By Harry Verhoeven / September 23, 2010
Until recently, President Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) were the international community’s aid darling, heralded for their role in stopping the 1994 genocide that claimed the lives of as many as one million Rwandans. They now stand accused of a long list of crimes.
A recently-leaked UN report accuses the RPF of atrocities “that could be classified as genocide” in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1996-1997 – mass murdering tens of thousands of Hutu refugees. The regime’s legitimacy and its leaders’ individual criminal responsibility are now being contested.
But how wise is it to swap one set of dangerous simplifications for another? Is Rwanda the model of progress and reconciliation, or is Kagame’s RPF the genocidal eye of Central African storms? And what does this tell us about international intervention in a region with an immensely troubled past?
Historical context
Rwanda has long suffered from powerful imagery projected onto it by self-declared friends of the country. The analyses of socio-political trends often reveal more about the “expert” expounding his truths than about what actually happens to Rwanda’s people.
A century ago, Belgian colonialists, biased by the Flemish-Walloon cleavage that undermined nation-statehood back home, portrayed the complex Hutu-Tutsi relationship as fundamentally irreconcilable, mixing racist theories with political expediency.
During the cold war, the regime of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana was the “enfant chéri” of development practitioners, the Catholic Church, and French President François Mitterrand. A 20-year dictatorship was deemed “a peaceful outpost” in the “dangerous” African jungle. When Mr. Habyarimana was assassinated on April 6, 1994, the regime’s core members unleashed a genocidal hell against Tutsis and some moderate Hutus.
Habyarimana’s old allies disbelievingly went into shock (Brussels) and continued support for the Hutu extremists through denial (Paris). Seeing their illusions go up in smoke was something Belgium and France handled with great difficulty, but with terrible consequences for Rwandans themselves.
Turning a blind eye
When Kagame and his predominantly Tutsi rebels took over, ending the 1994 bloodshed, a new generation fell in love with Rwanda. Anglo-Saxon politicians and aid workers combined geopolitical opportunism with genuine admiration for the RPF’s sophisticated security and good governance buzz.
Apparently willing to ignore the reprisal atrocities perpetrated by RPF forces against civilians across the country between 1995 and 1998, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have publicly led the defense of Kagame’s team as visionary reconciliators.
The unwillingness of outside actors to critically examine their wishful thinking about Rwanda has historically proved embarrassing. But it’s also led to terrible mistakes, including the inability to prevent the genocide that killed at least 800,000 people.
However, the problem is not just that Rwanda has been imagined as a non-existent African Shangri-La. It’s also that some armchair critics have often gone so over the top in demonizing the RPF – seldom based on any thorough, on-the-ground research – that the movement handily dismisses essentially legitimate concerns as baseless accusations. One Rwandan diplomat called the leaked UN report “an amateurish NGO job.”
Blaming Kagame
It was once mandatory to demand “empathy” for the war-ravaged country’s authoritarian government. Today it is becoming fashionable among some to blame the regime – and Kagame himself – for almost all Central Africa’s wrongs. Desiring to denounce the RPF as the brilliantly evil organization “you love to hate,” too many commentators are now recklessly amalgamating charges of human rights violations, corruption, and bad policy.
Some are coming dangerously close to embracing revisionism about the 1994 crimes, too.
The conventional and well-documented account of the genocide is that government forces, extremist militias, and ordinary Hutus murdered at least 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu Rwandans in less than 100 days, following the assassination of “their” president, Habyarimana. An entire propaganda machine and a brutally crafted extermination ideology fuelled the massacres in churches, schools, and homes.
Dangers of a "double genocide" theory
Today, the idea of a “double genocide” is gaining strength, suggesting that the madness of 1994 was less a one-sided ethnic cleansing of Tutsis, but part of a long and vicious fight between Hutus and Tutsis that became “uncontrollable.” Unfortunately, and shamefully, it is no longer just Hutu génocidaires and their French silent accomplices who suggest the “double genocide” hypothesis, conveniently trivializing two decades of anti-Tutsi massacres.
Former NATO secretary-general Willy Claes was the Belgian Foreign Minister in 1994, and driving force behind the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers from Rwanda during the genocide. He recently called Kagame co-responsible for the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans. Numerous journalists, scholars, and activists are now jumping on the new UN report’s controversial hypotheses, claiming it offers supreme evidence of the culpability of a regime they loathe (for doctrinal or fashionable reasons).
Some even go so far as to theorize: If the RPF waged an extermination campaign in DRC in 1996-1997, then perhaps it also co-engineered the 1994 events so that it could take over power?
The real need to hold people accountable for what happened to the 200,000 Hutu refugees in the DRC during that time is at risk of being merged with the problematic agendas of genocide revisionists and not particularly innocent RPF detractors.
UN failures
Debate over the technicalities of genocide seldom leads to concrete improvements on the ground. For example: The counterproductive debate about genocide in Darfur did little or nothing to end impunity and increase accountability in the Sudanese region. The risk is particularly acute because the report’s author, the UN, has not done a particularly good job of owning up to its own catastrophic failures in Central Africa.
This includes its shameful role in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, but also its shocking inability to neutralize tens of thousands heavily-armed génocidaires in the very refugee camps where it alleges the RPF massacred civilians. The UN would have far more moral credibility and political leverage to finally do something about the DRC atrocities if it had done its utmost to solve the deadly embrace between Eastern Congo and Rwanda during the past 16 years.
Unfortunately, the international community has yet to fully accept the devastating responsibility of Security Council members in this ongoing tragedy.
A treacherous time for Rwanda
Moreover, the debate is re-ignited at a treacherous time for Rwanda. Despite the semblance of a secure hold on power due to Kagame winning an impressive, and controversial, 93 percent of the vote in the last presidential election, tensions are rife in the Rwandan capital, Kigali.
The RPF leadership remains an ultra-professional, but deeply paranoid, military organization, not an ordinary political party. Formal institutions collide with the informal logic of a leadership that thinks like a guerilla movement, in uncompromising terms. The RPF’s security-obsessed hardcore has disintegrated rapidly in recent years. The rivalry problem between Kagame and his former lieutenants (Kayumba Nyamwasa and Patrick Karegyeya) is not about policy but power. Politics in the (increasingly fragmented) RPF is more than ever based on “nobody trusts nobody” anymore.
The Kagame regime, both internally and externally, sees its legitimacy to rule as inextricably tied to having ended the 1994 “genocide.” Standing accused of the most heinous of crimes is more than a diplomatic insult. It’s questioning the regime’s right to rule.
Consequences for Central African stability
The RPF core will react the way it has learned to respond to such threats – by going on the offensive. (Withdrawing its blue-helmets from the Darfur peacekeeping force, as the RPF has threatened to do? Stirring up trouble in Eastern Congo to show it’s indispensable as a force for stability there?) At best, it will offer temporary tactical concessions through on-and-off negotiations.
Ultimately, the RPF will consider itself vindicated in its initial distrust of the outside world, shutting down avenues of mutual listening and further squashing internal dissent.
The inconvenient truth is this: With its genocide reference, this perhaps well-intended report will probably be counter-productive to justice and stability in Central Africa. It was written at a terribly sensitive moment, by an organization that is in no position to lecture Rwanda about accepting responsibility.
The chances of the leaked document leading to increased accountability for crimes in DRC of RPF officials seem nil. Calling the atrocities “genocidal” spices up the debate, but doesn’t further the cause of peaceful politics inside Kigali, and doesn’t necessarily bring justice any closer for eastern Congo massacres.
Harry Verhoeven is a doctoral student at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. He heads the Oxford University China-Africa Network (OUCAN) is co-authoring a research project on the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, “Point of No Return. Kabila, the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the Internal Dynamics of the Great African War.”
@ Christian Science Monitor
Friday, 24 September 2010
Monday, 20 September 2010
African Union to protest UN report in New York
Report from Rwanda News Agency by RNA Reporter
Sunday, 19 September 2010; 12:44:
(Kigali) - The African Union is tipped to use the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly to force amendments on the report that accuses Rwanda of alleged Genocide in DR Congo.
The session that gets under way on Monday in New York has been rocked by the leaking of the report linking Rwanda troops to genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The UN was left with egg on its face after the contents of the 600-page draft report was leaked, prompting the secretary-general Ban Ki-moon to fly to Rwanda to ease tensions.
Former and current diplomats told the Kenyan newspaper ‘Sunday Nation’ that the African Union will seek changes to the document as a show of solidarity with Rwanda which has become a major player on the continent.
Another former ambassador and now university don, Prof Frank Matanga, says the leak has exposed the and left it with no option but to cause the amendments as demanded by Rwanda.
The recognition of Rwanda’s growing importance in African affairs, Prof Kikaya added, should provide a good starting point to mobilise the AU block to demand tighter structures to forestall any future leaks.
“The burden is on Rwanda’s diplomatic corps to lobby the African caucus to give its position on this matter,” he told the Kenyan daily.
Rwanda’s growing importance in the continent since the genocide in 1994 can be seen in its peace efforts in the region.
It currently has 3300 peacekeeping force and 86 police serving with a joint UN and African Union force (Unamid) in the troubled western Sudanese region of Darfur. It is led by Rwandan Lt Gen Patrick Nyamyumba.
Another 256 troops serve with the UN Mission in Sudan (Unmis), which is supporting the implementation of a peace deal between north and south.
“Rwanda was the first country to send troops to a very treacherous place to monitor implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It therefore pioneered the African-based force,” Prof Kikaya pointed out.
Instead of bashing Rwanda, the UN should be thanking the country for evolving African-based peace keeping in the continent, added Prof Kikaya.
The fact that the report also names Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola and Burundi, it creates sympathy among other African leaders to fall behind their colleagues, according to diplomats.
President Kagame will also meet with UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon and other top UN officials as part of Rwanda’s offensive against the report due to be released on October 01.
Sunday, 19 September 2010; 12:44:
(Kigali) - The African Union is tipped to use the 65th Session of the United Nations General Assembly to force amendments on the report that accuses Rwanda of alleged Genocide in DR Congo.
The session that gets under way on Monday in New York has been rocked by the leaking of the report linking Rwanda troops to genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The UN was left with egg on its face after the contents of the 600-page draft report was leaked, prompting the secretary-general Ban Ki-moon to fly to Rwanda to ease tensions.
Former and current diplomats told the Kenyan newspaper ‘Sunday Nation’ that the African Union will seek changes to the document as a show of solidarity with Rwanda which has become a major player on the continent.
Another former ambassador and now university don, Prof Frank Matanga, says the leak has exposed the and left it with no option but to cause the amendments as demanded by Rwanda.
The recognition of Rwanda’s growing importance in African affairs, Prof Kikaya added, should provide a good starting point to mobilise the AU block to demand tighter structures to forestall any future leaks.
“The burden is on Rwanda’s diplomatic corps to lobby the African caucus to give its position on this matter,” he told the Kenyan daily.
Rwanda’s growing importance in the continent since the genocide in 1994 can be seen in its peace efforts in the region.
It currently has 3300 peacekeeping force and 86 police serving with a joint UN and African Union force (Unamid) in the troubled western Sudanese region of Darfur. It is led by Rwandan Lt Gen Patrick Nyamyumba.
Another 256 troops serve with the UN Mission in Sudan (Unmis), which is supporting the implementation of a peace deal between north and south.
“Rwanda was the first country to send troops to a very treacherous place to monitor implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. It therefore pioneered the African-based force,” Prof Kikaya pointed out.
Instead of bashing Rwanda, the UN should be thanking the country for evolving African-based peace keeping in the continent, added Prof Kikaya.
The fact that the report also names Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola and Burundi, it creates sympathy among other African leaders to fall behind their colleagues, according to diplomats.
President Kagame will also meet with UN Secretary General Ban ki-moon and other top UN officials as part of Rwanda’s offensive against the report due to be released on October 01.
Monday, 13 September 2010
Rwanda, the UN and NGOs: Is State Sovereignty under attack?
By Felicien Mwumvaneza
The process of globalisation with associated spread in communication technologies has ubiquitously changed and shifted the ways in which states and non-state entities function.
It is no longer easy for states, albeit not impossible, to control a massive amount of information that goes around in print, on airwaves and through the internet, especially when the ideas circulated are highly erroneous and evidently detrimental to the character and interests of the concerned state or person. However, there is a level beyond which what goes on in the media and NGO world cannot be considered merely as business as usual.
Well, Rwanda has seen and had its unfair share because of this unique turn in modern times. The country has received a barrage of criticism in recent times especially from her perennial critics such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.
Some in the mainstream media too have found something newsworthy, telegenic and photogenic, although their criticisms are often contradictory and based on inaccurate claims.
Moreover, since these organisations seem to be answerable to nobody, issues of credibility and morality regarding the methods and quality of their work are not something they would lose sleep over. It would be fine if they just didn’t care about reputation and ethical principles in their own right, but it raises serious questions when it come to how their work is recognised within inter-governmental organisations such as the United Nations.
While this trend is neither new nor surprising, the United Nation’s links to this kind of behaviour is a sad chapter in the history of the world body. It is one thing for non-state actors to make all sorts reckless allegations against a state, just at whim, but it is quite another when the UN makes unsubstantiated and dangerous claims against some of its independent and sovereign member states.
Unanswered questions
When you read the draft UN report on the DRC that was leaked to the press nearly two weeks ago and Amnesty International’s report entitled Rwandese-controlled eastern DRC: Devastating human toll published on June 19, 2001, you hardly find any difference between the two reports. They are similar both in content and the allegations made and even in the format used, the major difference being in the volume and scope of the two reports.
In fact, you may think the UN draft report is just a new edition of the aforementioned and other reports by Amnesty International. The authors of the leaked UN inconclusive report did not make any efforts to ensure that the readers don’t conclude that the UN report either was co-authored with Amnesty International or at least largely drew its content from the organisation’s various reports and those of its partner organisations in the region.
Given that the data collection methodology of the report is far from empirical, its content highly controversial and the circumstances surrounding its leak to the press extremely questionable, the UN should appreciate that comments and criticisms of its actions in this case are legitimate and not meant in an offensive spirit.
The underhand methods in the whole process of compiling the report that mostly, if not exclusively, involved NGOs, serves to undermine the UN’s credibility. For the UN to accord NGOs political acceptance (and in the DRC case, political and credibility pre-eminence) over state actors is an absurd thing to do and might jeopardise the foundational principles of the United Nations and further damage its already poor record particularly in Rwanda and the DRC.
The UN relied on accounts from hundreds of NGOs and individuals who they claim are victims of the alleged human rights abuses in the DRC, whether or not they include those who are still running away from justice back in Rwanda is to them not an issue.
Can one even assume that the UN is not aware that these non-governmental organisations represent a wide spectrum of political views in the conflict-ridden region? How could the UN neglect its primary duty to respect the normal verification procedures of determining the accuracy and reliability of the massive information from non-state actors against member states, by giving governments concerned an opportunity to provide their own account?
How can the UN justify its impartiality and lack of political bias when the decision to allow governments to comment on the leaked report at all was only ad hoc, apparently largely due to Rwanda’s warning that it would withdraw its troops from UN peacekeeping operations, if the report was published in the form in which it was leaked?
The statements from New York and indeed from Mr. Ban Ki Moon himself, while on his recent impromptu visit to Kigali, have made it clear that concerned governments’ comments will be published “alongside the report itself on 1 October, if they so wish.” How does the UN expect Rwanda and other concerned governments to be as naive and credulous as to be content with the offer to publish their comments only in annex form? If the UN had genuine commitment to get it right at this stage, it would have sent a clear message to its concerned member states that their comments would be used to reconsider the substantive content of the draft report itself.
If Mr. Ban is indeed disappointed that the report by the organisation he heads as chief diplomat was leaked, why hasn’t he shown the initiative and willingness to propose that the UN launch an investigation to find out who was behind the leak and what the motive was?
In all of these cases, therefore, the UN has once again missed the opportunity to demonstrate expected neutral judgement. While it may be a normal bureaucratic and diplomatic game at the United Nations, it carries serious national security and indeed existential threats for Rwanda and it is the kind of game, which I hope, the Rwandan government cannot and should not be prepared to tolerate.
The process of globalisation with associated spread in communication technologies has ubiquitously changed and shifted the ways in which states and non-state entities function.
It is no longer easy for states, albeit not impossible, to control a massive amount of information that goes around in print, on airwaves and through the internet, especially when the ideas circulated are highly erroneous and evidently detrimental to the character and interests of the concerned state or person. However, there is a level beyond which what goes on in the media and NGO world cannot be considered merely as business as usual.
Well, Rwanda has seen and had its unfair share because of this unique turn in modern times. The country has received a barrage of criticism in recent times especially from her perennial critics such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders.
Some in the mainstream media too have found something newsworthy, telegenic and photogenic, although their criticisms are often contradictory and based on inaccurate claims.
Moreover, since these organisations seem to be answerable to nobody, issues of credibility and morality regarding the methods and quality of their work are not something they would lose sleep over. It would be fine if they just didn’t care about reputation and ethical principles in their own right, but it raises serious questions when it come to how their work is recognised within inter-governmental organisations such as the United Nations.
While this trend is neither new nor surprising, the United Nation’s links to this kind of behaviour is a sad chapter in the history of the world body. It is one thing for non-state actors to make all sorts reckless allegations against a state, just at whim, but it is quite another when the UN makes unsubstantiated and dangerous claims against some of its independent and sovereign member states.
Unanswered questions
When you read the draft UN report on the DRC that was leaked to the press nearly two weeks ago and Amnesty International’s report entitled Rwandese-controlled eastern DRC: Devastating human toll published on June 19, 2001, you hardly find any difference between the two reports. They are similar both in content and the allegations made and even in the format used, the major difference being in the volume and scope of the two reports.
In fact, you may think the UN draft report is just a new edition of the aforementioned and other reports by Amnesty International. The authors of the leaked UN inconclusive report did not make any efforts to ensure that the readers don’t conclude that the UN report either was co-authored with Amnesty International or at least largely drew its content from the organisation’s various reports and those of its partner organisations in the region.
Given that the data collection methodology of the report is far from empirical, its content highly controversial and the circumstances surrounding its leak to the press extremely questionable, the UN should appreciate that comments and criticisms of its actions in this case are legitimate and not meant in an offensive spirit.
The underhand methods in the whole process of compiling the report that mostly, if not exclusively, involved NGOs, serves to undermine the UN’s credibility. For the UN to accord NGOs political acceptance (and in the DRC case, political and credibility pre-eminence) over state actors is an absurd thing to do and might jeopardise the foundational principles of the United Nations and further damage its already poor record particularly in Rwanda and the DRC.
The UN relied on accounts from hundreds of NGOs and individuals who they claim are victims of the alleged human rights abuses in the DRC, whether or not they include those who are still running away from justice back in Rwanda is to them not an issue.
Can one even assume that the UN is not aware that these non-governmental organisations represent a wide spectrum of political views in the conflict-ridden region? How could the UN neglect its primary duty to respect the normal verification procedures of determining the accuracy and reliability of the massive information from non-state actors against member states, by giving governments concerned an opportunity to provide their own account?
How can the UN justify its impartiality and lack of political bias when the decision to allow governments to comment on the leaked report at all was only ad hoc, apparently largely due to Rwanda’s warning that it would withdraw its troops from UN peacekeeping operations, if the report was published in the form in which it was leaked?
The statements from New York and indeed from Mr. Ban Ki Moon himself, while on his recent impromptu visit to Kigali, have made it clear that concerned governments’ comments will be published “alongside the report itself on 1 October, if they so wish.” How does the UN expect Rwanda and other concerned governments to be as naive and credulous as to be content with the offer to publish their comments only in annex form? If the UN had genuine commitment to get it right at this stage, it would have sent a clear message to its concerned member states that their comments would be used to reconsider the substantive content of the draft report itself.
If Mr. Ban is indeed disappointed that the report by the organisation he heads as chief diplomat was leaked, why hasn’t he shown the initiative and willingness to propose that the UN launch an investigation to find out who was behind the leak and what the motive was?
In all of these cases, therefore, the UN has once again missed the opportunity to demonstrate expected neutral judgement. While it may be a normal bureaucratic and diplomatic game at the United Nations, it carries serious national security and indeed existential threats for Rwanda and it is the kind of game, which I hope, the Rwandan government cannot and should not be prepared to tolerate.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Ban Ki-Moon Visits Rwanda
THE United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, arrived in the country yesterday on an impromptu visit aimed at discussing with the Rwandan government the controversial leaked draft UN report alleging that Rwandan troops could have committed human rights abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The report titled “Democratic Republic of the Congo Human Rights Mapping” compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, has been dismissed by Rwanda as “malicious and threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping troops from Sudan.
According to th Government Spokesperson and Minister of Foreign Affairs Louise Mushikiwabo, Ki-moon is expected to hold talks this morning with President Paul Kagame over the report which has also been condemned by both the DRC and Uganda.
“The Secretary General decided to visit Kigali to speak directly with the Rwandan President and other government officials about their concern regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo Human Rights mapping report compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Mushikiwabo said in statement to the media.
The UN Chief was accompanied by Roger Meece, the UN Special Representative for DR Congo, Alain Le Roy, the UN Under-Secretary General for peacekeeping operations as well as Ivan Simonovic, the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights.
The UN last week delayed publication of the report which was supposed to be published on September 2 to October 1 to give Rwanda and the other nations mentioned in the report more time to submit their views.
Last week, the Government of Rwanda announced that it was ready to withdraw over 3,500 troops serving under the UNAMID/UNAMIS peacekeeping missions in Sudan, with Mushikiwabo arguing that an army that is preventing a possible Genocide in Darfur cannot be accused of doing the same somewhere else.
Courtesy of the New Times
The report titled “Democratic Republic of the Congo Human Rights Mapping” compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, has been dismissed by Rwanda as “malicious and threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping troops from Sudan.
According to th Government Spokesperson and Minister of Foreign Affairs Louise Mushikiwabo, Ki-moon is expected to hold talks this morning with President Paul Kagame over the report which has also been condemned by both the DRC and Uganda.
“The Secretary General decided to visit Kigali to speak directly with the Rwandan President and other government officials about their concern regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo Human Rights mapping report compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.” Mushikiwabo said in statement to the media.
The UN Chief was accompanied by Roger Meece, the UN Special Representative for DR Congo, Alain Le Roy, the UN Under-Secretary General for peacekeeping operations as well as Ivan Simonovic, the Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights.
The UN last week delayed publication of the report which was supposed to be published on September 2 to October 1 to give Rwanda and the other nations mentioned in the report more time to submit their views.
Last week, the Government of Rwanda announced that it was ready to withdraw over 3,500 troops serving under the UNAMID/UNAMIS peacekeeping missions in Sudan, with Mushikiwabo arguing that an army that is preventing a possible Genocide in Darfur cannot be accused of doing the same somewhere else.
Courtesy of the New Times
Monday, 26 July 2010
100 Reasons to Re-elect Paul Kagame for President of Rwanda
 |
1. Education 1. Ensuring 9-Year Basic Education for all Rwandan children that will tremendously improve literacy levels in the country 2. A promise to have Universal Secondary Education by 2017 3. Making education accessible by all with no segregations, particularly promoting Girls’ and Special Needs’ education 4. Encouraging parents and communities’ involvement in education 5. Introducing English as medium of instruction in schools to make Rwanda more competitive on the global stage 6. Creating 14 new Higher Learning Institutions, almost tripling Higher Education enrolment in 7 year years 7. Providing scholarships to the best and brightest Rwandan students to pursue their studies in the best universities of Europe and North America; 8. Promising to achieve 100% literacy by 2017 through effective adult education; 9. Introducing technology in schools starting with primary schools under the ’One Laptop Per Child’ program 10. Increasing the number of qualified teachers at all levels of education through effective distance learning and in-service training and remunerating them adequately. 2. Health 1. Raising the life expectancy in Rwanda from 43 to 53 years; 2. Introducing 6 types of health insurance including the famous “Mutuelle de Santé” resulting in a health insurance coverage of 94% of the population; 3. Introducing universal immunisation programmes; 4. Introducing health awareness programs; 5. Reducing deaths from malaria by 75%; 6. Reducing infant mortality by 70%; 7. Reducing HIV infections from 9 percent to 2%; 8. Building a clinic in every sector; 9. Reducing water-borne diseases by 60%; 10. Ensuring that more doctors and nurses are trained and deployed evenly across the country 3. Justice 1. Trying over 1,100,000 cases in the Gacaca court system; 2. Undertaking a complete restructuring of the justice sector; 3. Introducing many laws for different sectors that brings orderliness in State functioning; 4. Releasing over 80,000 genocide convicts safely into the community while ensuring law and order in the society; 5. Making convicted prisoners give back to society through work schemes; 6. Building over 100 new courts of law; 7. Training over 300 new judges; 8. Creating an independent judicially and an independent Judge selection process; 9. Promoting local mediation services to reduce backlog of court cases; 10. Introducing the commercial courts and streamlining the justice system by merging the administration process; 4. Agriculture 1. Introducing crop intensification programme and boosting agricultural production by 10 percent annually; 2. Introducing the cooperative system to buy produce from farmers; 3. Diversifying the crops cultivated through sensitisation; 4. Significantly reducing poverty and mal-nutrition through the one cow per family: “the Girinka” programme; 5. Introducing a phone text service that can inform farmers of the latest crop prices 6. Making subsidized seeds and fertilizers available on credit; 7. Promoting mechanised agriculture through a scheme of 1 tractor per village 8. Making veterinarians more widely spread across the country 9. Introducing irrigation farming 10. Making ‘hunger’ a history in our country 5. Economy 1. Increasing average earnings of Rwandans from $220 to $560 in 7 years! 2. Strengthening the private sector and streamlining doing business in Rwanda; 3. Increasing the tax base and total revenue collected domestically ; 4. Promoting credit to small to medium sized enterprises; 5. Increasing domestic funding of government to development projects in national budget from 10% to 50%; 6. Promoting transparency by fighting corruption; 7. Diversifying the economy by promoting new sectors like mining and tourism; 8. Promoting foreign direct investment to nearly $1 billion annually; 9. Making poverty-reduction the hallmark of economic development; 10. Cutting down on government expenditure through initiatives like reducing on the number of government vehicles; 6. Security 1. Making Rwanda one of the safest places in the world 2. Devolving security responsibility down to the local level 3. Reducing crime through local initiatives 4. Professionalising the Army and integrating former hostile elements 5. Fighting impunity and corruption in the army and hence cementing discipline 6. Sending Rwandan soldiers and Police officers to keep peace in war ravaged places like Darfur, Haiti, Liberia, etc. 7. Introducing electronic ID cards to all adults 8. Instituting a police force that is disciplined and highly professional 9. Establishing a credit scheme for the Army and Police 10. Making peace with neighbours like Democratic Republic of Congo 7. Foreign policy 1. Making Rwanda a respected partner in regional and international affairs 2. Improving Rwanda’s relations with former hostile nations like France and DRC 3. Making Rwanda one of the biggest contributors of peace-keepers in the UN 4. Working tirelessly to track and prosecute Genocide suspects 5. Joining the East African Community and the Commonwealth 6. Being one of the foremost advocates of fully integrated EAC 7. Relentlessly promoting Rwanda abroad and expanding her relations to countries such as Australia, Singapore, South Korea, etc. 8. Chairing powerful global initiatives like the UN MDGs and the ITU Broadband Commission and serving on the Advisory board of the World Bank. 9. Creating special friends for Rwanda that have always defended our cause. 10. Refusing to be bullied by the west and always insisting on an equal voice for Africa on the global scene. 8. Technology 1. Making ICT the main focus of our long-term development 2. Making technology integral to government service provision 3. Supporting the one laptop per child policy 4. Laying thousands of kilometres of fibre-optic cables 5. Connecting all government centers to the internet 6. Abolishing import duties on ICT equipment 7. Building one of the best telephone network systems in the region 8. Strongly advocating for undersea cable to land on EA coastline and now eventually in Rwanda 9. Turning Rwanda into an influential country on ICT global issues 10. Emphasising on ICTs in our education programs and setting up institutions to oversee this program 9. Infrastructure 1. Constructing good roads across the country 2. Building communication towers to help link outlying areas 3. Setting up building regulations to improve basic infrastructure 4. Reducing tax on building materials to encourage growth of the industry 5. Bringing electricity to all major areas, with plans to expand it to every village 6. Coming up with a master plan and securing funding for a new international airport 7. Advocating for Isaka railway line which will reduce transport costs 8. Ensuring that Kigali master plan is implemented 9. Building district and sector headquarters nationwide 10. Investing heavily in ICT infrastructure 10. Kagame, the man 1. He is a man of principle and values 2. He is pragmatic and ready to make tough choices in the interest of his country 3. He promises and delivers 4. He is patriotic and wants the best for Rwandans 5. He is a visionary and inspirational leader 6. He is intelligent, skilful and innovative 7. He is a humble man who does not value personal gains 8. He is not a man to bully and he is never shaken by circumstances 9. He has a humble background that shapes his character as a down-to-earth leader 10. He is a family man and cherishes family values "You Do Not Change a Winning Team" |
Friday, 23 July 2010
Monday, 19 July 2010
Tuesday, 13 July 2010
There is no apathy in nation building
By Felicien Mwumvaneza
A member of the parliament of Rwanda has proposed the enactment of a law for mandatory voting and asked that a debate be initiated in the house on the issue.
While reading the story my first instinct was that participation in the political process in general and voting in particular are citizen rights and not duties, and therefore making it mandatory to vote would be an infringement on peoples’ rights.
After due reflection however, I think that much as we cherish all our citizen rights and freedoms, it is our duty to ensure that those rights and freedoms are preserved and protected by making our voices heard.
Not only should everyone take part in the political process through the election of leaders and policy makers to preserve their freedoms, but each citizen’s active participation is also the best way to guarantee the quality of those rights and freedoms.
Democracy has stood the test of time so far as the best form of government; the government of the people, by the people and for the people, where elected leaders of society make and enforce different types of policies on the people’s behalf.
The Rwandan people have come a long way in nation building and are on a steady path to change their lives for the better, and in a democracy the best policies and strategies are validated through the people’s will.
Courtesy of 'The New Times', Rwanda
Kigali City Tower
Saturday, 8 May 2010
Rwanda’s mobile broadband is Africa’s first
By Michael Malakata
Little known by the outside world until genocide tore the country apart 15 years ago, Rwanda has become the first nation to launch a wireless broadbandI Internet facility in Africa.
Little known by the outside world until genocide tore the country apart 15 years ago, Rwanda has become the first nation to launch a wireless broadbandI Internet facility in Africa.
Unlike other countries in Africa, where mobile broadband Internet connection is restricted to a few buildings, Rwanda’s capital city, Kigali, has become the first capital city in Africa broadly offering high-speed services, overtaking Nigeria and South Africa, Africa’s biggest telecom markets in terms of both investment and users.
The launch of the wireless facility means that Rwandese will now be able to surf the Internet anywhere and anytime in the capital city using their laptops.
The US$7.7 million wireless internet facility has been built by Korea Telecom, South Korea’s largest fixed line operator. Korea Telecom is a prominent South Korean integrated wired and wireless telecom service provider. The contract to build the wireless Internet facility was awarded to Korea Telecom in 2007 by the Rwandan government. The service is based on WiBro technology, the South Korean version of the mobile WiMax IEEE 802.16e specification, and will offer 5.5Mbps and 2Mbps connection speeds.
The launch of the wireless internet facility also marks the entry of wireless broadband technology in Africa. “By launching the wireless facility, Rwanda has become the ICT hub not just in east Africa but the whole Africa. Other countries must surely follow the footsteps of Rwanda,” said Mwape Mutale, CEO of the center for ICT development in Africa.
In addition to the wireless broadband internet facility, Korea Telecom is also constructing a US$40 million Kigali Metropolitan Network project. The Kigali Metropolitan Network project is based on on a fiber-optic loop and will be the largest computer network in Rwanda, providing connectivity for local area networks. The Rwandan government claims over 45 government institutions have already been connected to the high-speed Internet facility.
The Rwanda Metropolitan Network will be completed next year, according to Rwanda Development Board (RDB) deputy chief executive in charge of information technology Patrick Nyirishema. Rwanda’s vision is to promote and facilitate modern infrastructure development by 2020. In the next three years, the Rwandan government is aiming to provide access to high speed Internet to more than 4 million Rwandans through the wireless Internet facility and the Kigali Metropolitan Network project.
Until last year, Rwanda was also the first country in Africa to have a mobile phone assembling plant through a company called A-Link Technologies. Early this year, the world Bank provided $24 million to Rwanda for the provision of broadband connectivity and access to low-cost international connectivity through the connection to the undersea cables in east Africa
Courtesy of IDG News
Little known by the outside world until genocide tore the country apart 15 years ago, Rwanda has become the first nation to launch a wireless broadbandI Internet facility in Africa.
Little known by the outside world until genocide tore the country apart 15 years ago, Rwanda has become the first nation to launch a wireless broadbandI Internet facility in Africa.
Unlike other countries in Africa, where mobile broadband Internet connection is restricted to a few buildings, Rwanda’s capital city, Kigali, has become the first capital city in Africa broadly offering high-speed services, overtaking Nigeria and South Africa, Africa’s biggest telecom markets in terms of both investment and users.
The launch of the wireless facility means that Rwandese will now be able to surf the Internet anywhere and anytime in the capital city using their laptops.
The US$7.7 million wireless internet facility has been built by Korea Telecom, South Korea’s largest fixed line operator. Korea Telecom is a prominent South Korean integrated wired and wireless telecom service provider. The contract to build the wireless Internet facility was awarded to Korea Telecom in 2007 by the Rwandan government. The service is based on WiBro technology, the South Korean version of the mobile WiMax IEEE 802.16e specification, and will offer 5.5Mbps and 2Mbps connection speeds.
The launch of the wireless internet facility also marks the entry of wireless broadband technology in Africa. “By launching the wireless facility, Rwanda has become the ICT hub not just in east Africa but the whole Africa. Other countries must surely follow the footsteps of Rwanda,” said Mwape Mutale, CEO of the center for ICT development in Africa.
In addition to the wireless broadband internet facility, Korea Telecom is also constructing a US$40 million Kigali Metropolitan Network project. The Kigali Metropolitan Network project is based on on a fiber-optic loop and will be the largest computer network in Rwanda, providing connectivity for local area networks. The Rwandan government claims over 45 government institutions have already been connected to the high-speed Internet facility.
The Rwanda Metropolitan Network will be completed next year, according to Rwanda Development Board (RDB) deputy chief executive in charge of information technology Patrick Nyirishema. Rwanda’s vision is to promote and facilitate modern infrastructure development by 2020. In the next three years, the Rwandan government is aiming to provide access to high speed Internet to more than 4 million Rwandans through the wireless Internet facility and the Kigali Metropolitan Network project.
Until last year, Rwanda was also the first country in Africa to have a mobile phone assembling plant through a company called A-Link Technologies. Early this year, the world Bank provided $24 million to Rwanda for the provision of broadband connectivity and access to low-cost international connectivity through the connection to the undersea cables in east Africa
Courtesy of IDG News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)