HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

In an article published today in independent.co.uk, Daniel Howden of independent.co.uk writes:

Rwanda’s democratic credentials under fire:
Host of UN environment event accused of clamping down on its Green party

President Paul Kagame has openly warned his leading rival Victoire Ingabire, leader of the UDF, that she could face prosecution under Rwanda's controversial "genocide ideology" laws

Rwanda’s democratic credentials have been questioned amid evidence that authorities are blocking efforts by the country’s Green Party to contest this year’s elections. The new Greens have been repeatedly thwarted in their attempts to register the party, their meetings have been violently broken up or blocked by police and their leader has had anonymous death threats.

The central African nation has won international praise for its green record and is the host of this year’s UN World Environment Day. “[But] through police harassment and intimidation they are stopping us registering the party which is a legal requirement for taking part in the elections,” said party leader Frank Habineza. The politician, formerly an official with the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front, has also had a series of death threats, culminating in a recent front page in the newspaper, Umuseso, headlined, “Frank Habineza to be killed in sixty days“. The report which cited anonymous sources claimed security agents would target the politician.

“The government dismisses what is written in Umuseso but then it tends to come true,” said Mr Habineza. “I am scared but I still believe a government should protect its citizens. I am not a criminal; I just have different ideas.”

In February, at a hotel in the capital, Kigali, the party leader was threatened by an individual claiming to speak for security forces. Two attempts to stage a party conference, a first step to registering the Democratic Green Party, have also been stopped by police. Repeated attempts to contact Rwandan authorities for a response to the threats and police actions were unsuccessful.

There are also widespread reports of intimidation and harassment of opposition parties as the country, which has been ruled by the same party for 15 years, gears up for the presidential vote expected in August. Human Rights Watch says all three opposition groups trying to contest the election have faced serious intimidation and bureaucratic blocks.

“The Rwandan government already tightly controls political space,” said Georgette Gagnon, Africa director for the US-based rights group. “These incidents will further undermine democracy by discouraging any meaningful opposition in the elections.”

A day after the February threats against Mr Habineza, a leading member of another opposition group, United Democratic Forces, was beaten by a mob in front of a local government office. The attack appeared to have been well co-ordinated, said HRW. Joseph Ntawangundi said he was attacked by youths who punched him, kicked and scratched him, threw him into the air, and ripped his clothes.

And President Paul Kagame has openly warned his leading rival Victoire Ingabire, leader of the UDF, that she could face prosecution under Rwanda’s controversial “genocide ideology” laws. The legislation is meant to guard against the ethnic divisions that led to the 1994 genocide, but rights lawyers say they have been used to silence critics.

Daniel Howden, Africa Correspondent – independent.co.uk.

According to Reporters Without Borders,� Kagame is still among the world’s Predators of Press Freedom:

The fact that respect for press freedom is enshrined in the constitution does not mean it is a reality. President Paul Kagame knows all about that. He tolerates no embarrassing questions at press conferences, frequently insults independent journalists and brands all critical media outlets as new versions of �Radio Mille Collines,� the radio station that encouraged the 1994 genocide.

The government cannot deny the obvious � it is tough being an independent journalist in Kigali. The authorities target any journalist, local or foreign, who puts out news they do not like or who violates the taboos of the society rebuilt by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which came to power after overthrowing the genocidal Hutu regime and ending its massacres.

In 2008, a Ugandan journalist was declared persona non grata, a Tanzanian journalist was deported and three other journalists were forcibly expelled from a ceremony marking World Press Freedom Day. Every year several Rwandan journalists decide to go into exile because they find the atmosphere unbearable in their home country. This does not worry President Kagame, who refers to journalists as �mercenaries� or �bums�.

Reporters Without Borders – rsf.org.

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/.

CHRI Press Release-6 March 2010.
CHRI (Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives) is deeply concerned at the continued restrictions and threats to opposition parties in the run up to Rwanda�s Presidential elections on 9 August 2010 and urges the Rwandan Government to take immediate steps to ensure respect for the basic, universal rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly of opposition parties. The absence of these rights is tantamount to breaches of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political principles that insist on free and fair elections (Harare Declaration 1991).

On Commonwealth day, 8 March 2010, CHRI once again brings to the notice of the Commonwealth Secretary General the growing number of concerns surrounding political freedoms in Rwanda. Despite grave representations by CHRI and others about the appropriateness of Rwanda�s readiness for membership, given its record on human rights and its questionable role in the conflict in the Congo, Rwanda was unconditionally admitted to the Commonwealth as its newest member at the Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago last November.

Rwanda�s membership requires that it honours and complies with the Commonwealth�s fundamental political principles which include respect for civil society and human rights. The Chair of a new opposition party, United Democratic Forces (UDF) has written to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth alleging state orchestrated harassment, describing violence against herself and colleagues as well as outlining the restrictive environment facing opposition parties in their electoral challenge to the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

Under Article 13 of the Rwandan constitution it is an offence to engage in �revisionism� or �negationism� (denial of the genocide). These are so broadly defined to include anyone who disagrees with the ruling RPF�s account of the Genocide. On the 25th of February the Ministry for Security in Rwanda issued a statement saying that any politician who �slanders the country� or is �against public unity� would be punished. In addition the Minister for Local Government has reportedly threatened to crackdown on unregistered political parties who are members of the Permanent Consultative Council of Opposition Parties. Further opposition parties have alleged that the government is making it hard to register by continually changing registration rules; the National Electoral Commission which regulates these matters is controlled by the members of the RPF. A number of opposition parties have also complained that they face repeated harassment from government officials and the members of the RPF.

It is imperative that the Government of Rwanda thoroughly investigates, in a manner satisfactory to opposition parties, the many incidents of intimidation and bring those responsible to justice. It should also ensure that its electoral processes are consistent with UN and Commonwealth standards for free and fair elections.

CHRI urges the Commonwealth Secretary General to insist that the Rwandan government makes every effort to create genuine democratic political atmosphere in the country prior August 2010 elections. We call upon the Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, in his meetings this week with President Kagame, to urge him to ensure that in these first Rwanda elections as a Commonwealth member, the standards are patently free and fair and in compliance with Commonwealth values.
Maja Daruwala
Director, CHRI
Website: http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/

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

Victoire Ingabire

On 24th February, Mr Andrew Mwenda (independent.co.ug) published an article titled �Will Ingabire be Rwanda�s saviour?�.
I do not share the view of Mr Andrew Mwenda on Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is a very responsible politician, keen to take the bull i.e. Rwandan tragic past, by its horns in order to forge a better future.

The line of argument developed by Andrew M Mwenda that Mrs Ingabire political stand is irresponsible, rests on questionable assumptions and wrong historical comparison, a false interpretation of the statements made by Victoire on her arrival in Rwanda and a limited understanding of the terms of the debate that Victoire presents as opposed to the political discourse imposed by the incumbent regime.

Questionable assumptions and comparisons.

The statement that it is irresponsible for Victoire to �say that those who ended genocide should stand with those who orchestrated it� and �that victims of genocide should be tried alongside its architects� is based on a misinterpretation of her statement and underlying denial of justice to all Rwandans irrespective of ethnic affiliation. As far as I heard and read Victoire stated that those who committed genocide against Tutsi should be brought to book according to the law and added that for genuine reconciliation to take place once each Rwandan�s pain need to be acknowledged and those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against Hutus be tried. I find this to be a normal demand to end impunity which is the root cause of the instability in the Great Lakes region. Denying justice to thousands of people who lost their loved ones is divisive, discriminatory and undermines reconciliation. Crime of genocide, however horrendous, should not give a blank cheque to commit other crimes with impunity especially when the crimes were committed in a coordinated, systematic and premeditated manner. It beats my imagination to equate the call for justice to thousands of Hutus to denying genocide against Tutsi.
What Victoire is saying is no different from what the public is asking, the international community and well wishers for stability in Rwanda have been advancing.
The UN Commission of Experts concluded in its preliminary and final reports (S/1994/1125 and S/1994/1405) on which the Security Council Resolution 955 that set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) point out that �during the war that followed the assassination of President Habyarimana

“Individuals from both sides to the armed conflict in Rwanda during the period from 6 April 1994 to 15 July 1994 perpetrated serious breaches of international humanitarian law, in particular of obligations set forth in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts of 8 June 1977 and that Individuals from both sides to the armed conflict perpetrated crimes against humanity;�.

A report by UNHCR Team headed by Robert Gersony estimated that from April to August 1994, the Rwandan Patriotic Front systematically killed between 25,000 and 45,000 Hutus as it made its way toward Kigali.
According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:

“The crimes committed by RPF soldiers were so systematic and widespread and took place over so long a period of time that commanding officers must have been aware of them.”
…
“RPF soldiers massacred unarmed civilians, many of them women and children, who had assembled for a meeting on their orders”

(Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-03.htm#P86_35545).

These killings are not just spontaneous anger because in doing so one would excuse the killings carried out by the presidential guard after learning that their President was killed by a Tutsi led rebel movement.

The RPF army is accused of having killed at least four thousand unarmed civilians in Kibeho camp for the internally displaced. See Witness to Genocide — A Personal Account of the 1995 Kibeho Massacre.

In addition, during its invasion of what was then called Zaire, it is estimated that the Rwandan soldiers killed more than 200,000 Hutu refugees. A report by a chillean Roberto Garreton who led investigation was diluted on orders of some powerful members of the Security Council, and forced to remove any suggestion that what happened was genocide, for fear that it would bring trouble to the RPF regime.

In a letter written to the Security Council on the 6th of June 2006, FILDH (F�d�ration Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l�Homme), Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Rencontre Africaine pour la D�fense des Droits de l�Homme, drew the attention of the Security Council to the fact that in 1994, the RPA killed thousands of civilians, in the process committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes well documented, including by a U.N. Commission of Experts which concluded that the RPA had

�perpetrated serious breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.� They warned that �only if the ICTR dispenses justice fully, impartially, and to all parties will it fulfil the purpose for which the Security Council established it, contributing to peace and reconciliation in the region�.

Calling statement made by Victoire Ingabire

Calling for the prosecution of elements of the RPF who committed crimes against humanity should not be construed as asking that �victims of genocide should be tried alongside its architects�. Victims of the genocide are different from criminals who killed Hutu in their thousands. RPF is a political military organisation with a political programme and those who committed crimes should answer them individually. Besides, though it was dominated by Tutsi elite it is not synonymous with Tutsi ethnic group, in the same way that the Hutu led government or the Hutu who killed Tutsi are not synonymous with Hutu ethnic group. Criminals are criminals independent of their ethnic affiliation and should face the law. The International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has tried criminals from all sides. There is no reason why RPF should be an exception. Double standards based on ethnicity is unacceptable not whistle-blowing to end injustice.

The RPF does not deserve the moral high ground of having stopped genocide.

The UN report that set up ICTR pointed out that the shooting down of the plane that had on board the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and their suite triggered the genocide. Though nothing can justify the heinous crime of genocide, the person or persons who carried out that terrorist act are partly responsible for the genocide for they would have known the grave consequences of such a heinous act.

The former U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Flatten, testified in June 2005 at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that he personally warned Gen. Kagame and Pres. Habyarimana that if either resumed war by breaking the Arusha Accords cease fire, they would be responsible for thousands of civilian casualties from retaliatory killings that U.S. State Department documents predicted should the war resume…similar to killings that swept Burundi/Rwanda in 1988.

There is a strong suggestion that the RPF is responsible for it and therefore shared responsibility in the genocide. A French anti terrorist judge Jean-Louis Brugui�re has confirmed this and issued international arrest warrants against the culprits. A Spanish judge, Fernando Andreu, has come to the same conclusion.

Even when the catastrophe struck, the RPF deliberately blocked all attempts to intervene to stop the genocide.

The RPF rejected the invitation made by the military crisis committee, set up on the 7th April 94, for a meeting on the 8th April 1994 with committee, through the UN troops Commander General Dallaire, to discuss how to handle the new crisis. RPF responded by starting a full-scale war on all the fronts, 4 hours before the planned meeting.

The former Deputy UN troops commander in Rwanda Col. Marshall made it clear when testifying before the Criminal International Tribunal for Rwanda on 2/12/2006 that the RPF main preoccupation was military victory at any cost and not to save Tutsi in Rwanda:

�From my experience, my conclusion is that the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) had one goal, seizing power by force and keeping it to themselves�,
�For me, it is the Rwandan Patriotic Front which has perpetrated the attack (shooting the presidential aircraft). Not once, never have I sensed the desire to make concessions, to smooth rough edges, to reach a consensus�.

On the 8th April 19994, the RPF asked all foreign troops to quit within 48 hours declaring they would be considered as enemy combatant if they stayed longer. The Security Council under the pressure of the US, the UK and Belgium, decided to reduce dramatically the UN troops.

On the 12th of April 1994 the RPF rejected a truce offered by the governmental forces in order to fight those who were carrying out massacres of civilian population. Army communiqu� calling on RPA dialogue was signed by Ntiwiragabo, Muberuka, Kanyamanza, Murasampongo, Rwabalinda, Hakizimana, Rwamanywa, Kanyandekwe and Gatsinzi Marcel, now Minister of Defence in Rwanda.
On the contrary the RPF dispatched Dusaidi and Muligande to New York to prevent any foreign intervention.

On the 15th April, a meeting organised by Jacques Bobooh, UN representative, failed to broker a ceasefire because the RPF was deliberately putting forward impossible preconditions, one of which was to ask the army to denounce the interim government and to immediately prosecute those who had committed massacres.

According to Human Rights Watch, on the 30th of April the RPF made a statement opposing UN initiatives for a deployment of international forces in order to help curb the massacres of civilians. Human Rights Watch reveals

�When the Security Council discussed sending a larger peacekeeping force to Rwanda with a broader mandate to protect civilians, the RPF feared that the force might interfere with its goal of military victory. Its leaders may have been particularly concerned that the French might use the force to protect the interim government. Instead of welcoming the move and urging speedy implementation, the RPF spokesman in Brussels opposed it and asserted that there were no more Tutsi to be saved�.

But as HRW testifies thousands of Tutsi were still hiding or in churches calling for help (1999 annual report).

On May 5, 1994, The Washington Times wrote:

“The rebel Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) commander said yesterday a U.N. force cannot bring peace to his blood-soaked country and only a guerrilla victory will end the massacres”.

It took another two months for the RPF to take over the country.
Gen. Dallaire, commander of the UN forces in Rwandan (UNAMIR), testified under oath before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, that Gen. Paul Kagame told him that those civilian killings are “collateral damage” for his war plan.

On 12 November 2005 the RPF spokesman Mr Severian Sebasoni told BBC Great Lakes radio that RPF objectives was not to be like Red Cross saving people but to take the power.

The issue of ethnicity in Rwanda

Andrew M. Mwenda points out that �given the emotive power of ethnicity especially in Rwanda, it is easy to rally a political following by making ethnic claims, something that is �also extremely dangerous�. If a claim to justice for all is �extremely dangerous� in a society, then there must be something fundamentally wrong that must be addressed for such society to survive.

My view is that the Rwandan society must take the bull by its horns by accepting its past looking at it critically and accept each one�s responsibility. Throwing the bucket at each other for what went wrong in Rwanda does not help nor does the story line of the good and bad guys portraying Hutus as �Hutus extremist killers, while the Tutsis of the RPF are portrayed as avenging angels, who swooped in from their bases in Uganda to stop the genocide�

I believe that ethnicity is not a problem in itself; the problem is lack of the rule of law, democracy and equal opportunity. Once the three conditions are present, the importance of ethnicity will disappear.

It is an open secret that the RPF has used the slogan on national unity to prevent any criticism of its policies and to stifle dissenting voices. This cannot augur well for the future of the country. It can only push dissenting voices underground.