Gwynne Dyer: The dilemma over Rwandan president Paul Kagame

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      “Whoever betrays the country will pay the price, I assure you,” Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame told a rally soon after the country’s former intelligence chief, Patrick Karegeya, was found strangled in a South African hotel room last January.

      Karegeya had quit the government and become a leading opponent of the regime, which President Kagame would certainly see as a betrayal of the country.

      It’s not unusual for dictators to see their own interests and those of the country they rule as one and the same thing. It’s not even uncommon for dictators to have people killed.

      What’s really rare is a dictator who has had quite a lot of people killed, but is congratulated by other countries for his excellent administration and showered with foreign aid.

      That is the happy lot of President Paul Kagame.

      Fewer than half of Rwanda’s 12 million people have personal memories of the terrible genocide 20 years ago, but the country as a whole is still haunted by it.

      Kagame has ruled Rwanda for all of that time, and he is convinced that only he can stop it from happening again. It’s only a small step from there to believing that he has the duty to maintain his rule by any means necessary, including even murder.

      All the murders are officially denied, but nobody believes it. Last week, four not very competent assassins, one Rwandan and three Tanzanians, were found guilty by a South African court of trying to kill the former Rwandan army chief of staff, Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, in Johannesburg in 2010.

      They shot him in the stomach, but he survived after months in intensive care—and they didn’t get away.

      The South African judge, Stanley Mkhair, said diplomatically that the plot to kill Nyamwasa came from “a certain group of people from Rwanda”. The South African authorities even know how much the assassins were paid: 80,000 rand ($8,100). But it was just not worth naming Kagame.

      Last March, when South African Justice Minister Jeff Radebe warned Rwanda to stop after another attempt on Nyamwasa’s life, the two countries went through a ritual round of tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats.

      Once a year is enough, but at least South Africa complains occasionally. Most other African countries look the other way when Kagame’s hit squads turn up, people like Tony Blair accept lifts in his private jet, and the aid agencies don’t even flinch.

      These people aren’t fools or knaves (except Tony Blair, of course), so why are they all giving Kagame a free pass? Because they secretly suspect that Kagame is right: that only he can prevent another genocide in Rwanda. And maybe they’re right.

      The 1994 genocide killed an estimated 800,000 people, about 10 percent of the population. There is no reliable estimate of how many of the victims were Tutsis, who were once the dominant caste but by 1994 were a persecuted minority. A fair guess is that more than half of those murdered were Tutsis (the rest were “moderate” Hutus), and that at least half of the total Tutsi population died.

      The Tutsi survivors, and more importantly the Tutsi exiles who fought their way home with Kagame’s Rwanda Patriotic Front, still provide the core leadership of the country 20 years later, although Tutsis are now down to around 10 percent of the population.

      Kagame insists that “we are Banyarwanda” (all Rwandans), and that there are no separate tribes in Rwanda. Technically he is right. But in practice he is wrong, and he knows it.

      The Tutsis and the majority Hutus both speak the same language, Kinyarwanda. Once upon a time the Tutsis were herders and the Hutus were farmers, and even longer ago they probably were separate ethnic groups. But in the present, they are better seen as castes defined by their (former) occupations. Indeed, even the herdsman/farmer distinction no longer really applies.

      Yet the “caste” distinction is just as strong, and potentially just as lethal, as it was in 1994. That’s why Rwanda is a thinly disguised dictatorship, run by a man who kills people— but only individuals who threaten his rule, not whole groups.

      Kagame has produced a very impressive rate of economic growth in Rwanda (an average of eight percent annually in 2001-12), in the hope that prosperity will ultimately defuse the Tutsi/Hutu hostility.

      But he dares not allow a truly free election, for the Hutus, still strong in their identity, would vote him out of office.

      And almost everybody else goes along with his behaviour, because they buy into his belief in his own indispensability.

      But all his efforts may ultimately amount to no more than a finger in the dike. Rwanda was already one of the most densely populated countries in Africa in 1994, but its population has increased by half since the genocide.

      There is little evidence that everybody (or even most people) thinks of themselves as “Banyarwanda”.

      Kagame is just playing for time.

      Comments

      14 Comments

      Ernest Payne

      Sep 2, 2014 at 12:42pm

      The price of murder appears to have gone up. Idi Amin paid someone $25 to kill a Tanzanian friend of mine. My friend counter offered with a months grace and $50. The offer was taken and my friend converted all his cash into native artifacts and fled to Canada. Much of the continent appears to be destined for failed state status.

      cc

      Sep 2, 2014 at 6:51pm

      Why the don't you talk about Millions of other Tutsi killed since 1959, this a stupid and unfounded analysis.

      William

      Sep 2, 2014 at 7:33pm

      @ Ernest: I guess when assassins are only being paid $25 they may permit themselves to be bought off. Your friend is lucky that the price on his head wasn't set at a more modern $2,025 or there might not have been a discussion.

      I Chandler

      Sep 2, 2014 at 7:48pm

      "the country’s former intelligence chief, Patrick Karegeya, was found strangled in a South African hotel room"

      The American former intelligence chief, was found to be having an affair in hotel rooms:
      http://www.theguardian.com/technology/interactive/2013/jun/12/what-is-me...
      It's surprising that no sock puppets have blamed Geff Greenwald or Ed Snowden for the grisly acts of ISIS...

      "That’s why Rwanda is run by a man who kills people— but only individuals who threaten his rule, not whole groups."

      America was run by a man who killed people— not only individuals who threatened his rule, but whole groups. The 50th Anniversary of the mother of all false flags- and we all forgot to celebrate:
      http://fair.org/media-beat-column/30-year-anniversary-tonkin-gulf-lie-la...
      Gwynne was preoccupied with a star naming contest and the legacy of World War I ...

      rukaka

      Sep 2, 2014 at 11:15pm

      Possibly, Gwynne Dyer should understand that telling lies repeatedly does not make the lies to be true. What is important is delivery of good services to Rwandans.
      Sometimes if you're writing without reasoning, you may think that you know better than everyone. It is always advisable to think and research on an issue before bearing a flag of someone.
      We're well informed as Rwandans than Dyer. We know Kayumba that you, Dyer.
      I would advise that you may reserve whatever you hear from "your friends" and make deeper research prior to fabricating the story.

      Rukaka

      Ilan H

      Sep 3, 2014 at 3:04am

      There's no point in being right if you can't be effective.

      For months, Egypt's post revolution successors bickered and debated minor details of their new constitution. Meanwhile, arab spring movements were devolving into anarchy, tribalism and truly terrifying theocratic movements. The economic & political power of the Egyptian army was threatened but still strong and the de facto coalition between the religious and the liberals which had opposed the old regime together was dissolved by irreconcilable incompatibilities of their respective world views. The Egyptian army eventually decided to just go back to the old way. Liberals and "The Community of Nations" did not protest too much.

      Is a post Sadaam Iraq better than the old regime. Can Iraqis hope for better time in a decade? Is a post Qadaffi Libya better than the Libya of 5 years ago?

      Rwanda is not face with a choice between dictatorship and Swedish democracy. Pulling down one regime does not ensure a better one.

      JohnCan

      Sep 3, 2014 at 9:33am

      Cynical people may well support Kagame. After all, a dictatorship that merely assassinates opponents is better than genocide. Only what happens after Kagame does ultimately go? He is only 56, which is quite young for a head of state, but no one lives forever. Especially those who live by the sword. He will leave office one day, on his feet or on his back, and then what happens to Rwanda?

      Dictatorship never solves problems, it only keeps the lid on them.

      MC

      Sep 3, 2014 at 11:52am

      What will happen to Rwanda after kagame? Life will go on, rule of law will be there, democracy will mature in people minds,economy will continue to grow.people of Rwanda will never ever let anyone plants the seed of hate in people minds again. It is hard work to continue with the legacy of kagame but it has to be done. There is not other alternative

      JMutabazi

      Sep 3, 2014 at 12:41pm

      MC, what will happen after Kagame, no one knows. He certainely failed to build insitutions. As president Obama said when he visited Africa for the 1st time: Africa does not need strong man, it needs strong institutions. If Kagame had had a Mandel'like visision, he would have chosen to build a strong instutions. But he chose to be strong. That is why even after 2 long 7 years term, he is thinking to change the constitution for him to run again. It is a shame.

      Mugisha

      Sep 3, 2014 at 4:53pm

      Well written articles we rarely get honest writing on Rwandan realty.I believe that crack down on opposition is a shame on Rwanda.The idea that Hutus were killed in and after the genocide results in genocide denial is absurd.All opponents are linked to FDLR is another propoganda that is used by this dictatorship.There is a belief that there is a no distinction between Hutus and Tutsis but it's not on paper but is still in place.Go be Tutsi in Rwanda and see you will enjoy them opportunities more than anyone. You get more advantage with life so in short Rwanda is far from democratic rules.Those who justify the government cannot oppose it and feel safe either.I love your analysis of Rwanda and really you tell a truthful story that some may hate to hear! Rwandans have never had democratic rules and usually as long as one ethnic group is in power the others suffer but now at least.both sides are pushing for democracy that's why Ingabire is in prison and Nyamwasa and the likes under threat.The RPF is a shamless regime who even refuse to.acknowledge Hutus as survivors too as it will implement them so they assume it will never be discussed in Rwanda.