HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

Victoire Ingabire

Little known but committed Victoire Ingabire is a woman of all seasons. She has since her arrival back in Rwanda been trying to familiarise herself with the developments so far in a country she left 16 years ago. A career accountant-turned politician, she hopes, subject to the registration of her political party, to contest the forthcoming presidential election this August. Many agree she stands no chance but her introduction into the Rwandan political fold has already created a few surprises.

Government propagandists under different pseudo names are already engaged in a tarnishing campaign to ensure all she says is never believed. Already, her political aide has been arrested and jailed over a Gacaca court conviction that Ingabire�s supporters and sympathisers believe is faked.

But as Kagame prepares to assume yet another seven year term, the world has been introduced to a politically charged mercenary type of society where opposition politics is only present on paper. It appears Kagame and his men are more at ease with the already established and very disorganised nine political parties who they know and have always controlled so easily. They are not ready for a party whose leader has been brave enough to raise critical issues. As part of a more detailed story to follow in one of the leading newspapers in the UK, I asked Ingabire about her thoughts on recent events:

You have been a subject of constant criticism from several government spin doctors and there is every indication you may not get to register your party, do you still believe it is possible?

I have indeed been subjected to all sorts of harassments from government sponsored media and services. But I have so far managed to keep on with my agenda of registering my party. Given the kind of hurdles that I have gone through, I can not rule out any scenario. The government may reject the registration application of my party on flimsy reasons, in order to hang on power. It is clear that the ruling party is not ready for competition of ideas, in a genuine multiparty system.

The fact that one of your aides has been charged with a genocide crime and imprisoned as a result must surely make you doubt and fear for your life. How has the events of the past weeks affected your overall desire to bring to Rwandans what you think they deserve?

The rough beating and subsequent arrest and detention of Joseph Ntawangundi brought to limelight the true colour of our government. In a rule of law, we expected the assailants to answer for their deeds, more so when the government claimed that they had been arrested. Instead, the victim was arrested and jailed, as if to cover up the assailants. We were both targeted by the mob and I narrowly escaped. I would have been equally beaten if I had been caught. Yes I fear for my life, as any human being, but this will not derail my desire and determination to bring changes in Rwanda.

You are a strong lady, aren�t you? Who is Victoire Ingabire?

I can not gauge my strength, I leave it to others. As for my background, I am 42 years old, married and mother of three children. I hold a degree in Commercial and business administration which I got in Holland, where I worked in private sector. I majored in Enterprises management. My political career started in late nineteen. I was also involved in many NGO�s activities. I believe in no violence as a way of bringing political changes.

Elections will be here in 6 months time but yet one would think Uganda will be voting earlier than Rwanda. What do you think is the reason for no morale about the coming elections in Rwanda?

Previous elections held in Rwanda in 2003 and 2008 were marred by massive rigging. This was confirmed among others, by EU observers in their report. Since the composition of the electoral commission has not fundamentally changed, there is no guarantee of a more transparent election. This is the reason why we are calling for a broad based electoral commission and an electoral code that has the blessing of all political parties involved in the election. The ruling party can not be a judge and jury. The recent resignation from the ruling party of the chairman of the electoral commission is a mere smoke screen move, to hoodwink donors and it is our prayer that some of these things get sorted out. He still is member of the party which does not change much.

Reports from both Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International seem to hint on the excessive lack of political space in Rwanda viewing dissent as anti-progress. Is that a view you share especially after spending a few weeks in the country now?

I totally share the assessments of HRW, as far as political space is concerned in Rwanda. Freedom of expression and equal access to public and private media is paramount for democratic elections. No issue should be a taboo. People should be free to challenge the government on its achievements and generally the way it conducts its affairs. Government critics should not be treated as enemies of the nation, but as watch dogs. Democracy is a universal commodity. It should not be twisted merely to suit interest of a group or political organisation. This is what I am struggling for.

There is this allegation that FDU-Inkingi is connected to FDLR which has been labelled a terrorist organisation by the US, tell us this is true?

These are fabrications aimed at tarnishing my image and delaying the registration of my party. Of late, government lobbies have been going around, brandishing a UN experts report as evidence. This UN report which by the way was heavily criticised by Tanzania and Burundi, is so biased that it went to the extent of saying that the commander in chief of FDLR is my brother! This is rubbish? The report further alleges that I am connected with FDLR because I attended a meeting with FDLR members in Barcelona. The so called Barcelona meeting took place under the auspices of a Spanish NGO and was attended by Rwandan of all ethnic groups, including RPF well known individuals from Rwanda. This can be cross-checked from the minutes of the meeting. The agenda of the meeting was to see ways and means of organising an inter Rwanda dialogue. How came these RPF members who attended the meeting are not labelled FDLR supporters? The truth of the story is that the government does not want a true dialogue and want to demonise any dialogue initiative that is not under it iron fist. Had the Barcelona meeting been a conspiracy meeting, the organisers would have not invited delegates from Rwanda including staunch supporters of the ruling party.

What do you want and wish for Rwanda?

Peace, stability and reconciliation. I don�t want to see any more Rwandan being killed as a result of his ethnic, religious, region or political origin. I don�t want to see any more Rwandan seeking asylum abroad, or living in makeshift camps around Africa or being hunted like animals in neighbouring countries.
I want an independent judiciary and state machinery that pays allegiance to a cause, a nation, and no more to an individual or political organisation. I want a Rwanda where there is a rule of laws and equal economic opportunities. This is my dream.

After the attack on you a few weeks ago, do you now feel safe? We read in the papers that you have written to the president for security, what is the latest on this?

It is the duty of any government to ensure security for its entire citizen. This is what I expect from my government. I am not begging for favours.

If winning had to be about you (FDU) merging with the Green Party of Rwanda, and that is of course assuming that you both get registered, would you welcome a coalition?

Let�s not cross the bridge before reaching it. For the time being the issue does not arise. But I can assure you that I will support any move that can bring changes in Rwanda. I am not struggling for my own ego, but for the good of my countrymen. I share the Green party thirst for freedom and democracy.

Eleneus Akanga – http://ellyakanga.wordpress.com/

I have been to Rwanda and to Congo. I have seen the suffering Rwanda has inflicted on the Congolese people in order to STEAL Congo’s minerals. I know they use the excuse of hunting down Hutu Militias but the folly of that theory was exposed when Uganda and Rwanda fought in Kisangani.

I am also familiar with the fact that there are dozens of Rwandan officials who fled when they resigned including the latest Kayumba Nyamwasa.

It’s also true that some former Hutu militias or military leaders from the genocidaire government are part of the Rwandan government. One high profile one is General Gatsinzi.

I have seen starving Rwandans in rural Rwanda. I always wondered if Kigali and the rest of the country are in the same nation.

I have met survivors who escaped the genocidaires and survivors who survived the current Rwandan government killings. They all have had their families wiped out. It is hard for me to minimize anyone’s loss of life. The minute by minute stories are very real.

You may also want to look at the Common Wealth Human Rights report or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International if you think hearing from the survivors/victims themself is not enough.

Hutu and Tutsis existed long before the Germans (initial colonial masters) and Belgians. Ethnic issues existed even within the ruling Tutsi dynasties. Anyone who perpetrates the myth that it was the Belgians who created the issue will lie to you that a Tutsi is a Camel.

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

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/.

Stephen Kinzer

In his article titled ‘The limits of free speech in Rwanda’, Stephen Kinzer, former New York Times, goes to great lengths to justify the limitations of Freedom of Speech in the post-genocide Rwanda led by Paul Kagame’s RPF ruling party. After all, why should Paul Kagame allow open debates on genocide and social problems in Rwanda? Stephen Kinzer argues that even in a country of free speech as the Us, it is not allowed to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

Here is what he writes in the London Guardian (guardian.co.uk), on March 2, 2010:

The country’s president claims that laws against disseminating ‘genocide ideology’ are necessary to stop a return to violence

Sixteen years after genocide, Rwanda is facing a new test. President Paul Kagame, who is seeking re-election, is widely admired abroad. Among his fans are some of the world’s most famous do-gooders, from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to Rev Rick Warren and Dr Paul Farmer. His enemies hope to use this election campaign to tarnish his image and show these admirers that he is no democrat.

Rwanda is more stable and prosperous than many would have predicted following the 1994 genocide. The reconciliation process has been at least partly successful. Yet beneath the surface, Rwandan society remains volatile. Hatreds are unexpressed, but no one believes they are gone.

Kagame’s government has passed laws against disseminating “genocide ideology”, meaning views that could inflame communal hatreds. People are supposed to describe themselves only as Rwandan, never as Hutu or Tutsi. Kagame claims these laws are necessary to keep Rwanda back from the abyss of violence. If he enforces them during the political campaign, though, critics will accuse him of suppressing free speech.

Last month, a Rwandan-born businesswoman who has spent more than a decade in the Netherlands, Victoire Ingabire, arrived in Rwanda and announced that she was a candidate for president. Her party is based abroad and not recognised in Rwanda. According to a UN report (in French), she is supported by leaders of the principal Hutu insurgent group, which is among factions terrorising the eastern Congo.

Ingabire’s first statements after landing in Rwanda were thinly veiled appeals for Hutu solidarity. “There is no shame in saying I am Hutu or am Tutsi; there’s nothing wrong with that,” she told one interviewer.

Appealing to ethic identity this way is illegal. The official press launched a sharp campaign against Ingabire, and her campaign group has been attacked at least once. She has been interrogated by police and warned that she will be arrested if she continues preaching “genocide ideology”. Amnesty International responded by accusing the government of “intimidation and harassment”.

Nonsense, replies President Kagame. He believes western human rights activists underestimate the prospects for a new outbreak of ethnic violence in Rwanda, as well as the danger of allowing ethnically charged speech. “We’ve lived this life,” he said angrily at a news conference. “We’ve lived the consequences. So we understand it better than anyone from anywhere else.”

Kagame won the last presidential election, in 2003, with a reported 95% of the vote. Critics complained that the campaign was unfair, but Kagame emerged relatively unscathed because few outsiders were paying attention.

Seven years later, Rwanda is in the midst of a promising transformation and Kagame is a darling of the global development community. His enemies know they cannot defeat him in this election; he is the strongman and will do whatever is necessary to win. Their strategy is to bait him into taking actions � like arresting a rival candidate � that would make him look bad abroad and thereby weaken his regime.

Many people in developed countries look suspiciously, as they should, on leaders who impose restrictions on free speech. Even in the US, though, it is illegal to cry “fire!” in a crowded theatre. That is what Rwandan leaders accuse the foreign-based opposition of doing � fanning hatreds that could explode into another genocide. The opposition, in reply, insists it is merely speaking truths Kagame does not wish to hear.

Kagame, who was called the “Napoleon of Africa” during his march to power in the early 1990s, is acknowledged to have great military skills. His political skills are less tested. Between now and the election on 9 August, he must navigate a delicate course that will assure him three things: re-election, national stability and minimum damage to his reputation. This is to be his last campaign, since the Rwandan constitution limits presidents to two seven-year terms. How he conducts it will shape both his legacy and Rwanda’s future.

Kagame, angry and upset!

Kigali: President Paul Kagame has angrily dismissed any criticism of the Genocide ideology law coming from donors, rights groups and exiled opposition, saying nobody has the right to undermine what happens in Rwanda, RNA reports.

Since the passing of a law in 2007 criminalizing negating the Genocide � described here as �Genocide Ideology�, fierce critics have claimed that it has been used to stifle free speech and squeeze the opposition. The harshest attack came last year from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, which was opposed to Rwanda�s admission into the British Commonwealth block.

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as the US government in its annual human rights reports, have repeated the same attacks. The latest came when York-based Human Rights Watch claimed Wednesday that government was using the law �as a way of targeting and discrediting its critics�.

Amnesty International has also argued that the terms of the law criminalizing �genocidal ideology�, are �vague and ambiguous�. The group also says this law could potentially restrict the ability of the accused to put forward a defence in criminal trials. The offence is punishable by 10 to 25 years� imprisonment.

President Kagame on Friday seemed to have had enough. Addressing the judiciary, senior government officials and diplomats at the Parliamentary building at the start of the judicial year, Mr. Kagame described the criticism as �complete nonsense�.

The President wondered why international media and diplomats accredited to Kigali repeatedly claim the Genocide Ideology law is not clear.

�Sometimes a person wonders��but how come your laws criminalizing divisionism and others against negating the holocaust are not ambiguous?� How come you implement them? What specialty do you have that others cannot have?�, said Mr. Kagame, in a mixture of English and Kinyarwanda.

�What they are trying to say is that all of you here seated with huts and robes have no brains,� he said, amid muted laughter from the audience. The President also accused the west of consistently undermining �Rwandans and Africans� by always being suspicious of everything done on the continent.

With an unusually high tone, suggesting that he was angry and also not reading from the prepared speech, Mr. Kagame fired in English: �We�ve lived this life. We�ve lived the consequences. So, we understand it better than anyone from anywhere else.�

�Apart from this over-bearing attitude of always wanting to decide for others what they should do, what do these people have in their brains�heads that we don�t have?. What is it? Why almost everyday question what people do for themselves?�

Turning to Kinyarwanda, President Kagame told his audience that critics can only be found to be wrong depending on how the country�s institutions are built.

�We ensure all is done with ultimate courage�explain to whoever doesn�t understand�such that even if we remain with some who do not want to understand, just like we even have them,� he said.

Mr. Kagame said criticism from the outside should not make those implementing policies internally to lose morale because they are doing it all for themselves and the country.

�This is the only way that we will silence those who are always speaking nonsense,� he summed.

The judiciary had earlier presented several achievement attained over the past year, and President Kagame was on hand � thanking them. He also promised to avail them with his contribution at anytime �because it is my responsibility�.
Source:rnanews.com.