Today, I am re-posting an excellent article by Dr. Susan Thomson. In this piece, Dr. Thomson examines Kagame's rhetoric following the visit of US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice to Rwanda. As a reminder, Dr. Rice had given a fiery speech in which she called for political freedom in Rwanda.
Being Rwandan, I have to say that Dr. Thomson's research with Rwandan peasants deserves a lot more recognition than it actually gets. She has carried the pains of the most marginalized in Rwanda and continues to advocate for social justice on their behalf. Her work exudes both scholarly objectivity and compassion for Rwanda's poor--something that if often rare to find.
It has been a wild couple of weeks for Rwanda's President, Paul Kagame. American Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, offered a speech
full of glowing praise for the country's institutional and economic
development on 23 November 2011. In the final few paragraphs of the
speech, Rice, who believes 'friends should speak frankly to friends',
encouraged Rwanda to open up its political space so that 'the deepening
and broadening of democracy can be the next great achievement of this
great country and its remarkable people.' Word from folks resident in
Kigali states that President Paul Kagame was so angry about Rice's nudge
for greater political expression that he did not receive her as a
diplomatic guest at Urugwiro Village. An insult to one of Rwanda's biggest donors? Perhaps. This is the least interesting part of the story.
I thought Kagame's immediate reaction to the speech showed his true
stripes. He is the embodiment of Rwanda and to insult the country is a
direct and personal attack on Kagame himself as father of the nation. A
clear sign of his increasing megalomania is the outrage he showed for
Rice's gentle words. Indeed, she could have come out much stronger
against many of the regime's current oppressive practices, not least of
which is the farcical trial
of Victoire Ingabire. The government is so clearly involved in this
trial that I hear from foreign journalists on the ground that even they
can't cover it, for free of ending up in 1930 prison themselves! Leaving
aside whatever you may feel about Ingabire and her culpablity, she
still deserves a free and fair trial.
It wasn't until days later, allegedly during Kagame's participation in a Kigali-city umuganda
clean-up that he began to rant about 'so-called friends or those among
us who consider themselves extraordinary'. A quick diversion: If you
look at these photos of Kagame at his Flickr site at umuganda you'll
readily suspect that none of the people in images are peasant Rwandans
(e.g., abakene (poor, living on less than $1/day) or abatindi
(vulnerable, living on less than $0.50/day). Notice the western style
of dress, the covered shoes and new rubber boots, wrist-watches, and
other trappings of success. The audience members in these images
reflect nothing of the peasantry I consult in my own research -- poorly
nourished with weathered faces and bodies that belie their actual age,
dressed in threadbare clothes, with little if any opportunity for
socio-economic mobility. My guess is that the folks we see in these
Flickr photos are part of the entourage of sycophants (willing,
delusional or otherwise is another matter) that travel around, in the
employ of the ruling RPF, to put the best possible spin on everything
Kagame says and does. Word on the street in the US is that Rwandan
sycophants, some of whom are on RPF-sponsored scholarships, receive
between $250 and $1500 per protest. (These numbers taken from Rwandans
resident in the US who protested at the HQ of the Lantos Foundation
in early November because of its prize for Paul Rusesabagina; folks
spoke openly to me about this, expressing themselves freely I suppose
although we both know Kagame would definitely not approve!)
Back to the task at hand. During umuganda, Kagame spoke only in
Kinyarwanda, meaning that Susan Rice may yet know about his anger
towards her remarks in Kigali just a few days before. Key excerpts from
Kagame: 'If you promote equality among people, and you are the first in
the world in terms of gender equality -- by lifting up women who had
never before reached such a level, if you tell me this is not democracy,
if you tell me this is not respect of human rights, you certainly are
sick' I guess I am also 'sick' (meaning sick in the head, i.e.,
deranged) as the equality of women in parliament has yet to trickle down
to women in the hills. Indeed, I think it remains fair to say, as I
did in an editorial published in The Guardian
(co-authored with Erin Baines and Stephen Brown) in 2008 that 'even as
women's visibility in politics is at an all-time high, their ability to
shape the future of the country, ironically, has not improved.
Parliamentarians – be they male or female – actually have very little
power to legislate on behalf of their constituents. They have little
room to develop policy or even to debate openly; space for free and open
political expression is limited'. Instead, what I think we are seeing
from Kagame is his an acknowledgment that his gender policy is only for
elite women, and for elite women who toe the RPF line. Susan Rice
surely knows this, but said nothing about it, opting instead for a more
diplomatic statement of 'friends talking to friends.' Someone who is
receptive to criticism sees it for what it is, considers the advice,
reflects upon, perhaps seeks counsel from others, and finds ways to
improve the situation. We see none of this emotional or political
moderation from Kagame, and that is the worrying aspect of his
leadership at the moment. Indeed, his rhetoric is reminiscent of the
ramping of political language we saw before the 1994 genocide. Surely,
this is food for thought for anyone concerned about peace in Rwanda.
President Kagame continued with his vitriolic reaction to Ambassador
Rice. He said,'every person among the eleven million of Rwandans can
speak whenever he/she wants and whatever he/she wants, because we
continuously empower them in terms of freedom of speech. But I cannot
accept you saying that there about hundred or hundred fifty people that
we prevent from speaking – and to whom the right of reply is not
allowed. What type of people are those? Why [should we allow them to
speak]? Among them there are those who say useless things, and some of
them even say destructive things. If you say things that destroy the Rwanda we are building, we shall destroy you.
We don’t need to apologize to anyone about that; the only problem is
that we don’t do it [destroy them] sufficiently (my emphasis).
Is this thinly veiled threat not worrying to anyone in the international
community? Do we not remember the many warning signs, both rhetorical
and programmatic, that presaged the 1994 genocide? I believe we are at a
critical juncture in Rwanda's postgenocide evolution. President Kagame
has entered a phase of political extremism. Threats to 'destroy you'
if you speak out need to be take seriously. Indeed, the word on the
street among Rwandans at home at abroad is that the murder exiled
journalist Charles Ingabire
in Kampala on 2 December 2011 was to send a message to silence critics.
I am not entirely convinced of this myself as the Kagame regime has
been killing its own since it took office in July 1994. One only need to
consult the writings of Filip Reyntjens to learn of the killing machine
that supports the Kagame regime (see in particular his excellent
January 2011 article in African Affairs). Either way, Ingabire is dead, and a full independent investigation is needed.
At any rate, we know that Kagame is furious with the international
community (and perhaps Susan Rice in particular). He made a speech at
Rwanda's 9th National Conference on 15 December 2011. The tone is his
voice is chilling as he tries to equate the press freedom that the
international community desires to letting the planners and implementers
of the genocide 'to go scot free'. Please email me and I will send you
the .mp3 file. The last eight to ten minutes are in English. Listen
for yourself. I am keen to hear what others think. To my ear, Kagame is
throwing down the gauntlet in a veiled battle cry. It is the spectre
of renewed conflict that is worrying, and this is something those of us
working for peace in Rwanda, and the region, need to think about as the
2017 elections are less than five year away (and Kagame has already
started posturing -- my money is on his running for a third term).
What can be done at this stage to not only avoid conflict, but open up
freedoms of expression and assembly while reducing socio-economic
inequalities in pursuit of sustainable peace?
No comments:
Post a Comment