Kagame is losing a grip on the country
BY Robert Mukombozi (an investigative Rwandan journalist exile in Australia. He is currently studying a Masters of Journalism and Mass communication at Griffith University. )
http://www.newslineea.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=278:kagame-is-losing-a-grip-on-the-country-&catid=74:robert-mukombozi-&Itemid=73
This year 2010 has gone down not generally well on the global political arena. The United States especially has had a very turbulent wind up of its politics as a result of the wikiLeaks revelations.Of course Rwanda and US relations were not an exception among other governments whose relations with Washington was shaken by the leaking of secret diplomatic cables. The American embassy in Kigali moved fast to calm the worries, praising Rwanda in the area of fighting HIV/AIDS and increasing agricultural production but actually it was a very diversionary diplomatic gesture.
As a result of the cables, Mr Paul Kagame has now become extremely paranoid. He is aware that details of Rwanda’s arms acquisitions, sales and transfer of strategic materials such as uranium is being monitored.
This explains why the Kigali establishment rushed to place the blame of improper acquisition of arms to militias in eastern DR Congo, claiming the rebel groups are stuck with stocks of uranium as a diversion and they expected everyone to take this concoction.
And the only thing some elite Rwandans can do is to encourage fellow Rwandans who have lived in exile for years to paint the country a magnificent image, which they have never been given a chance to see for themselves.
It is painful that those young Rwandans encouraged to be the country’s ambassador have never been to the country and these are the people being lured into campaigning for the country in the outside world. How can they start defending a country that is sending spies to foreign countries to bribe and silence critics?
How can they fit into the shoes of the diplomats when actually the Ambasadors themselves have failed to cover for the country’s roaming network of secret agents and wielders of the black budget?
The RPF has established a political system that maintains a false appearance of multi-party democracy.
The country has reached a break even point due to a deepening political crisis fuelled by divisions within the military. First, it was a case involving the humiliation of Generals Frank Rusagara, Sam Kanyemera Kaka and Kayumba Nyamwasa.
Then the hammer took on Col. Patrick Karegeya, Maj Gen Karenzi Karake, Lt Gen. Charles Muhire, Brig Gen. Steven Karyango and Lt Col Marc Sebaganji, Col Deogene Mudenge, Maj. Ben Karenzi and Gen. Nyamwasa’s brother, Col. Rugigana Ngabo.
The power rift within the army is very serious to the extent that each of the officers in the high command has become another’s spy. It is not only a fight for loyalty towards Kagame by a section of RDF officers but a struggle for survival.
This has dramatically played against the RPF’s overall popularity. The army, the politicians and the common man in Rwanda has no respect for the President now. He is simply holding the country hostage, playing at his best the ticket of fear.
Mr Kagame has realized that gambling on the tactic of fear and divisionism would be very short-lived, he has decided to lobby military backing from Ethiopia and Libya after being thrown out by South Africa.
The Rwandan leader has also asked Defense Minister, Gen. James Kabarebe to put top military officers of the Rwanda Defence Forces (RDF), military attachés and the Reserve Force on red alert citing increasing threats against his leadership.
Gen. Kabarebe has been tasked to emphasise Mr Kagame’s call for vigilance at this time when rifts within the RDF and the dramatic rise of the opposition within and outside the country threatens his leadership.
It is time to feel the weight and destruction of the hammer that he once promised.
With Mr Kagame’s lack of trust and respect for institutions coupled with his deaf ear on democratic values and human rights, all clues now point to the fact that he is preparing to go down in a military struggle without caring how much Rwandans will shed more blood.
This careless wastage of human life is the last thing Rwandans would want to experience again. He is taking every desperate measure to have a grip on the country but it has become very slippery.
Robert Mukombozi is an investigative Rwandan journalist exile in Australia. He is currently studying a Masters of Journalism and Mass communication at Griffith University.
RMukombozi@gmail.com
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
23 Dec 2010
14 Dec 2010
An Escape from Africa and its Consequences
Translation from: Helmut Strizek, Clinton am Kivu-See. Die
Geschichte einer afrikanischen Katastrophe. Frankfurt/Main 2011,
Peter Lang Publishing Group. 408 pages; ISBN 978-3-631-60563-9.
(pp. 12-16)
Summary of Events
An Escape from Africa and its Consequences
The 3 October 1993 will go down as a fatal date for American policy in
Africa. Eighteen Americans and a Malaysian lost their lives in the twelve-hour
Battle of Mogadishu, and over 1,000 Somalis became victims of the wild
shootouts that ensued after the Americans had been surrounded. However, the
worst for Washington, was to have the cameras of the international press
witness a (white) dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu by Aidid’s militia.
Bill Clinton was furious and single-handedly made a decision that would
have far-reaching consequences. He decided to withdraw all American soldiers
from UN peacekeeping missions in Africa within the next six months. In the
future, American forces would only be deployed where American interests were
clearly at stake.
If Clinton had believed that this “Escape from Africa” would keep the loud
voices of foreign policy at bay, then he was to be severely mistaken. The move
triggered entirely unexpected reactions. The intended disengagement quickly
developed into a new, clandestine engagement that would result in a six-phase
political and human tragedy of the first order in the Great Lakes Region of
Africa to the east and west of Lake Kivu. The final decade of the 20th century
saw the former Belgian colonies of Congo-Kinshasa, Rwanda and Burundi
descend into a turmoil and chaos that would also define the first decade of the
21st century.
From 1897-1916, the post-colonial states of Rwanda and Burundi were administrative
districts of the German East Africa colony – with the special status of so-called
residences. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Belgium the
mandate to administer them.
The First Phase: Rwanda must be Conquered
The first ramification of the “Escape” would come on 5 October 1993
when, contrary to its earlier promises, the White House instructed Madeleine
Albright, the US Representative to the United Nations Security Council, not to
offer the prospect of American soldiers for the “United Nations Assistance
Mission for Rwanda” (UNAMIR).
An assurance that had been granted only two months earlier on 4 August
1993 within the framework of the Arusha power-sharing agreement signed and
brokered, between the Rwandan State and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)
rebel organization, under the pressure of the Americans. The promise now fell
victim to the “Escape from Africa” brought about by the events of Mogadishu.
However, there were elements on the American political-military scene
that simply did not want to withdraw from the region. After all, this retreat
would have meant no longer being able to participate on a military level in the
strategically vital “Sudan game”. The hour had come for Yoweri Museveni, the
Ugandan Head of State who, ever since the 1989 military coup of General Omar
al-Bashir and his “Guardian of the Islamic Revolution”, Hassan al-Turabi, in
Khartoum, had become an increasingly important ally of the United States in the
region.
Museveni made it clear to the Pentagon that in the interest of
strengthening his position as a bastion against Islamism, it was not power
sharing that lay in the interests of the Americans in the Rwandan Civil War, but
rather the military victory of the Rwandan Tutsi rebels living in Ugandan exile.
His country would be relieved of the growing exile problem and a “new
Rwanda” under his control would be an important bridge to Congo-Kinshasa,
from whose north-east, Zaire’s Head of State, Mobutu, had long since been
allowing the support of the southern Sudanese rebel, John Garang. In order to
ensure the long-term realization of this goal, one would have to exempt
Museveni, as well as Mobutu, from the burdens of the democratization process
that United States Secretary of State James Baker and French President
François Mitterrand had “dictated” to their old Cold War allies after March
1990.
Of course the Clinton Administration, which drew its support from the
more progressive spectrum of the American voters, would not be able to openly
admit this turning away from the democratization process and the “grace
period” granted to Mobutu, who would still be needed for the new strategy.
However, at the Pentagon, they were sure that they would be able to mobilize
some clandestine “helpers” to take care of this “dirty business”, and it would
occur in plain sight of the media. And then, lo and behold, a plane fell out of the
skies over Kigali on 6 April 1994, “coincidentally” killing all the important
people that stood in the way of the victory of the Tutsi rebels from the
“Rwandan Patriotic Front” (RPF). The advance of the RPF began on the very
same evening and they were able to celebrate the military victory of the “brave”
rebel leader, Paul Kagame, on 17 July 1994.
The world was subsequently informed that unfortunately, the determination
of the “Hutu extremists”, who were also given the blame for the cunning
downing of the presidential jet on 6 April 1994, had made it impossible to
prevent the genocide on the inner-Rwandan Tutsi population and mass exodus
of over two million Hutus to the neighbouring countries of Congo/Zaire,
Burundi and Tanzania.
The Second Phase: Securing of the Congo Flank
The strategists in Washington soon realized that there was absolutely
nothing that could persuade the almost two million Hutu refugees living mainly
in eastern Congo to voluntarily return to a Rwanda controlled by RPF soldiers,
and this made them an obstacle on the way to achieving the goals linked to the
victory of the RPF. From the end of 1995 it began to become clear that the
intended solution to the refugee problem, which could still pose a threat to the
stability of the new Rwanda, even with the voluntary return of the Hutu refugees,
was a military one. The First Congo War was already casting a shadow. At the
time, one may have been unaware as to whether the armed dissolution of the
refugee camps would suffice to achieve the strategic goals; however, when the
incurable cancer of Mobutu became known, it posed a question as to the
reactions that would follow with the foreseeable vacuum of power. For whatever
reason, Etienne Tshisekedi, the head of the democratic UDPS party, who would
have been a suitable successor to Mobutu, found no lobby in Washington.
Therefore as next goal the U.S. felt the necessity to install an appropriate
“proxy” government in Kinshasa and to link the “solution of the refugee
problem” to the “liberation of the Congo”.
“It was later revealed that the American government provided Buyoya with $145,000
in US AID funds while he was out of power.” Wayne Madsen, Genocide and covert
operations in Africa, 1993-1999. Lewiston, N.Y. 1999, p. 227.
3 Buyoya spent some time in Bonn in the house of the German section of the Prayer
Breakfast movement, “Vereinigung zur Förderung der Völkerverständigung e.V.”
(cf. note on Prayer Breakfast movement in Appendix 2).
The Third Phase: Precautionary Measures in Burundi
In order to secure the southern flank of this “solution to the refugee
problem”, the former military ruler of Burundi, Pierre Buyoya had already
arrived in Bujumbura on 25 July 1996 from the United States via Bonn, to
re-seize the power that he had lost in the democratic elections4 of 1993 with the
help of an “invisible hand”. He could now again consolidate the power of the
Tutsi-dominated Burundian army and prepare it, among other things, for its role
alongside Kagame’s soldiers in the Congo. This move would not be decisive for
the war, but it allowed Buyoya to prevent any unwelcome support from
Burundian Hutus for the “wrong side”.
The Fourth Phase: Laurent Kabila is carried to Kinshasa
The Congo War began in October 1996 with the Rwandan attacks on the
Hutu refugee camps. In order to cause confusion in the world, part of the
Banyamulenge, a Tutsi ethnic group in the South Kivu Province had been
encouraged to form a Congolese liberation movement. On 16 October 1996,
these rebels became part of the “Alliance of Democratic Forces for the
Liberation of Congo” (AFDL), founded by the former Lumumbist
Laurent-Désiré Kabila and the Rwandan army. This alliance was presented to
the general public as a movement to “liberate” the Congo/Zaire. The actual
military advance started at the beginning of November 1996 and ended on
17 May 1997 with the victory of the Rwandan army under the leadership of
James Kabarebe and the “enthronement” of Laurent Kabila as the head of state
of what would now again be called the Democratic Republic of Congo. The over
400,000 Hutu refugees, who were murdered by Rwandan RPF soldiers or died
in misery in the forests of the Congo, would go down as the “collateral
damage” of this war of conquest. The rumours that the Clinton Administration
promised the two Kivu provinces in eastern Congo to Rwanda as “spoils of
war” refuse to be silenced.
The Fifth Phase: Next Stop Khartoum
After the establishment of the Laurent Kabila military dictatorship in
Kinshasa, the time came for the preparations to achieve the most complex, and
until today, well-concealed objective of the war: To militarily install John
Garang in Khartoum in order to remove the potential threat posed by the
existing Sudanese regime to the American Middle East policy. On 25 March
1998, Clinton held a “council of war” in Entebbe and gave his blessing to the
planned “regime change” in Khartoum. However, this war never happened; it
had to be cancelled when all of a sudden in the summer of 1998, the Eritrean
and Ethiopian armies of the “axis of good” decided to go to war against each
other over a little piece of desert.
4 Robert Krueger, the earlier American Ambassador in Bujumbura, is firmly convinced
that Buyoya was responsible for the murder on 21 October 1993 of President Melchior
Ndadaye who had been elected in July 1993. cf. Krueger and Krueger, From
Bloodshed to Hope in Burundi, Austin, Tex. 2007, p. 266.
The Sixth Phase: “Cleaning up” in the new Congo
The continued implementation of the plan to install John Garang in
Khartoum was now definitely off the table, especially when now Laurent Kabila,
who had anyhow been distrustfully eyed by Clinton in Entebbe5, also “turned his
back on the flag”, and Rwanda and Uganda had to be encouraged to lead yet
another Congo War on 2 August 1998 – this time against Laurent Kabila.
Despite a failed attempt to re-conquer Kinshasa by General Kabarebe, and the
military support given to Laurent Kabila by his former brothers-in-arms, Dos
Santos, Robert Mugabe and Sam Nujoma, the classic attack from the east by the
Rwandan and Ugandan troops was nevertheless very successful, with Rwanda
on the verge of conquering the Katanga Province. However, this went too far for
certain friends of the United States, and on 7 July 1999, the Kosovo War and the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) put pressure on Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, and her colleagues Susan Rice and Gayle Smith, to
agree to a ceasefire agreement in Lusaka that envisaged the withdrawal of the
Rwandan and Ugandan troops from the Congo. The Pentagon had no real
interest in this move and it would not be realized during the Clinton era. A few
days before the term of the Clinton Administration ended, the political
landscape in central Africa was reshaped again following the murder of Laurent
Kabila on 16 January 2001. Dos Santos and Mugabe had grown weary of
Laurent Kabila and switched sides. And so it was on 20 January 2001, that an
entirely powerless young man aged 29, by the name of Joseph Kabila was flown
in from Harare. Angola and Zimbabwe helped the United States, to install the
“younger Kabila” and maintain control over Kinshasa.
George Bush Jr. and the Legacy of Bill Clinton
When he left office on 20 January 2001, Clinton left central Africa in utter
chaos. All the countries and regions that had allowed themselves to be recruited
to the American cause after “Clinton’s Escape” from Somalia now formed a
“democracy-free” zone ruled by military dictatorships. Washington honoured
them as a “new generation of African leaders”. However, peace was still a
distant prospect for the region and the goal that the Clinton Administration had
hoped to achieve with the war, to install a “chosen” government in Khartoum,
had also not been accomplished.
The Bush Jr. administration was shaped by 9/11 and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington was unable to deal with the turmoil that the
Clinton era had left behind in Africa, particularly as the “younger Bush”
5 cf. according to Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War, London 2009, p. 160. Clinton
supposedly told him that his administration was unhappy (“We are fed up”) with his
style of government. The event is described in Chapter VIII (“The New Congo”).
depended on the support of the Clintons to justify his war in Iraq. The Bush
Administration’s relationship with the Bashir regime in Sudan improved
following its rapprochement with Washington after 9/11 and Washington
refrained from any forceful attempts to implement regime change. In the Congo,
they blocked all attempts by Kagame to annex the Kivu provinces; however, they
were unable to prevent the Third Congo War launched by Kagame in 2004. And
thus when Barack Obama took over from Bush Jr. on 20 January 2009, he too
faced the severe consequences of Clinton’s legacy in central Africa.
cf. according to Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War, London 2009, p. 160. Clinton
supposedly told him that his administration was unhappy (“We are fed up”) with his
style of government. The event is described in Chapter VIII (“The New Congo”).
Geschichte einer afrikanischen Katastrophe. Frankfurt/Main 2011,
Peter Lang Publishing Group. 408 pages; ISBN 978-3-631-60563-9.
(pp. 12-16)
Summary of Events
An Escape from Africa and its Consequences
The 3 October 1993 will go down as a fatal date for American policy in
Africa. Eighteen Americans and a Malaysian lost their lives in the twelve-hour
Battle of Mogadishu, and over 1,000 Somalis became victims of the wild
shootouts that ensued after the Americans had been surrounded. However, the
worst for Washington, was to have the cameras of the international press
witness a (white) dead American soldier being dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu by Aidid’s militia.
Bill Clinton was furious and single-handedly made a decision that would
have far-reaching consequences. He decided to withdraw all American soldiers
from UN peacekeeping missions in Africa within the next six months. In the
future, American forces would only be deployed where American interests were
clearly at stake.
If Clinton had believed that this “Escape from Africa” would keep the loud
voices of foreign policy at bay, then he was to be severely mistaken. The move
triggered entirely unexpected reactions. The intended disengagement quickly
developed into a new, clandestine engagement that would result in a six-phase
political and human tragedy of the first order in the Great Lakes Region of
Africa to the east and west of Lake Kivu. The final decade of the 20th century
saw the former Belgian colonies of Congo-Kinshasa, Rwanda and Burundi
descend into a turmoil and chaos that would also define the first decade of the
21st century.
From 1897-1916, the post-colonial states of Rwanda and Burundi were administrative
districts of the German East Africa colony – with the special status of so-called
residences. After the First World War, the League of Nations granted Belgium the
mandate to administer them.
The First Phase: Rwanda must be Conquered
The first ramification of the “Escape” would come on 5 October 1993
when, contrary to its earlier promises, the White House instructed Madeleine
Albright, the US Representative to the United Nations Security Council, not to
offer the prospect of American soldiers for the “United Nations Assistance
Mission for Rwanda” (UNAMIR).
An assurance that had been granted only two months earlier on 4 August
1993 within the framework of the Arusha power-sharing agreement signed and
brokered, between the Rwandan State and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)
rebel organization, under the pressure of the Americans. The promise now fell
victim to the “Escape from Africa” brought about by the events of Mogadishu.
However, there were elements on the American political-military scene
that simply did not want to withdraw from the region. After all, this retreat
would have meant no longer being able to participate on a military level in the
strategically vital “Sudan game”. The hour had come for Yoweri Museveni, the
Ugandan Head of State who, ever since the 1989 military coup of General Omar
al-Bashir and his “Guardian of the Islamic Revolution”, Hassan al-Turabi, in
Khartoum, had become an increasingly important ally of the United States in the
region.
Museveni made it clear to the Pentagon that in the interest of
strengthening his position as a bastion against Islamism, it was not power
sharing that lay in the interests of the Americans in the Rwandan Civil War, but
rather the military victory of the Rwandan Tutsi rebels living in Ugandan exile.
His country would be relieved of the growing exile problem and a “new
Rwanda” under his control would be an important bridge to Congo-Kinshasa,
from whose north-east, Zaire’s Head of State, Mobutu, had long since been
allowing the support of the southern Sudanese rebel, John Garang. In order to
ensure the long-term realization of this goal, one would have to exempt
Museveni, as well as Mobutu, from the burdens of the democratization process
that United States Secretary of State James Baker and French President
François Mitterrand had “dictated” to their old Cold War allies after March
1990.
Of course the Clinton Administration, which drew its support from the
more progressive spectrum of the American voters, would not be able to openly
admit this turning away from the democratization process and the “grace
period” granted to Mobutu, who would still be needed for the new strategy.
However, at the Pentagon, they were sure that they would be able to mobilize
some clandestine “helpers” to take care of this “dirty business”, and it would
occur in plain sight of the media. And then, lo and behold, a plane fell out of the
skies over Kigali on 6 April 1994, “coincidentally” killing all the important
people that stood in the way of the victory of the Tutsi rebels from the
“Rwandan Patriotic Front” (RPF). The advance of the RPF began on the very
same evening and they were able to celebrate the military victory of the “brave”
rebel leader, Paul Kagame, on 17 July 1994.
The world was subsequently informed that unfortunately, the determination
of the “Hutu extremists”, who were also given the blame for the cunning
downing of the presidential jet on 6 April 1994, had made it impossible to
prevent the genocide on the inner-Rwandan Tutsi population and mass exodus
of over two million Hutus to the neighbouring countries of Congo/Zaire,
Burundi and Tanzania.
The Second Phase: Securing of the Congo Flank
The strategists in Washington soon realized that there was absolutely
nothing that could persuade the almost two million Hutu refugees living mainly
in eastern Congo to voluntarily return to a Rwanda controlled by RPF soldiers,
and this made them an obstacle on the way to achieving the goals linked to the
victory of the RPF. From the end of 1995 it began to become clear that the
intended solution to the refugee problem, which could still pose a threat to the
stability of the new Rwanda, even with the voluntary return of the Hutu refugees,
was a military one. The First Congo War was already casting a shadow. At the
time, one may have been unaware as to whether the armed dissolution of the
refugee camps would suffice to achieve the strategic goals; however, when the
incurable cancer of Mobutu became known, it posed a question as to the
reactions that would follow with the foreseeable vacuum of power. For whatever
reason, Etienne Tshisekedi, the head of the democratic UDPS party, who would
have been a suitable successor to Mobutu, found no lobby in Washington.
Therefore as next goal the U.S. felt the necessity to install an appropriate
“proxy” government in Kinshasa and to link the “solution of the refugee
problem” to the “liberation of the Congo”.
“It was later revealed that the American government provided Buyoya with $145,000
in US AID funds while he was out of power.” Wayne Madsen, Genocide and covert
operations in Africa, 1993-1999. Lewiston, N.Y. 1999, p. 227.
3 Buyoya spent some time in Bonn in the house of the German section of the Prayer
Breakfast movement, “Vereinigung zur Förderung der Völkerverständigung e.V.”
(cf. note on Prayer Breakfast movement in Appendix 2).
The Third Phase: Precautionary Measures in Burundi
In order to secure the southern flank of this “solution to the refugee
problem”, the former military ruler of Burundi, Pierre Buyoya had already
arrived in Bujumbura on 25 July 1996 from the United States via Bonn, to
re-seize the power that he had lost in the democratic elections4 of 1993 with the
help of an “invisible hand”. He could now again consolidate the power of the
Tutsi-dominated Burundian army and prepare it, among other things, for its role
alongside Kagame’s soldiers in the Congo. This move would not be decisive for
the war, but it allowed Buyoya to prevent any unwelcome support from
Burundian Hutus for the “wrong side”.
The Fourth Phase: Laurent Kabila is carried to Kinshasa
The Congo War began in October 1996 with the Rwandan attacks on the
Hutu refugee camps. In order to cause confusion in the world, part of the
Banyamulenge, a Tutsi ethnic group in the South Kivu Province had been
encouraged to form a Congolese liberation movement. On 16 October 1996,
these rebels became part of the “Alliance of Democratic Forces for the
Liberation of Congo” (AFDL), founded by the former Lumumbist
Laurent-Désiré Kabila and the Rwandan army. This alliance was presented to
the general public as a movement to “liberate” the Congo/Zaire. The actual
military advance started at the beginning of November 1996 and ended on
17 May 1997 with the victory of the Rwandan army under the leadership of
James Kabarebe and the “enthronement” of Laurent Kabila as the head of state
of what would now again be called the Democratic Republic of Congo. The over
400,000 Hutu refugees, who were murdered by Rwandan RPF soldiers or died
in misery in the forests of the Congo, would go down as the “collateral
damage” of this war of conquest. The rumours that the Clinton Administration
promised the two Kivu provinces in eastern Congo to Rwanda as “spoils of
war” refuse to be silenced.
The Fifth Phase: Next Stop Khartoum
After the establishment of the Laurent Kabila military dictatorship in
Kinshasa, the time came for the preparations to achieve the most complex, and
until today, well-concealed objective of the war: To militarily install John
Garang in Khartoum in order to remove the potential threat posed by the
existing Sudanese regime to the American Middle East policy. On 25 March
1998, Clinton held a “council of war” in Entebbe and gave his blessing to the
planned “regime change” in Khartoum. However, this war never happened; it
had to be cancelled when all of a sudden in the summer of 1998, the Eritrean
and Ethiopian armies of the “axis of good” decided to go to war against each
other over a little piece of desert.
4 Robert Krueger, the earlier American Ambassador in Bujumbura, is firmly convinced
that Buyoya was responsible for the murder on 21 October 1993 of President Melchior
Ndadaye who had been elected in July 1993. cf. Krueger and Krueger, From
Bloodshed to Hope in Burundi, Austin, Tex. 2007, p. 266.
The Sixth Phase: “Cleaning up” in the new Congo
The continued implementation of the plan to install John Garang in
Khartoum was now definitely off the table, especially when now Laurent Kabila,
who had anyhow been distrustfully eyed by Clinton in Entebbe5, also “turned his
back on the flag”, and Rwanda and Uganda had to be encouraged to lead yet
another Congo War on 2 August 1998 – this time against Laurent Kabila.
Despite a failed attempt to re-conquer Kinshasa by General Kabarebe, and the
military support given to Laurent Kabila by his former brothers-in-arms, Dos
Santos, Robert Mugabe and Sam Nujoma, the classic attack from the east by the
Rwandan and Ugandan troops was nevertheless very successful, with Rwanda
on the verge of conquering the Katanga Province. However, this went too far for
certain friends of the United States, and on 7 July 1999, the Kosovo War and the
Southern African Development Community (SADC) put pressure on Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, and her colleagues Susan Rice and Gayle Smith, to
agree to a ceasefire agreement in Lusaka that envisaged the withdrawal of the
Rwandan and Ugandan troops from the Congo. The Pentagon had no real
interest in this move and it would not be realized during the Clinton era. A few
days before the term of the Clinton Administration ended, the political
landscape in central Africa was reshaped again following the murder of Laurent
Kabila on 16 January 2001. Dos Santos and Mugabe had grown weary of
Laurent Kabila and switched sides. And so it was on 20 January 2001, that an
entirely powerless young man aged 29, by the name of Joseph Kabila was flown
in from Harare. Angola and Zimbabwe helped the United States, to install the
“younger Kabila” and maintain control over Kinshasa.
George Bush Jr. and the Legacy of Bill Clinton
When he left office on 20 January 2001, Clinton left central Africa in utter
chaos. All the countries and regions that had allowed themselves to be recruited
to the American cause after “Clinton’s Escape” from Somalia now formed a
“democracy-free” zone ruled by military dictatorships. Washington honoured
them as a “new generation of African leaders”. However, peace was still a
distant prospect for the region and the goal that the Clinton Administration had
hoped to achieve with the war, to install a “chosen” government in Khartoum,
had also not been accomplished.
The Bush Jr. administration was shaped by 9/11 and the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Washington was unable to deal with the turmoil that the
Clinton era had left behind in Africa, particularly as the “younger Bush”
5 cf. according to Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War, London 2009, p. 160. Clinton
supposedly told him that his administration was unhappy (“We are fed up”) with his
style of government. The event is described in Chapter VIII (“The New Congo”).
depended on the support of the Clintons to justify his war in Iraq. The Bush
Administration’s relationship with the Bashir regime in Sudan improved
following its rapprochement with Washington after 9/11 and Washington
refrained from any forceful attempts to implement regime change. In the Congo,
they blocked all attempts by Kagame to annex the Kivu provinces; however, they
were unable to prevent the Third Congo War launched by Kagame in 2004. And
thus when Barack Obama took over from Bush Jr. on 20 January 2009, he too
faced the severe consequences of Clinton’s legacy in central Africa.
cf. according to Gerard Prunier, Africa’s World War, London 2009, p. 160. Clinton
supposedly told him that his administration was unhappy (“We are fed up”) with his
style of government. The event is described in Chapter VIII (“The New Congo”).
17 Nov 2010
Rwanda: Public Protest in London at UK Department for International Development
Public Protest in London In front of the Department for International Development To request Immediate Release of Victoire Ingabire and other Rwandan Political Prisoners, or otherwise stop UK aid to Paul Kagame's regime Friday 26/11/10 from 12.00 am to 3.00 pm Department for International Development DfID 1 Palace Street London SW1E 5HE The objectives of the protest are: · to request from UK, EU, US to put pressure on Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, to open up Rwandan political space, to free all political prisoners including Victoire Ingabire, Chair of FDU-Inkingi, to form a Transitional Government of National Unity including the real political opposition which would aim at preparing Free and Fair Elections, to set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission ·to request justice from the UN by setting up an International Criminal Tribunal for Congo (ICTC) to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) and Alliance des Forces Democratiques de Liberation (AFDL) between 1993 and 2003 in the Democratic Republic of Congo The memory of a relative or a compatriot Rwandan or Congolese or Burundian who were victim of war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide is calling you to come out and claim justice. We are highly indebted to the millions of men, women and children from all ethnic groups who died in the Democratic Republic of Congo because of war from 1993 up today. It is also our shared humanity we promote by speaking out for the millions of voiceless men, women and children all ethnic groups inclusively who are continuously being oppressed in Rwanda. You are cordially invited to join us. Please also tell friends and other people you know. Coordination Ambrose Nzeyimana Organising for Africa Mobile: 07982114446 Email: organisingforafrica@gmail.com |
Genocide against Hutus in Congo
On 4 February 2002, a Rwandese delegation comprising General James Kabarebe, Deputy Chief of Staff and now acting Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), Major Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa, special adviser to the Rwandan dictator General Paul Kagame and Mr. Jean de Dieu Mucyo, Rwandan Minister of Justice, and other officials arrived in Washington on an official visit. General James Kabarebe, along with General Paul Kagame and other members of their inner circle are responsible of numerous and still unpunished acts of genocide against Hutus, war crimes, crimes against peace and humanity committed by the RPA in Rwanda since October 1990 and Democratic Republic of Congo since August 1996. They are also allegedly linked to international criminal networks active in the black market in arms, diamonds, gold and other forms of wealth which continue to fuel wars in Africa. These international criminal syndicates supply them with all kinds of weaponry used in their massacres of civilians and they pay back with looted gems and other natural resources and wealth from territories illegally occupied by the RPA in eastern Congo. In a letter to the Bush administration dated 9 February 2002, the RDR urges the US government to impose an arms embargo on Rwanda, refuse entry visas to war crimes suspects on power in Rwanda, cut financial and diplomatic support to the dictatorial regime of Gen. Paul Kagame and extend the mandate of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to crimes committed in Rwanda and Congo after 1994 or create an International Criminal Tribunal for the DR Congo. In fact, apart from concluding to the genocide of Tutsis in territories under governmental control after the assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994, the U.N. Commission of Experts also clearly concluded in its preliminary and final reports that individuals from both sides to the armed conflict in Rwanda had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during the period from 6 April 1994 to 15 July 1994. For the perpetrators of those crimes, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights clearly identified the then "Rwandese State authorities", overthrown by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) in July 1994, and "RPF organs, particularly those in charge of military operations." At the time these horrendous crimes were being committed, Major Theogene Rudasingwa was RPF Secretary General and Gen. James Kabarebe was the Commanding Officer of the Republican Guard of Gen. Paul Kagame, RPF's military leader. Impunity still enjoyed by General James Kabarebe, Major Dr, Theoneste Rudasingwa, General Paul Kagame and other RPF/RPA members of their inner circle has encouraged them to extend their crimes to DR Congo. During the first Congolese war in 1996-1997 which ended by the overthrow of the dictatorial regime of Mobutu Sese Seko, the RPA was allied with Laurent Desire Kabila's rebellion and Commander James Kabarebe, then Colonel, was the Chief of RPA's military operations in Congo. More than 200 000 Rwandan civilian Hutu refugees, mostly women, children and elderly, had been massacred in eastern Congo by RPA units under his direct control and command. In its Presidential Statement of 13 July 1998, the UN Security Council condemned these crimes and urged the governments of Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo to prosecute those responsible. Until now, no lone military or political leader has been prosecuted for these massacres. The second war erupted in DR Congo in August 1998 when President Laurent Desire Kabila ordered Rwandan military advisers out of Congo. Considering Congo as their Ali Baba's cave, Rwandan troops refused to leave Congo when ordered to do so. Colonel James Kabarebe hijacked planes he used to airlift troops from eastern Congo to western Congo in order to take Kinshasa. This objective failed because of the intervention of the Angolan, Zimbabwean and Namibian armies on Kabila's side. Defeated Rwandan and Ugandan troops retreated then in eastern Congo where they created various surrogate Congolese "rebel movements". According to the results of a mortality survey conducted by the International Rescue Committee (http://www.theirc.org) released in May 2001, 2,5 million Congolese civilians have died in illegally occupied territories as a result of war imposed upon the Congolese people by aggressor countries. A country at war against terrorism has a moral responsibility to sever its relations with the Kigali government controlled by RPF/RPA war crimes suspects linked to international merchants of war. On Sunday, December 30, 2001, the Washington Post published on page A01 an article with the title "Digging up Congo's Dirty Germs. Officials Say Diamond Trade Funds Radical Islamic Groups ". According to the article, "authorities in Antwerp - where more than 90 percent of the world diamonds are bought, sold, polished or cut - estimate that about $600 million in diamonds are exported annually from Congo but that only about $180 million worth of the stones are exported legally." On Monday, February 11, 2002, the Belgian daily Le Soir published an article in french with the title "Les talibans armés au départ d'Ostende". The article reveals the existence of a file in the Belgian Military Intelligence Service (SGR) on the arms dealer Mr. Victor Anatolievitsh Bout, former member of the Russian Special Forces. According to the file and the article, Mr. Victor Bout had supplied around 40 tons of arms worth $ 50 millions to talibans in 1996. Four Bulgarians linked to him had already been arrested in Belgium on Friday, February 8, 2002. Mr. Victor Bout is alleged to be hiding in Kigali, Rwanda. Mr. Victor Bout is cited in United Nations reports among the main sanctions busters who supplied arms to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) and the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone in violation of UN arms and gems embargoes on the two rebel groups. The weapons are paid back with diamonds, gold, timber and other natural resources. The Rwandan General James Kabarebe and other other RPF/RPA leaders in the inner circle of the Rwandan dictator General Paul Kagame are associated with Victor Bout in the plundering of Congolese natural resources and other forms of wealth. This is particularly corroborated by many witnesses and confirmed by the "UN Report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo", New York, 12 Aprill 2001, § 91: "First, Ali Hussein, who plays a major role in diamond and gold deals in Bukavu and Kisangani. Those who have dealt with him in the past have mentioned the presence of a Rwandan national during commercial negotiations. There are indications that the Rwandan citizen attending the meetings is a civil servant working in the President's office in Kigali. Second is Colonel James Kabarebe, who is the RPA facilitator for some deals. According to some sources he has been in contact with Victor Butt [or Bout] for the lease of an Ilyushin 76 that served to carry coltan from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Kigali. He is said to be a partner to Mohamed Ali Salem, manager of the company Global Mineral. This company is involved in coltan purchasing in Bukavu and Goma. Third, Tibere Rujigiro, member of RPF, who is considered to be one of the main money providers to the party during the 1990-1994 war. He is a major shareholder in Tristar Investment, a company equally close to RPF. He is said to be also involved in the tobacco business." Territories held by the Rwandan-backed "rebels" in eastern Congo are free-trade zones for the financing of various international criminal cartels believed linked to terrorist organisations. To dry funds from illicit trade of arms, conflict diamonds, etc., the RDR urges the US government and other democratic countries to sever relations with Gen. Paul Kagame, use their influence and power to end the illegal occupation of eastern Congo and the exploitation of its natural resources and other forms of wealth by Rwanda and Uganda. |
13 Nov 2010
Rwanda: Ingabire Refused Bail
By Ruben Koops
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
12 November 2010
Victoire Ingabire was refused bail on Friday by the Rwandan High Court in Kigali on the grounds of being a security threat to the Rwandan state. After a heated debate between public prosecutor Bonavanture Ruberwa and Ingabire’s legal team, led by lawyer Gatera Gashabana, Judge Johnston Busingye ruled that she had to stay in prison.
According to the public prosecutor, there are new factors in her case that demand Victoire Ingabire to stay in custody. “We are very happy with this verdict, because there are new developments in the case.” Ruberwa said. “We are preparing the final file on her case. I expect that we can send it to the court on Sunday”. The prosecutor would not say what the new evidence is.
Devastated
Ingabire’s husband Lin Muyizere is devastated by the ruling: “I expected that she would be released today, this is an enormous blow.” According to Muyizere, today’s ruling is another episode in a political trial that Ingabire has to go through. “It is so harsh on us, I don’t know what to do. I have to stay close to my children now.”
Victoire Ingabire was transported back to prison following the verdict, Muyizere did not have a chance to talk to his wife. “I try to communicate with her through her lawyer”, he told Radio Netherlands.
Budget Support
Meanwhile the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal is not yet willing to cut development aid to Rwanda because of the Victoire Ingabire trial. An additional factor may well be the assertions made in the UN report on Rwandan involvement in the violation of human rights in East Congo. According to a departmental statement obtained by Radio Netherlands, Rosenthal is willing to debate specific types of direct budget support, meaning money that is received directly by the Rwandan government. A final decision on whether the Netherlands will continue funding the Rwandan government is expected before the foreign affairs budget hearings in mid-December.
After Radio Netherlands reported the arrest of Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, MP’s Dijkhoff (VVD) and El Fassed (GroenLinks) requested clarification from Rosenthal on the Dutch stand in the Ingabire trial. They are concerned about her right to a fair hearing. Both MPs have asked if Dutch embassy staff in Kigali could assist Ingabire with the case against her. But according to Rosenthal, since Victoire Ingabire is not a Dutch citizen, consular aid is limited to physical presence in the court room.
“The Rwandan rule of law fulfils most international standards and is fully independent” Rosenthal states. However, he regards the repeated commentary on the case by Rwandan government officials as "worrisome". Rosenthal confirmed he will express his concern to the Rwandan government, together with other donor countries. Since the publication of the UN Report about war crimes committed against Hutus in East Congo, there has been more international pressure on the Rwandan government to reform.
Lobby
In a private meeting in The Hague on Tuesday, a Rwandan delegation of diplomats and politicians tried to convince several Dutch MP’s that a budget support reduction is not advisable. But according to sources who attended the meeting, the delegation did not succeed in changing their minds. “The Ingabire trial was the final straw for me”, a source says. “We should stop handing the Kagame government any more aid money.” MP Joël Voordewind, who was also present at the meeting, didn’t change his opinion either: “I didn’t hear any new reason to throw my support behind the renewal of this direct budget aid.”
Related Materials:
Against all odds, the High Court denies bail to Ms.Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza
DRC: Mapping human rights violations 1993-2003
Ingabire's High Court Hearing: The prosecutor’s evidence was fake
Foreign aid for dictators
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
12 November 2010
According to the public prosecutor, there are new factors in her case that demand Victoire Ingabire to stay in custody. “We are very happy with this verdict, because there are new developments in the case.” Ruberwa said. “We are preparing the final file on her case. I expect that we can send it to the court on Sunday”. The prosecutor would not say what the new evidence is.
Devastated
Ingabire’s husband Lin Muyizere is devastated by the ruling: “I expected that she would be released today, this is an enormous blow.” According to Muyizere, today’s ruling is another episode in a political trial that Ingabire has to go through. “It is so harsh on us, I don’t know what to do. I have to stay close to my children now.”
Victoire Ingabire was transported back to prison following the verdict, Muyizere did not have a chance to talk to his wife. “I try to communicate with her through her lawyer”, he told Radio Netherlands.
Budget Support
Meanwhile the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Uri Rosenthal is not yet willing to cut development aid to Rwanda because of the Victoire Ingabire trial. An additional factor may well be the assertions made in the UN report on Rwandan involvement in the violation of human rights in East Congo. According to a departmental statement obtained by Radio Netherlands, Rosenthal is willing to debate specific types of direct budget support, meaning money that is received directly by the Rwandan government. A final decision on whether the Netherlands will continue funding the Rwandan government is expected before the foreign affairs budget hearings in mid-December.
After Radio Netherlands reported the arrest of Rwandan opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, MP’s Dijkhoff (VVD) and El Fassed (GroenLinks) requested clarification from Rosenthal on the Dutch stand in the Ingabire trial. They are concerned about her right to a fair hearing. Both MPs have asked if Dutch embassy staff in Kigali could assist Ingabire with the case against her. But according to Rosenthal, since Victoire Ingabire is not a Dutch citizen, consular aid is limited to physical presence in the court room.
“The Rwandan rule of law fulfils most international standards and is fully independent” Rosenthal states. However, he regards the repeated commentary on the case by Rwandan government officials as "worrisome". Rosenthal confirmed he will express his concern to the Rwandan government, together with other donor countries. Since the publication of the UN Report about war crimes committed against Hutus in East Congo, there has been more international pressure on the Rwandan government to reform.
Lobby
In a private meeting in The Hague on Tuesday, a Rwandan delegation of diplomats and politicians tried to convince several Dutch MP’s that a budget support reduction is not advisable. But according to sources who attended the meeting, the delegation did not succeed in changing their minds. “The Ingabire trial was the final straw for me”, a source says. “We should stop handing the Kagame government any more aid money.” MP Joël Voordewind, who was also present at the meeting, didn’t change his opinion either: “I didn’t hear any new reason to throw my support behind the renewal of this direct budget aid.”
Related Materials:
Against all odds, the High Court denies bail to Ms.Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza
DRC: Mapping human rights violations 1993-2003
Ingabire's High Court Hearing: The prosecutor’s evidence was fake
Foreign aid for dictators
10 Nov 2010
09.11.10 - ICTR/KAREMERA - PRESIDENT OF MRND MILITIA WORKED FOR RPF, ACCORDING TO WITNESS
09.11.10 - ICTR/KAREMERA - PRESIDENT OF MRND MILITIA WORKED FOR RPF,
ACCORDING TO WITNESS Arusha, November 09, 2010 (FH) - Former close Protection Officer for Rwandan President Paul Kagame alleged before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Tuesday that President of Interahamwe militia of the ruling MRND party in 1994, Robert Kajuga worked for the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) now in power in Kigali.
‘'It is not only Kajuga who worked for the RPF but there were many others from the government.'' Aloys Ruyenzi, former close protection officer to President Kagame told the court in the defence case of the former MRND President, Mathieu Ngirumpatse.
When asked by Don Webster, the Prosecuting counsel to say more about Kajuga, Ruyenzi responded ‘'he was Tutsi working for the RPF to kill members of the population.''
Earlier during examination in chief by defence co-counsel, Frédéric Weyl, the witness explained ‘'RPF did not care to kill members of the population when they infiltrated Kigali town.''
He told the court that members of the RPF were sent to Kigali town to infiltrate into the population, at roadblocks and in the public transport where they carried out killings against the population in a bid to hold power by force.
‘'All the crimes perpetrated by RPF were attributed to the Rwanda government. They were people who lived and worked with me and when they come back from missions they would tell me about the killings they committed,'' Ruyenzi explained.
The trial continues Wednesday.
Ngirumpatse and his co-accused, former MRND vice-president Edouard Karemera, are charged mainly with crimes allegedly committed by members of their party and Interahamwe militiamen of their youth wing.
NI/FK/ER/GF
© Hirondelle News Agency
http://www.hirondellenews.com/content/view/13828/333/
ACCORDING TO WITNESS Arusha, November 09, 2010 (FH) - Former close Protection Officer for Rwandan President Paul Kagame alleged before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Tuesday that President of Interahamwe militia of the ruling MRND party in 1994, Robert Kajuga worked for the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) now in power in Kigali.
‘'It is not only Kajuga who worked for the RPF but there were many others from the government.'' Aloys Ruyenzi, former close protection officer to President Kagame told the court in the defence case of the former MRND President, Mathieu Ngirumpatse.
When asked by Don Webster, the Prosecuting counsel to say more about Kajuga, Ruyenzi responded ‘'he was Tutsi working for the RPF to kill members of the population.''
Earlier during examination in chief by defence co-counsel, Frédéric Weyl, the witness explained ‘'RPF did not care to kill members of the population when they infiltrated Kigali town.''
He told the court that members of the RPF were sent to Kigali town to infiltrate into the population, at roadblocks and in the public transport where they carried out killings against the population in a bid to hold power by force.
‘'All the crimes perpetrated by RPF were attributed to the Rwanda government. They were people who lived and worked with me and when they come back from missions they would tell me about the killings they committed,'' Ruyenzi explained.
The trial continues Wednesday.
Ngirumpatse and his co-accused, former MRND vice-president Edouard Karemera, are charged mainly with crimes allegedly committed by members of their party and Interahamwe militiamen of their youth wing.
NI/FK/ER/GF
© Hirondelle News Agency
http://www.hirondellenews.com/content/view/13828/333/
Kagame, Bashir: Birds of the same feather…
|
29 Oct 2010
Former Rwandan Envoy Calls for International Pressure on President Kagame
Former ambassador to the U.S. Theogene Rudasingwa says opposition leader Victoire Ingabire is a freedom fighter who should not be in jail
By James Butty | Washington, D.C.
27 October 2010
This comes as a Rwandan court Tuesday denied bail to opposition leader Victoire Ingabire, who was arrested earlier this month on charges of forming a terrorist group.
Rwandan Opposition Leader Victoire Ingabire
Theogene Rudasingwa told VOA that Ingabire is a freedom fighter who should not be in jail.
“My comment is first of all to ask why she should be in jail because Ingabire is not a terrorist as they charged her. In My opinion, I think she’s a freedom fighter, and she’s paying a price for that,” he said.
In denying Igabire a bail Tuesday, the court said she could continue her activities and endanger state security if she were let out of jail on bail.
Rudasingwa said the court’s explanation fits the pattern of the kinds of accusations that
“It’s not only Ingabire who has been called a terrorist. If you are not charged with terrorism, they say you are a criminal, you’re corrupt; they call you a genocidal. So it really fits the pattern, and the only crime that this innocent lady has committed is to speak up against the brutality of President Kagame,” Rudasingwa said.
Ingabire said through her supporters that she plans to appeal the court’s decision.
But Rudasingwa said the chances for winning an appeal in Rwandan courts are very limited.
“It simply shows that as for now Kagame has converted the country into a virtual prison, and I think he takes pride in being its chief prison guard. It’s not Ingabire who is a terrorist. It’s rather the Rwandan people versus state terrorism that is being imposed on them by President Kagame,” Rudasingwa said.
Rudasingwa called on President Kagame to release Ingabire and all political prisoners.
He also called on the international community to continue to put pressure on President Kagame to allow fundamental freedoms to flourish in Rwanda.
“We call upon the international community for whom Kagame depends for his excesses to put pressure on him indeed to make sure that he allows for fundamental freedoms to thrive in the country,” he said.
With what he called “many crimes hanging on the neck of President Kagame”, Rudasingwa said the international community should also make sure that Mr. Kagame accounts for what former envoy said are crimes being committed against the Rwandan people.
Related Materials:
Victoire Ingabire imprisonment "unlawful"
Rwandan opposition leader denied bail
25 Oct 2010
Did Tony Blair discuss with Paul Kagame about Victoire Ingabire’s imprisonment?
By Ambrose Nzeyimana
The Rising Continent
October 21, 2010
Agence France Presse (AFP) reported this week that Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, visited Rwanda on Sunday and Monday. The visit happened just after two major events in Rwandan politics which, if not carefully managed, could damage irreversibly the image of Paul Kagame, the Rwandan president, his country, and particularly many world personalities who have been closely associated with the rebuilding of Rwanda after the 1994 genocide. These events could as well have a negative resonance on the views of citizens of Rwanda and more widely the Great Lakes region about countries and foreign leaders backing the Rwandan president.
The two events are in order of importance and chronology the publication of the UN report titled, ‘Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between March 1993 and June 2003,’ which was published on October 1st, and the imprisonment on October 14th, of the main Rwandan opposition politician Victoire Ingabire, leader of FDU-Inkingi.
Officially, Blair was in Kigali to praise Paul Kagame and his government on the progress they may be making towards the MDGs. But knowing the setbacks that Paul Kagame experienced in Madrid during the UN Conference on the MDGs in the month of July, when the Spanish prime minister refused to stand along side him because of the crimes he is accused of, and then the massive public demonstration against him in New York during the annual general assembly of the UN, this early September, consequently the Blair’s visit must have had a different agenda.
At this stage there can only be speculations about what they may have discussed related to the mentioned important recent occurrences in Rwandan politics. Could Blair have told Kagame to go friendlier with his political opponents? This may be a possibility. Is it likely that the former British prime minister may have also advised that he would continue to help as much he could on the accusations bound in the UN report about Kagame’s forces in Congo? This is another eventuality.
Whatever they may have discussed which didn’t come out publicly, must have been very important. The reason for that understanding is because many other foreign personalities had talked to Paul Kagame before. The way he had reacted to their arguments came out in his speech on Wednesday October 6th, during the swearing-in of his recently nominated government. At the time he arrogantly indicated that he didn’t want to receive lessons from anyone on how to lead his country. He apparently knows best what is good for Rwanda.
Glen Ford explains why the situation is critical and may have probably demanded the intervention of Tony Blair. ‘The leaked UN report cannot be put back in the bottle. Kagame, who labels all critics “genocidaires” or apologists for genocide, is exposed as “the greatest mass killer on the face of the earth, today,” as described by Edward S. Herman, co-author of The Politics of Genocide. Kagame’s mentors and funders in the U.S. government, who aided and abetted his genocide in Congo, must be held equally accountable – if not more so, since United States corporations derive the greatest benefit from Congo’s blood minerals, and the U.S. military gains the most advantage from Rwandan and Ugandan services as mercenaries at America’s beck and call in Africa.’
Will Paul Kagame listen to Tony Blair’s arguments if the latter did recommend him what best should be done in the face of the current situation, or will he continue to reply, ‘I don’t care,’ as we know him for his trademark kind of answer? Time will tell.
Related Materials:
Rwanda on target to meet health development goals: Blair
DRC: Mapping human rights violations 1993-2003
Rwanda Crisis Could Expose U.S. Role in Congo Genocide
The Rising Continent
October 21, 2010
The two events are in order of importance and chronology the publication of the UN report titled, ‘Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between March 1993 and June 2003,’ which was published on October 1st, and the imprisonment on October 14th, of the main Rwandan opposition politician Victoire Ingabire, leader of FDU-Inkingi.
Officially, Blair was in Kigali to praise Paul Kagame and his government on the progress they may be making towards the MDGs. But knowing the setbacks that Paul Kagame experienced in Madrid during the UN Conference on the MDGs in the month of July, when the Spanish prime minister refused to stand along side him because of the crimes he is accused of, and then the massive public demonstration against him in New York during the annual general assembly of the UN, this early September, consequently the Blair’s visit must have had a different agenda.
At this stage there can only be speculations about what they may have discussed related to the mentioned important recent occurrences in Rwandan politics. Could Blair have told Kagame to go friendlier with his political opponents? This may be a possibility. Is it likely that the former British prime minister may have also advised that he would continue to help as much he could on the accusations bound in the UN report about Kagame’s forces in Congo? This is another eventuality.
Whatever they may have discussed which didn’t come out publicly, must have been very important. The reason for that understanding is because many other foreign personalities had talked to Paul Kagame before. The way he had reacted to their arguments came out in his speech on Wednesday October 6th, during the swearing-in of his recently nominated government. At the time he arrogantly indicated that he didn’t want to receive lessons from anyone on how to lead his country. He apparently knows best what is good for Rwanda.
Glen Ford explains why the situation is critical and may have probably demanded the intervention of Tony Blair. ‘The leaked UN report cannot be put back in the bottle. Kagame, who labels all critics “genocidaires” or apologists for genocide, is exposed as “the greatest mass killer on the face of the earth, today,” as described by Edward S. Herman, co-author of The Politics of Genocide. Kagame’s mentors and funders in the U.S. government, who aided and abetted his genocide in Congo, must be held equally accountable – if not more so, since United States corporations derive the greatest benefit from Congo’s blood minerals, and the U.S. military gains the most advantage from Rwandan and Ugandan services as mercenaries at America’s beck and call in Africa.’
Will Paul Kagame listen to Tony Blair’s arguments if the latter did recommend him what best should be done in the face of the current situation, or will he continue to reply, ‘I don’t care,’ as we know him for his trademark kind of answer? Time will tell.
Related Materials:
Rwanda on target to meet health development goals: Blair
DRC: Mapping human rights violations 1993-2003
Rwanda Crisis Could Expose U.S. Role in Congo Genocide
24 Oct 2010
Who was Behind the Rwandan Genocide? The Rwandan Patriotic Front's Bloody Record and the History of UN Cover-Ups
By Christopher Black
September 14, 2010
The draft report was leaked to Le Monde out of the plausible fear that its most damning facts and charges against the armed forces of the Rwandan Patriotic Front and President Paul Kagame would be expunged prior to its official release. Sure enough, one week later, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay announced that the official report's release would be delayed until October 1 "to give concerned states a further month to comment on the draft," and even "offered to publish any comments alongside the report itself."3
Such an unprecedented offer by the UNHCHR follows from a number of factors, including the role that Rwandan troops play in UN peacekeeping operations, and the fact that earlier this year, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Kagame to serve along with Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as co-chairs of a new Millennium Development Goal Advisory Group. According to the New Yorker's Philip Gourevitch -- who, after Alison Des Forges, did as much as anyone to sell the official version of the 1994 "Rwanda genocide" to the West, and clearly remains on very friendly terms with the Kagame dictatorship -- "top Rwandan officials [have been speaking] freely and on the record about their efforts to have the draft report quashed." As Rwanda's Minister of Foreign Affairs Louise Mushikiwabo confided in Gourevitch, "If it is endorsed by the U.N. and it's ever published, . . . if the U.N. releases it as a U.N. report, the moment it's released, the next day all our troops are coming home. Not just Darfur, all the five countries where we have police."4
A third, no doubt more decisive factor is that the Kagame dictatorship is a client of the United States and "acts as a mercenary for U.S. interests in Africa," as Glen Ford observes; the current conflict between this dictatorship and the UN "threatens to reveal the United States' role as enabler in the deaths of as many as six million people while Washington's allies occupied and looted the eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo."5 It is Washington's ties to Kagame' RPF, ultimately, as well as London's and Brussels', that public discussions of the draft UN report should turn the spotlight on.
But this is not the first such report to have been drafted by the UN -- nor is it the first one to be covered up. As early as October 11, 1994, Robert Gersony, an
On page 4 of the UN record of Gersony's oral presentation, we read:
"Significant areas of Butare Prefecture, Kibungo Prefecture, and the southern and eastern areas of Kigali Prefecture have been -- and in some cases were reported to remain as early as September -- the scene of systematic and sustained killing and persecution of the civilian Hutu populations by the [Rwandan Patriotic Army]. These activities are reported to have begun, depending on location, between April and July 1994, immediately following the expulsion from each area of former Government military, militia and surrogate forces. These [Rwandan Patriotic Army] actions were consistently reported to be conducted in areas where opposition forces of any kind -- armed or unarmed -- or resistance of any kind -- other than attempts by the victims of these actions to escape -- were absent. Large scale indiscriminate killings of men, women and children, including the sick and elderly, were consistently reported."
And on page 6 we also learn that "an unmistakable pattern of systematic [Rwandan Patriotic Army] conduct of such actions is the unavoidable conclusion of the team's interviews."
The Gersony report is identified in a cover letter dated October 11, 1994, from one Francois Fouinat to Mrs. B. Molina-Abram, the Secretary to the Commission of Experts on Rwanda. In this brief letter, Fouinat explains:
"We refer to the UNHCR's briefing to the Commission of Experts on Monday, 11 October 1994.
"As requested by the Commission, we are forwarding herewith a written summary of Mr. Gersony's oral presentation and copies of some field reports sent to UNHCR Headquarters by UNHCR Field Offices.
"We are confident that as agreed by the President of the Commission of Experts, these documents will be treated as confidential and only be made available to the members of the Commission."
I possess copies of these two UN documents from October 1994 because they are part of the evidence-base at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where I serve as the lead defense counsel for Hutu former General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, once the Chief of Staff of the Rwanda Gendarmerie. The documents were found by my legal assistant purely by chance while scanning the prosecution's Electronic Disclosure System, which contains hundreds of thousands of documents that are not indexed in any order. My assistant came across them as part of a package of material organized by Robert Gersony himself while he was assigned to the UNHCR. It must be assumed that Mr. Gersony thought the documents relevant, as they affected the fate of the Hutu refugees.
At the ICTR, the brief cover letter by Francois Fouinat bears the index number "R0002906." The next 14 pages of R0002906 contain the Gersony report and are numbered sequentially with an 'R' -- prefix number used by the ICTR for documents contained in its Rwanda files.
Because I possess the series of ICTR documents beginning with R0002906, I also have in my possession an even more astonishing document the true historical significance of which has once again been underscored by the leaked UNHCHR report: Namely, the copy of a letter from Paul Kagame to his fellow Tutsi Jean-Baptiste Bagaza of Burundi, dated August 10, 1994.
Let me share with you an exchange that took place on November 18, 2008 in the Military II trial at the ICTR.6 What was said in court that particular day explains how these documents came to light. I was one of the speakers.
Mr. Black,7
"Mr. President, before I do that -- that takes place, I have something which I would like to raise of great importance, I think.
"Yesterday my legal assistant found by accident, something, I think of grave importance for this Tribunal and for the world. It's a letter from General Paul Kagame dated the 10th of August 1994 to Jean Baptiste Bagaza, . . . in Burundi. It's marked 'confidential'.
"I didn't have time to make copies, so I want to read it to you. It has an 'R'-number. R0002905. It's in French, so please bear with me to make a loose translation. It says -- it's only one page and it is short:
'Dear Brother Jean Baptiste Bagaza, we have the greatest honour to extend our sincere gratitude to you both for your financial and technical support in our struggle that has just ended with the taking of Kigali.
'Rest assured that our plan to continue shall be pursued as we agreed at our last meeting in Kampala. Last week I communicated with our big brother Yoweri Museveni and decided to make some modifications to the plan. Indeed, as you have noted, the taking of Kigali quickly provoked a panic among the Hutus who fled to Goma and Bukavu. We have found that the presence of a large number of Rwandan refugees at Goma and the international community can cause our plan for Zaire to fail. We cannot occupy ourselves with Zaire until after the return of these Hutus. All means are being used for their return as rapidly as possible. In any case, our external intelligence services continue to crisscross the east of Zaire and our Belgian, British and American collaborators, the rest of Zaire. The action reports are expected in the next few days.
'Concerning the Burundi plan, we are very content with your work to ensure the failure of the policies of FRODEBU. It is necessary to paralyze the power of FRODEBU until the total ruin of the situation in order to justify your action that must not miss its target. Our soldiers will be deployed, this time, not only in Bujumbura, but in the places you judge strategic. Our elements stationed at Bugesera are ready to intervene at any moment. The plan for Burundi must be executed as soon as possible before the Hutus of Rwanda can organize themselves.
'In the hope of seeing you next time at Kigali, we ask you to accept, dear brother, our most respectful greetings'.
General Paul Kagame
Minister of Defence
(signed by his assistant Mr. Rwego8)
"The importance of this letter if you have grasped it fully cannot be overstated. It means the attack on Rwanda from 1990 was not the prime objective of Kagame and his collaborators. Zaire was always the prime objective. That their excuse for the attack on Rwanda about establishing democracy and return of refugees, was completely false. That the invasion from Uganda had only one purpose: to clear the path through Rwanda to Zaire. That the return of refugees, as many witnesses have stated, was not for humanitarian reasons, but to clear the path for the invasion of Zaire. It means that the Americans, British, particularly with Kagame and Museveni, planned the invasion of Zaire [sic] in 1994, probably before that. It means that the excuse given for the invasions of Congo since this letter was written to clear the 'Interahamwe' or 'genocidaires' is completely false. No mention is made of 'Interahamwe'. No mention is made of 'genocide'. It means, since this was received, it looks like a date stamp of this tribunal, 8th December 1994, that the Prosecutor of this Tribunal has been hiding information indicating a conspiracy to commit a war of aggression against Congo-Zaire, Zaire and all of the war crimes have flowed from it since and the continuation of those wars in Congo now begun 14 years ago, if not longer. And that the principal parties are the principal parties stated in this letter. It indicates that the prime target, Hutus in Rwanda and Burundi, that they want to suppress the Hutu population in order to carry out their plan. Democracy was never their concern. And it indicates that the Prosecutor was in -- had information in a territorial and temporal jurisdiction of this Tribunal under rule -- under Statute-Article 1. That they are also concerned with war crimes committed in neighboring states.
"So, here you have the smoking gun, the letter, planning the invasion of Zaire with the Americans and British. And it confirms our theory all the way through this trial that the Belgians were involved with those other countries. And again, there must be -- and this, as a colleague pointed out, is page 8 of 12. So where are the other eleven pages of -- what other letters do they have in their hands? And again, it indicates that these men have been stitched up, falsely accused, in order to clear them out of the way so this plan can take place. If this is published in the New York Times or Washington Post, the whole picture of the war in Rwanda and the wars in Congo would change.
"So I ask the Prosecutor, once again, where is that file? And in fact I would like them to produce the indictment against Kagame9 because I want to see what he's been charged with, exactly what crimes and where. So, again, I ask for this file to be produced and I ask why they have not acted. Mr. Jallow and Louise Arbour and everybody else have been protecting the RPF which has now resulted in millions of deaths in the Congo and continues up till today and what is going on in Congo now.
"And I state openly that the Prosecution office is complicit with this invasion of Congo and is responsible themselves for all those murders in Congo because they've hidden this for a long time and they could have exposed it many years ago and stopped the invasions.
"If the international community, that is, other than the United States and the Britain, had been aware of what was going on, it would never have taken place. But they sit there and they accuse us, my client, and the other officers here of committing crimes, they knew what they were doing in Zaire. I don't think they can even shave and look in the mirror in the morning."
Mr. President,10
"Counsel, having said all of that, why don't you send this to the New York Times?"
Black,
"It will be sent . . . whether they publish it I do not know."11
In the days after this letter was exposed the prosecution accused the defence of having fabricated the letter and raised questions about its authenticity.
I replied, first, that the letter bears a sequential ICTR index number with an 'R'-prefix -- the prefix used for Rwanda documents.
Second, as mentioned above, this letter was found among the package of material organized by Robert Gersony while assigned to the UNHCR.
Third, the letter was date-stamped "December 8, 1994" by the ICTR. Presumably, this was its date of receipt by the ICTR.
Fourth, it is also noteworthy that the letter that we know was created no later than December 8th 1994 speaks of moving the Hutus out of the way in Zaire and this is exactly what happened. First the UN tried to force them back into Rwanda and partly succeeded. But the mass of refugees refused to return, so in 1996 the attacks on the Hutu refugee camps began, forcing them to flee into the Congo forest. There is a lot of testimony by Hutus who were either forced at gunpoint to return to Rwanda or experienced the manhunt against them conducted by the RPF and its allies.
Fifth, the letter is further authenticated by noting that the addressee (the Burundian Tutsi Jean Baptiste Bagaza) did in fact carry out a coup d'état in Burundi against a more moderate Tutsi and turned against the Hutu political group called Front pour la Démocratie au Burundi (FRODEBU, or Front for Democracy in Burundi). Unquestionably, Bagaza and Kagame were allies. According to the testimony of expert witness Dr. Helmut Strizek before the ICTR:
Q. "Very well, doctor, let's move toward the end. What clarification would you like to make on the relationship between Bagaza and Kagame when the president's aeroplane was shot down?"
Strizek. "If my memory serves me right, Bagaza had left the country, and I think returned after or before the assassination of Ndadaye. Bagaza was a hardliner, a Tutsi hardliner, so there was an alliance between the two of them, and they wanted to prevent a Hutu president from being in charge of Burundi."
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Strizek. "Jean-Baptiste Bagaza was a Hima or Tutsi president of Burundi who took power when he overthrew President Micombero, who had been responsible of anti-Hutu genocide in 1972. He was in power for some time. . . .
"In my opinion, it's quite clear that Bagaza and Kagame follow the same line."12
Sixth, the man whose signature appears on the letter on behalf of Paul Kagame, Mr. Rwego, confirmed to a member of the defence team that he did in fact sign it.
The accidental discovery of this August 10, 1994 letter from Paul Kagame to his "Dear Brother Jean Baptiste Bagaza" was met with an immediate reaction by the prosecution, who accused the defence of fabricating it, pointing out a typo in the letterhead. But this line of criticism failed, as it was shown that there are other letters in existence from the RPF on the same stationary, with the same typo in the letterhead, and these letters are regarded as authentic.
That someone regarded the letter as authentic and dangerous is highlighted the fact that I was followed by a Tanzanian police officer the night after I produced it in court and was forced to complain about this surveillance in court the next day. Yet the prosecution continued its attacks on the letter's authenticity, even though the document came from the files of the prosecutor. And this important revelation during the Military II trial was never reported in the mass media -- though I did send it to many journalists, including the New York Times.
Now that the draft UN report on the atrocities committed by the RPF in the Congo has been leaked, the findings of the very first UN report of RPF atrocities against the Hutus beginning in 1994 should also be recognized and addressed.
The UN must explain why the record of that 1994 presentation by Robert Gersony was marked "confidential" and why the latest draft UN report does not refer to it.
The prosecutors at the ICTR must explain why they hid these documents from the defence for nearly 15 years, and why, even though they have these documents in their possession, they have never once used these documents to bring charges against a single member of the RPF.
Last, Paul Kagame and his American, Belgian, and British collaborators must explain the meaning of the letter -- and in particular, the meaning of the phrase, "plan for Zaire."
Notes:
1 Christophe Châtelot, "L'acte d'accusation de dix ans de crimes au Congo RDC," Le Monde, August 26, 2010. For some additional news reports, see: "UN Uncovers Possible Genocide in Congo: Report," Agence France Presse, August 26, 2010; David Lewis, "Rwandan Army May Have Committed Genocide -- UN Report," Reuters, August 26, 2010; Judi Rever, "UN Lawyer Says Congo Butchery Resembled Rwandan Genocide," Agence France Presse, August 27, 2010; Michelle Faul, "UN Draft Report: Rwandan Army Attacks on Refugees in Congo in the 1990s Could Be Genocide," Associated Press, August 27, 2010; "DR Congo Killings 'May Be Genocide' -- UN Draft Report," BBC, August 27, 2010; Max Delany, Rwanda Dismisses UN Report Detailing Possible Hutu Genocide in Congo Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 2010; Chris McGreal et al., "Leaked UN Report Accuses Rwanda of Possible Genocide in Congo," The Guardian, August 27, 2010; Xan Rice, "Returning Refugees: Lush Land the Prize That Could Reignite Ethnic Conflict in DRC," The Guardian, August 27, 2010; Howard French, "U.N. Report on Congo Offers New View of Genocide Era," New York Times, August 28, 2010; Colum Lynch, "U.N. Says Rwandan Troops Carried Out Mass Killings in '90s," Washington Post, August 29, 2010.
2 See "Report of the Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo between March 1993 and June 2003," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, draft report dated June, 2010, para. 517.
3 "UN Report on Rights Violations in DR Congo to Be Released Next Month," UN News Center, September 2, 2010.
4 Philip Gourevitch, "Rwanda Pushes Back Against UN Genocide Charges," New Yorker Blog, August 27, 2010.
5 Glen Ford, "Rwanda Crisis Could Expose U.S. Role in Congo Genocide," Black Agenda Report, September 1, 2010.
6 The Military II trial concerns the joint trial of General Augustin Bizimungu, Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Army, General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Gendarmerie, Major Nzwonyemeye, Commander of the Reconnaissance Battalion, and Captain Sagahutu , Commander, Squadron A of the Reconnaissance Battalion.
7 Let the record show that I have written here exactly what I said in court. The translation in the trial transcripts is a bit garbled, and I have corrected the text accordingly.
8 Reference ICTR document number R0002905, letter dated August 10th, 1994, date stamped by the ICTR 8th December, 1994. Marked as page 8 of 12.
9 Defence counsel had been informed by a member of the prosecution that an indictment exists against Paul Kagame for war crimes and is being held by the ICTR for the appropriate time. In order to determine whether this was correct information the defence counsel several times asked the prosecution to provide that indictment as it would affect the defense. The prosecution never denied its existence and the defence was advised to bring a motion to request it.
10 Judge Asoka Da Silva of Sri Lanka, Presiding Judge, Tria, Chamber III, ICTR.
11 Transcript, Military II Trial, November 18th, 2008, pages 1-3.
12 Transcript, Military II Trial, November 24th, 2008, page 62, lines 19-24; and page 63.
Christopher Black serves as Lead Counsel for the Hutu former General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie, in Military II trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Christopher Black is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Global Research Articles by Christopher Black.
17 Oct 2010
Leaked: Rwandan Secret Services’ Plan to Eliminate Victoire Ingabire
By The Proxy Lake
October 17, 2010
The Rwandan directory of military intelligence DMI in collaboration with national police force may have masterminded the conspiracy to indict and eliminate Madam Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza with charges of participating in terrorist activities.
On a tip off from an informant from Kagame’s secret services, the exiled Umuvugizi newspaper Chief Editor Jean Bosco Gasasira revealed that the plan to eliminate Madam Victoire Ingabire was engineered by Colonel Dan Munyuza assisted by Army General Rwarakabije.
General Rwarakabije was asked to find an agent to play a central role to carry out the plan. He was tasked tohire a Hutu ethnic agents from FDRL that can be as reliable as easily influenced to collaborate in the Machiavelli plan, Umuvugizi Newspaper revealed Sunday 17th October.
The Newspaper confirmed that “General Rwarakabije picked one of his men from FDRL, a certain Major [Vital] Uwumuremyi who arrived in Rwanda a few months ago with his group. Once in Rwanda he was given a mission to return to Congo to spy on his comrades. He carried out his secret mission on several occasions before they were able to trust him. Information we have confirms that he received a large amount of money to convince him and be confident.”
It is believed that, when General Kayumba and Colonel Karegeya defected and fled the country, the Kagame’s army intelligent services planned to accuse them of terrorism crimes so that they can be brought back to Rwanda. The plan was also to get them isolated especially that both men have strong support in the army and civil community of the RPF party.
Umuvugizi confirms also that, earlier, the plan was devised by the Directory of Military Intelligence (DMI), which invented a ghost army called CDF (Coalition of Democratic Forces) and issuedpress releases and tracts to back it up.
In actual fact, this army group does not exist. It was only invented to create grounds for extraditing exiled army generals back to Rwanda.
Recyled Plan
“When this strategy did not work as planned as South Africa refused to extradite both generals, the plan was redirected at Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza’s arrest, using agent Major Uwumuremyi, especially because her earlier accusations were widely seen as false.” Umuvugizi continues.
International community has condemned the controversial genocide laws behind common accusations as a political tool to stifle the opposition to the point that Kagame’s government accepted to undertake a review of the laws.
“Secret services carefully planned Victoire Ingabire’s case. When the conspiracy was properly set, the plan was submitted to Kagame who accepted it. He immediately started to stress that it is not illegal to indict an opposition figure when they are guilty. He passed on the plan to the police and the prosecutor’s office so that they canstart acting on it. Agent Uwumuremyi was already prepared to falsely accuse Victoire Ingabire of participating in the formation of the army group”
Kagame intentionally kept stating to international press that it was not illegal to arrest and bring to court someone who threatens national security. This argument was also heard in his speech during the new government swearing in ceremony a few days ago. He complained that the international community is asking him to allow space for his political opponents while they, in their countries, punish those who are opposed to their governments: “We know that they arrested a member of parliament because of his anti-Muslim views, but they condemn our arrest of those with genocide ideology” Kagame said.
He kept hammering the same argument and that they have no right to call him a dictator. These statements were paving a way to the planned Victoire Ingabire’s arrest.
At this moment, International community, especially donor countries, are putting pressure on Kagame to accept to form a government with members of opposition parties. With his plan, he would be able to prove that the opposition is only made up of people with questionable background. Another reason is that Ingabire was being very competitive to Kagame since she was criticising him publicly and was effectively collaborating with donors on Rwandan political issues. She was being a serious obstacle to Kagame’s foreign policy.
Bernard Ntaganda approached by Kagame
Another thing that was revealed by the newspaper’s informant is that, as the international community was putting pressure on Kagame, he devised a plan to approach Lawyer Bernard Ntaganda [PS Party chairman who is now in prison] to use him to character assassinate Mrs Victoire Ingabire. The plan was to lure Ntaganda on the govermnent side as they did with many other opposition politicians, such as [Senator Stanley] Safari, who helped destroy their own parties in exchange good posts.
Information received stated that [Ntaganda] was met in prison and was asked to sign statements apologizing to Kagame and stating that he disowns Victoire Ingabire. In exchange he was to be released from prison and rewarded an important post in the government. The informant revealed that he was called in the “1930” Prison Director’s office, at night to meet with those in charge of convincing him. It is stated that he was taken outside the prison to convince him even further.
Bernard Ntaganda categorically refused to sign. As a punishment, he was transferred into a solitary confinement in atrocious conditions.
According to Umuvugizi newspaper, information received corroborates that “Victoire Ingabire will be given a slow killer type of poison that will put an end to her political career. At the same time, agents of special intelligence in diplomatic missions in Rwanda are working hard to convince ambassadors that Victoire Ingabire was part of the terrorist army group”
As soon as she arrived in Rwanda, Mrs Victoire Ingabire was accused of genocide ideology and genocide denial as well as of collaborating with armed group FDRL. It is alleged that she provided financial support to the army group.
Today all of these allegations have changed. She is now accused of participating in the formation of a new army wing CDF and of supplying it with weapons. Umuvugizi Chief Editor, Jean Bosco Gasasira who is familiar with these ever-changing charges confirmed that this is pure fabrication. This culture within the RPF party led by Kagame has cost lives of many innocent people who happen to have different political opinion from that of its leader.
October 17, 2010
The Rwandan directory of military intelligence DMI in collaboration with national police force may have masterminded the conspiracy to indict and eliminate Madam Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza with charges of participating in terrorist activities.
Army General Rwarakabije
On a tip off from an informant from Kagame’s secret services, the exiled Umuvugizi newspaper Chief Editor Jean Bosco Gasasira revealed that the plan to eliminate Madam Victoire Ingabire was engineered by Colonel Dan Munyuza assisted by Army General Rwarakabije.
General Rwarakabije was asked to find an agent to play a central role to carry out the plan. He was tasked to
The Newspaper confirmed that “General Rwarakabije picked one of his men from FDRL, a certain Major [Vital] Uwumuremyi who arrived in Rwanda a few months ago with his group. Once in Rwanda he was given a mission to return to Congo to spy on his comrades. He carried out his secret mission on several occasions before they were able to trust him. Information we have confirms that he received a large amount of money to convince him and be confident.”
It is believed that, when General Kayumba and Colonel Karegeya defected and fled the country, the Kagame’s army intelligent services planned to accuse them of terrorism crimes so that they can be brought back to Rwanda. The plan was also to get them isolated especially that both men have strong support in the army and civil community of the RPF party.
Umuvugizi confirms also that, earlier, the plan was devised by the Directory of Military Intelligence (DMI), which invented a ghost army called CDF (Coalition of Democratic Forces) and issued
In actual fact, this army group does not exist. It was only invented to create grounds for extraditing exiled army generals back to Rwanda.
Recyled Plan
“When this strategy did not work as planned as South Africa refused to extradite both generals, the plan was redirected at Mme Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza’s arrest, using agent Major Uwumuremyi, especially because her earlier accusations were widely seen as false.” Umuvugizi continues.
International community has condemned the controversial genocide laws behind common accusations as a political tool to stifle the opposition to the point that Kagame’s government accepted to undertake a review of the laws.
“Secret services carefully planned Victoire Ingabire’s case. When the conspiracy was properly set, the plan was submitted to Kagame who accepted it. He immediately started to stress that it is not illegal to indict an opposition figure when they are guilty. He passed on the plan to the police and the prosecutor’s office so that they can
Kagame intentionally kept stating to international press that it was not illegal to arrest and bring to court someone who threatens national security. This argument was also heard in his speech during the new government swearing in ceremony a few days ago. He complained that the international community is asking him to allow space for his political opponents while they, in their countries, punish those who are opposed to their governments: “We know that they arrested a member of parliament because of his anti-Muslim views, but they condemn our arrest of those with genocide ideology” Kagame said.
He kept hammering the same argument and that they have no right to call him a dictator. These statements were paving a way to the planned Victoire Ingabire’s arrest.
At this moment, International community, especially donor countries, are putting pressure on Kagame to accept to form a government with members of opposition parties. With his plan, he would be able to prove that the opposition is only made up of people with questionable background. Another reason is that Ingabire was being very competitive to Kagame since she was criticising him publicly and was effectively collaborating with donors on Rwandan political issues. She was being a serious obstacle to Kagame’s foreign policy.
Bernard Ntaganda approached by Kagame
Another thing that was revealed by the newspaper’s informant is that, as the international community was putting pressure on Kagame, he devised a plan to approach Lawyer Bernard Ntaganda [PS Party chairman who is now in prison] to use him to character assassinate Mrs Victoire Ingabire. The plan was to lure Ntaganda on the govermnent side as they did with many other opposition politicians, such as [Senator Stanley] Safari, who helped destroy their own parties in exchange good posts.
Information received stated that [Ntaganda] was met in prison and was asked to sign statements apologizing to Kagame and stating that he disowns Victoire Ingabire. In exchange he was to be released from prison and rewarded an important post in the government. The informant revealed that he was called in the “1930” Prison Director’s office, at night to meet with those in charge of convincing him. It is stated that he was taken outside the prison to convince him even further.
Bernard Ntaganda categorically refused to sign. As a punishment, he was transferred into a solitary confinement in atrocious conditions.
According to Umuvugizi newspaper, information received corroborates that “Victoire Ingabire will be given a slow killer type of poison that will put an end to her political career. At the same time, agents of special intelligence in diplomatic missions in Rwanda are working hard to convince ambassadors that Victoire Ingabire was part of the terrorist army group”
As soon as she arrived in Rwanda, Mrs Victoire Ingabire was accused of genocide ideology and genocide denial as well as of collaborating with armed group FDRL. It is alleged that she provided financial support to the army group.
Today all of these allegations have changed. She is now accused of participating in the formation of a new army wing CDF and of supplying it with weapons. Umuvugizi Chief Editor, Jean Bosco Gasasira who is familiar with these ever-changing charges confirmed that this is pure fabrication. This culture within the RPF party led by Kagame has cost lives of many innocent people who happen to have different political opinion from that of its leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (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