International
Political advocacy: Human Rights Watch publishes another outrageous report on Rwanda
Sometimes
I wonder who gave such unaccountable entities like Human Rights Watch (HRW) the
right to be the arbiter of human rights situations in developing countries like
Rwanda. So, every year, it has become routine for HRW to publish a very
negative outlook on the human rights situation in Rwanda.
This
explains why, its 2021 report on Rwanda is a compilation of the same falsehoods
aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) and the
Rwandan government. It castigates the actions of the government to ensure the
rule of law, and advocates for lawbreakers, and portrays anyone undermining
government programmes as victims.
Villains
are sanctified, the state is vilified. This is the world HRW is promoting in
its dubious reports on Rwanda.
According
to Richard Johnston, a retired American diplomat, “what Human Rights Watch does
on Rwanda is not human rights advocacy. It is political advocacy which has
become profoundly unscrupulous in both its means and its ends. HRW’s Board of
Directors should hold Executive Director Kenneth Roth and the HRW personnel who
cover Rwandan issues accountable for this travesty, which has dangerous
implications for Western policy toward Rwanda and for the overall credibility
of Western human rights advocacy.”
He
asked HRW funders to think seriously about what causes their money serves. In a
paper titled “The Travesty of Human Rights on Rwanda” published on March 19,
2012, he advised Western governments to be careful about following HRW advice,
and courageous enough to challenge them publicly when need be.
Johnson
pointed out that HRW’s discourse on Rwanda over the past 20 years has been
viscerally hostile to the RPF which defeated the genocidal Hutu Power regime in
1994, and systematically biased in favour of letting unrepentant Hutu Power
political forces back into Rwandan political life.
In
the annual report, HRW rehashed the same baseless accusations of “arbitrary
detention, ill-treatment, and torture in official and unofficial detention
facilities.” It alleges that “fair trial standards were routinely flouted in
many sensitive political cases, in which security-related charges are often used
to prosecute prominent critics.”
These assertions by HRW and its corrupt director, Kenneth Roth, are akin to racism and an outright condescending attitude towards a free and independent country which does everything in the interest of its people and not to please the West. It wants us to believe that only Western countries have the monopoly of rightful arrests, and trials.
Of Human Rights Watch's systematic bias against Rwanda
Human Rights Watch a propaganda tool for genocide ideologues
This
explains why HRW gives as example of the so-called arbitrary arrests, Paul
Rusesabagina, a former hotelier who turned into a terror kingpin. It
whitewashes him of his grave terrorism crimes and labels him as “a prominent
critic of the RPF”, whom it says was enforcedly disappeared.
Rusesabagina
was never pursued for being an RPF critic, but for his proven role in acts of
terrorism which claimed the lives of a dozen people in south-western Rwanda in
2018 and 2019 and damaged a lot of property.
Rusesabagina
was never disappeared but was tricked into coming to Rwanda to face justice
like the so-called western democracies do when it comes to pursuing criminals.
The only difference is that Rwanda treated him humanly unlike what the US did
to Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, or to the Iranian General Kassim Suleimani.
Pursuing a sworn enemy of the country like Rusesabagina doesn’t equate to the
limiting of political space of freedom of expression.
HRW’s
report again puts a spin on the death in custody of Kizito Mihigo, a former
gospel singer who hanged himself in police custody on February 17, 2020. It
casts doubts on the post-mortem examination by relevant Rwandan authorities. This
begs the question: how many people commit suicide in the US penitentiary? The
American financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, committed
suicide in a New York detention facility on July 6, 2020, but did HRW express a
similar outrage?
Faithful
to its affinity with the FDU-Inkingi, and its offspring Dalfa Umurinzi, HRW’s
report also complains about RIB carrying out searches and seizing properties
belonging to the non-registered Dalfa-umurinzi of self-styled politician
Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. It’s astonishing how HRW prefers to ignore that the
FDU is an offshoot of the Republican Rally for Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) born
out of the genocidal government and its defeated genocidal army in 1995, in the
refugee camps in eastern Zaire, now Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
According
to Johnston, the RDR is the core of the
FDU coalition which Ingabire wanted to have registered for participation in the
Rwandan Presidential election when she returned to Rwanda in early 2010. Her
brief political campaign was clearly designed to revive Hutu Power ideology and
politics in Rwanda. Her arrest for trial
in 2010 and subsequent conviction in October 2012 were abundantly justified and
represent a victory for human rights.
HRW
reacted to Ingabire’s conviction with a five-page statement aimed at
perpetuating HRW’s mendacious portrayal of Ingabire as an innocent victim of
oppression.
Thus,
HRW’s cover-up of the history and nature of RDR or FDU, is clear. It has chosen
not to address the substance and merits of Ingabire’s conviction for genocide denial
and seeks to discredit her conviction for collusion with the FDLR by
questioning the reliability of “some” of the evidence presented. This is done while
ignoring other evidence less subject to tendentious interpretation; such as the
documented evidence of Ingabire’s collusion with FDLR which was seized by Dutch
police at her residence.
Another
spurious allegation made in this sensational report is that of so-called
“arbitrary detention of street children.”
It’s
emblematic of HRW to throw around such nefarious accusations without providing
evidence. It’s worth recalling that these children are taken to rehabilitation
centres where they are given free training in specific trades.
At
the end of the programme many return to their respective communities equipped
with skills which helped them to start own businesses. Why hasn’t HRW interviewed those former street
children who now run business in different urban centres around the country to
gauge the benefits of these programmes?
Another
gratuitous attack in the HRW report is the handling of the Covid-19 pandemic by
the Rwandan government. So far, the combination of imposing lockdowns and
strict observance of Covid-19 protocols have proved useful. It was at times a
bitter pill to swallow, but the end results have been saving lives and stopping
the pandemic from spreading.
Rwanda
has rolled a vacation programme for its population on unprecedented levels and
its actions were hailed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). So, HRW
criticisms are out of touch with most Rwandans who appreciate greatly the way
the government handled the Covid-19 crisis. Its actions should be put into their
proper perspective. They are aimed at denigrating any action undertaken by the
government for the sake of its people.
Johnston’s
recommendation is very clear about how to deal with HRW and its hostile stance
against Rwanda since July 1994. People should ignore any publications about
Rwanda which mask its anti-RPF, anti-Rwandan government hidden agenda.