Tag Archives: Politics

No one should dare to equate the Father of the Republic to the tyrant.

On May 6th 2020 Dr David Himbara on his own blog confirmed unverified hypothesis that “Every post-independence Rwandan dictator weaponized genocide”. “This is an indisputable fact”, he wrote. This post is a reproduction of another he wrote on April 26th 2017  at the same blog.

Despite insufficiency of tangible evidence in both articles, you may understand how it is so important to him to find the dictator Paul Kagame and other Republican leaders in the same basket. By my right and duty of a good citizen, I would like to help him by answering the questions on which he based his thoughts.

  1. Why did Kayibanda refuse to adopt the Genocide Convention in his 11-year rule?” Dr David Himbara questioned.

Himbara’s only argument that HE Gregoire Kayibanda would be a genocidaire like Kagame is that he did not sign the Genocide Convention during his 11 years on power. Dr Himbara supports his sole argument with the fact that some other African countries quickly ratified that convention!

Assuming that Himbara has no other thought behind, one would like to know why he has never worried nor questioned why no king of Rwanda signed such genocide convention. I think this should be a good way to reason in the best possible way, as from the date when the Genocide Convention was opened for signature on December 09th 1948, both Mutara III Rudahigwa and Kigeli V Ndahindurwa were absolute kings of Rwanda, respectively. In fact, at that time any Member of the United Nations and any non-member State to which an invitation to sign had been addressed by the General Assembly, had the right to be a party to the Convention and Rwanda was one of them (See Article 11 of the genocide convention).  I very much doubt that Himbara jumped this period of time from 1948 to 1962 without knowledge of this fact. He merely wanted to rush on HE Gregoire Kayibanda who is quite innocent in this matter of Rwanda genocides.

To proceed I may remind Himbara that even today in 2020, not in 1962, the Convention on genocide still stands a low rate of acceptance by many countries. For instance, the United States signed on only yesterday, after decades with protracted debates, and I hope they have not weaponized genocide. To be complete, one should list and examine each state which has not yet ratified or acceded to the Genocide Convention in order to let Himbara prove himself wrong and apologize to the public for luck of intellectual honesty.

If to Himbara a non-ratifying state weaponizes genocide, many countries are now concerned, as of in February 2018, at least 45 United Nations Member States had not yet ratified the Genocide Convention. Some of those are: Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Angola, Botswana Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Swaziland Zambia, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Nauru, Oman, Palau, Qatar, Samoa, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Etc.

Briefly speaking, signature subject to ratification of multilateral convention is an act of interests towards other countries. Like any other contract, it is negotiated and signed, ratified or accessed considering in first place always the interests of your own nation.  Therefore, HE Gregoire Kayibanda did not refuse to adopt or sign the convention because at the time of its adoption (1948), Rwanda was not ruled by him but by the King Mutara III Rudahigwa. Nor he did not refuse ratification of the convention as it is a process done always by the country not by a president as a person. In this case, Dr Himbara should have asked why His Majesty MUTARA III Rudahigwa did not sign the genocide convention. Following Himbara’s reasoning, King MUTARA “knew that he would sooner or later unleash genocide” (Himbara’s own words on Habyarimana).

Theoretically and practically, a country cannot be bound without its consent, and consequently no convention can be effective on the territory against the will of that country, therefore, no ratification without its agreement thereto. That is why Rwanda was subjected to the “Accession”, the act whereby a state accepts the offer to become a party to a convention or treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. Accordingly, Rwanda accessed to the genocide convention on April 16th 1975.

Thanks to HE Gregoire Kayibanda, Rwanda has become an independent Republic until today. For sure he will remain a father of our nation, because not only he served many from slavery to liberty, from domination to equality but also, he established democracy in our young Republic. And with the wisdom he had, he could not accept such event of genocides on Rwandan soil or elsewhere in pursuit of Tutsi who fled the country.

  1. “Why did Habyarimana in his 21-year rule block the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to try genocide crimes in Rwanda?” A question raised by Dr David Himbara.

To the first question raised, Dr David Himbara was against HE Gregoire Kayibanda because he did not “adopt” the genocide convention. Now the convention is accessed but he is still accusing HE Juvenal Habyarimana that he did block the ICJ to try genocide crimes because of “a reservation” he made during the time of accession. In both articles since 2017? Himbara argued that “Habyarimana effectively blocked the International Court of Justice from holding Rwanda accountable for genocide crimes in Rwanda. It is as if Habyarimana knew that he would sooner or later unleash genocide. Habyarimana would not give up his genocide weapon.”

And he concludes that the former president Juvenal HABYARIMANA like his predecessor, used the genocide as a weapon. But Himbara fails to explain when, how and where exactly this happened? I wish Himbara himself would have provided more information. But he did not, probably and may be, he will.  The only argument he advances, is constituted on the fact that the president accepted the accession to the Genocide Convention in 1970s, with a reservation. To Himbara, this is a crime! Not an ordinary one, but a genocide. I must say that this is wrong, wicked, and dangerous!

Before I proceed, I may ask Himbara if he knows any act of genocide committed during Habyarimana regime. And why did this wait so long after his assassination (on the 06th April 1994) to be discovered by Himbara? Moreover, why this was not mentioned in the reasons of the RPF’s attack of October 1st, 1990?

It is true that Rwanda’s instrument of accession to the Convention, contains a reservation worded as follows: “The Rwandese Republic does not consider itself as bound by Article IX of the Convention.” However, this reservation cannot block the ICJ to try genocide crimes especially that the court itself is not competent for crimes matters like genocide. (See the ICJ statute, Article 36, pt.2). I will provide more explanation below, by answering your 3rd question.

Yet, someone may wonder what the content of this Article IX of the Genocide Convention is. It reads as follows: 

“Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”

Except Himbara, everyone including Paul Kagame who reads this article can easily find out that “this reservation to Article IX is not incompatible with the object and purpose of the convention, inasmuch as the reservation relates not to the substantive obligations of the parties to the Convention but to a procedural provision”. In addition, many other States maintain similar reservations, and the majority of the 151 States parties to the Convention have raised no objection to that reservation.

Just for information, even the USA has ratified the Convention, though after forty years (1988) with significant reservations on the same Article IX. It states that with respect to any disputes involving the United States, such disputes may only be submitted to the International Court of Justice with the specific consent of the United States. (see reservation 782). Following Dr Himbara’s reasoning, the sole purpose for such reservation can be also a genocide plan.

Notwithstanding that the question of reservation to Genocide Convention has been even solved in 1951, Himbara still fails to understand it in 2020. In fact, when Rwanda made its reservation on April 16th, 1975; this confusion of Dr Himbara was already removed 24 years before Rwanda accessed to the convention. Generally speaking, the Jurisprudence made by the ICJ has already found that reservations are not prohibited under the Genocide Convention. “It is well established that even if a convention contained no article on subject of reservations, it does not mean that these are prohibited”. (See the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Genocide Convention, ICJ, May 28, 1951, P.12, 22 (1951 I.C.J. 15).

David Himbara should know that the reservation made by Rwanda to the Genocide Convention was legal and lawfully accepted, otherwise it would had been disputed among states members. And he should also know that the reservation is raised when the interests of the country is flouted. Therefore, it was in the best interests of Rwanda as a country and its citizens, not Habyarimana as an individual.

  1. Why did Kagame use Habyarimana’s clause to block the International Court of Justice’s jurisdiction to try Rwanda’s genocide crimes in DRC?”- Dr David Himbara asked.

Dear Dr Himbara, first, the ICJ is not competent for criminal matters, much less to try genocide crimes. Only states may be parties in cases before this court because its jurisdiction in all legal disputes is limited to:

  1. the interpretation of a treaty;
  2. any question of international law;
  3. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;
  4. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

Therefore, in its application the DRC contended that Rwanda has violated Articles II and III of the Genocide Convention as the “result from acts of armed aggression perpetrated by Rwanda on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in flagrant breach of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. (See ICJ, DRC v Rwanda, 3 February 2006, No. 126, pt 22).

Nevertheless, I agree with you that Paul Kagame not only planned genocide but also committed it either in Rwanda or in Democratic Republic of the Congo. But he did not block the criminal prosecution just by reservation as you said. Normally, due to the interests of colonial power (via Kagame) all reservation including this one should have been removed according to the Article 15 of the Arusha Protocol as signed on 3 August 1993, later on confirmed through a décret-loi No. 014/01 of 15 February 1995. For sure, one day he will face justice under Rwandans people’s court or under the ICC or any other court through universal jurisdiction. It is a matter of time.

In your second article you well mentioned the violation of the Article II of the Convention to define the crime of genocide. Actually, Paul Kagame’s criminal responsibility is based on those acts found in that Article, together with other two important elements:

  • The physical element: the acts he committed as found in Article II.
  • The mental element: His intent to constitute genocide against Rwandans inside, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national and ethnical group both Hutu, Twa and Tutsi. This is a special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. To know this, the real question is “what is the purpose of the offender?”, not “what is the result?”.

Thus, to constitute “crime of genocide”, it needs to be established that the victims are deliberately targeted not randomly because of their real or perceived membership of the group protected under the Convention. This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, or even a part of it, but not its members as individuals. For instance, the target of Hutu by RPA, in Byumba alone should be qualified as genocide, the same the devastation of Kibeho camp, alone constitutes genocide, and also extermination of Hutu Refugees in DRC alone constitutes genocide as well. 

With the same idea, why in your first Article in April 2017, do you write as follows: “As we mourn our loved ones who departed from us during the 1994 Rwandan genocide”, but for second time on the May 6th   2020, you change the gear to “the commemoration of the genocide against Tutsi”? Dr Himbara why and what is the difference?

Why did you insist on equating Paul Kagame to Juvenal HABYARIMANA? It is true that Kagame used genocide as a tool to avoid justice but why do you want to convince everyone that Kagame is as bad as Habyarimana. Let me tell you something which I can stand on until I die, Kagame will stay a unique tyrant in the history of Rwanda until the end. No one can be compared to Kagame, he is the worst.

Dear Dr HIMBARA,

When I find that you served as the Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to the President Paul Kagame, and that before that you headed the Strategy and Policy Unit (SPU) in the Office of the President, I understand how very difficult it is to oppose a system that you yourself have built.

However, it is a universal principle that “no one may profit by his own wrongdoing”.

 

Venant Nkurunziza

Your fellow Rwandan


Avis aux lecteurs: Nos articles peuvent être reproduits à condition de citer le nom d’auteur et le site web source.                                                                                                           Notice to readers: Our articles may be reproduced provided the author’s name and the source website are cited.

 

 

 

Kagame Propaganda On Food Distribution Backfired – Minister Nduhungirehe Caught Redhanded Lying

Wonders never cease in General Paul Kagame’s Rwanda.

His minister Olivier Nduhungirehe used a picture of super market he stole from the internet to convince the world that Rwanda is massively distributing food to the poor. This is part of regime’s propaganda that it is distributing food to the poor across Rwanda to save them from starvation after the regime imposed a total lockdown in response to Covid19 lockdown. This claim is bogus.

According to the World Bank data, 55.5 percent of Rwandans are poor – they live on less than US$1.90 a day. Which means that 6.6 million out of 12 million Rwandans are poor. If the Kagame regime were to pay the 6.6 million poor people US$1.90 a day in lost income due to the lockdown, that would amount to US$12.5 million in just one day. This translates into US$62.5 million for a five-day working week. The regime does not have that kind of money. And, of course, the regime’s claim that it is distributing food to the poor is a big lie.

That is how Kagame minister Nduhungirehe entered the picture. He proclaimed on Twitter that “National solidarity is a core value of the people of Rwanda” and that the Rwanda government has “started the distribution of food and essential goods for the most vulnerable, who were affected by measures to prevent COVID19 from further spreading.”

Food stuff

There was one problem, however. The minister’s proof that Rwanda is distributing food proved to be false. The minister hunted on the internet a stock photo of super market somewhere out there. Nduhungirehe was immediately caught redhanded by Twitter users. There goes another shameful chapter in the Kagame regime’s crude propaganda that does not add up.

David Himbara, Ph D

medium.com


Avis aux lecteurs: Nos articles peuvent être reproduits à condition de citer le nom d’auteur et le site web source.
Notice to readers: Our articles may be reproduced provided the author’s name and

Rwanda : we have another Virus to fight, more virulent than Covid-19.

As the world stands together in fighting the corona virus (COVID-19) let us not forget, as Rwandans , that we have another virus which we have to fight: Kagamevirus (AKAGA-94).

Let us not forget to fight the virus that has attacked our entire governing system and left it almost crippled.
Let us stand together to fight the virus that recently killed Kizito Mihigo.
Let us stand together in fighting the virus that recently made Barafinda Sekikubo Fred to be admitted in the mental hospital, while he is not mentally ill.

Let us stand together in fighting the virus that keeps on attacking opposition leaders, like Madame Victoire Ingabire and Maître Bernard Ntaganda.
Let us stand together in fighting the virus that has closed the political space in Rwanda.

Let us stand together in fighting the virus that has been attacking our neighboring countries and caused the borders to be closed to many Rwandans who depended on cross border trade.

Dear Country men and women, we must fight vigorously and defeat this virus.
I am optimistic that victory is certain.

God bless us all and protect us from our Rwandan common virus and COVID-19.
May God bring to an end the COVID -19 and hill those who are suffering from it.
RIP Kizito Mihigo who was killed by Our common Rwandan virus, Kagamevirus, (AKAGA-94)

 

Jeanne Mukamurenzi

 


Avis aux lecteurs: Nos articles peuvent être reproduits à condition de citer le nom d'auteur et le site web source.
Notice to readers: Our articles may be reproduced provided the author's name and the source website are cited.

 

RWANDA Govt social media accounts used to “intimidate people” – US Government.

“Government-run social media accounts were used to debate and at times intimidate individuals who posted online comments considered critical of the government,” reads the 38-page report in part.

The report, compiled annually by the US State Department, also says the Rwandan government continued to monitor email and internet chat rooms.

It reads: “Individuals and groups could engage in the peaceful expression of views online, including by email and social media, but were subject to monitoring. There were reports that some individuals were arrested based in part on information obtained from email and internet monitoring.”

As for how much access Rwandans have to content online, the Americans, who are the single biggest bilateral donor to Rwanda, say there is notable restrictions of what we in Rwanda can see.

The report reads: “The government restricts the types of online content that users can access, particularly content that strays from the government’s official line, and continued to block websites.”

In May 2019, the minister of information and communications technology and innovation, Paula Ingabire, announced in Parliament the government planned to impose regulations on social media content so as to combat misinformation and protect citizens.

Minister of information and communications technology and innovation, Paula Ingabire  Musoni was instrumental in establishing censorship against critics.

The government blocked access within the country to several websites critical of its policies, including websites of the Rwandan diaspora.

According to a 2010 law relating to electronic messages, signatures, and transactions, intermediaries and service providers are not held liable for content transmitted through their networks.

Nonetheless, says the US report, service providers are required to remove content when handed a takedown notice, and there are no avenues for appeal.

 

Chris Kamo 


Avis aux lecteurs: Nos articles peuvent être reproduits à condition de citer le nom d'auteur et le site web source.
Notice to readers: Our articles may be reproduced provided the author's name and the source website are cited.

 

Rwanda: Ni nde wishe Kizito Mihigo ?

IMG-20200223-WA0023
Kizito Mihigo
Na nyuma yo guherekeza bwa nyuma ndetse no gushyingura Kizito Mihigo, hari benshi batariyumvisha ko yatuvuyemo. Uku kutemera ibyabaye, ni ikimenyetso cy’uko hari abatarasobanukirwa n’ubutegetsi dufite mu Rwanda: ubutegetsi bushingiye ku iterabwoba, ikinyoma n’ukwikubira ibyiza by’igihugu.
Nk’umuntu wafungutse amaso y’umutima n’ay’umubiri, Kizito Mihigo ntiyashoboraga kubana na FPR, mbese nk’uko Imana rurema itabana na Shitani : Imana ntiyaba muri Gihenomu na Shitani ntiyaba mu ijuru. Kizito Mihigo yari ateye ubwoba FPR Inkotanyi kandi ibimenyetso biragenda bijya ahagaragara. Isomere inkuru zisohoka mu kinyamakuru igihe.com ku rupfu rwe urasangamo ibirenze ibihagije ko agatsiko ka FPR ari ko kirengeje intwari Kizito.
1. Impamvu yo kumwica
Kizito Mihigo yaratoboye avuga ibyo FPR idashaka ko bivugwa: ” Na bo ni abantu ndabasabira”. Nta bandi ni abahutu . Mwese muzi ko FPR mu buryo bwo gusibanganya burundu ikiremwa “Hutu” yakoze byinshi byo kubambura ubumuntu. Igikorwa cya mbere ni uguhakana ko babaho mu kiswe ko nta moko ahari, nyamara “Tutsi” ikaba mu Itegekonshinga. Hiyongera ho kutemera ko abahutu bishwe. (bakwicwa bate batabaho?)
Bityo nta mfubyi n’abapfakazi bandi babaho. amashyirahamwe y’abapfakazi n’imfubyi nta muhutu wabonamo, kuko nta babaho! Ibi byoseKizito yarabihakanye kuko ari ikinyoma, bamutegeka guca bugufi agasaba ngo imbabazi akanasiba indirimbo “igisobanuro cy’urupfu”. Ibi yabanje kubyemera kugira ngo akusanye ibimenyetso bishyira ahabona umugambi mubisha FPR yubakiyeho.
Amaze kubyegeranya, baramubajije bati ya ndirimbo ko utayisiba, ati: “sinzayisiba”. Bamukubita agafuni mu gahanga.
2. Gusibanganya ibimenyetso
Mu nkuru za tracts (zidasinye) zisohoka ku igihe.com abishi ba Kizito baragerageza gusobanura ko Kizito yagombaga gupfa ariko bakerekana ko yiyambuye ubuzima. Abamenyereye ibijyanye n’ibyaha bya za Leta (crimes d’Etat) birazwi ko umuntu yicwa bigakurikirwa no kuvuga ko yiyahuye.
Iyo Kizito aba yariyahuye koko, inzego z’agatsiko zari gukora enquête zigashakisha umuntu watumye yiyahura. Kuko ubwabyo gutuma umuntu yiyahura ni icyaha. Nyamara kugeza n’ubu nta cyakozwe. Ikivugwa ni uko basanze Kizito amanitse mu mugozi, ariko ntibavuga uwamushyizemo.
Abazi iriya police station ya Remera muzi uko amadirishya areshya. Iyo bavuze idirishya hari abagira ngo ni ahantu harehare. Reka da! Byonyine ufashe igihagararo cya Kizito, ubona ko asumba iryo dirishya rivugwa. Nta buryo bushoboka ko umuntu yiyahurira ahantu arusha ubuhagarike (hauteur). Byongeye kandi, muzasome ibijyanye n’amaperereza ajyanye no kwiyahura, iyo hari ikintu , (urukuta, ibuye, idirishya…) uwiyahura ashobora gukandagiraho, nibyo bimutabara mu gihe arimo kurwana no kuva mu mugozi umuniga. (Uwiyahura agera aho ababara agashaka guhagarika kwiyahura) .
3. Umurage w’ubwiyunge nyabwo
FPR yagaragaje ko ubwiyunge nyabwo ntacyo buyibwiye. Abahutu baramutse bemeye ko batabaho, ntibasabe ko ababo bishwe na FPR babona ubutabera ngo bibukwe nk’uko bikorwa ku Batutsi, ntihagire umu lideri (leader) wa politiki uvugira ku mugaragaro ikibazo cy’ihezwa rikorerwa abahutu, kuri FPR ibintu byaba ari bala bala. Ubwiyunge bwaba ari 100%.
Kizito ibi yabyitaga ubwiyunge bw’ikinyoma. Wakwiyunga ute n’umuntu utamuhaye agaciro? Utamubonamo ubumuntu? Umubona nk’uwo mutareshya? Abiyunga ni abashoboye kuganira kandi abaganira ni abareshya. Uwo ari we wese wubakira kuri supremacie Tutsi ntashobora gushyikiira urugero rwa Kizito. Kizito MIHIGO yari muri dimension benshi mu Banyarwanda batarageraho, abo byacangaga cyane bahitamo kumwica aka ya mvugo ngo “Imana bayirasiye i Kinihira” .
Umwanzuro:
Abishi ba Kizito barazwi:
1. Inès MPAMBARA ni we watanze itegeko na we arihawe na Kagame. uyu mugore ubu wagizwe ministre w’ibikorwa bya Guverinoma yari umuyobozi w’ibiro bya Kagame mu gihe cy’imyaka 12. Yumvikanaga neza na Kagame, yari azi neza ibyo Kagame ashaka ndetse kubera ko Kagame ahora mu ndege, uriya mugore ni we wayoboraga igihugu.
2. Paul KAGAME: we nta kumutidaho. yifiteye ibibazo psychologique, yumva ko umuti w’ibibazo ari ukwica, abihoza mu kanwa, ni yo hymne ye. Asigaje kwica abamukomokaho mbere yo kwiyica ubwe.
3. Tito RUTAREMARA na MUGESERA Antoine
Aba ni bo bari bafite ijambo rikomeye mu nama nkuru y’Abatutsi b’abahezanguni yabereye mu biro bya Visi perezida wa Senat. Muri iyi nama niho Kizito yakubitiwe, abwirwa ko ari “imbwa ishaka kuvugira abahutu”. Mugesera ni we watanze igitekerezo cy’uko ashobora kwicwa kandi “isi igakomeza igatembera”.
4. Abahezanguni bashyigikiye uyu mugambi harimo Tom NDAHIRO, MUKAGASANA Yolanda, …
5. Inzego z’iperereza n’iza gipolisi zashyize mu bikorwa iki gikorwa
Chaste GAHUNDE
chaste.gahunde@gmail.com

Rwanda : Yolande MUKAGASANA se réjouit de la mort de Kizito MIHIGO.

RWANDA : YOLANDE MUKAGASANA SE RÉJOUIT DE LA MORT DE KIZITO MIHIGO !

Dans une tribune libre parue dans igihe.com dans son édition du 27 février 2020, Yolande Mukagasana fait un long réquisitoire contre Kizito Mihigo de telle sorte qu’elle apparaît comme faisant partie du complot ourdi de longue date contre le regretté.

Yolande Mukagasana : Rétrospectives

A son arrivée en Belgique après 1994, Yolande Mukagasana, aidée par ses «  nègres littéraires », a été très prolifique. Elle a écrit entre autres « La mort ne veut pas de moi », sorti en 1997.

Alors doctorant à l’Université Catholique de Louvain, Maurice Niwese, dans ses travaux de recherche, a présenté, en 2005, un document intitulé « Le Rwanda face à sa crise identitaire ». Il s’agit d’une analyse faite à partir du livre de Yolande Mukagasana.

Un extrait tiré de ce travail universitaire donne la mesure du contenu du livre :

Dans son témoignage La mort ne veut pas de moi, Yolande Mukagasana se définit comme étant d’ethnie tutsi, à laquelle elle est fière d’appartenir, mais elle semble affirmer en même temps que cette ethnie n’existe pas, puisqu’il n’y a pas d’ethnies au Rwanda. Cette prise de position qu’un raisonnement rigoureux qualifierait d’absurde est un symptôme d’une crise identitaire dont le Rwanda a encore du mal à se défaire. Comment, sans nier sa propre existence, peut-on dire qu’on appartient à une ethnie qui n’existe pas ? Logiquement, si un élément fait partie d’un ensemble, nier l’existence de l’ensemble entraîne la négation de l’élément. Comment peut-on être et ne pas être en même temps ? […] En rassemblant dans un même raisonnement deux discours contradictoires – c’est-à-dire qui ne peuvent être vrais ni faux en même temps – on aboutit à une situation difficilement tenable. Effectivement, pour le cas du Rwanda, c’est à la fragilité identitaire que conduira la contradiction. On assistera à l’émergence des identités mal assumées, ce qui ne va pas sans traîner à sa suite des conséquences néfastes [p 24].

A la publication de ce livre, Yolande Mukagasana a enchaîné des succès. Des TV des pays occidentaux se l’arrachaient les unes après les autres pour des interviews. Dans la foulée, elle a été le principal témoin à charge des premiers procès d’assises en Belgique.

Yolande Mukagasana a été sur tous les fronts avec l’objectif inavoué d’être parmi ceux qui comptent dans le régime incarné par Paul Kagame. Pour ce faire, elle a multiplié des actions de propagande pour contrer toute voix discordante au discours du pouvoir de Kigali. Elle a même une fois tenté d’empêcher une conférence organisée par Paul Rusesabagina au motif que la salle était dans les parages de son habitation et que cela réveillait ses traumatismes de 1994.

En décembre 2010, elle a encore fait parler d’elle à l’occasion de la visite du président Paul Kagame en Belgique. Prenant la parole, elle a dit qu’elle a voulu le rencontrer à plusieurs reprises, mais que cela n’a pas pu se faire suite au refus d’audience de son directeur de cabinet, Dr Thégène Rudasingwa. Elle parlait de celui-ci avec mépris car il venait de s’exiler. Lors de cette prise de parole, elle avait également fustigé le discours d’Evode Twagirayezu, alors représentant de la diaspora rwandaise en Belgique qui avait suggéré au président que son gouvernement se penche sur la question de la qualité de l’enseignement qui laissait à désirer. Yolande Mukagasana avait laissé entendre publiquement qu’elle ne se retrouvait pas dans cette diaspora dirigée par quelqu’un qui tient de tels propos et le président Paul Kagame lui avait donné raison. Depuis lors, elle a acquis ses lettres de noblesse et réside au Rwanda en conseiller occulte du régime. C’est dans ce cadre qu’il faut comprendre sa sortie dans igihe.com où elle est d’avis que la mort de Kizito était justifiée.

Approbation de la mort de Kizito Mihigo

Dans son écrit du 27/2/2020, Yolande Mukagasana raconte qu’elle connaît Kizito Mihigo en Belgique. Ils sont devenus amis et n’ont cessé de se fréquenter. Il l’a accompagnée quand elle a quitté la Belgique pour aller s’installer au Rwanda. Le rendez-vous avait été fixé à Kigali après les études de Kizito Mihigo. Mukagasan  rappelle que Kizito Mihigo, à son arrivé au Rwanda, ne l’a pas appelé comme promis. Et pour cause, il avait basculé du côté des ennemis du régime, précise Mukakagasana, de façon qu’il allait même chanter les messes commémoratives du 6 avril. Ce qui,  pour Yolande Mukagasana, est inacceptable.

Finalement Mukagasana a pu rencontrer Kizito à Kigali. Elle a remarqué que le jeune homme avait changé, dit-elle. Mais leurs relations sont devenus exécrables quand Kizito a produit la chanson « igisobanuro cy’urupfu » qui, pour Yolande Mukagasana, est une négation du génocide commis contre les Tutsi avec toutes les conséquences que cela comporte.

Dans son écrit, Yolande Mukagasana approuve l’emprisonnement de Kizito Mihigo car il était dans le complot d’assassiner le chef de l’Etat Paul Kagame.

En lisant entre les lignes, le texte de Yolande Mugasana transpire une grande haine contre Kizitio Mihigo. Elle est d’avis que Kizito Mihigo ne pouvait que se suicider vu tout ce qu’il a fait comme traîtrise pour le pays, pour son ethnie et pour sa famille.

Ghislain Mikeno
28/02/2020

Les dépliants d’Addis, Bujumbura explique sa démarche

Les dépliants d’Addis,  Bujumbura explique sa démarche

Willy Nyamitwe: “Ce peuple meurtri a droit à la justice et c’est la démarche des instances judiciaires.”

Des dépliants ont été distribués par la délégation gouvernementale en marge du 32e sommet de l’UA évoquant le mandat d’arrêt du président Pierre Buyoya. Des tracts à mobile politique, selon le concerné.

Les opposants parlent de diversion et de récupération de l’affaire Ndadaye pour mobiliser l’électorat hutu à la veille des prochaines élections de 2020, et passer ainsi pour le justicier qui n’a pas peur de terrasser l’ancien homme fort du Burundi.

Le conseiller principal à la présidence de la République n’y va pas de main morte. L’ambassadeur Willy Nyamitwe assure que dans le même paquet que les détracteurs, il faut aussi ajouter la clique d’extrémistes qui, après avoir échoué à renverser les institutions démocratiquement élues par le truchement d’une insurrection et d’un Coup d’Etat, pensent qu’il est toujours possible de tirer sur la corde sensible, celle de l’ethnisme, pour capter la sympathie de l’opinion et attirer l’ostracisme sur le Gouvernement du Burundi. « Quand il fut battu par le président Ndadaye en 1993, le major et son artillerie propagandiste de mauvais perdants n’hésitèrent point à dénigrer le Peuple Burundais prétextant qu’il n’y avait pas eu d’élections mais qu’à la place d’une expression démocratique d’électeurs il y avait eu un recensement ethnique. La suite on la connaît, macabre. » Willy Nyamitwe indique qu’au-delà de leur appétit démesuré du pouvoir, ils ont commis l’irréparable, renversé les institutions et balayé avec une cruauté sans nom des vies humaines dont le nombre ne sera malheureusement jamais connu. « Ce peuple meurtri a droit à la justice et c’est la démarche des instances judiciaires. Que ceux qui détractent le Burundi et ses institutions comprennent que les temps sont révolus. »

Il est clair que Bujumbura ne va pas lâcher l’affaire. S’il ne mise pas trop sur l’extradition de l’ancien président, il n’en reste pas moins qu’il a décidé de ternir l’image du haut fonctionnaire de l’UA qu’il est devenu. Le dépliant le présente comme l’assassin du premier président démocratiquement élu et ses collaborateurs.

Au-delà de la bataille diplomatique et médiatique entre Bujumbura et Buyoya, les proches collaborateurs du président Melchior Ndadaye craignent que le volet judiciaire ne soit occulté.

Le président Sylvestre Ntibantunganya se dit favorable aux poursuites judiciaires. Les Burundais ont droit de connaître la vérité sur la préparation et l’exécution de l’assassinat du président Ndadaye. Pour l’ancien président qui a été destitué par le deuxième putsch de Pierre Buyoya, l’assassinat du président Ndadaye est la cause de toutes les difficultés auxquelles le Burundi a été confronté depuis lors jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Il n’exclut pas l’hypothèse d’une volonté de récupération politique. «Il a toujours été dit que d’une part le dossier sera tiré des tiroirs en cas de besoin pour des intérêts politiques. Et que d’autres se serviront de la politique d’autre part pour étouffer l’instruction judiciaire du dossier».

Pour rappel, Melchior Ndadaye est le premier président burundais démocratiquement élu. Investi le 10 juillet 1993, il est assassiné après 102 jours de pouvoir au cours d’un coup d’Etat sanglant, le 21 octobre 1993. Pontien Karibwami, président de l’Assemblée nationale, Gilles Bimazubute, vice-président de l’Assemblée nationale, Juvénal Ndayikeza, ministre de l’Administration du territoire et du Développement communal, trouvèrent également la mort.
Ce coup de force va déchaîner des violences inter-ethniques dans tout le pays, déclenchant une guerre civile, qui fera, selon les estimations, entre 50 000 (chiffre avancé par la Commission internationale d’enquête des ONG) et 100 000 (chiffre avancé par les délégués du Haut-commissariat aux Réfugiés).

Stupéfaction de Buyoya

Pierre Buyoya: « A un an des élections, le pouvoir veut instrumentaliser
la justice pour écarter des personnalités gênantes. »

Lors du 32e sommet de l’UA, la délégation de Bujumbura a arpenté couloirs et salles de conférence, distribuant un dépliant (deux pages) qui fait: « une mise au point du Burundi sur le mandat d’arrêt du président Pierre Buyoya. » Le dépliant explique que l’ancien homme fort du pays, Pierre Buyoya, doit rendre des comptes. Il est accusé d’être l’instigateur de l’assassinat du président Melchior Ndadaye et de plusieurs de ses collaborateurs.

Cette « mise au point » du Burundi, c’est aussi une réponse à Moussa Faki, le président de la commission de l’Union africaine. Dans son communiqué sorti au lendemain du lancement du mandat d’arrêt contre Buyoya, 2 décembre dernier, il s’était fermement opposé à cette poursuite estimant que « Cela va compliquer la recherche d’une solution consensuelle conformément à l’esprit de réconciliation nationale ».

Le dépliant distribué à Addis Abeba est clair. Bujumbura persiste et signe. « Pour le Burundi, ne pas poursuivre les auteurs et/ ou planificateurs d’un renversement d’institutions démocratiquement élues et de crimes atroces de 1993, c’est cela qui compliquerait, plutôt, la recherche d’une solution consensuelle ».

« Cela porte atteinte à mon honneur »

« Stupéfaction » C’est ainsi que l’on pourrait résumer la réaction de Pierre Buyoya, présent au sommet de l’Union africaine. Il s’est vite empressé de réagir. « Cela porte atteinte à mon honneur » a-t-il déclaré. L’ancien président occupe un poste important de haut représentant de l’Union Africaine pour le Mali et le Sahel. Dans son communiqué, il a parlé de tract distribué en méconnaissance des règles de fonctionnement de l’Union africaine. Pour lui, à un an des élections, le pouvoir veut instrumentaliser la justice pour écarter des personnalités gênantes. Pour « cette poursuite contre lui est une entreprise politique qui ne peut que pérenniser la haine dans l’esprit et la haine dans l’esprit et la mémoire du Burundais ». Bujumbura, dit-il, doit avoir d’autres priorités notamment un dialogue sincère pour mettre un terme à la crise.

Quid de la distribution des dépliants dans un sommet de haut niveau ?

«Originale » pour certains, peu orthodoxe pour d’autres, la démarche de la délégation burundaise au sommet de l’Union Africaine a suscité des réactions au sein de la classe diplomatique.

Selon un diplomate, les canaux traditionnels, en passant par l’ambassade ou par un envoyé spécial, sont préférables et sérieux. « La délégation burundaise a manifesté un manque de respect et de rigueur diplomatique. Diffuser un tract hors propos avec les débats du jour est ridicule. »

Un autre diplomate estime que tous les moyens sont bons pour transmettre l’information entre pairs. Cela peut passer par un coup de téléphone à un envoi de document suivant les canaux habituels. « Nous n’avez pas idée de ce qu’on peut se transmettre lors d’un sommet. Une clé USB contenant un document important peut passer d’une main à une autre. Alors pourquoi pas un dépliant ?

Source : Iwacu

IMINSI 2 GUSA NIYO ISIGAYE NGO ISHYAKA ISHEMA RY’U RWANDA RYIZIHIZE ISABUKURU Y’IMYAKA 5 RIVUTSE!

IMG-20180126-WA0092

ISHEMA RY’U RWANDA 2013-2018:   HABAYE AH’ABAGABO. …

Gukora umurimo wa politiki ku ruhande rutavuga rumwe n’ubutegetsi bw’igitugu nk’ubwimitswe na FPR Inkotanyi ni ikintu kitoroshye ndetse n’ubu kigifatwa n’abatari bake nk’ubwiyahuzi. Iyi myemerere ya benshi mu Banyarwanda ifite inkomoko : Agatsiko-Sajya kimitse iterabwoba mu Banyarwanda, kabapfuka umunwa, kababuza kuvuga icyo batekereza n’ubigerageje agacibwa umutwe aka Rwisereka, cyangwa agafungwa aka Ingabire Victoire, Déo Mushayidi, Theoneste Niyitegeka n’abandi. Ku babashije gufata iy’ubuhungiro bo, FPR ibinyujije mu biro by’umushinjacyaha mukuru yakoze urutonde rw’abo ishinja ibyaha (ababikoze koko kimwe n’abo ibigerekaho batarabikoze) , ibashumuriza inkiko mpuzamahanga ngo zibahigishe uruhindu, bamburwa batyo uburenganzira bwabo bwo gukora  politiki. Ng’uko uko ikibuga cya politiki nyarwanda cyabaye ubutayu, ugerageje kuvugira rubanda akabanza agahenengera mu mwobo, akiyita amazina atabaho ndetse akaba atakwerekana isura ye. Icyari gikenewe ni uguhindura iyi myumvire tugahangara Agatsiko-sajya izuba riva ,tukakabwiza ukuri ko tudatinya gupfa kuko no hakurya y’imva hari ubugingo.

Twari tuzi neza ko igikorwa dutangiye cyasabaga ubwitange, gushirika ubwoba no gusobanura tudategwa umurongo duhisemo gufata w’ubutaripfana. Hari hakenewe guhangana n’imyemerere y’ubwoba yokamye benshi, ndetse rimwe na rimwe twanyuzagamo hakazamo no gucyocyorana n’abadushotoraga. Nanone byari ngombwa kwishakamo ubutwari bwo kwitandukanya n’ibidusubiza inyuma harimo utunyungu tw’umuntu ku giti cye, impungenge z’abo duhuje imiryango, gukorera kuri « baranyica »,  n’isoni zo kubwiza ukuri abaturuta!

Mu masaha 72 yakurikiye ishingwa ry’ishyaka ISHEMA twakiriye ubutumwa bw’abantu 467 badusezeraho ngo aheza ni mu ijuru tuzahurirayo ! Batwemezaga ko tu ta mara ebyumweru  bibiri Kagame ataduciye imitwe twese!

  1. Ese Ishyaka Ishema ry’u Rwanda hari igishya ryazanye mu rubuga rwa Opozisiyo nyarwanda ?
  • Twazanye umuco wo kujya impaka zubaka (DÉBAT constructif) haba mu nyandiko cyangwa ku ma radiyo. Uwadutumiye ngo tuganire wese twaramwitabye cyakora hari benshi bakomeje kudutinya ndetse bakatwita abirasi n’abishongozi. Hari n’abo twasabye guhura tukaganira ariko baranangira.
  • Twahaye agaciro gakomeye ihame ry’uko politiki nziza igomba gukorerwa mu Rwanda kandi ko abanyapolitiki bakorera mu buhungiro bakwiye gukora ibishoboka byose bagataha mu Rwanda gufatanya urugendo rw’impinduka na Rubanda.
  • Twatsindagiye ko inzira y’amahoro ikwiye kwitabazwa mu gukemura ibibazo by’u Rwanda cyane cyane ko twabonye ingaruka mbi cyane intambara ya FPR Inkotanyi yatangiye taliki ya 1/10/1990 yakururiye u Rwanda.
  • Twahamagariye ‘Nouvelle génération’ kwitabira ibikorwa bya politiki no kwirinda ko urubuga rukomeza kwiharirwa n’abafite ibiganza bijejeta amaraso y’Abanyarwanda.
  • Twakanguriye Abanyarwanda kwemera no kugira iryabo ihame ry’uko nta wundi ubibabereyemo kandi ko ak’imuhana kaza imvura ihise bityo bakitegura guhagurukira mu majyaruguru , amajyepfo, uburengerazuba n’uburasirazuba bagasimbukana agatsiko-sajya kabahinduye Abagereerwa n’Inkomamashyi mu gihugu cyabo.
  1. Ese hari umuganda wihariye Ishyaka ISHEMA ryatanze ?

Ngo nyiramaso yerekwa bike,ibindi akibonera.

  • Habonetse abasore n’inkumi batinyuka bakajya ku mugaragaro bakamagana badatinya ubutegetsi bw’agatsiko, ikintu cyari imbonekarimwe mbere.
  • Ibi byatumye nà bake cyane bari barabitangiye mbere bagira imbaraga ntibacika intege ntibacogozwa n’ibizazane bahuraga nabyo
  • Bityo rero, ubu nta wavuga ko ari umunyapolitiki nibura adatinyuka kwerekana ifoto ye ngo avuge ibyo yemera ahagaze ku maguru yombi.

Ubutaha tuzakomeza turebera hamwe aho Ishyaka ISHEMA rigeze rishyira mu bikorwa gahunda ryiyemeje.

Biracyaza…

Chaste GAHUNDE,

Umunyabanga Nshingwabikorwa,

Tel: 00 33 6 43 60 13 11

FDLR echoes JK’s advise to kagame

fdrl

A pile of arms surrendered by FDLR fighters in eastern Congo earlier this year.

As Rwanda pushes for military action against the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) even before the six-months deadline for the group’s disarming expires, the Hutu rebel faction has outlined fresh conditions for what it calls lasting peace solutions in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), The Citizen has learnt.

Kigali has been calling for a military offensive against FDLR, which has been operating freely in eastern Congo for two decades, but Tanzania, South Africa and DRC maintain that no military action should be taken until the deadline expires. The stance is also supported by the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC). The deadline for the voluntary disarmament of FDLR fighters is December, this year, according to details gathered by The Citizen.

Both SADC and the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) want the deadline to elapse before military action is taken against FDLR.

DRC wants the FDLR fighters who want to surrender to do so now or face military action after the deadline expires. The DRC government wants FDLR fighters who surrender to be repatriated to a transit camp in Kisangani, about 900km from South and North Kivu areas where the rebels are based.

But, according to details obtained by The Citizen, Rwanda and the UN want military action now and are strongly opposed to the six-month deadline.

So far, only 183 fighters have surrendered with less than 200 weapons, mostly old guns, handed in.

But in their letter addressed to the SADC chairman, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, FDLR, among other things, says it would not move its former combatants from Eastern Kivu to Kisangani as agreed earlier.

FDLR says between 2001 and 2002, when its fighters disarmed to pave the way for peace in war-torn DRC, the former combatants were attacked, killed and others forcibly repatriated to Rwanda.

All this, claims FDLR in the letter signed by Major General Byiringiro Victor, who is the president of the rebel faction, happened under the watch of UN peacekeeping forces (Monusco) and Congolese and Rwandese military officers.

Alarmed by what transpired in the past, FDLR has issued key conditions that should be fulfilled if Rwanda, DRC and the international community want lasting peace in eastern Congo.

  • First, the rebel faction wants SADC to be actively involved in the whole peace process by being at the forefront of the efforts.
  • Secondly, the group wants SADC and the African Union (AU) to plead on its behalf in persuading the European Union, United States of America, United Kingdom and Canada to support the peace process in eastern Congo.
  • The third condition, according to the letter obtained by The Citizen, is SADC and AU to make use of both their respective diplomatic and strategic positions and persuade both the US and the UN Security Council to put more pressure on Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame to accept political dialogue between his government and the Hutu rebels.

The US, EU and United Nations still maintain that FDLR is a rebel faction, which, apart from being accused of playing a role in 1994 genocide, has also committed atrocities in eastern Congo during the past two decades.

The Citizen could not independently establish whether Rwanda would accept the proposal to have a political dialogue with FDLR.

When President Jakaya Kikwete suggested that it was time Mr Kagame launched political dialogue with FDLR, Kigali vehemently rejected the idea, straining relations between the two countries.

In its letter, the rebel faction says it is worth noting that the Rwandan problem is a political problem and therefore its solution is not military action, but political dialogue.

It is not clear why FDLR has changed its tone from an armed rebellion to political dialogue, bearing in mind that the group has in the past two decades been fighting to overthrow the Kigali regime.

A senior security officer in the Tanzania government told The Citizen on condition of anonymity, “Our position is that no military action should be taken before the deadline expires…after the expiry then we would make a decision.

“Our problem is that after we defeated the M23, the FDLR rebels, having sensed that they were the next target, decided to abandon combats and use locals as human shields. This situation complicates the military action process because you can’t fight them without killings innocent civilians.”

Last December, a Tutsi-dominated rebel faction known as M23 was militarily dismantled, ending 18 months of fighting in eastern Congo.

The M23 rebel faction, also known as Congolese Revolutionary Army, which was mainly formed by former National Congress for Defence of the People (CNDP) fighters led by Brigadier General Sultan Makenga and General Bosco Ntaganda, mutinied against the Kinshasa regime early in January 2012 and sparked a crisis that lasted for nearly two years.

But the group opted for peaceful means to attain their political goals in DRC following a sustained offensive by the UN Intervention Brigade.

Following the defeat, SADC and ICGLR leaders agreed that the focus should now be on FDLR and other rebel forces that have destabilized eastern Congo for years. Although there are about a dozen rebel factions in eastern Congo alone, FDLR is the most resilient, having operated from Congo for two decades during which it collected taxes and controlled illegal mining activities to fund its operations.

What is the FDLR?

According to documented evidence, FDLR rose from the ashes of the 1994 genocide perpetrators to form a strong Hutu extremist army, thanks to the free handout and safe heaven provided by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in the DRC’s Kivu Province.

The assassination of former Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana in 1994 opened the bloody chapter of the massacre of over 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus, sparking a full-scale offensive by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) led by Mr Kagame. The formation of FDLR was spearheaded by, among others, Theoneste Bogosora, said to be among the chief architects of the genocide, and General Augustine Bizimungu who was chief of staff of the Rwandese army during the genocide.

At the time of Habyarimana’s assassination, RPF fighters were just 40km outside Kigali, waiting for the implementation of the Arusha peace accord, which, among other things, would have given the Tutsi rebels key positions within the transition government that was to have been announced by Habyarimana.

After months of fierce battle, RPF ended three months of genocide, but also sparked the exodus of refugees who fled Rwanda fearing retaliation by the RPF regime.

In July 1994, an average of 12,000 Rwandan refugees, mainly Hutus, entered DRC every hour through the town of Goma, fleeing the RPF soldiers who had just toppled the Rwandan regime. Among those fleeing were soldiers and Hutu militia known as Interahamwe.

sOURCE:The citizen

Increasing arrests and disappearances rattle Rwandans

Fear is growing in Rwanda as top members of the military are arrested and ordinary people disappear. President Kagame appears to be determined to stifle all opposition. Human rights organizations are alarmed.

President Paul Kagame

About a month ago, in late July 2014, Rwandan president Paul Kagame reshuffled his cabinet. He said a reorganization would bring about a better working climate and promote development and wealth in the East African country. The move triggered a series of events which quickly attracted the attention of international human rights organizations. One such event was the news on Monday (25.08.2014) that three high-ranking members of the armed forces had been arrested, including Rwandan Defense Force Colonel Tom Byabagamba. The reason given for his arrest: crimes against state security.

What is new about this is that it is no longer just supporters of the opposition who find themselves targeted by police, but also people considered to be allies of President Kagame. “Support for him in his own ranks is disappearing rapidly,” Gerd Hankel, an expert in international law at the Hamburg Institute for Social Research, said in an interview with DW. “Kagame is highly controversial. What was promised to the Rwandans and to his own close circle, has not been fulfilled. People are waiting for clear signs of progress.”

Such signs could be a willingness to share power or steps towards a general democratization, Hankel added. But Kagame, who has been in power for 14 years, and his country seem far removed from such prospects.

A newspaper seller in Kigali‘There are no longer any free media in Rwanda’

“We have been closely observing the situation experienced by human rights activists, members of the opposition and also the Rwandan media for several years,” said Gesinde Ames from the Ecumenical Network for Central Africa, an association of German church organizations. “There are no longer any free media in Rwanda,” Ames said. “There is a state organ which is under strict control. And it is the same with opposition movements.” Any attempts to counter Kagame by establishing new political parties were quickly stifled, with “party leaders arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment,” Ames told DW.

People ‘don’t just disappear’

Any meaningful opposition has been reduced to a single party, the Democratic Green Party, which is frequently the target of initimidation attempts. Party leader Damascene Munyeshyaka has been missing since June. The government denies any involvement.

Minister for Internal Security Sheik Mussa Harerimana plays down the case. “These are just accusations intended to tarnish the government’s reputation. People don’t just disappear here,” he told DW. “But there are people who are in prison as the result of criminal activities. While they are in detention awaiting trial, it seems that relatives claim they have disappeared.”

US-based human rights watchdog Human Rights Watch (HRW) sees this differently. A recent report says that dozens of Rwandans have gone missing since March this year. HRW accuses the Rwandan army and police of removing critics of the Kagame regime.

For years observers have criticized moves to suppress any opposition and increasing acts of intimidation. International law expert Hankel says recent events show this has clearly intensified. According to Hankel, Kagame’s enemies are no longer to be found abroad, such as the Rwandan Hutu FDLR militia (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda), but close to Kagame himself. “There is a large group of politicians who are not happy with the course Kagame is taking but who have no opportunity of articulating this in public. And so conspiratorial groups are created.”

Diplomacy takes a one-sided view

Members of the Rwandan policeRwandan police are said to be involved in ‘disappearances’ of Kagame critics

Internationally, Rwanda’s economic successes and victories in the battle against corruption are highly praised. But, says Hankel, this is an incomplete picture. “What is not seen is that nothing has changed for ordinary Rwandans. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of just a few.”

Gesine Ames from the Ecumenical Network for Central Africa calls for more straight talking from Europe and from Germany in particular. There is a need for “more discussions between Rwanda and donor nations, especially concerning the human rights situation,” she said. “Human rights are universal and Rwanda must also respect them. The international community has an obligation to remind Rwanda of this.”

Source: DW