Pages

Saturday, 17 August 2013

How Rwanda Threatens Its Future - NYTimes


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How Rwanda Threatens Its Future

James Akena/Reuters

Displaced people approaching the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in 2012.

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

Collective guilt over the genocide in 1994 has shaped the world's relations with Rwanda ever since. Without question, the systematic killing of 800,000 people is one of the foremost historic blights of the last century. And the international community deserves blame for ignoring facts and avoiding action when intervention could have saved thousands.

But it's time to take off the kid gloves when dealing with this tiny, landlocked country with outsized influence in East Africa. If there's any hope of Rwanda winning truly lasting stability, it must change course and stop fueling conflicts across its borders.

The progress Rwanda has made since the genocide is nothing less than remarkable. Any visitor to Kigali today will immediately note the clean new streets. The capital is filled with new malls catering to the wealthy, restaurants offering panoramic views of the city and cafés brewing Rwanda's own world-renowned coffee.

Over the last decade, Rwanda's economy has averagedabove 8 percent growth per year, according to the I.M.F., and it is considered the best place in Africa to start a business, according to the World Bank's latest rankings. Millions have been pulled out of poverty, people live more than 20 years longer than they did in the 1990s, maternal and child mortality rates have dropped dramatically, and health care coverage is nearly universal. When I was working with the U.S. Agency for International Development on health and economic projects in Rwanda, I couldn't help but be impressed by how quickly the country was developing.

All of this has made Rwanda a darling of aid donors, and Rwandan leaders are deft at handling them. Officials feel at home at international summit meetings and President Paul Kagame — one of the most popular African leaders on Twitter — exudes confidence on the global stage.

This combination of international sympathy, impressive economic growth and political savvy has caused the United States, Britain and other powers to largely turn a blind eye to Kigali's transgressions.

Simmering under the surface and threatening to explode after Kagame's departure are ethnic and political tensions that now go mostly unaddressed. The hostility between Tutsis and Hutus is far from ended, and the governing system is entrenching one-man rule instead of building effective checks and balances. Progress is stunted by a lack of freedom, a repressive media environment, little protection for human rights and the sidelining of political opponents.

Nowhere is the need for international pressure on Rwanda to change its ways more evident than in Kigali's stance toward its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Many of the Hutu perpetrators of the 1994 genocide fled to eastern Congo after a Tutsi-led opposition army seized control of Rwanda. Looking to prevent any future threat to their rule, Kigali's leaders have been active in the Congo ever since. While Rwandan interference is largely due to a longstanding ethnic rivalry and the desire to create a protective buffer along the border, control of the region's mineral wealth is another key factor.

In April 2012, a rebel group with ties to Kigali launched a campaign to liberate Congo. The group, known as M23, briefly held the city of Goma next to the border with Rwanda. Despite an internationalpeace agreement in February, fighting flared again in May and July. Since the violence began, some 800,000 people have been displaced.

Rwanda's meddling has been known for years, but public criticism is mounting. Last year, the United Nations accused Kigali of actively supporting M23, and last month Human Rights Watch warned that despite Kigali's repeated denials the Rwandan military continues to support the rebels.

The crossing between Rwanda and Goma, the heart of the violence, is one of the starkest borders I've ever seen. Rwanda's side has a man-made beach, a five-star hotel and beautifully paved roads; immediately across the border a potholed road leads to a land where the feeling of insecurity is palpable.

Rwanda cannot be blamed for all of Congo's problems. This region has endured the world's most deadly conflict since World War II, a war that left the country in ruins, its economic troubles and ethnic tensions compounded by inept and corrupt governance.

But Rwanda has come far enough to start acting differently toward Congo; it should work to ease that country's problems rather than fuel them.

The United States, Britain and the rest of Rwanda's supporters need to use their leverage — foreign funds make up around 40 percent of Kigali's budget — to demand better behavior. They should forcefully and publicly condemn Kigali for its links to militant groups in Congo and its undemocratic tendencies at home. Although some countries froze assistance last year after allegations about Rwanda's activity in Congo surfaced, more needs to be done.

Rwanda's leaders recognize how critical it is to maintain international good will. They need to know that they risk losing more financial support. Further sanctions should be put on the table, along with additional incentives to reward good behavior.

The obvious concern, if Kigali doesn't respond properly, is for the Rwandan people. The progress in health and economic well-being could be lost if the region spirals downward. The best way to exorcise the demons of Rwanda's past is to minimize the risk of future turmoil. "Never again" must be the priority.

The Rwandan government deserves credit for making swift economic and political progress in the years since the 1994 genocide — progress that no one thought possible. But now Rwanda needs to become a more responsible regional actor, and deal forthrightly with the issues that threaten its future. The international community must put pressure on Kigali to do so.

David Kampf is director of communications at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He worked on development projects in Rwanda from 2006 to 2008.

  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE

How Rwanda Threatens Its Future - NYTimes


OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

How Rwanda Threatens Its Future

James Akena/Reuters

Displaced people approaching the border between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda in 2012.

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

Collective guilt over the genocide in 1994 has shaped the world's relations with Rwanda ever since. Without question, the systematic killing of 800,000 people is one of the foremost historic blights of the last century. And the international community deserves blame for ignoring facts and avoiding action when intervention could have saved thousands.

But it's time to take off the kid gloves when dealing with this tiny, landlocked country with outsized influence in East Africa. If there's any hope of Rwanda winning truly lasting stability, it must change course and stop fueling conflicts across its borders.

The progress Rwanda has made since the genocide is nothing less than remarkable. Any visitor to Kigali today will immediately note the clean new streets. The capital is filled with new malls catering to the wealthy, restaurants offering panoramic views of the city and cafés brewing Rwanda's own world-renowned coffee.

Over the last decade, Rwanda's economy has averagedabove 8 percent growth per year, according to the I.M.F., and it is considered the best place in Africa to start a business, according to the World Bank's latest rankings. Millions have been pulled out of poverty, people live more than 20 years longer than they did in the 1990s, maternal and child mortality rates have dropped dramatically, and health care coverage is nearly universal. When I was working with the U.S. Agency for International Development on health and economic projects in Rwanda, I couldn't help but be impressed by how quickly the country was developing.

All of this has made Rwanda a darling of aid donors, and Rwandan leaders are deft at handling them. Officials feel at home at international summit meetings and President Paul Kagame — one of the most popular African leaders on Twitter — exudes confidence on the global stage.

This combination of international sympathy, impressive economic growth and political savvy has caused the United States, Britain and other powers to largely turn a blind eye to Kigali's transgressions.

Simmering under the surface and threatening to explode after Kagame's departure are ethnic and political tensions that now go mostly unaddressed. The hostility between Tutsis and Hutus is far from ended, and the governing system is entrenching one-man rule instead of building effective checks and balances. Progress is stunted by a lack of freedom, a repressive media environment, little protection for human rights and the sidelining of political opponents.

Nowhere is the need for international pressure on Rwanda to change its ways more evident than in Kigali's stance toward its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo. Many of the Hutu perpetrators of the 1994 genocide fled to eastern Congo after a Tutsi-led opposition army seized control of Rwanda. Looking to prevent any future threat to their rule, Kigali's leaders have been active in the Congo ever since. While Rwandan interference is largely due to a longstanding ethnic rivalry and the desire to create a protective buffer along the border, control of the region's mineral wealth is another key factor.

In April 2012, a rebel group with ties to Kigali launched a campaign to liberate Congo. The group, known as M23, briefly held the city of Goma next to the border with Rwanda. Despite an internationalpeace agreement in February, fighting flared again in May and July. Since the violence began, some 800,000 people have been displaced.

Rwanda's meddling has been known for years, but public criticism is mounting. Last year, the United Nations accused Kigali of actively supporting M23, and last month Human Rights Watch warned that despite Kigali's repeated denials the Rwandan military continues to support the rebels.

The crossing between Rwanda and Goma, the heart of the violence, is one of the starkest borders I've ever seen. Rwanda's side has a man-made beach, a five-star hotel and beautifully paved roads; immediately across the border a potholed road leads to a land where the feeling of insecurity is palpable.

Rwanda cannot be blamed for all of Congo's problems. This region has endured the world's most deadly conflict since World War II, a war that left the country in ruins, its economic troubles and ethnic tensions compounded by inept and corrupt governance.

But Rwanda has come far enough to start acting differently toward Congo; it should work to ease that country's problems rather than fuel them.

The United States, Britain and the rest of Rwanda's supporters need to use their leverage — foreign funds make up around 40 percent of Kigali's budget — to demand better behavior. They should forcefully and publicly condemn Kigali for its links to militant groups in Congo and its undemocratic tendencies at home. Although some countries froze assistance last year after allegations about Rwanda's activity in Congo surfaced, more needs to be done.

Rwanda's leaders recognize how critical it is to maintain international good will. They need to know that they risk losing more financial support. Further sanctions should be put on the table, along with additional incentives to reward good behavior.

The obvious concern, if Kigali doesn't respond properly, is for the Rwandan people. The progress in health and economic well-being could be lost if the region spirals downward. The best way to exorcise the demons of Rwanda's past is to minimize the risk of future turmoil. "Never again" must be the priority.

The Rwandan government deserves credit for making swift economic and political progress in the years since the 1994 genocide — progress that no one thought possible. But now Rwanda needs to become a more responsible regional actor, and deal forthrightly with the issues that threaten its future. The international community must put pressure on Kigali to do so.

David Kampf is director of communications at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He worked on development projects in Rwanda from 2006 to 2008.

  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE

Friday, 16 August 2013

Rwanda: Official interference in affairs of human rights NGO places independent human rights work in peril

Rwanda: Official interference in affairs of human rights NGO places independent human rights work in peril
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
PUBLIC STATEMENT
16 August 2013
AI Index: AFR 47/002/2013
Rwanda: Official interference in affairs of human rights NGO places independent human rights work in peril
The former leadership of the Rwandan human rights organization LIPRODHOR, the Rwandan League for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights (la Ligue rwandaise pour la promotion et la défense des droits de l'homme) has been forced out. The circumstances in which the board was replaced strongly indicate the involvement of the Rwandan authorities.
The capacity of human rights defenders to work in Rwanda has been further weakened and the space for meaningful human rights work has all but closed up.
The move followed a decision by the former leadership to leave the Collective of Leagues and Associations for the Defense of Human Rights in Rwanda (Collectif des ligues et associations de défense des droits de l'homme au Rwanda, CLADHO), a platform of human rights organizations, on the grounds that its executive committee had been put in place by the Rwanda Governance Board (RGB), an official body charged with promoting and monitoring good governance.
On 3 July 2013, the President of LIPRODHOR wrote a letter to announce LIPRODHOR's decision to pull out of CLADHO, questioning the selection of CLADHO's new committee and the network's capacity to protect member organizations. Two other partner organizations also signed the letter.
On 21 July 2013, a group of LIPRODHOR members, which included a former president of the organization, held an extraordinary general assembly to discuss the organization's decision to leave CLADHO. The meeting was conducted without notifying LIPRODHOR's governing board, which included the President and the Vice-President. According to the statute of the organization, members should receive an invitation letter at least eight days before the meeting. In addition, the number of participants in the meeting did not meet that required for a General Assembly, which needs an absolute majority. The meeting resulted not only in the reversal of LIPRODHOR's withdrawal from CLADHO, but in the replacement of LIPRODHOR's board and President. A new board, including a new President, were elected and scheduled to begin in post from 26 July 2013.
The election of the new board was swiftly recognized by the RGB, despite complaints by the ousted board regarding the legitimacy of the procedure. The former board of LIPRODHOR has since launched a legal action against the decision of the RGB to support the former board's dismissal, as well as the cancellation of the decision to leave CLADHO. The case is on-going.
The Rwandan authorities have shown that they have too much influence in the internal workings of NGOs. Incidents such as these demonstrate how legitimate freedom of association can be curtailed and how an organization's independence can be compromised.
The procedure for resolving internal conflicts in civil society organizations in Rwanda is governed by law. The 2012 law governing the organisation and the functioning of national NGOs specifies that all national NGO statutes shall provide for an organ charged with conflict resolution. To comply, Article 19 of LIPRODHOR's statute provides for a Committee for Discipline and Conflict Resolution for handling such disputes, but this was not used.
Restrictions have been placed on LIPRODHOR's activities. A workshop scheduled for 24 July 2013 was prevented from going ahead by the police. The workshop, organized by LIPRODHOR, was on how civil society organizations could submit evidence as part of the reporting process for the United Nations Universal Periodic Review.
Background information
Amnesty International has documented longstanding patterns of intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders by the Rwandan authorities. Human rights defenders are regularly intimidated, threatened, and subjected to public and personalized attacks or administrative obstacles. Reporting on human rights violations, especially if publically denounced, leads to hostile government reactions. Human rights defenders often avoid working on sensitive areas, and refrain from or delay publishing to minimize potential repercussions. Rwandan human rights defenders also face challenges within their own organizations which have been infiltrated by people close to the authorities.
Few human rights organizations left in Rwanda retain some level of independence, but LIPRODHOR has been one such organization. It was established in 1991 and became one of the only credible independent national human rights organisations. By 1999, it had significantly increased its operations, staff and monitoring presence. LIPRODHOR's capacity to investigate and report on human rights violations incurred attacks from the Rwandan authorities. Its staff members have repeatedly been intimidated, harassed and forced into exile. The authorities have sought to discredit the work of the organization. A parliamentary commission report in March 2003 accused the Democratic Republican Movement (Mouvement démocratique républicain), a political opposition party, of propagating an alleged "divisionist" and discriminatory program and accused LIPRODHOR of obtaining foreign funding for the party. A second parliamentary commission in June 2004 alleged that LIPRODHOR, along with other organizations, was guilty of holding and disseminating genocide ideology and recommended its dissolution.
ENDS…/
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or visit our website at http://www.amnesty.org
 

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

Bill Clinton Defends the Most Repressive Regime on African Continent


Rwanda: Bill Clinton Defends the Most Repressive Regime on African Continent

By Jacqueline Umurungi
Inyenyeri News

14 August 2013
As the former US President Bill Clinton has been travelling around Africa with his daughter, Chelsea, visiting Clinton Foundation projects, he took time to defend the most repressive regime on the continent of his close friend Paul Kagame.
Bill Clinto with Paul Kagame
It is unfortunate that he is one of the most respected people on earth and a former US President can continue defend a man regarded by many as the Pinochet of Africa. The former US President argues that the Kagame government has been accused by the UN of backing some rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the accusations have not been fully litigated.

What does he mean by fully litigated?
But why can't he appreciate the partial litigation and explain to his friend that the continued massacre of the innocent children and women in Congo is not only a crime under international law but also creates bad blood between the two neighbors.
Similarly he argues that the reason why Kagame has kept his notorious forces in the neighboring country almost using the same language like Kagame that  Congo is full of people who committed genocide in Rwanda  "it's complicated by the fact that the section of Congo near Rwanda is full of people who perpetrated the genocide, who spurned the president's offer to come home and not go to prison and you can't get around the fact that the economic and social gains in Rwanda have been nothing short of astonishing under Kagame, and he says he's going to leave when his time's up. So I understand that there are some people in the human rights community who believe that every good thing that has happened in Rwanda should be negated by what they allege that they have done in the eastern Congo."
While the former US President is right on the economic front as his eyes might tell him when he sees the tall buildings in the City and good lights on the streets, he closes his eyes on the fact that most buildings are either owned by Kagame or his proxy business partners.  Just to give the former US President the picture of the Man his defending, the UK Financial Times ranked RPF as one of the richest political party on the continent worth US $500m. Does the former US president know who signs on the cheque of the crystal ventures? What about the companies that light the City?  Just to be precise to the US former leader, the business empires in this country are owned by Kagame family, in-laws-and friends.
Kagame's children of rwanda
Indeed, the human rights community have been very helpful in exposing the bad side of Kagame who always puts on a mask when his talking to the international community. It is therefore not surprising when the former US President is misled by the cover of the book without reading the book. Whereas there is some invisible evidence to pin the Rwandan dictator that the US President didn't see, never the less, the muzzling of political parties and the media is an open secret.
Kagame has killed or incarcerated not only his political opponents but those who are perceived to be ideologically differing from his autocratic rule. Kagame is a serial killer who fanatically holds superiority complex which has made him intolerant to many people even his former comrades. It is obvious that a person of this character will never sleep in the same house late alone a room with any human rights community. The Human Rights Watch which is funded by the American Tax payer's money was very instrumental in exposing even the government of Habyarimana who is one of the immediate predecessors to Kagame and was never friendly to this regime. The US government has acknowledged the credibility of this Human Rights Body and put some symbolic sanctions of freezing some military aid to Rwanda, why then the Former US President is still defending the indefensible murderer on the continent?
Kagame is the only president on the continent and in the World who goes to the parliament or his parliament for that matter and declares that he will kill a fly using a hammer if necessary and he gets a standing ovation, later his former Army Chief of Staff is then shot and miraculously kisses death. Again, Kagame is the only president who lacks diplomatic credentials by going wild and declares publicly that he will hit his counterpart of a neighboring country when a good opportunity is ripe according to him.
Does Bill really need more full litigated information?
The mapping report and another report of the UN experts have all concluded that Kagame government has been backing some rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo which unfortunately the government has denied despite overwhelming evidence from many circles. The Bill and Blair it seems that their brands on the continent are still saleable in what they called the "New Breeds of Africa". If Bill thinks that Kagame will go after 2017, he might be unaware of the clandestine movement of the RPF and Kagame of sidelining or pushing on side any person who is perceived to be an obstacle on the road map of changing the constitution to allow Kagame to seek for another term.
Whereas, the former US President might genuinely believe what the dictator tells him, he should consult Kagame's mentor in the neighboring country who once said that the problem of Africa is over staying in power by African leaders. Indeed, Kagame has been frequenting with some night travels to his mentor to seek some prophesy on what will happen  and probably what has made him stay longer in power  despite promising that he will uphold the values of the constitution. Therefore for those who don't know the other side of Kagame, they should consult the founders and elders of the RPF who have either been politically or physically exterminated or made politically impotent. Whether Kagame will do what he tells Bill in the private, it remains to be seen.

Related Story:

Bill Clinton Defends the Most Repressive Regime on African Continent


Rwanda: Bill Clinton Defends the Most Repressive Regime on African Continent

By Jacqueline Umurungi
Inyenyeri News

14 August 2013
As the former US President Bill Clinton has been travelling around Africa with his daughter, Chelsea, visiting Clinton Foundation projects, he took time to defend the most repressive regime on the continent of his close friend Paul Kagame.
Bill Clinto with Paul Kagame
It is unfortunate that he is one of the most respected people on earth and a former US President can continue defend a man regarded by many as the Pinochet of Africa. The former US President argues that the Kagame government has been accused by the UN of backing some rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the accusations have not been fully litigated.

What does he mean by fully litigated?
But why can't he appreciate the partial litigation and explain to his friend that the continued massacre of the innocent children and women in Congo is not only a crime under international law but also creates bad blood between the two neighbors.
Similarly he argues that the reason why Kagame has kept his notorious forces in the neighboring country almost using the same language like Kagame that  Congo is full of people who committed genocide in Rwanda  "it's complicated by the fact that the section of Congo near Rwanda is full of people who perpetrated the genocide, who spurned the president's offer to come home and not go to prison and you can't get around the fact that the economic and social gains in Rwanda have been nothing short of astonishing under Kagame, and he says he's going to leave when his time's up. So I understand that there are some people in the human rights community who believe that every good thing that has happened in Rwanda should be negated by what they allege that they have done in the eastern Congo."
While the former US President is right on the economic front as his eyes might tell him when he sees the tall buildings in the City and good lights on the streets, he closes his eyes on the fact that most buildings are either owned by Kagame or his proxy business partners.  Just to give the former US President the picture of the Man his defending, the UK Financial Times ranked RPF as one of the richest political party on the continent worth US $500m. Does the former US president know who signs on the cheque of the crystal ventures? What about the companies that light the City?  Just to be precise to the US former leader, the business empires in this country are owned by Kagame family, in-laws-and friends.
Kagame's children of rwanda
Indeed, the human rights community have been very helpful in exposing the bad side of Kagame who always puts on a mask when his talking to the international community. It is therefore not surprising when the former US President is misled by the cover of the book without reading the book. Whereas there is some invisible evidence to pin the Rwandan dictator that the US President didn't see, never the less, the muzzling of political parties and the media is an open secret.
Kagame has killed or incarcerated not only his political opponents but those who are perceived to be ideologically differing from his autocratic rule. Kagame is a serial killer who fanatically holds superiority complex which has made him intolerant to many people even his former comrades. It is obvious that a person of this character will never sleep in the same house late alone a room with any human rights community. The Human Rights Watch which is funded by the American Tax payer's money was very instrumental in exposing even the government of Habyarimana who is one of the immediate predecessors to Kagame and was never friendly to this regime. The US government has acknowledged the credibility of this Human Rights Body and put some symbolic sanctions of freezing some military aid to Rwanda, why then the Former US President is still defending the indefensible murderer on the continent?
Kagame is the only president on the continent and in the World who goes to the parliament or his parliament for that matter and declares that he will kill a fly using a hammer if necessary and he gets a standing ovation, later his former Army Chief of Staff is then shot and miraculously kisses death. Again, Kagame is the only president who lacks diplomatic credentials by going wild and declares publicly that he will hit his counterpart of a neighboring country when a good opportunity is ripe according to him.
Does Bill really need more full litigated information?
The mapping report and another report of the UN experts have all concluded that Kagame government has been backing some rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo which unfortunately the government has denied despite overwhelming evidence from many circles. The Bill and Blair it seems that their brands on the continent are still saleable in what they called the "New Breeds of Africa". If Bill thinks that Kagame will go after 2017, he might be unaware of the clandestine movement of the RPF and Kagame of sidelining or pushing on side any person who is perceived to be an obstacle on the road map of changing the constitution to allow Kagame to seek for another term.
Whereas, the former US President might genuinely believe what the dictator tells him, he should consult Kagame's mentor in the neighboring country who once said that the problem of Africa is over staying in power by African leaders. Indeed, Kagame has been frequenting with some night travels to his mentor to seek some prophesy on what will happen  and probably what has made him stay longer in power  despite promising that he will uphold the values of the constitution. Therefore for those who don't know the other side of Kagame, they should consult the founders and elders of the RPF who have either been politically or physically exterminated or made politically impotent. Whether Kagame will do what he tells Bill in the private, it remains to be seen.

Related Story:

-“The root cause of the Rwandan tragedy of 1994 is the long and past historical ethnic dominance of one minority ethnic group to the other majority ethnic group. Ignoring this reality is giving a black cheque for the Rwandan people’s future and deepening resentment, hostility and hatred between the two groups.”

-« Ce dont j’ai le plus peur, c’est des gens qui croient que, du jour au lendemain, on peut prendre une société, lui tordre le cou et en faire une autre ».

-“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

-“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.

-“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

READ MORE RECENT NEWS AND OPINIONS

Popular Posts

WebMD Health Channel - Sex & Relationships

Love Lectures

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

David DeAngelo - Dating Questions For Men

Christian Carter - Dating Questions For Women

Women - The Huffington Post

Recent Articles About Effective Communication Skills and Self Development