FDU Writes to Ban about UN Report on Congo Atrocities

SOURCE: FDU

Letter to the UN Secretary General by the The Support Committee for UDF-Inkingi on the draft of the UN report on serious crimes including genocide, committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), against the Hutu refugees:

Brussels, August 30, 2010
Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
UN Secretary General
Plaza, P. O. Box 20
New York, NY 10017, USA
Subject: DRC Mapping Exercise
Mr. Secretary General,
The Support Committee for UDF-Inkingi just read excerpts from the draft of the UN report on serious crimes including genocide, committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), against the Hutu refugees.
The French newspaper Le Monde (edition of August 26, 2010) and the International News organization based in the USA, The Christian Science Monitor , stated that the Kigali regime might be pressuring the United Nations so that the report can be dismissed or at least be watered down. Specifically, the Kigali regime would like that you simply erase the word “genocide” from the report. The Rwandan government has even threatened to withdraw from the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur, Sudan, if its demands were not met. The official statement released by the Rwandan government, dated August 27, 2010, confirmed this information to the press. Indeed, the deliberately aggressive tone used by the Rwandan government betrays its intention to do anything to intimidate and blackmail the United Nations. This is a usual RPF practice since its accession to power in 1994.
Mr. Secretary General,
In October 1994, the American Robert Gersony, then consultant to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), accused the new RPF regime of having killed at least 30,000 Hutus since coming to power, following investigations conducted during three weeks in eastern Rwanda and one week in refugee camps in Tanzania .
As soon as the first elements of the draft report were published in the press, the Kigali regime threatened to terminate the operations of the UNAMIR, if the report was validated. The UN then succumbed to the combined pressures of Kigali and its lobbies and demanded that the UNHCR seal the report, while promising a counter expertise investigation. A joint committee composed of representatives of UNAMIR and the Rwandan Ministry of the Interior completed the investigation in one day following a visit to Rwamagana. The representative of the secretary of the UN, Shaharyar Khan, refused to validate the report of the UNHCR. Since then, the “Gersony report” has simply disappeared from the archives of the United Nations, according to a communication made to the defense counsel at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
In October 1994, in the wake of the controversy around the “Gersony report”, the Irish Karen Kenny, representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Rwanda, resigned. She believed that “in four months without a car, without a budget and, most importantly, without observers to deploy, she had just served as an alibi” .
On April 22, 1995, in the presence of Australian and Zambian peacekeepers from UNAMIR, the Rwandan Patriotic Army massacred Hutus that were internally displaced in Kibeho. The UN did nothing to make sure that the guilty were punished. Instead, it just asked the Rwandan government, which was the prime suspect, to investigate and prosecute.
In 1997, the Special Reporter of the UN commission in charge of human rights in DRC, the Chilean Roberto Garreton, released a damning report on crimes committed by the RPA against the Hutu refugees in DRC. The Kigali regime immediately began an intensive pressure to suppress the report and block a UN mission that was requested by President Laurent Desire Kabila with the mandate to confirm the results of the Garreton mission. The UN mission had to pack their bags following obstruction by the authorities who were under hostage of Kigali.
Mr. Secretary General,
At the end of your recent meeting with Spanish Prime Minister, you requested the Kigali regime to shade the light on recent assassinations, including the assassination of journalist Jean Leonard Rugambage, deputy editor of the newspaper Umuvugizi, and the first vice-president of the Democratic Green Party of Rwanda, Andre Kagwa Rwisereka. To our knowledge, nothing has been done so far.
If it were proved that the UN is about to succumb once again to pressure of a regime accused of serious offenses in order to suppress or tone down the report, the Rwandan people would hold you responsible for their plight, because you would have breached your mission as the guarantor of peace and respect for human rights for all.
The fact that the Kigali regime threatens to withdraw its troops from Darfur does not seem to be a reason to succumb. The presence of troops that are under pressure to serious suspicion of genocide is also not good news for a mission that has been deployed following acts of genocide and for which the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been seized. It would be an honor for the UN to have troops with a blank criminal record and free from all suspicions.
Mr. Secretary General,
Rwanda is at a crossroads. Not to take this opportunity to send a strong message to the Rwandan authorities to finally comply with human rights would be a bad omen for the credibility of the UN and a disservice to the people of Rwanda.
We hope that wisdom will prevail; that the report will be released without any external interference. Moreover, in view of the international obligations of repression of genocide, it will be up to the UN to establish a judicial mechanism to ensure that perpetrators do not go unpunished.
Please accept, Mr. Secretary General, the assurances of my highest consideration.
For the Support Committee for UDF-Inkingi
Eugene NDAHAYO
President

Rwanda: Unity or Repression?

Rwanda: Unity or Repression?
By Allyn Gaestel
Sunday, July 4 7:17 pm EST

Repression, certainly. The news coming out of Rwanda doesn’t look good. As the country prepares for elections in August (which current president Kagame is almost certain to win) dissident voices and opposition party leaders are feeling the heat.

Last week editor-journalist Jean-Léonard Rugambage was shot dead outside his house. He worked for Umuvugizi, a banned local newspaper critical of the government. The morning of the assault the paper ran a piece accusing the ruling party in the shooting of Lieutenant-General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, a former Kagame-ally turned exile, in South Africa this month. The general survived, and the South African authorities have detained several foreign suspects, though they are slow to release information about their identities and affiliations.

Opposition leader Victoire Ingabire has been fighting charges of harboring “genocide ideology”, including “divisionism” and “revisionism”. Critics say such charges translate to disagreement with Kagame’s leadership. Paul Erlinder, an American lawyer, had represented Ingabire before himself being briefly jailed and released to address his deteriorating health. He attributes his release to the international uproar surrounding his imprisonment, and the protection that comes with a foreign identity.

Opposition protestors were arrested last week as they demonstrated while President Kagame officially turned in his re-election papers. And refugees in Uganda are afraid to return to what they see as an increasingly unstable and repressive country, despite facing difficulties abroad.

It appears that the World Bank’s “golden child” is losing its luster. Rwanda was recognized as the “top global reformer” by the international institution last year. Vice President of the World Bank’s Africa Regional Office, Obiageli Ezekwesili heralded Rwanda as a leader in growth and an inspiration for African countries at the African Economic Forum at Columbia University this spring. And a doctoral student I know who wrote their thesis on Rwanda spoke of the benefits of a “benevolent strongman” to unify the country and keep ethnic tensions at bay.

Kagame does have a formidable history of improving his country. The Rwandan Patriotic Front ended the genocide while the international community wrung its hands and debated how to define the violence in 1994. The implementation of Gacaca courts and the promotion of a better business environment to push economic growth were meant to address past and move to the future.

Yet some Rwandans worry that the Gacaca courts are affirming ethnic divisions. There have been some reported murders of survivors before they can stand against accused perpetrators. The RPF’s incessant referral to the genocide has been described as fear mongering to maintain Kagame’s iron grip on power.

Unfortunately, this is not new to Rwanda. Kagame won the 2003 election in a landslide victory. He emphasized national unity, economic growth, improved governance and justice. It is clear that he has made improvements on several of these fronts, but national “unity” is being superficially maintained through repression and censorship. Human rights organizations warned of repression ahead of the 2003 elections, often through accusations that opposition leaders had genocidal politics. It worked in 2003, and Kagame is using the same tactics—with an alarming death toll—this year.

Ingabire launched her opposition campaign from exile in the Netherlands. Opposition groups have struggled to gain prominence inside the country, likely due to the constraints of state controlled media—the primary source of information for most Rwandans—and independent papers facing censorship.

Kagame’s actions are taking the “benevolent” out of his strongman title. While it is essential that violence be mitigated to avoid a repeat of the ’94 genocide (Raoul Peck’s film Sometimes in April provides a heartbreaking and historically sound background for those who need a refresher) the question remains of how national unity can be accomplished within an open, democratic and peaceful regime.

Kenya Prime Minister Raila Odinga 'has head operation'

Kenya's Prime Minister Raila Odinga has had an operation to remove fluid on the brain, doctors say, after initial reports he had been hospitalised for exhaustion.

Neurosurgeon Oluoch Olunya, who carried out the operation, said he was recovering in the Nairobi Hospital.

"I'd like to assure the country he is actually well," he said.

The BBC's Peter Greste in Nairobi says Mr Odinga, 65, has been one of Kenya's most energetic politicians.

In recent months, he has been campaigning particularly hard to win support for a new constitution, with no questions about his physical fitness.
RAILA ODINGA - THE STORY SO FAR
Continue reading the main story

* Prime minister since 2008
* Joined power-sharing government in deal to end violence after saying he was robbed in 2007 poll
* Son of Kenya's first vice-president
* Ethnic Luo
* Joined and left numerous different political formations

Odinga: Kenya's king-maker

So our correspondent says Tuesday's statement from his press spokesman came as something of a surprise.

He had said Mr Odinga, was fit to work but had been advised to rest.

Mr Olunya said the prime minister had checked himself into hospital on Monday afternoon, complaining of a headache and fatigue.

He said there had been a build-up of pressure, which was relieved when some fluid was removed through a small opening in the skull.

Mr Olunya said the pressure might have been caused by him hitting his head while in a car three weeks ago.

"He is sitting comfortably in his room," he told journalists, adding that the prime minister should be fit to leave hospital in five days' time.
Shaky coalition

Until now, most of the questions about the health of Kenya's political leaders have been directed at President Mwai Kibaki, our correspondent says.

He disappeared from public view shortly after he was first elected in 2002, and rumours persisted that he had suffered a stroke.

His staff, however, consistently denied he had suffered anything beyond minor health issues.

Mr Odinga has been prime minister since 2008 under a deal brokered to end months of violence after his supporters claimed he had been cheated of victory by allies of President Kibaki.

The coalition government remains shaky but both men are campaigning in favour of the new constitution ahead of a referendum due in August.

One Five Year Presidential Term for Rwandan and African Political Leadership

One Five Year Presidential Term for Rwandan and African Political Leadership
June 28, 2010 · Leave a Comment

The purpose of political leadership or otherwise is to guide, provide solutions to problems, represent your people, work with others and find broader common grounds that will improve people lives.

In the case of failure of a leader in performing any of these roles, there should be institutional frameworks to stop the person from going astray. Such platforms should be independent from the leader’s influence. In July 2009 Barack Obama outlined in Accra that Africa needed strong institutions and not strong personalities.

People get what they deserve. If we Africans want democracy we can have it. We have to ask ourselves how much we want it, the sacrifices we are willing to make to have it. It is usually said that there is no democracy without development, or no development without democracy, but in my opinion you can have both.

August 9th, 2010 is officially the date for the Rwandan presidential elections. Paul Kagame, the incumbent president, has been in power for 16 years. He has been ruling the RPF since 1990 and his rebel movement has been leading the country from July 1994.

Change is natural. Even the air we breathe changes continuously. The dynamics of natural rules are such that by not conforming to them, there are enormous damages and harm that are caused or inflicted to immediate surroundings or society, and in a nation context, to citizens. And for leaders, no citizen would want to be in a situation where they get hurt by a political leadership which doesn’t follow the rules of nature.

A multiparty political system is the solution to this situation. There is no development without competition – between or within parties, regions, countries, or sectors of an economy or society. Such competition can be beneficial to everyone only if the rules are fair for every body. In order to develop and apply a competitive and fair political platform, we as citizens have an important role to play.

Let’s make sure our political leaders have only one five year presidential term. If their political party program is still valid after that period let’s get that party to give us another candidate for the following five years. Internal competition within the party would be beneficial to overall dynamics and outcomes of change for the country.

Let’s not give to our political leaders the tools to emulate rebel movements. Elevating these rebels into platforms of leadership does nothing but destroy the rights of citizens who are left to become victims of the vendettas of these frustrated personalities.

Let’s stand up as one and get what we want and deserve: leaders who care about us, leaders who are accountable to us, leaders we can replace when we see they are failing us.