Rwandan President Paul Kagame fielding questions at The Governors'
Summit 2014 at Great Rift Valley Lodge in Naivasha, Kenya on January 20,
2014 where he gave an interview on a wide range of issues, including
the assassination of Rwandan defectors living in exile. PHOTO/SULEIMAN
MBATIAH
By Mugumo Munene
His regime has over the past years come under
heavy criticism following claims of its role in the eastern Congo
conflict and systematic killing of opposition leaders. President Kagame
spoke with Mugumo Munene about this and other issues.
----------------------------------------
What keeps you going?
I am naturally a very hopeful person; I am also
thoughtful about the integrity and dignity that Africans deserve to be
treated with. I’m driven and consumed to do the little I can to make
sure that is achieved. But at the end of the day I’m a human being, like
everybody else.
I want to serve people to the best of my ability,
and be honest and frank in doing so. I’m not put out by challenges; I
just don’t run away from issues because they are hard.
In less than three months, Rwanda will be
marking the 20th anniversary of the 1994 genocide. How is the
reconciliation process going?
It’s going very well. Simply put, there is no way
our country would have made such significant progress without people’s
involvement. Secondly, they would not have worked together without
overcoming the challenges that have been there.
At the beginning, we had almost the entire
population of the country displaced. They did not know what to hold
onto. We had to get involved in trying to pick up the pieces. It is
really this soul searching, people finding ways they can work together
that has brought us this far.
Did the Gacaca courts produce the results you desired?
The Gacaca courts were designed to achieve twin
objectives. One was for the wider population to see that justice is
done. The second was to ensure justice while allowing the country to get
back together because one tends to affect the other. Thousands have
been able to go through the process and go back to their villages.
Did the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda produce anything you regard as useful for the country?
The fact that the UN is associated with a process
where some form of justice is carried out is important. But that is
different from the quality of the process, which I think is where the
problem really lies. There’s a lot of politics and wastage of resources.
If you look at the cases that have been
successfully tried, they are handful. Less than 60 cases and billions of
dollars have been spent. It served those involved in the process rather
than those who wanted to see justice done.
Is this pessimism informing your position on the ICC?
It’s the totality of it. You cannot have a justice
system that acts universally in the interests of some people and is
silent on other people’s interests. You find that it is designed to deal
with certain cases. The counter argument is that is about the victims.
I’m saying that the totality of it ends up presenting a case of
injustice rather than justice.
As part of reconciliation, there is a new
initiation called mass apology initiated by some youth groups, which you
supported. Tell us about that.
It is something that came under what we call Ndi Umunyarwanda
in which Rwandans young and old, look at their history and merge with
the commitment to ourselves and our future that whoever did anything
wrong and needs a chance to contribute to a better future then so be it.
It has done very well.
Every time people are thinking what we can do
together. The history of Rwanda is tragedy not business as usual. It has
left everybody thinking and searching for ways of building a future and
get out of this kind of environment.
Critics have said that it is wrong to get the Hutu to apologise to Tutsis because this amounts to victimising one group.
It is not anything that is being forced. It is an
idea that came up from the people themselves. It’s something voluntary.
Nobody has been held responsible for being silent.
Isn’t it a bit odd that people who were not responsible in any way like your prime minister came out to apologise?
I think critics should take more time to analyse
what they are talking about. Even the prime minister, people need to
take time to listen to what he’s saying. He was saying that “this should
not have happened in my name.”
There are people who used his name and he gave
many examples of what he knows when he was in school and in the work
place. What is wrong with someone like that saying that someone should
not have used his name as part of the group? He was saying that those
people who were claiming that they were doing it on our behalf.
We had not sent them to do it. I don’t see
anything wrong with it. First of all he is doing it voluntarily. He’s
saying that people should not do things in the name of a group. It’s
open, more fluid, more free than critics want to admit.
How long do you think it will take before reconciliation matures fully?
I think there is a foundation. We are more or less
in a very good position but as we need to keep building institutions
and developing the mindset. But as you also know, these kinds of
situations take very long to heal and stabilise.
There are cases that have lived for close to 100
years in other places. We are really doing our best, but this is not
something you can give a date to. It will not be realistic. You allow it
to flow.
What would you say of Rwanda’s democratic development in the last 20 years?
By far we have made huge progress. Twenty years
ago, there was nothing to talk about and that is why the tragedy was
there. In learning lessons of our own history, I’m comfortable that
progress has been made in all directions. We are not where we want to be
or need to be. We still need to work very, very hard.
Tell us about Rwanda’s situation, particularly in 2017. Are you retiring as the Constitution states?
First of all, I don’t think it is about one
individual. I know I have become a subject of discussion but someone
needs to deflect it to the actual situation. The two things you have
said are part of the democratic process. But they are not the only ones.
Elections mean the feelings and the choices of
people. If we say democracy is about election and elections are about
choices. Sometimes you may run the danger of questioning the choices of
people, because sometimes they make a choice and you say no, you should
not have made that choice.
This is why I have become uncomfortable answering
this question because in any case I’m not satisfying anybody. Again it’s
the context. When it comes to Rwanda, it’s a Rwanda coming from
genocide. Rwandans, depending on where they have come from the demands,
the needs and expectations are completely different even though the
aspirations are the same. At the end of the day we are talking about
people and their history and their context.
The debate refuses to go away because there is a constitutional term limit. Are you leaving when the time comes?
You are saying that as if the constitution falls
from heaven. It’s made by people. The fact that the constitution is in
place means that this is what the people put in place. The question is
how has this changed?
It changed because the same people changed it and
made it so. I’m trying to tell you so that the debate is not always
locked down to one person. It’s about people. There is not a single
country on earth that has a constitution that has not changed one aspect
or the other. Whether I’m going or not should not preoccupy people.
Time passes and we will come to know what will happen.
Your critics say you are intolerant of
dissent. Your opponents are either in jail, in exile or dead. What is
your reaction to this?
Critics don’t have to account to anybody. They are
supposed to be taken as credible but for us leaders, we are accountable
and when I agreed to be where I am, I knew the challenges that come
with it and the heavy lifting that it requires.
I have a problem understanding some of these
people. So many of these people have planned to kill Rwandans and there
is a mountain of evidence that they belong to organisations that plan on
killing Rwandans. Let’s say that some of them have been involved in
drugs to mobilise money against their own country. When they are
involved in that, they may settle scores within those activities. Or
suppose people have an organisation and they have internal problems and
sort each other out. How will anyone know even before investigations
what happened?
Recently, you said that treason has consequences. A lot of people drew conclusions from about the death of Patrick Karegeya a former Rwandan director ofexternal intelligence. Please explain your statement
I’m I not supposed to say what I want to say?
Somebody can take anything out of context. By betraying a cause and a
people, why should it not have consequences?
Is it the first time you are hearing about it? I’m
reading every day, somebody runs away from a powerful country with
secrets and somebody is like; we will get you. When you betray a
government, you betray the people of Rwanda.
The fact that these people live in exile has consequences. They
are not at peace. People die, but these same people who die, die from
different causes. These Karegeyas and others belong to an organisation
that has been killing people in Rwanda. There’s evidence. They are
killing people. I’m surprised that people are making all kinds of noise
about these people who are killing Rwandans. There’s evidence and those
who want it can be shown.
So you can tell these critics that it is not agents of the Rwandan government that track these people down and kill them?
Not that I know of. But I have evidence that they
have been involved in activities that have killed Rwandans. That’s what I
have proof for.
The body of Patrick Karegeya was laid to
rest in a cemetery in South Africa. How do you feel considering he was a
compatriot in the liberation movement in 1994?
Well, the only question is how did he get there?
He should have been buried in Rwanda. But if he got involved in a
situation that he brought upon himself, that he found himself in South
Africa and met his death there, I don’t think it should be held over
anybody apart from himself.
Why didn’t your government allow his body to be buried in Rwanda?
Nobody asked for his body to be buried in Rwanda.
In fact, the only thing I heard is that he was to be buried in a
neighbouring country.
Are you concerned about the cumulative
effects of these events? Could they change opinion of leaders who
admired your leadership style in the past?
I think they have no reason not to, and with time
as they see the progress the country is making, they will have reason to
be vindicated about me. But for the critics, I have never been their
friend or someone they appreciate, from the beginning.
No comments :
Post a Comment