Opinion article
Opinion articles published on our website do not represent the views of Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Instead, they reflect the views of the individual, group or institution authoring the article.
As always, we welcome readers to respond in the Discussion section at the foot of an article and/or on our Facebook page.
Steve Hege in not alone in holding fringe views on Rwanda, the FDLR or post-genocide politics. Think of Peter Erlinder, the sacked law professor from Minnesota who thinks that the 1994 genocide was not really a genocide at all. Or, there is Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, whose frothing hatred of Paul Kagame is rarely far from the surface.
By Albert Rudatsimburwa, Kigali
But Hege is not some professor in a sleepy college town where he gets to peddle his oddball theories to unsuspecting or bemused students. Nor is he a lobbyist or cable news pundit who drives up the ratings with table-thumping polemics.
Hege, an appointee of the UN Security Council, is coordinator of the Group of Experts on the DRC and co-author of a recent addendum placing blame for the mess in the east of that country at Rwanda's door. In his hands, he has the power to pass judgment on entire governments with the authority of the UN and the international community backing him. This is surely not a job for an ideological warrior.
And yet Hege is exactly that.
‘Understanding the FDLR’
In 2009, while working as an associate to an organization called Peace Appeal Foundation, Hege wrote a fact sheet entitled ‘Understanding the FDLR’ in which he commented specifically on the genocidal forces who escaped into then-Zaire after killing a million of their fellow Rwandans in 1994.
He writes: "Consistently linked to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the FDLR are better understood in relation to the massive revenge killings of Hutu refugees in the eastern Congo from 1996 to 1999."
Got that? The FDLR are not perpetrators, but victims, of violent atrocities. This is textbook revisionism. Black is white. Up is down. Victim is violator.
Later in the same document, Hege leaves nothing to the imagination when it comes to his views of modern Rwanda. It reads: "Economic and political power remains resoundingly concentrated in the hands of the Ugandan Tutsi elite from the RPF."
Any survivor (or student) of the genocide will grimace at such loaded language. It was this notion of a ‘foreign invading force’ – Ugandan Tutsi elite – that served as rhetorical ammunition for the genocide itself. This slur is not accidental, but premeditated and profoundly chilling.
Racialized views
Unfortunately, Hege's disturbing and highly racialized views do not stop there. In an issues paper he authored in 2010, he wrote this about Congolese people of Rwandan descent: "...it is not enough that they just say that they are Congolese. They must demonstrate that they truly are just that by prioritizing their relationships with their fellow Congolese citizens over the economic and territorial interests of Rwanda."
These words are deeply disquieting. To Hege's mind, "they" – Rwandophone communities in the Kivus – must clear a higher bar of citizenship than their fellow Congolese. This offensive idea is central to racist ideology everywhere, whether in the form of anti-Semitism or the persecution of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Given the diversity of human opinion, it is not altogether surprising that, even in 2012, Hege and others cling to such views. What is alarming, however, is that Hege was decreed an ‘expert’ by the UN in a region where such views wield horrifying consequences.
Since the UN Security Council has repeatedly and unanimously endorsed a view of the FDLR at stark odds with Hege's, why appoint him to such a sensitive post? He was certainly telegraphing his punches: in the FDLR fact sheet, he issued what now reads like a threat. He wrote: “The FDLR would rather wait for political negotiations when international opinion eventually sours on the Rwandan regime."
Was this strongly anti-Rwanda stance known to the UNSC? If so, was the appointment an act of provocation, aimed at elevating the FDLR and reducing Rwanda influence? If the Security Council was unaware of Hege's ideological predilections, how on earth did their vetting process fail so miserably?
Whatever the answers, the questions must be asked.
A clumsy UN
The UN's capitulation in the face of genocide, followed by the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DR Congo (MONUSCO) and its dozen years of failure, has already left the UN's reputation in tatters throughout the Great Lakes region. This can only make matters worse.
The Rwandan government would be justified in calling for Hege's sacking and for an investigation into how he was appointed in the first place given this paper trail. It will confirm the deeply entrenched perception that the UN is recklessly clumsy when it comes to this part of the world, and that their attempts to save us are almost always bound to make things worse.
Everyone is entitled to his own point of view. But Hege is not everyone – nor is he just anyone – and that is the problem. Along with his colleagues, he has inflicted significant damage on Rwanda's international standing. The litany of charges he compiled has directly led to the suspension or freezing of aid from the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and elsewhere. This is a high-stakes ideological vendetta – surely undeserving of the UN's stamp of approval.
Albert Rudatsimburwa is senior editor at the radio station Contact FM.
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
chill tell them
Thanks Chill ,u know more, tell them perhaps they'll understand u,, but never forget that the colonialism is the one thing killed all Africa especial RWANDA! Rda still painful cz of Belgians ,nothing good they brought in that country only racism and segregation politic ,,,, like putting the large party of that country to the neighboring countries.................. cz before Rwandan was united and strong nation and they found that was difficult to separate rwandese , so they ve done the last said topic as punishment or in the purpose of protecting their future interests
Ruksidave-- it's you who's misguiding the opinion. Genocide took place after tusi-rebels led by Kagame attacked the plane causing death of both rwandan and burundian presidents. So, don't twist the facts. Having said that i am not in.any way condoning the genocide where both tutsi and moderate Hutus lost their lives. Bihl is spot on.
the FDLR is a rebel group created by refugees hutus who fled to Zaire after genocides. 'understanding FDLR' is quiet a objective view of the situation. you might not ignore that Kagame started a war in east-congo in 1995 hiding behind a so-called 'revendication of banyamulenge' towards Mobutu regime. Laurent-Desire Kabila was presented as the head of the rebel group that aimed to overthrow Mobutu. We all know that that rebel group was actually designed by Kagame and Museveni to exterminate the hutus refugees in Zaire and loot the minerals as well. During that war, the rwandan army (hidden behind the rebel group called AFDL) committed genocudes and all sort violation of human rights towards hutus refugees accused of mass killing of tutsis a year before. That's the main reason FDLR, a hutu army, was created to resist against those killings by Kagame. Hutus have certaily committed genocide in.Rwanda in 1994. Tutsis led by KAGAME have donw the same in Zaire (DR Congo). Thousands of people were killed in refugees camps in Zaire. Both Hutus and Tursis are criminals, congolese people dont want them in their country. Unfortunately Kabila Joseph, the president of Cngo is a tutsi from Rwanda helping Kagame twith those killings of hutus. THIS IS THE TRUTH ABOUT KAGAME. and the guy of United Nations is 100% righr.
Ruksidave-- it's you who's misguiding the opinion. Genocide took place after tusi-rebels led by Kagame attacked the plane causing death of both rwandan and burundian presidents. So, don't twist the facts. Having said that i am not in.any way condoning the genocide where both tutsi and moderate Hutus lost their lives. Bihl is spot on.
Oops: should not be SUPPORTED.
I am the least expert on Rwanda. That said, I would like to tell you that I have been reading a great deal, documentaries, about Rwandan history from the late 1800s until the present. In the comments in these posts I feel that I am missing something: that which is going on in current, rural Rwanda. I have also established connections with a number of young teachers who were sent to work in north-western Rwanda,near Ruhengeri, both Hutu and Tutsi teachers. They are trying to work toward what Paul Kagame is asking: one nation of Rwandans. I have learned much from these young people's thoughts, views and hopes. And some of it is really frightening. To give one example: at this time, Hutu students have been writing fierce anti Tutsi slogans and threats on bathroom and school walls. There is no protest. The Tutsi students try to walk away. they are now physically threatened and attacks have occurred. It was found, very recently, that this new (which is referred to 'neo-nazi-like) movement' is fed by a group of Hutu teachers. THAT is frightening, regardless of which side of the fence you are on. Hutu students pick out the Tutsi easily, and are rightfully envious, because they are given new uniforms, new books and school supplies while Hutu have all the old. The money is from war restitution funds. I find this frightening. Youth can be so powerful, filled with idealism that can so easily grow to uncontrollable anger. Add leadership that fumes the anger...
We also spoke about the Twa. The Twa, well, they don't want to be Rwandan. they just want to be Twa, they said. Good for them!
With all the afore-mentioned rhetoric in various submissions, I wonder how much you all are aware of what is happening 'on the ground', just like with the RPF when they were hiding and preparing. To say that there was no genocide is a crime. A crime to all who have lost so much. But there has been genocide on both parts at different times in history. To deny this is like denying the Jewish genocide of the Germans, or those in former Yugoslavia. I am not a scholar on the issue. but perhaps the scholars should mingle with the people, and prevent another outbreak of true violence which, I truly believe, is not too far away. The UN, by the way, also believed that there was no 'substantial' cholera in the western mountains in Haiti last year. Right. It really is immaterial whose side you are on. Violence is violence and it should not be respected nor reported. What a stupid thing to 'fight' over!
Actually the apelation of racist did not come form me but other Rwandans, so please don't put that on me.
Also, if "Rwandans are all Rwandans" now, how come the constitution of 2003 was changes from supporting all who survived the Genocide, to just Tutsi?
How can the Rwandan government detain foreigners who have committed no crimes in the country, yet Nkunda gets a villa at Gyseni, Erlinder gets put on trial?
Where is the law in Rwanda? Of course there is the standard narrative you all so want to belisve, and your diminuation of Prunier, Reyntjens,Strauss, Thompson, etc., and even your own countrymen, tell me how hard you MUST believe the myth (and again, I am not denying the Genocide, but the events that caused it). Revising history is how we LEARN. AS we all know, our earth was once flat, now it's not.
According to what you say the world is still flat!!! The constitution was not changed to support the Tutsi!!!! Damn where do you shop your info from? Now The people who survived the Genocide are obviously "Tutsi" ... the Genocide was targeting the Tutsi of course. Man it's like you don't understand what we are talking about. It is not about a Tribal War amongst African Tribes.
Look at the two constitutions...It's there. And even the government said moderate Hutus died. Saying that by Ingabire got her jailed.
The Rwandan constitution was amended in 2008 so that the 1994 genocide must henceforth be referred to specifically as the "Genocide of the Tutsi," and thus set in law that the Tutsi are viewed as the true survivors and entrenched in constitutional law the government's version of exactly what they claim happened during 1994.18 A rough template for this amendment was provided by the ICTR's unprecedented judicial notice of 2006.19 By defining the events of 1994 and the genocide in such explicit terms, the Rwandan government can stifle differing viewpoints on the subject and deter discussion, effectively preventing anyone from voicing scrutiny of the events of 1994. The amendment promotes self-censorship and aides in the closure of some political cleavages opposition parties can exploit. Anyone who claims that anything happened or did not happen according to the Rwandan constitutional version of history can be charged in Rwanda with genocidal ideology, revisionism, negationism, and/or other related charges. No discussion of any alleged RPF crimes committed during 1994 is allowed as a result of the amendment. To discuss these alleged crimes could result in being charged. 20 The amendments also act to deter would-be Rwandan witnesses testifying against the RPF in court. Additional implications of this amendment on Rwandan society and its effect on the country’s reconciliation efforts are many and beyond the scope of this article.
Another constitutional amendment in 2008 extended diplomatic immunity to all former presidents of Rwanda. This is intended to protect President Kagame from international prosecution via the French and Spanish arrest warrants that accuse President Kagame of crimes by international law. The French and Spanish courts are currently unable to try him due to his diplomatic immunity as a sitting president.21
The Rwandan constitution was amended in 2008 so that the 1994 genocide must henceforth be referred to specifically as the "Genocide of the Tutsi," and thus set in law that the Tutsi are viewed as the true survivors and entrenched in constitutional law the government's version of exactly what they claim happened during 1994.18 A rough template for this amendment was provided by the ICTR's unprecedented judicial notice of 2006.19 By defining the events of 1994 and the genocide in such explicit terms, the Rwandan government can stifle differing viewpoints on the subject and deter discussion, effectively preventing anyone from voicing scrutiny of the events of 1994. The amendment promotes self-censorship and aides in the closure of some political cleavages opposition parties can exploit. Anyone who claims that anything happened or did not happen according to the Rwandan constitutional version of history can be charged in Rwanda with genocidal ideology, revisionism, negationism, and/or other related charges. No discussion of any alleged RPF crimes committed during 1994 is allowed as a result of the amendment. To discuss these alleged crimes could result in being charged. 20 The amendments also act to deter would-be Rwandan witnesses testifying against the RPF in court. Additional implications of this amendment on Rwandan society and its effect on the country’s reconciliation efforts are many and beyond the scope of this article.
Another constitutional amendment in 2008 extended diplomatic immunity to all former presidents of Rwanda. This is intended to protect President Kagame from international prosecution via the French and Spanish arrest warrants that accuse President Kagame of crimes by international law. The French and Spanish courts are currently unable to try him due to his diplomatic immunity as a sitting president.21
Attack me all you want, I don't pretend to be the expert, please look at the references of all those I mentioned..And also, if there was a planned Genocide by the government (not that there weren't some who were trying to create a genocide) Why was Bagosora only convicted of not controlling his troops for 3 days? When Robert Flaten warn Kagame in 1993 about what he was about to unleash was he ignored? Why, if the government planned a genocide would it wipe out the President and all the major military leaders by downing the plane? The previous persecution of the Tutsi were not acceptable, but also the long repression of the Hutu before independence was not acceptable either. This is not the same situation as the Holocaust. Tutsi have blood on their hands as well, admit it.
Believe me the very racist point of views from European "experts" on the Rwandan History about ancient grieves between the Hutus and the Tutsis are indeed completely out of sync with reality. The colonial filter is racist, the kind that was completely unknown by the indigenous cultures – bantu culture – inherited from Darwin’s theories and paint the societies with a very Eurocentric angle – always trying to refer to the European Middle Age and the revolutions etc…. Rwanda as a Country Nation is not what you think it was. But of course you might believe your Gurus … what can I say? You take it for granted because they are “white Europeans” and you think they should know best. …
No you are indeed not an expert and you can't think outside the boxes you must have inherited from your gurus, the Pruniers-Reyntjes and others (by the way Reyntjes is the author of Habyarimana's constitution - the framework that institutionalized the dictatorship of Habyarimana with all the racist organization of the society and paved the way to Genocide), so don’t take it personal. You just can’t get it. I don’t understand your understanding on the Ambassador’s viewpoint. A war between armies is not the same as organizing a genocide meant at EXTERMINATING every individual, from babies to the oldest – men and women – children- husbands - wives, member of a given group and this in the worst conditions – even rape, especially by HIV positive perpetrators, became a weapon of genocide. And you mean the Ambassador KNEW and never tried to stop the Genocide? Meaning he’s an accomplice! And don’t say Kagame too because he was in a war not against civilians but fighting Habyarimana’s army. Can’t you see that from the moment the Rwandan society was the hostage of Habyarimana’s dictatorship, there was not much choice than to fight it. Dictators and their system never walk out gently. I can’t even develop here that it is not about Hutus and Tutsis. The RPF struggle is about liberating a society hostage from a racist dictatorship. In short look at Rwanda today, that every one hails as an example of development and all the objective indicators are unanimous on the state of human progress, it should also reveal that it was not about “tribes”. Back to the point of the homework, it’s about Steve Hege advocating for a terror organization FDLR, responsible for the biggest disaster in Eastern DRC, and his position as coordinator of UN “experts” panel judging the role of Rwanda. That’s the story.
And Rwanda has, unfortunately replaced the Habyarimana dictatorship with one that is even worse, causing a war that killed over 5 million Congolese, raped the Kivus of minerals to support it's army and represses or kills opposition- be they Hutu OR Tutsi. Economic development worked great under the 3rd Reich as well.
The author of this piece has not done his homework. Erlinder DID NOT DENY THE GENOCIDE, this is a common ploy by the RPF. What he did say, and there is evidence and documents to support this, is that the Genocide did not spring up as pure anti Tutsi feeling, it was a result of the invasion of the RPF, who were un-relenting in continuing their assault in a country where the economy had collapsed, almost 2 million people were IDP's, a Tutsi led overthrow in neighboring Burundi sent an additional 1/4 milion Hutu refugees into Rwanda. The US ambassador to Rwanda told Kagame that if he continued he wouldn't be able to foresee what his assault would do to Rwanda- he continued.He also sent provocateurs into the government held areas to disrupt the population. It wasn't all "Anti-Tutsi extremists".
Look at the files of the Rwanda Documents Project (http://www.rwandadocumentsproject.net/gsdl/cgi-bin/library), the work of Prunier, Renytjens, Davenport and Stamm and many others. Good thing this is an opinion piece because if RNW presented this as fact, I would leave the site.
Bihl. You don't get it. A genocide is not something that just "springs up". It is planned, organized and rolled out. Hey, these are no "tribal wars". That is why it is a GENOCIDE, and indeed by trying to reduce it to what you are trying to explain ... the intrigues of the war you DENY the Genocide. There was a concept, an organization, a structure and real live monitoring. And your reaction is completely missing the point about the opinion. Cause the homework is really about Steve Hege, and that is spot on. Are you a denier too?
Bihl you have a few facts straight but the context is inaccurate.For example,did u know that there had been 4 genocides against tutsis in rwanda...1959-when most of us fled(including kagame),1962,1973 and regular murders throughout the 80s.It reached a climax in 94.Interahamwe genocidaires were being trained even before the so-salled invasion of RPF.Actually,the reason RPF got angry was because it presented all this evidence to Clinton and he just ignored it,thats when an invasion was innevitable.So dont misguide the audience please...thank you
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.