HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

Letter from Paul Rusesabagina to Pres. Sarkozy on Mrs. Habyarimana’s Detention.

From: Paul Rusesabagina

Chicago, 09 March 2010

Paul Rusesabagina, President Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation (HRRF).

Hotel Rwanda Foundation Rusesabagina Foundation
P. O. Box 11001
Chicago, IL 60611-0001

To: His Excellency Nicolas Sarkozy
President of the French Republic

Subject: The arrest of Mrs. Agathe Habyarimana

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of the organization Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation and on my own behalf, allow me to express my deep dismay following the arrest of Mrs. Agathe Habyarimana, the widow of former President Juv�nal Habyarimana of Rwanda, the Prosecutor General in Paris Tuesday, March 2, 2010.
Let me also clarify at the outset, it is as a humanitarian and a victim of the tragedy of 1994 that I inform you of my deep concerns that affect both the pattern and extent of this inquiry, and the period during which it occurs.
One thing is certain: it is imperative that there be trial, the court record by Mrs Habyarimana should be decided by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and not by the Kigali regime unable to deliver justice fairly and impartially.

Mr. President,
The public and I have learned that Ms. Agathe Habyarimana was interpel�e based on an international arrest warrant issued by Rwanda and the ground that it participated in planning the 1994 genocide.
This inquiry, which came a day after your visit to Kigali, where there is not very long regime grinding of black against France at the point of breaking off diplomatic relations with your country following the arrest warrants of incriminating French dignitaries RPF in the deadly attack against the plane of former Rwandan President Juv�nal Habyarimana April 6, 1994, feels hints of retaliation.
Indeed, a complaint filed by Mrs Habyarimana and other plaintiffs had been the source of the French investigation.
This question is even more absurd that Mrs Habyarimana has not once been sought for prosecution by the ICTR, for 16 years that the court exists.
The widow of the former head of the Rwandan Government was therefore suspect until last week, only to view the Rwandan regime and today she is also in the eyes of French justice.
In other words, Paris and Kigali want to make the world believe that Mrs Habyarimana, who has never chaired or attended any council or government of the General Staff of the Rwandan army, would have had the authority to use military and governmental structures in place to plan and execute the removal of her own husband, President Juv�nal Habyarimana, and his brother, Colonel Elijah Sagatwa, both died in the plane April 6, 1994 to carry out his plan of genocide.

Mr. President,
This indictment in France for the former first lady of Rwanda is a serious focused both detrimental to the image of France and the victims of the Rwandan genocide.
First, Mr. President, make sure that for 16 years, Rwandans know perfectly well, unfortunately unable to do anything, that is the source of their misfortune in 1994, before 1994, and of after 1994, and the suspect is not that the French judiciary has put on the dock.
But curiously, the lawsuit last week seems to say aloud that France gleefully mocks the intelligence of the Rwandans, of our national tragedy which claimed over one million of our brothers and sisters, and pain of the relatives of those who perished in the plane, without forgetting that French citizens and Burundi.

Then, until last week, it was unthinkable that France, a great member of the Security Council United Nations at the forefront of defending human rights, can abdicate its image in the battle, proudly, morally and historically, should be his own: that of justice and truth, the fight against the inhumanity of man to man.

Photo op Nicolas Sarkozy with Gen. Kagame et his generals, all indicted by French Justice for crimes against humanity (feb. 2010)

When you see in Kigali box right by General Paul Kagame and behind by the Chief of Staff of the Army and the national commissioner of police in Rwanda, two of which are responsible for the greatest number of deaths since the Second World War are also covered by the French arrest warrants, we measure the shaking of the authority of the French judiciary and the embarrassment of the French nation. Is it not shameful that France, sung daily by the current regime in Kigali as having actively participated in the Rwandan tragedy, do not even try to bleach before the world and history by requiring the placing on foot of a neutral international investigation on the tragedy of Rwanda, failing to enforce the provisions of the judicial inquiry report of the French justice?

It is unacceptable that we want today for political purposes and without forensic evidence, monster into a woman who has herself been overshadowed by those that triggered the genocide by shooting down the plane with her husband.
To attack the dignity of Mrs Habyarimana based solely on allegations of frivolous Kigali regime comes not only add to her grief but also to undermine the dignity of the people of Rwanda itself.
If France wants to play the game libelous practiced excessively by the Kigali regime against its political enemies, or when one of the great marketing without feelings of the Rwandan genocide to the chagrin of the victims is his right but the wrong choice,
If France is not morally offended by the cynical commercial exposure throughout Rwanda for the human bones of victims of humble social origin when relatives of dignitaries were buried in the respect that they deserve,
If the France is not outraged by the sham annual national mourning, as is the case next month,
it is his right but the wrong choice to history.

The fact that this arrest occurs immediately after your visit to Rwanda is also far from reassuring regarding the benefits that the Rwandan people had every reason to expect the restoration of relations between your country and Rwanda.
It shows both that Mrs Habyarimana may be a bargaining chip for the return of France in favor of General Paul Kagame and the fear remains, on the other hand, the resignation of France in defense of rights against the Kigali regime.
This impression is reinforced by the fact that, paradoxically, your government is making no effort, nor to defend the honor of French soldiers who participated in Operation Turquoise, which are unfairly soiled by the Kigali regime, or to execute warrants of arrest of Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere against the Rwandan officers suspected of having shot down the plane of President Habyarimana.

Mr. President,
My statement above does not force your government to line up behind one or another component of the Rwandan population.
It is intended to take France to encourage and support the people of Rwanda in its struggle for democracy and respect for human rights. It also aims to France to avoid the repetition of serious errors of appreciation that you yourself have complained in Kigali.
Unfortunately, despite this laudable effort of recognition of past mistakes, your decision to resume diplomatic with Rwanda seems to be another miscalculation, since it comes at a time when popular support to the RPF regime is the lowest, as evidenced by events in Kigali in recent weeks.

So let me conclude by asking you again to make every effort to ensure that France does not commit the serious mistake to put Mrs Habyarimana in the hands of the Rwandan justice system, but rather between those of the ICTR in Arusha where there is enough evidence to get there.
I would also ask you to reassure us that France wants to remain on the side of the values that made his reputation as a country of human rights and prevent the restoration of relations with Rwanda might result in loss of life.
One of the best approaches for achieving this is to assure that your government believes in the judicial action of French magistrates who identified the perpetrators of the attack on April 6, 1994 that plunged our country into the disaster to allow the ‘arrival in Rwanda just justice.
Another important contribution of France would probably bring General Paul Kagame to sit down with all his political opposition, as is constantly claimed by the majority of Rwandans to make all the arrangements for political management and economic future of our country. The Rwandan people would greatly appreciate it and the French people would be highly magnified.

Paul Rusesabagina

President,

Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation

Copy:

- Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of UN
- Members of the Security Council of United Nations (all)
- Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Union
- Mr. Jean Ping, Chairperson of the African Union

French version (original): Honte � la France de Sarkozy � Rusesabagina plaide pour Veuve Habyarimana

Ingabire is a breath of fresh air in the oppressive, repressive dictatorship in Kigali. Why is Kagame and his friends afraid of JUSTICE that she seeks? They instead chose to twist her demand for justice as revisionism.

You can always count on Kagame, and Rwandan government to have apologists by the dozens. They do a good job of:

1. Justifying GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE by pointing to economic development. None of these apologists can articulate how economic prosperity justifies murdering human beings by the millions!

2. They do a good job of justifying the invasion of Congo. They justify over 5 000 000 innocent people by pointing to Hutu Militias operating in eastern Congo. Rwanda invaded Congo and fought Uganda in Congo TWICE. When did Ugandans become Hutu extremists? Five million people killed in Congo, how come they don’t go after the genocidaires and instead go after the Congolese.

3. They do a good job of ignoring that since the invasion of Rwanda in 1990 by Kagame and his RPF, over 300 000 people had been killed by the RPF in 1994 and a million people had been internally displaced. They talk about reprisal killings but IGNORE the Hutu Twa’s and Tutsis killed by the RPF prior to the Genocide.

4. Kagame’s apologists do a good job of minimizing the Genocide of FIVE MILLION Congolese mostly babies but are quick to highlight the Rwandan genocide. Is a Tutsi life more important than a Congolese life?

5. They are extremely good at using the genocide as a political tool to oppress Rwandans and torture Congolese. They believe in gacaca courts that convict people for not providing the “right” testimony but release confessed killers to live with their victims.

6. They use the genocide to silence all political opponents.

7. They blame the Belgians for bringing ethnicity to Rwanda. Those who claim the MYTH that the Belgians brought ethnicity or created ethnic divide in Rwanda are people who cannot tell the difference between a Tutsi and a Camel.

by Kpete – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/?userid=60554107&plckUserId=60554107.

In his article titled “The politics of genocide in Rwanda”, Geoffrey York reports on the spirit prevailing today at the Rwandan political scene. He writes:

With an election looming in a few months, Rwanda�s authoritarian government has made an astounding claim:democracy leads directly to genocide.

The claim is made in an article this week by Jean Paul Kimonyo, an advisor in the office of Rwandan President Paul Kagame. He argues that Rwanda has only had �plural politics� for two brief periods in its history, and both times it �led to mass killings.�

He also makes the sweeping statement that �political parties and independent media� were a big reason for the killings. All parties and all media, in his view, are just as dangerous as the hate-spewing radio stations and politicians that fuelled the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

His conclusion, apparently, is that Rwanda needs to suppress its political parties, restrict its independent media and tightly control its elections, even though it�s been 16 years since the genocide. Democracy � or �confrontational politics,� as he prefers to call it � would �almost certainly lead to renewed violence.�

This is a very convenient argument for those who are currently in power. But what about everyone else? Opposition political parties are already finding it almost impossible to get registered for the August election. Independent journalists are harassed and threatened.

Read full article of Geoffrey York.

In his article “How free is free” published on his blog, Christopher Vourlias presents the article of Geoffrey York: Rwanda�s blood-soaked history becomes a tool for repression as an “otherwise excellent piece”, but goes on to criticise the author in these terms:

How can you breezily write a sentence like this � �Ms. Ingabire says she doesn�t know how many Tutsis died in 1994, how many Hutus died, or even whether the number of Tutsi victims was larger than the number of Hutu victims.� � without mentioning that such a revisionist opinion contradicts a very large body of genocide scholarship? Should a journalist accept a statement like that at face value?

If knowing the number of victims on both sides is so important, it would be wise to consult those researchers who have already raised the question and who provided enough elements showing that Ingabire is right to say that she doesn’t know…
In fact, the answer to this question raised by Mr Vourlias is given by one commentator on Mr York’s article, who writes:

Mr. York’s article is headed in the right direction based on his limited research on the matter. I highly recommend that he reads a key scientific study by Professor Christian Davenport and Allan C. Stam. It would also be instructive for my York to watch this lecture by Professor Davenport at the University of Michigan.

In minute 31 of the video professor Stam demonstrates how the number of people killed in the Rwandan genocide were made up by Professor Seltzer of Fordham University. Professor Seltzer said he arrived at his figures (which are universally used and quoted)on the notion that an estimate of about or that at least 6 million died in the Holocaust was sufficient for the nuremberg prosecution. He goes on to say that he can no longer recall why he settled on his numbers.

In fact, as written on the fordschool.umich.edu website,

Allan Stam, Professor of Political Science and Faculty Associate at the Center for Political Studies and his colleagues drew from a number of data sources, and their conclusions call into question much of the conventional wisdom about the the violence.

They find that there were several forms of political violence being enacted at once (genocide, politicide, civil war, random violence and vendetta killings), that the extremist Hutu government as well as the Rwandan Patriotic Front engaged in violent activity against Rwandan citizens, and that the majority of victims were likely Hutu and not Tutsi.
These findings have implications for public policy, advocacy, humanitarian intervention as well as post-conflict reconstruction.
Coming to a New Understanding of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide

by Geoffrey York – Globe and Mail (theglobeandmail.com)

Victoire Ingabire dared to speak of Hutus victims of genocide

Kigali � The symbolism was incendiary. In front of the mass graves where 250,000 genocide victims are buried, a Rwandan politician dared to speak of the Hutus who were killed in those same terrible months in 1994.

Perhaps more astonishingly, Victoire Ingabire was not imprisoned for her taboo comments � not so far, at least, although the police have interrogated her three times and accused her of the crime of spreading �divisionism.�

Her challenge is posing an uncomfortable dilemma for the minority Tutsi-led government that dominates Rwanda. Sixteen years after the genocide of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis by Hutu extremists, can the authorities tolerate a political candidate who appeals openly to the Hutus who still comprise 85 per cent of Rwanda’s population?

How long can the government use the genocide as a justification for strict controls on the political system? And who decides the official history of the genocide?

The woman at the centre of the storm is an unlikely politician: a cheerful 41-year-old emigrant who has worked as an accountant at a U.S. company in the Netherlands for the past decade.

She wears a frilly-strapped dress and giggles merrily when she is asked about the barrage of wild attacks on her in Rwanda’s state-controlled media.

But she is backed by many of the Hutus who fled to Europe and North America during the Rwandan wars of the 1990s. She clearly has money and resources. She rents a large house in one of Kigali’s most exclusive neighbourhoods, where she has a Land Cruiser parked in the driveway.

Ms. Ingabire’s decision to return to Kigali this year has sent shock waves through Rwandan politics. In a country where ethnic divisions are officially never discussed, she has dared to raise Hutu grievances � especially the killing of thousands of Hutus in 1994 and 1995, which she describes as a �crime against humanity.�

It’s a potent appeal. Many Hutus feel excluded from power, excluded from the best jobs and schools, and afraid to speak out. It was to them that Ms. Ingabire was deliberately appealing when she returned to Rwanda in January � after 16 years in exile � and made her controversial comments at the genocide memorial.

Ms. Ingabire has carefully couched her appeal in diplomatic language. She condemns the genocide, calling for reconciliation and dialogue. She denounces �extremists� on all sides. She urges the authorities to bring all criminals to justice, regardless of ethnicity. She pledges to work for a peaceful country, united in mutual respect.

Yet merely by talking of Hutu victims, she has triggered a firestorm of reaction. She and her assistant were assaulted by a gang of young men in a government office. Her assistant, who was badly beaten, has been jailed for �genocide� crimes. She is facing a police investigation for her alleged �genocide ideology.� And even the country’s powerful President, Paul Kagame, has warned that �the law will catch up with her� � a clear threat that she will be arrested.

At the heart of the battle between Ms. Ingabire and Mr. Kagame is a stark disagreement about Rwanda’s identity. The President argues that any talk of ethnicity must be suppressed because Rwanda is still in a fragile post-genocide period, where hatred and violence could rise again. His opponent sees this as an excuse for repression, leading only to resentment and bitterness among those who cannot speak out.

It is unclear whether the government will permit Ms. Ingabire to challenge Mr. Kagame in the presidential election in August. The President won the last election with an official margin of 95 per cent, and he has brooked no real opposition since 1994, when he led the Tutsi rebels who defeated the genocidal Hutu regime.

So far, Ms. Ingabire has been denied permission to gather the 200 signatures that she needs to register her political party. She is routinely subjected to fierce attacks in the pages of Rwanda’s only daily newspaper, the state-connected New Times, which refuses to publish her responses to the attacks.

�I don’t know why the government is so afraid of me,� she says. �They watch me and follow me all the time. I know anything can happen to me � they can arrest me, they can kill me.�

The managing director of the New Times, Joseph Bideri, confirmed that the newspaper refuses to give any �space� to Ms. Ingabire’s responses. He wrote a personal letter to her on Jan. 22, vowing she would never get a �platform� in the newspaper because she is a �genocide denier.�

In an interview, however, Mr. Bideri was unable to provide any evidence that Ms. Ingabire denies the genocide. In fact, in her public speeches and in a lengthy interview with The Globe and Mail, she repeatedly acknowledged and condemned the 1994 genocide. She draws a distinction between the slaughter of the Tutsis � which she calls a genocide � and the killings of many Hutus, which she describes as a �crime against humanity.�

Although she emigrated to the Netherlands shortly before the genocide began, Ms. Ingabire’s own family suffered in the genocide. Her brother was killed in 1994 because he was mistaken for a Tutsi.

�When people talk about the pain they feel, they need to understand that everybody feels pain,� she says. �We have to understand the pain of others. When I condemn the genocide, I’m also thinking of my brother. Not all Hutus are killers, and not all Tutsis are victims.�

International human-rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have criticized the Rwandan government for attacking and harassing opposition leaders such as Ms. Ingabire. Amnesty says the Rwandan law on �genocide ideology� is so vague and ambiguous that the authorities can use it to suppress dissent.

There is strong evidence to support Ms. Ingabire’s allegations of war crimes against Hutus. For example, a United Nations investigator in 1994 estimated that 25,000 to 45,000 civilians, primarily Hutus, were killed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front � the army of Mr. Kagame, now the governing party. Many other civilians, including thousands of Hutu refugees, were killed in further attacks in later years. Only a small handful of RPF members have been prosecuted for the Hutu deaths, which remain a taboo subject in Rwanda.

Ms. Ingabire says she doesn’t know how many Tutsis died in 1994, how many Hutus died, or even whether the number of Tutsi victims was larger than the number of Hutu victims. Some observers say she is leaving the impression of an equivalency between the two sides, despite historical evidence that the Tutsi victims were far more numerous and were the only ones subjected to a deliberate campaign of attempted extermination.

But even the Rwandan government has struggled with how to write the history of the genocide. At the memorial where 250,000 victims are buried, a guide says it commemorates only the Tutsi victims of the genocide. Yet he distributes an audio guide that calls it a memorial to the �Tutsi and moderate Hutu peoples� who were killed.

Didas Gasana, editor of a weekly newspaper whose staff is often harassed and threatened by the authorities for its independent views, says the government needs to provide justice and truth to the Hutu victims. �There needs to be debate and justice and openness,� he says. �It’s a part of history that can’t be denied.�

Mr. Gasana is himself a Tutsi. And despite the official view that ethnicity has disappeared, he says he is often told privately by government officials that he should not write such critical articles � because he is a Tutsi.

Geoffrey York – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/rwandas-blood-soaked-history-becomes-a-tool-for-repression/article1487568/.

Rwandan Criminals Wanted

The now fugitive Rwandan General Kayumba Nyamwasa dismissed the indictment issued by the French Judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere saying:
- The indictment document is “rubbish”.
- �How can it happen? It is not an international court. He (Brugiere) is not an international judge.�
- Bruguiere is an “obscure juge”.
- “Those times are gone when they can indict and deport sovereign nationals.”
This was reported by V. Sudarshan of Outlook India. The indicted criminal Nyamwasa was then Rwandan Ambassador to India.
Here is the full article from Outlook India:

When he turned on the radio last Thursday, some unlikely news greeted the Rwandan Ambassador to India, Lt. Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa. A French court had indicted him for war crimes. The court, presided over by France�s top anti-terrorist judge, Jean-Louis Brugiere, named Amb. Nyamwasa as having a direct role in the assassination that killed Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana in April �94 and triggered the Rwandan genocide.

Judge Brugiere, nicknamed the �Sheriff� for his erstwhile penchant to carry a Magnum pistol, is famous for rounding up a number of terrorist suspects. He played a crucial role in bringing to book Carlos the Jackal and Libyan officials convicted of blowing up planes in the �80s. This time he wants Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his military aides, including (then) Col. Nyamwasa, brought before a UN court to be tried for war crimes and genocide. He is convinced that President Kagame instructed his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) to destroy the plane in which President Habyarimana and the President of Burundi were travelling.

�The investigations undertaken have clearly shown that, for the RPF, the physical elimination of President Juvenal Habyarimana was the necessary precondition for seizing power by force, and was inscribed in a vast plan worked out to this end,� reads the indictment. �The final order�was given by Paul Kagame himself in a meeting held in Mulindi on March 31, 1994.�

�It is like a judge in Haryana indicting (President) Chirac to appear in court somewhere in Haryana for an alleged crime without proof,�

Amb. Nyamwasa told Outlook India, in response.

�How can it happen? It is not an international court. He (Brugiere) is not an international judge.�

Brugiere is trying the case because the family members of the French-national pilot and crew members approached the French court in 1998 to ask for an investigation to determine who was responsible for the attack.

According to a report by international agency Human Rights Watch (HRW), President Habyarimana died on April 6, 1994, when the plane bringing him home from Dar-es-Salaam was shot down. He had been attending a meeting of heads of state where he had consented to put in place a broad-based transitional government. The president of Burundi, Cyprien Ntaryamira, who also attended the meeting, decided to fly home in President Habyarimana�s plane rather than in his own. He too died in the attack as did General Deogratias Nsabimana, Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army, along with several others. The plane was shot twice as it was coming in for a landing by surface to air missiles fired from a location on top of a hill near the Kigali airport. The Rwandan army later stated it recovered two missile launchers. The registration numbers on the launchers identified them as SAM-16s, sophisticated weapons that require some training to use.

Judge Brugiere�s indictment, released last week, plunged already strained relations between Paris and Kigali into a diplomatic impasse. Rwanda has since shut down its diplomatic mission in Paris and ordered all French diplomats out of the country. When contacted, the French embassy in India declined to be drawn into the issue, merely stating that the judiciary in France was independent.

How the arrest warrants will be implemented remains to be seen. Rwanda�s Ministry of Justice has already called upon Interpol member states not to give weight to the warrants. At the time of writing, it wasn�t clear what views the mea had on the subject. When asked if he thought the Indian government would act on the warrant, Amb. Nyamwasa said,

�India is a democracy with a functioning government and an independent Parliament and judiciary. It won�t take orders from an obscure French judge. Colonialism is over. Those times are gone when they can indict and deport sovereign nationals. We are independent nations.�

In fact, claims Amb. Nyamwasa, �those named did not commit this crime at all. They weren�t part of the army guarding him (the late president). On the contrary, he (President Habyarimana) was being guarded by French troops. The judge should be indicting them instead.�
…
Amb. Nyamwasa is still reportedly reading through the document (in French)�which a friend sent him. He�s yet to read all of it, but prima facie he finds it rubbish. �This judge has even got my name wrong,� he says. �I�m identified as Faustin Nyamwasa-Kayumba. I�m not Faustin. Were the Interpol to come inquiring, I�d have to tell them I�m not Faustin.�

As for the actual charges, the ambassador claims,

�The day it happened, I was about 100 km away, in Mulindi, Byumba. This judge alleges that one time I attended a meeting when we planned to kill the president. The source of this information is about fifth-hand. He has not asked us to substantiate it. Not one of his witnesses is first-hand. How do you rely on this sort of information as a basis of indictment? There was no such meeting. There was no such plan anyway.�

Amb. Nyamwasa claims the French government is behind all this. �It�s what they wanted him (the judge) to do,� he says.

�Rwanda is an African republic where the French have repeatedly carried out coup d�etats year in and year out. If they had wanted it, they could have sent whatever evidence they had to Arusha (where a separate inquiry into the genocide is under way). France is causing problems in Cote d�Ivoire. Can Cote d�Ivoire now indict President Chirac?�

Ambassador Nyamwasa, who became a colonel in the Rwandan Patriotic Army in 1993, was Deputy Chief of Staff of the National Gendarmerie in 1994 and has been accredited with the Indian government since April of last year. Ironically, he has been to France�Normandy to be precise�for military exercises as part of a joint training team. This was back in 2001, even as the investigation was under way. But he�s not going back there in any hurry, at least not in the near future.

Source: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?233375