Human Rights Watch and Rwanda: The truth behind the lies

Ever since a Human Rights Watch worker was denied a visa to work in Rwanda due to forged documents early this year, the organization has made it its business to malign and undermine the accomplishments of the Rwandan Government, its leadership and people in a relentless manner.

A report by the Associated Press quoting HRW states: "Rwanda is a country where there is not much freedom of expression, but in the months leading up to the August elections we really have seen a further crackdown on any form of opposition, dissent or criticism."

The report quotes Carina Tertsakian, the same researcher who was denied the controversial visa. It has been wrongly stated that Human rights watch is barred from Rwanda but this is not the case, only one activist was barred due to falsifying documents while others have been allowed to stay. She worked in Rwanda for just three months, and yet she is now described as an specialist on Rwanda.

It is the same charge, over and over again. The western media which often has a biased opinion that Africa is prone to violence all the time, that purveys this myth without any evidence. The self styled “opposition leader” Victoire Ingabire, stands accused of genocide denial. She has had her day in court and awaits trial. As a presidential hopeful, she hopes to ride on ethnic sentiments and stoke flames of hatred to the highest office and get away with it.

A renegade general survives an attempt on his life and the crime is heaped squarely on the Rwandan government. Never mind that South Africa is has one of the highest crime rates in the world. Perhaps the most recent fabricated charge against the Government of Rwanda by HRW and other critics is the shooting to death of a suspended newspaper editor, Jean-Leonard Rugambage. It now turns out the journalist was a victim of a revenge-killing. Two suspects have been arrested, a gun recovered and confessions.

In the words of our foreign affairs minister who doubles as government spokeswoman, Rwanda does not kill its own people. There are established institutions to try court suspects within the confines of the law. "There is this whole psyche that there is a crackdown in Rwanda, that tensions are high" says the minister.

There was the case of American lawyer, Prof. Peter Erlinder, related to genocide denial but twisted to mean that he was arrested for defending Ingabire. The truth, as it stands today, is now known worldwide. Rwanda is a stable country, where the rule of law is supreme. And the country is moving on, despite all the deception. HRW and other organizations continue to take advantage of the forthcoming elections to project this kind of situation.

So what will HRW’s next lie be?

Watch this space.

Peter Erlinder is no victim

“Free speech just ain’t what it used to be” to borrow an Americanism and the first amendment is seen as a right of all Americans even when on foreign soil. The recent arrest and trial of Peter Erlinder was a test case for whether foreigners can be held liable for breaking the law, even when the law was not broken on the soil where the suspect is charged. There have been many falsehoods purveyed about this case especially by a lawyer and blogger called Robert Amsterdam who called Erlinder “Kagame’s American political prisoner.”

In the world of online blogging opinion counts as facts and on that basis I will have to deal with Mr. Amsterdam’s opinions as such. The first lie is that he was a political prisoner, as if to say he is a prisoner of conscience and that he was being punished for what he said or thought. Freedom of speech is not free, it is like the analogy where a man runs into a theater screaming “Fire!” when there is no fire and causes a stampede, he doesn’t have the right to do that. Every country has its limits to free speech, for example if you quoted the Bible in UK saying that Leviticus says that homosexuality is an abomination, then you can be charged with hate speech.

Likewise in Rwanda, given our recent history we take the crimes of Genocide and Genocide denial very seriously. It is for that reason that this case cannot be seen as merely arresting someone for what they think or say. A person must be held responsible for their words while being free to say them. That is why this case was a challenge to Mr. Erlinder to explain his comments in full and defend his point of view. As an ongoing case, he would not be allowed to comment on it in the media but no doubt he would have prejudiced his case with a media blitz.

With regards to his case specifically it is essential that it still goes to trial, even though it could most likely be tried in absentia as he seeks medical treatment abroad. The fact is over 1,000 people have been charged under this law since it was introduced in 2003 but this was a chance to show our legal system on a global stage. Rwanda has many limitations in its legal system, most of our qualified legal practitioners were killed in 1994, our courts are run down and in need of repair and we make do with meager resources. Money cannot buy justice no matter how poor we are, we try to be as just as possible according to our laws.

Amsterdam claims that Erlinder was denied legal counsel and yet he had a team of 20 lawyers. He claims he couldn’t understand as the proceedings were in Kinyarwanda, that is our national language and interpreters were available, you cannot ask a Japanese or French court to conduct a trial in English for your benefit. He claims that Erlinder was held in inhumane conditions and denied medical treatment, but he had three doctors with him at all times and was regularly visited by the American consul. He claims that the charges are politically motivated but several other lawyers come and leave freely without being harassed. Rwanda is a sovereign nation and can prosecute any individual on its soil who it feels has broken the law, he was not extradited here, he came here freely.

Genocide denial is serious because it is the final stage of the genocide cycle and the link to the next cycle of killing. For example in 1959 there was a genocide as up to 100,000 Tutsi’s were killed and hundreds of thousands went into exile. However this genocide is referred to as “The wind of destruction” so it was reduced to a mere meteorological event, like the weather or climate. This allowed other waves of Genocide against Tutsi leading up to 1994 genocide. Those who do not know history are prone to repeat it, and in Rwanda we have repeated it over and over again. Ask the survivors of the 1994 massacres what they think of Erlinder’s trivializing comments and they all say the same thing – the trial should go ahead.

Genocide denial should be tried in a global context, so the facts are set straight. However the lawyers taking part might themselves be accused of Genocide denial. As a defence lawyer for one of the biggest criminal cases in history, his job required him to minimize and trivialize the Genocide against the Tutsi. As the crimes were obvious and well-known he had to muddy the waters, to create mitigating arguments to explain the crimes where all the victims were known, and to also make victims out of his clients.

The Genocide against the Tutsi is not a myth, it is accepted and commemorated around the world as one of the worst murder sprees in history. Nothing will change that, even the inane ramblings of an eccentric lawyer. Most Americans felt an automatic sense of sympathy for their own, as if to think that one of their own citizens cannot be accused and tried in a Third World country. Even Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State was reluctant to plead his case but felt compelled to do so as a matter of course. His release on humanitarian grounds was the only reasonable thing to do, considering his health and his insistence on representing himself. This reminds me of the old joke – “A man who defends himself in court has a fool for a client.”

Kayumba:The man and the Myth

The recent shooting of the dissident general Kayumba Nyamwasa made the global media headlines in a city with thousands of murders a year. Mr. Kayumba is expected to make a full recovery but the damage to our reputation will take longer to heal. The Rwandan government was immediately blamed even though there was no immediate evidence to hand, events are fluid and evolving by the minute so I will not speculate as to who the suspects are. Kayumba’s wife, Rosette was quick to blame the Rwandan government even though she admits she had no evidence apart from comments by high-ranking government officials about her husband.

In one quote she says our president said he “would use a hammer to kill a fly” I have looked for that exact quote and have failed to find it in its original context. Some say he never said it, others that he was stating that he would stop at nothing to defend our security. However, comments said in such a loose context cannot be seen as evidence of a motive. I was utterly shocked when I heard of the news, my first instinct was believe what the media was saying, that our government was responsible but I am always one to go against the flow of public opinion so I thought about this laterally.

My first question is this. Why would a government that takes so much time to cultivate a positive image globally do something that is so detrimental to its own image? In the olden days in Rwanda men and young women wore a hairstyle called “Isunzu” which symbolized honour. This hairstyle required so much delicate care and attention that it spawned a saying “You never urinate on your own isunzu.” Meaning why spend so much time on garnering honour just to destroy it?

Why would Rwanda risk a diplomatic crisis with South Africa, the most influential power in Africa? Why would they do so knowing they would be the first to be blamed? And why would it be done in such a botched way? Whatever benefits were to be gained would be outweighed by the detrimental effects, no matter how much of a nuisance Kayumba was he was not worth risking our global image.

Kayumba can be divided into two personas; the man and the myth. He is a man who has cultivated his own myth over the years and it is hard to separate the two. He will tell you of how he pacified the Northwest by himself and conquered Congo on his own, how he stopped the genocide on his own. To kill the man would only make him into a superhero or a martyr. To kill Kayumba one would first have to kill the myth he has created for himself. And the myth is impressive though not all true, it is customary for old soldiers to embellish their war record but Kayumba’s myth is beyond plausibility. This myth will not be destroyed by bullets or slander but by the truth. The truth is that Kayumba was at some point a great soldier but because of a great system, serving along with great soldiers for a great cause. He lost his discipline and got a sense of self-importance and eventually turned against the system that created him.

He has become a blank canvas for people to project their aspirations and fears on, both negative and positive. Some see him as the devil incarnate and some as a messiah. The truth is he was a soldier who failed to evolve with the times. Anyone who has listened to his interviews since he defected will have been disappointed, he was not articulate, not focused, and he didn’t have a vision for Rwanda. All he had was sob stories about how he was mistreated, how the system owed him more than they gave him, and tonnes of self-pity. I would have thought that a man who saw himself as an alternative leader would show some leadership qualities.

So we all await to see what the results of the investigation will be, but keep an open mind because what you see is not always true. I understand the pain and anger felt by the Kayumba family, in the heat of the moment it is easy to scream at phantom enemies but it goes beyond revenge to harming our country. Our solid standing and positive image is the result of the hard work and dedication of millions of Rwandans, they do not deserve to be tarnished because of recent events.