On Museveni: The Writer Is Wrong
By Milton AllimadiBlack Star NewsMay 21st, 2009Allimadi's Note:Since
Black Star News published Ng'arua's article, and my response (see below), many readers from around the world have contacted me to point out that Paul Ng'arua is a Senior Trial Attorney with the Prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Now readers can evaluate for themselves the motive behind Ng'arua's critique of my original commentary article, as well as his slant. It turns out he is not just a detached "reader" after all. In fact, it's clear that it was Ng'arua who was not "professional" at all by not disclosing that he had a vested professional –or unprofessional, depending on how one sees it— interest in challenging my commentary.Milton Allimadi Responds to Paul Ng'arua:Ng'arua writes very well. Yet, I am not convinced that he believes everything he states in his reaction to my commentary article "Uganda's Genocidal President Eyes Kenya."I will address the issues he raises. His tone is sober; and so will be the tone of my response.Yet, he is wrong when he refers to "Allimadi's hatred for Museveni" even though he concludes it's "justifiable. " There is no hatred at all: There is determination to expose the deviousness and ruthlessness that has allowed him to extend his reign and engage in so much genocide.Only an indifferent person would not "bear the scars" of despotism in Uganda, or elsewhere. The problem is too many of us are too indifferent. We use terminology such as "objectivity" and "professionalism" to mask our indifference or apathy.There is no "trauma" or "deformity" when engaging a genocidal despot. The problem with our media, and in the East African region as well, has been "conformity" ; aping the so-called "objectivity" of Western media outlets such as CNN, BBC, The New York Times and Washington Post: The only thing objective about such corporate media outlets is their objective to coddle and maintain their favorite despots, such as Yoweri Museveni or Paul Kagame, while deriding their least favorite one, such as Robert Mugabe.How is it that the one who has been the primary cause of the deaths of one million Ugandans, one million Rwandese, and seven million Congolese, is celebrated by the Western corporate media? Because we allow them to set the agenda under the false rubric of "objectivity" which has sent countless Africans to their graves.We must never fall into such a trap: otherwise we may as well abandon journalism to these foreign corporate media houses.Ng'arua needs to travel to Rwanda and ask people what role Museveni played in the genocide there; travel to the northern part of Uganda and ask the people there what role Museveni has played and is playing in the on-going genocide in the concentration camps; where else in the world can an entire ethnic people be coralled in such camps without as much as a cry from the international community; and then, finally, travel to Eastern Congo and ask them the same question.Why would the International Criminal Court (ICC) be investigating Uganda's role in the genocide and pillage in Eastern Congo? Why would Museveni ask then Secretary General Kofi Annan to block the investigation? These are not creations of Allimadi's "trauma". They were reported in The Wall Street Journal on June 8, 2006 and Ng'arua can Google the story. I also recommend that Kenyan journalists ask him about this Wall Street Journal article: If it was false or erroneous he would have sued the Journal over such damaging revelation.Also, is Ng'arua aware that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda in 2005 liable for the massacres and the looting and mass rapes in Eastern Congo? I provided links to the report because I anticipated reaction from people like Ng'arua who would question my "professionalism" .Had Ng'arua read The Wall Street Journal article and the link to the ICJ's ruling I doubt he would have written his well-written but not accurate assessment. The question to be addressed is, since the ICJ ruled --liability and assessed Uganda $10 billion compensation for DR Congo-- based on the documentation I provided the link to; how will the ICC return with a different conclusion?How do I "vilify" Museveni, as Ng'arua asserts, regarding the murders on April 6th 1994 when a New York Times article stated that the missile used to shoot down the plane carrying then Rwanda president Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundi president Cyprian Ntaryamira, was provided by Uganda? Again, Ng'arua can Google this story as well.Perhaps Ng'arua is not aware that the invasion was carried out by soldiers that had been in the Ugandan army and officers of the Uganda army, on October 1, 1990. And, perhaps Ng'arua is uaware that French and Spanish courts have issued warrants of arrest against the officers of Uganda's invading army (which had changed its name to the Rwanda Patriotic Front) for shooting down Habyarimana' s plane.So, regarding Allimadi's "rough" side; it's not easy to discuss mass murder without exposing---well, mass murder. Mass murder is beyond "rough."Regarding Museveni's attempt to drive a wedge between the Luo and the Kikuyu in Kenya over Migingo Island is there any serious doubt anywhere about this issue?This is not a question we need waste time debating.Regarding the possible abuse of skulls for political agenda: I am bothered by the fact that Ng'arua is more concerned about whether it's plausible or not that Museveni may transport skulls, and even loan them to allies. I would have hoped that Ng'arua would have been more disturbed by the fact that Museveni has never accounted for the whereabouts of the skulls of the "enemies" he defeated to win power and whether they were not co-mingled with the skulls of the victims of his "enemies."That was the serious point I raised in my commentary-- it remains a serious point and should warrant more attention. When skulls command a premium in the macabre industry created by Museveni, of displaying skulls for political agenda, why should it be implausible to Ng'arua that a market for skulls can exist? And in Rwanda, where Museveni's invaders also destroyed the army and supporters of Habyarimana, where are the skulls of the vanquished?In terms of "The Hearts of Darkness, How White Writers Created The Racist Image of Africa," and the generous words Ng'arua had for my book: I thank him.There is no bias or sensation in my commentary article and over the next few months and years, as Kenyan journalists and others train their attention to Museveni's past utterances and excesses, their revelations will affirm my assessment of the Ugandan.Regarding the Kenya elections, the focus of my commentary was not to evaluate who conducted more rigging or not: I never mention the word "rigging" so let's be honest. It is obvious that rigging occurred on both sides based on preponderence of the reports. In my column, I only mentioned the widely reported conclusion, which was that at the end, Mwai Kibaki stole the election. For Ng'arua to assert then that I have a "bias against Kikuyus" because I mentioned this widely reported assessment of the election is mind-boggling: In any case it is a patently false assertion.Regarding the warning to Kenyans not to be manipulated by Museveni: A Google search will reveal statements, including videos, by several Kenya officials, and Kenyan newspaper editorials, decrying Museveni for meddling in Kenya's affairs and trying to turn Migingo into a "Luo" issue rather than a Kenyan issue. Surely, Ng'arua is not suggesting that they were all influenced by my article? So who then is guilty of "meddling" as Ng'arua asserts: Allimadi or Museveni?Ng'arua writes very convincingly. So I'm stunned when he asserts that Museveni was referring to "the persons who were uprooting the Uganda railway" when he referred to "mad Jaluos."That is the nonsense that Museveni peddled in a press conference after his advisers convinced him that this time he had gone too far. Fortunately, his press conference propaganda is belied by the evidence: his very own words, available in the audio remarks broadcast by the BBC, where he refers to "mad Jaluos" and asserts that Jaluo might never be able to fish around Migingo again, depending on how the matter is resolved.Ng'arua also claims at the end of his commentary that Allimadi has become "cloned" into the racist European so-called explorers like Samuel Baker and his kin: That was an obvious cheap shot, with some malice, and does not deserve a rejoinder. I will ignore it because while I disagree with much of what Ng'arua wrote, it was based, it is possible, on a misreading of my column; my intention; and inadequate information.Finally, Ng'arua should never be worried about losing "writers of Allimadi's caliber on to the altar of despots." Rather, he should pray that more of our writers abandon their masks and expose people like Museveni for what they are: mass killers of African peoples.Please post your comments directly online or submit them for publication to milton@blackstarnew s.com"Speaking Truth To Empower."Related Materials:On Museveni, Allimadi's Blinded By BiasUganda's Genocidal President Eyes Kenya
The dictator Kagame at UN
Dictators like Kagame who have changed their national constitutions to remain indefinitely on power should not be involved in UN high level and global activities including chairing UN meetings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thousands of Hutu murdered by Kagame inside Rwanda, e.g. Kibeho massacres
Kagame killed 200,000 Hutus from all regions of the country, the elderly and children who were left by their relatives, the disabled were burned alive. Other thousands of people were killed in several camps of displaced persons including Kibeho camp. All these war crimes remain unpunished.The British news reporters were accompanying Kagame’s fighters on day-by-day basis and witnessed these massacres, but they never reported on this.
25,000 Hutu bodies floated down River Akagera into Lake Victoria in Uganda.
The British irrational, extremist, partisan,biased, one-sided media and politicians have disregarded Kagame war crimes e.g. the Kibeho camp massacres, massacres of innocents Hutu refugees in DR. Congo. The British media have been supporting Kagame since he invaded Rwanda by organising the propaganda against the French over the Rwandan genocide, suppressing the truth about the genocide and promoting the impunity of Kagame and his cronies in the African Great Lakes Region. For the British, Rwanda does not need democracy, Rwanda is the African Israel; and Kagame and his guerilla fighters are heroes.The extremist British news reporters including Fergal Keane, Chris Simpson, Chris McGreal, Mark Doyle, etc. continue to hate the Hutus communities and to polarise the Rwandan society.
Kagame political ambitions triggered the genocide.
Kagame’s guerrilla war was aimed at accessing to power at any cost. He rejected all attempts and advice that could stop his military adventures including the cease-fire, political negotiations and cohabitation, and UN peacekeeping interventions. He ignored all warnings that could have helped him to manage the war without tragic consequences. Either you supported Kagame’ s wars and you are now his friend, or you were against his wars and you are his enemy. Therefore, Kagame as the Rwandan strong man now, you have to apologise to him for having been against his war and condemned his war crimes, or accept to be labelled as having been involved in the genocide. All key Kagame’s fighters who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity are the ones who hold key positions in Rwandan army and government for the last 15 years. They continue to be supported and advised by the British including Tony Blair, Andrew Mitchell MP, and the British army senior officials.
Aid that kills: The British Budget Support financed Museveni and Kagame’s wars in Rwanda and DRC.
Genocide propaganda and fabrications are used by the so-called British scholars, news reporters and investigative journalists to promote their CVs and to get income out of the genocide through the selling of their books, providing testimonies against the French, access to consultancy contracts from the UN and Kagame, and participation in conferences and lectures in Rwanda, UK and internationally about genocide. Genocide propaganda has become a lucrative business for Kagame and the British. Anyone who condemned or did not support Kagame’s war is now in jail in Rwanda under the gacaca courts system suuported by British tax payer's money, or his/she is on arrest warrant if he/she managed to flee the Kagame’s regime. Others have fled the country and are still fleeing now. Many others Rwandans are being persecuted in their own country. Kagame is waiting indefinitely for the apologies from other players who warn him or who wanted to help to ensure that political negotiations take place between Kagame and the former government he was fighting against. Britain continues to supply foreign aid to Kagame and his cronies with media reports highlighting economic successes of Rwanda. Such reports are flawed and are aimed at misleading the British public to justify the use of British taxpayers’ money. Kagame and his cronies continue to milk British taxpayers’ money under the British budget support. This started from 1986 through the British budget support to Uganda until now.
Dictator Kagame: No remorse for his unwise actions and ambitions that led to the Rwandan genocide.
No apologies yet to the Rwandan people. The assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana by Kagame was the only gateway for Kagame to access power in Rwanda. The British media, politicians, and the so-called British scholars took the role of obstructing the search for the truth and justice; and of denying this assassination on behalf of General Kagame. General Paul Kagame has been obliging the whole world to apologise for his mistakes and war crimes. The UK’s way to apologise has been pumping massive aid into Rwanda's crony government and parliement; and supporting Kagame though media campaigns.
Fanatical, partisan, suspicious, childish and fawning relations between UK and Kagame
Kagame receives the British massive aid through the budget support, British excessive consultancy, sector wide programmes, the Tutsi-dominated parliament, British and Tutsi-owned NGOs; for political, economic and English language expansion to Rwanda. The British aid to Rwanda is not for all Rwandans. It is for Kagame himself and his Tutsi cronies.
Paul Kagame' actvities as former rebel
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.