Fact-check for Umuvugizi: A satirical news source on Rwanda II

By Felicien Mwumvaneza

Umuvugizi is a Rwandan satiric news source. It is a Kinyarwanda bi-monthly newspaper and instant publishing website in both Kinyarwanda and English featuring satirical and sensational articles almost exclusively on political issues and events in Rwanda. Umuvugizi started as a highly critical newspaper but became increasingly erratic and satirical against the Rwandan government, its leadership and the president.  

Together with its sister newspaper, Umuseso, the main focus of their articles was that there was going to be another genocide soon, that Rwanda was undermining the security of its neighbours, that military coups in the country were eminent and so on. It was temporarily suspended in 2010 by the Rwandan Media High Council for "inciting public disorder" and defamation in breach of the media law, and its editor was sentenced to 2 and a half years in prison by the Supreme Court on the same charges.

Since last year (2010) Umuvugizi publishes its satirical articles mostly on its website and its English page started in June 2011. Umuvugizi articles mix both fictional, imagined and real events in and about Rwanda or any world news and information and uses them to justify its claims about leadership failure in the country, conspiracies about leadership corruption, murders and attempted murders by the country's political and military leadership, calls for civil war to change the elected government, instilling fear among its readers by encouraging and mobilising Rwandans to flee the country, dissuading Rwandan refugees from returning to their country especially those who live in Europe, the USA and East and Central Africa. That is just some of what the hate news source covers generally in its reporting.

In order to feign authenticity, it prefaces all its articles as information from "credible sources". It has recently started to post fictional and impersonated audio recordings on its website claiming assassination attempts by the government against its opponents and tries to link any news of illness of political or military officials to poisoning by intelligence agencies. It claims that it sources the audio records and other stories from anonymous Rwandan "intelligence agents" and other sources it always does not name "for security reasons." It fakes authenticity by statements like "our repeated attempts to contact the concerned officials were futile." None of those attempts to verify their claims has ever been indicated to have been successful.

Umuvugizi articles capitalise on "analysis" - explaining and predicting news and events in Rwanda and never revisits its false claims when the events it tries to link to each other later prove untrue as is always the case. The reach of its current readership is not known, but the news source is ALWAYS critical of the Rwandan government and ALWAYS promotes the views and agenda of foreign and local critics, opposition groups and individuals against Rwanda, and most especially its leadership and politics.

It is also not known if its Rwandan and foreign readership are aware of its highly satirical nature which is saturated with overt elements of rogue political mobilisation, lingering and mostly overt hatred.

This kind of media games is not healthy especially for a country that has a history of genocide, but then again the false claims and hate campaign of news sources such as Umuvugizi are so unreasonably plain for even the most unsuspecting reader to notice. Unfortunately for such journalists and individuals, Rwanda's history of conflict and genocide and the current story of amazing reconstruction and social and economic progress are hard facts to twist without "risking" becoming a good citizen again.

Dignity is Rwanda’s strength

By Frank Mugambage
Rwanda is commemorating the genocide against the Tutsi today. The year 1994, when the genocide happened, is a major turning point in Rwanda’s history. The genocide was unprecedented in both the scale and the cruelty with which it was carried out, (over one million people butchered in a space of only 100 days).

The commemoration period is a time to remember that the genocide was not only the lowest point in the dark history of our country, but also an indelible bad mark on human dignity. This brings out the relevance of the theme for this year, “Commemorating the Genocide against the Tutsi: Upholding the Truth, Preserving our Dignity”.

The patriotic instincts of those who stopped the genocide- The Rwanda Patriotic Front and the gallant forces of the Rwanda Patriotic Army- were appreciated by other patriotic Rwandans and together, they realised their common destiny- the challenge to build the future. They rendered extraordinary qualities in rebuilding their shuttered society with uncompromising commitment.

The challenge was to build from the ashes, the lives and dignity of the surviving Rwandan people. This was the insurmountable task faced by the new leadership and the people of Rwanda. Many thought it was an impossible task, but Rwandans learnt the hard lessons and built a strong resolve and determination to promote the positive values that will ensure they will not be taken back in time.

The leadership that has gotten Rwanda from a situation of “a near failed state” to a state that now offers great hope and opportunities to its people should be appreciated. The current leadership has demonstrated great sacrifice, patriotism, honesty and the determination to build a new Rwanda.

Rwanda has a clear vision (Vision 2020) which charts the course to follow in order to realise the transformation through a middle income status by 2020 on the road to joining the family of developed nations. The implementation of this vision and the associated strategy is already producing extraordinary achievements. Success stories abound.

Rwandans have incorporated the positive values of hard work into their culture in the fight against poverty. The leadership has relentlessly mobilised and provided the environment for Rwandans to add value to whatever they do so as to uplift their lives and by so doing, earned back their dignity. This provides a firm foundation for the prosperity of Rwanda and its people. As we have always stressed, dignity is our strength and it has to be earned through heroic acts of all Rwandans.

The success of Rwanda in the recent times is also associated with the country’s resolve to engage with other development partners. The prophets of doom and criminal elements pose no serious threat because Rwandans are resolute on continuing their development process and achieving prosperity. There are those who are driven by the desire to cover up their failures and criminal responsibilities. They have formed unholy alliances in an effort to rewrite the history of the struggle. These are fellows who see no progress unless it catapults them to high positions with unfair privileges (being untouchable and unaccountable). They plot to fight the very causes and principles they purported to believe and struggled for.

How else can one explain the outrageous allegation and campaigns, including criminal acts perpetuated by the likes of Kayumba Nyamwasa and his collaborators who imagine they can disrupt the progress they could claim to be part of, at least in as far as a collective legacy we share for the struggle we have been through.

As a matter of fact, one begins to question the commitment of such people to the struggle they purported to participate in. These pseudo liberators, whose true character was not fully noticed earlier because the focus was on the cause of the struggle, were always taking advantage and scheming to rise to positions of responsibility but lacked the commitment and self-sacrifice.

As the struggle progresses, such people fail to adapt to the new challenges because they would have assumed to have “arrived”. The responsibilities and undue power they were entrusted with as state institutions were being built are taken for granted and instead of anticipating the handover to institutions, they keep on scheming and quickly run into contradictions.

I have seen colleagues who forget that absence of institutions lent them certain powers which would inevitably have to shift as soon as the institutions are in place. They instead sought to build power bases and when the legitimate power shift came, it caused them internal conflicts because they don’t see progress unless it serves their personal interests at the expense of the common good. Such could never find a place in the new Rwanda.

Rwandans know the truth; the journey they have so far covered in pursuit of their dignity through building sustainable security, unity, reconciliation and working for their prosperity has taught and empowered them to endure. This, plus the principled stand of Rwanda and its leadership to expose those responsible for past and present misdeeds, is what has not gone down well with the conspirators, who would rather have Rwanda incapable of facing its own challenges so that the desires of self determination and owning up its development process is curtailed. They will not succeed.

The coming together of people from around the world to commemorate the genocide is a clear proof of the commitment to make ‘Never Again’ a reality. It is our primary responsibility to remain committed to this cause for the good of humankind.

Mr Mugambage is the High Commissioner of the Republic of Rwanda to Uganda

Abeba: Questions

Abeba: Questions: "This is one of my pieces where I seek to connect, where I seek to bring out the person in you. Where I provoke your alter ego, or maybe, if ..."

Rwanda: When will the Western media catch up?

By Felicien Mwumvaneza




Even when no one heeded their cry, the western media did their best during the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda to inform the world about the tragedy as it unfolded. Since then, they continued to report on Rwanda, albeit losing their much-coveted role of agenda setting due to public admiration of the country’s extraordinary progress and they have since been forced to follow audience interests in reporting about the country.

As if fighting to gain more ground in the agenda-setting role or for other reasons best known to themselves, the nature of western media coverage on Rwanda needs more attention than it has received so far.

Set in western elitism some of them have failed on basic principles of contextual journalism and are guilty of approaching reporting on Rwanda in a fallacious bandwagoning fashion.

This has sometimes led some of them to report false stories and to distort others. With a strange remote control approach under the pretext of promoting democracy and human rights, they seek to construct and advance a certain discourse that is as irrelevant as it is entirely out of touch with the reality on the ground.

Could this be due to having no correspondents on the ground, or to the fact that they are not bothered about the consequences of unsubstantiated coverage about a ‘periphery’ country like Rwanda? I like to believe there are some among them who are unaware of this fact and attitude.

In just about 100 days from April 1994, Rwanda lost more than one million people in ethnic bloodbath masterminded by politicians and the local media machine. The genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda is perhaps the most vicious and brutal murder ever known to human imagination.
The international community found it expedient to turn its back at repeated warnings and calls to prevent and later, to stop the killings. When it comes to the genocide in Rwanda and its immediate aftermath, the international community was at its most apathetic level known in modern history.

When the defeated regime and its army started to recruit, train and receive heavy ammunition of all kind in the refugee camps across the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the world community again did nothing to stop the impending tragedy, yet it was their explicit obligation under international law. Rwanda was forced to act in self-defense.

Now 17 years on, there is no doubt that, as any society especially in Africa, Rwanda still faces a number of challenges. Some of them are incredibly unique and intractable in nature, but the country has rebuilt itself from a near failed state in 1994 to one of the most visionary, efficient, and stable governments on any continent.

Due to socially cohesive and responsive policies since genocide, there is an unprecedented economic growth and social development. Rwanda is increasingly seen as one of the most peaceful, stable, secure and socially innovative countries in Africa and beyond. This continues to lead to more progress through agricultural improvements, improved public services, business growth and by attracting more investments. From what Rwandans and visitors see on the ground and what I continue to see in the media, I keep wondering when will the western media catch up with Rwanda?


It is astonishing to see how quickly and easily we humans are capable of forgetting! A new type of recklessness by the western media with the potential to foment a situation like the one the country went through only 17 years ago with its dire consequences is emerging! While positive criticism and debate are good for Rwanda and for any other society, for many media outlet in the west it seems that having a big name has subconsciously substituted for the credibility of specific news stories they cover on Rwanda. Their analysis overtakes (and is sometimes short of) basic evidence.
Thus, for instance, intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo to disrupt and dismantle the genocidal force and prevent a potentially worse situation is reconstructed as a campaign to access that country’s natural resources. Intercepting a couple of journalists and politicians with hard evidence for “predicting” that another genocide will happen soon and calling people to action is ironically reported to the outside world as restricting media and political freedoms.

Basic, commonsense regulation is not a concept found in Rwanda alone and it should not be confused with repression. More than anything else genocide represents the depth to which morality and politics descended in the country at the time.

Critics need to see that nurturing decency and a national interest outlook in Rwanda’s politics and media cannot be an exception to all other areas in which the society is expected to rebuild and establish to transcend transitory events for the sake of sustainability.

Rwanda needs and welcomes constructive criticism not the kind of stereotypical and shotgun coverage by some western media that it so often receives. Despite the reach of globalisation and the universal principles we all cherish, we still live within multiple realities of our histories, politics, economies and cultures that single option interpretations and prescriptions to the problems we face simply cannot apply.

Democracy and human rights principles should not be applied as if they were commodities with specific mathematical sizes or particular colours. Rwandans have reconciled and put their past behind them. BUT, just like post-World War II and holocaust West, they have drawn a line in the sand regarding hate media and divisive politics and there is no contradiction in the two aspects. It is simply the right thing to do.

Thus, failure to appreciate that reality and unique context in news reporting by the western media and individual journalists will only reflect lack of empathy, harshness and insensitivity to the very people whose interests they claim to advocate and this might deprive them of professional and moral authority.

RWANDA TWEETING ON RIGHTS AND WRONGS

By Louise Mushikiwabo

In the last few days, following the May 14th tweeter exchange between President Paul Kagame and former editor of the Independent, journalist Ian Birrell, a buzz is going around on the new dimension social media brings to the already shrinking space between people from all corners of the planet and all walks of life.

The mere fact of a Head of State responding to criticism by a journalist on another continent via tweeter was exciting enough; the intensity and following of the happening was an added first.

Exactly what happened? In a mid-afternoon tweeter Ian Birrell referred to the President as ‘despotic and deluded’ for saying to William Wallis of the Financial Times that “[he doesn’t] think anybody out there in the media, UN, human rights organizations, has any moral right whatsoever to level any accusations against me or against Rwanda.

Because, when it came to the problems facing Rwanda, and the Congo, they were all useless.” President Kagame retorted: "You give yourself the right to abuse people and judge them like you are the one to decide... and determine universally what’s right or wrong and what should be believed or not!!!”

Let me preface my account by revealing that Ian Birrell is no stranger to Rwandans who follow Rwandan news coming from the UK; and for the sake of transparency, let me also reveal that many of us never liked what he had to say because we felt he didn’t know and didn’t care to know. Looking critically at his previous articles: "Why Are Repressive Regimes Given the Succour of British Aid" (Sept 2009) and "The Dark Shadows that Stain the New Darling of Africa" (Nov 2009), it is evident that Mr Birrell is as biased as one can get.

His futile attempts to discredit a legitimate government and its leadership, and the recent spin given to his interaction with President Kagame on Tweeter, only proves his lack of objectivity - a trait that should not be associated with Journalism. The false premises of his arguments has always been that “a ruthless autocracy hides beneath the veneer of democracy in Rwanda” and that building strong institutions in a bid to “bring about such an economic transformation that historic divisions will become irrelevant” was too “big a gamble” for my country and its people.

One thing is very clear to me though, Ian Birrell has limited knowledge of Rwanda and the attitude to go with it. To be fair though, he’s not the only one in that part of the world and that particular profession with such leanings. Let me also state expressly my purpose here: Don’t be condescending; don’t be rude; and please ask your paper and your friends to allow me my rights to reply.

Rwandans fervently wish to be gotten right when they define who they are and where they aim to go. If you happen to have a differing view on either, it’s really alright, but please don’t pretend that Rwandans’ opinions and aspirations are a matter better left to others, people who know best, men and women whose goal in life is to save us from ourselves.

With this particular social media phenomenon, an interesting opportunity has presented itself to Mr. Birrell to “make news” and for Rwanda’s President to self-define. In the news making process, the journalist went on to twist the exchange in his favor, peppering it with a bit of his usual “Rwandacondescendence”; elsewhere and from his own writings, the Rwandan reaction generated headlines that went from “spat” to “beef” to “row” and beyond.

Two phenomena are at work here. Firstly, simply because someone is a journalist does not make their comments fact. Mr Birrell did not provide proven indications to justify his assertions. More fundamental, and that was President Kagame’s point, is the question of who made Mr. Birrell and the other arbiters of rights he puts forth, the universally accepted definers of Paul Kagame and Rwanda? As things stand, most people can simply see the journalist as one individual attempting to express his views, even skewed as they are. Ironically, all the news sources that picked up this story have not commented on that fact.

I will spare you my comment on Ian Birrell’s rude character, lest I substitute myself to the morality police for cultures foreign to me, but let me just give you a taste of this man whose aim is to point out wrong doers on the Dark Continent: In one article alone, he jumped up and down from “deluded” to “vainglorious” to “juvenile nonsense”, every now and then tempered by milder qualifiers such as “arrogant”, “excitable” and “repressive”, the usual attributes of African leaders in Ian Birrell’s quarters.

After all, why should journalists substantiate what they say when accusing Africans of “suppressing the media” or “killing opponents”? This has become common place for people reporting on Rwanda where they no longer have to actually tell the truth. An example would be the sad passing of Jean-Leonard Rugambage who was killed outside of his house last year. In numerous media pieces this was mentioned as occurring before election and that the journalist was the editor of a banned tabloid.

It is usually here that the writers stop, leaving the impression that this man was killed by the Government. Sometimes this is lumped in with a collection of completely unconnected events to give the impression that this is daily occurrence in Rwanda. However, they do not mention that the killers were found, admitted committing the crime, and that this ended up having nothing to do with the Government, the election, or the President.

If, God forbid, Bill O’Reilly was to be shot tomorrow, would the first suspect be President Obama? Probably not.With the Birrell’s type of reporting, a challenge to decent journalists, especially on and from the continent has become more pressing.

As for Ian Birrell, he might just surprise me to respond to my tweeter invitation to visit Rwanda so he can learn firsthand what Rwandans really think.


The author is the Rwanda's Minister of Foreign Affairs


Courtesy of the New Times, Rwanda

Rwanda: Rwandair on the move

The company might soon become the best (world class) airline in entire east and central Africa

RwandAir new routes boon to business community


By Saul Butera, The New Times-Rwanda

The Rwandan private sector is highly upbeat about new opportunities presented by the impending launch of RwandAir’s second destination into Central and West Africa. “The flight to Libreville which will be operated via Brazzaville with full rights to uplift passengers between these two destinations has recorded higher bookings than ever for any new destination launched by the airline in the recent past,” RwandAir said in a statement.

The optimism shown by the local business community in these new destinations is being perceived by many as a positive indicator of confidence by the local business community in the new markets now served by direct flights out of Kigali. According to the Private Sector Federation, hardly two months after launching Kigali-Brazzaville route, there has been a steady flow of members of the business community travelling to the Republic of Congo on business prospecting missions.

Consequently, the government, through the Ministry of Trade and Industry in conjunction with Rwanda Development Board, has sponsored a trade fair in Brazzaville dubbed “The First Rwanda – Congo Brazzaville Trade Fair” scheduled for May 28 – 30, 2011. Among the key local companies expected to participate are Inyange, Sorwathe, and Bourbon Coffee. In an earlier interview with RwandAir CEO, John Mirenge, he confirmed that the airline is focused on carefully selecting new destinations that will not only ensure connections for Rwanda, but also those that present strategic investment and business opportunities.

Kigali–Libreville flights will operate three times a week; Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays. Libreville, located on the west coast of Africa along the banks of Komo River and overlooking the Atlantic Ocean becomes the fourth port city for RwandAir after Mombasa, Dar es Salaam and Dubai. The Brazzaville route launched in March this year is expected to get a major boost from the planned triangular operation.

The airline will later this year take delivery of two new Boeing 737- 800. These aircraft will be the first to be fitted with the Boeing “Sky Interior” on the continent.

UN Congo report: "Double standards on human rights"

By Albert Rudatsimburwa

The report compiled by the UN High Commission on Human Rights on violations of international humanitarian law between 1993 and 2003 in DRC was published on 1 October.

Following the report, Filip Reyntjens, professor of Law and Politics, Institute of Development Policy and Management at the University of Antwerp, wrote on the RNW Africa website earlier this week that it is clear that "the most serious and systematic crimes are placed firmly on the doorstep of Paul Kagame’s Rwanda."

In response to Reyntjens article, The UN report on Congo's atrocities: the end of impunity? , Albert Rudatsimburwa, a Rwandan political analyst has this to say:

It is always interesting and rather entertaining to be privy to the view of Professor Philip Reyntjens on the politics of a country he has last visited 18 years ago. One might even be tempted to admire his sense of loyalty to the memory of the late Juvenal Habyarimana, President of Rwanda from July 1973 to April 1994.

After all, was he not greatly instrumental in consolidating the latter’s absolute hold on power by providing him, with the help of few others, with a rather well drafted constitutional text? The very text that gave Habyarimana the legal framework to reduce the Tutsis of Rwanda to a status of second class citizenship, effectively setting the wheels in motion in what would later become one of the worst crimes ever perpetrated by a state against its own people.

Relying on Philip Reyntjens for an expert view on Rwanda would be like communicating with the spirit of Socrates or Plato to get an update of the political situation of Greece.

So enough with the rantings of those feeding on the nostalgia from colonial days to Cold War when Africa used to be told what to do, what to think, how to act and never to speak.

Double standards
A new day is dawning on Africa, and Rwanda is spearheading this quiet revolution.
The recently leaked and subsequently released UN report on alleged crimes perpetrated by the Rwanda Patriotic Army (RPA) amongst others in the DRC between 1993 and 2003 is yet another example of the clear double standards on human rights issues when it comes to dealing with Africa from a Western perspective.

The 1994 Genocide on the Tutsi is a fact recognised by International Law and backed by mountains of evidence which have allowed for the prosecution of those suspected in having had a hand in these atrocities in one way or another.

Here is another fact, no less important. Genocide is a legal term defined in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Understandable
In light of the definition, the reaction of Rwanda on the release of this report can only be described as understandable. No state in its right mind would accept such baseless allegations backed by no evidence whatsoever to be leveled against it. It is quite evident that the “intent” on the part of the authors and sponsors of this so-called report is to tarnish the otherwise blemish free success story of the current Rwandan Government led by Paul Kagame.

Why wouldn’t they? Isn’t it the same Paul Kagame who exposed the UN’s inefficiencies by stopping the 1994 Genocide in their presence? Was it not the same Paul Kagame led RPA that single handedly solved the humanitarian catastrophe referred to in this report by repatriating and successfully rehabilitating over 3 million “Hutu” refugees who had been taken hostage by the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) right across the border?

It is indeed the same Paul Kagame who successfully raised his country from the ashes of her tragically violent and divided past to become the success story that it is today for the whole world to see. And this bothers those who feed on African misery to make a name for themselves as champions of human rights; those modern day messiahs who know so much better than us ignorant Africans that our only chance for survival is the repentance of our sins, however unreal they might be.

Disciplined and efficient
Africa is no fatality; Paul Kagame, more than any other African Leader, understands it. He found a solution to justice for the survivors and the perpetrators, stabilized and pacified a troubled Great Lakes Region and brought steadfast economic growth to East Africa.

The Rwandan Army that stands accused today of possible acts of genocide is cited as the most disciplined and efficient in the UN peacekeeping mission it is involved in.

This same discipline that the Rwandan Army has always shown was one of the keys to success in fighting the genocide without descending into a whirlwind of revenge killings. It was also one for defeating the FAZ and their mercenaries Yougo’s, the FAR, Interahamwe, Mai-mai and others. And it is well documented that Paul Kagame tirelessly called upon the “international community” to “do something” about the clear and imminent threat paused by refugee camps set up Rwanda’s border with DRC, a mere 200 meters away.

Thorn in the foot
It is also documented that the ex-Far with their allies were on the verge of launching multiple attacks on Rwanda to “finish the job” when the Government of Rwanda decided to send an “integrated exFAR-exAPR” contingent to solve the problem and repatriate all willing unarmed Rwandan refugees/hostage. What would be the logic in sending a Hutu-Tutsi army to carry out massacres of Hutu civilians?

But for all these facts cited above, Paul Kagame is and will always be a thorn in the foot of those who regard humanitarian aid as a business with a future in Africa.

Am I now suggesting that the Congo War was a “clean” war without atrocities? Not by a long shot! I will even go further to say that justice needs to be done to honor the memory of those who lost their lives in these conflicts. Like justice is needed for all the victims of all conflicts. How far do we want to go? Dresden, Hiroshima, Spain, Sumatra, Belgian Congo, Indonesia, Algeria, Biafra, Soweto, Iraq, Kurdistan, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Namibia, Wounded Knee?

Justice isn’t just an ideal to some; Rwandans more than anybody else want it. Not as Trojan Horse carefully crafted to destabilize us, but as a genuine exercise in truth and accountability for the benefit of all parties involved. For now, we say thanks for the gift of justice, but no thanks.

© Radio Netherlands Worldwide

Let Rwanda repeal the UN mapping report

By Félicien Mwumvaneza

The UN is at it again. The popular aphorism, "If life gives you lemons, make lemonade" by a famous writer Dale Carnegie embodies much truth regarding the constant challenges of nation building virtually in all countries. It would be fair to say, though, that the adage has particular resonance in Rwanda’s post-genocide efforts for building sustainable peace and development and the ingenuity with which the leadership has had to overcome unique challenges both at home and from the external environment.

Well, what the UN has given Rwanda and the region through its so-called mapping exercise report on the DRC is not just lemons but also a case of sour grapes owing to a deeply flawed methodology and outrageously false allegations that it seeks to translate into a credible discourse. Still Rwanda has gone out of its way to provide a properly worked out and convincing document in response to some of the serious deficiencies in the UN report.

Assuming other factors constant, the controversy surrounding the making of the report was supposed to be purely methodical and any efforts aimed at correcting the professional deficiencies exposed in the UN report ought to have been limited to the technical level – plain and simple. Yet, the UN created a diplomatic emergency that was completely uncalled for.

Rwanda, out of good will, agreed to the diplomatic initiative by the UN Secretary General. And the results? No more than cosmetic modifications have been made to the report, which serves to indicate that the UN was not genuine about the discussions with Rwandan officials anyway.

After all, albeit out of opportunism, the UN may probably rationalise that it has gotten what it wanted: Rwanda will not withdraw thousands of its troops from various UN peacekeeping missions, and it calmed its fears that President Paul Kagame might have been considering to boycott the UN General Assembly meeting. It is not always easy to speculate about irrational behaviour, but they were certainly well aware of the seriousness of the unsubstantiated allegations against his country.

The UN might have its rationalisations in this case, but it is wrong on one key aspect in the equation, and that is Rwanda’s zero tolerance on all kinds of injustices. This is one of the defining constructs of the country’s character as a nation today and Rwanda is not likely to give up on challenging the UN report until justice to its history is done.

As the situation stands, there is a range of options that Rwanda might explore to challenge the UN’s destructive report.

First, in accordance with articles 34 and 35-paragraph 1 of the UN charter, Rwanda should officially demand the Security Council or the General Assembly to repeal the UN mapping exercise report on the DRC in its entirety or just a number of fundamentally flawed sections of it. The demand for repeal should be on the basis that the false allegations contained in the report are a serious threat to regional peace and security among many other credible justifications.

The charter provides that a member state may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly “any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether the continuance of the [...] situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.” The Security Council par excellence approved the mapping exercise and it is in order that Rwanda makes such a demand to the UN.

Second and in connection with the above, Rwanda should launch its diplomatic power to rally the support of its regional and international allies to co-sponsor the repeal motion so that a proper and systematic inquiry of crimes committed in the DRC can be commissioned. Even though Rwanda can make the demand on its own, working in the framework of the regional bodies of which Rwanda is a member would be a good option, as it would strengthen its position and voice.

For instance, there are important provisions in the charter for the establishment of the East African Community that would act as a basis for the action even though there is not yet a detailed international relations protocol for the partner countries. The Common Wealth is another important body in which to explore this possibility for action.

Action within the framework of the African Union would be relatively more feasible based on the organisation’s Peace and Security Council protocol. All these different founding documents exist to serve a useful purpose and they should be operationalised in undertaking Rwanda’s legitimate action.

Third, should the above initiatives be sidelined by different actors for various reasons as it ought to be expected, Rwanda should not shy away from exploring several other retaliatory and/ or legal actions. As a juridical person, the United Nations has willingly and deliberately committed a serious offense against the Rwandan people by subtly espousing the “double genocide” theory and by falsely accusing its military of committing serious crimes.

Apart from being a destabilising bonanza against Rwanda’s and regional peace and security in the short and long term, the UN’s false allegations are likely to have a serious negative impact on the character, reputation and legitimacy of the Rwandan people and the government.
Rwandan lawyers should consider whether and under which arbitration jurisdictions the UN can be held to account, and whether the UN’s actions against Rwanda regarding the DRC mapping report may not constitute forms of liabilities for which it may be held accountable.

Rwanda’s course of action in seeking to repeal the report would not be without precedents. For instance in his address to the 46th session of the UNGA on the September 23, 1991, the US president George W.H. Bush called for the repeal of UNGA resolution 3379 that had misrepresented Israel’s Zionism as racism. The resolution was unconditionally repealed just three months later. The resolution had mischaracterised the struggle that led to the creation of the Jewish state enabling millions of Jews in the Diaspora to finally find a place to call home – a home that had been theirs in the first place.

President Bush Sr. rightly made the case that “to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and, indeed, throughout history. To equate Zionism with racism is to reject Israel itself, a member of good standing of the United Nations.”

The UN mapping report on the DRC has placed Rwanda and its military in a similar situation and it is Rwanda’s legitimate right to demand that the report be repealed. The UN has committed the same historical mistake against Rwandans by mischaracterising the intentions and the conduct of the Rwandan military in the DRC and it risks undermining Rwanda’s willingness for active self-defence in the future among other negative consequences.

The UN should realise that the need to establish facts about the events in the DRC and its obligation for morality, respect for state sovereignty and fundamental fairness and justice to all are not mutually exclusive. One should not come at the expense of another. That is UN’s duty.

As important as high-level short-term political promises that are likely to ensue may be, such promises may not be reliable in the long term as they tend to last as long as office tenures of the respective politicians who make them. Anyone could take action on the basis a published document anytime and the best course of action might be for Rwanda to keep on challenging the UN mapping report on substantive grounds.

Rwanda: The UN and NGOs – Is State Sovereignty under attack? Part III

By Félicien Mwumvaneza

My previous contributions in this series have pointed out how a select group of western international non-governmental Rights organisations have engaged in what appears to be a sustained mission to undermine the strongholds of Rwanda’s political independence as a sovereign state by attacking its most vital governance policies.

I have pointed out the highly unusual and absurd nature of the collaboration between these “Rights” organisations and the United Nations particularly in circumstances surrounding the so-called mapping exercise report on the DR Congo which accuses Rwanda of possible serious crimes there, and how the mainstream western media have helped to advance the discourse of these negative forces.

The DR Congo ‘amateurish’ mapping report might go down in history as a symbol of how the UN has moved further away from its founding principles given that it has clearly accorded non-state actors vital political preeminence over its sovereign member states in the process of carrying out and publishing the results of the DRC report.

From the way Western human rights organisations and mainstream media have parroted and characterised political conditions and events in Rwanda, to how the UN has joined these forces with some Western governments and have oddly mimicked the same allegations about Rwanda, it becomes extremely difficult to believe how these NGOs are actually non-governmental at all.

That is when nothing is said about the channels through which this so-called Human Rights Organisations are actually funded to carry out their work; evidence indicating that governments are not without a firm hand in their financing.

It becomes very unconvincing to argue that the Western media is indeed free and independent, and it makes the relationship and collaboration between these Western “non-state actors” and some Western governments’ approach to Africa and the rest of the developing world is highly questionable.

Clearly, the application of the newfound means of influencing other countries’ policies – the use of soft power particularly through the work of NGOs, could have been softer and more subtle than Rwanda’s case has shown in recent months, at least for the sake of pretence.

But the new ‘marriage’ relationship between western governments, NGOs and the media regarding their behaviour in and about Rwanda is not actually new. It can be seen as a celebration of longstanding bond that was established at the height of the Cold War purposely to support the use of soft power in order to avoid aggression in a clear act of circumventing the provisions of the UN charter.

By using NGOs, states would not be accused of aggressing other sovereign states as the definition of Aggression does not cover acts by international organisations, and the determination of whether any acts of aggression have been committed at all is an exclusive mandate of the very undemocratic Security Council.

That is a smart move, isn’t it? Well, not if it goes against the fundamental principles of justice and fairness for which the UN was founded to promote in the first place, and it’s definitely neither smart nor ethical at all when it endangers other countries’ peace, security and stability as the case of the international negative forces against Rwanda indicates.

The making and workings of the UN, international human rights law
The charter of the United Nations recognises sovereignty as the hallmark of statehood and it was intended to avert war while ensuring international peace and security by recognising every country’s independence and competence. In the system of international relations and obligations, the principle of noninterference in affairs that are within the domestic jurisdiction of states is an important component of state sovereignty.

Under the UN charter and related conventions, sovereign states have “prescriptive” and “enforcement” powers - competence and authority to make laws and enforce them within their jurisdictions. Some of the cases in which the international community can intervene in domestic affairs of a state include when the state fails to maintain peace and security or when it abuses human rights within its jurisdiction. The latter scenario, though, is a norm that evolved after the establishment of the charter and its meaning and interpretation continue to expand even to this day partly through the work of human rights organisations.

At the height of the cold war in the 1960s and 70s, a number of countries found an indirect way to bypass the UN charter noninterference obligations; and so some of the most powerful human rights organisations we have today were set up primarily to promote the balance of power policies. Non-governmental organisations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were later given access and observer status at the United Nations, and their “expert” inputs in the UN processes came to be given important attention.

It is on record how these and other NGOs collaborate in the drafting of reports and resolutions at the UN and how they have been instrumental in the emergency of new human rights norms which form part of the current international human rights law.

As the debate about the UN mapping exercise report on the violation of international human rights law within the DR Congo goes on, it is important to remember that the undemocratic UN Security Council enjoys the exclusive right to interpret, define, frame, decide and declare whether or not a sovereign state has violated its human rights obligations. Thus, even as Rwanda should not relent in the efforts to challenge the flawed report that is clearly a political ploy, it is important to recognise that the underlying challenges actually go deeper that technical issues in the making of documents.

The real issue and important question to be addressed, probably in the long run is to demystify the claims that the UN is just and fair to all countries and peoples when only a few countries enjoy interpretative powers on issues affecting other countries.

And this is something countries could do by giving up some of the short-term benefits and coming together to strongly challenge such a patronising system. It is not something that one country could achieve acting alone.

The way forward for Rwanda
The people of Rwanda need to understand that the onslaught on the country by human rights groups, the mainstream media and the UN might be a deliberate political ploy or a patronising experiment at best that is designed to divide the society by encouraging ethnic politics under the guise of human rights.

Its purpose might be to undermine Rwanda’s increasingly lofty standing both at home and abroad for some unspecified foreign interests. For this reason, Rwandans need to stay united against this challenge and rise above the diversion.
The Rwandan government should refuse to be put on the defensive for doing the right thing for its people and for the country; neither should it be detracted from pursuing the country’s pragmatic foreign engagement that seeks to promote common interests and mutual respect.

These coordinated negative forces and interests have had successes elsewhere in destabilising countries by pressuring governments into abandoning policies that were indeed working for those countries, and it came with devastating consequences and so they seem to believe they can carry out the same experiment in Rwanda today.

Even though there are complex politics at play in the international system, Rwanda must firmly refuse to go down that road because the international community, even when it is at its best, is inherently reckless. This is because despite praises about embracing multilateralism, democracy and freedoms, the struggle for strategic influence and pursuit of self-interest by states has not weathered away. Real actions have not matched rhetoric. The fluid concepts of democracy, human rights and press freedoms are promoted as if they were a specific brand of commodities that developing countries must purchase, rather than theoretical and controversial concepts to be applied contextually. They are, to all intents and purposes, mere instruments for domination. What else could possibly explain the kind of elusive behaviour these interests have manifested in Rwanda in recent months?
For now, Rwanda should continue to firmly challenge the procedural, methodological and all other technical deficiencies of the UN report and demand that these and other substantive issues be systematically revisited as Rwanda holds the obligations of membership in too high regard to let irresponsible mistakes go unquestioned.

The UN has a history of acting inconsistently and there is a possibility that it may realise its grave mistake regarding the mapping exercise report on the DRC and decide to set itself on its feet again. The benefit of time might enable the UN to realise that indeed, in the words of a famous scientist, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Although the UN has created an unnecessary diplomatic crisis for an otherwise purely technical issue, Rwanda might want to give the diplomatic initiative by the UN a chance.

However, that would be only if the postponement was not an opportunistic move to help persuade Rwanda to keep its troops in the UN’s peacekeeping missions in Sudan, Chad, Haiti, and Liberia and to ensure the smooth running of last week’s UN General Assembly in which President Paul Kagame had prominent roles to play in various UN initiatives.

Now that the report was published with negligible changes to the baseless allegations, Rwanda should not shy away from taking appropriate retaliatory actions in accordance with international law based on UN’s record in/on Rwanda and on the detrimental impact the report could have on the character, legitimacy and reputation of the country. Even so, as a UN member state, Rwanda would seek that the UN act out of moral obligations and based on its founding principles rather than out of contingency and opportunism.

Standing up to injustices directed against Rwandans regardless of who the aggressors has been perhaps one of the most distinguishing features of Rwanda’s character as a nation today and it can be seen as one of the key reasons behind its rapid social transformation as well as the increasing lofty standing abroad.

These ideals have brought the country thus far – winning through the power of ideas and actively promoting justice and fairness. It is the same ideals that must defeat the new wave of attacks that are seeking to hijack Rwanda’s right for self-determination as an exercise of its sovereignty. The shotgun...To Whom It May Concern approach in characterising Rwanda’s governance landscape and strategic intentions should be met with strong resistance.

The author is a graduate student of International Development, Wageningen University – The Netherlands
nezaonline@yahoo.com

© The New Times

Rwanda: The UN and NGOs – Is State Sovereignty under attack? Part II

By Felicien Mwumvaneza

It has been said, “If you do not ask the right questions, every answer seems wrong.” And I would add; when one’s motives are wrong, one’s behaviour towards others, however offensive and shameful, always seems or is assumed to be right to oneself.

There is probably no better way to describe the deliberate onslaught by some human rights organisations and mainstream media against Rwanda especially in the run up to the August 2010 presidential election to the post-election coverage, and recently, the draft UN mapping exercise report on the DR Congo.

The untold story
Even from among Rwanda’s most vocal critics, very few dispute that Rwanda’s intervention in the DR Congo in October 1996 was in accordance with international law regarding the obligation to act in self-defense. In the same vein, the conduct of the Rwandan military in the DRC operation is well known.

It is on record how the Rwandan forces bravely acted to create safe corridors to free approximately 2,000,000 refugees taken hostage by the ex-FAR, militias and genocide perpetrators in refugee camps then turned UN-supported military recruitment, training and arming bases.

The facts about how the Rwandan military successfully repatriated millions of refugees, whilst the fighters in camps used them as human shields, are also indisputable.

Yet, Rwanda’s ‘altruist’ rights advocates and ‘experts’ will not tell the principal elements of the entire story. They will not talk about the failure of the UN Security Council to protect innocent civilians killed in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis, the starting of which ended the prospects of a peaceful end to the conflict that had been painstakingly negotiated in Arusha, Tanzania.

They will not talk about how the Rwanda Patriotic Army which at the time singlehandedly fought to stop the genocide, saved lives and arrested hundreds of thousands of killers to await trial, even where they were arrested while in action. They do not want the world to know that there were isolated cases where some Rwandan military officers or men were involved in certain crimes during the war and that these were actually prosecuted and indeed sentenced for those crimes, simply because Rwanda and its armed forces do not condone violence and crime.

They will not mention the complicity of the Security Council in authorising France to intervene in western Rwanda – a mission that to all intents and purposes enabled the genocide perpetrators to flee justice and helped to direct millions of refugees to leave the country.

They will not want to talk about the UN’s failure to meet its international obligations regarding the handling of refugees on borders and their disarmament. They would prefer to conceal the moral and legal failures for which the UN ought to be prosecuted in the first place.

It is those same refugees whom the UN now struggles to mislead the world that the Rwandan army may have committed crimes against including a possible genocide. By ignoring not only the facts but also the context of the whole situation, the United Nations decided to collaborate exclusively with non-state actors especially those who constantly attack Rwanda’s domestic policy.

There is enough evidence to suggest that the authors of the UN mapping exercise report on the DRC may have worked with Amnesty International and other such groups and their trademark practice of using facts selectively in their work on Rwanda is beginning to emerge.

The arbitrary action of the LDGL rights group in forwarding a ‘damning report’ to the UN Human Rights Council without the consent of some of its core member organisations is a case in point, although this is just the tip of the iceberg.

And now the ‘benevolent’ advocates of Rwanda with ‘extensive expertise’ on the country for 2, 4, 7, 10 or so years – depending on how they prefer to expand (or inflate?) and justify their CVs, are weighing in with an assessment of the impact of their ‘good work’ on Rwanda.

They are now suggesting to the world that the legitimacy of the Rwandan government has been undermined. Now, back in high school, this would be typical of what we used to call “dancing to your own tunes,” and it is similar to an even richer phrase in my native language, “kwikirigita ugaseka.”

Questioning legitimacy: ‘experts’ or the electorate?
Regardless of the nature of the facts about each issue raised by the critics whether in good faith or just out of ignorance; in spite of the official position as well as established practice of the government and its institutions, Rwanda’s detractors have sought to highhandedly question the country’s electoral system, it’s constitutional provisions on multiparty politics and some of its official laws particularly the genocide ideology and sectarianism laws.

Since these so-called non-governmental human rights organisations and mainstream media are not always as clever as they probably think they are or would want the selected victims of their attacks and their other audiences to believe, they are now openly, and of course maliciously, questioning the legitimacy of the Rwandan government. Thus, they cannot hide their true motives long enough; they betray their presumed subtlety.

For months they have fought tooth and nail to misrepresent the country and they are now suggesting or rather wishing that Rwanda’s and President Paul Kagame’s legitimacy has somehow been undermined – never mind the fact that his popular approval was overwhelmingly renewed in the general elections less than two months ago.

What kind of short memory could that possibly be? Yet one would have expected that the obligation to link conclusions to credible premises – effect to cause, is the basic principle of literacy in any culture and civilisation.

Even as Rwandans themselves know it would perhaps be good for Hollywood amateurs, the critics believe that the image of their fictional version of realities in and about Rwanda has been painted vividly enough and presented to the unsuspecting world audience, and that that image should now be sold to major western capitals that have important development cooperation with Rwanda.

Well, with no intentions to disappoint the united detractors of Rwanda in their agenda, it is my opinion that President Kagame’s legitimacy as well as that of his government cannot just be wished away. In addition to renewed popular legitimacy, he and his government also enjoy procedural legitimacy due to strict adherence to the rule of law, high level of accountability and reputation for zero tolerance on corruption that has led to a negligible level of corruption of the corrupt according to Transparency International.

Moreover, and perhaps the most important aspect of all, President Paul Kagame and his government enjoy a high degree of substantive legitimacy and credibility. From incredible reconstruction to the steady path of sustainable growth and socio-economic development, his government’s record of delivery on all policy fronts is something for which no expert is needed to explain.

It is an exciting turn that has caught the keen attention of the wider world. It is an approach with innovative approaches of social change in a complex post-genocide setting in which the homogeneity of the nation has been a challenge never before witnessed anywhere in history.

Rwandans are in no competition with anyone and nobody should feel challenged or threatened by their modest and innovative ways of advancing their society. Other than pouring out unwarranted criticism, serious experts ought to give honest criticism and feedback about the country, and serious researchers might soon need to use the Rwandan experience to update some of the development models.

As for the united detractors of Rwanda, it appears that they can only ignore the country’s history and context – past and present, if they are seeking pretexts for pursuing unspecified interests.

The author is a Graduate student of International Development, Wageningen University – The Netherlands

© The New Times, Rwanda