Opinion
CHOGM, refugees, 2024, Hotel Rwanda and political advocacy in the age of social media
A lot has been happening. The urban myth, which is not a myth, is that the FPR, Rwanda’s liberating party, does not sleep. That is rather reassuring, because it seems that its self-appointed enemies do not sleep much either.
The
news cycle this time of year is always a whirlwind. During Kwibuka, it seems that all
those opposing our survival are out for blood. A myriad of excuses is used to
justify this fixation, and why it amplifies seasonally. Thus far I have counted
the 2024 elections, CHOGM, the welcoming of asylum seekers and the imprisonment
of a convicted terrorist, among the justifications for vilifying our leadership
this commemoration period. And this time around, bizarre lows have been sunken
to.
I
have seen (bad) (and foreign) movie actors stake a voice in our security
matters, the picture of Paul Rusesabagina regrettably slapped on their chests.
They posed, brave-faced and aloof, in support of a man that in fact tormented the genocide survivors that he lied to have defended, during
the very months that these survivors once endured the unconceivable.
I
have witnessed as institutions that undeniably know better, have sidestepped
the accurate appellation of the Genocide – The Genocide Against the Tutsi –
revoking its victims the decency of acknowledging the cause and means of their
targeting. They know that it is these distinctions that render the victims’
experience a genocide, as opposed to the unpredictable, senseless violence that
it remains trendy to expect from Africans.
The
timing is all very intentional. Nevertheless, there is shocking cruelty of
butchering our stories so frequently, so intentionally, so strategically, when
most survivors aren’t even asking for justice, or for solace, or for empathy,
but merely demanding the truth that they are entitled to. It is refused. What
is offered instead, is gaslighting. Those that have suffered are confronted
with blatant lies on the institutions to which they owe the end of their
suffering.
There
are lies of insolence and casualness that aim to provoke frustration.
This
is how drastic polarization and community fragmentation, with all their risks, are orchestrated; the more
indifferent a party appears to the truth, the more fact-based exchange will
feel pointless. The more insignificant we find honesty, in delimitating the
parametres of worthy exchange in a dignified society, the more we are tempted
by the salacious, self-indulgent appeal of fake news, clickbaiting,
or even deceitful “academic” research.
A
friend of mine, who lives outside of Rwanda, recently sent me a BBC article on
the partnership between Rwanda and the UK, which will relocate some asylum seekers in the UK, to our
country.
I
suspect that it is his journalistic background that allowed him to sense the
gap left by “unsaids” throughout the BBC story.
But not everyone has repeatedly witnessed lazy journalistic maneuvering, and
therefore can easily spot it. Or worse still: not everyone cares for a
methodical critical analysis of the crises, and the resulting policies, that do
not affect them.
You
may have come across the complete fabrication of Genocide survivors' ejection from
their lodgings to make space for Afghan refugees. It is quite
literally a lie, and it is alarming to consider how easily convinced its
publishers expected readers to be. It is almost as if – for it is that – they
have been lying this casually about Rwanda for years.
The
Daily Mirror did not interview the man that they claimed to have spoken to about
this eviction. He took to Twitter to negate their story, and the hostel that
they are speaking of, has been closed for 5 years.
The
BBC/Mirror/CNN stories regarding the UK-Rwanda partnership have all had
questionable tonality, to say the least. As one reads their more “neutral”
articles, the question “what gives Rwanda the authority to welcome refugees?”
hangs in the air, unanswered. The “Are they not refugees themselves?”
shyly trails behind, but its presence is felt nonetheless. Both questions are
hinted to but snubbed with reason: they are fundamentally racist queries.
Why
is Rwanda welcoming refugees?
Because
it is willing and able, as it has attested to, for the past two decades. The
competency of Rwanda to welcome refugees is no secret. As of 2020, Rwanda
had welcomed
over 160,000 refugees, the majority of which from neighboring
countries (DRC Congo and Burundi).
Rwanda
has adhered to the application of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework,
developed under the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly in 2016.
This
framework was designed, according to the UN, to support countries and
communities that “host large numbers of refugees”.
In
2021, the UN commended Rwanda for being the first country in the East and Horn
of Africa, and Great Lakes’ Region, to develop thematic action plans for each
pledge under the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework, despite the covid-19
pandemic, and its exacerbation of the refugee crisis.
Cynics
will call these impressive strides an elaborate PR scheme. They will claim, for
instance, that they aim to distract from last year’s sentencing of Paul Rusesabagina, crooked
businessman, double-genocide theorist and FLN terrorist, to 25 years of jail.
However,
pretending to be bothered with humanitarianism for cheap, time-sensitive social
media marketing, is the hobby of others. We must leave the avengers and
those that have signed their cheques to these strange priorities; Rwanda has
been too busy attempting to make space for humans in need of humane treatment,
to spend so much effort and money on narrative creation.
In
2019, a wave of refugees from Libya was welcomed into Rwanda where, according
to UN reporting, they were provided with accommodation, food, water, medical
care, psychosocial support, and language classes. The UN High Commissioner for
Refugees, Filippo Grandi, praised Rwanda for its “continued solidarity and
generosity, giving hope to vulnerable asylum seekers and refugees in Africa in
dire need of protection and safety.”
And
that is precisely the point, isn’t it.
Rwandans
understand what it means to be in dire need of protection and safety, but to
have the world, specifically the most powerful countries - the ones we are told
hold the monopoly on morality and the sole means to act – turning their backs
on us.
We
understand the weight of the word refugee in countries where this status has
been synonymous with exploitation, insalubrity, poverty and other forms of
dehumanization – perhaps more so than anyone else.
And
no; the countries that have been subjecting refugees to exploitation,
insalubrity, poverty and other forms of dehumanization, despite presenting
themselves as champions of humanity, are not necessarily a better home for a
refugee, than Rwanda is.
Also;
perhaps we should all just take a deep breath.
We
are talking about relocating from the UK, not being refused entrance to heaven.
I understand that many of us seem to equate the two, but my brothers and
sisters in Christ, colonization was 8 decades ago; self-love is an option, specifically
after so much has been invested, in our country, to defend our right to it.
Rwanda, Africa’s Most Inspiring Success Story, is
pledging with its partnership with the UK, that it is committed to
acknowledging the dignity of all humans, whether or not in need of a new home.
Is there really a sensational discovery here? It has been doing so for over two
decades.
That
is the problem with ignoring the features and local politics of the countries
you claim authority over. You do not listen as they “go on and on about unity”,
about its incredible power and necessity. Therefore, when they act upon this
pledge to acknowledge the humanity of every human, you are sadly the only one
left dazed, and unaware.
Source:
www.newtimes.co.rw