of Rwanda's politics, would also like to see the killing stop. Unfortunately, our research shows that Habyarimana and Kagame regimes share the same authoritarian concerns with power and control of Rwandan society.

Using the concept of 'benevolent leadership', we argue that there is considerable continuity in the Kagame regime with the techniques of power employed during the Habyarimana regime. The key similarity is that both President actively seek to maintain a defined and gaping distance between elites (those ‘in the know’) and the population (those needing ‘guidance’), and reinforces the boundaries of socio-political hierarchy between political elites and ordinary Rwandans. Reminding Rwandans of hierarchy, authority, and of the need for obedience, this style of leadership aims to limit popular dissent and stimulate support on the part of the population. We argue that elite projections of a ‘benevolent leadership’ have been a tool not only to help authoritarian governments win over the international community, but also to try discipline the Rwandan population.

Our paper won't be published for another six to twelve months, publishing cycles being what they are. Please email me for a copy if you would like to consider our full argument and supporting evidence. In the meantime, an article that I consider a must read for anyone who follows politics in Rwanda in particular, the GLR more broadly is Filip Reyntjens latest. You can find it here.

You cannot deny what you cannot talk about

2011-01-05T16:00:00.005-05:00

Last month, I moderated a panel at Brown University on the topic of whether genocide could ever happen again. The details of the event can be found here:

Panelists include the Rwandan Ambassador to the US, James Kimonyo, as well as two prominent Rwanda human rights activists, Aloys Habimana and Noel Twagiramungu.

The Ambassador spoke aggressively, and did not leave much space for either Aloys or Noel to speak, probably because he knew that he would not agree with what they would have to say. Instead, I had to bring Kimonyo to heel twice as he spoke beyond his allotted time, accusing some of us on the panel of denying the 1994 genocide within his barrage that Rwanda will have another genocide if we (meaning foreigners, I think) continue to deny the genocide. For my part, because Kimonyo mentioned what he sees as my views to the audience, I spoke briefly to say that my position is, has been and always will be a desire to stop the killing by all sides, and to bring justice to the Great Lakes Region. Having similarly denounced Aloys and Noel as individuals whose work also tries to deny the genocide, one of them made the best comment of the panel, asking if the government of Rwanda itself was not denying genocide (by its own definition) in denouncing the UN Mapping Report of 1 October 2010.

Most interesting was the Ambassador's lack of knowledge about the opinions of his fellow panelists. He accused me and Aloys of being genocide deniers (his understanding of my views is from my blog, not my opinion pieces or academic writing; I am not sure where he gets his information on Aloys' ideas). His failure of logic is that you cannot deny what you cannot talk about. No thinking person denies that there was genocide in Rwanda in 1994 - what some of us argue is that the genocide occurred in a broader context of civil war in which Rwandans of all ethnicities were caught up in the violence. It is a shame that the current government of Rwanda cannot understand that. It is the lack of understanding, combined with intra-RPF conflict that will push Rwanda to another round of violence....

Whose Genocide?

2010-10-14T14:41:00.005-04:00

Since I posted last, I have received several not-so-friendly reactions about how my understanding and explanation of Rwandan history is "flawed", "self-interested" or "a crime against the humanity of survivors". Such statements are made anonymously, which weakens their impact. I mean, at least identify yourself so we can have a proper dialogue and debate! I would love to be wrong about the worrying trends I see on the ground in Rwanda. If I am correct, then people will die and this is the last thing I want....

At the same time, I have received many words of thanks and encouragement. For, "those of us that were there know what we saw". Because this is not a "Hutu" or a "Tutsi" issue, but rather one of individuals trying to have their experiences of genocide recognised so that they too can talk about them openly and without fear of repercussion, I am providing this excerpt from my own research on what I think happened during the genocide. For those of you that wrote to say I am a denier, I am not. I do not buy into recent debates that the RPF organised the genocide. I could be considered a revisionist as my account does differ from the official and accepted version of what the RPF says happened.

"Between April and July 1994, genocide engulfed Rwanda. Across the hills and in the valleys, in churches and homes, on narrow footpaths and in banana groves, in stadiums and schools, killers slaughtered at least 500,000 people, mainly ethnic Tutsi (Des Forges, 1999: 15). The genocide was carefully planned by a small élite group of powerful ethnic Hutu extremists who refused to share power under the conditions of the Arusha Accord. Through an orchestrated strategy to liquidate Tutsi and any politically moderate Hutu perceived as opposed to the Habyarimana regime, the extremists had one goal in mind: to maintain their monopoly on state power.

Unknown assailants shot down he plane carrying the Rwandan president as it approached Kigali airport; soon after the killing started in the capital during the night of 6-7 April 1994. Militias – the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi – led the killing with the help of the Presidential Guard, the army, and local government officials (African Rights, 1994; Des Forges, 1999; Prunier, 1995). Outside Kigali, ordinary Hutu men committed acts of genocide, often under the direction of militia or government soldiers, under the threat of loss of their own life or that of their loved ones if unwilling to participate (Straus, 2006: 122-152). Genocidal violence occurred at different times in different regions of the country (André and Platteau, 1998; Des Forges, 1999: 303-591; Guichaoua, 2005, 258-290; Straus, 2006: 53-60). In some instances, local political and business élites colluded to enlist ordinary Rwandans to genocide (Longman, 1995; Wagner, 1998). Social ties and local power dynamics often compelled ordinary Hutu to kill; others resisted participation. Some stood by while a few rescued, instead of killing intended victims (Fujii, 2008; Straus, 2006: 65-94). Not all Hutu participated, and not all participated to the same degree. Some killed enthusiastically; others killed a few (Prunier, 1995: 242-250). Some Tutsi men joined in the killing as a means to save themselves and their families (fieldnotes, 2006).

The RPF also committed widespread reprisal killings – between 10,000 and 50,000 Hutu died – while countless others of all ethnicities died as the RPF gave greater priority to military victory than to protecting Tutsi civilians (Des Forges, 1999: 16). An estimated 10,000 ethnic Twa were killed during the genocide (IRIN, 6 June 2001). At least 250,000 women – mostly Tutsi but some Hutu – were raped (HRW, 2004: 7). Some men also admit to being raped (fieldnotes, 2006). Countless others, men and women, young and old, healthy and infirm, were tortured or maimed.

The 1994 genocide is much more than a series of facts and figures about who killed, who died and who survived. Irrespective of ethnic category, ordinary Rwandans were caught up in the maelstrom. There are countless stories of survival, of friends and family who took extraordinary risks to protect Tutsi (African Rights, 2003f, 2003h; Rusesabagina, 2006; Umutesi, 2004). There are stories of Tutsi who put their own lives on the line to protect Hutu family and friends from the coercion and intimidation tactics that the killing squads used to goad ordinary Hutu into killing (African Rights, 2003b, 2003c; fieldnotes, 2006). Notorious killers protected Tutsi they knew personally, ushering them safely through roadblocks, warning them of the whereabouts of marauding groups, and even hiding them at their homes. Some individuals killed during the day, only to shelter Tutsi friends and relatives at night (fieldnotes, 2006). Many Tutsi survived because of the aid and succour of a Hutu family member, friend, colleague, neighbour, or stranger (Jefremovas, 1995). There are stories about Twa and Hutu who were killed in the genocide because of their “typical Tutsi features” (fieldnotes, 2006).

Instrumentalising the Genocide
Despite the complexity of the genocide, the RPF-led government presents it as a clear-cut affair: Hutu killed Tutsi because of ethnic divisions that were introduced during the colonial period (1890-1962) and hardened to the point of individual action during the postcolonial period (1962-1994). Ethnicity is a fiction created by colonial divide-and-rule policies. Ultimate blame for the 1994 genocide therefore lies with Rwanda’s colonial powers, who instituted policies that made the Hutu population hate Tutsi. Divisive politics grounded in decades of bad governance resulted in deep-rooted ethnic hatred of all Tutsi by all Hutu, causing the 1994 genocide (NURC, 2004a; Office of the President, 1999a). This simplistic interpretation of events forms the backbone of the programme of national unity and reconciliation, which is grounded in the need “to eradicate the devastating consequences of the policies of [ethnic] discrimination and exclusion” so that “the scourge of genocide never again happens in Rwanda” (NURC, 2004a: 19-20).

Straus (2006) identifies different motivations for different forms of killing in interviews with génocidaires. He writes, “motivation and participation were clearly heterogeneous” with different forms of killing with different motivations occurring simultaneously (Straus, 2006: 95). The forms of killing were: 1) killing, torture, rape, and mutilation perpetrated against civilians – mainly Tutsi but also politically moderate Hutu – by militias, Forces armées rwandaises (FAR) soldiers and willing ordinary people; 2) killing, torture, rape, and mutilation perpetrated against Tutsi by ordinary Hutu, typically under duress from local leaders; 3) intended killing of soldiers and collateral killing of civilians (Tutsi, Hutu and Twa) in the course of the conflict between the RPF and the FAR; 4) killings carried out by the RPF against civilians (Tutsi, Hutu and Twa); and 5) murder motivated by theft and looting as well as the settling of scores between ordinary people (Straus, 2006: 113-118; 135-140; 163-169). Ordinary Rwandans understand that all of these different types of killings took place during the genocide and they use the phrases “les événements de 1994” (the events of 1994) and “en 1994” (in 1994) to describe “everything that happened in 1994, not just the genocide” (fieldnotes, 2006).

Straus’s findings on individual motivations to kill are particularly instructive as they reveal the intentional simplification of the government in grounding its approach to post-genocide justice in the presumed ethnic hatred of all Hutu for all Tutsi. His research shows that “preexisting ethnic animosity, widespread prejudice, deeply held ideological beliefs, blind obedience, deprivation, or even greed” did not motivate individual Hutu to kill individual Tutsi (Straus, 2006: 96). Instead, Straus finds that “Rwandans’ motivations [for killing] were considerably more ordinary and routine than the extraordinary crimes they helped commit” (Straus, 2006: 96. See also, Fujii, 2008; Hatzfeld, 2005b; Longman 1995; Wagner 1998). Among ordinary Hutu, participation was driven by intra-ethnic pressure from others, usually more socially powerful Hutu, security fears in the context of civil war and genocide as well as opportunity for looting and score settling. Straus concludes that these factors “were salient in a context of national state orders to attack Tutsis [sic], war, dense local institutions, and close-knit settlements” (Straus, 2006: 97). The available evidence simply does not support Rwandan government claims that ethnic enmity drove the participation of ordinary Rwandans in the 1994 genocide. Officially, this ethnic enmity is called “genocide ideology”; much of the work of the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission is concerned with identifying and eliminating the genocidal thoughts of ordinary Hutu to prepare them to engage in state-led reconciliation activities. In practice, as will be further analysed in the next chapter, accusing an individual of harbouring “genocide ideology” is a tool used against any individual or group that steps outside the accepted boundaries of government policy. Approaching post-genocide justice on the presumption of a criminal (adult male Hutu) population is a useful mechanism that the RPF strategically deploys to control political opponents, deflect criticism of its actions during the genocide and justify its continued military presence in Eastern Congo (Jordaan, 2007; Usborne and Penketh, 2008).

The programme of national unity and reconciliation legitimates the moral right of the RPF to rule post-genocide Rwanda. The programme is supported by a historical narrative about Rwanda’s past in an effort to shape the collective memory of the genocide, a narrative which eliminates the real social and economic inequality faced by most ordinary Rwandans under colonial and post-colonial rule. In particular, it reformulates the violence against Tutsi in 1959, 1962 and 1973 and during the 1994 genocide as strictly ethnic in origin, thereby ignoring important class and regional dimensions of those conflicts. Instead, the programme of national unity and reconciliation reframes certain aspects of the genocide, while completely misrepresenting other elements, notably in its premise that the violence was the result of “seething ethnic hatred” of Tutsi rather than fear or opportunity (interview with senior RPF official, 2006). For example, the narrative of national unity and reconciliation ignores the fact that the labels Hutu, Tutsi and Twa represented status differences in pre-colonial Rwanda and overlooks the ways in which these labels became politically significant during the colonial period. In addition, it overlooks the ways in which Tutsi élites participated in and benefited from colonial rule. The narrative of national unity and reconciliation also depicts the events of 1959 as a “practice genocide” when in fact it was a social revolution of Hutu against the Tutsi élites (Kinzer, 2008: 11).

The programme of national unity and reconciliation uses this re-interpretation of history as a tool to shape the collective memory of how the genocide happened and the role of the RPF in stopping it while limiting the boundaries of acceptable public speech on the causes and consequences of the 1994 genocide. Notably, it is taboo to discuss the atrocities committed by the RPF during the genocide or speak of the partial responsibility of the RPF in creating the necessary conditions of fear and insecurity that in part caused the 1994 genocide. Instead, the RPF portrays its invasion as a necessary but principled battle on behalf of all Rwandans against the excesses of the Habyarimana regime. Rather than engage in frank discussion on what happened during the genocide, the RPF opts instead for a discourse which purports to restore Rwanda to the “peaceful harmony of pre-colonial days” (NURC, 2004a: 21), through re-education camps (ingando) about “what it means to be a Rwandan and how we used to live before the seeds of division were thrown down by the Belgians” (Office of the President, 1999a: 76). This interpretation allows the RPF to paint Tutsi as innocent victims who passively waited for the ethnic enmity of Hutu to be enacted, which in turn allows it to capitalise on its ability to liberate Rwanda from an oppressive and genocidal political leadership. This interpretation of the genocide legitimates the repressive approach of the post-genocide government in three ways: First, it invokes the heroic status of the RPF in liberating Rwandans from “oppressive rulers” (NURC, 2004a: 9). Second, it provides the RPF with a virtual carte blanche with which it can reconstruct Rwanda and “reconcile” Rwandans according to its own “vision of how things should be done” (MINECOFIN, 2000: 12); and third, it allows the RPF to continue to elide the specificity of their role in the genocide, while evoking the genocide guilt card with international audiences.

Finally, the programme of national unity and reconciliation does not acknowledge the lived experiences of most Rwandans: Tutsi and Twa perpetrators, Hutu and Twa rescuers; Tutsi, Hutu and Twa resisters; as well as Hutu and Twa survivors. The words of a Hutu woman widowed during the genocide sum up the situation well:

'For me, the genocide is what happened after the killing stopped. I lost my husband and four of my children during the events. Now I suffer without hopes and dreams. My brother is in prison, and I have no one to take care of or to take care of me. I feel alone even when I am with other people. And then the government forces us to tell the truth about what we saw. I saw a lot of bodies but never did I see someone getting killed. I heard people dying but I did not see anything. How can I tell my truth when the government has told me what I have to say? I fear being sent to prison and I think now that my neighbours do not like that I live in [the same community as before the genocide]. Where can I go, what can I do? The government says Rwanda has been rebuilt but my life and home are still not repaired…. (interview with Scholastique, a 54-year-old umutindi Hutu woman, 2006)'.

In presenting a particular set of facts about the genocide, the RPF is wiping away the specificity of individual acts of genocide, the death after death after death that are the aggregated whole. Such an approach ignores how ordinary Rwandans were enticed or coerced to participate. Each act of violence – a killing, a rape, a threat, a looting – is different and took place within a specific set of circumstances as individuals made their choice to kill, hide, resist, or stand by. This is not to downplay the magnitude of the genocide, but is to point out that in assigning collective responsibility to all Hutu, many of whom did not commit acts of genocide, the programme of national unity and reconciliation does more than simply misinterpret the nature of the genocide. It is likely to recreate, given Rwanda’s history of ethnic conflict, the same conditions of ethnic inequality and political repression that it claims to undo.

Rwanda's Response to the UN Mapping Report on the DRC

2010-10-10T19:17:00.009-04:00

Yesterday, I received a copy of the Rwandan governments response to the Draft UN Mapping Report on the DRC. It is divided into five sections, all of which warrant reaction. I'll just make a few points as the Report is best read as a statement of the extent to which the RPF is losing international legitimacy.

Before going into some of the substance, I want to point out one consistent reaction from members of the Rwandan government. They do not deny that there its army killed civilians in the DRC, only that these killings do not constitute genocide. Indeed, the government's ineptitude at handling its response is uncharacteristic of its usual deft skill in "managing" bad press. It may be that so much negative yet accurate press has emerged in international sources the last year as the RPF cracks down on political opponents (both with its own party and outside challengers) human rights activists, journalists and other segments of civil society that there are serious cracks within the party machine. Time will tell.

There is a great deal in the government's rhetoric, both formally through the UN, and statements from government representatives in the regional and international media, that the fractures and fissures within the ruling RPF are becoming more apparent. At the same time, we see the lengths to which Kigali will go to defend its version of how the genocide happened, how the RPF stopped it and the successes of post-genocide reconstruction and reconciliation process.

I want to say too, that the RPF's emotive and excessive reaction to the UN Report seem to be the reaction of Kagame himself. He is known to be allergic to criticism while maintaining the moral authority of conviction (RPA were stopping genocide, not continuing it!) and insisting ad nauseum that his army was only doing what it had to do because of the inaction of the international community. I think the RPF's reaction is also reflective of a government that is losing its grip on power, and has little legitimacy among most Rwandans. The RPF is a party of factions, and only a few are reaping the benefits of power at the moment. This is the most worrying trend....

The Executive Summary of the Report says that its findings are unacceptable to the RPF, and that the allegations of mass murders are the result of the UN manipulating the true facts of the role of the RPF in eastern DRC. In particular, the Response notes that the publication of the Mapping Report might reignite conflict in Rwanda and in the Region. I think if any one actor is going to reignite conflict in the Region, it is the RPF itself.

The RPF's reaction to the historical context, and what happened during the 1994 genocide, are unoriginal. Anyone who has read Pottier (2002), Re-imaging Rwanda, particularly its chapter on how the RPF manages it public relations machinery will agree. The government has made similar assertions in public fora with interested audiences. It appears that the RPF is worried about losing face "in the court of public opinion" (para 5, p. 7). Yet its allegation that the UN leaked the Report out of spite (what it calls asymmetry) is false as it was a reporter with Le Monde that leaked the Report.

In the section The 1994 Rwandan Genocide is equally reactionary. First, there is sufficient empirical evidence to show that the RPA did not stop the genocide as early as it could of (para. 6, p. 7). Instead, it made calculated military moves to assure that it took power in Kigali while Tutsi (and Hutu and Twa) died. Two excellent books, Sibomana's Hope for Rwanda (1999) and Umutesi's Surviving the Slaughter (2004) provide sufficient counter-evidence to the RPF assertion that it directed all of its resources to stopping the genocide. Indeed, anyone aware of how the RPF acted in bad faith during the Arusha Accords will scoff as this section of the Response.

The section Mass Participation in the Genocide downplays the role of the RPF in helping to create the conditions for genocide. I want to make one thing clear. I do not buy into claims that have been circulating recently that the RPF organised the genocide. Instead, I take the argument of Straus (2006) in his The Order of Genocide that the civil war between the RPA and the FAR provided the necessary context of fear and insecurity that made the possibility of genocide by neighbours against neighbours possible, and indeed likely (as we now know with hindsight). I disagree with the assertion of the RPF that mostly young men committed acts of genocide. This is not a new assertion as the government's justice policy follows a logic of maximal prosecution (prosecution of all Hutu men of a particular age). This claim is, in my opinion, revisionist as it neglects the different motivations for killing as well as the strength of network and kinship ties in deciding who lived or died (Fujii, 2009, Webs of Violence).

The Response goes on for another 15 pages in which the RPF defends and justifies its actions in the DRC. I will end simply with this, the RPF doth protest too much.

The hierarchy of ethnicity

2010-10-02T10:46:00.009-04:00

So the UN Mapping Report was released yesterday. There has been a barrage of reaction, much of revealing of the political positions of the various actors, including "Hutu" politicians and activists and "Tutsi" politicians and survivor activists. These reactions are certainly valid but they don't tell the whole story. While none of us knows the whole story because of the nuanced complexities of the violence committed against and by various groups and individuals, I remain concerned about the continued and undifferentiated use of "Hutu" and "Tutsi" (among other categories). The use of ethnic language is reflective of a major conundrum within Rwandan politics in particular, and politics in the GLR more broadly. Speaking of Hutu- and Tutsi- deaths continues the politics of othering that feeds the culture of impunity in the Region.

What I mean is that I sense of lack of commitment to human rights for ALL individuals, regardless of ethnicity, in the discourse and rhetoric of politicians and activists of all stripes. In other words, I have yet to hear any of the key actors in Rwanda and Congo talk about the importance of stopping the killing of poor, peasant people who are caught between armed groups, and who, more often than not, are caught up the violence and related circumstances (hunger, disease, displacement, etc) that they themselves do not create.

Instead, the rhetoric and action of powerful actors and decision-makers in the region continues to scapegoat peace in the language of ethnicity. The UN mapping report reveals the extent to which the politics of ethnic hierarchy (meaning that the lives of some are more valuable that others on the basis of ethnicity, and dare I say it, social and economic status) continues to dominate in Rwanda and the GLR. The RPF is skilled at claim a post-ethnic society when it facts its use of the language of ethnic unity creates difference and division on the basis of ethnicity.

So, for me, the UN Mapping Report does not represent an explosive exposee of what the RPF and other actors did on Congolese soil against resident populations. Nor does it present an alternative narrative. For me, and I assume others how follow political developments in the region, knowledge of what is contained in the Report is widely known. I see the politics of genocide manipulation that the RPF has followed since assuming power. I also see the ways in which opponents of the RPF manipulate its manipulation of the genocide for their own political gain. I recognise that suppression of UN and other reports on the excesses of the RPF against ordinary people because of other suppressed documentation like the Gersony report from late 1994. (See the excellent article by French and Gettlemen on Rwanda's relationship with the UN and its ability to craft a specific narrative of the genocide).

The key question, for me at least, is what now? Will the shine come off RPF rule? Will the Report expose its excesses in Congo and Rwanda against its opponents (of all political stripes and ethnicities)? Will international actors begin to push Kigali to open up political space? If so, to what effect? Indeed, significant in Kigali's reaction to the Report are the thinly veiled threats of renewed violence against those who challenge its version of history about how it stopped the genocide and restored peace and security to Rwanda (see the remarks of both Kagame and Mushikiwabo). How far can international actors reasonably push Kagame before he begins to react against his opponents? The list of questions goes on...

I'd like to see the international community -- policy makers, academics, journalists, activists and other -- begin to push Kagame and his RPF to open up to criticism of its actions and policy. Take a carrots and sticks approach that includes discussion of respect for all in region, regardless of ethnicity.

Rwanda's real challenge

2010-08-09T21:21:00.004-04:00

As predicted by friends and foes alike, Paul Kagame has been re-elected by a landslide. This is no surprise as the opposition was silenced. Some critics assume that because Kagame and his RPF did not allow the opposition to register as formal political parties that the major crisis facing Rwanda is its weak political opposition. I have never thought this was a major consideration as there is very little chance of political power to pass democratically. The opposition is divided, has no meaningful or even distinct platform, and likely has little support among elites and peasant folks alike (we don't actually know because no one has asked Rwandans themselves what they think).

The real issue now that the elections are over is the undeniable emergence of a power struggle within the ruling RPF. This has not been reported upon in any meaningful way. Partly, I'm sure, because critical academics and journalists have yet to interview the main actors. We are working with newspaper interviews, and Kagame's reaction to these public offerings in campaign speeches and during his monthly meeting with journalists based in Kigali.

What we do know is that since the RPF took power in 1994, it has continued to consolidate power in its own hands. We don't know the political intentions or power base of those that have fallen out with Kagame.

Most significant is Kagame's sidelining of much of the RPFs military elite. These include several senior officers who were in the bush with Kagame, and who arguably had a role in forming the then-rebel RPF. These include, among others, General Sam Kaka and General Frank Rusagara. In 2001, General Kayumba Nyamwasa also fell out with Kagame, as well, and in 2005 the head of external intelligence Colonel Patrick Karegeya was arrested on allegations of insubordination.

This much is widely known. The divisions with the RPF came to a head when General Kayumba fled into exile in South Africa. In addition, two other generals (Karake and Muhire) were arrested, accused of masterminding the grenade attacks that happened in the spring. In sum, most of the senior RPF military brass from 1994 have fled into exile or have been arrested (a few have retired and have been relieved of their duties).

There are two possible explanations -- one from the government camp, and the other from the dissidents themselves. First, senior government officials are on the record saying that senior military officers have been pushed to the sidelines because they do not share Kagame's development vision. Senior bureaucrats, in keeping with the party line, explain the divisions as the result of the moral weakness of these generals. They are not interested in a peaceful, stable and secure Rwanda like Kagame; instead they are interested in only their own wealth and political power. This explanation is hardly rocket science to analysts as each of these generals have been marginalized on accusations of corruption, embezzlement or insubordination (to Kagame himself, I suppose).

The explanation from the dissidents is that their grievances are political. Kagame has consolidated power in his hands to such an extent that even a whisper of disagreement is considered treason. Both Nyamwasa and Karegeya say that Kagame is incapable of listening to their opinions.

The truth probably lies somewhere in between. One thing is more certain: the power struggle among the RPFs inner circle could signal the end of Kagame's reign. It would also like happen at the end of a gun rather than through the ballot box.

For those of that care about peace and security in Rwanda, the question now becomes does Kagame command the respect of his peers within the RPF? If he doesn't, under what conditions will Kagame begin to loosen his presumed grip on political power?

In addition, can those senior military officials that have fled the country mount a real threat to Kagame's power?

Kagame will win the elections. Then what?

2010-08-03T17:41:00.004-04:00

This post was originally published by the website Op-Ed News on 3 August 2010.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called upon Rwandan President Paul Kagame to investigate the politically motivated killings of opposition politicians and critical journalists in the run-up to the country's 9 August election. American Secretary of State Clinton recently encouraged the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front not to act against opposition politicians. These calls, however, are too little too late, as Kagame will handily win.

This raises the question of how international actors can work with the incumbent President knowing that he is a predator of political and press freedoms. It is now opportune for Western donors to revisit their support for Kagame as well as their role in Rwanda's reconstruction and reconciliation processes.

Rwanda's donors, including the US, the UK, the European Union and the UN, must continue to nudge the RPF towards a real democratic opening. This must include more than investigations to the RPFs pre-election campaign of intimidation and harassment of its opposition and calls for free and fair elections. Rwanda's donors must press Kagame to create space for national dialogue, meaning an open and safe space where Rwandans of all ethnicities and from all walks of life can meet to discuss what happened to whom during the genocide, and to strategize ways forward from the hurt of the past. The donor community must encourage Kagame to adopt inclusive policies that will create a common future of economic security and political stability for all Rwandans. Such a space could be framed in patriotic terms of being Rwandan -- rather than in the language of ethnic unity as is currently the case - as love of country is more salient for many of the Rwandans I've consulted over the years.

There are three things that western donors can do to encourage President Kagame to create a more open and peaceful political culture once he is re-elected.

First is to question the government's ability to manage Rwanda's natural resources -- its people and its land. The US State Department estimates that by 2020, Rwanda will be home to some 13 million people. This gives Rwanda the highest population density in Africa with 225 people per square mile. Some 90% of Rwandans seek out their existence as subsistence farmers and are the first to suffer when the central government is unable to respond to their daily needs. The government requires rural farmers to grow coffee and tea instead of the crops needed to feed their families. A new land policy has decreased peasant holdings to less than a half-acre. The RPF does not allow peasant farmers to voice their concerns with its agriculture and the inequitable distribution of land into the hands of government loyalists.

There is no room for debate on appropriate technologies to build sustainable agriculture in the country. An underfed and disaffected local population is hardly the way forward to sustainable peace and democracy. Donors must continue to work with the RPF to ensure their agriculture and land policies are aimed at developing long-term peace and security, not quick gains for party loyalists.

Second is to encourage open dialogue and a culture of constructive criticism and debate about government policies amongst the political class. Foreigners write most of the academic and policy literature on Rwanda. Why? Because Kagame does not allow for thoughtful analysis that strays from the RPF's official rhetoric that only Tutsi died during the 1994 genocide. This may appear counter-intuitive to those donors who have visited Rwanda's universities -- indeed they are flourishing thanks to foreign aid dollars. Donors can use their already existing relationship with Rwanda's Ministry of Education and other institutions of higher learning to sponsor intellectuals whose ideas differ from those of the government as a way to spur openness and dialogue.

Third is to encourage Kagame to engage the diverse political views of the Rwandan Diaspora. This is not to suggest that he engage the extremist views of those that advocate the thesis that the RPF organized and implemented the genocide and other negative views. Instead, he needs to acknowledge that such negative opinion exists along side with the positive involvement of the Diaspora in Rwanda's economic development. Because the Diaspora contributed almost $130 million to Rwanda's economy in 2008 (second only to tourist receipts), Western donors have failed to seriously push Kagame to engage dissident opinion within the Diaspora. Fueled by the internet, sincere dissidents who criticize RPF policy exist alongside political extremists such as the FDLR (Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda) rebel group, making it easy for Kagame to justify not including them in the Rwandan political sphere. Western donors must encourage Kagame to engage with all sectors of the Diaspora, good and bad, as part of the broader strategy of political openness and dialogue.

Paul Kagame will be Rwanda's next President. Now is the time to reassess donor policy in the country to push for meaningful democratic.

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Push for Political Openness in Rwanda

Whither International Responsibility in Rwanda?

2010-07-31T11:28:00.002-04:00

(This post is written by a colleague, and she asked me to post it here.)

Slightly under two years ago, an expert roundtable was convened by the International Peace Institute, the UN Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, and InterAfrica Group to revitalise the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Prevention of Genocide in Africa. R2P is an ambitious set of principles that aims to prevent genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. It came about after the 1994 genocide in Rwanda once it was clear the international community failed so tremendously in adhering to the ideal of “never again” that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan asked: when do we become responsible?

It seems as if we still don’t know the answer.

This past April, as Rwanda commemorated 16 years since approximately 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were murdered in less than 100 days, the Special Adviser with a focus on R2P restated the world’s commitment to preventing mass atrocity. Speaking on behalf of current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, he said: “We can and must do better in the 21st century... Complacency is our enemy, and vigilance our friend”. Yet a cursory look at the lead-in to Rwanda’s upcoming presidential elections indicates that just as in 1994, with tensions climbing and violence on the rise, the international community is choosing to look the other way.

In Rwanda, survivors and perpetrators of genocide comprise the majority of the population. Ethnicity remains deeply politicized and ethnic conflict is a living memory. However, since the last presidential elections in 2003, people have been required to eliminate public forms and expressions of ethnic identification. The RPF government, which controls most state institutions, has prohibited claims for ethnic representation in politics, education, and the economic sector in the name of preventing “divisionism” and “genocide ideology.” Those who criticize or question the government’s policies are arrested, killed or disappeared. President Kagame and the RPF regime justify such actions as necessary for preventing another genocide, but what sort of peace is built on a foundation of repression? If Rwanda’s history indicates anything, it is that long-simmering inequalities do not go away on their own; rather, they burn at slow pace until the cauldron bursts and violence erupts.

Many praise Rwanda for its social and developmental achievements without recognizing that the proceeds of economic gain are largely serving to further the interests of Kagame’s elite, English-speaking Tutsi minority, most of who grew up in neighboring Uganda. Secretary Clinton described Rwanda as “a beacon of hope for other African nations” and Philip Gourevitch, in a recent New Yorker article, wrote that in Rwanda, “The reconciliation defies expectations.” Further, in the last two years, President Kagame has been named one of Financial Times’ 50 greatest leaders of the past decade, a Time Magazine Man of the Year, winner of the Clinton Global Citizens Award for Leadership in Public Service, and winner of the International Medal of Peace. Rwanda was the World Bank’s top reformer of 2009 and was accepted in to the Commonwealth last November.

How is it that diplomats and journalists alike are continuing to ignore the tragic realities of life for the average Rwandan? While Kigali is gleaming, 90 percent of the population is mired in poverty; mostly these are Hutu, but Tutsi not connected to the RPF regime suffer tremendously as well. However, to challenge a system that perpetuates such inequalities means almost-certain imprisonment, if not death. Rwanda, following closely behind the US and Russia, has the third largest incarceration rate in the world. Where is our vigilance? When will we speak out for those who unable to speak for themselves?

It is clear that violence is increasing as we near this summer’s elections: in the last month alone, there was an attempted assassination of Lt General Nyamwasa in South Africa who, along with several other senior military officials, had fled Rwanda after disagreements with President Kagame. Almost immediately afterward, the newspaper editor who called for an investigation in to the General’s death was gunned down in front of his home in Kigali. Another editor in Rwanda was arrested on charges of defaming the president and espousing genocide ideology one week later.

Yet the voices quashed are not just those of the Rwandan media: A Human Rights Watch researcher was recently expelled, American law professor Peter Erlinder was arrested in May while preparing a case for charges of genocide denial against opposition presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire, and she herself, in addition to other serious contenders for president and their supporters, was charged with genocide ideology and banned from registering her candidacy. Two weeks ago, Green Party candidate Andre Kagwa Rwisereka was found nearly decapitated in South Rwanda, his body dumped on the side of the road. Still Kagame, with US and UN support, maintains that the story of Rwanda since the genocide is one of success and prosperity.

Whither our responsibility?

Certainly, there is no easy solution; it would be wrong for the US and UN to push open the doors of democracy and force Rwanda to hold free and fair elections. It is also too late to even try; such an act would be dangerous not only for American interests in East Africa (a whole other quagmire) but for average Rwandans who continue to suffer under a regime that manipulates the worst of its history to further oppression in the present. We should not, however, stand idly by, either. Those who care about “never again” should at least begin by advocating for political dialogue in Rwanda, pressing for open economic opportunities, and supporting freedom of speech and conscience in a country where talking politics in a way the government does not approve means that your life is at risk. Indeed, if we are not vigilant about our responsibility to protect, another round of mass political violence in Rwanda will be the shame of us all.

To get involved in this important issue, contact the office of Senator Russ Feingold, chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs (http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html).

Collateral Damage: First published in the Mail & Guardian

2010-07-20T14:14:00.001-04:00

Rwandans will soon go to the polls to elect a president. The incumbent, Paul Kagame, head of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, continues to exert total control over the country's election process.

Kagame, who came to power as the leader of a rebel army, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), that ended the 1994 genocide, legitimised his rule in 2003 when he won the presidential elections with 95% of the vote. Anywhere else in Africa, and indeed the world, such a result would indicate that Kagame was hardly elected in free and fair elections. Despite the fact that Amnesty International, the European Union, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations found serious irregularities and widespread oppression in the elections, Kagame won praise from major donors such as the United States and the United Kingdom for his thoughtful and benevolent leadership of Rwanda's rebirth as a model recipient of international aid.

In advance of the upcoming presidential elections, many within the international community have remained supportive of Rwanda's so-called "democratic transition". They seem to ignore the widespread arrests of journalists and opposition politicians, the closing of independent Rwandan newspapers, ejection of a Human Rights Watch researcher, an assassination attempt against exiled General Kayumba Nyamasa who had a falling out with Kagame, and the killing of journalist Jean-Leonard Rugambage who attempted to report on the assassination attempt in the online version of a Rwandan newspaper whose print edition had been closed down by the government.

'No government is perfect'
While diplomats and policymakers from some countries, like Sweden and The Netherlands, have cut their aid, others like the United States and the United Kingdom continue to publicly support Kagame. As an American diplomat currently based in Kigali said, "Of course this government is not perfect. But no government is. The position of many in the diplomatic corps is to gently nudge the RPF towards democracy." In other words, key donors like the US and the UK view the continued harassment and intimidation of political opponents and critical journalists as par for the course in the transition from civil war and genocide to democracy.

While diplomats quietly acknowledge this repression of elites, there is no public acknowledgement of the impact of the elections on average Rwandans.

In Rwanda, politics is the preserve of elite actors, who represent about 10% of the population. Average Rwandans such as rural farmers, teachers, nurses, low level civil servants, traders, or soldiers who make up the remaining 90% of the population have virtually no say in politics. In November 2009 a group of rural farmers resident in southern Rwanda sought to register a new political party to put forward their own presidential candidate. Several of them were arrested without charge, and the presumed organisers remain in prison; the rest fled to neighbouring Burundi. Indeed, average Rwandans are the first to suffer when elites use all available tactics to gain political power. As the Swahili proverb goes, "When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers".

Silencing critical voices
A climate of fear and insecurity predominates in the everyday life of average Rwandans. Anyone who questions RPF policies or its treatment of its opposition and critics can be beaten, harrassed or intimidated into submission. Those who are perceived as sympathetic to the political opposition can be arrested, "disappeared", or like Rugambage, murdered. The number of political prisoners as well as those who have disappeared is unknown. Human Rights Watch reports that repression of political freedoms in a strategy of the RPF to "silence critical voices and independent reporting before the elections".

The strategy of repression means that none of the three main opposition parties -- Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, FDU-Inkingi and PS-Imberakuri -- are able to take part in the elections. Distant family members of opposition politicians and critical journalists find themselves under constant surveillance. As a result, the vast majority of the population waits silently and anxiously for the elections, hoping that they are perceived as model citizens so as to avoid attracting unwanted attention from government loyalists.

Rwandans are more than skeptical about the government's commitment to democracy. They recognise the upcoming presidential elections as a form of social control to ensure they vote for the right party (meaning Kagame's RPF). As an aide to the minister of local government said, "In 2010, the people will also vote as we instruct them. This means that those who vote against us understand that they can be left behind. To embrace democracy is to embrace the development ideas of President Kagame".

Average Rwandans interpret democracy as a form of repression. A male university student told me, "Oh, we understand that voting is not something done freely. Since the middle of 2009, students are told to take an oath of loyalty to the RPF. This means that we have to join the RPF -- if we don't we don't have any opportunities to get a job or get married or have any kind of life really. In Rwanda, democracy means to understand that the power of the RPF is absolute." A rural woman who lost her husband in the 1994 genocide told me a similar tale, "Democracy is something the government says we need when they fear losing their power. We heard this before the genocide, and we hear it now. Democracy would be OK if regular people like me could actually participate rather than being told whom to vote for and when."

For average Rwandans, democracy is the domain of the elite, who intimidate and harass the rural population into parroting the so-called democratic ideals of the RPF. This democracy is an alienating and oppressive daily reality -- something which could crystallise into violence in early August 2010 when Rwandans go to the polls again. The words of a Rwandan colleague are emblematic, "Anyone who has the means to do so is getting out of the country. For those of us who can't , we just hope the elections are without violence. When the government can imprison or kill anyone they please, we are all nervous because it means none of us is safe ...".

Susan Thomson is a Five Colleges Professor, funded by the Andrew W Mellon Foundation at Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts. She has been researching state-society relations in Rwanda since 1996 and is the author of numerous publications on the country.

Rwanda's Sham Elections: First published in The Mark

2010-07-15T09:29:00.002-04:00

As voting time approaches, President Paul Kagame's RPF continues to practise zero-sum politics that could lead to more political violence.

(Co-authored by a Rwandan academic based in the U.S. who survived the 1994 genocide and wishes to remain anonymous. The authors of this piece run the blog The Cry for Freedom in Rwanda.)

For many western observers – Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and Bill Gates among them – Rwanda’s economic growth is the foundation of its democratic transition. Yet, as Rwandans head to the polls next month to elect a president, Paul Kagame’s ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has perverted the very democratic ideals it claims to uphold.

Kagame’s RPF emerged victorious from and gained credit for ending the 1994 genocide in which ethnic Hutu killed at least 500,000 ethnic Tutsi. Foreign leaders, feeling guilty for not having done enough to end the genocide or for having a direct role in the massacres, pumped money into Rwanda in the hope of rebuilding a new society – a society free from ethnic division. From ashes, the Rwandan people quickly started showing signs of recovery. Still, the RPF continues to practice zero-sum politics that could return the country to the abyss of 1994.

Over the last 16 years, the RPF has centralized power into a one-man dictatorship. A tiny English-speaking Tutsi elite, most of whom grew up as refugees in neighbouring Uganda, surrounds the dictator, Paul Kagame. The politics of exclusion that marked the pre-genocide years remains intact despite the official policy of ethnic unity. The Hutu community, making up some 85 per cent of the population, is largely excluded from most positions of power. Even more insulting, politics, business, and the civil service are all dominated by military personnel or former members of the RPF.

In advance of the upcoming presidential elections, many “friends” of Rwanda have remained supportive of its so-called “democratic transition.” They ignore the repeated arrests of journalists and opposition politicians, the closing of independent local newspapers, the ejection of a Human Rights Watch researcher, an assassination attempt against exiled general Kayumba Nyamasa, who fell out with President Kagame earlier this year, the murder of journalist Jean-Leonard Rugambage, who attempted to report on Nyamasa’s assassination attempt in the online version of a Rwandan newspaper the print edition of which the government closed down, and the murder of Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, vice-president of the opposition Democratic Green party. While diplomats from some countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, have cut their aid, the U.S. and the U.K. continue to publicly support Kagame. Canada’s position is vague as it encourages Rwanda to adopt policies that promote a pluralist society.

Under the watch of a sympathetic and supportive international community, Kagame has done everything within his power to ensure that the August elections consolidate his political power.

First, he appointed all the members of the National Electoral Commission, staffing it with former and current members of the RPF. Although members of the political opposition have protested, Kagame shows no sign of accepting reform. Such an arrangement will make it possible for him to manipulate, rig, and control the elections.

Second, the RPF revised the constitution in 2003. Many of its provisions endanger democracy. The most damning is the ill-defined law on genocide ideology. Its official purpose is to identify individuals who wish to kill ethnic Tutsi. In practice, the law is invoked against political opponents or critics of the government who question its reconstruction or reconciliation policies or who suggest that the RPF committed war crimes before, during, and after the genocide. Instead of erasing the ethnic hatred that the RPF believes lives in the hearts and minds of some Rwandans, the genocide ideology law is crystallizing dissent among some sections of the military while weakening the opposition and journalists who criticize the government’s application of the law.

Lastly, Kagame abolished real opposition and manufactured a shadow opposition that serves only to sing the praises of the RPF. This “opposition” is active only during election season and is otherwise unknown to the general public. None of the three actual opposition parties – the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, FDU-Inkingi, and PS-Imberakuri – can take part in the elections because their respective leaders are either in prison or banned from registering their candidates on allegations of harbouring genocide ideology.

While much of the diplomatic community acknowledges these democratic shortcomings, most western donors continue to highlight Rwanda’s economic growth as the necessary stimulant to inch the country towards democracy. What these actors overlook is the fact that the benefits of economic growth accrue largely to urban elites. The post-genocide policies of the RPF neglect the rural peasantry, which comprise 90 per cent of the population.

The international community widely praises Kagame’s liberal economic policies without due regard to the restrictions they have placed on what peasants produce and how they sell it. The government requires rural farmers to grow coffee and tea instead of the crops needed to feed their families. A new land policy has decreased peasant holdings to less than a half-acre. This means that few families are able to grow enough to subsist, let alone take any excess to market. The United Nations Development Programme reported in 2008 that Rwanda’s Gini coefficient has increased since the RPF came to office, and that the socio-economic disparity had increased from its 1990 levels. As one rural farmer in Northern Province lamented, “If the RPF doesn’t allow us to trade freely, we will join the FDLR rebel group … otherwise, how will we feed our children?”

The suppression of democratic ideals under President Kagame cannot guarantee continued economic growth in Rwanda. The latest attacks on basic human freedoms could be but the tip of the iceberg. Before Rwandans go to the polls next month, western friends of Rwanda – the diplomats, policy-makers and academics that extol the country's democratic virtues – must press for meaningful democratic change by encouraging free speech and political dialogue with a viable opposition. Without meaningful change, the country could be headed for another round of mass political violence.

Antoine: "The regime does not tolerate anyone who honours the Hutu killed by the RPF"

2010-07-13T15:19:00.003-04:00

Antoine’s story is emblematic of many Rwandans who have fled the country since the 1994 genocide. An educated and thoughtful man, he studied at the National University of Rwanda in the late 1990s. A Tutsi survivor of the genocide, Antoine embraced the ethnic unity that is the basis of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front’s reconciliation policy. He fell in love with Claire, a Hutu woman that he met during his studies.

Group fear shapes individual choice
Many of Antoine’s Tutsi relatives and friends did support his intended marriage to Claire. Her father was a prominent diplomat during the Habyarimana regime. Antoine’s relatives recognized because of his ranking position in the genocidal regime of Habyrimana that Claire’s father could very well be one of the organizers of the 1994 genocide. Claire’s family also had their doubts that she could marry into a Tutsi family, now that the current government, the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), seeks to limit the participation of ethnic Hutu in government and civil society circles. Claire’s father was executed by the Rwandan military in July 1994? And her family did not want her to marry into a band of killers.

Allegations of minimising the genocide
Despite the opposition of family, Antoine and Claire married in Rwanda in 2003. Four years after, Antoine went to start his Master’s degree in North America, leaving Claire behind. In 2008, Claire’s family organized a prayer vigil to honour her father. Agents from the government’s Department of Military Intelligence (DMI) knew of the vigil, and detained Claire for more than six hours at a police station in Kigali. DMI interpreted the vigil as a sign that her Hutu family was minimising the genocide because, lamented Antoine, "the regime does not tolerate anyone who honours the Hutu killed by the RPF". Indeed, the RPF does not recognize have deliberately killed the Hutu. A foreign journalist friend of Claire’s family also attended the vigil. When DMI agents learned of this, they accused Claire of inviting the journalist to spread the false truth about the RPF in foreign papers. She was ordered to stop interacting with the journalist; if she did not, she would be arrested.

Move to exile
Shortly after DMI agents visited Claire, Antoine mobilized to bring his family in North-America where they have applied for asylum.

"Am I not a survivor of some kind too?"

2010-07-11T11:49:00.001-04:00

“When the genocide started, we all ran for our lives. We [peasants] didn’t know that Tutsis were the ones getting killed until the second night. Because we all feared government militias, I helped my Tutsi family and friends hide before returning to my village. That is one thing this new government doesn’t recognize; that all Hutu did not kill. Some of us even lost our lives trying to save Tutsi…!”

Joseph has been in prison since July 2001 when his neighbour accused him of committing acts of genocide against Tutsi in 1994. He proclaims his innocence, saying that he was wrongly accused because of his land holdings. Since the genocide, Joseph has worked hard to rebuild his life and livelihood. His Tutsi wife and three of their six children were killed shortly after the genocide began in April 1994. Since September 1996 when he was able to begin working his almost one acre of land, Joseph has lived with the suspicions of individuals who returned to Rwanda after the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) stopped the genocide in July 1994.

Many newly arrived returnees sought to occupy homes and land that had been abandoned during the genocide. Joseph did not abandon his land, choosing to hide out in Rwanda instead of following most of his countrymen into neighbouring Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo). Joseph says bluntly, “Any hardworking or honest Hutu runs the risk of being denounced as some one who killed during the genocide? Why? Because we might say that this government is not as peace loving as it says it is. To be Rwandan is to be quiet. To be Hutu is to be invisible. This is the new Rwanda….”

The “New” Rwanda
Since taking office in July 1994, the ruling RPF has instituted a variety of policies to eliminate the ethnic hatred that Hutu have for Tutsi. In creating one Rwanda for all Rwandans, a new Rwandan citizenship will be created. According to the government, an ethnically unified Rwanda is the key to sustaining present and future peace and is the foundation of democracy in the country.

“Not all Hutu killed”
A key RPF mechanism to ensure that Hutu reconcile with Tutsi is the policy of national unity and reconciliation. Hutu are encouraged to tell the truth of what they did during the genocide, and Tutsi to forgive and forget what happened to them during the genocide. For men like Joseph, who shared their lives with Tutsi friends and family, the official policy of truth telling means that the government does not recognize the different types of killing that took place during the genocide. The official and only acceptable version of events is that Hutu killed, and Tutsi died. Joseph says, “It is almost like this government doesn’t want any Hutu to declare themselves Rwandan! If you are in prison, you cannot participate in life. You lose your family and your land. But I did not kill, even though I stand accused of killing Tutsi from my community. When I saw my wife die, I ran with my remaining kids into the hills. We hid until it was safe to come out. Am I not a survivor of some kind, too? But we are not allowed to talk about that. There is no discussing Hutu who saved Tutsi. Not all of us killed. Some did, some didn’t . That is what war is like….”

Hutu need recognition too
Because Joseph is in prison, he feels comfortable speaking out about the lack of official government recognition for Hutu survivors of the genocide. Yet, as he speaks, the heaviness in his heart is palpable. His shoulders are rounded in a posture of defeat. He fears for his sons, who he has not seen since being arrested in 2001. He laments, “How is it justice for a peasant like me to rot in this prison? Okay, I did not survive genocide like the government says because I am not Tutsi. I acknowledge this. But did I not risk my life to save my family. I live with the knowledge that my wife and daughters died before my eyes. Now my sons are living as orphans because I am guilty of what? Not telling my truth? I told the government my truth but it was not recognized as true. I will rot the rest of my days in this prison.”

“Besides being hungry, survivors like me feel empty inside”

2010-07-05T21:36:00.003-04:00

In the past week or so, I have been thinking a lot about the stories that are missing from our current knowledge on Rwanda's election process. What is missing are the voices of average, everyday Rwandans, and the impact of the increasingly tense political climate in Rwanda at the moment.

So, I am going to start writing the stories of average Rwandans and how they are weathering the elections process. I am also working on a few opinion pieces to begin to spread the word among western audiences about daily realities in Rwanda at the moment. There is more going on than a few arrests and the odd assassination as the country prepares to go to the polls....

If you have stories you would like to share, please email me and I will try to raise awareness with international organisations and journalists.

“Besides being hungry, survivors like me feel empty inside”

Jeanne is a Tutsi widow of the 1994 Rwandan genocide whose Hutu husband died in 1996 of disease in the refugee camps in neighbouring Zaire. All of her children also died in late 1994, after the genocide officially ended. She works part-time as a seamstress and is able to barter with friends and neighbours for food and shelter. “I am too old to work the fields but have made arrangements that seem to be working out well enough”. Jeanne does not think democracy is possible among Rwandans who lived through the genocide: “This government doesn’t understand how those of us who hid to survive suffer everyday. Besides being hungry, survivors like me feel empty inside. There is little hope for us. We have seen too much to ever recover….”

Jeanne recounts the adversity see faces in her daily life since the genocide. Before 1994, she and her family lived a relatively simple existence. Everyday activities were centred on weekly trips to market to earn enough money to send her children to school. The government did not interfere much in her daily life. She says, “I was free to plant what I needed to take care of my family and raise some extra money. My husband drove a taxi-motorbike. Together, we had a nice life together; we did not get involved in politics. But since the genocide, everything is political. If your hearts and stomachs are empty, then that is politics.”

Jeanne suffers more than the emotional and physical loss of her family, friends and relatives. She suffers the demands of being forced to forgive and forget what she experienced during the genocide. “This government only cares about itself; we survivors are a burden to them. They promise assistance but it never arrives. Survivors are walking dead. On top of this, we are expected to forgive those who killed? Someone needs to wake up this government….”

Not easy to complain
Jeanne considers herself an old woman, and is comfortable speaking to local officials and other government authorities. She says, “it not easy to complain because I sometimes get harassed or put in prison for my views. But I am an old woman and I need to speak against this government’s forgive and forget rule so that the next generation doesn’t suffer like we did. I speak out despite the hardships because who else can?”

Survivors “don’t matter”
Many survivors feel that the government has manipulated their experiences of surviving the genocide for its own political gain. The feeling among rural peasants and educated urbanites alike is that ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front presents itself to international audiences as the saviours and guardians of Tutsi survivors, only to then turn around and implement policy that leaves survivors economically marginal and emotionally traumatized. “This government doesn’t care what happens to survivors. They say they stopped the genocide to save Tutsi lives. Then they say that we can’t talk about our experience of living through the genocide. Many of us were raped; many of us lost our relatives. Many of us have no family to take care of us as we age. We don’t matter to this government.”

Please help raise awareness about the political situation in Rwanda

2010-06-27T21:31:00.003-04:00

As many of you likely already know, Rwanda is holding Presidential elections this August. In the run up to the elections, the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, has done everything in its power to suppress the opposition. The situation is very tense. And is growing more tense by the day as dissent within the military increases, and the government opts for assassination as a viable option to control its opposition and critics. Of course, as the Swahili proverb goes, "When the elephants fight, it is the grass the suffers...", meaning of course that ordinary people are caught in the crossfire.

There are some very easy and powerful things you can do to raise awareness about the likelihood of election-related violence in Rwanda.

1. Call your Member of Parliament (Canada) or your Senator (America) to tell them you are concerned about reports of violent repression in Rwanda. Simply google your "Member of Parliament" and your city of residence in Canada and just the name of your state in the US. You'll get direct numbers and email addresses there. In Canada, call Paul Dewer's office, as he is the head of the All-Parliamentary Committee on the Prevention of Genocide (613-946-8682 or dewarp@parl.gc.ca); or call the office of Senator Dallaire (613-995-4191 or 1-800-267-7362 or dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca). In the US, contact the office of Senator Russ Feingold, chairman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs (http://feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html).

2. Worried that you don't know enough about the political situation in Rwanda to call? If so, call anyway and ask your representative what the policy of her/her office on Rwandans upcoming elections is. If you think a simple phone call is not effective, public policy scholars have found that in Canada that politicians equate one phone call from a concerned citizen with the opinions of at least 250 constituents. In the US, similar studies show that elected officials consider one phone call to equate the viewpoint of as many as 750 constituents. So your phone call could indeed make a difference!

3. Get talking about politics in Rwanda. You can easily educate yourself with online resources like the Rwanda page on the BBC Africa homepage. Write letters to the editor, blog, repost this message on your facebook page. Watch Hotel Rwanda with your friends. Do something!

4. Share the idea of raising awareness with your networks and with journalists. We all know people who care about social justice issues both at home and abroad. Stand up and let folks in your network know that this is a pressing issue.

5. Still have questions? Get in touch with researchers like me (susanm.thomson@gmail.com; 413.835.0156). I will share all my knowledge with you, and can put you in touch with other academics, human rights advocates, and other like-minded individuals who can share their thoughts and opinions on the current situation.

Please consider acting on this important issue. Studies have shown that one of the main reasons that the international community did not intervene early enough to stop the Rwandan genocide of 1994 was the lack of alarm. The issues simply did not matter to enough Westerners for their governments to act....

Plus ca change: Advocating for Rwanda

2010-06-25T10:40:00.006-04:00

Oh my, it has been an intense few weeks in Rwandan politics. The attempted assassination of Gen. Nyamwasa, the murder of Jean Leonard Rugambage (acting editor of Umuvugizi newspaper), the continued detention, harassment and intimidation of the political opposition and critics of the government, including dissent within the military. It is equally tense in the countryside as government policy has led to an increase of almost 30% in the cost of staple foods, the short rains were too short, and the government continues to deploy its security personnel to all corners of the country to ensure that peasants "vote for the right party".

There are parallels with the pre-genocide period -- the elimination of opposition and opponents, harassment and intimidation of elites and peasants alike, and the constant threat of loss of life. A key difference is that the violence of the pre-genocide period took place in the broader context of civil war. The key similarity is that the violence is driven by elites in pursuit of political power.

All this raises the question of what can we do to raise the alarm about what is going on in Rwanda right now. Some positives have emerged. For better or for worse, the assassination attempt of Gen. Nyamwasa in South Africa has not only focused attention on Rwanda right now. Prominent publications like the New York Times, the Huffington Post, the Globe and Mail and the Guardian have begun to publish critical pieces on Rwanda. In addition, American attorney Peter Erlinder has been released from custody in Rwanda, and I hope that his story will slink into the background. His story is a perfect example of raising the wrong kind of attention about Rwanda. His is a story that feeds into Western assumptions about politics in African countries like Rwanda as ethnically motivated and grounded in atavistic hatreds rather than complex and nuanced calculations to gain, or maintain, political power (and all the spoils that go with it....)

So what can people like you and me, who care about Rwanda, and Rwandans from all walks of life? My position has always been, no more loss of life in Rwanda, and the GLR, by any party. One's ethnicity, social status or economic class must not determine the value of one's life. I want to push Rwandan society to a place where ethnic politics no longer determine one's lost in life....

First, consider all sides of the story. Get educated. Mis- and Dis-information has long characterised political life in Rwanda (as is the case in all authoritarian states...). It is easy to make emotional pleas that pass as analysis.

Second, talk to as many people as possible about what is going on in Rwanda. We need to make more people care about what goes on in a tiny central African country. There is more to Rwanda than the politics of Kagame and his crew. There are peasant people who live their lives in chronic adversity that should feature in our analysis and commentary, but rarely do. Bringing in their voices not only provides a human face to what is going on in Rwanda, it shifts the analysis away from power politics to human lives. Both narratives are important, but elite politics must not sublimate peasant realities.

Third, call your political representative and tell them about your concern about current events in Rwanda. Tell them to get involved and active at the level of policy. Lobby and educate as many decision-makers as you can.

Fourth, if you are so inclined, write. Open debate and dialogue. Share your concerns and analysis with a broader audience.

The Erlinder case, con'td.

2010-06-07T18:11:00.003-04:00

The case of detained American Peter Erlinder continues to muddle the real issues in Rwanda. (See this representative article). While Western supporters have come to his aid and succour, the remains the very real issue of what will become of the Rwandan opposition when his case is resolved and he leaves the country.

Does anyone have any information on Ingabire's decision to hire Erlinder to defend her? He is far from the best choice given the political dynamic in Rwanda. Surely she is more politically astute than this? Aligning herself with someone who believes that the RPF organised and implemented the genocide belittles her broader (and significant) argument that Rwandans of all ethnicities were killed in 1994.

Oh, and the argument of Erlinder's supporters that, as an American citizen, he should be released because of the amount American donor aid to Rwanda smacks of more than colonialism (something that feeds into the RPF government's narrative about sovereignty). It also suggests that Erlinder's life is worth more because he is American. Rwandans deserve better than that.

Erlinder detention

2010-06-02T18:35:00.003-04:00

The recent arrest and detention of Peter Erlinder provides important insight on how the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front will run the August elections.

While I don't believe much of what Erlinder writes (his work is decontextualised and comes off as agenda-driven), it is a travesty of justice and democratic ideals to allow him to be imprisoned. It is also not a unique situation; Rwandans from all walks of life are treated in the same way on a regular basis. The message is the same: do not mess with the official narrative of the RPF as arbiters of peace, security and justice in Rwanda and the GLR.

THe US, the UN, the EU and others that care about peace for all must condemn the arrest. If someone of Erlinder's status and privilege can be arrested, imagine how it must be for regular people resident in Rwanda and subject on a daily basis to its oppressive policies and politics.

While I have never met Erlinder I also don't believe government allegations that he tried to commit suicide. This is a long-standing tradition within the RPF to discredit its opponents and silence dissent. It targets individuals (witness the recent HRW expulsion) then works to discredit them through various personal attacks. Mental illness, trauma, sexual immorality, etc. This is likely what they are doing in this case. It must stop; hopefully, Erlinder will be released soon and his arrest will highlight to international audiences the deep-rooted authoritarianism of the current Rwandan government.

Nyamasa speaks

2010-05-30T07:13:00.002-04:00

No surprises in this article in Uganda's The Monitor.

But you can't get blood from a stone

2010-05-27T19:04:00.005-04:00

In advance of August's presidential elections, the ruling RPF is bragging about its fiscal and monetary policy. One of the key factors that keeps international donors giving the necessary funds to keep Rwanda moving economically forward is the government's management of the economy. (Note however there are few critical voices. Witness this recent policy statement from the US Department of State).

This recent posting from Allafrica.com on the further decentralisation of the Rwandan Revenue Authority begs the question, how do you get blood from a stone?

Most Rwandans are more poor under the leadership of the RPF. True, Kigali gleams with new buildings, shiny streets and internet cafes. But some 87% of Rwandans are peasants. They own less land than they did before the genocide because of new agricultural and land policies put in place in the name of economic growth. Starvation is up, even as Rwanda reports bump crops. Bumper crops of coffee and tea do not feed people! The same people that the RPF bases its legitimacy upon and who are being told (in sensitisation speeches, radio announcements and presidential pronouncements) "to vote for the right ones this time".

Democracy without a citizenry is not democracy at all....

settling into a democratic culture?

2010-05-17T22:14:00.007-04:00

In 1998, noted historian of the Great Lakes Region, Gerard Prunier wrote that by 1993 Rwanda had "settled into a war culture" (p. 108). Prunier means that violence became the accepted way of doing politics in the run-up to the 1994 genocide. (Prunier was writing in reaction to the failed implementation of the Arusha Accords by Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), Habyarimana's National Revolutionary Development Movement (Mouvement Revolutionaire National pour le Developpement, MRND) and the internal political opposition made up of newly created political parties).

I think Prunier's words remain timely with the recent grenade attacks in Kigali (one or two dead and at least 18 injured, depending on which news source you consult). The ruling RPF has argued in The Huffington Post, in an article by Presidential advisor Jean-Paul Kimonyo, that Rwanda is not yet ready for democracy. Kimonyo furthered his argument in a 12 May article asking Who Qualifies to Judge Rwanda?.

This time, President Kagame has no senior military officials to blame; they've fled the country. Why? We don't actually know. No one is speaking out in a meaningful way.

As for the current and still only potential opposition, I don't believe that Victoire Ingabire is a serious threat to Kagame, so he has no real reason to continue arresting and harassing here. I believe that Kagame is projecting onto the current opposition what his RPF (and other political actors) did before the genocide. Use the cover the politics to foment violence. Political authorities loyal to Habyarimana organised rallies and sensitisation meetings to convince ordinary Rwandans to remain loyal to the political "family" (the ruling MRND). The RPF has done the same, asserting an oath-of-oneness that adherents are forced to swear on a sword. Those that do not uphold their loyalty to the RPF "family" can die by that same sword.

Such actions are first steps towards creating a democratic deficit rather and a culture of war that normalises violence in everyday life. We already know that this has led to mass violence and genocide in Rwanda.

Presidential results announced before the vote?

2010-05-04T13:34:00.002-04:00

A reader of this blog sent me this morning a government of Rwanda publication on the electoral schedule for rolling out the vote.

Note that the results of the election are scheduled to be announced prior to the vote ...!

A misprint, or not?

Global Integrity is looking for critical voices in Rwanda

2010-05-04T12:30:00.003-04:00

Last year, I worked with Global Integrity on its 2009 country report for Rwanda.

They are now asking for the names of academics, journalists and other stakeholders in the fight against corruption in Rwanda for a May 2010 meeting with Rwanda's Governance Advisory Council. You can learn more about their workshops at: http://commons.wikispaces.com/

I question the timing of the workshop, and the implicit support it provides to the government when it should be disciplined for its continued (and heightened) repression. Nonetheless, it is still going to happen.

Can anyone recommend interested and critical voices that would be willing to attend such a workshop in Kigali? Given that the government is allergic to criticism and any academic, journalist, etc that you would like to talk to is likely living abroad.

I ask anyway, in hopes that some "ibipinga" might step forward!

It's not oppression, it's the rules!

2010-05-04T12:18:00.004-04:00

I am increasingly worried about the type of information that is flowing out of the mouths of Rwandan political elites these days. This recent East African piece from the former Minister of Information and current Minister of Foreign Affairs, Louise Mushikiwabo, is emblematic of government spin-doctoring on its oppressive behaviour. Academics, journalists and others who care about peace in Rwanda and the region need to challenge the misinformation of the government in advance of the August elections.

I would provide my views on the attached article as anyone who reads this blog (or my academic work) that the piece is absurd. Read it for yourself and let me know what you think. Perhaps we can have a dialogue on that....

I would much rather hear from Nyamwasa and others who recently fled (quit?) their senior military posts.

I also wish I had time to survey Kagame's speeches from 1999 until present more closely. My sense is that the rhetoric is hardening subtlety and creatively over time. Does anyone have a student or colleague working on such a project?

Two senior military officials arrested

2010-04-20T14:57:00.003-04:00

I interpret the arrest of both Lieutenant General Charles Muhire and Major General Emmanuel Karenzi Karake on allegations of corruption and immorality, respectively, as cracks in the facade of RPF power. See the BBC article here.

In his speech in commemoration of the 16th anniversary of the genocide, President Kagame issued a thinly veiled threat against his political opponents, saying that there would be "chaos" if they continued to call for democracy in the language of genocide ideology. It is not at all clear that they are using the language of genocide ideology, not only because the law is unclear and arbitrarily applied, but also because the opposition is choosing its words carefully, in efforts to respect the law. Kagame is using the word "chaos" as a substitute for violence, that the RPF would be perpetrating. Anyone who represents a challenge to Kagame's power in seen as a threat, and must be dealt with harshly.

Muhire and Karake are two long-standing, loyal and senior military men. Is their arrest a sign of a coup? I don't think so; but it does call into question the extent to which Kagame is willing to go to protect his political power, and is perhaps even a sign of unrest in the military.

There is at present not enough information at present to assess accurately the situation on the ground.

Substance please....

2010-04-19T15:42:00.007-04:00

For those of you who send personal attacks, mostly about my intellect, to my susanm.thomson@gmail.com account because of what I write on this blog, I am asking you to please stop.

I am more than happy to engage substantive comments, and ask that you make them publicly on the "comments" page of this blog. I will not respond to personal attacks received on this blog or in my inbox.

Instead, let's debate and discuss. If you think I am wrong about this fact or that fact, or I've misinterpreted this piece of evidence or that one, please say so. And tell me why so I can evaluate what you've contributed to our discussion. I will not be bullied or kowtowed into believing that the RPF is prioritising democracy, peace and security over its own grip on political power.

My criticism of the RPF is not to be interpreted as being pro-opposition or anti-Tutsi. I am against all forms of oppression.

My position is, always has been, and always will be, no more loss of life in Rwanda, and neighbouring countries, by any party, ever. The killing must stop.

For the record, I still believe about Rwanda's reconciliation process being a false one as I wrote in The Mark in January 2010.

Most wanted genocide suspect arrested in Kampala

2010-04-15T20:43:00.004-04:00

This is a good thing.

The Rwandan government, to the best of my knowledge, has yet to call for Nizeyimana to be transferred to Kigali. This is not a statement of support for the ICTR. Instead, I think his arrest is potentially good for ending the culture of impunity in the GLR. However, he should not be tried in Kigali due to lack of judicial independence.

Nizeyimana's might bring to light the lack of judicial independence in Rwanda to broader international audience....

This is not a good thing. The idea the Interahamwe did not train as a militia in Kigali is absurd. It also feeds into the rhetoric of genocide deniers and revisionist, giving the appearance of credibility to the RPF's claims that it must rule Rwanda with an iron-fist, lest ethnic divisionism rear its ugly head again.

more tightening of government control: media censorship

2010-04-14T08:49:00.004-04:00

The Rwandan government is after the media again, this time without linking the suspension of two Kinyarwanda-language papers to any specific article or journalist.

Yesterday, Rwanda's Media High Council (MHC) suspended Umuseso and Umuvugizi for six months. This means that both papers will be unable to comment on the upcoming August presidential elections. THe MHC accused Umuseso of insulting President Kagame, inciting the army and policy to insubordination and for fear mongering among the population. There is no substantive evidence to support these accusations, nor were the charges linked to a specific published article. The government-controlled MHC suspended Umuvugizi without citing any reasons for the suspension.

Under Rwanda's new media law, passed into law in August 2009, media outlets cannot be suspended for more than two weeks.

More critically, there is no alternate source of media in Rwanda at the moment. The New Times, Rwanda's English-language daily, is the most prominent publication. It is widely believed to operate at the behest of the RPF as editorial policy is set in coordination with the MHC.

Another point for authoritarianism in post-genocide Rwanda....

Politicising Memory

2010-04-07T12:39:00.002-04:00

Instead of commemorating lives lost in Rwanda in 1994, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, launched into a negative attack on political freedoms and opposition politics. I remain concerned about the levels of hypocrisy exhibited by the ruling RPF and its agents. They want to call the genocide the "genocide of Tutsi" but then outlaw ethnicity so what happened in 1994 cannot be openly discussed. They want to claim (to international and domestic audiences alike) that the country is democratising, but then claim that democracy leads to genocide.

This article, which summarises Kagame's memorial day speech in Kigali, is reflective of elite hypocrisy....

"Foreigners imposing 'hooligans' like Ingabire on Rwanda"
by Chief Editor
[cid:image001.jpg@01CAD64D.FB52BD90]

In a 45-minute tirade, President Kagame fired at Ingabire, the west and the
Generals. "They call me Hitler... but I'm not bothered"

Kigali - President Paul Kagame on Wednesday accused foreign critics of trying to
impose values on Rwanda as well as preferring 'hooligans' to govern the country -
categorically singling-out opposition politician Ms. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, RNA
reports.

In a fierry 45-minute address to mark the 16th anniversary of the 1994 Tutsi
Genocide, Mr. Kagame accused the opposition - specifically naming Ms. Ingabire in
person, of "political hooliganism". The President also accused the critics of
"abusing me" in the name of freedom of expression, but said he is "not bothered at
all".

"Some people here want to encouraging political hooliganism," he said in English,
before going into a tirade of attacks on Ingabire, as the crowd behind him was in
constant applause.

"Some people just come from nowhere...useless people...I see every time in pictures
some lady who had her deputy - a Genocide criminal, talking about 'there is Genocide
but there is another'...that is politics...and the world is also saying 'the
opposition leader'..."

The President was referring to Mr. Joseph Ntawangundi, the aide to Ms. Ingabire who
was recently sentenced to 17 years for Genocide.

"They call me Hitler"
In a culmination with loud applause and clapping from the audience, President added:
"To that we say a big no. And if anybody wants a fight, then we will give them a
fight".

The President dismissed the notion of free expression as promoted by his foreign
critics such as campaign groups, saying Rwandans know what freedom means more than
anybody else can teach them. He also attacked those he described as "constantly
meddling in our politics" by propagating and making up "lies" about his government.
The President warned his critics of hiding behind freedom of express to "abuse me"
but also added that he does not "give a damn".

"They break tool, they call me Hitler...am not bothered at all...I just hold them in
contempt," he said amid more applause. He wondered how his critics attack him and
"at the same time complain about press freedom?"

"You are even free to abuse people, you have no respect for anything...and you turn
around to complain that you have no freedom to express yourself? ...What more do you
want to express about yourself or about others?"

"Ni watu gani awo?"
Mr. Kagame said "bad national politics converged with bad international politics" to
cause what was being commemorated at today April 07 for the next three months.
"Who are these giving anyone here lessons honestly? ...Ni watu gani awo? ...who are
these? ...are these Rwandans complaining? ...or have they sent you to complain on
their behalf? ..." he wondered in a mixture of English, Kinyarwanda and Swahili,
amid applause.

He added: "These Rwandans you see here and elsewhere are as free, as happy [and] as
proud of themselves, like they have never been in their lives."

The President accused the west of preferring to criticize his government but do not
want to be held responsible for their role in the Genocide. He also said the west
was undermining "our dignity", "our values" and "our pride", arguing that democracy
took time to get to the current level in their countries.

"They wake up in the morning, distort [the] situation, tell lies about
everything...plus they are responsible for many of the things that put here today to
commemorate this Genocide...," he said.

"...yet when they talk about freedom of expression, they don't want you to express
yourself about their responsibility in this Genocide...What freedoms are you
teaching me if you cant take responsibility for the politics that killed one million
people in Rwanda."

The Generals
He added: "I know those who say it and support that, know it is wrong. But [it] is
an expression of contempt these people have for Rwandans and for Africans...that
they think Africans deserve to be led by these hooligans."

Turning his guns on the government officials who are fleeing the country apparently
complaining about "no political space", the President accused them of "running away
from accountability".

"These Generals fleeing the country should not be taken seriously," he said, in
apparent reference to ex-army chief Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, who has political asylum
in South Africa.

Earlier, Sports and Culture Minister Joseph Habineza also attacked the man behind
the Hollywood movie 'Hotel Rwanda'. Mr. Habineza did not name Mr. Paul Rusesabagina
but was clearly referring to him.

Using poetic speech, the Minister also fired at the vocal opposition causing
laughter in the otherwise somber occasion, saying they are blocking the
reconciliation among Rwandans.

Dear International Community who support peace in Rwanda,

2010-03-24T09:43:00.004-04:00

Dear members of the international donor and diplomatic community who think you are supporting democracy and peace in Rwanda,

I know you are all busy, and much more important that academics and other analysts of Rwanda like me. I'll get straight to the point: Paul Kagame and his RPF are employing the same mechanisms and tactics of social and political control and ethnic exclusion that Habyarimana's regime did before the genocide. There is little new about Kagame's "new" Rwanda that you support both morally and financially. You have a collective chance to intervene now that the Rwandan police have once again detained the leader of the main opposition party, Victoire Inagbire. See this report from AFP on her detention.

She has been summarily and systematically detained without cause since she returned to the country in January 2010.

I urge you to use your diplomatic resources to compare Kagame's speeches in English (incendiary againt the opposition but generally respecting Ingabire's right to be a politician) and Kinyarwanda. In his speeches for Rwandans are broadcast on Radio Rwanda in Kinyarwanda. The broad conclusion is that he uses the memory of the 1994 genocide to intimidate people. He also uses inflammatory ethnic language; the same language he accuses Ingabire and other opposition politicians of using to incite violence in Rwanda. I am not saying he is purposefully inciting violence, but he is actively promoting a climate of fear and insecurity that is contrary to the content of his English language speeches, which presumably are made for our (international audiences) consumption.

Kagame and Amanpour

2010-03-17T19:10:00.003-04:00

On Monday night, Rwandan President Paul Kagame agreed to be interviewed by CNN journalist Amanpour. You can download the entire interview on ITunes.

Among the broader public relations machine that is the Kagame presidency, I only have this comment. He appears very nervous and basically admits that he is losing control of the country. This is a man who has total disdain for peasant Rwandans (his policies benefit urban elites, not rural peasants) ; to now invoke them in the name of his oppressive tactics is disingenuous. The reason why no journalist, human rights activist or academic has been able to talk to ordinary people is because Kagame's regime makes it all but impossible. There is no freedom of action or thought at the moment.

This is very serious for all Rwandans -- urban, rural, elite, peasant alike. I hope that the international community will begin to encourage Kagame to allow the political opposition to register and campaign. There is no outlet for popular frustration and anger in the country and that is exceedingly worrying....

Rhetoric and the politics of genocide

2010-03-14T15:38:00.004-04:00

It has again been a very intense few weeks in Rwandan politics. I have been on the road for various speaking and research engagements and have had little time to reflect on all that is going on, and what has been published.

One piece that I wanted to recommend is Geoffrey York's piece in Canada's Globe and Mail. He writes about the political manipulation of Rwanda's blood soaked history. His article is exceptionally well done as it strikes to the politics of manipulation of the history of the genocide and the ideology of genocide that characterises RPF rule at the moment. It is also critically important because York responds to the government's claim that democracy leads to genocide. Presidential advisor Jean-Paul Kimonyo is the mouthpiece for this line of thinking and is what I want to respond to in this post. Kimonyo writes in The Huffington Post in a fashion that is typical of the PR machine of the current regime.

A few points of context and analysis bear comment:

First, Kimonyo's assertion that the 1994 genocide is in part a product of "long-term economic, social and political bankruptcy" is nothing more than political rhetoric designed to justify and legitimise the oppressive rule of the RPF. Analysts and observers who understand that the genocide is not the starting point (either forward to current forms of repression or backward to explaining events in 1959) to understand contemporary Rwanda. The mechanisms of power of the RPF are virtually identical to the forms of power that pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial government's have used to control the Rwandan political landscape. There is little "new" about the new Rwanda (meaning Rwanda under RPF rule).

Kimonyo situates the backward policies of the previous regime to imply that these unequal policies had a role in precipitating the genocide. I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the root causes of the genocide. The RPF government itself lacks the rural legitimacy (which makes up almost 90% of the population) that the Habyarimana government enjoyed. That rural legitimacy meant that when the order to commit acts of genocide came down from the highest levels of the Hutu Power state in 1994, it found resonance in the hearts and minds of ordinary Hutu. They understood that this was a kill or be killed situation Many chose to kill, some because of hatred, others because of fear, some for score-settling... Kagame does not enjoy this rural legitimacy, and that means he cannot accurately predict that Rwandans will voluntarily consent to policies. This explains in part his great nervousness about the presence of opposition politician Victoire Ingabire in the country. Kagame needs to eliminate her as a political opponent lest rural and urban ordinary Rwandan vote for her as a vote against Kagame himself.

Second, Kimonyo writes that the RPF has allowed for consensus democracy. This is misleading to the average reader because the RPF has not allowed for any form of plural politics. Instead, Rwandan 'democracy' operates at the behest of President Kagame, and is subject to his personal whims. True political power exists in the hands of a few elite politicians who are loyal to Kagame. He rules with an iron-fist and is allergic to criticism. Political allies and opponents alike, journalist and human rights activists who question or challenge Kagame's rhetoric are dealt with harshly. The most recent example is Godwin Agaba. See also York's article on Didas Gasana and the stresses and strains of independent reporting in contemporary Rwanda.

We also need to hear more about the possible arrests of senior military officers, including General Karenzi Karake, General Nzaramba and Col. Zigira. Kagame is systemically removing any possible, real or perceived, threat to his authoritarian rule. Political opponents continue to be harassed and intimidated. The most recent example is the case of Deogratias Mushayidi who was brought into policy custody on 5 March. As far as I know, he is being detained without charge. This is not, as Kimonyo asserts, the basis for a consensual democracy.

When the RPF government can possibly eliminate political opponents from within its own military and harangue opposition politicians, this sends a message to the population that fear and insecurity is the order of the day. This has been reinforced with recent bombings in Kigali. The available evidence points to the RPF as the organisers of these attacks. Such incidences of insecurity feed into the rhetoric of senior RPF officials and President Kagame himself that the country is not ready for democracy.

Indeed, it may not be. But not because of Rwandans are not ready to engage pluralist politics (evidenced, according to Kimonyo, in mass political violence and genocide when the country seeks democracy) but because elites (whether Hutu or Tutsi) manipulate the local population to engage in violence as the sole option as power politics (and elite claims to political power) shape their everyday lives.

On Nyamwasa and Kagame

2010-03-07T15:27:00.006-05:00

It has been a busy week in Rwandan politics.

There is much chatter, both domestically and among the disaspora, about the journey into exile of ex-army chief Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa.

President Kagame laid down a coup challenge, daring his detractors to raise a coup.

There were simultaneous bombs on Thursday evening in Kigali.

Let's contextualise this recent political activity.

First Nyamwasa is one of a long list of members of Kagame's inner circle to have fallen out of favour with him. Nyamwasa's interview with Kampala's Monitor is revealing for a few reasons.

The interview suggests, although Nyamwasa does not say so openly, that there an organised internal (within the RPF) opposition to Kagame's highly centralised and personal rule. It also raises unanswered questions about who is behind the recent bombings in Kigali....

Second, it reveals the extent to which Kagame seeks to control the political space. Dissent of any sort is not allowed; even Ambassadors are not safe. Those who challenge Kagame, or question his commitment to peace, reconciliation or democracy, are eliminated from the political realm.

Of course, there is much missing from the interview, including why Kagame is nervous about Nyamwasa's willingness to testify in a court of law about what he did, as a commander in the RPF, before, during and after the 1994 genocide. This includes Nyamwasa's willingness to speak out about the events surrounding the downing of former President Habyarimana's plane (the event that launched the 1994 genocide). Nyamwasa was indicted by French judge Brugiere, and was found guilty of war crimes.

Kagame reveals his great nervousness about a man who speaks out about his politics (even when they differ from Kagame's) and is willing to testify in a court of law, when he issues a coup challenge to anyone who might question Kagame's power and authority. In an ackward display of political power, Kagame urged his detractors, Nyamwasa among them, to try to take power from him.

Not only do such threat indicate the instability of Kagame's power based in Kigali, it also shows the extent to which Kagame views himself as the only legitimate source of power. This is unfortunate for all Rwandans, elite and ordinary folk alike.

Rwanda tops the list of number of women in parliament

2010-03-06T09:48:00.003-05:00

As the world prepares to celebrate International Women's Day (8 March), Rwanda has once again in the spotlight as a country to emulate because of the country's commitment to women in government. This clip from the Sydney (Australia) Herald is representative.

I can see why many outsiders praise Rwanda. Only 16 years after the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has risen from the ashes to become a gender-equality trailblazer. Women enjoy many rights previously denied to them, including the right to own land, to open a bank account and to start a business. The government see women as critical partners to alleviate rural poverty and diversify the economy, moving from dependence on agriculture to a more knowledge-based one. To promote the role of women in politics, the constitution reserves 30% of the seats in parliament for women. The ruling party (Rwandan Patriotic Front, RPF) placed many women at the top of its lists of candidates. It has also appointed numerous women to senior government posts.

Yet, a few words of caution are in order even as women's visibility in politics is at an all-time high, their ability to shape the future of the country, ironically, has not improved. Rwanda's parliament has limited influence. Power is heavily concentrated in the hands of President Kagame and his close advisors. Parliamentarians – be they male or female – actually have very little power to legislate on behalf of their constituents. They have little room to develop policy or even to debate openly; space for free and open political expression is limited.

Female political representation and more progressive laws have not translated into a significant improvement in the lives of the poor. Some 90% of Rwandan women are peasants who rely on subsistence agriculture. Few have benefited from the country's progressive gender policies or relatively high rates of economic growth. The gap between the living standards of some wealthy urbanites and most rural dwellers is actually increasing. Post-genocide policies favour the urban elite, many of whom are (Anglophone) Tutsi who returned to live in Rwanda after the genocide. The vast majority of Rwandan women (and men) who survived the genocide remain extremely poor, politically marginal and, in many cases, traumatised by what they lived through. Increasing levels of authoritarianism actually stifle any attempts to address growing inequalities.

This leads to a final point: female parliamentarians and cabinet ministers do not function independently of party politics. They do not, by virtue of their sex, automatically prioritise gender equality over the ruling party's political agenda. Rwanda's post-genocide government understandably seeks to maintain peace and security. It does so in part through a policy of national unity and reconciliation. It has banned references to ethnicity from public discourse: Rwanda is a land of all Rwandans and there no longer are any Hutu, Tutsi or Twa. Though these are arguably laudable objectives, the government uses this policy as a tool to suppress dissent and silence criticism. The RPF expects parliamentarians and other public figures to toe the party line. Those who do not are accused of "ethnic divisionism" or promoting "an ideology of genocide" and relegated to the sidelines or worse, jailed or "disappeared". Even aid donors are loth to criticise the government, which does not hesitate to play the genocide guilt card against them.

We should not confuse the largely symbolic achievements of gender equality with concrete progress in most women's lives, nor allow a gender lens to obscure recognition of the growing social and political inequalities in Rwanda under an often authoritarian and repressive government.

"Rwandan President calls for arrest of top journalists"

2010-03-03T16:36:00.001-05:00

Reposted from the London Dispatch blog of Elly Akanga:

Sarkozy and Kagame, part II

2010-03-02T19:30:00.003-05:00

I guess that France's President Sarkozy did not raise issues of democratic freedom, human rights and social justice with President Kagame.

It is a good thing that the wife of the former President of Rwanda Habyariama has been arrested. See the BBC article here. It is also a sad commentary on how diplomatic relations work and speaks to the colonial legacy of how France does business in Africa.

I hope there was some democratic carrot with this stick of justice.

The question now is whether Mrs. Habyarimana will be extradited to Rwanda. We'll all have to wait and see....

Kagame and Sarkozy

2010-02-27T09:01:00.002-05:00

I am unimpressed with the little bit of news I am seeing and hearing about Sarkozy's diplomatic visit to Kigali. The Jurist wrote the most complete reporting that I have seen so far.

Yes, it is important that genocide organisers living in France be brought to book.

But have Kagame and Sarzoky discussed the current socio-political climate? It is all well and good to acknowledge the failures of France during the 1994 genocide. It is equally, if not more important, to ask Kagame to account for the current actions of his government in silencing political opposition through intimidation, harassment and detention; the harnessing of the media through threats and persecution; and the co-optation of civil society.

The prevailing social insecurity, economic inequalities and centralisation of political power are ripe for violence and are strikingly similar to the conditions that proceeded the 1994 genocide.

Noel Twagiramungu speaks on World Focus

2010-02-25T18:36:00.005-05:00

Anyone interested in Rwanda should listen to this conversation between Stephen Kinzer and Noel Twagiramungu: http://worldfocus.org/blog/2010/02/24/worldfocus-radio-rwanda-as-regional-power/9835/

I critise Kinzer's book as one to be read so interested analysts should read to be able to argue against it. I made two reviews, one in the African Studies Review, and in the Canadian Journal of International Affairs.

Martin Savidge, the moderator, is totally uninformed about Rwanda and the regional politics of the Great Lakes Region. This is evidenced right off the bat as he asks Stephen Kinzer to recount Rwandan history. It is downhill from there as Kinzer is apologist for Kagame's authoritarian tendencies....

That is my take on it; listen for yourself and see what you think.

Ingando re-education camps

2010-02-24T13:19:00.002-05:00

My analyses on post-genocide Rwanda are in part informed by my own experiences in being re-educated by the government after it stopped my doctoral research in 2006. I write about my Ingando re-education experience for a forthcoming volume in honour of Alison Des Forges. The pre-publication English version is available here; a French-language translation of the same chapter is available here. Thanks to the translator!

Lack of Media Freedom

2010-02-24T08:10:00.004-05:00

Yesterday, 23 February 2010, the Committee to Protect Journalists reported that three journalists from the Kinyarwanda-language weekly Umuseso were sentenced to prison with substantial fines for reporting on the conduct of two senior government officials. The report is here.

Media freedom is at the heart of any democracy. Rwanda lacks this freedom. Reporters without Borders calls President Kagame a predator to press freedom.

Indeed, as the ruling RPF has consolidated its political power, it has ruthlessly cracked down on journalists and media outlets. The government suspended he BBC Kinyarwanda service for preaching genocide ideology in March 2009. The service was re-instated after an international outcry. Radio France International was suspended in June 2006 on similar allegations.

Kigali maintains a tight grip on media activity, as evidenced in these recent sentences of Umuseso staff, including its editor-in- chief. The RPF accuses journalists who speak out against its policies of ethnic divisionism or of preaching genocide ideology under the 2001 “divisionism” law. Only those media outlets that express views that are in line with the government are able to speak out; as a result, many self-censor.

Instances of courageous journalism are followed by crackdowns on the media. Media independence and freedom of expression are all but non-existent The RPF continues to harass and detain without charge journalists who criticise government policies. Several journalists have fled the country; others have been beaten up; fined, or put in prison.

This hardly bodes well for campaigning during this election season. It also makes it difficult for ordinary Rwandans to vote for anyone besides the RPF....

Ingabire seeks refuge

2010-02-22T19:35:00.003-05:00

Today, 22 February 2010, Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, Presidential aspirant and head of the opposition UDF, sought refuge at the UK Embassy in Kigali. There is very little information on why she sought refuge and what was discussed with members of the UK Embassy, although this press release was made available earlier today.

I am very keen to see how the ruling RPF reacts to Mme. Ingabire's statement that she will invoke her constitutional right to silence....

PRESS RELEASE

Kigali 22 February 2010

I am home and safe.

This morning my political organisation, FDU-UDF INKINGI informed the national and
international community about my request for a temporary refuge. It's true I was for
many hours today inside the British High Commission in Kigali. We discussed the
current political situation in Rwanda and threats to opposition leaders and I still
expect that all the stakeholders will do the utmost for a peaceful democratisation
of Rwanda.

However, the police harassment is still on the agenda because the CID persistently
summoned for fresh questioning this evening. I like to make it public, that from now
on during this night and all next police interrogations; I will, if necessary, use
my constitutional right to silence until my case is taken to a court of law.

Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza
Chair, UDF INKINGI.

UDF Platform

2010-02-21T13:03:00.002-05:00

I posted earlier this week that I did not know enough about the UDF's policies. A reader of this blog posted the party's political platform (available here).

I want to state for the record that I am impressed by the UDF's political aspirations. Particularly its stance on foreign relations, agricultural policy and reconciliation.

Let's hope the party gets a chance to show its mettle and we can test its policies in an open political space rather than the current climate of fear and intimidation that seems to be reigning in Rwanda at the moment

Grenade Attacks in Kigali

2010-02-20T13:05:00.003-05:00

I have recently learned from Rwandan colleagues resident in Kigali that grenades were launched in town today. The reports from the international media are rather generic (see this sample from the BBC). We will need to wait for more information to surface.

My immediate reaction is that the government launched them to strike fear into the population, and to justify its eventual arrest of Victorie Ingabire on the charge of divisionism.

Similar sorts of attacks were common in Kigali before the genocide. They were orchestrated in those days by the Habyarimana government, mostly likely his inner cabal of power. All this to say, such attacks are not new in Kigali, and are indeed a common tactic of government's willing to maintain power at any cost. Unfortunately, examples of similar violence abound across the continent at the moment. Cote d'Ivoire, Niger and Nigeria all spring to mind....

I will wait to talk to more people, notably human rights activists (both international and Rwandan) resident in Rwanda before commenting further....

The Search for Legitimacy Continues....

2010-02-19T18:53:00.006-05:00

I have just learned from colleagues in Rwanda, and in the diaspora here in Canada, that the Criminal Investigation Department of the Rwandan National Police have summoned Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza to return for further questioning on Monday 22 February at 1pm Kigali time.

This is best interpreted as another RPF-led search for legitimacy for its policy of genocide ideology. There is no actual proof (based on Mme. Ingabire's speeches and the vague definition of the genocide ideology law) that any transgression has occurred.

This, of course, is besides the point. It is but another example of the authoritarian and arbitrary rule of the RPF.

It must also be said that the more the RPF harrasses and seeks to intimidate Mme. Ingabire into submission (compliance to its policies and politics?), the greater the burden on Mme. Ingabire, should she be allowed to stand as a presidential candidate, to seek consensus among Rwandans of all ethnicities, social groupings and economic classes.

We've yet to see a platform from Mme. Ingabire, and we don't know much about what are her plans for Rwanda. Memorializing the lives lost during the genocide and all the lives lost before, during and the after the genocide. What about the economy? Who are her main aides and allies? Does she enjoy popular support in the hills? Perhaps this is because she has yet to officially register as a candidate, and consequently cannot campaign.

Mme. Ingabire's continued harassment at the hands of the RPF makes it difficult, if not impossible, for her to get on with the business of being a politician.

Iyindi Shusho ya Jenoside yo mu 1994

2010-02-17T18:06:00.000-05:00

Inyandiko yanjye iherutse “Rwanda’s Ethnic Card – Ikarita y’ Ubwoko mu Rwanda” yazamuye ibibazo bikomeye byanyohererejwe kuri email cg ku rubuga rwanjye. Muri iyi nyandiko, ndifuza gusangira n’ abasomyi ibitekerezo mfite k’ uburyo ishyaka FPR Inkotanyi riri k’ ubutegetsi rikoresha jenoside yo muri 1994 mu nyungu zaryo za politiki.
Mu ipfundo rya gahunda za FPR nyuma ya jenoside zigamije kubaka igihugu haganje intego y’ ubumwe n’ ubwiyunge. Mu mpapuro, gahunda igizwe n’ uburyo bwo guteza imbere ubumwe bw’ amoko y’ abahutu n’ abatutsi kugirango habeho uRwanda rumwe rw’ abanyarwanda bose. Ariko mu by’ ukuri, iyi gahunda yihishemo imigambi Leta ifite yo gucecekesha abaturage ikoresheje imvugo y’ ubumwe bw’ amoko mu gihe ahubwo bashaka gukomeza ubutegetsi bw’ ishyaka riri k’ ubutegetsi ariryo FPR.

Gahunda ya Leta irebana n’ ubumwe n’ ubwiyunge ifite imizi mu isobanurwa ry’ amateka y’ imyaka irenga ijana. Raporo z’ amateka dukesha Komisiyo y’ uRwanda y’ Ubumwe n’ Ubwiyunge zitubwira ko umuryango nyarwanda wari usanzwe ufite ubwo bumwe mbere y’ uko ba gashakabuhake na Kiliziya Gatolika baza mu Rwanda. Iyo komisiyo ivuga ko inkomoko y’ ubwicanyi bwo muri 1994 ari amacakubiri ashingiye k’ ubwoko abo bagashakabuhake bashyize mu banyarwanda. Bemeza ko bashingiye ku mabwiriza arebana n’ ubumwe n’ ubwiyunge, ubutegetsi bw’ abahutu bwa nyuma y’ ubukoloni: Kayibanda (1962-1973) na Habyarimana (1973-1994) bwakoresheje amoko mu gutatanya abanyarwanda.

Leta ya FPR yashyizeho uburyo bwinshi kugirango abaturage basobanukirwe n’ akamaro k’ ubumwe hagati y’ amoko. Leta ya nyuma ya jenoside yashyizeho ibigo byitwa ingando bigamije kumvisha abaturage impamvu za nyazo zateye jenoside. Leta kandi ikangulira abanyarwanda guhora bibuka jenoside, akaba ariyo mpamvu yashyizeho ibigo by’ urwibutso kimwe n’ ahashyinguwe abazize itsembabwoko kugirango abanyarwanda bumve ingaruka z’ amacakubiri ashingiye k’ ubwoko. Muri ayo mazu y’ urwibutso ari hirya no hino mu gihugu herekanwa ibisigazwa by’ abazize jenoside, ari ku nkuta cg mu mva zifunguye, cg mu byumba by’ ahabereye ubwicanyi. Buri mwaka haba gahunda zo kwibuka bimara icyumweru guhera taliki ya 7-14 Mata mu kwibutsa abanyarwanda ingaruka z’ amacakubiri ashingiye ku moko.

Leta iyobowe na FPR yashyizeho iminsi mikuru – Umunsi w’ Intwari (1 Gashyantare), Umunsi wo kwizera (7 Mata), Umunsi w’ Ubwigenge (1 Nyakanga), Umunsi wo kwibohoza (4 Nyakanga), n’ Umunsi wo gukunda igihugu (1 Ukwakira) – muri gahunda yo gucengeza ubumwe hagati y’ amoko kimwe no guha abayobozi urubuga rwo kwibutsa abanyarwanda ko bagomba kurwanya ingengabitekerezo ya jenoside. Itegekonshinga ryasubiwemo muri 2003 ryaciye imvugo yose yerekeranye n’ amoko (ingingo ya 33) kimwe no guhana umuntu wese uvangura amoko cg upfobya jenoside (ingingo ya 13). FPR kandi yahinduye muri 2006 amazina y’ uturere mu nzengo zose z’ ubutegetsi, kuva ku mirenge kugeza mu ntara, muri gahunda yo gukingira abacitse ku icumu no kubibagiza aho ababo baguye.

Ibi byose bijyana na gahunda y’ ubwiyunge bw’ amoko no kwibuka bigamije gukomeza ubutegetsi bwa FPR yakwirakwije abayoboke bayo hirya no hino mu butegetsi. Biragoye rwose kugirango umunyarwanda usanzwe akore ubuzima bwe bwa buri munsi, yemwe ntibinaboroheye kugirango bagere ku bwiyunge nyabwo na bagenzi babo. Umupfakazi w’ umututsikazi yagize ati, “sinshobora gushyigikira ibyo bita ubumwe mu gihe nzi ko ikigamijwe ari ugutanya abahutu n’ abatutsi. Iyiba leta yari ituretse, twakwishakiye uburyo bwacu bwo kwiyunga. Ubu tugomba kubikora mu ruhame, kandi tukabikora igihe babidusabye. FPR ntabwo ishishikajwe n’ uko twiyunga bya nyabyo, bahangayikishijwe n’ imyanya yabo gusa…”.
Mu yandi magambo, umuntu wese, baba abanyapolitiki batavuga rumwe n’ ubutegetsi, abanyamakuru, abaharanira uburenganzira bw’ ikiremwamuntu, uzatinyuka kurwanya cg gukemanga uburyo FPR isobanura aya amateka, bimuviramo ingorane zikomeye.

Summoned, not arrested

2010-02-17T12:57:00.002-05:00

I wrote here on 15 February that Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza was scheduled to be arrested at 2pm on Tuesday, 16 Feburary.

Instead, she was summoned to CID HQ. The available report says she is cooperating with police.

I cannot tell you how much I admire this woman. She must know she has no serious chance of becoming Rwanda's next president. Instead, she is playing the much more important (and dangerous) role of revealing to international and Rwandan observers alike the extent to which President Paul Kagame and his RPF controls the political landscape.

She is what the Rwandans call igipinga, meaning someone with deep-rooted principles.

Bravo Mme. Ingabire...!

Because the law IS ambiguous

2010-02-16T17:26:00.007-05:00

Last Friday, Rwandan President Paul Kagame told international media and diplomats to stop criticising the genocide ideology law. A summary of the speech is here.

In typical dictatorial style, Kagame was all bravado and no substance. The reason international observers, and some Rwandans, including opposition politicians from the Green Party and the UDF, criticise the law precisely because it is ambiguous. Article 19, in an excellent Comment writes, "that the Genocide Ideology Law is counterproductive to its apparent objectives (2009: 3).

Indeed, the objective of the law is to eliminate the genocide ideology from the hearts and minds of Rwandans. First, as the Article 19 Comment notes, the law is poorly defined: what is genocide ideology anyway? The government has never answered this question to the satisfation of international observers, despite publishing a Senate Report on the eradication of genocide ideology in Rwandan society in 2008. (This Report appears not to be available online. I have an electronic copy which I can share). Broadly stated, genocide ideology equates with ethnic enmity, meaning the hatred that Hutu have for Tutsi which caused them to kill in the first place. This simplistic interpretation of the root causes of the genocide ignores the prevailing academic research which finds that “Rwandans’ motivations [for killing] were considerably more ordinary and routine than the extraordinary crimes they helped commit” (Straus, 2006: 96). Among ordinary Hutu, participation was driven by intra-ethnic pressure from other Hutu, usually more socially powerful Hutu, security fears in the context of civil war and genocide as well as opportunity for looting and score settling. Ethnic enmity was not the main factor that pushed ordinary Hutu to kill their neighbours. It was the state-sanctioned order to kill combined with the context of fear and insecurity that made killing an option.

Yet, the genocide ideology law, and the sentiments behind it remains a fact of life in contemporary Rwanda. As a senior RPF official told me during my re-education in 2006, "“we [senior RPF members] would rather be conscious of our enemy [read Hutu] than naively pretend, like you whites, to think we have no enemy out there planning to exterminate us but instead to hopelessly fantasise about a utopian Rwanda”.

This sentiment, which I believe is widely held among Rwanda's current political and economic elite, is what drives Kagame's angry reaction to international critics. He sincerely believes that the RPF is dealing with an internal enemy. It is this belief that makes peace and reconciliation so elusive in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region

Moving Farther and Farther Away from Democracy

2010-02-15T14:57:00.012-05:00

As I write this, reports, both formal from NGOs like Human Rights Watch and informal from friends and colleagues resident in Rwanda and in the diaspora, continue to pour in about the excesses of the current Rwandan government. The RPF continues to tighten its grip on the socio-political sphere while taking extra-ordinary steps to appear democratic. Where is the international community in all of this? At this stage, I can only be heartened by Commonwealth's announcement that it will monitor Rwanda's upcoming elections. Where are representatives of the EAC, APRM and the AU? I have little faith that the Americans, Brits and even Canada will hold the RPF to account for its lack of democratic accountability and transparency.

I want to situate two pieces of information that I received today in broader context. First, I received a news report that the government has splurged on luxury jets. Second, I received word from a colleague that Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is due to be arrested tomorrow (16 February 2010) at 2pm Kigali time. Let's situate this information in state theory, notably the concept of neopatrimonialism. In particular, I will demonstrate that Rwanda is less democratic today than the RPF-led government claims.

Neopatrimonialism is a concept that states there is no separation of the public and private realms. In non-academic terms, this means that the politics of those in power (currently the RPF) trump the functioning of the institutions of the state. This means that the government can declare that it will arrest a political opponent at 2pm the next day because it does not fear the repercussions from other institutions of the state. In a functioning democracy, and this is the theoretical norm, there is a clearly articulated separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Post-genocide Rwanda, just like pre-genocide Rwanda, exhibits a concentration of political power in the hands of one individual. At the moment, that individual is Paul Kagame.

Kagame markets himself to international audiences as a benevolent and thoughtful leader who has brought economic development and social reconciliation to Rwandans. This is indeed the case if one does not venture beyond the confines of Kigali. Rwanda's capital is indeed a testament to the ability of any country to rebuild in the aftermath of conflict. However, looking only at Kigali's brilliance masks the fact that at least 85% of Rwandans (MINCOFIN statistics, 2006) live below the poverty line.

Kigali's gleaming exterior also hides the fact that Kagame delegates only the most trivial of tasks. He has his hand on virtually every political, social and economic decision taken in Rwanda. For anyone who doubts this, I suggest you read Joseph Sebarenzi's God Sleeps in Rwanda as he writes about how Kagame skillfully kept his distance while engineering his downfall as Rwanda's Speaker of Parliament.

Beyond this concentration of political power in one individual, neopatrimonial governments award personal favours to other elites to secure their political power. This is why Rwanda has such a large cabinet, a bloated senate and numerous political posts with no institutional mandate. If these favours are not enough to assure Kagame that those closest to him are loyal, he has also instituted imihigo (performance) contracts with local officials. Officials at all levels of the bureaucracy sign this contracts directly with Kagame in public signing sessions. In addition, local officials sign imihigo contracts with individual households in their bailiwick. Those who do not meet their arbitrarily assigned development goals are fined, imprisoned, and in some cases worse. For academic analysis of the sanctions meted out to ordinary Rwandans, see Ingelaere's Living the Transition .

In post-genocide Rwanda, personal favours takes on a different meaning. Yes, the country is one of the least corrupt in the world, let alone Africa (where I think Westerners completely mis-understand how African states and societies intermingle; African states are no more or less corrupt than Western states, it is only that the corruption is of a different texture). For Kagame, personal favour means he will not threaten, harass, beat up, imprison, or kill you.

Another good example of the insecurity of Kagame's rule is the RPF's Oath of Oneness. The Oath is a solemn declaration that individual Rwandans take (most are forced to take it) to publicly demonstrate individual commitment to RPF rule. In taking the Oath, individuals vow to faithfully serve the party and accept that any attempt to get out of the party will be interpreted by party elites as an act of treason.

Mechanisms like the imihigo contracts and the Oath of Oneness actually reveal the extent to which Kagame does not legitimately enjoy the consent of the population he governs. If he had legitimate consent, would he need to impose himself on every nook and cranny of the Rwandan socio-political realm?

Lastly, the third feature of neopatrimonialism is the misuse of state resources. A good example is the recent news that the government owns two private jets, each valued at USD50 million each, allegedly for the "exclusive" use of the President of Rwanda (the government does not deny ownership, only that they are for the President's exclusive use). Beyond the ownership of the jets is the fact that the RPF tried to hide its ownership in registering the jets to a specially-created South African company.

There are other examples of the RPF's misuse of state resources, including the toothless ombudsman's report from mid-2008, and the use of state coffers for RPF presidential and parliamentary campaigning.

Long story short, under Paul Kagame and his RPF, Rwanda is not democratic; it never was. This is wholly contradictory to the RPF's message that the country is actively democratizing as the basis of peace and security, both in Rwanda and the Great Lakes Region more broadly.

Representing the 1994 Genocide

2010-02-14T07:51:00.005-05:00

My last post on Rwanda's Ethnic Card raised some important questions, made to me via email and on the comment board. In this post, I want to share my thoughts on the ways in which the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) represents the 1994 genocide in ways that reinforce its political power.

At the heart of the RPF's post-genocide reconstruction effort is the policy of national unity and reconciliation. On paper, the programme is a set of mechanisms that aims to promote ethnic unity between Tutsi and Hutu in creating one Rwanda for all Rwandans. In practice, it disguises the government’s efforts to control its population by using the language of ethnic unity and social inclusion while working to consolidate the political power of the ruling RPF.

The government’s programme of national unity and reconciliation is grounded in a specific interpretation of more than a century of history. According to “historical” documents produced by the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC), Rwandan society was essentially unified before the arrival of colonial powers and the Catholic Church. A direct cause of the 1994 genocide is the ethnic divisions imposed on Rwanda by colonial rule. According to the policy of national unity and reconciliation, the post-colonial Hutu-led governments of Kayibanda (1962-1973) and Habyarimana (1973-1994) used ethnicity strategically to divide Rwandans.

Significant state resources are dedicated to ensuring the population understands the importance of ethnic unity. The post-genocide government has established mandatory solidarity camps known as ingando to “re-educate” the population on the root causes of the genocide. The government also encourages a collective memory of the genocide through memorial sites and mass graves that double as genocide museums to show the end-result of ethnic divisionism. In many sites across the country, the bodies of victims are on display, exposed on shelves, in semi-open tombs, or in the rooms where the killing took place. Every year, annual commemorations are held during national mourning week (7 to 14 April) to remind Rwandans of the pernicious effects of ethnic divisionism.

The RPF-led government has introduced new national holidays – Heroes Day (1 February), Day of Hope (April 7), Independence Day (1 July), Liberation Day (4 July), and Patriotism Day (1 October) – to accord with the vision of ethnic unity and act as platforms for leaders to remind Rwandans of the need to fight the ideology of genocide. The 2003 revised Constitution made illegal public references to ethnic identity (article 33) and criminalised ‘ethnic divisionism’ and ‘trivializing the genocide’ (article 13). The RPF also changed place names at all administrative levels, from villages to provinces, in 2006 as part of Rwanda’s administrative re-structuring to protect genocide survivors from remembering where their relatives died.

All of these mechanism of ethnic unity and memory work to consolidate the power of the RPF by spreading its loyalists throughout the bureaucratic apparatus. There is virtually no room for ordinary Rwandans to shape their everyday lives, let alone sincerely reconcile with one another. As a Tutsi widower said, "I can hardly support this notion of national unity when I know it is meant to keep us [Hutu and Tutsi] apart. If they [the government] left us alone, we could find our own ways to reconcile. Now, we have to do it publicly, and when we are told to do so. The RPF doesn’t care about if we truly reconcile, they only care about their own positions...".

In other words, anyone, including opposition politicians, journalists and human rights defenders, who challenge or question the RPF’s interpretation of the historical record will suffer the wrath of the government.

Rwanda's Ethnic Card: Who is manipulating whom?

2010-02-12T17:17:00.008-05:00

On 10 February 2010, Human Rights Watch called on the Government of Rwanda to end attacks on opposition parties. Read the press release for the full commentary. Reuters reported that Rwanda's political opposition (meaning Mme. Ingabire) will likely face criminal charges for playing the ethnic card.

I would like to add a layer of context to these two reports. On the BBC Africa Service on 10 February (Focus on Africa), Carina Tertsakian of Human Rights Watch spoke correctly when she said that attacks on opposition politicians were intensifying.

I agree with her 100%. Such attacks are not new, they are only more intense in this round of elections. I am pleased to learn that the Government of Rwanda has agreed to accept Commonwealth election monitors. I only hope they actually consider more than the bare basics of electoral democracy (ballot stuffing, padding voter lists, etc) to consider the ways in which the ruling RPF plays the ethnic card that it accuses Ms. Ingabire of manipulating.

The RPF has outlawed public reference to ethnicity. It justifies its intolerance of political dissent in the name of eliminating the ideology of genocide and ethnic divisionism which it claims drove all Hutu to kill all Tutsi. My own research reveals the extent to which the RPF has instrumentalised the genocide to protect and consolidate its own political power. The RPF claims that the ultimate blame for the 1994 genocide rests with the colonial powers who promoted divisive politics that resulted in the ethnic hatred of ALL Hutu for ALL Tutsi. This simplistic interpretation of events works to mask the crimes against humanity and war crimes that the RPF itself committed before, during and after the genocide.

This simplistic interpretation of all Hutu killing all Tutsi does more than overlook the myriad ways in ordinary Rwandans, irrespective of ethnicity were caught up in the maelstrom. It also hides from view, in the name of ethnic unity, that many Hutu died including those who died trying to protect Tutsi. Equally, there are Tutsi who put themselves on the line to protect Hutu family and friends. Many Tutsi survived because of the aid and succor of a Hutu family member, friend, colleague, neighbour or strangers. There are also stories of Twa and Hutu who died because of their Tutsi features (for more see Des Forges, 1999; Fujii 2009; and Straus 2006 for the various forms of killing and the attendant motivations).

These different forms of killing and surviving are not accounted for under the current government. It is recognition of what Fujii (2009) calls "webs of violence" that I think Mme. Ingabire is asking the RPF to allow. The ferocity of the government's reaction -- threats, harassment, and physical violence -- to her request to take into consideration and account all the lives lost in 1994 is revealing. It reveals the insecurity of the current government as it expects deference and compliance to its directives. Those who dare break the facade, or try to peek behind the veil of peace and security, are treated harshly.

A good example of the lack of legitimacy that the RPR-led government has among ordinary Rwandans is its politicisation of individual mourning. The RPF seeks to control the ways that ordinary Rwandans -- Tutsi, Hutu and Twa -- mourn their lost loved ones.

First, only official survivors are recognised, and the RPF represents their trauma symbolically through the image of a lonely, wounded survivor as the personification of the 1994 genocide. The RPF invokes this image of the traumatised survivor to silence criticism from the international community. The lives lost -- Tutsi, Hutu and Twa -- in the violence before (1990-April 1994) and after (July 1994 to September 1999) are not memorialised.

The government uses the official mourning period (7 to 14 April every year to assert its official version of what happened during the genocide. Survivors (read Tutsi) are clearly distinguished from the killers (read Hutu). This single version of events hardly captures the multiplicity of individual experiences.

The genocide means more to ordinary Rwandans than just the idea that all Hutu killed all Tutsi; some Tutsi killed, some Hutu protected Tutsi; Twa also participated; just as some joined in, others stood by. Despite this, the government requires that Rwandans of all ethnicities attend mourning week events, notably the exhumation of mass graves and reburial of bodies, and listening to the speeches of government officials that remind the population of the need to “never again” allow genocide in Rwanda.

Many ordinary Rwandans that I spoke with in 2006, both in formal interviews and through participant observation, said that they felt the RPF was manipulating the way the genocide is remembered to maintain their positions of power and wealth rather than truly seeking to unify the country.

As Gaston, a released Hutu prisoner, told me, “We dig up bodies for reburial at the national ceremony but how do we know those remains are even Tutsi bodies? We [Hutu] died as well, but nothing is mentioned about how we suffered during the genocide. Not all of us killed you know. Instead we go because our new government says we must; we were told this very clearly at ingando (citizenship re-education camp)”. (I write about the humiliation of ingando here).

Others, particularly Tutsi survivors, acknowledged the reburials as “a little bit necessary for national healing” but would prefer to do it in private, “away from the spotlight”. In homogenising the diverse individual lived experiences of victims of the genocide – Hutu, Tutsi and Twa – as well as those of individuals who lived through the violence of the 1990-1994 civil war, and the emergency period after the genocide (1995-2000), the RPF is stage-managing and politicizing individual mourning.

I think the RPF harassed and harmed Mme. Ingabire because she spoke out against this stage-managing and politicization of individual mourning.

Current situation in Rwanda "explosive"?

2010-02-10T10:45:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I viewed Ann Garrison's report entitled Election Rwanda 2010: Paul Kagame, Victoire Ingabire & Memories of the Genocide.

As much as I learn from Garrison's insights, and appreciate her commitment to letting the American public know what is going on at the moment in Rwanda, I think there is one part of her piece that is misleading to those viewers with a general knowledge of the country. This matters because most foreigners buy into the rhetoric of Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Rick Warren and others that Rwanda is an "African success story". Indeed it is, if you focus only on the economic developments in the country. Once you realise that economic growth is built on the politics of exclusion, with the spoils of economic growth accruing largely to members of the ruling RPF and its loyalists. I therefore want to contextualise one part of Ms. Garrison's important piece of reporting.

Garrison puts to the opposition politician (and presidential hopeful) Victoire Ingabire that "the situation is very very tense", that "it's very explosive" and "without real reconciliation there is the danger of more violence".

I agree that Rwanda is on the path to more violence but that the conditions do not presently exist for mass violence in the way that Ingabire's response to Garrison's question suggests. Ingabire, as an newly returned former exile, does not have the broad-base grassroots support to tip individuals to mass violence in ways that were a partial cause of the 1994 genocide. However, I do believe that there will be pogroms and other small-scale, local-level acts of violence. In fact these are already happening in some parts of the country according to my sources currently resident in Rwanda.

Foreign analysts like Ann Garrison and me need to watch for, document and speak out about these so-called isolated acts of violence as it is the "practice" of killing that prepares the population for mass violence while contributing to the conditions of fear and insecurity that make mass violence possible.

It is also important to keep in mind that the RPF controls the countryside ("the hills") and that the peasant population (some 80% of the populace) is highly surveilled by local government officials and other agents of the state. There is little room for manoeuvre and even less opportunity to organise any resistance let alone a revolt.

The situation is however "explosive" for Ms. Ingabire and members of her UDF party as they have been menanced, threatened and beaten up, presumably by members of the RPF security branch (mostly likely members of the Department of Military Intelligence and its agents). Ingabire rightly points out that Hutu lives lost are not part of Rwanda's collective memory, and that this needs to be rectified for sincere reconciliation to occur in the country.

I agree 100%. It is, as I write elsewhere, a false reconciliation. The RPF has politicised the memory of the genocide for its own political gain. It does so in the name of national unity and reconciliation. Anyone who speaks outside the accepted boundaries of public speech about how the genocide happened, the nature of the killing (of Twa, Tutsi and Hutu), and the role of the RPF in stopping it are treated just as Ms. Ingabire and her cohort is treated. There is no freedom of expression; there is no room for criticism of the governmtn. The local media operates at the behest of the RPF.

In sum, these are more than worrying trends. They are also the same signs of violence that characterised the pre-genocide period (1990-1994).

Swimming Against the Tide

2010-02-09T13:36:00.000-05:00

Given all that I have seen and heard since the Rwandan Green Party first tried to register as a political party in May 2009, I am now compelled to begin to document what is going on in Rwanda. The nature of the intimidation and control that the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front uses against its political opponents is more severe in this round of Presidential elections than it was in 2003 when the government harassed and menaced the opposition while allowing it to register its political parties and campaign in a flawed election.

See the 2003 report of the European Union and the 2006 academic analysis of Meierhenrich in the journal Electoral Studies). Readers can also refer to the EU report on the 2008 parliamentary elections in which 56% of the seats went to women. I, along with Erin Baines and Stephen Brown, criticise the elections as feckless in The Guardian

This 2010 round of elections is shaping up differently. The ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front is more open in its tactics of suppressing dissent and ensuring that it discredits the opposition as groups intent on spreading the seeds of divisionism and spreading genocide ideology (both are undefined, applied arbitrarily to discredit and suppress opposition voices; both are also constitutionally mandated). This is not democratic in even the most narrow definitions of democracy. I think this is because the government has further consolidated its control of the socio-political space since 2003, and is now able to silence dissent with physical violence (as witnessed both again the Green Party and most recently the UDF) without repercussion.

A colleague said to me that the most recent wave of violence against opposition leaders is a test for the international community. Reflecting on what Peter Uvin wrote in his 1998 book "Aiding Violence" about how the international donor community helped create and consolidate the conditions for the 1994 genocide, I think my colleague is on to something important. President Kagame is testing the international community to see how far he can push his allies, notably the UK and the US. It is unfortunate that no donor has come out forcefully to ask Kagame to respect the democratic process that he himself asserts is the basis of Rwanda's present and future peace and security.

Of course, the alleged peace and security the Rwanda currently enjoys is built on the politics of exclusion. The ruling RPF has politicised Tutsi victimhood and is practicing mass justice for mass atrocity against Hutu. The presumption of only Tutsi survivors of the genocide and only Hutu perpetrators recreates in practice the ethnic divisions that Kagame himself claims will move Rwanda from a culture of ethnic hatred to one of ethnic unity. The two broad distinctions are now survivors and perpetrators. This has the effect of erasing the lived experiences of genocide of a significant percentage of the population. It also has the potential effect of crystallising and creating stronger dissent in the future. For those who have studied Rwanda's history, the parallels between this moment in Rwanda history and the twilight of the independence period are striking. See C. Newbury's "The Cohesion of Oppression" (1988).

That the ruling RPF is building a society built on the politics of exclusion is acknowledged only by the academics, and a few forward looking journalists. Unfortunately, most, like Kinzer and Gourevitch, praise Kagame and his RPF as a benevolent leader that cares deeply about his people (see my review of Kinzer's book in the journal African Studies Review). The available evidence certainly does not support this view; Kagame is an authoritarian dictator that cares more about his own political power than he does about ordinary Rwandans -- Tutsi, Hutu or Twa.

If you take only one thing away from the post, it is that swimming against the dominant narrative, carefully crafted by the RPF for international consumption, is dangerous, perhaps even life-threatening for courageous individuals who choose to stand up and speak out against its excesses. Swimming against the tide also means standing up and calling on international actors to take action in Rwanda. The RPF, like the Habyarimana regime before it, has imposed tight control over the activities of opposition politicians, journalists, human rights defenders and any real or perceived critic.