The dictator Kagame at UN

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

Why has the UN ignored its own report about the massacres of Hutu refugees in DRC ?

The UN has ignored its own reports, NGOs and media reports about the massacres of hundreds of thousands of Hutu in DRC Congo (estimated to be more than 400,000) by Kagame when he attacked Hutu refugee camps in Eastern DRC in 1996. This barbaric killings and human rights violations were perpetrated by Kagame’s RPF with the approval of UK and USA and with sympathetic understanding and knowledge of UNHCR and international NGOs which were operating in the refugees camps. According to the UN, NGO and media reports between 1993 and 2003 women and girls were raped. Men slaughtered. Refugees killed with machetes and sticks. The attacks of refugees also prevented humanitarian organisations to help many other refugees and were forced to die from cholera and other diseases. Other refugees who tried to return to Rwanda where killed on their way by RFI and did not reach their homes. No media, no UNHCR, no NGO were there to witness these massacres. When Kagame plans to kill, he makes sure no NGO and no media are prevent. Kagame always kills at night.

5 Nov 2014

[AfricaRealities] Fw: [rwanda_revolution] THE MUNK DEBATE: OBAMA's FOREIGN POLICY

 

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "'Herrn Edward Mulindwa' mulindwa@look.ca [rwanda_revolution]" <rwanda_revolution@yahoogroups.com>
To: ugandans-at-heart@googlegroups.com; ugandanet@kym.net; UGANDACOM@yahoogroups.com; Mwananchi@yahoogroups.com; panafricanistforum@yahoogroups.com; zimsite@yahoogroups.com; camnetworks@yahoogroups.com; 'Congokin-tribune' <congokin-tribune-bounces@congokingroupes.com>; rwanda_revolution@yahoogroups.com; fondationbanyarwanda@yahoogroupes.fr
Sent: Wednesday, 5 November 2014, 10:12
Subject: [rwanda_revolution] THE MUNK DEBATE: OBAMA's FOREIGN POLICY

 

The Munk Debate: Obama's foreign policy

The Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Nov. 04 2014, 9:04 PM EST
Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 04 2014, 9:05 PM EST
Be it resolved U.S. President Barack Obama's foreign policy is emboldening our enemies and making the world a more dangerous place.
Arguing for the pro side is Robert Kagan is an American author and historian. Taking the con side is Fareed Zakaria, an author, journalist and hosts CNN's flagship foreign affairs show.
Question:
Mr. Obama promised Americans he would end the Iraq war and focus instead on the war in Afghanistan. Do you think his handling of Afghanistan will leave that nation stable and secure?
PRO
Answer:
It's still an open question because we don't know what President Obama plans to do in terms of leaving American troops behind [in Afghanistan] or whether he intends to pull them all out by 2016. Judging by what's happened in Iraq, you would think [the President] would want to leave a residual force in Afghanistan, but he may be completely wedded to his campaign commitment to get us out of both places. In fairness, he inherited a bad situation, but his early decisions both to do a [troop] surge and set a deadline [for exiting] probably worked at cross-purposes. The net result is that things are not as good as they could be, but they are not as bad as they will be if we withdraw all American forces.
CON
Answer:
Obama has handled Afghanistan about as well anyone could given the circumstances. When he took over, the Taliban had gained significant momentum and it seemed as though they had enough momentum to break the back of the political process. He approved the surge in troops but also, by a more targeted series of assassinations, got rid of a number of key Taliban leaders. So now as the troop drawdown begins, I would argue Afghanistan is more stable [than when Obama became President.] After a successful election, there's now a power-sharing deal between the two leading candidates, both of whom have reached out across ethnic and sectarian lines. Both [President Ashraf] Ghani [Ahmadzai] and his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, seemed to have learned the lessons not just of Afghanistan but of Iraq, which is that unless you have a broad inclusive coalition it is very easy for people to play the role of spoiler and upend the entire project. All that said, the Taliban remains powerful – it's not just a military reality but also a political reality that part of the Pashtun population believes it is unrepresented by the government and they continue to fight. I tend to be relatively optimistic about Afghanistan, but I want to emphasize the 'relative.' This is going to take a while.
Question:
When she ran against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign made much of the 'red phone,' questioning whether Mr. Obama was up to the task. Looking back, what was Mr. Obama's red-phone moment, his biggest unexpected test of crisis management, and how well did he handle it?
PRO
Answer:
I don't know that he has had a 'red phone' moment, but the closest thing he has faced to an emergency requiring rapid response probably has been ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. I say that despite the fact that people could see the ISIS problem growing for quite some time, but it didn't reach a critical mass [until recently.] So I suppose the issue is how Mr. Obama has responded to that. And I think he has responded in the way he tends to respond to all occasions where military force is required: which is extremely hesitantly, almost certainly inadequately. It is the unanimous judgment of even his own military advisers that this [U.S.-led military intervention] is not going to work without the presence of some American advisers and spotters and people who can call in [air] strikes embedded with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. So Obama's made a decision that was probably enough to ease the pressure on him but not enough ultimately to succeed. And I fear the consequences of that not just in terms of what happens on the ground but also in terms of the American public's support. If there's one thing we don't need right now it's another unsuccessful military operation. In general, his reticence about taking action, his reluctance about getting the United States involved in a problem even though we're in it whether we like it or not, has repeatedly led to bad consequences.
CON
Answer:
Certainly the 'red phone' moment for Obama was the [Osama] bin Laden assassination. Everything we know about it was that it was a very high-stakes game with very little credible information. It was a very gutsy move because it involved violating Pakistani sovereignty. It involved putting Americans in harm's way and risking a significant international incident if things went wrong. And Obama handled it very calmly, very coolly. In a way, it was the wrong test for Obama; he's a very cool character. He has realpolitik running through his veins. He has greater problems when faced with a murky situation [where he] must maintain his strategic sense of restraint while both appearing to do something and perhaps doing something for humanitarian reasons, and, I am, of course, describing Syria. He's a conflicted realist. He's Kissinger with a conscience.
Question:
Is Iran likely to be a foreign policy success, or failure, of Mr. Obama's presidency?
PRO
Answer:
At the moment, it looks like it is not going to be a success because I don't think Iran is prepared to make any concessions on its nuclear program. Every time [Iran's reformist President] Hassan Rouhani raises hopes, [Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini] Khamenei quashes them. I think Iran's negotiating position is rather limited and I think the [Obama] administration is limited in what it can offer. It has probably already gone beyond what it can sell to Congress. So we are likely to continue down the track of Iran getting closer to having nuclear weapons capability. Whether that will look like a failure before [Obama] leaves office depends on how quickly Iran moves. I'm prepared to say it's not going to be a success. I'm not prepared to say it will be something that everyone agrees is a failure.CON
Answer:
If I had to bet now, I would bet it will be a failure. I think that's very unfortunate because there was an opportunity to really reshape the landscape of the Middle East with a significant rapprochement with Iran. I think it's unlikely to happen, largely for reasons outside of Obama's control, but I would give him some of the blame for it. Iran is not yet ready to make its peace with the modern world, the West and the United States. To add to that, Obama faces a difficult situation at home. He knows that no matter what deal he brings home the Republicans are going to cry 'treason' and [Israeli Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu is going to criticize it. So he is constrained over how many concessions [to Tehran] he can make. To succeed, both sides need room to make concessions. In this case, both [Iran's reformist President Hassan] Rouhani and Obama operate under significant [domestic political] constraints.
Question:
Two years from now, when Mr. Obama's successor sits down in the Oval Office, what do you foresee will be the gravest foreign policy challenge or crisis facing him?
PRO
Answer:
Most presidents leave their successors with unresolved problems and crises. That seems to be the norm. Some of them leave looking good like [Dwight] Eisenhower, who actually left [John F.] Kennedy with all sorts of disasters waiting to happen, and some of them look worse, like [George W.] Bush, even though I thought he had Iraq ultimately under control. To say that Obama will leave headaches for his successor doesn't set him apart. But what we will be facing, undeniably, is continuing violence and turmoil with potential negative affects on the United States and globally from the Middle East. I think we will continue to face the challenge of China. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop in terms of China looking at the American situation and deciding it's time for them to make more progress in achieving their goals in East Asia. And if Iran hasn't got nuclear weapons before Obama leaves office it will be much closer to doing so. The biggest problem that Obama is leaving for his successor is a defence budget that is obviously inadequate for dealing with the multiple problems that we are going to be facing. There's the unanticipated need to bolster our military's position in Europe. There's the unanticipated, at least by Obama, need to re-enter the Middle East with military force. That is going to continue and grow. And then the one thing he did anticipate, which was to bolster our position in East Asia. The biggest challenge for the next president will be to try and reverse those [planned defence spending] cuts.
CON
Answer:
At one level that's very simple, the military challenge he will face will be in the Middle East. The greatest challenges every president has faced for the last 25 years have been in the Middle East. People always ask, 'Where's the next place the United States will have to send troops?' That's easy: the Middle East. One scholar has noted that this intervention in Syria is the 14th military intervention in the Middle East since the Marines went to Lebanon [sent by then-president Ronald Reagan in 1982]. But the real challenge is a different one. The real challenge, I think, remains that the United States has to find a way to build and maintain and expand its role in Asia as a pivotal player there. For if the United States wants to be the dominant power of the 21st century, and I think it can be, it has to be the pivotal player in the Pacific. It has to be a Pacific power. In a few years, three of the four largest economies in the world will all be in Asia. And for the United States to play the role of balancer, shaper, agenda-setter, is absolutely crucial. Unfortunately, it doesn't produce the kind of crisis that engages a president's time, energy and attention. The real challenge for the next president will be how to get the American political system to make the kinds of sacrifices and initiatives that are necessary for the long run in Asia. This is a foreign policy problem that is not triggered by two televised beheadings that shocked the world but actually has a much deeper, larger and broader consequence for America's standing in the world and, in fact, for global stability.
BIOS
Robert Kagan is an American author and historian. He is a senior fellow with the Project on International Order and Strategy in the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution. His most recent book is The World America Made. Mr. Kagan served in the U.S. State Department from 1984 to 1988 and was a principal speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz in the Reagan administration.
Fareed Zakaria, an author and journalist, hosts CNN's flagship foreign affairs show, Fareed Zakaria GPS. He also writes a column for Time and The Washington Post. Mr. Zakaria's books include The Future of Freedom and The Post-American World. He serves on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations. Born in India to a Muslim family, Mr. Zakaria is a U.S. citizen. He was a trustee of Yale University and the Trilateral Commission.
Rudyard Griffiths, director and moderator of the Munk Debates to be held Wednesday night at Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, says Mr. Obama's foreign policy is "the geopolitical debate" of our time. "Is the foreign policy of this President to blame for the upheavals we are witnessing in the Middle East, Ukraine and in the balance of power with Russia and China? Or are these events and trends the results of larger geopolitical shifts and forces which are outside any one nation, or any one president's control?"
Bret Stephens, deputy editorial page editor for The Wall Street Journal's international opinion pages, will also argue for the resolution, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, president of the New America Foundation, will also argue against. Read Mr. Stephens's and Ms. Slaughter's arguments, as well as watch a live-stream of the debate starting at 7 p.m. Eastern on Wednesday. tgam.ca/munk-obama
                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni katika machafuko"
 
Posted by: "Herrn Edward Mulindwa" <mulindwa@look.ca>

__._,_.___
Posted by: Samuel Desire <sam4des@yahoo.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
----------------------------------------------------------
The Voice of the Poor, the Weak and Powerless.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Post message:  AfricaRealities@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: AfricaRealities-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: AfricaRealities-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: AfricaRealities-owner@yahoogroups.com
__________________________________________________________________

Please consider the environment before printing this email or any attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-http://www.africarealities.com/

-https://www.facebook.com/africarealities

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-New International Scholarships opportunities: http://www.scholarshipsgate.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

__,_._,___
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

-“The enemies of Freedom do not argue ; they shout and they shoot.”

The principal key root causes that lead to the Rwandan genocide of 1994 that affected all Rwandan ethnic groups were:

1)The majority Hutu community’s fear of the return of the discriminatory monarchy system that was practiced by the minority Tutsi community against the enslaved majority Hutu community for about 500 years

2)The Hutu community’s fear of Kagame’s guerrilla that committed massacres in the North of the country and other parts of the countries including assassinations of Rwandan politicians.

3) The Rwandan people felt abandoned by the international community ( who was believed to support Kagame’s guerrilla) and then decided to defend themselves with whatever means they had against the advance of Kagame’ guerrilla supported by Ugandan, Tanzanian and Ethiopian armies and other Western powers.

-“The enemies of Freedom do not argue ; they shout and they shoot.”

-“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

-“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

-“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile.”

The Rwanda war of 1990-1994 had multiple dimensions.

The Rwanda war of 1990-1994 had multiple dimensions. Among Kagame’s rebels who were fighting against the Rwandan government, there were foreigners, mainly Ugandan fighters who were hired to kill and rape innocent Rwandan people in Rwanda and refugees in DRC.

READ MORE RECENT NEWS AND OPINIONS

SUMMARY : THE TRAGIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE BRITISH BUDGET SUPPORT AND GEO-STRATEGIC AMBITIONS

United Kingdom's Proxy Wars in Africa: The Case of Rwanda and DR Congo:

The Rwandan genocide and 6,000,000 Congolese and Hutu refugees killed are the culminating point of a long UK’s battle to expand their influence to the African Great Lakes Region. UK supported Kagame’s guerrilla war by providing military support and money. The UK refused to intervene in Rwanda during the genocide to allow Kagame to take power by military means that triggered the genocide. Kagame’s fighters and their families were on the Ugandan payroll paid by UK budget support.


· 4 Heads of State assassinated in the francophone African Great Lakes Region.
· 2,000,000 people died in Hutu and Tutsi genocides in Rwanda, Burundi and RD.Congo.
· 600,000 Hutu refugees killed in R.D.Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and Rep of Congo.
· 6,000,000 Congolese dead.
· 8,000,000 internal displaced people in Rwanda, Burundi and DR. Congo.
· 500,000 permanent Rwandan and Burundian Hutu refugees, and Congolese refugees around the world.
· English language expansion to Rwanda to replace the French language.
· 20,000 Kagame’s fighters paid salaries from the British Budget Support from 1986 to present.
· £500,000 of British taxpayer’s money paid, so far, to Kagame and his cronies through the budget support, SWAPs, Tutsi-dominated parliament, consultancy, British and Tutsi-owned NGOs.
· Kagame has paid back the British aid received to invade Rwanda and to strengthen his political power by joining the East African Community together with Burundi, joining the Commonwealth, imposing the English Language to Rwandans to replace the French language; helping the British to establish businesses and to access to jobs in Rwanda, and to exploit minerals in D.R.Congo.


Thousands of Hutu murdered by Kagame inside Rwanda, e.g. Kibeho massacres

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.

Jobs

Loading...

Download Documents from Amnesty International

Loading...

25,000 Hutu bodies floated down River Akagera into Lake Victoria in Uganda.

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 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.

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.

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

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

Africa

Loading...

UN News Centre - Africa

Loading...

The Africa Report - Latest

Loading...

IRIN - Great Lakes

Loading...

This blog reports the crimes that remain unpunished and the impunity that has generated a continuous cycle of massacres in many parts of Africa. In many cases, the perpetrators of the crimes seem to have acted in the knowledge that they would not be held to account for their actions.

The need to fight this impunity has become even clearer with the massacres and genocide in many parts of Africa and beyond.

The blog also addresses issues such as Rwanda War Crimes, Rwandan Refugee massacres in Dr Congo, genocide, African leaders’ war crimes and crimes against humanity, Africa war criminals, Africa crimes against humanity, Africa Justice.

-The British relentless and long running battle to become the sole player and gain new grounds of influence in the francophone African Great Lakes Region has led to the expulsion of other traditional players from the region, or strained diplomatic relations between the countries of the region and their traditional friends. These new tensions are even encouraged by the British using a variety of political and economic manoeuvres.

-General Kagame has been echoing the British advice that Rwanda does not need any loan or aid from Rwandan traditional development partners, meaning that British aid is enough to solve all Rwandan problems.

-The British obsession for the English Language expansion has become a tyranny that has led to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, dictatorial regimes, human rights violations, mass killings, destruction of families, communities and cultures, permanent refugees and displaced persons in the African Great Lakes region.

- Rwanda, a country that is run by a corrupt clique of minority-tutsi is governed with institutional discrmination, human rights violations, dictatorship, authoritarianism and autocracy, as everybody would expect.