Merry Chistmas & Happy New Year Card for Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and Bernard Ntaganda
By Ann Garrison
December 25, 2010
Please add your Christmas wishes to this global online Christmas card for Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and Bernard Ntaganda, and for the Rwandan people, and African people of the wider region, who have suffered such brutal dictatorship and exploitation for so long.
The AfrobeatRadio Collective will publish everyone's good wishes, on AfrobeatRadio website.
Please include names and locations, unless doing so is cause for anxiety.
To Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza and Bernard Ntaganda
1930 Prison
Kigali, Rwanda
Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, Rwanda's FDU-Inkingi opposition leader, is spending Christmas in Rwanda's maximum security 1930 prison.
Bernard Ntaganda, Rwandan opposition leader, planned to protest the opposition's exclusion from Rwanda's 2010 presidential election, saying, "Silence is acceptance." He was arrested before he could leave the house on 06.24.2010, and is now, like Victoire Ingabire, spending Christmas in Rwanda's 1930 maximum security prison.
Dear Victoire and Bernard:
We are sad to see you, two of the candidates who attempted to contest this year's Rwandan presidential election, spending Christmas behind bars, in Rwanda's 1930 maximum security prison. Your incarceration, even after the release of the October 1st UN Mapping Report documenting the Kagame regime's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and civilian massacres in the Democratic Republic of Congo, is justice turned upside down, or rather, no justice at all.
Though you will not even be able to read this card online or in print, we hope you may somehow hear of it and be heartened.
Thank you many times over for your courage and strength.
Note:
The original message from Ann Garrison can be found at
(
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Victoire-Ingabire-Umuhoza-for-President/109504816547?v=wall#!/note.php?note_id=484371464935&id=758984327).
Related Materials:
Victoire Ingabire umuhoza-Latest Press Releases
Kagame arrests Rwandan presidential candidate Bernard Ntaganda
No bail for Bernard Ntaganda as his co-accused go free
In Africa, Dictators Play With Fire
By Black Star News
Editorial
December 13, 2010
Photo:
General Philippe Mangou--a cold jail cell should be prepared for him and Gbagbo.
In the bad old days, African dictators and their generals could kill countless innocent civilians and avoid prosecution.
It still happens when a president has "special protection" such as the case of Uganda's dictator Gen. Yoweri K. Museveni and Rwanda's Gen. Paul Kagame; both are protected by Washington. Even then, the sand is quickly shifting from beneath their feet. Eventually, they too could be wanted men; hauled off to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Both these generals have lost considerable political and diplomatic capital, previously provided by the United States administration.
Recently leaked U.S. diplomatic cables by WiKileaks, show that the Americans want Gen. Museveni to be voted out of office in elections in February. The WiKileaks provided documents, cables by the U.S. ambassador in Uganda, also states that top Uganda officials, including Museveni's heir apparent, security minister and the ruling NRM party's Secretary General, Amama Mbabazi, were bribed by a U.K. oil company, Heritage Oil.
In Rwanda Gen. Kagame has been exposed as a director of genocide since the publication of the so-called "mapping report" by the United Nations. The report documents the massacres of Hutu civilians who had fled to the Congo shortly after Kagame and Museveni seized power in Rwanda. A French prosecutor later charged Kagame with masterminding the assassination of then Rwanda president Juvenal Habyarimana, leading to the ethnic conflagration that provided him with the cover to seize power. The case moved forward because Habyarimana's crew in the downed plane were French nationals.
In light of these developments, Laurent Gbagbo, who is trying to steal the elections he is reported to have lost in the Ivory Coast, must be careful. Gbagbo, who has declared himself "president" eventhough the independent Election Commission ruled that he was defeated by Alassane Quattara, is playing with hot fire. He is backed by the army chief-of-staff General Philippe Mangou, who in essence has committed treason.
Both men must be held responsible if the Ivory Coast sinks into the kind of ethnic killings the world saw in Kenya after Mwai Kibaki, incumbent, reportedly stole the vote there. Several Kenya officials might still be indicted by the ICC at the Hague. Several top Kenya officials can't travel freely outside the country any more.
It's about time African dictators, and the generals that back them, are made clearly aware that if they precipitate bloodshed, sooner or later, they will pay a heavy price.
In the Ivory Coast, the usurper Gbagbo must step down--so should Philippe Mangou.
"Speaking Truth To Empower."
Proclamation Establishing the Rwanda National Congress
By the coordinating committee
Rwanda National Congress
Bethesda, MD 20878
December 12, 2010
We, the Citizens of Rwanda who are signatories to this Proclamation, met in Bethesda, Maryland, in the United States of America on 11 - 12 December 2010, to discuss strategies for resolving the explosive political impasse that prevails in Rwanda and to envision a new nation embedded in human dignity, mutual respect, freedom, liberty, justice, and democracy.
We firmly believe that all human beings have an inherent right to live in peace and freedom and to the fair use of, and access to, the resources with which their nations are endowed for the promotion of the well-being of all citizens. Every person is entitled to the rights promulgated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, and other international conventions and instruments that explicitly establish and protect the full range of universal human rights. The principal rationale for the existence of government is to facilitate the realization of these fundamental and inalienable rights for all citizens.
Rwanda is an ancient nation. No doubt, every government that has exercised control over the Rwandan state during the course of our country's long history can rightfully be credited for developments that have been of benefit to its citizens. On balance, however, virtually every Rwandan government has historically preyed on the citizenry and has suppressed the realization and enjoyment of the inherent and universal rights of those whom it governed.Autocratic government (in the form of a government controlled by an absolute monarch or an all-powerful president) has generally been the norm during our history. While Rwanda is a diverse society, the diversity of its national character (based on class, ethnic identity, religion or region of origin) has often been manipulated by elite political leaders to satisfy their selfish and egoistic interests and to acquire or monopolize power and access to resources. Our people have never had the opportunity to fully realize their aspirations for freedom, security and prosperity.
During its long history, Rwanda has never been provided with a political environment wherein all of its citizens, regardless of their beliefs or origins, were able to exercise their inherent rights. Instead, every group that has assumed power - though at first proclaiming universal and democratic ideals - has in time succumbed to the lure of the monopoly of power.
Each ruling group eventually found justification to exclude the majority of Rwandans from the enjoyment of fundamental human rights. The ruling class often assumed absolute power and governed with impunity, outside the rule of law and outside universally recognized democratic norms; it prepared to eliminate both real and perceived political opponents and competitors for the privileges that flow from control of political power.
For ordinary Rwandans, they were rarely, if ever, entitled to their inherent human rights and the right of expression of beliefs and free association. In the past, and sadly to this day, political leaders determined who should live or who should die, outside the rule of law. The struggle in Rwanda of competition for power and access to resources has often unleashed cataclysmic conflict, killings and untold human suffering, particularly over the last five decades. Horrendous violence, including crimes against humanity and genocide, has in the past been unleashed against innocent men, women and children caught in the crossfire of elites struggling for political supremacy.
Upon assuming power at the end of the genocide in 1994, the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), the party that governs Rwanda today, promised to reverse the violent history of the past; it promised to overturn a political culture of violence, unaccountable government, and exclusion and marginalization of the majority of the population. Regrettably, Rwanda is now far less free than it was prior to just before the genocide.
The RPF has established a political system that maintains a false appearance of multi-party democracy but does not provide real opportunity for political dialogue or competition. Rwanda's laws make it impossible for individuals and organizations other than the RPF to participate meaningfully in politics and to build the nation on behalf of all Rwandans. Rwandans do not have opportunities for meaningful political participation and cannot exercise their fundamental right to choose and change government. Instead,' while Rwanda holds regular elections, their outcomes are pre-determined.
Rwanda's political system does not provide opportunity for checks and balances.
The entire machinery of government is controlled by the Head of State. The legislature, virtually all of whose members belong to the ruling party, is a rubber stamp for the executive and complies with its every demand. Further, the judiciary lacks independence. Economic, social and political power is concentrated in the hands of a small group of officials answerable only to the President, who control all institutions of the state from behind the scenes. In sum, the Rwandan Government is not accountable to the people of Rwanda.
The RPF maintains its monopoly of political power by means of repressive laws, unfair and illegal administrative practices, fear, intimidation and violence.
Administrative, law enforcement, judicial and security institutions are used to suppress the exercise of fundamental human rights of citizens who are not members of the RPF. Draconian restrictions limit the ability of civil society, including the media, to hold government accountable. The government uses the security services to persecute opponents and critics of the government. Elements of the security services regularly resort to issuing false charges, illegal detentions, politically-motivated prosecutions, imprisonment of opponents, enforced disappearances, and extra-judicial killings and other forms of violence to maintain the RPF's monopoly of power.
Rwanda's poor record of governance enhances social polarization, stemming from cleavages driven by perception of marginalization and exclusion based on class, ethnicity, region, language and origin. The government's failures result in widespread and increasing poverty, especially among the rural population, and perpetual conflict. Rwanda also suffers an endemic problem of refugees. It has grappled with armed insurgency by groups based in the Democratic Republic of Congo that the government has not been able to defeat.
President Paul Kagame justifies these draconian restrictions on the exercise of civil and political rights on the grounds that the restrictions are necessary to prevent manipulation of ethnicity and recurrence of genocide. As a result of these restrictions and violations of universal rights and liberties, Rwanda's government lacks popular legitimacy. This failure of legitimacy on the part of the government presents grave implications for peace and stability.
In spite of the traumatic experiences that Rwandans have experienced and continue to endure, they share common aspirations to live in peace, free from fear of becoming victims of power struggles among competing elites. Rwandans are eager to work to meet their own needs and to become self-sufficient. They long to live in a nation whose growth is focused on ensuring that every individual, family and community has equal access to the full range of human rights, including access to health, education, work or land for farming. Our people yearn to live in freedom, in a state that honors and respects their inherent rights to human dignity, human rights and the right to determine their own future in freedom and security.
Rwanda's recovery from the ravages of war and genocide has been remarkable, but is evidently not sustainable. Freedom, peace and economic and social development are intimately linked. Freedom is the ultimate expression of human dignity and equality. Freedom is essential for human happiness and well-being. But until today, the absence of freedom is the most critical obstacle to the achievement of our people's dreams and aspirations. As a direct result of the current government's intransigent refusal to embrace democracy and respect of our people's fundamental and inalienable rights, the threat of violent conflict and bloodshed again looms large over our motherland. Rwanda needs profound political reform to avert the risk of violent conflict that could be of the same or worse catastrophic proportions as the war and genocide of the 1990s - and to ensure peace and sustainable development. We are convinced that only profound change, rooted in popular aspiration for freedom, peace and mutual material well-being can avert the looming crisis.
We, the signatories of this Proclamation, share deeply-held convictions that the policies of the current Rwandan government may, in the long- term, lead to violent conflict and bloodshed. We are determined to work together with like minded Rwandans to avert this impending calamity and chart a new course that will ensure sustainable peace for all our people. We believe that fundamental political change is a pre-requisite for building and sustaining peace in Rwanda. We are determined to work together and bring an end to dictatorship; we will together usher in a new era of freedom, unity, democracy and the rule of law.
The present government, instead of working to address the issues that so severely threaten the very survival of the nation, adamantly refuses to acknowledge the need for political reform. We have, consequently, resolved to establish, and hereby proclaim, the establishment of the Rwanda National Congress to spearhead a national peaceful struggle to end the current dictatorship establish democracy and ensure sustainable peace for all Rwandans. We envision a new Rwanda infused with freedom, unity, peace and prosperity for all, without discrimination The Rwanda National Congress is not a political party.
It is an umbrella, broad-based organization for all Rwandans to exert pressure and advocate for democratic change through peaceful means.
We envision a new Rwanda that will be a united, democratic, and prosperous nation inhabited by free citizens with harmonious and safe communities who will live together in peace, dignity and mutual respect, regardless of class, ethnicity, language, region, origin or other differences, within a democracy governed according to universal principles of human rights and the rule of law.
The political-and societal- transformation we seek to bring about in Rwanda can only be achieved if it is rooted in values that are both relevant to our people's cultural heritage and reflect the aspirations of the majority of Rwandans at this time in history. These values, which shall be the foundation of our nation rebuilding process, include human dignity and respect for human rights, equality and non-discrimination, mutual respect, democracy and the rule of law, integrity, empathy, solidarity, patriotism, humility, forgiveness, the right and responsibility of citizens to hold leaders accountable, accountable leadership, truth, justice, fairness.
The objectives of our cause are to:
1. Stop and prevent violent conflict, including genocide and grave human rights violations that Rwanda's people have periodically suffered and that have historically extended to citizens - men, women, and children of neighboring states;
2. Eradicate a culture of impunity for human rights violations;
3. Create a conducive and progressive environment for inclusive social and economic development for all the people of Rwanda;
4. Establish, nurture and institutionalize democratic governance, particularly the rule of law in all its aspects;
5. Establish independent, non-partisan, professional civil service and security institutions;
6. Build a stable society that promotes and protects equality, embraces and celebrates diversity, and fosters inclusion in all aspects of national life;
7. Promote individual, community and national reconciliation and healing;
8. Promote harmonious relations, reconciliation and mutually- beneficial collaboration with the peoples and governments of neighboring states;
9. Resolve the chronic problem of Rwandan refugees;
10. Nurture a culture of tolerance to diverse ideas, freedom of discussion, and debate of critical issues.
We promulgate this Proclamation in the earnest hope that it will encourage all Rwandans of good will to overcome fear and mistrust, and to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of the ideals, values, principles and goals that this Proclamation embodies. We view this Declaration as a living document that will evolve over time. We believe this Proclamation must reflect the collective will of all Rwandans who, like us, envision a peaceful, democratic, and free nation for themselves and for posterity.
We, the founders of the Rwanda National Congress gathered in Bethesda, Maryland, in the United States of America, representing a wide diversity of our nation, do hereby adopt this Proclamation this 12th day of December, 2010.
1. Jerome Nayigiziki
2. Gervais Condo
3. Lt. Gen. Kayumba Nyamwasa
4. Dr. Gerald Gahima
5. Jonathan Musonera
6. Col. Patrick Karegeya
7. Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa
8. Joseph Ngarambe
9. Dr. Emmanuel Hakizimana
l0. Jean Paul Turayishimye
Related Materials:
Exiled Rwandan officers form party
Rwanda: Victoire Ingabire may save Kagame's Rwandan Patritic Front
By Godtrust
Iwacu Online
July 10, 2010
"A woman with public charisma like Ingabire, could move Rwanda beyond revange, calling publicly for forgiveness for all crimes, including the assassination of Habyarimana. But Kagame, who beleives in assassinations, missed the Ingabire's opportunity to offer peace among Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda".
They said Hutus and Tutsis are eternal enemies, they said genocide happened because Hutus and Tutsis do not like each others, they said Hutus will never vote for a Tutsi; but recent research has shown that this narrative was a political propaganda of extremists, sold to the World through International Media Corporations like CNN, Washington Post, BBC World and corrupt journalists like american Jim Clancy (CNN), Francois Soudan (Jeune Afrique) or belgian Collette Brackmann (Le Soir).
According to a recent survey conducted by American Universities and British researchers, there's a love attraction between Hutus and Tutsis.
Evidence is that the majority of Hutus killed in 1994 genocide were members of opposition parties, and many of them were killed because they were protecting Tutsis or hiding them in their houses away from the infamous Interahamwe.
In 1994, many Hutu politicians were killed because they were advocating for Tusis. Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, Hutu, was killed because she opposed the massacres of Tutsis.
Rwanda President Juvenal Habyarimana, Hutu, was killed because he took unpopular decision to give more powers to the Tutsi RPF and when Tutsi Kagame killed Habyarimana, in Macchiaveli's way, in a terrorist shooting-down, it was very easy for Kagame to sell his lie to the World, blaming it on the Far Right Wing in Habyarimana's party.
Now look at these evidences:
Hutu politician Faustin Twagiramungu spent all his life defending Tutsi RPF rights, he lost more than 50 people in his family because of his stands for justice for the exiled Tutsis, but now he is living in exile in Belgium. Hutu hero Paul Rusesabagina, a man who saved more than 1200 people during the genocide, is living in exile in Europe since 1996.
But this kind of love between Hutus and Tutsis is also true among ordinary people.
Recently, I met a young woman, Hutu, in France and I experimented how she spent all her money to help her friend, Tutsi woman, who was in dangerous situation in Rwanda: she provided everything, including money, voyage ticket and assistance to help her to leave Rwanda for France, with 2 children, and when I met the two in Paris last month I couldn't even know who's who (hutu or tutsi). There are so many stories like this one.
But the case of Nyamwasa helps to undersatand more about Hutus and Tutsis love attraction. Nyamwasa was 2nd only to Kagame during the genocide.
Being Tutsi General, he will be obviously responsible of the massacres of 2 milions of Hutus killed in Byumba and Kibungo provinces by Tutsi RPF soldiers on their way to Kigali in 1994. But Hutus who knew him, including Hutu General Emmanuel Habyarimna, think Nyamwasa is a man of all seasons. He is one of few Tutsis, like Mushayidi, who understand that State must be based on Independent Justice. In 1998, when Kagame ordered his death squads to assassinate Hutu Politician Kanyarengwe, Nyamwasa intervened and the blood bath was avoided. In 2000, when Kagame ordered the assassination of Hutu President Pasteur Bizimungu, Nyamwasa intervened and the assassination was delayed.
For many years, Nyamwasa worked hard, against all odds, to include Hutus in Rwanda Army, and in 2001, when Kagame and Museveni were about to engage the two countries in an unprecedented war, Nyamwasa intervened and the catastrophy was avided.
This year, when Nyamwasa raises voice in private debate against the use of genocide ideology laws as a political weapon to imprison innocent Hutu politicians, he was labelled as an enemy of State. Last month (June 2010), when he was shot in S. A by Kagame death squads, calls and tears of his beautifull wife attracted empathy in Hutu populations. And before his failed assassination, Nyamwasa told a BBC reporter that ?recent grenades in Kigali were meant for (hutu) Victoire Ingabire?.
So far, none else in Tutsi RPF has advocated for Hutus rights and justice. Even if Nyamwasa is a Tutsi, a recent survey shows that in case of face-off between him and Kagame, Nyamwasa could beat Kagame with 95% of Hutu votes.
But beyond that, probably Nyamwasa sees Ingabire as a Savior of Kagame RPF, in sens that a woman with public charisma like Ingabire, could move Rwanda beyond revange, calling publicly for forgiveness for all crimes, including the assassination of Habyarimana. But Kagame, who beleives in assassinations, missed the Ingabire's opportunity to offer peace among Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda.
Obama’s Congo Moment: Genocide, the U.N. Report and Senate Bill 2125
By Ann Garrison
Afrobeatradio
November 13, 2010
The official Oct. 1 release of the
U.N. Report on Human Rights Abuses in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 1993-2003, documenting the Rwandan and Ugandan armies’ massacres of Rwandan Hutu refugees and Congolese Hutus in the Democratic Republic of Congo, should be a defining moment for President Barack Obama. How will the USA’s first African American president respond to the detailed and widely publicized U.N. documentation of genocide in the heart of Africa, committed by the USA’s longstanding military proxies, the armies of Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni?
Few Americans realize that the Rwandan and Ugandan armies are armed and trained by the U.S. or that the U.S. military uses both countries as staging grounds, but they may learn about it now.
Few realize either that the sole piece of legislation that President Obama shepherded into law on his own, as a Senator, was S.B. 2125, the
Obama Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, in which, in Section 101(3), he quoted USAID:
“Given its size, population, and resources, the Congo is an important player in Africa and of long-term interest to the United States.”
Indeed. In 1982, the Congressional Budget Office’s “
Cobalt: Policy Options for a Strategic Mineral” noted that cobalt alloys are critical to the aerospace and weapons industries, that the U.S. has no cobalt worth mining, that 64 percent of the world’s cobalt reserves are in the Katanga Copper Belt running from southeastern Congo into northern Zambia and that control of the region is therefore critical to the U.S. ability to manufacture for war.
Foreign powers and corporations’ determination to control Congo’s cobalt and the rest of its dense mineral resources has made the Congo conflict the most lethal since World War II.
Section 101(5) and (6) of Obama’s 2006 Congo legislation reads:
“(5) The most recent war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which erupted in 1998, spawned some of the world’s worst human rights atrocities and drew in six neighboring countries.
“(6) Despite the conclusion of a peace agreement and subsequent withdrawal of foreign forces in 2003, both the real and perceived presence of armed groups hostile to the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi continue to serve as a major source of regional instability and an apparent pretext for continued interference in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by its neighbors [Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi].”
What Obama identified as the “real and perceived presence of armed groups hostile to the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi” was, most of all, the real and perceived presence of “Hutu militias.” They were indeed the “pretext” for the predominantly Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Army’s massacres of Hutu civilians, Rwandan Hutu refugees and Congolese Hutus, with the help of the Ugandan People’s Defence Force – massacres now documented in the
U.N. report leaked to Le Monde on Aug. 26, then officially released Oct. 1.
Since Obama described the militias as “apparent pretext for continued interference” in 2006, we can assume that he understood them as such on his Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009, when Rwandan troops again moved into Congo. On that day, world headlines, alongside those he himself was making, included “
Rwandan Troops enter D.R. Congo to hunt Hutu militias” (Telegraph), “
Rwandan troops enter Congo to hunt Hutu rebels” (BBC) and “
Rwandan troops enter Kivu to hunt Hutu rebels” (Radio France International).
On the same day, the Christian Science Monitor, in “
Rwandan Troops enter Democratic Republic of the Congo,” reproduced the pretext that Obama had identified in S.B. 2125:
“Rwandan troops entered the Democratic Republic of Congo on Tuesday to tackle a Rwandan Hutu militia whose leaders are accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide before fleeing to Congo.”
Since Obama understood the pretext in 2006, he no doubt understood it that day and no doubt understands it today, as Rwandan and Ugandan troops are rumored, once again, to be moving into Congo, despite international outcry about the U.N. report.
Hutu militias and other “rebel militias” in Congo can no longer serve as the devil, the eternal excuse or, as Obama said, the “apparent pretext for intervention in the Democratic Republic by Congo’s neighbors.” Most of all, they can no longer serve as the devil, the excuse and pretext for interventions by Paul Kagame, the general turned president and so long heroized as Rwanda’s savior, because Kagame’s own army’s massacres of Rwandan and Congolese Hutu civilians has now been documented in the U.N. report.
The leak and now the official release have finally magnified President, then-Senator, Obama’s obscure, still little known revision of the East-Central African story in his 2006 legislation, S.B. 2125, which then became Public Law 109-456.
Obama’s ‘Rwanda moment’?
John Prendergast and David Eggers, the ENOUGH Project’s tireless advocates for U.S. intervention in Sudan,
suggested, in a New York Times op-ed that Obama’s “Rwanda moment,” like Bill Clinton’s in 1994, is now in Sudan, where, they say, Obama has a chance to do what Bill Clinton reputedly failed to do in Rwanda, intervene to stop genocide.
But Obama’s Rwanda, and Congo, moment is in Rwanda and Congo now, as the world reviews the U.N. report and Rwandan troops once again advance into Congo.
He doesn’t need to intervene but to stop intervening, by withdrawing the military support, weapons, training, logistics and intelligence for Kagame, support that has so long equaled intervention. If he did so, peace and human rights activists all over the world would stand behind him and the narrative revision that he quietly penned three years ago.
An Obama decision to stop supporting Kagame would go up against the last 30 years of Pentagon intervention in the Great Lakes Region of Africa, but the U.N. Report turns his 2006 narrative revision into an outright reversal – with the weight of the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights and growing international opinion behind it.
And Obama is the commander-in-chief, with absolute executive authority over the U.S. armed forces. Yes, he can, should he choose to.
Note:
This article was previously published in Global Research. San Francisco writer
Ann Garrison writes for the
San Francisco Bay View
,
Digital Journal,
Examiner.com,
OpEdNews,
Global Research,
Colored Opinions and her blog,
Plutocracy Now. She can be reached at
anniegarrison@gmail.com.
Open letter to the United Nations Security Council with regard to most recent Expert Report on the Democratic Republic of Congo
By Col. Patrick Karegeya
The Africa Global Village
December 7, 2010
The President
United Nations Security Council
New York,
NY
Your Excellency,
Re: United Nations Security Council Expert Report on the Democratic Republic of Congo
I write this letter on my own behalf and on behalf of Lt General Kayumba Nyamwasa.
In its 6th December 2010 edition, 'The New Times', a Rwanda daily newspaper owned and run by the National Security Service (the intelligence service of the Government of Rwanda) published an article entitled, UN Report Pins Kayumba, Karegeya on FDLR. The newspaper article alleges inter alia, that "independent sources" had linked me and Gen. Nyamwasa to the Rwandan armed group known as the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (the FDLR); that General Nyamwasa has facilitated contacts between the Forces Patriotique pour la Liberation du Congo (the FPLC) and the Federal Republican Forces (the FRF) rebel groups; that "credible testimony" has suggested that former officers of the Congress National pour la Defense du Peuple (the CNDP) have been in contact with us; that the UN Group of Experts on the DRC had "directly witnessed" a conversation between me and the former officers o f the CNDP; that Gen. Nyamwasa may have sent an emissary to meet FDRL, FPLC and Mai Mai Leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo in February 2010; that both of us are believed to be the masterminds of grenade attacks that took place in Kigali, Rwanda, in early 2010 and that we have been charged with forming a terrorist group, fomenting ethnic divisionism, threatening national security, undermining state authority, and spreading harmful propaganda.
We have also had the opportunity to read the United Nations Security Council Experts' Report on the Democratic Republic of Congo (the Experts' Report on the DRC) and note with both surprise and regret that the report states that 'Several independent sources, including one in Kampala and one within FPLC, informed the Group that FRF had agreed to join the FPLC coalition all alleging, without providing further details that those contacts may have been facilitated by Kayumba Nyamwasa, the dissident former Rwandan general' (para. 73). The Experts' Report on the DRC further states: “In addition, according to credible testimony from various sources former CNDP officers have been in contact with Rwandan political dissidents in South Africa, including Col. Karegeya, the former head of Rwandan intelligence, and Lieutenant General Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, who survived an assassination attempt in June 2010 in Johannesburg. The Group directly witnessed a conversation between Karegeya and former CNDP FARDC officers in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in September. According to United Nations sources and combatant s interviewed by the Group, Kayumba may have sent an emissary to meet with FDLR, FPLC and Mai Mai leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo in February’ (para. 164).
While we have no reason to question the good faith of the authors of the Experts ' Report on the DRC, we would wish to put it on record that the extensive allegations contained in the Rwanda Government newspaper article referred to in the foregoing paragraph and the more limited allegations set out in the Experts' Report on the DRC are all absolutely false and unfounded. As we have done before, we would like to reiterate that we do not seek to destabilize Rwanda or any of her neighbors. We advocate for democratization in Rwanda through peaceful political change.
Together with our colleagues, Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa and Dr.Gerald Gahima, we articulated (in our idely circulated paper,'Rwanda Briefing ') our political views on the situation in Rwanda and our thinking on a way out of the political impasse that Rwandan society find itself, proposing political reforms in Rwanda as a peaceful alternative to the current dictatorship that can only lead to more conflict and bloodshed. Our political stand on Rwanda’s grave state of affairs remains the same. We are not in any way whatsoever linked to the FDLR, or indeed any other rebel organization operating on the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo (the DRC) or elsewhere . We have not had and we do not maintain any contact or relationship of any kind with the groups in question. We have not been involved in thecriminal activities (including the grenades attacks in Kigali) that the Government of Rwanda falsely attributes to us through its media propaganda or politically motivated criminal cases that have been instituted against us in the military justice system of Rwanda. It is ironical that President Kagame, who has a long track record of working with elements from the highest echelons of the leadership of FDLR when it suits his ambitions to acquire and keep power at any cost, should seek to de-legitimize other political leaders with false allegations of contacts with the same organization. President Kagame's uncompromising intransigence on political reform and respect of fundamental liberties destabilizes Rwanda more than any other factor.
Paradoxically, it is President Kagame himself whose policies and actions perpetually destabilize the Great Lakes region . The United Nations Security Council Experts should have taken cognizant of the historical perspectives of Rwanda' s involvement in the DRC conflict since 1996. President Kagame bears very heavy personal responsibility for the human suffering and physical destruction that conflict has caused in the DRC.
President Kagame has twice ordered invasion of the DRC, against the advice of many of his colleagues, and in violations of Rwanda' s laws (that require parliamentary approval of declaration of war) as well as international law. The policy of the Government of Rwanda on the DRC (dictated by President Kagame , as Rwanda lacks a system of government with appropriate checks and balances) is to keep the DRC perpetually weak and vulnerable to his manipulation, blackmail and exploitation. President Kagame has historically sought to weaken and destabilize Congo by forming, training, arming and militarily intervening in support of rebel groups used to wage aggressive war against the legitimate governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo. President Kagame has personally been responsible for the establishment of several of the rebel groups that have been involved in the conflict in the DRC, including some whose activities are discussed in the instant report.
President Kagame was responsible for the creation of the Alliance des Forces Democratiqes pour la Liberation du Congo-Zaire (the AFDL) under late President Desire Laurent Kabila. While the Government of Rwanda was involved in AFDL's formation and operations from the beginning to the end, it repeatedly denied its involvement in the first (1996 - I 997) DRC war. However, then Rwandan Vice-president and Defense Minister Paul Kagame subsequently granted an interview to the Washington Post on 9 July 1997, in which he not only admitted the role that his troops had played a key role in the ADFL campaign, but proudly claimed credit for removing President Mobutu from power. By Kagame’s own admission, Rwanda's campaign strategy during the first Congo war comprised three elements, namely: to destroy the refugee camps, to destroy ex-FAR and Interahamwe structures based in and around the camps and to overthrow the Mobutu regime. The Government of Rwanda had planned the AFDL rebellion in advance, recruiting Congolese combatants, providing the recruits with training in facilities in Rwanda, supplying the Congolese rebels with arms and munitions. According to Kagame, operations - in particular key operations - were directed by Rwandan mid- level commanders. Contrary to his denials and deceptions, Kagame in fact personally managed the campaign. President Kagame is a micro-manager who is always intervening at all levels in the chain of command, and was directly involved in key operational decisions of the AFOL rebellion.
In 1998, President Laurent Kabila fell out with Paul Kagame (largely due to Kagame's arrogant, over-bearing and irrational behavior) and President Laurent Kabila expelled Rwandan forces from the DRC. President Kagame retaliated by forming another rebel group, the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (the RCD) that he used to try and overthrow President Kabila's government. President Kagame again at first denied the presence of Rwanda's troops in the DRC. When the RCD negotiated a political settlement with the DRC overnment, President Kagame retained part of the RCD and formed the CNDP to continue destabilizing and controlling Eastern DRC. After President Paul Kagame fell out with General Laurent Nkunda (the leader of the CNDP) in 2009, Kagame replaced General Nkunda with General Bosco Ntaganda. We have no doubt that even today, the Government of Rwanda is talking to splinter groups of CNDP namely, the FPLC and the FRF, as indicated in the Experts' report on the DRC.
President Kagame's claim to being a stabilizing influence in the Great Lakes region is ridiculous. The President is in fact the single greatest source of instability, violence and bloodshed in both Rwanda and the DRC. For the last fourteen years, President Kagame has visited mayhem on communities across the DRC. Given this historical perspective,and the chronology of President Kagame’s reckless and ruthless strategy to keep DRC’s Kivu region as a de facto extension of Rwanda through proxy forces it should be obvious to Rwanda's neighbors and he wider international community that it is President Kagame, not his opponents like ourselves, who have the motives (weakening the DRC state and getting access to its resources), opportunity (proximity to the DRC) and the means (the final resources of both the Government of Rwanda and the RPF) to form and sustain groups that are detrimental to peace, stability and development in the DRC. In public, President Kagame adopts the language of friendliness towards the DRC and other neighboring countries. In private and through his actions, President is an unrepentant belligerent who seeks to weaken and destabilize other fragile neighboring states struggling to emerge out of conflict.
President Kagames military commanders and security operatives (and not ourselves) are responsible for the formation and sustenance of the rebel groups that the Rwanda Government accuses us of fraternizing with. I was in prison in 2005 when the CNDP was established . I spent almost three years in illegal detention in solitary confinement and under house arrest before escaping from Rwanda. Gen. Nyamwasa was serving as Rwanda' s Ambassador to India until March 2010. Neither of us have had any motive or opportunity to have any relations with the rebel groups in question.
The allegation that Kayumba may have sent an emissary to meet with FDLR, FPLC and Mai Mai leaders in the Democratic Republic of Congo in February' is totally unfounded. Gen. Nyamwasa did not, prior to the publication of the Experts Report on the DRC, have any knowledge of the existence of the FPLC and FPLC rebel groups. Consequently it could not have been possible for him to facilitate the contacts between the two groups. I escaped from Rwanda in 2007. The groups that the report discusses were formed when I was no longer in government service and I cannot possibly know any of the individuals who are part of these groups.
Gen. Nyamwasa did not send an emissary to FDLR and Mai Mai as alleged in the report as he does not agree with the two groups ideologically. Since 1998, Gen. Nyamwasa was always concerned about the political, social and strategic implications of the formation of anti-government Congolese rebel groups.
He unsuccessfully opposed the formation of such groups during the time that we both worked for the Government of Rwanda. Disagreements over Rwanda's nurturing and patronage of such groups partly accounts for the political differences that eventually arose between General Nyamwasa and President Kagame. General Nyamwasa was still serving as Rwanda's Ambassador to India in February 2010.
He did not have any prior plans to visit Rwanda in February 2010. Gen Nyamwasa's unplanned visit to Rwanda in February 2010 was only compelled by the death of one of his parents. It is very distressing that this sad episode is being cynically used by the Government of Rwanda to frame and victimize him . We are inclined to believe that the authors of the report met Rwandan intelligence operatives in Uganda, where many of these operatives are deployed to hunt down and kill President Kagame's opponents throughout the region.
We are completely mystified by the significance that the Experts Report on the DRC attaches to a conversation that is alleged to have taken place between me and former officers of the CNDP who have been integrated into the DRC National Army (the FARDC) that the Group of Experts is reported to have witnessed. The report does not indicate how the committee verified that the person that the alleged CNDP officers claimed to speak to was actually me. Neither does the report indicate how the content of the conversation constituted a crime or conspiracy against either of the two states. I do not recall ever having the conversation referred to in the Experts' Report on the DRC. I definitely did not initiate any calls to any known member of the CNDP either have I had any discussions with real or presumed members of the CNDP (or indeed any other person) regarding a conspiracy to destabilize Rwanda or the DRC. It is unfair for the committee to assume, without verification, that the person that the alleged CNPD officers claimed to talk to was indeed me. Our suspicion is that the UN Security Council experts on the DRC must have been duped by Rwandan intelligence operative s who remain embedded in FARDC, of whom there is to our knowledge a very large number. The truth about the alleged conversation could not be established without giving me an opportunityto explain its circumstances . Unfortunately, the team of experts did not provide me with an opportunity to rebut the erroneous impression that the agents who must have duped them created.
The Government of Rwanda keeps a tight grip on the population of Eastern Congo through the former CNDP fighters, at the behest of the Government of Rwanda, during the peace agreement between the CNDP and the government of the Democratic of Congo, it was agreed that unlike all other government forces, CNDP fighters would never be transferred from Eastern Congo. It is most probable that the United Nations Security Council experts interviewed stage-managed witnesses or proxies of the Government of Rwanda. We believe that the so-called 'independent sources' that are alleged to have linked us to the rebel groups in the DRC are likely to be compromised elements of the CNDP, which was created, and is maintained and still remains under the influence of the Government of Rwanda.
The claim that we were the masterminds behind the grenade attacks that exploded in Kigali early this year is absurd. The Government of Rwanda has time and again conveniently changed the narrative about the grenade attacks, depending on whom the Government seeks to victimize at a particular time. Initially, Rwanda's Minister of Security reported that the grenade attacks were the work of the FDLR. Responsibility for the attacks was later shifted to opposition leader Mme. Victoire lngabire, who has now been incarcerated on trumped-up charges. When Gen. Nyamwasa escaped from Rwanda on account of a planned attempt on his life at end of February, the grenade attacks wereblamed on him. The same grenade attacks were said to have been perpetuated by another imprisoned opposition leader, Deo Mushayidi. The government's continuing allegations that we are responsible for the grenade attacks are driven by the vindictive nature of President Paul Kagame, who, having failed in the course of several attempts to assassinate Gen. Nyamwasa and me in South Africa, ordered the arrest and incarceration of Gen.Nyarnwasa's brother. Lt Co l. Rugigana, forced many of his family members to exile, and ordered the murder of John Rutayisire, a relative of mine.
In the aftermath of the publication of the DRC Mapping Report by the United Nations Commission for
Human Rights, President Kagame is desperately searching for anything on the horizon to deflect attention from his crimes by creating `scapegoats for the`suffering and mayhem that he has visited on millions of Rwandans and citizens of the DRC. The allegations that the government of Rwanda is leveling against us (as well as other Rwandans who are demanding an end to dictatorship) are also intended to deflect the attention of the people of Rwanda and the international community from Rwanda's internal crisis, to disguise President Kagame's continuing role in destabilizing neighboring states and to salvage his tarnished image in the aftermath of the publication of the DRC Mapping Report. These types of allegations are characteristic of a regime engulfed by crisis. Trumped-up charges of corruption, terrorism, connections with the FDLR, divisionism, genocide ideology, and even moral impurity are some of the tools that President Kagame always uses against real or perceived opponents. We challenge the Government of Rwanda to release the dossiers in respect of the criminal cases that have been filed against us (and our colleagues, Dr. Rudasingwa and Dr. Gahima) to the public so that the people of Rwanda and the international community can see for themselves how the sham criminal cases that are being prosecuted against us are nothing but a blatant abuse of the judicial system for purposes of persecution of political opponents.
As we have indicated in our paper (Rwanda Briefing) and other declarations, Rwanda is in serious crisis. Peace and stability in several of the neighboring states remains tenuous. By virtue of his unapologetic attempt to destabilize sister states through the use of proxy rebel groups, President Kagame is one of the major (if not the principal) stumbling block to peace and stability in this fragile region . The conflicts waged by the various armed groups that the Government of Rwanda has formed, supported and used to destabilize states in the region have caused immense horrendous suffering. President Kagame bears personal responsibility for the gross human rights violations that are a result of the wars that he has waged and continues to foment in the DRC. We firmly believe that time is long overdue for the international community to hold President Kagame accountable for the crimes that he has committed, and continues to commit, directly or through proxy rebel groups to the peoples of the region. We, on our part, reiterate our commitment to seeking a peaceful transition to democracy in Rwanda and our support for peace and stability in the Great Lakes region, especially in the DRC. We affirm our desire to meet the team of experts on the DRC both to clear the aspersions that have been made againstus.
Accept, your Excellency, the assurances of our highest consideration.
Col. Patrick Karegeya
Cc:
Members of the Security Council
The Secretary General, United Nations
Members of the UN Security Council Committee of Experts on the Democratic
Related Materials:
Africa: It's Time South Africa Ceased to Bury Its Head in the Sand
Final report of the UN Group of Experts on the DRC, published on 29 November 2010
WikiLeaks cables: Bernard Kouchner wanted Bruguiere indictments annulled
By RNA Reporters
December 10, 2010
Kigali: Former French top diplomat Bernard Kouchner unsuccessfully tried to have the annulation of the contested indictments of Judge Jean Louis Bruguiere, but when he failed, he went for another very controversial method, new details show.
From the time he entered office as French Foreign Affairs Minister in May 2007, Kouchner, a close personal friend to President Kagame, sought to have the 2006 indictments abandoned for the sake of Rwanda-France relations. Bruguiere had indicted nine military officers over the alleged shooting of ex-president Habyarimana’s plane on April 06, 1994.
However, when he seemed to have failed, Kouchner and his staff – and probably with knowledge from the highest French establishment, chose to plead with Rwanda officials to allow one of the nine inductees to deliberately hand themselves to the French courts.
According to a cable released by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, the US embassy in Paris reported back to Washington on October 01, 2009 that French officials proposed to Rwanda that one of the nine inductees offer to be subjected to a French trial such that the whole dossier could be made public.
When state protocol Rose Kabuye was arrested in Germany on November 09 and subsequently extradited to Paris, French newspaper Le Monde reported this same information, but both Kigali and Paris denied any such move.
The leaked cable lays bare the entire behind-the-scenes maneuvers. In discussions in the weeks which followed, Charlotte Montel, a senior advisor to Kouchner, confirmed to Andrew Young, Political Counselor at the US embassy in Paris of the existence of the plan.
“Montel conceded that several (Government of France] officials had quietly suggested to the Rwandans that one of the nine agree to be arrested, which would allow the Rwandans to see what kind of case the French had against the nine,” wrote Young, in the cable sent October 01, 2009.
According to the cable, Montel told the Americans that Rose Kabuye or any other of the nine, who accepted to go through the charges, would be “a test case”.
The French aide to Bernard Kouchner also confirmed moves from the Foreign Ministry to have the Bruguiere indictments annulled by the new investigating judge on the case such that he would restart the probe afresh. French judge Marc Trévidic took over the dossier with the retirement of Bruguiere.
“Montel did mention that the current investigative judge could, on his own motion, annul Bruguiere's warrants and carry out the investigation in another manner, which might perhaps be the best course in terms of improving relations,” wrote Young, to his bosses in Washington.
“However, given the vaunted independence of the French judiciary, we are not confident that the judge will choose that course of action.”
This US embassy cable also gives insights as what the new President Nicholas Sarkozy government was thinking about the indictments. When the indictments were issued, Rwanda reacted with fury, severing relations completely with Paris. Rwanda argued that the indicted individuals had not been given chance to explain themselves, and that Bruguiere was supposed to have come to Rwanda before.
But according to this cable, French officials explained to the US government that the indictments were a preliminary level of the whole process. That Bruguiere would have eventually come to Rwanda to complete the dossier.
“Montel explained that the warrants Bruguiere had issued were in effect arrest warrants that would allow the investigating judge to question the nine Rwandans pursuant to the judge's inquiry into the 1994 events,” reads the cable.
“The warrants were not indictments but more in the nature of subpoenas for detailed depositions. One reason Rwanda reacted so strongly to the warrants was the fact that the French investigating judge, if he had wanted, could have gone to Rwanda and asked to interview the nine, rather than making them the objects of international arrest warrants.”
Related Materials:
Major Rwandan Genocide Criminal Arrested. Kagame Gets an Early X-mas Gift!
EurAc calls for a constructive but critical dialogue with President Kagame during the European Development Days
By EURAC
December 6, 2010
BRUSSELS, Kingdom of Belgium, December 6, 2010/African Press Organization (APO)/ — The European network for Central Africa takes note of the fact that the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, has been invited to the European Development Days in Brussels.
Rwanda has achieved remarkable progress in terms of economy, infrastructure, good administrative governance, and social sectors such as health care. However, we observe that this economic performance does not necessarily lead to a decline in inequality in the country.
The months prior to the presidential elections of 9 August 2010 have demonstrated that this same lack of inclusion is also present in the political sphere. To us, the verbal, physical and political intimidation of opposition leaders resulting in their neutralization, and the increase in insecurity and acts of violence around the elections are indications of a real democratic deficit in Rwanda, which continues to exist after the electoral period.
EurAc is convinced that it is important to support the Rwandan society in its reconciliation and democratization process. This partnership requires an explicit political dialogue between the European Union and the Rwandan government (as stipulated in the Cotonou Agreement). This dialogue should be based on a balance between the willingness to genuinely contribute to the development of the country (with funding and expertise) and a sustained pressure in favor of a more inclusive democracy, a more independent civil society, and respect of human rights.
We consider dialogue to be essential towards attaining stability and sustainable development, not only in Rwanda but in the wider region of Central Africa.
We encourage the European Union and its Member States to work with Rwanda, in close cooperation with the country’s other international partners, to ensure that democratic space and political development remain at the center of these bilateral and multilateral discussions. It is our belief that sustainable development, in Rwanda and elsewhere, needs more participation of an involved population and a civil society which is constructive, critical, and above all, autonomous. We recommend the European Union and its Member States to invest in their development.
Related Materials:
EurAc calls for European observers for the presidential elections in Rwanda
Belgium: Alert to European Citizens During Kagame's Presence in Brussels
Belgium: General Kagame's Show in Brussels Clouds EU's Image
HRRF: Open letter to President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yves Leterne
Belgium: The 5th EDD edition as a golden opportunity for Rwanda's peace
President Kagame Fails to Sell His Development Style to Europeans
Victoire Ingabire Wins First Political Battle: Dutch Block Budget support
Manifestation de Bruxelles contre Paul Kagame {06/12/2010} Part 1
Illustration pictures showing a demonstration of the Rwandan community, against the visit of Paul Kagame to Brussels, Belgium, on Monday December 6, 2010
Is the ICC chief prosecutor Africa’s only hope for justice?
By Mwaura Samora
Daily Nation
December 7 2010
Photo:
Anti-impunity czar, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, ICC chief prosecutor, directed an investigation against Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngudjolo Chui, who received arrest warrants in 2007 and 2008 respectively for crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He has been a constant thorn in the flesh for the masterminds of the 2007 post-election violence in Kenya, and his bombshell last week that he plans to release the names of the suspected planners and financiers of the mayhem is the best proof yet that he means business.
In Summary
• Luis Moreno-Ocampo’s forays into the darkest corners of Africa have attracted the fury of the continent’s despots, but his integrity train rolls on
The announcement last week by International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo that he intends to make public the names of the suspected masterminds of the 2007 post-election violence has sent the country into a spin.
Scenes of chest-thumping bravado and accusations across the political divide, triggered by the rather unpalatable prospect of losing political kingpins to The Hague, are now the order of the day. But Mr Moreno-Ocampo insists that there is no turning back, and that no amount of political gimmickry will derail his mega-tonne justice train.
To those unlucky or unruly enough to be in his gun sights, the Argentine is a constant source of dread and sleepless nights. But for the masses affected by the post-electoral turmoil, Mr Moreno-Ocampo is a saviour, a man in whose hands they believe they can safely keep their hopes for justice.
Attempt to condemn
Little wonder, then, that there has been a spirited attempt by many suspected villains across the continent to condemn and label the ICC and its erstwhile prosecutor as enemies of Africa’s style of governance and justice.
During the ICC Review Conference held in Kampala in June this year, accusations against the court by various delegations raised eyebrows around the world, with some even calling its processes “anti-Africa”. Rwanda President Paul Kagame, one of the strongest opponents of the court, once termed the ICC a “vehicle of neo-colonialism, slavery, and imperialism”.
Weak judicial systems
The 2006 dismissal of potential cases against US actions in Iraq and the apparent inaction by the ICC on situations in other hotspots outside Africa have also been cited by those accusing the court of applying selective justice. International law experts, however, cite weaknesses in Africa’s legal systems as the major cause of the big number of situations being referred to the ICC.
Which is why many in civil society lobby groups, the media, and a large section of the general public have welcomed the growing number of referrals to The Hague as a sign of the continent’s commitment to international criminal justice and a desire to weed out the strangling culture of impunity.
Established in 2002 through the Rome Statute as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the ICC is the last resort for many, even though its authority ranks below that of national courts. This means proceedings are initiated through referrals by a state party, the prosecutor, or the UN Security Council.
As of March 2010, 30 African countries had acceded to the Rome Statute, although only a handful had amended their domestic laws to accommodate its provisions.
A strong pointer to the weaknesses of Africa’s judicial systems — or its love for the machete — is that most of the situations the court has been investigating since its inception concern conflicts in northern Uganda, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, and the Central African Republic. Of the ICC’s 15 warrants of arrest issued, 11 are for individuals from Africa.
Suspects in custody at The Hague are former DR Congo warlords Thomas Lubanga, Germaine Katanga, Mathew Chui, and Jean-Pierre Bemba, and former Liberian strongman Charles Taylor. Other wanted suspects still at large include Sudan leader Omar al-Bashir and his humanitarian affairs minister Ahmad Harun, Janjaweed militia commander Muhammad Rahman, the Lord’s Resistance Army’s (LRA) Joseph Kony, and four of his senior deputies.
The perceived failure by the court to investigate corporate entities accused of fuelling conflict in Africa is one of the issues that many opponents of the court have cited in their allegations of selective justice.
A UN report released in October 2002 accused 85 companies of supplying arms to the Ugandan and Rwandan armies and 25 militia groups in DR Congo. Although the ICC was quick to issue warrants of arrest against Congolese and LRA warlords, critics say it has done or said nothing against these firms, most of them still operating in the Great Lakes region.
“If those indicted have committed any crime, surely they must face the consequences of their actions,” says Lord Aikins Adusei, a West African political commentator.“But it will also be an incomplete justice if those supplying the weapons and bankrolling the conflicts are allowed to go unpunished.”
There are also claims that the fact that major world powers are not bound by the Rome Statute considerably dents the authority of the ICC to act as an impartial centre for justice.
The US, China, and Russia, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, are not signatories, which makes the court toothless in situations where the three are involved. This is evident in the lacklustre approach to situations in the Middle East and Asia, where each member of the council has vested interests.
Hague Invasion Act
To protect its soldiers against any future action by the court, the US Congress passed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA) in 2002. Dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act” by opponents, the legislation not only prohibits any form of military aid to countries that have ratified the statute (exceptions granted), but also empowers the US president to use military force to free American soldiers held by the ICC.
To further advance what human rights activists have termed a “two-tier system of international justice”, the world’s biggest democracy has been coercing nations to sign the controversial Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs), which bar signatories from surrendering American nationals who have committed major crimes to The Hague.
Although President Obama has removed the sanctions to the BIAs, his administration is yet to formalise a policy decision on either the ICC or the bilateral agreements.
The few African nations — like Kenya and Malawi — that refused to sign the repressive BIAs were penalised by drastic cuts or withdrawal of military funding. Reports indicate that around 100 countries, mostly economically vulnerable Third World nations, are party to these agreements.
But, apart from lifting the BIA sanctions, the current American administration has softened the country’s stance on the ICC by sending delegations to the court’s annual meeting of the Assembly of States Parties in The Hague in 2009 and the Review Conference in Kampala earlier this year. And, on both occasions, US representatives expressed their country’s desire to cooperate with the court.
“After 12 years, I think we have reset the default on the US relationship with the court from hostility to positive engagement,” said State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh of the future of US-ICC relations in light of the Kampala Review Conference. “In this case, principled engagement worked to protect our interest, to improve the outcome, and to bring us renewed international goodwill.”
In a move that might significantly shift the paradigms of international justice, member states at the ICC Review Conference in Kampala agreed to add the crime of aggression to the list of the court’s prosecutable offences. Expected to come into force in 2017, the amendment will give the prosecutor or a state party the authority to initiate an aggression case where the UN Security Council fails to take action.
Probably piqued by politicians’ claims that The Hague’s actions may destabilise regions, Mr Moreno-Ocampo has, on numerous occasions, emphasised that his investigations follow legal rather than political possibilities. And he repeated this assurance during the National Dialogue and Reconciliation Conference in Nairobi last week, saying he was not interest in the cause of the Kenyan violence, but the alleged perpetrators.
This tricky balancing act, made worse by wily politicians and their supporters, points to the winding path through which Mr Moreno-Ocampo and his team must manoeuvre to rid their court of any iota of susceptibility to politicisation.
In Kampala last June, for example, the sharply divided Kenyan delegation clearly manifested the ODM-PNU coalition rifts in plenary sessions, where they differed on almost every issue despite being presumed to represent the collective position of the nation over the ICC.
Investigate Museveni
During the same gathering, a Ugandan opposition leader called on the ICC to investigate the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. While presenting his evidence to the prosecutor, Mr Olara Otunnu, head of Uganda Peoples Congress Party, said President Museveni should be investigated for crimes committed in Kampala, northern Uganda, and the DR Congo.
This came even as the Lord’s Resistance Army leader Kony refused to negotiate any peace deal until the warrants against him and four of his top aides are dropped. But the LRA might be headed for the gallows if a recent plan by President Obama to disarm the group materialises.
However, for many, it was the ICC’s warrant of arrest against Sudan President Omar al-Bashir a year ago that proved it had the guts to go after the “big fish”. Charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Darfur, al-Bashir made history by becoming the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the ICC.
But the African Union reacted swiftly by convening a gathering in Libya, where members voted against the directive, with Senegal calling on all African countries to withdraw their ICC membership en masse as a sign of protest. The request was not granted, and, instead, several African countries have since declared their will to implement the arrest warrant.
Although the Sudan leader has dismissed the indictment as the antics of a “white man’s court” designed to destabilise Africa, the dragnet is rapidly closing in on him. And, although countries like Kenya and Libya have allowed the wanted head of state within their borders, he has already been excluded from the Olympics in Beijing, the World Cup in South Africa, and the African Union heads of states summit in Kampala.
Before making the bold move against the Sudanese supremo, Mr Moreno-Ocampo had been criticised by human rights groups for his cautious approach to states like Rwanda and Uganda.
Friendly countries
But after the move, Mr Antonio Cassese, a former president of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia who chaired the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, criticised Mr Moreno-Ocampo for charging al-Bashir with genocide and issuing a public warrant of arrest. This, Mr Cassese argued, made it easy for the Sudanese leader to avoid arrest by travelling only to friendly countries.
“If Moreno-Ocampo intended to pursue the goal of having al-Bashir arrested, he might have issued a sealed request and asked the ICC’s judges to issue a sealed arrest warrant, to be made public only once al-Bashir travelled abroad,” Mr Cassese wrote in an article published by SudaneseOnline.com in July 2005.
But, to many, that does not matter. What matters is that the wheels of justice have begun to turn, no matter how slowly. And no one could sum that hope better than the prosecutor general of Rwanda, Mr Martin Ngogo.
"There is not a single case at the ICC that does not deserve to be there. But there are many cases that belong there, that aren’t there."
Note:
Contact Mwaura Samora at "
msamora@ke.nationmedia.com".
Europe divided over cutting aid to Rwanda
By RNA Reporters
December 8, 2010
Kigali: Debate is raging in European capitals as to whether continuing to give millions of Euros in annual aid to Rwanda helps or undermines European democratic values. As RNA and Dutch public radio RNW report, Britain and the Scandinavian countries do not agree on the way forward. The other EU members have preferred to keep quiet.
President Kagame is back to Kigali from attending the European Development Days which was largely overshadowed by protests in Brussels where the events were held since Saturday.
Reports say Belgian police on Monday battled demonstrators kicking against the presence of President Kagame at the fifth European Development Days (EDD) programme. Demonstrators reportedly carried placards denouncing President Kagame, supported by vocal European campaign groups.
Belgium is holding the EU presidency, but on Monday, President Kagame skipped several meetings with Belgian government and European officials. The President did also not deliver the keynote address at the conference – leaving Foreign Affairs Minister Louise Mushikiwabo to do the job.
The official visit also came as European governments grappled with what to do with the aid they have been giving Rwanda. Sweden and the Netherlands are yet to decide to resume budget support.
The general message coming out of Brussels has been that the block is proud of the progress Rwanda has made since the 1994 Genocide against Tutsis. During the European Development Days in a heavily secured congress centre, Mushikiwabo, spoke of the equality of men and women in her country.
Buying influence
Away from the conference rooms and the behind-the-scenes maneuvers, European lawmakers – who ultimately decide whether the European Commission aid package continues, were wondering what has to be done next.
“In Brussels the idea exists that we wield influence if we support Rwanda”, said Dutch MP of the European Parliament, Hans van Baalen, in interviews with RNW. “Even now, after the recent accusations stated in a UN report.”
The Dutch lawmaker was referring to the contested UN report released October 01 – alleging Rwandan troops committed Genocide in DR Congo against Rwandan civilians.
Mr Van Baalen thinks this conviction will be proven false. The Dutch government is said to feel the same about it. The Netherlands won’t send direct financial aid to Rwanda in 2011, as different political parties battle out on the best way forward.
“The government doesn’t want to donate money to a country in which human rights are being violated and where there is a lack of democracy,” said Mr Van Baalen.
Publicly when they have come to Rwanda, Dutch officials have kept the tempers down. But behind closed doors, they have repeatedly pressed President Kagame on jailed opposition politician Ingabire Victoire, who lived in the Scandinavian country for more than a decade.
Even as Sweden and the Netherlands stand firm to their decisions, a British member of the European parliament, Michael Cashman, thinks they are wrong.
“Where is the evidence? We’ll have to be careful with accusing Rwanda”, he told RWN.
Netherlands stands alone
“The word ‘genocide’ is being used far to easily in Eastern Congo. Rwanda has known a genocide and wants to prevent that it will happen ever again,” added Cashman, who actually also headed the EU election observer mission during the September 2008 parliamentary polls.
Therefore Brussels should keep on supporting Rwanda, is the opinion of most politicians in the European capital.
Mr Van Ballen admits that the Netherlands stands alone in its opinion: “The Netherlands has taken a clear stance. But it is hard to find support in Brussels. I’m going to talk about the issue with the commission of Foreign Affairs and European parliament.”
To Radio Netherlands Minister Mushikwabo says: “We respect the decision of the Netherlands to stop direct aid for Rwanda. But our relationship with the European Union remains very friendly.”
For, however, the politics behind EU relationship with Rwanda is being driven Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium, as the other heavyweights Germany and France stay in the cold. The latter two are just recovering from a frosty four years – which left them with no ambassadors for sometime.
Related Materials:
Victoire Ingabire Wins First Political Battle: Dutch Block Budget support
President Kagame Fails to Sell His Development Style to Europeans
Kagame vient dʼessuyer un fiasco diplomatique à Bruxelles
Belgium: Alert to European Citizens During Kagame's Presence in Brussels
Belgium: General Kagame's Show in Brussels Clouds EU's Image
JED: absence remarquée du président rwandais Paul Kagame lors d'un débat public
Manifestation contre KAGAME à Bruxelles
Victoire Ingabire Wins First Political Battle: Dutch Block Budget support
By Colored Opinions
December 7, 2010
Today marks Victoire Ingabire's first major result in influencing public policy and decision making! The Dutch government today
reached it's final decision concerning budget support to Rwanda:
"Rwanda will get no budgetsupport because freedom of expression and political space in the central African country are insufficiently guaranteed".
Thus sending a strong signal to other donors!
Michael Cashman, member of the EU Parliament for (Tony Blair's) Labour Party, said
today that the Netherlands are wrong concerning human rights violations and lack of democracy in Rwanda:
“Where is the evidence? We’ll have to be careful with accusing Rwanda”, he says.“The word ‘genocide’ is being used far to easily in Eastern Congo. Rwanda has known a genocide and wants to prevent that it will happen ever again.”
However Michael Cashman carries a lot of luggage with him (see picture). As head of the EU Electoral Observation Mission to Rwanda's parliamentary election in 2008, Michael Cashman said:
"The process of democratisation in Rwanda since the end of the genocide is remarkable”
Filip Reyntjens, Professor at the University of Antwerpen
explained in 2009 why this statement is contrary even to the content of the report of the EU observation mission itself.
Since 1994 several European and American politicians have kept very close relations with the regime in Kigali.
Some even called Paul Kagame their personal friend. Obviously the findings in the
Mapping Report won't do much good to the reputation of the likes of Michael Cashman. The mapping report confirms previous
findings by a Spanish judge. We can now safely say that French anti-terrorist
judge Jean-Louis Bruguière was right when he warned the US against
closer ties to Rwanda.
Paul Kagame
summarized the reasons for his liberation war in 1990 saying:
"the available options were either you had to choose to remain perpetualy a refugee and stateless, or you had to keep hoping that some day somebody in the international community would resolve the problem, or thirdly you had realy to face reality, since oppression is carried out by force, you had to deal with the matter using force."
Exactly the same arguments movements like the FDLR and CNDP and some Burundian rebels would use today to combine forces which
according to Filip Reyntjens is happening right now. In
the words of Senator and former US ambassador to Burundi and Botswana Robert Krueger:
"as long as this man (Paul Kagame) is the chief executive of the country, there will never be real democracy."
According to
Wikipedia a politician or political leader:
"is an individual who is involved in influencing public policy and decision making. "
Victoire Ingabire might not be
a female Mandela or
former IMF director , she certainly is no
would be politican!
