Sunday, May 3, 2015

You are here

Murder or Imprisonment - a High Price for “Stability” in Rwanda.

Human Rights Watch's Carina Tertsakian says that to describe Paul Kagame as "the sort of dictator Rwanda needs" is an insult to Rwandans who have lost their lives.
Share |

Jack Chapman's Think Africa Press article "Are Kagame's human rights abuses justified?"  epitomises the blinkered approach of many commentators towards Rwanda. Its principal argument is based on a fallacy: that in some contexts, human rights and economic development are antagonistic or mutually exclusive.

The genocide in which more than half a million people were killed in just three months in 1994 undeniably makes Rwanda an exceptional case. The level of organisation of the massacres, the scale of the horror, the suffering and the devastation – all of these were exceptional. 

What is not exceptional, however, is that Rwandans, like human beings in any other country, have fundamental rights and want to be able to enjoy them. These include the right to life – of which hundreds of thousands were robbed so brutally during the genocide – the right to freedom of expression, to liberty and security and a fair trial, and many other rights enshrined in Rwandan law and in international conventions.

Chapman's argument deprives Rwandans of those rights. His article falls into the trap, skilfully set by the Rwandan government, of using the horror of the genocide to deflect criticism of the fact that Rwandan men and women are being denied their rights to voice their opinions, participate in the political life of their country, and go about their daily activities unhindered. Those who buy into this argument fail to see that a thriving, healthy society cannot be built on a foundation of fear – as illustrated in other repressive countries, not least in parts of North Africa and the Middle East currently experiencing dramatic upheaval. 

Chapman's article rightly sets out Rwanda's achievements since the genocide, but jumps to some astonishing conclusions. "Human rights violations are a small price to pay for Rwanda's remarkable progress," it asserts. For some Rwandans, that "small price" has been their life or their liberty.  Consider Jean-Léonard Rugambage, the young journalist gunned down outside his home in the capital Kigali last year; or Bernard Ntaganda, the opposition party leader arrested just weeks before the 2010 elections, who is now serving a prison sentence simply for opposing the government in his public statements; or Abbé Emile Nsengiyumva, the priest who has spent six months in detention awaiting trial after criticising state policies on housing and family planning in his Christmas sermon. Would they, or their families, consider that this was a "small price to pay" for their country's "remarkable progress"?

The assassination of Rugambage and the arrest of Ntaganda are just two of the flagrant incidents that took place in the run-up to the presidential elections. 2010 saw President Kagame re-elected with 93% of the vote. This election, like the previous one in 2003, was a contest only in name: Kagame’s three "rivals" all represented parties that had broadly supported the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). None of the three new opposition parties, which had openly criticised the government, was able to stand. Two were not even allowed to register as parties. The vice-president of one, André Kagwa Rwisereka, was murdered less than a month before the elections; no one has been brought to justice for this crime. Several lower-ranking opposition party members were detained and beaten by the police.

The Rwandan media was also ruthlessly targeted. In April 2010, two popular independent newspapers, Umuseso and Umuvugizi – which often reported allegations of corruption and abuse – were suspended while their editors were charged with defamation. After receiving persistent threats, they fled the country for their safety. The fate of their colleague Rugambage, who stayed behind, sadly proved that they had made the right decision.

The repression has not stopped since the elections. In February 2011, two other journalists were sentenced to 17 and 7 years respectively for writing articles seen as critical of the government and the president. A court found them both guilty of endangering public order, and also found the newspaper's editor guilty of minimising the genocide, “divisionism” and "genocide ideology" – a catch-all offence that has frequently been used to target perceived critics. 

It is unclear in Chapman’s argument, and in similar ones proferred by Kagame’s allies, how jailing journalists and targeting opposition party members is necessary for economic and social development. For development to be sustainable, many development experts agree, it should be participatory and transparent.  Long-term economic and social stability relies on an empowered citizenry and a vibrant civil society.  

So where is the "civil society... with a staunch Rwandan national identity" that Chapman claims is emerging in Rwanda?  With a few exceptions, the civil society organisations operating in Rwanda today are those that submit to the government's wishes, actively promote its programmes, or stick to uncontroversial areas. Independent human rights organisations, like independent newspapers, have been dismantled one by one or been infiltrated by individuals close to the RPF. Many leading human rights activists have been forced to leave the country. Others, worn down by constant threats to their safety, have simply opted out of the struggle. A few courageous individuals – you can count them on the fingers of one hand – continue doggedly monitoring abuses, but rarely publish their findings. Official censorship has led to self-censorship throughout much of civil society. 

Chapman talks of political "stability" in Rwanda – a term also favoured by donor governments. If Chapman scratched the surface, he would find that that stability is not quite what it seems. Human Rights Watch’s field research has shown that disillusion and discontent are more prevalent among the population than is widely assumed and that they cut across political, ethnic and social lines, eating into Kagame's public support. 

Indeed, some of Kagame's harshest critics – and now the victims of his repression – are, like him, from the Tutsi ethnic group; they share his background, grew up in Uganda, speak English, and shared the ideals of the RPF in its early days. It is telling that one of Kagame's fiercest opponents today is his former army chief-of-staff, General Kayumba Nyamwasa, who narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in South Africa last year, and whose brother, a serving military officer, was detained incommunicado for several months before being brought before a military court in January 2011. In this context, Chapman’s claim that “the whole stability of the country therefore depends on Kagame maintaining his status and so repressive political acts can be an integral part of Rwandan progress” makes little sense. 

The impressive speed of Rwanda's reconstruction and economic growth after the genocide should not blind us to the fear and intimidation that Rwandans live with from day to day. Instead of swallowing the propaganda of "economic development first, human rights later", we should put ourselves in the shoes of Rwandans today:  would we be prepared to sacrifice our right to free speech or political participation for the sake of "reasonably equitable development" or subjective "political stability"?

The Rwandan government should have the confidence to offer its citizens not only economic development but also the space and the security to speak and challenge without fear. Clean streets and the absence of plastic bags will be of little comfort to those who remain behind bars for expressing their opinions. To describe Kagame as "the sort of dictator Rwanda needs" is an insult to Rwandans who have lost their lives or their freedom under his rule.  

Share |


You need to settle down and take some Prozac, Carina. Get a grip! This overweening preoccupation with a tiny Central African country when there's Guantanamo Bay and the Patriot Act and constant wars being declared against oil-rich countries every other day closer to home ... and you choose to focus your obsessive attention on tiny little Rwanda. A people struggling, and rather valiantly, to pull themselves by the bootstraps from a terrible, unimaginable past. And you choose to stand in the way chucking your little petulant hissy fit that "Either you listen to me or I'll go absolutely crazy!!!!!!" As I said, some Prozac.

By the way, the reason I don't take your fits too seriously is because I know that you're part of an intelligence operation (good-cop/bad-cop routine; no prizes for guessing which cop you are! LOL) and are simply doing your job. All's fair in love and war, I guess.

Your point either seems to be suggesting that HRW are in some way responsible for the actions of the US government...which is a bit odd... or that public debate which focuses on the welfare of this 'tiny little country' is not important - which I think Rwandans would find very insulting.

That is unless your point is that you do actually agree with war in the interests of acquiring oil and really don't think that the welfare of people in 'tiny little countries' is important - in which case I apologise for the misunderstanding, it was a little difficult to understand your point whilst trying to read around all of the dull and rather pointless personal insults you'd included.

I'm not suggesting that HRW is responsible for the actions of the US government but rather that it IS an arm of the US government. Its hypocrisy only serves to emphasize this. There are carrots, and there are sticks. HRW is the stick. See Stephen Gowans if you need help.

Stephen Gowans explains quite well how such intelligence operations use "human rights" to advance their interests:

People miss the point when they start making comparisons with the abuses and crimes of Western countries. This isn't about one countries crimes vs another. People have been murdered and falsely imprisoned by the RPF, and equally horrible things have been committed by US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq etc. We should all cry fowl when human rights abuses happen anywhere by anyone.

But for Rwanda the stakes are higher. What will the future hold if the ruling elite can continue to abuse power with impunity whilst western donors look the other way and heap awards on Kagame?

The risible thing is that you all imagine that there is a better alternative. Where in the whole continent of Africa will you find a better government than that of Rwanda? Where? Go on, list 'em. 'Nuff said.

This is what makes your constant haranguing ridiculous.

All depends on how you define 'better'. In terms of clean streets and low crime - Kagame is probably the winner. In terms of not committing human rights abuses and facilitating genuine reconciliation he's not doing so well.

Kagame provides REAL human rights. The so-called human-rights activists place such things as sexual deviancy at the pinnacle of their human-rights priorities. Well, sorry if Kagame isn't going to waste his time conducting himself with such messed-up, upside-down priorities; you'll just have to live with it (deep breaths, Carina).

There's a logical order to these things. First physical security, otherwise what point is a human right if you're not alive? Then food security. (See before.) Then education (where's the virtue in being an illiterate peasant?). And so on and so forth. Haranguing for gay mardi gras comes much further down the list of priorities, if at all.

So if Kagame's and Carina's set of priorities differ, then too bad. I for one am siding with Kagame. (And China and Singapore and the other Asian tigers, etc.) I think he has his priorities, ah, straight. ;)

"Jean-Léonard Rugambage" "The fate of their colleague Rugambage, who stayed behind, sadly proved that they had made the right decision." -
- if you have any evidence that the govt was responsible for his killing will you pass it to the authorities? Do you have evidence to back up this allegation?

"three "rivals" all represented parties that had broadly supported the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)" - why do you not mention that the Constitution provides for a coalition govt?

"André Kagwa Rwisereka, was murdered less than a month before the elections; no one has been brought to justice for this crime" - so does that make the govt responsible, what evidence do you have?

"None of the three new opposition parties, which had openly criticised the government, was able to stand. Two were not even allowed to register as parties." - do you know that an ethnic agenda is not permitted by the Constitution? You do? That is what Ingabire has. So what is your point?

"Umuseso and Umuvugizi – which often reported allegations of corruption and abuse" - Yes but they printed lies and openly admitted this. They were not newspapers in the proper sense. They are not the NYT or the Post. Standards of journalism are very low.

"It is telling that one of Kagame's fiercest opponents today is his former army chief-of-staff, General Kayumba Nyamwasa," - but what do you mean by opponent? someone with serious ideas for developing the country or who wants to have a more traditional African govt where the leaders fill their pockets and the poor become poorer? Kayumba means to destroy what has been built up do you not know that? He is greedy and jealous. Is that who you want or is Kagame's enemy your friend?

There are people who want to destroy. Do you know of the recent grenade explosions? Do you know the agenda of Rusesabagina, Rudasingwa, the FDLR? Do you REALLY think people want Ingabire and her ethnic agenda? Have you asked them? And what exoperience do you or HRW have of running a country?

"if you have any evidence that the govt was responsible for his killing will you pass it to the authorities"

I'm sure the authorities will investigate themselves...

"do you know that an ethnic agenda is not permitted by the Constitution"

Ingabire asked for justice for Hutu victims as well as Tutsi. Is that an "ethnic agenda"? Every year Rwanda remembers "the genocide against the Tutsi" - is that an ethnic agenda?

"Do you REALLY think people want Ingabire and her ethnic agenda? Have you asked them?"

Why wasn't she allowed to run in the elections then? Here was a chance to ask the people, but instead she was thrown in jail. Face it - the sad depressing reality is that she would probably win a fair election - simply based on ethnicity. And I think that's the point of this article: development isn't everything. You and I might think it should be, but it isn't.

"And I think that's the point of this article: development isn't everything"

Ethnicity is everything! Bring back the Genocide! Otherwise Carina will be unhappy. Rwanda and Rwandans must sacrifice their welfare for the benefit of Carina. Either Rwanda gets its way or Carina gets her way. But not both. It's a zero-sum game, I'm afraid, and I don't think Carina and her like are going to give up. So are Rwandans going to give up?

It's got nothing to do with Carina. Ethnicity is alive and well in Rwanda. One side talks a lot about reconciliation, and there's been a lot of justice.. but only one way. You keep talking about what "Rwandans want" but you'd be too scared to have a free election and find out what the majority really want.

The best way to ensure that nothing like the genocide ever happens again is to begin the process of real reconciliation and justice for all.

Look, you people lost fair and square. I don't know whose bright idea it was to go the genocide route, but that's a thing of the past now. Rwandans aren't going to go back to all that. Those who parachute in expecting to take things back can expect to be prosecuted. Genocidaire thinking is a big no-no in today's Rwanda, and Carina et al. won't change that. There's not going to be a repeat of the genocide no mater how much the likes of you and her wish for it. If you people can't live with the positive direction Rwanda is going in, then too bad. Continue to bang your head against the wall if you wish. Too many people are preoccupied with the positivity of the future rather than the negativity of the past for you people to have any hope in succeeding in your sanguinary quest.

Oh, by the way, you missed the massive turn-out for the election? The overwhelming endorsement of Kagame and the RPF? (Either it was 79% or 97% -- can't remember which. Either way it was overwhelming.) Didn't see the huge crowds? (Your first instinct would be to get out your panga and chop 'em up, eh? Fight the temptation!) Campaigning on the genocide platform just ain't gonna get you anywhere in today's Rwanda. My understanding is that there were international observers and they were happy with the voting process and results.

So negativists are just going to have to live with getting more and more frustrated gnashing their teeth until they've got no teeth left! LOL

"Look, you people lost fair and square"

WTF? I talk about the reality of ethnic division in Rwanda and now I'm a genocidaire? I and every sane person wishes that ethnicity wasn't an issue in Rwanda, but it is. Ingabire isn't in jail because she tried to bring ethnic division back, but because it's still there and that's why she would have won the election.

It's kind of hard to reason with people like you who equate any criticism of the RPF with genocide ideology.

The Genocide happened, you know. Not that long ago. And Rwanda's not going to go back to that. No matter how much you complain about it and want things to return to this "reality" you're so eager to go back to.

You really don't get it. No sane person wants Rwanda to return to the days of civil war and genocide. But while the regime keeps jailing and murdering opponents and journalists, and refusing to give justice to victims of RPF crimes, the chances of something terrible happening again are much higher.

You've got some crazy-ass reasoning there. By allowing Ingabare to be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, everything will improve!

Look, the evidence speaks for itself. And Rwandans have given their overwhelming endorsement for the direction in which things are headed. You can try and spoil, but you can't stop the momentum. The good guys always win.

And how is justice for victims of RPF crimes the same as yelling "fire"?

You're seeking to apply a moral equivalence between the actions of the RPF and the genocidal forces, which were of an altogether different order of magnitude. Thus, you're seeking to diminish the Genocide and somehow imply the idea of a "double-genocide". Such moral equivalence is the height of immorality and shows you to be sympathizer or accomplice of the genocidal forces. That the RPF-led government has acted the way it has over the last 17 years speaks volumes about its character and intentions, leaving your insidious attempts to return things to square one utterly despicable. Shame on the likes of you who have no moral compass to speak of and are altogether consumed by evil. As Isaiah 5:20 says: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Shame on you.

"shows you to be sympathizer or accomplice of the genocidal forces"

Wanting to see justice for RPF crimes is different to being a genocidaire. I know it's hard for you to comprehend in your simple Tutsi=victim, Hutu=genocidaire, Kagame=God worldview, but it's true.

"Whoever sows injustice reaps calamity, and the rod they wield in fury will be broken." -- Proverbs 22:8

Again, moral equivalence. You're seeking to assert that the two parties occupy the same moral plane, and are thus seeking to diminish the conduct of the genocidaires, when any crimes the RPF committed were, first of all, incomparable in magnitude to those committed by the deranged genocidaires, and, secondly, were punished internally by RPA military courts. The RPA and RDF have always been professional forces renown for their discipline, not rampaging genocidal maniacs.

Sorry, you're trying to compare light and shade here. That you quote a passage speaking of justice simply serves to underscore the level of your benightedness. I can never understand what drove people to act in so deranged a manner as to do what they did in 1994, and I still can't understand those who today seek to try and justify these actions and diminish their seriousness. What I do know is that we live in a fallen world and, alas, such people can and do exist.

Nothing I could say would give you undue crdiet for this story.

An ethnic agenda is to seek election or to form a party with the objective of dividing people on so-called ethnic lines e.g to run as the Hutu candidate. Tutsi and Hutu are not ethnic groups in the technical sense. They are not divided on religious, language or cultural lines. Such divisions are spurious.

When Ingabire said that she was "the candidate of the majority" she meant that she was Hutu and that all Hutu should vote for her. Everyone knew what she meant and she knew it was illegal to campaign on that basis and that she would not be allowed to stand on such a platform. She had been out of the country for 16 years and so was not a serious candidate anyway. Things have moved on in Rwanda. Either she had not realised that or more likely she wanted to take us back to 1994.

A genocide is defined as being intended to destroy a particular group. You cannot be a victim of the genocide if you are a member of the genocidal group. To suggest that is to deny that there was a genocide and imply that there was a second genocide. Such comments were also illegal as Ingabire knew and intended to stir up division.

"Face it - the sad depressing reality is that she would probably win a fair election - simply based on ethnicity."

No she would not. To suggest as much is an insult to the citizens of Rwanda. You think that Rwandans want to go back to 1994, to roll back the gains for themselves and their children and be governed by someone who was in exile for 16 years, has no qualifications to run the country and wants Rwandans to be divided not united? They do not.

People are saying that Victoire Ingabire was forbdden to run because she is promoting genocide ideology. The only decent comment I read is " NOBODY" wants to go back to 1994. NO BO DY.It is only that same guilt tool used by the RPF to either scared the minority tusti from choosing a more balanced political system, or taunt the West reminding them they haven't help or scare the Hutu majority and undermine them by telling them that they are all dormant murderers.BUT NOBODY WANTS 94 AND 94 WILL NEVER BE. Lesson learned and this is precisely why dialogue is needed and imminent.So in the constitution, it is illegal to run on ground of being hutu or tutsi. ( INCLUSIVE) I can agree with that.----> A genocide was commited against the minority Tutsi ( I AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT WAS A LOW IN HUMAN HISTORY)What scares me is this:So you cannot be considerd a genocide victim if you are not tutsi (FOLLY AND DIVISIVE)---> that means negating the thousands men, women, elders and children of Hutu culture who didn't participate in the genocide, who help protect and even saved people, and who were murdered themselves for that.----> that means negating the thousands men, women, elders and children of Hutu culture who didn't participate in the genocide but were forced to evacuate the country by the extremists and who died on the roads and in the camps.-----> that means negating the past history of Rwanda and its many years of peaceful cohabitation between hutus and tutsis in a self serving effort by the Ugandans to write the savior and change narrative for themselves------> that means negatin the reality of retaliation and civilian murders by vengeful members of the RPF who by the way even eliminated tutsi in their revenge campaing shortly after 94------> that means maintaining a sword over the head of innocent on the sole ground that they are Hutus still going today, 18 years later.So really you mean to tell me how the current system has no ethnic agenda?Let's examine Deo Mushayidi's case: Tutsi survivor of the genocide who is now serving a life sentence in jail because he had the courage to look at the reality of the genocide and attempt to bring a message more inclusive and take account of the suffering of ALL rwandans. He lost his entire famility too.RPF and the Ugandans are absolutely out of the touch with the reality of Rwanda and the structure of his people and their ignorant policies will never succeed to achieve true stability in Rwanda.Any decent hutu and tutsi with a right mind on their shoulder and and unbiased vision of our history and our reality will tell you that and they are many. Which is why now news of murders and emprisonment of journalists and political figures are leaking in the western media.Its just wont work and we ought to figure out other solutions.

Some pertinent comments by Stephen Gowans, even if they come from a very left-wing perspective:

"Twenty countries prohibit Holocaust denial, including Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and Israel. (8) Holocaust denial laws often appear together with laws prohibiting Nazi or neo-Nazi parties. The intent is to designate certain political views as being beyond the pale and inimical to the smooth functioning of a country’s social order. These prohibitions are regarded ... as being legitimate and as warranted restraints on rights of free speech and political association"

In the same way, the divisionist political position of the likes of Ingabare is considered beyond the pale in Rwanda and inimical to the smooth functioning of the social order. She is rightly being prosecuted because to do otherwise would be to act contrary to the interests of Rwandan society. That the likes of Carina advocate for Ingabare's position speaks volumes about the ill intent she and her ilk have for Rwanda and its people.

Stephens concludes:

"In battles over human rights, we shouldn’t ask whether rights, as an absolute, are being denied, for rights are never absolute. We should ask whose rights are in conflict with who else’s, which rights are our own, and whether sheep can be faulted for denying wolves their flesh."

If Rwanda is allowed to descend into a bloodbath, whose rights will be allowed to prevail and whose rights thrown to the wayside? Carina and her ilk, it seems, would feel satisfied if such ensued, but what of the right of millions of Rwanda who will have thereby lost the right to life, to security, to a descent standard of living, to a bright, dignified future worthy of a being made in the image of God?

No, in this battle of rights, it will have to be Carina's right to be a unreasonable haranguing bitch that will have to fall by the wayside and the right of Rwandans to enjoy the aforementioned rights prevail, by virtue of their claim to being God's creatures and so deserving of such dignity and respect as follows from such a claim. These machete-wielding wolves and their enablers, I'm sorry to say, will just have to be denied their flesh on this occasion.

There are enough evidences showing that Kagame has been behind the murder cases happening in Rwanda today and since the 1990's.
Note that the British government is an ally and a sponsor of the Kagame regime. But they just want to make him know that despite their relations they won't let him conduct a terrorrist squad inside Britain! That means they already know that he is a massive killer but allow him to kill only the Rwandans!

Thank you for this fair analyse of the rwandan situation. Your voice encourages many Democrats held in Rwandan prisons and the new generation inside and outside Rwanda which  is  thirst for justice, peace, reconciliation and freedom.Every   fight for freedom, wherever it is conducted is useful and necessary . It insipires many other oppressed people.Despite the insults and intimidation that you can receive from some  heart hardened rwandan people  blinded by Kagame's  propaganda  heart , know that there are many others  who appreciate what you do.

Dear Carina, You have very well grasped the situation in Rwanda which explains some of the hateful comment and intimidations you will find in your responses. This is this modus operandi of the Rwandan intelligence.The money they are pumping in the Congo is what makes them impermeable to human rights so they will defend their despot. They wont bite the hand that feeds them. Too bad it only feeds a few and kicks many.We might as well all take some prozac indeed, because to witness fooly in motion and feel unable to stop it. Prozac is indeed needed. That is probably what ""anonymous" is on since he is so numb to the truth and the suffering of others. Might as well chemically fabricate another reality right? But the truth on the ground is the truth on the ground.However rest assured that most Rwandans who will appear in your comment section do not represent the voice of Rwandan peoples. The ones who are supposed to endure the human rights abuses in order to survive, like Chapman advises, even though himself would never allow to sacrifice his intellect and his well being in the name of economic progress. He is brought to Rwandan and shown what he is supposed to see. Just like the rest of us. But everytime you scratch the surface like you said it well, there comes another evidence, there comes another morbid secret, there comes another injustice fact, there comes another Human Right violation, one after the other. Some people speak but never the ones who are concerned. I suspect soon Prez Kagame will outlaw Human Rights so he can jail more people.Commentors who will talk about "America is evil too", as you can see are not denying their wrong doing but justifying it with the wrongdoings and the mistakes of others. In Rwanda, even funnymen like Jon Steward and Steven Colbert would probably be in a grave by now. And their children would be living under government scrutiny.We all though Kagame would bring a complete form of progress ( true reconciliation, economic stability and security) But today, he has Fractured the rwandan society more than ever. This has never been, not even under Habyarimana who was supposed to be the evil guy. So people are starting to not give a damn about a badly paid employment or about the cleanliness of a city where they can't afford nothing anyway, since small businesses are closing one after the other but all the lucrative business someone leads to Kagame. Like all roads lead to Rome, so all roads must lead to P.Kagame.What people are seeking is not another genocide but a more viable form of progress. WELL BEING, LIBERTY, EQUALITY, FREEDOM. Kagame holds Rwanda like a pot and he stirrs it however he wants. People are commodities to him and his mismanagment of human force and tight policy of citizen surveillance has now completely broke the true nature of Rwandan people. And brought a hate even more insidious than what was before. He is unable to consider people as people. He speask and you abide or you die. You can see it in his interview, the man never lied to you about who he is and how he operates. Why people are only waking up now is the terrifying thing.And you are very right when you say that dicent is comming from all Rwandans with no distinction of Ethnicity. Sure he has somme supporters, a tights knit of stone colds who still haven't come to grip with their immorality. But the average person is aware of the writing on the wallCowardly they turn away because the trauma of the genocide is still lingering even in the minds of those who haven't lived it. So everything must be done to avoid the spark that will set things of fire.Fire will never be again. Rwandan people will never live another genocide unless its army orchestrates another one. Rwandans are tired of deceit. But the greed and the hate, the disregard and the disrespect of the leadership is also unbearable and that is what fracturing the people.Work has been done, unfortunately it is not the right type of work that is done. Only arrogance from the Ugandan megalomaniac elite and their self serving vision of  grandeur they have not earned throught respect and equality but through coniving, greed, and murder. We hear Kagame is meeting Kabila with Museveni. Do you really thing Kabila is a soverign leader and not an employe paid? African people have learned the tricks of the west too you know. Unfortunately they were never tought that a country is not one's personal garden.  Congolese aren't fooled either.No matter how you look at it, our leaders still view high positions as a social promotion that places them above the rest. Let them believe this long enough and soon they have lost complete touch with the people are become God appointee.  Different presidents same old pattern. Keep in mind that all dead dictators once has some sort of positive record of progress, all of them. Power corrupt.We almost though Rwanda would be different since it had a big lesson to learn in 94. We were fooled. Oh Africa.