Alarming Deterioration of the Political Climate in Rwanda and a Way to Prevent a Subsequent Bloodshed.

Excellency General Paul Kagame                                                                     February 9, 2011
President of the Republic of Rwanda                                                                          Nº 01/J/PK/0211

P.O Box 15 Kigali
RWANDA

Ref.: Alarming Deterioration of the Political Climate in Rwanda and a Way to Prevent a

         Subsequent Bloodshed.

Excellency,

The Organization for Peace, Justice and Development in Rwanda and in the Great Lakes Region of Africa (OPJDR), Inc., an apolitical Human Rights Organization based in the United States, is deeply concerned by the deterioration of the political climate in Rwanda characterized by the current visible tension between Tutsis and Hutus, between Tutsis from Uganda and all others Tutsis, and finally between the small group of Tutsis at the head of state institutions (akazu) against other Tutsis. While you choose to hunt down anybody who dares to criticize your government or/and your party, today various groups of Rwandans, Hutus and Tutsi alike, armed or not, along with opposition political parties are anxiously bitter against your government. At the same time, high ranking officers from your army and civil officials are deserting your authority and all are consistently calling for your fall.

The Rwandan recent history shows that whenever the government used ethnic tensions by favoring one ethnic group against the other to remain on power, the results have consistently led to that leadership being overthrown by the oppressed citizens and subsequent blood shed was heavy in the country. In Rwanda, all kinds of attacks from one ethnic group to another have been followed by retaliations where many innocent people lost their lives. Rwandans should learn from their past experience. Following are the most important events that marked the recent history of Rwanda.

1. Revolution of 1959:

In April 1954, under the intense pressure from colonialists and missionaries, the Tutsi King Mutara Rudahirwa decided to abolish the Hutu slavery, also known as UBUHAKE and the redistribution of the land known as IBIKINGI[1]^, a decision that enraged the Tutsi elite[2]. On March 24, 1957, nine Hutus elite politicians published a paper entitled “Memorandum on the social aspect of the native racial issues” commonly known as “The Manifesto of the Bahutu”. The letter mainly denounced the racism and discrimination by “Tutsi race over Hutu in political, economic and social sphere”[3]. In the response to the Manifesto of the Bahutu letter, Tutsi leaders issued a reply on May 17, 1958 declaring that there was no brotherhood between Hutus and Tutsis since they don’t have the same ancestors, but only the Lord/Servitor relationship[4], a statement that enraged Hutu community[5]. This mounting tension culminated with the transfer of three Tutsi chiefs namely Kayihura, Mungarulire and Rwangombwa after the monarchist party Rwandan National Union (UNAR), criticized both the trusteeship administration, Hutu elite and politicians during its rally held in Kigali on September 13, 1959². In the aftermath of that incendiary meeting, the adepts of the UNAR party conducted attacks targeting Hutu politicians and chiefs who have replaced the Tutsi[6].

It is during such turmoil of ethnic tensions that on November 1, 1959 UNAR activists assaulted Chief Dominique Mbonyumutwa, one of the ten Vice-Chiefs Hutus and a very popular politician from Ndiza District. This assault, also known as the All Saints day’s incident ignited the retaliation of the Hutu against the Tutsi. Some 20,000 Tutsi fled to the neighboring countries and unfortunately an estimated of 200 lost their lives^2,5.

2. Tutsi refugees attack on Rwanda in 1962:

In the months following the proclamation of the abolition of the monarchy and the Proclamation of the Republic of Rwanda in 1961, several armed attacks from Uganda led by the Tutsi refugees on the newly Rwandan government were registered, one in February and another on March 25, 1962. Both struck Byumba prefecture, killing three policemen and two civilians[7].

3. Retaliations following attacks in 1962:

On March 26 and 27, 1962, in retaliation of the previous attacks, Hutu population took revenge on some Tutsis in the region of Byumba, burning down their houses, and looting their properties⁶.

4. Tutsi refugees’ attacks on Rwanda in 1963:

On July 5, 1963 another Tutsi led attack was launched on Rwanda. Later on various larger attacks with different fronts from Burundi starting on December 21 through December 27, 1963 were registered6. Between 200 and 300 Tutsi refugees in Burundi attacked the Gako military camp, entered the Nyamata countryside and crossed the Nyabarongo River bridge toward Kigali, the capital city where they were stopped by the Garde Nationale Rwandaise (GNR)⁶. At the same dates, on December 21 and 22, 1963 other several armed incursions targeted Cyangugu Prefecture, in South West of the country. Simultaneously, on December 25, another attack, this time from Uganda attempted to cross the northern border but Ugandan authorities stopped them. before they could reach the border. On December 27 a second group of about 600 men from Uganda crossed the Rwandan border at Kiziba, but GNR immediately intervened and repelled them⁶.

5. Counter Attacks of Rwanda Government in 1963

In counter attack, the Rwandan authorities arrested and imprisoned, then executed 15 members of UNAR and Rassemblement Democratique Republicain (RADER)[8]. In December, 1963, groups of Hutus armed with spears, clubs and machetes attacked Tutsi in Rusumo, Bugesera and Gikongoro[9], score of Tutsis were killed and many other fled to neighboring countries.

6. Violence on Tutsi population in 1973:

Starting in 1968, dissentions among elite Hutus on power frightened the unity of the country.  Animosity between Southerners where hailed President Kayibanda and Northerners was tense. In 1972, massacres of Hutus by the Tutsi mono ethnic army in Burundi and the arrivals of some of those Hutus who managed to escape Burundi pogroms exacerbated the already tense political situation in Rwanda. According to the witnesses of the event, those on power felt that they had the obligation to protect their brothers in Burundi and those in opposite camp tried to take the advantage of the situation to bring chaos and eventually overthrow their political enemies.

In February – March, 1973 purges were organized in secondary schools institutions and in the administration against the Tutsi population, by mid-February, the movement reached the National University of Butare[10],[11]. At Kabgayi, two Josephite priests and four of their students were assassinated by hundreds of mob students from Byimana and Shyogwe High Schools ¹⁰. The movement spread to administrations and private companies, after the towns, this phenomenon reached the countryside, and some innocent Tutsis people were killed and other were told to leave, their houses were burned down and properties looted ^8.9.

7. Tutsi led attacks on Rwanda on October 1^st, 1990:

On October 1^st, 1990, The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), mainly composed of former Rwandans Tutsis refugees, most of them high ranking military officers in Uganda army, attacked Rwanda through the northern border. The RPF motto with good purpose and slogan of restoring democracy, protecting human rights and ending the status of refugees for all Rwandans. After a month of intensive combats between RPF and Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), the rebels were defeated and those who survived returned to Uganda for reorganization. Starting January 1991, RPF started guerrilla warfare and the liberators of October 1990 became killers starting by the guerilla heads, Banyiginya General Fred Rwigema, Dr. Peter Bayingana and Maj. Chris Bunyenyezi. In fact, beginning 1991, RPF selectively killed hundreds to thousands Hutus peasants in Byumba and Ruhengeri regions[12].

8. Killings in Bigogwe and Bugesera in 1992

In 1992 and 1993, score of Tutsi of Bagogwe clan (North) and Tutsis in Bugesera (South East) respectively have been apparently killed by pro Hutus government apparatus[13]. However, it appeared later that, according to an RPF member, Lt Abdul Joshua Ruzibiza, in the book “Rwanda, L’Histoire Secrete, Panama 2005’, those killings were ignited by RPF infiltrators with the aims to implicate Rwanda authorities and its army and tarnish their image[14].

9. Genocide of 1994

On April 6, 1994, the presidential aircraft carrying Presidents Juvenal Habyarimana of Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi, from a peace talk meeting in Dar Es Salam to end war between FAR and RPF, was shot down when landing at the Kigali International Airport. All 13 persons on board including the three French crew members were killed on spot. Upon the news of president’s death reached out, killings of unprecedented levels spread over the country, and fighting between governmental forces and RPF resumed. While Tutsis were targeted in the area under the control of the government, RPF forces also were busy killing all Hutus in the northern areas under its control. On July 4, 1994, RPF defeated governmental forces and took power in Kigali. The killings, later recognized by the United Nations as Rwanda genocide, left about

800, 000 deaths. French and Spanish investigators concluded that RPF was responsible for the airplane shooting while an RPF government commission concluded that Hutus extremists were the authors of the crash[15].

In its resolution 955, the UN Security Council concluded that the two belligerents in Rwanda tragedy, namely RPF and Governmental Forces have been responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was then created to judge all persons found responsible of that tragedy. To the dismay of Rwandan victims, only members of the then Hutus government, who lost the war, have been trialed by the ICTR and no single member of the RPF, now in power in Kigali, has been indicted. In fact, in her book “The Hunt. Me and My War Criminal”, Carla Del Ponte, Prosecutor of ICTR details how  the current government of Rwanda led by RPF, backed by the United States and United Kingdom, exercised an unbearable pressure on the prosecution of the tribunal that succumbed to it and froze all investigations on RPF crimes[16]. Carla Del Ponte’s assertions were in fact the confirmation of her spokesperson; Florence Hartmann, who has revealed a year earlier in her book “Peace and Punishment”, Flammarion 2007[17].

10. Retaliations by the Tutsi led government following 1994 genocide:

During and after the Rwanda genocide, RPF’led government and other Tutsis extremists selectively killed innocent Hutus as many as they could get from inside and outside Rwanda. (cfr Major Furuma Alphonse[18] and Lieutenant Abdul Ruzibiza’s testimony[19])

11. Current Precursor Signs of Potential Upcoming Troubles:

11.1. Tensions between Hutu-Tutsis communities:

After RPF won the war and established its new government in July, 1994, it appeared that a clear policy was put in place aimed to hunting Hutus not only interahamwe genocidaires but, also innocent people, including elderly, women and children. In the beginning, the Government and pro-government organizations did set up and implement different measures to marginalize and exterminate Hutus population¹². Different training sessions were organized to falsely accuse Hutus and imprison as many Hutus as possible mostly educated men and women, business owners, journalists, clergy members, and even young boys[20]. The plans were physically executed on village levels, in prisons, or through local courts, and later in gacaca courts and even at ICTR proceedings where forged testimonies were largely used. High ranking RPF authorities did not even hesitate to state that “…they can use a spoon to empty a barrel container filled of water” referring to reducing Hutus population despite their significant number. One would also regrettably recall Mr. President, your speech in Murambi on April 7, 2007 where you regretted not to have exterminated enough people who were fleeing the country and now you were obliged to welcoming them back to Rwanda[21].

11.2. Massacres of innocent People:

One of the well documented extermination of the Hutus was marked by the massacres at Kibeho Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp housing between 80,000 and 100,000 people[22] on 22 April 1995. On that fateful day, up to 8,000 people were killed by the RPF army while UN peacekeepers were watching[23]. This selective massacre was followed by a carefully extermination of Hutus refugees amassed in refugees camps in Eastern DRC where up to 250,000 Hutus souls were murdered, an act that can be qualified as act of genocide according to the UN Human Rights Commission report made public on October 1, 2010 ¹⁸.

11.3. Internally division within RPF party:

Later in 2000, internally division within ruling party started to emerge. In fact, it clearly appeared that the Tutsi faction from Uganda ensured the quasi control of the country’s institutions, making less favored those Tutsi from Burundi, Congo and those Tutsis who survived the 1994 genocide whose complains were quickly dismissed by the authorities. One remembers that in 2000, the following slogan was initiated by yourself, Mr. President: “Keep your feelings closed in the cabinets” or “Izo sentiments muzifungirane mu tubati”. Some distinguished RPF members were troubled with such drastic event and stated that: “Even Tutsis started fleeing the Country” as it was depicted during the Michigan declaration following RPF convention on September 3, 2000[24]. It was during this wind that we saw the first wave of Tutsis fleeing the country such as the Former speaker of the House, Mr. Sebarenzi Joseph in 2000, followed by Mr. Kajeguhakwa Valens a prominent business man and friend of the former Rwandan President Pasteur Bizimungu who, was later arrested and jailed for having tried to start a political party after his forced resignation.

Later on, RPF continued to isolate its inner members subsequently creating a small and strong group around, You,  President Paul Kagame to control the country. It is increasingly being shown that even in that inner circle, there is less and less tolerance on any dissenting voice toward you. This was mostly characterized by the take off of Col. Patrick Karegeya in 2007 and later by Lt.Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa, who was nearly assassinated in June 2010 in South Africa where he leaves in exile[25].

Later during July 2010, General Karenzi Karake former UMAMID deputy Commander and General Muhire, former Commandant in chief of the Air Force where arrested for unspecified reasons. They have not been produced before the court of law some five months after their arrests. OPJDR has just learned that Gen. Karake has been released after he pleaded for mercy.

Regarding General Rugigana Ngabo, brother of Lt. Gen. Nyamwasa’s, has been held in undisclosed location since August 2010. His family has not been allowed to see him since his arrest and many fear that he has been a subject to the harsh tortures, until Thursday 27 January when he was allowed to appear to the Court which subsequently has decided to extend his detention while the investigations go on[26]. Today, Hutus and Tutsis are almost equally experiencing the same hunt to kill by the kill-to-reign principle.

11.4 Arrests, Disappearances and Assassinations:

Arrests and assassinations of political leaders, journalists and lawyers have been nourishing your kill-to-reign principle.

On April 21, 2010, Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, chairperson of the yet-to-be- registered opposition political party, United Democratic Forces (FDU-Inkingi) was arrested for genocide ideology, negationism and collaboration with a terrorist organization. She was released the next day but has been re-arrested on October 14, 2010 and remains in custody since then. Most observers concur to state that she is being prosecuted for her political opinions[27].

On May 28, 2010 Professor Peter Erlinder, a US Lawyer and lead counsel at International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has been arrested in Kigali where he has travelled to join the Legal Counsel team of Mrs. Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. Pr. Erlinder was being accused of “denying genocide and negationism” for simply has been a lawyer to a genocide defendant in trial at ICTR. It was surprising to find out that Pr. Erlinder was being accused of the same charges as his client Pr. Erlinder was released three weeks later on bail on humanitarian ground after US Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton intervened publically to denounce that unlawful arrest[28].

On June 21, 2010 Mr. Denis Semadwinga, former Chief of staff to the incarcerated Gen. Laurent Nkunda , has been decapitated in his leaving room by unknown assailants in the town of Gisenyi, Rwanda. One recalls that Gen. Nkunda has been in custody in Rwanda since January 2008 without trial[29].

On June 24, 2010, Me NTAGANDA Bernard, Founder and President of the opposition party PS IMBERAKURI were arrested along with all his team as they prepared to conduct a peaceful protest against the National Election Commission. These persons remain in prison as of today. Meanwhile, Mr. Aimable SIBOMANA RUSANGANWA, Press Secretary of Chairperson Bernard NTAGANDA , who disappeared since June 2010, remains uncountable for[30].

On June 24, 2010 Jean-Leonard Rugambage, a former journalist with independent newspaper Umuvugizi was shot and killed outside his home in Kigali^[31] while investigating on potential involvement of Rwanda secret services in Nyamwasa’s assassination attempt³¹.

On July 14, 2010, Vice President of the opposition Democratic Green Party, Andre Kagwa Rwisereka, was found brutally murdered just outside the city of Butare²⁷. In addition several independent journalists have been incarcerated or forced to flee the country. The most known are Ms. Uwimana Agnes and her colleague Mukakibibi Saidati of the tabloid UMURABYO incarcerated since May 2010. Mr. Gasasira Jean Bosco, of the newspaper UMUVUGIZI and Charles Kabonera and Didas Gasana of UMUSESO managed to escape and now leave in exile.

Overall, today Hutus and Tutsis alike, military personnel or civilians are equally experiencing the same hunt to kill by the kill-to-reign principle

11.5 Armed forces in Exile:

At least three armed political groups operate now in neighboring countries. The known are  Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDRL), Rally for Unity and  Democracy 

(RUD-Urunana) and Rassemblement du Peuple Rwandais (RPR). In recent years they have been calling for an inclusive inter-rwanda dialogue between Rwandans from all the corners of life to resolve the ongoing conflict. Your government arrogantly dismissed all these calls.

12. How to break the cycles of violence and killings in Rwanda

If nothing is done soon, the tension today among Hutu-Tutsi ethnic groups, Tutsi from Uganda and all others Tutsis, and inner circle Tutsis on the head of the State (akazu) against other Tutsis could end up igniting troubles in Rwanda, probably worse than other similar events experienced in previous years. A highly and inclusive Inter-Rwandan Dialogue is a must to ease all kind of mistrust and animosity among Rwandans. This highly sought Inter-Rwandan Dialogue, which among other should lead to the Truth and Reconciliation in Rwanda. Also it should generate a better way to break the killing cycles and create a harmonious Hutu-Tutsi cohabitation through the power sharing in Government, Army and all public sectors positions.

A frank dialogue between Twas, Hutus and Tutsis from all walks of lives should not only instigate a path to reconciliation but also determine a political power structure that will include democratic values and a constitution that will make every Rwandan to feel secure and politically represented. This new political system should ensure that not only all Rwandans Refugees can return to their homeland but it will also ensure that no new refugees are any more generated. Each Rwandan needs to feel secure and represented in all facets of the government including the leadership and the security apparatus.

Excellency President, OPJDR would like to call upon your personal conscience as well as your constitutional obligations, to do everything in your power to protect the Rwandan population against these vicious cycles of conflicts and endless human rights abuses. This goal can be achieved by opening political space, accepting the freedom of speech and assembly in the country as a ground breaking for the preparation of this High Inclusive Rwanda Inter Dialogue. OPJDR and other Rwandan organizations around the world are eager to assist your government and your party to set up the conditions leading to this important venue.

Sincerely                                                         Pascal Kalinganire

              Coordinator, OPJDR

                                                                         

CC:

Honorable Ban Ki-Moon

UN Secretary-General

760 United Nations Plaza,

Manhattan, NY10017

Members of Security Council

Honorable U.S. Senator John Kerry

Chair of Foreign Relations Committee

218 Russell Bldg/ Second Floor
WashingtonD.C. 0510

Honorable U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

US Senate Subcommittee on African Affairs

506 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC20510-4904

Honorable Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, DC20520

Honorable Judge Ms. Navanethem Pillay
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland 

Honorable Mr. Kenneth Roth

Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY10118-3299USA

Honorable Mrs. Maja Daruwala
Director Executive, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) 

B-117, Second Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave
New Delhi - 110 017 - INDIA

Honorable Mrs. KATE ALLEN

Director Executive, Amnesty International
The Human Rights Action Centre
17-25 New Inn Yard, London EC2A 3EA

---

[1] NEWBURY, Catharine, 1988, The Cohesion of Oppression, Clientship and Ethnicity in Rwanda, 1860-1960 , New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press. Pg. 134-140

[2] LINDEN Ian, 1999: 346, Christianisme et pouvoirs au Rwanda (1900-1990) , Paris: Karthala.

[3] CHRÉTIEN, Jean-Pierre, 2003, Afrique des Grands Lacs, 2000 ans d’histoire , Paris: Flammarion.

[4] [4]Ibaruwa y’abagaragu b’ibwami”, Kinyamateka, 15 juillet 1958, no 14, p.2

[5] Lemarchand, René, 1970: 154; Munyarugerero, 2003: 50-51; Reyntjens, 1985: 236.

[6] REYNTJENS, Filip, 1985 : 261, Pouvoir et droit au Rwanda, Droit public et évolution politique, 1916-1973 , Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.

[7] LEMARCHAND, René, 1970: Rwanda and Burundi , London: Pall Mall Press.

[8] [8]REYNTJENS, Filip, 1985, Pouvoir et droit au Rwanda, Droit public et évolution politique, 1916-1973 , Tervuren: Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale.

[9]Lemarchand, 1970: 224-225;Reyntjens, 1985: 466.

[10]MUNYARUGERERO, François-Xavier, 2003, Réseaux, pouvoirs, oppositions, La Compétition politique au Rwanda , Paris: L’Harmattan.

[12] World Journal News: Rwanda: President Paul Kagame is implicated In War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. By Maj. Alphonse Furuma,

      former member of the RPF/RPA. 29 May 2009

[13] Journal of Humanitarian Assistance: Towards Crisis in Rwanda 1990-1994. http://www.reliefweb.int/library/nordic/book1/pb020f.html

[14]Ruzibiza, Abdul (2005): “Rwanda, L’Histoire Secrete, Panama"

[15] The Spanish Indictment of High-ranking Rwandan Officials. Tribunal Constitucional, Sala Segunda, STC 237/2005, judgment of 26              September 2005; available at http://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/jurisprudencia/Stc2005/STC2005-237.html

[16] Carla Del Ponte (2008): “The Hunt. Me and My War Criminal”

[17] Carla Del Ponte (2008): “The Hunt. Me and My War Criminal”

[18] http://greatlakesdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/09/former-rpa-major-pins-kagame-on.html

[19] http://rwandarwabanyarwanda.over-blog.com/article-27226863.html

[20] Unclassified document: UN HCR team report of September 12, 1994 “New Human Rights Abuse in Rwanda” led by George E. Moose

[21] REMARKS BY HIS EXCELLENCY PAUL KAGAME AT THE 13 TH COMMEMORATION OF GENOCIDE OF 1994 available at  http://presidency.gov.rw/archives/151-april-07th-2007

[22] Connor, John: Bravery under fire. Wartime, Issue 39. Australian War Memorial.. Retrieved 2008-09-25

[23] Witness to Genocide - A Personal Account of the 1995 Kibeho Massacre. http://www.anzacday.org.au/history/peacekeeping/anecdotes/kibeho.html

[24] The President and Vice President of RPF in USA have resigned and quit the RPFhttp://www.inshuti.org/resigned.htm

[25] Rwanda ex-army chief  Nyamwasa shot in Johannesburg.  Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10358171

[26] Lt Col Rugigana Ngabo, brother to General Kayumba Nyamwasa, in military court in Kigali. Avalaible at:

http://rwandinfo.com/eng/lt-col-rugigana-ngabo-brother-to-general-kayumba-nyamwasa-in-military-court-in-kigali/

[27] OPJDR’s PRESS RELEASE JULY16, 2010 . PRESS RELEASE Nº 29/J/PK/710  of July 16, 2010

[28] OPJDR letter of June 1, 2010, N° 24/HR/PK/610

[29] A Prominent Tutsi Ntare Semadwinga Was Assassinated in His Home inGisenyi-Rwanda. Available at: http://greatlakesdemocracy.blogspot.com/2010/06/prominent-tutsi-ntare-semadwinga-was.html

[30] OPJDR: Letter to President Paul Kagame.  N° 20/P/PK/310 of March 20, 2010 available at http://rwandarwabanyarwanda.over-blog.com/article-rwanda-opjdr-open-letter-to-president-paul-kagame-47577046.html

[31]Rwanda Presidential Election 2010: Rwanda’s New Political Victims By ZareenIqbal, August, 2010

Rwanda: Paul Kagame Sacrificed The Tutsis

[Translated from original French by Mamadou Kouyate. Only the French version shall prevail==MK/HTPJ adopted from Hungry for the Truth
Paul Kagame sacrificed the Tutsis
By Jean-Marie Vianney Ndagijimana
April 2009

Jean Marie Ndagijimana

ISBN: 978-2-916380-07-0
Editions La Pagaie
BP 3653545065
Orléans cedex 2
France

Tel. 02 38 69 05 04
Tel. 06 67 27 72 65

editionslapagaie@yahoo.fr
http://www.editionslapagaie.jmn-sys.fr/

Abstract:

“General Paul Kagame has not stopped the Tutsi genocide as he has always claimed. On the contrary, this warlord has deliberately provoked the genocide then he cynically and systematically rejected all initiatives of the Rwandan Armed Forces, the United Nations and some Western countries -including France- to stop the massacre of Tutsis. On several occasions he threatened to fire on foreign troops that would attempt to intervene to stop the genocide. Kagame’s objective has never been to protect the Tutsis from within Rwanda, but to use them as an excuse to gain power by force. Therefore, Kagame is jointly responsible for the Tutsi genocide to the same extent as other genocidaires and must respond for his acts both in courtroom and before history”.

About the author:
Jean-Marie Vianney NDAGIJIMANA is a lawyer by training. He studied at the universities of Bujumbura and Kinshasa. A professional diplomat, he served in Brussels, Paris and Addis Ababa. He is a privileged observer of the ethnic and political conflicts in his country of origin, Rwanda, and the entire African Great Lakes region. He now runs several associations that promote national and regional reconciliation on the basis of impartial justice and dialogue.

JMV Ndagijimana was Ambassador of Rwanda to Paris in October 1990 to April 1994 before being sacked for having denounced the massacre of Tutsi and the Hutu of the opposition. On July 19, 1994, he became Minister (MDR) of Foreign Affairs in the so-called government "of national unity at large" headed by Mr Faustin Twagiramungu. In September 1994, Mr Koffi Annan, then UN adjunct Secretary-General on humanitarian issues submitted to JMV Ndagijimana a report confirming the massacre of tens of thousands of Hutu civilians by the army of Paul Kagame between July and September 1994. Refusing to endorse Kagame’s policy of ethnic cleansing, JMV Ndagijimana left the government and chose exile in order to bear witness to the world opinion and denounce such a silent genocide but equally heinous and condemnable to the same extent as the genocide against the Tutsis. Through his testimonies, JMV Ndagijimana pursues his fight for truth, justice and reconciliation.

Some excerpts:

Assassination of Fred Rwigema and the rise of Paul Kagame
(From “Paul Kagame sacrificed the Tutsis”, page 51 to 54)

On October 2, 1990, the Rwandan civil war was about to promptly end following a major event that remained secret until the end of October. General Fred Rwigema who led RPF rebel troops died in circumstances that have never been clarified. The high command of the new RPF embargoed the event until about October 10, 1990. Even the international news media were trapped and continued to praise the bravery of the young general, Fred Rwigema. However, strange scenarios supposed to leak secrets about this event took place within the RPF. Since the beginning of hostilities, two officers suddenly appeared on the stage and gave the impression of being the real strong men of the Front. Namely, Major Bayingana and Major Bunyenyezi were the only ones to speak out on the airwaves of international news media on behalf of the rebels, without ever referring to their commander in chief. On or about October 10, 1990, the most alarming rumors were circulating among the refugees in Uganda: Fred Rwigema might have been seriously injured and transferred to the United Kingdom.

I learned the death of Fred Rwigema just days later. At a farewell reception held in my honor by my country mate Kinuma Faustin, then head of division at the Organization of African Unity (AU). I met a Ugandan official from AU freshly transferred from New York. Namely, Mr Gideon Kayinamura, was a Tutsi naturalized Ugandan. During our small talk, he did not hide his sympathy for the RPF rebellion and the role his cousin Patrick Mazimpaka, co-founder of the RPF, was playing within the Front. Without being forced to do so, my ex-country mate told me about a persistent rumor on Fred Rwigema’s death. When I asked him how he became aware of such a rumor, he said that one of his friends in Kampala had informed him that it has been a few days that a secret memorial service was being held at the home of the General rebel. “There's no doubt about it”, he concluded. He warned me saying: “Do not think that the death of Fred Rwigema will end the civil war, not at all. Make sure to not stalemate! You (Rwandan government) should find a quick solution to the problems posed by this war. Otherwise, Rwanda will irreversibly enter a process of “somalisation”. RPF rebels are true warriors, Your Excellency”!

After the reception I informed Kigali about the rumors on Fred Rwigema’s death, alluding to the risk of “somalisation” predicted by Gideon Kayinamura, the future ambassador of Rwanda in New York under the RPF regime.

The news spreads in Kigali at a supersonic speed. Speculations are rife. Some circles warn that it may be an attempt of disinformation. Rwigema, they say, is touring the world in search of sophisticated weapons. The announcement of his injury would be a decoy. Others confirmed Rwigema’s death and concluded that the RPF has been defeated.

Nevertheless, the FAR (Rwandan Army) got reenergized at the thought of injuring or killing the commander in chief of the RPF rebels. Several young officers and non-commissioned officers (NCO) claim to be the authors. On October 23, 1990, another lurch came about: the two spokesmen of the RPF in turn disappeared from circulation. The event is even so important that on the battle field the rebels went through a series of slumps, one after another, suffering heavy military setbacks. Late in October 1990, the first phase of the Rwandan civil war ended in a total confusion. Expelled from the Rwandan territory, the RPF troops resumed their journey to Uganda, while Rwandan forces cleanse the region of Mutara tracking down the latest rebels hiding in the Akagera National Park. President Habyarimana can now boast of having barely escaped, but for how long? Is the problem solved so far? The representatives of Rwandan refugees in Europe are not already talking about a tactical withdrawal aimed at preceding a long period of guerrilla warfare? Will the president of Uganda himself accepts such a humiliation? Nothing was for sure!

With regard to the main causes of the RPF retreat, many people believe that the sudden death of the rebel leader disorganized and demoralized the troops. These people also establish a link between Rwigema’s death and the death of his two deputies, Major Bayingana and Major Bunyenyezi. It is said that contradictions appeared in the high command of the RPF as to the advisability of launching the attack when peaceful prospects were clearly becoming plausible. General Rwigema was ready to accept Habyarimana’s welcoming hand, while other members of the RPF High Command favored a military solution. Confronting the reality on the ground determined the rest. Twenty-four (24) hours after entering into the Rwandan territory, these contradictions reached their paroxysm. Quickly, a group of RPF “intellectuals” accused Rwigema of tactical mistakes and softness. During a meeting held in early October 1990, General Rwigema was simply executed by his assistants. High precaution measures were taken to simulate this murder into an accident. The traitors had now a freer hand to pursue the military campaign without qualms.

President Museveni who was very attached to Fred Rwigema decided to take things in control. “We must revenge Fred Rwigema and reorganize the command of the RPF”, he said. No sooner said than done! Museveni recalled back home Major Paul Kagame, chief of military intelligence of the Ugandan army, who was being trained in the United States. Kagame returned to Kampala around October 10, 1990. After endless meetings with President Museveni, he crossed the Ugandan border into Rwanda and joined the front on October 14, 1990. A week later, on October 23, 1990, Major Bayingana and Major Bunyenyezi were cold bloodily executed on Kagame’s orders. The battle field was now free and a new strong man was born. Kagame was the most feared officer within the Ugandan army. He was best known for his expeditious methods that have proven successful in the fight against the armed rebellion in Northern Uganda. The Ugandan soldiers had nicknamed him Pontius Pilate. Thirty (30) years old when the RPF attack against Rwanda was launched, Major Paul Kagame, like Fred Rwigema, grew up in exile. His mother is the younger sister of Queen Rosalie Gicanda, widow of late King Mutara III Rudahigwa. This providential relationship brought the young Major much closer to the last kings (Bami) Tutsi and provided him with a surplus of legitimacy that was crucially needed in such circumstances. His first official appearance at the head of the RPF coincided with the first negotiation meeting held by President Mobutu of Zaire (now DRC), between delegations of Rwanda and RPF aimed at concluding a cease-fire.

Related Materials:
Explaining the Ultimate Escalation in Rwanda:How and Why Tutsi Rebels Provoked a Retaliatory Genocide

Provoking genocide: a revised history of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.

Paul Kagame, the Mastermind of the Genocide of Interior Tutsis

Testimony of Abdul Ruzibiza about how mistakes by both the Rwandan Government and the RPF led to the Rwandan genocide of 1994

Related articles

• Rwanda opposition leader jailed for speeches (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Opposition Leader in Rwanda is Sentenced to 4 Years (nytimes.com)
• Pia Sawhney: Blaming the Messenger: A Response to 'One Man's Rwanda' by Tristan McConnell (huffingtonpost.com)
• Rwanda journalists sent to jail (bbc.co.uk)
• You: Rwanda: Kagame's dilemma (search.japantimes.co.jp)
• Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future | Stephen Kinzer (guardian.co.uk)
• Tweeting with Paul Kagame (one.org)
• Rwandan president pressures exiled opponents (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Rwandan president pressures exiled opponents (sfgate.com)
• Rwanda exiles get long jail terms (bbc.co.uk)

Visite de Paul Kagame(Rwanda) en France

(Kagame,Rwanda,génocide,FPR)Lettre ouverte à l'attention du Président de la République française.Copie l’Assemblée Nationale et au Sénat français Copie au Parlement européen Copie à la Presse internationale Excellence, Monsieur le Président de la République, Je suis, comme beaucoup de citoyens français, sérieusement interpellé par l'annonce de la prochaine "visite d'affaire" du Général Paul Kagamé, prévue à Paris en mars 2011, à l'invitation du MEDEF (1). Pour bien comprendre le malaise que partagent avec moi nombre de vos concitoyens, il est important de mettre en perspective plusieurs évènements. D’une part les accusations infondées et le comportement odieux dont ont fait preuve ces dernières années les autorités de Kigali à l’encontre de personnalités politiques et militaires françaises accusées sans preuve de complicité de génocide au Rwanda en 1994. D’autre part, les lourdes charges portées à l’encontre de Paul Kagamé par le rapport mapping de l’ONU dans le cadre des violations massives des droits de l’homme commises en RDC par les troupes du FPR.   Ces charges font sensiblement écho aux graves accusations de massacres et de crimes contre l’humanité formulées à l’encontre du président rwandais et de ses proches dans les rapports d’enquêtes judiciaires menées par les juges d’instruction français et espagnol suite aux évènements survenus au Rwanda en été 1994 et qui ont amené chacun des magistrats à décerner des mandats d’arrêts internationaux.    Monsieur le Président,   L’examen approfondi de tous ces éléments critiques ainsi que de nombreux rapports des Nations Unies et des ONG sur l’exploitation illégale des ressources en RDC par les autorités de Kigali doivent vous faire réfléchir sur l’opportunité politique d’une telle visite. Il en va de l’honneur d’un pays et de son peuple tout entier, sa grandeur et son rôle malheureusement déjà fort amoindri sur la scène internationale et plus encore sur la scène africaine.   Il ne s’agit assurément pas d’un détail mais d’une réalité que je vous exhorte à prendre en considération afin de ne pas élargir encore plus le fossé regrettable qui s’est creusé ces dernières années entre vous, le peuple français et une grande partie de ses élites.   Mes préoccupations, loin de se vouloir choquantes, s’accordent parfaitement avec les considérations qui ont poussé les Premiers ministres espagnol et belge à refuser de rencontrer officiellement le général Paul Kagamé. Monsieur Jose-Luis Zapatero a en effet préféré décliner sa rencontre avec Paul Kagamé initialement prévue à Madrid le 17 juillet 2010 lors du Sommet des Nations Unies sur la pauvreté (2) et Monsieur Yves Leterme a quant à lui également renoncé à cette rencontre lors de la visite de Paul Kagamé à Bruxelles le 6 décembre 2010 à l’occasion des Journées européennes du Développement (3).   Monsieur le Président, les impératifs économiques de la France ne laissent personne indifférent. Tout le monde est conscient que la grandeur de la France dans le monde passe aussi par la vigueur de son industrie internationale. Mais je doute qu’au regard de la situation qui prévaut en Afrique centrale, les intérêts de la France y trouve un quelconque intérêt. Ils ne sauraient servir que quelques appétits d’ordre privé, sans ambition et sans vision, qui misent à tort sur le processus d’implosion de la RDC et sur une hypothétique hégémonie rwandaise dans la région des grands Lacs. Des intérêts qui ne s’encombrent pas des considérations d’ordre moral, ce qui est regrettable. On en voit la limite aujourd’hui avec les évènements en Afrique du nord.   L'image de marque du Général Kagamé s'est fortement détériorée ces dernières années. Il ne bénéficie plus de la moindre entrée à la Maison blanche et ses soutiens internationaux se sont érodés même s’ils demeurent tenaces. L’atrocité des exactions qu’il a commises en RDC ainsi que son rôle actif dans les évènements de l’été 1994, trop longtemps couverts par le voile d’une culpabilité dont on comprend à présent qu’elle n’était pas justifiée, comme se plaisait au contraire à le soutenir Monsieur Kouchner, sont devenus évidents. Plus aucune tolérance ne devrait dès lors être affichée à l’égard de pareil personnage. Ce serait une faiblesse dans le chef de la France, une faiblesse incompréhensible. La France et avec elle certains de ses concitoyens les plus honorables ont vu leur honneur sali.   Vous devez, Monsieur le Président, rapidement entreprendre une œuvre de réhabilitation à leur égard. Ils la méritent et n’attendent que cela de vous. Pas de la compromission.      Permettez-moi pour vous en convaincre davantage de vous remémorer encore bien les faits suivants :       * LE REGIME DE PAUL KAGAMÉ A L'EXTERIEUR   Dans un récent rapport des Nations Unies (4), le président rwandais a été directement mis en cause dans des massacres qui ont provoqué la mort de plusieurs centaines de milliers de rwandais hutu - sans compter encore le triste décompte de morts congolais à venir - au Congo-Zaïre : " ... Au moment des incidents couverts par le présent rapport, la population hutu au Zaïre, y compris les réfugiés venus du Rwanda, constituait un groupe ethnique au sens de la Convention susmentionnée. Plusieurs incidents répertoriés semblent confirmer que les multiples attaques visaient les membres du groupe ethnique hutu comme tel, et non pas seulement les criminels responsables du génocide commis en 1994 à l’égard des Tutsi au Rwanda et qu’aucun effort n’avait été fait par l’AFDL/APR pour distinguer entre les Hutu membres des ex-FAR et les Hutu civils, réfugiés ou non. ... L’usage extensif d’armes blanches (principalement des marteaux) et les massacres systématiques de survivants après la prise des camps démontrent que les nombreux décès ne sont pas imputables aux aléas de la guerre ou assimilables à des dommages collatéraux [4]. De nombreuses atteintes graves à l'intégrité physique ou mentale de membres du groupe ont été également commises, avec un nombre très élevé de Hutu blessés par balle, violés, brûlés ou battus ... " Ce rapport, publié officiellement le 1er octobre 2010, est loin d'être le premier du genre aboutissant aux mêmes conclusions. Depuis 1994, d'autres rapports de l'ONU et d'ONG internationales mettent en évidence l'implication directe du régime de Kigali dans les crimes de guerre et les crimes contre l'humanité commis au Rwanda et au Congo-Zaïre, de même que dans le pillage des richesses minières de la République démocratique du Congo (5). Cette surabondance d'éléments attestant l'existence d'un régime criminel à Kigali, nous en ferait presque oublier les enquêtes judiciaires menées par le juge français Jean-Louis Bruguière et le juge espagnol Fernando Andreu Merelles (6) qui, elles aussi, pointent la responsabilité de Paul Kagamé et de certains de ses proches collaborateurs (voir ci-dessous le tableau synoptique de comparaison).   * LE REGIME DE PAUL KAGAMÉ A L'INTERIEUR   La situation interne au Rwanda s'est fortement dégradée depuis l'élection présidentielle fin 2010 qui a accordé un plébiscite stalinien au général Paul Kagamé (7). L'arrestation de l'opposante Victoire Ingabire, le climat de terreur et les meurtres politiques ont jeté le discrédit sur ces élections. La contestation interne au régime de Kigali (8) et la dénonciation de sa véritable nature (9) ne peuvent plus être passées sous silence : - le 29 décembre 2010, Gérard Gahima, ancien Procureur général du Rwanda, membre du noyau fondateur du Front patriotique rwandais, a expliqué que « deux raisons expliquent pourquoi ce dialogue interrwandais qui rassemble Hutus et Tutsis, représentants de l’ancien régime et déçus du FPR, doit se poursuivre en exil : au Rwanda même ce type d’exercice n’est pas possible. En outre, la diaspora rwandaise est nombreuse, dépassant, en Europe seulement, les 40.000 personnes. Presque tous les cadres de l’ancien régime demeurent en exil où ils représentent une opposition forte et organisée… » (10) - le 8 février 2011, le Docteur Theogene Rudasingwa, ancien Secrétaire général du Front Patriotique Rwandais, ancien Directeur de cabinet du président Paul Kagamé, ancien Ambassadeur du Rwanda à Washington a accusé Paul Kagamé d'être un tueur et a confirmé le rôle de l'armée de Paul Kagamé dans les atrocités commises par ce dernier contre les populations hutu au Rwanda et en RDC (11).   * UN REGIME DECLINANT   Le général Paul Kagamé est donc rattrapé par la vérité historique et il fait face à une opposition sans précédent alliant les représentants de l’ancien régime et les déçus du FPR. L'arrestation et l'emprisonnement à Kigali de Maître Peter Erlinder, avocat de la défense au TPIR, et son inculpation pour « négation du génocide » en juin 2010 ainsi que la condamnation de l’assassinat du conseil Mwaikusa par les Avocats de la Défense du TPIR en juillet 2010 (12) ont fait éclaté au grand jour la distorsion entre la vérité judiciaire du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda et les informations communiquées par certains médias et groupe de pression.   Les assassinats d'opposants politiques et militaires à l'extérieur du Rwanda, dont la tentative de meurtre contre le général Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa en 2010 en Afrique du Sud, ne suffisent plus à endiguer le mouvement de contestation. La thèse officielle du génocide des Tutsis de 1994 ne résiste plus pour sa part à la vérité judiciaire du TPIR et ramène inexorablement aux événements qui ont menés à l'attentat contre l'avion des présidents rwandais et burundais en 1994.   Le colonel belge Luc Marchal (numéro deux de la MINUAR 1993-1994) a donné son point de vue début 2011 (13) et l'expert français auprès du TPIR Bernard Lugan a expliqué dès avril 2010 (14) : « ... Le génocide n'ayant pas été programmé, comme cela a été clairement établi par le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda (jugement du 18 décembre 2008 dans l'affaire Bagosora et consorts, TPIR-98-41-T), la France ne pouvait donc savoir qu'il allait avoir lieu. ... En réalité, ces attaques constituent une manœuvre servant à masquer les véritables responsabilités dans le génocide.  ... Le régime de Kigali est inquiet ; le moment approche en effet qui verra éclater la vérité qui est que c'est en utilisant l'apocalypse du génocide qu'il a pris le pouvoir et qu'il a été accepté par la 'communauté internationale'.  Sa légitimité étant fondée sur le mensonge, il veille donc avec un soin jaloux à ce que l'histoire 'officielle' qu'il a réussi à imposer aux médias ne soit pas contestée.  ... Le plus insolite est que, dans cette entreprise, il bénéficie de l’aide d’alliés influents au sein de l’Etat français et notamment de la plus haute hiérarchie du ministère des Affaires étrangères … » N'est-il pas édifiant que les porte-voix de la thèse du génocide des Tutsis continuent à nier cette vérité judiciaire du TPIR et qu'ils continuent à parler de "renforcement du négationnisme du génocide des Tutsis" ? Benjamin Abtan s'y est risqué le dernier le 20 novembre 2010 dans Le Monde mais il n'a jamais réagi à mon droit de réponse (15). Benjamin Abtan se tait.   * RAPPROCHEMENT DE PARIS ET DE KIGALI   Force est de constater que votre voyage à Kigali le 25 février 2010 (16) a eu lieu avant que les experts du TPIR ne renseignent correctement l'opinion publique au sujet des sentences du TPIR détruisant la thèse de planification de génocide avant l'attentat. Votre reconnaissance d'"erreurs" françaises lors du génocide rwandais a suscité un certain nombre de réactions (17). Le principal objectif de ce voyage a été de renforcer les liens entre la RDC et le Rwanda pour utiliser les richesses de l’Est que convoitent les multinationales (18). La prochaine arrivée du général Paul Kagamé à Paris en mars 2011, initiée par le MEDEF, aura lieu dans des circonstances sensiblement différentes de celles de février 2010   En suivant l'exemple des Premier Ministres Zapatero et Leterme qui ont boycotté le général Paul Kagamé, vous disposerez d'une opportunité unique pour rétablir l'honneur de la République et de l'armée française injustement accusés de participation à un génocide : les sentences du TPIR sont incontestables. Vous permettrez aussi aux familles de français tués dans l'attentat contre l'avion des présidents rwandais et burundais d'enfin accéder à la justice.   En n'annulant pas la visite du général Paul Kagamé à Paris en mars 2011, vous ne ferez que confirmer, dans la foulée de votre soutien contesté à la présidentielle à un tour en RDC (19), les propos de ceux qui affirment que vous êtes "l’ennemi des espoirs démocratiques africains" (20).   L'exploitation des matières premières de l'est congolais a un coût à payer (21) : « ... When we consider the suffering and the scale of the atrocities in Congo, we cannot but recall our own 6 million victims of Nazi genocide. The "hear nothing, see nothing and do nothing" approach fails to fulfil the promise to "never again!" stand idly by while human beings are slaughtered. It denies justice to the victims and questions our very commitment to humanity. As rabbis we cannot ignore the call of our tradition ...     Je vous prie d'agréer, Excellence, Monsieur le Président de la République, l'expression de ma très haute considération.   Stéphane Sonck Simple citoyen français

Human Rights Watch Report: Is Diplomacy a Fig Leaf for Inaction?

President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China on the South Lawn of the White House, Jan. 19, 2011. (Photo: Pete Souza / whitehouse.gov)

Saturday 12 February 2011

by: William Fisher, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

During his presidential campaign, then-senator Barack Obama emphasized negotiations rather than military action. The Republicans ridiculed his focus on diplomacy as naive. "Strong countries and strong presidents meet and talk with our adversaries," Obama said during an August 19 debate. "We shouldn't be afraid to do so. We've tried the other way. It didn't work."

Candidate Obama argued that the United States had to put diplomacy at the forefront of American foreign policy. But today, a leading civil rights organization is charging that one aspect of diplomacy - the language of "dialogue" and "cooperation" - is little-understood, rarely reported on and is being used by governments throughout the world as a fig leaf to conceal their tacit acceptance of egregious human rights abuses.

"The ritualistic support of 'dialogue' and 'cooperation' with repressive governments is too often an excuse for doing nothing about human rights," says Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW).

His remarks come as the organization released its "World Report 2011," a 649-page summary of human rights issues and practices in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide.

"Too many governments are accepting the rationalizations and subterfuges of repressive governments, replacing pressure to respect human rights with softer approaches such as private 'dialogue' and cooperation.' ... Instead of standing up firmly against abusive leaders," many governments "adopt policies that do not generate pressure for change."

The report was particularly critical of the United Nations (UN), the European Union (EU) and the United States of America.

The famed eloquence of US President Barack Obama "has sometimes eluded him when it comes to defending human rights," the report says. It cites as examples bilateral contexts with China, India and Indonesia.

Criticism in the report is not limited to foreign policy. For example, it says that the United States "sets a dubious world record with 2,574 minors serving life sentences at the time the report was written."

It says Obama has failed to insist that the various agencies of the US government, such as the Defense Department and various embassies, convey strong human rights messages consistently - a problem, for example, in Egypt, Indonesia and Bahrain.

The report notes that Obama "increased his focus on human rights in his second year in office, but his eloquent statements have not always been followed by concrete actions. Nor has he insisted that the various US government agencies convey strong human rights messages consistently, with the result that the Defense Department and various US embassies - in Egypt, Indonesia, and Bahrain, for example - often deliver divergent messages."

The report charges that the Obama administration, in its first year, "simply ignored the human rights conditions on the transfer of military aid to Mexico, under the Merida Initiative, even though Mexico had done nothing as required toward prosecuting abusive military officials in civilian courts."

In its second year, the report says, although the administration "did withhold a small fraction of funding, it once again certified - despite clear evidence to the contrary - that Mexico was meeting Merida's human rights requirements."

"The US also signed a funding compact with Jordan under the Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC] even though Jordan had failed to improve its failing grades on the MCC's benchmarks for political rights and civil liberties," according to HRW.

A similar dynamic is at play in China, where Western governments seek economic opportunity as well as cooperation on a range of global and regional issues. For example, in its first year in office, the Obama administration seemed determined to downplay any issue, such as human rights, that might raise tensions in the US-China relationship.

President Obama deferred meeting with the Dalai Lama until after his trip to China and refused to meet with Chinese civil society groups during the trip, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that human rights "can't interfere" with other US interests in China.

The report declares that Obama's efforts to ingratiate himself with Chinese President Hu Jintao "gained nothing discernible while it reinforced China's view of the US as a declining power."

That weakness, the report says, "only heightened tension when, in Obama's second year in office, he and Secretary Clinton rediscovered their human rights voice on the case of Liu Xiaobo, although it remains to be seen whether they will be outspoken on rights during the January 2011 US-China summit."

The report, which was published before the Washington visit of China's president, concludes, "The Chinese government is naturally reluctant to promote human rights because it maintains such a repressive climate at home and does not want to bolster any international system for the protection of human rights that might come back to haunt it. But even China should not see turning its back on mass atrocities - a practice that, one would hope, China has moved beyond - as advancing its self-interest."

US policy toward Egypt shows that pressure can work, the report says.

"In recent years, the US government has maintained a quiet dialogue with Egypt. Beginning in 2010, however, the White House and State Department repeatedly condemned abuses, urged repeal of Egypt's emergency law, and called for free elections."

"These public calls helped to secure the release of several hundred political detainees held under the emergency law," the report says.

Egypt also responded with anger - for example, waging a lobbying campaign to stop a US Senate resolution condemning its human rights record. "The reaction was designed to scare US diplomats into resuming a quieter approach, but in fact it showed that Egypt is profoundly affected by public pressure from Washington," the report charges.

It says that, with respect to Saudi Arabia, the US government in 2005 established a "strategic dialogue" that, because of Saudi objections, "did not mention human rights as a formal subject but relegated the topic to the 'Partnership, Education, Exchange, and Human Development Working Group.'" But it notes that "even that dialogue then gradually disappeared."

The report further notes that, "While the US government contributed to keeping Iran off the board of the new UN Women agency in 2010 because of its mistreatment of women, it made no such effort with Saudi Arabia, which has an abysmal record on women but was given a seat by virtue of its financial contribution."

Western governments also have been reluctant to exert pressure for human rights on governments that they count as counterterrorism allies, the report declares.

For example, it says, the Obama administration and the Friends of Yemen, a group of states and intergovernmental organizations established in January 2010, have not conditioned military or development assistance to Yemen on human rights improvements, "despite a worsening record of abusive conduct by Yemeni security forces and continuing government crackdowns on independent journalists and largely peaceful southern separatists."

According to HRW, "One common rationalization offered for engagement without pressure is that rubbing shoulders with outsiders will somehow help to convert abusive agents of repressive governments."

The report says that the Pentagon makes that argument in the case of Uzbekistan and Sri Lanka, and that the US government adopted that line to justify resuming military aid to Indonesia's elite special forces, Kopassus, "a unit with a long history of severe abuse, including massacres in East Timor and 'disappearances' of student leaders in Jakarta."

"With respect to Kopassus," HRW says that "while the Indonesian government's human rights record has improved dramatically in recent years, a serious gap remains its failure to hold senior military officers accountable for human rights violations, even in the most high-profile cases."

In 2010, the report says, "The US relinquished the strongest lever it had by agreeing to lift a decade-old ban on direct military ties with Kopassus. The Indonesian military made some rhetorical concessions - promising to discharge convicted offenders and to take action against future offenders - but the US did not condition resumption of aid on such changes."

As a result, the report says, "Convicted offenders today remain in the military, and there is little reason to credit the military's future pledge given its poor record to date."

Trivializing the significance of pressure, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates justified resuming direct ties with Kopassus.

"Working with them further produce[s] greater gains in human rights for people than simply standing back and shouting at people," said Gates. Yet HRW notes that, "[E]ven as the US was finalizing terms with Indonesia on resumption of aid to Kopassus, an Indonesian general implicated in abductions of student leaders was promoted to deputy defense minister and a colonel implicated in other serious abuses was named deputy commander of Kopassus."

A similarly misplaced faith in rubbing shoulders with abusive forces rather than applying pressure on them informed President Obama's decision to continue military aid to a series of governments that use child soldiers - Chad, Sudan, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo - despite a new US law prohibiting such aid.

In the case of Congo, for example, the military has had children in its ranks since at least 2002, and a 2010 UN report found a "dramatic increase" in the number of such children in prior years. "Instead of using a cutoff of military assistance to pressure these governments to stop using child soldiers, the Obama administration waived the law to give the US time to 'work with' the offending militaries," HRW says.

Another favorite rationale for a quiet approach, heard often in dealings with China, is that economic liberalization will lead on its own to greater political freedoms - a position maintained even after three decades in which such freedoms have not materialized.

Indeed, in 2010 the opposite occurred. In its regulation of the Internet, China began using its economic clout to try to strengthen restrictions on speech, pressing businesses to become censors on its behalf. In the end, it was a business - Google - that fought back, in part because censorship threatened its business model.

Go Daddy, the world's largest web registrar, also announced that it would no longer register domains in China because onerous government requirements forcing disclosure of customer identities made censorship easier.

Despite these efforts, China still leveraged access to its lucrative market to gain the upper hand because others in the Internet industry, such as Microsoft, did not follow Google's lead.

Conversely, the one time China backed off was when it faced concerted pressure: it apparently abandoned its "Green Dam" censoring software when the industry, civil society, governments and China's own Internet users all loudly protested. Even Google's license to operate a search engine in China was renewed, casting further doubt on the idea that a public critique of China's human rights practices would inevitably hurt business.

Ironically, some of the governments most opposed to using pressure to promote human rights have no qualms about using pressure to deflect human rights criticism.

China, for example, pulled out all the stops in an ultimately unsuccessful effort to suppress a report to the UN Security Council on the discovery of Chinese weaponry in Darfur despite an arms embargo. Sri Lanka did the same in an unsuccessful effort to quash a UN advisory panel on accountability for war crimes committed during its armed conflict with the Tamil Tigers.

China also mounted a major lobbying effort to prevent the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese writer and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo. When that failed, it tried unsuccessfully to discourage governments from attending the award ceremony in Norway. China made a similar effort to block a proposed UN commission of inquiry into war crimes committed in Burma.

But HRW saves its harshest criticism for the UN and the EU. The report excoriates "the failure of the expected champions of human rights to respond" to human rights violations around the world.

HRW says the use of "dialogue and cooperation in lieu of pressure has emerged with a vengeance at the UN, from Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to many members of the Human Rights Council."

In addition, the report says, "leading democracies of the global South, such as South Africa, India, and Brazil, have promoted quiet demarches as a preferred response to repression."

Recent illustrations include the Association of Southeast Asian Nations' (ASEAN) tepid response to Burmese repression, the UN's deferential attitude toward Sri Lankan wartime atrocities and India's pliant policy toward Burma and Sri Lanka, according to the report.

"The UN Human Rights Council has been especially timid, with many countries refusing to vote for resolutions aimed at a particular country. In an extreme example, rather than condemn Sri Lanka for the brutal abuses against civilians in the final months of the conflict with the Tamil Tigers, the council congratulated Sri Lanka," HRW said.

Although the EU's partnership and cooperation agreements with other countries are routinely conditioned on basic respect for human rights, it has concluded a significant trade agreement and pursued a full-fledged partnership and cooperation agreement with Turkmenistan, a severely repressive government, without conditioning on human rights improvements or engaging in any serious efforts to secure improvements in advance, the report said.

The EU opened accession discussions with Serbia despite its failure to apprehend and surrender for trial Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb wartime military leader and an internationally indicted war crimes suspect, an act that was regarded as a key benchmark for beginning the discussions. The EU also lifted sanctions imposed on Uzbekistan after security forces massacred hundreds in 2005 in the city of Andijan, even though the Uzbek government took no steps to fill any of the EU criteria required for lifting the sanctions.

"Dialogue and cooperation have their place, but the burden should be on the abusive government to show a genuine willingness to improve," Roth said. "In the absence of demonstrated political will, public pressure should be the default response to repression."

The report said that if members of the UN Human Rights Council want dialogue and cooperation to be effective in upholding human rights, they should limit use of these tools to governments that have demonstrated a political will to improve. "But whether out of calculation or cowardice, many Council members promote dialogue and cooperation as a universal prescription without regard to whether a government has the political will to curtail its abusive behavior," HRW said.

These countries thus resist tests for determining whether a government's asserted interest in cooperation is a ploy to avoid pressure or a genuine commitment to improvement - tests that might look to the government's willingness to acknowledge its human rights failings, welcome UN investigators to examine the nature of the problem, prescribe solutions and embark upon reforms.

"The enemies of human rights enforcement oppose critical resolutions even on governments that clearly fail these tests, such as Burma, Iran, North Korea, Sri Lanka, and Sudan," the report said.

"Similar problems arise at the UN General Assembly," the report says. "As the Burmese military reinforced its decades-long rule with sham elections designed to give it a civilian facade, a campaign got under way to intensify pressure by launching an international commission of inquiry to examine the many war crimes committed in the country's long-running armed conflict."

A commission of inquiry, the report says, "would be an excellent tool for showing that such atrocities could no longer be committed with impunity. It would also create an incentive for newer members of the military-dominated government to avoid the worst abuses of the past."

Yet some member states have refused to endorse a commission of inquiry on the "spurious grounds that it would not work without the cooperation of the Burmese junta."

EU High Representative Catherine Ashton, in failing to embrace this tool, said, "Ideally, we should aim at ensuring a measure of cooperation from the national authorities."

Similarly, a German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said that, to help advance human rights in the country, it is "crucial to find some co-operation mechanism with the [Burmese] national authorities."

Yet obtaining such cooperation from the Burmese military in the absence of further pressure is a pipe dream, the report says.

Another favorite form of cooperation is a formal intergovernmental dialogue on human rights, such as those that many governments conduct with China and that the EU maintains with a range of repressive countries, including the former Soviet republics of Central Asia.

"Authoritarian governments understandably welcome these dialogues because they remove the spotlight from human rights discussions," HRW says.

With such dialogues, the public, including domestic activists, is "left in the dark, as are most government officials outside the foreign ministry."

But Western governments also often cite the existence of such dialogues as justification for not speaking concretely about human rights violations and remedies in more meaningful settings - as Sweden did, for example, during its EU presidency when asked why human rights had not featured more prominently at the EU-Central Asia ministerial conference.

The UN and EU are accused of "cowardice" for claiming to tackle human rights abuses in places like China or Uzbekistan through quiet dialogue and cooperation, the report said.

Highlighting its claim, the HRW report was issued in Brussels the same day the EU hosted controversial Uzbek President Islam Karimov despite protests from campaigners.

Roth, as leader of the New-York-based nongovernmental organization, was sharply critical of "the failure of the expected champions of human rights to respond" to violations in an introduction to the 600-page report covering 100-plus regimes.

Roth sees the fundamental error made by Ban and other leading voices was to place the accent on quiet diplomacy, which he says is often a euphemism for "other interests at stake."

Roth cites a "tepid" response from Asian partners to repression in Myanmar. The report says the Burmese junta's release of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi on November 23 was preceded by no significant steps on 2,100 other political prisoners.

The UN is criticized for adopting a "deferential" attitude towards Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, alongside Myanmar's Than Shwe or Sudan leader Omar al-Bashir. The report said Ban placed "undue faith" in the impact of his corridor diplomacy.

The EU's top diplomat, the much-criticized English baroness Ashton, is said to hide behind an "obsequious approach to Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan" where large energy interests dominate trade and political links.

Ashton's "quiet dialogue and cooperation often look like acquiescence" leading rights defenders to "sense indifference rather than solidarity," Roth wrote in a column for the International Herald Tribune in advance of the report's release.

Britain, France and Germany are all cited as appeasing Beijing.

The obsession with dialogue and cooperation is particularly intense at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, where many of the members insist that the Council should practice "cooperation, not condemnation."

The report says that, "A key form of pressure at the Council is the ability to send fact-finders to expose what abuses were committed and to hold governments accountable for not curtailing abuses. One important medium for these tools is a resolution aimed at a particular country or situation. Yet many governments on the Council eschew any country resolution designed to generate pressure (except in the case of the Council's perennial pariah, Israel)."

"Near-universal cowardice," meanwhile, marks efforts at confronting China's "deepening crackdown on basic liberties," as huge yuan investments - whether in African natural resources or in US and eurozone public debt - ensure silence is the preferred approach.

"The credibility of the EU as a force for human rights around the world also rests on its willingness to address human rights abuses by its own member states. With a record of discrimination and rising intolerance against migrants, Muslims, Roma, and others, inadequate access to asylum, and abusive counterterrorism measures, member states and EU institutions need to show greater political commitment to ensure that respect for human rights at home matches the EU's rhetoric abroad," the report charges.

The report cites recent examples of failure to exert pressure. These include the EU's "obsequious approach" toward Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the West's "soft reaction" to certain favored African autocrats, such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, and the "near-universal cowardice in confronting China's deepening crackdown on basic liberties."

It adds that the most effective support for human rights in China in 2010 came from the Norwegian Nobel committee's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

Prior to the recent visit of President Hu of China, there was concerted pressure from Obama's left wing urging him to launch a full frontal attack on China's human rights record.

To most of those on the left of the Democratic Party, Obama's attack was far from "full frontal." On the other hand, it was obvious that the American president intended to call attention to China's pitiful human rights record and to keep the subject front and center while negotiations on other important issues were proceeding. The issue was now "on the table," and was not going to be swept under the rug.

As a New York Times editorial noted, prior to Hu's arrival, Obama "invited human rights advocates to the White House for a meeting on China." Obama raised the issue from the very beginning of the state visit. It is reported that he also had a "very serious" discussion of human rights with Hu during a private dinner in the White House.

Many observers believe the president didn't go far enough, but that he went as far as he could. But far fewer seem to believe Obama's candor will have any impact on China's domestic policies, at least not in the short term

Related articles

• U.S., UN among those weak on rights abuses: group (nationalpost.com)
• UN rejects rights 'coward' claim (bbc.co.uk)
• What's Next for Egypt: "Mubarakism Without Mubarak"? (mydd.com)
• Rights group says democracies ignore abuses (sfgate.com)
• Rights group says democracies ignore abuses (ctv.ca)
• Rights group says democracies ignore abuses (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• CAMBODIA: Lessons from Tunis and Cairo that premier Hun Sen and Cambodian democrats can learn (ki-media.blogspot.com)
• Rights group says democracies are ignoring abuses (theglobeandmail.com)
• U.S. Senator Asks Facebook For Anonymity Option (allfacebook.com)
• U.S. stakes out revised China stance (politico.com)

Please let Victoire out and me in, mr Kagame!

Please let Victoire out and me in, mr Kagame!

Weblog Rwanda

Rudasingwa klapt uit de Kagame-school »

Ingabire is jailed because she is a Hutu

The hospitality of Rwanda has its limits. I cannot follow my secretary of state, Ben Knapen, who is visiting Congo and Rwanda next week. The regime doesn't want me: my visa was denied. Kagame who always speaks proudly of his country, the economic growth, democracy and freedom, doesn't want me. Officially no reason was given, but everybody knows I'm not welcome because I'm a journalist who writes not so jubilant about the regime. But most of all, access was denied, because I'm a friend of Victoire Ingabire. 

     The visit of our secretary of state could be important for Ingabire, who is in custody since October 14th. The Dutch government should ask for her release, because she remains in custody illegally since December 25th. That was the date the prosecutor should have asked for a prolonging of bail. That never happened. There were other irregularities during her time in prison so a fair trial is already out of the question.

      The accusations which led to her arrest, are the accusations used for everybody who dares to criticize the regime. Former manager of hotel Rwanda,  Paul Rusesebagina, leader of the socialist party Bernard Ntaganda, former Kagame-comrades Kayumba, Karegeya, Gahima en Rudasingwa, they all are accused of the same more or less: divisionism, genocide ideology, threat of state security, aid to or forming of a terrorist organization.

        Because the accusations are false, witnesses and evidence have to be manipulated. Alice and Sylvain, housemates of Victoire and secretary and treasurer of FDU-Inkingi, were pressured into giving false statements. They were also threatened if they didn't stop with their activities for the party. The lawyers of Victoire are now in the possession of her dossier. They are studying closely the 2086 pages!

      Victoires dossier doesn't include the documents found during the house search in Zevenhuizen. In this small Dutch village live the family of Victoire: husband and three children. The house search took place because Rwanda had asked for it. Timing was curious: just a week before, the ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to end budget support, because the lack of political space and press freedom. So there was a situation in which one ministry condemned the regime and another ministry obediently followed the orders of the same regime. 

      According to the secretary of state, Teeven, there are no obstacles to send the material, found during the house search, to Rwanda. But chances are, that those documents will be manipulated. If the Dutch government decide tot send the material to Kigali, I advise the government to make copies!

     Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Eurac, the organization for EU NGO’s in the Great Lake Region, also acknowledge that a fair trial is practically not possible. 

    It is all a bit ironic, because the Dutch government donates a lot to improve the judicial system in Rwanda. But you can improve whatever you like, if the president tells his people one day before a bail hearing that 'this woman should remain in prison', you can't say Rwanda has an independent judicial system. 

      Let's hope Ben Knapen, our secretary of state, is courageous enough to give a clear signal. A comparison with the Dutch-Iranian woman hanged in Teheran is a comparison easy made. But contrary to Zahra Bahrami, Ingabire doesn't have the Dutch nationality. Therefore, our ministry of Foreign Affairs considers her case an internal Rwandan affair.

        But it's not a case of nationality. In Rwanda you have a regime that consistently oppresses the opposition. In Rwanda is no freedom of press. In Rwanda, civil society cannot develop. In Rwanda the judicial system is used for political means. In Rwanda you have a regime that enriches itself, just like Tunisia and Egypt, at the cost of the Rwandan population.

        Therefore, it's high time, the Dutch government, this time by its spokesman Ben Knapen, makes a clear statement. Knapen should insist in the release of all the political prisoners. Knapen should tell the president to release all journalists who perish in prison. Knapen should argue Ingabire doesn't belong in jail.

       And Knapen should make a statement the whole world can hear. The days of silent diplomacy are over.

Related articles

• Rwandan opposition leader Ingabire denied bail (reuters.com)
• Rwanda court says opposition leader to stay jailed (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Kagame's authoritarian turn risks Rwanda's future | Stephen Kinzer (guardian.co.uk)