The Price of Progress, or in Other Words...

25 June 2010

Kigali, Rwanda

I got a beer thrown in my face, and at the nicest restaurant in town at that. I was out to dinner with my internship supervisor and several colleagues for my good-bye dinner. I was teaching some of my colleagues, mildly new to Rwanda, the wonders of Mützig draft. We had originally been seated inside, but the football match was on and there was a jazz band playing outside, so we moved to the balcony. There was an ashtray on the table, so I lit a cigarette and carefully held it over the railing so as not to disturb the non-smoking dinner guests. About three puffs in, I was startled by the older British gentleman sitting in solitude at the table directly behind ours. He rudely, and very firmly, told me to put out my cigarette and get it away from him. Because I’m a nice guy, and also because he scared me a little bit, I put out my smoke. My supervisor, despite being a non-smoker herself, was offended by his lack of manners and subsequently went inside to tell the wait-staff. She came back and sat down at our table, telling me that it was a smoking area and to relight my cigarette. Not having to be told twice, I did so. Apparently, a waiter came out around the same time to ask the gentleman if he would like to move out of the smoking area since my smoke was bothering him. At that point, this man rose angrily from his chair, walked around to the other side of our table, politely asked my colleague sitting across the table to excuse him, grabbed her beer glass and threw it in my face. In the process he broke her glass, and immediately stormed off. Completely appalled, I had nothing to do but laugh. Ironically enough, he hadn’t extinguished my cigarette when he threw the beer. Thinking back, the way it turned out, I must have looked quite smug. After multiple apologies from the wait-staff and the manager of the hotel, I received a free polo shirt that fits surprisingly well.

The last few weeks, my last weeks in Rwanda, have been quite the comedy of errors. The beer incident and the 7 stitches from the wounds I incurred on my daring escape from the Congolese military are just two of many.

I recently wrote an opinion article for the NewTimes, Rwanda’s national newspaper. The article was about the international media’s recent coverage of Rwanda, and the prevailing perspective that the Rwandan government is excessively repressive and increasingly less democratic. My email was attached at the bottom of the article, and over the past several days I have received about 10 emails, many of which exemplify my frustrations with the media debate about this country. The debate is mainly composed of two, over-simplified arguments about Rwandan politics. Some emails came from “Proud Rwandans” who referred to me as a “champion” of their cause. Others were Westerners who had spent some amount of time in Rwanda, and most of them rebuked me for what they viewed as naïveté and misinformation.

The NewTimes is, first and foremost, a government-run newspaper. This means that articles published in the NewTimes are not generally critical of the government. And by generally, I mean never. Articles generally focus on government successes and reproach foreign media and government sources. This forms one extreme of the debate, the part of the debate that portrays the politics of this country as completely ethical and justified.

I have to admit that my article was diplomatically slanted. In fact, I showed a lot of support for Rwanda and its government. After cutting around 300 words, the article came out looking like a toothless fluff piece, just another article that falsely identifies the Rwandan state as supportive of civil society and the rule of law. For some reason, I found it necessary to mention the two journalists that work in East Africa and report for the New York Times. On some level, I find their work to be representative of the other extreme, the part of the debate that is hypercritical of the Rwandan government, and sometimes blindly supportive of unrestrained democracy and civil liberties.

Between these two extremes, there isn’t much. My article emphasized how one-sided the Western dialogue on Rwanda is, and how that dialogue is written relying on facts that, interpreted correctly, can support the thesis that Rwanda’s government is becoming more repressive leading up to the presidential elections in August and continues to use the genocide as a political trump card. What I did not, or perhaps could not, include in the article was a critique of the other side of the debate, that the NewTimes commits a similar folly by continuing to emphasize government rectitude and fervently denying any criticism. In the end, my article was just another piece of the debate that I was attempting to argue against.

Oddly enough, aside from its failings, my article led to some unexpected, and surprisingly positive outcomes. One of the reprimanding emails came from a friend of one of the journalists that I mentioned in my article. A short correspondence with her led to the reporter’s email address. Thoroughly intimidated by the situation, I postponed sending him an email, assuming that the entire situation would blow over in a week or so. To my ultimate amazement, a few days ago, I received an email from him asking if I would be interested in meeting for drinks. Despite criticizing his work for the Times in my article, I genuinely respect this reporter, and his invitation was received with a lot of enthusiasm. Actually meeting him only increased my respect, and provided a lot of insight into the world of the international media.

Despite all of the support I showed in my article, I must admit that the Rwandan government has given the international press a lot to criticize. Suspending two newspapers, detaining a political opponent and an international lawyer, and the so-called “Island Prison” have given the Western media good reason for “concern,” if I can call it that. I am not under the illusion that these “measures” taken by the government are not clear abuses of civil rights. They are, and there is no question about that. Perhaps it’s necessary, however, to ask different questions.

My article talked about particularity, regarding the Rwandan situation. 16 years ago this country was engulfed in a massive genocide that left nothing but destruction in its path. The numbers vary, depending on whom you talk to, anywhere from “several hundred thousand” to 850,000 to easily “over 1 million” people that were killed in 100 long days of hell.

In an earlier post, I talked about the singular story told by the Rwandan government about the “genocide against the Tutsi,” and how I felt that this was a misrepresentation of history. In reality, the murderous rampage consumed anyone who stood in the way of the genocidaires and their heinous crimes, regardless of ethnic background (especially considering what a fabrication ethnicity is in this country). Ethnicity, in my belief, was simply a tool used by the Habyarimana regime (and before that, the Belgians) to mobilize civilian participation in politically and economically motivated violence. When the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) launched their attack from Uganda, its outward motivation was the suffering of a minority under a racist government (there are several other theories, including the motivation of the Ugandan government to attain regional influence). Throughout 4 years of war with the Rwandan forces (MRND), the RPF ended the genocide and began rebuilding the country. Along the way, some 45,000 civilians, presumably Hutu, were killed by the RPF, a crime against humanity that has yet to be prosecuted, and is fervently denied by the current administration.

Today, the “ethnic” debate still exists. 16 years is a short period of time when discussing genocide. I know that it is an oversimplification to put it this way, but think of the Holocaust. It has been over half a century since the Third Reich attempted to systematically exterminate the Jews (among others). Yet it is still a very delicate topic for people, especially if their historical roots connect to Germany or Judaism. I’m sure that there are Holocaust Deniers that exist today, but how much attention do they truly get? For the most part, they remain in the realms of conspiracy and psychotic racism.

When the Kagame administration came to power, ethnic reconciliation was at the top of the agenda. It is not my belief that reconciliation efforts have succeeded in this country. How could they in only 16 years? In fact, I wonder if it will ever be possible for those efforts to attain success. As a state, how are those issues overcome then (especially when the head of that state has contributed so much to the conflict himself)? For the Kagame administration, the answer to that question has been to limit civil rights that might contradict the government’s efforts to maintain peace by papering over ethnic tension. Being here for a mere 6 months, I’ve only just begun to understand how real of a threat unrestrained free speech presents to the stability of this country. I no longer underestimate the brilliance of the Kagame administration.

Firstly: the two newspapers that were suspended. It is useful to recognize that these “news” papers were the equivalent of what we in America call tabloids. Sadly, that is not an aspect that is often presented by the Western media. Over and over again these papers insisted upon indiscriminately disseminating information that represented a direct affront to the government’s peacekeeping policy of altering history and pretending that reconciliation has been successful. Inflammatory language and accusatory content does not serve to maintain the powerful rhetoric that holds Rwanda together, however superficially.

Next: the arrest and bail of Peter Erlinder. Peter Erlinder was initially arrested in early June. Though he was never officially charged, the prosecution was ostensibly building a case based on the breach of Genocide Revision and Denial. Again, the Western media has failed to cover the most important aspects of this issue (despite the ridiculous amount of articles that have appeared over the past few weeks). Erlinder was not simply an American lawyer that took on the difficult task of defending those accused of genocide. And I do not believe that he was arrested for his work at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania. I’ve always found it ironic that the ICTR is in Arusha, given that it was there in the early ‘90s that the power-sharing agreement was signed between the Habiyarimana regime and the RPF. It was after signing that agreement that Habiyarimana lost the support of his most fervent Hutu-power supporters (including his own wife, Agathe who has only recently been charged as one of the architects of the genocide). Aside from the international debate that continues to rage onward, I am of the belief that it was these people that organized Habiyarimana’s assassination. Back to Erlinder however, as part international law, he has diplomatic immunity when it comes to his work at the ICTR. Even at Nuremberg the accused had a right to a defense. It was Erlinder’s writings outside of the ICTR that became quite contentious. The international media has basically ignored these writings, and instead portray Erlinder as some sort of freedom fighter for those oppressed by the Rwandan government. Taking the time to examine Erlinder’s opinions written outside of his position at the ICTR, one might realize just how offensive and conspiratorial those opinions are. He maintains a thoroughly revisionist account of history, claiming that a double genocide occurred and that the Permanent Five of the Security Council have rewritten the history of the genocide in order to maintain their own international reputations. Unlike Holocaust Deniers who remain socially stigmatized and in the darkest corners of the internet, Erlinder and his writings have gained a lot of attention. They have been widely publicized in East Africa easily accessible amongst those to whom the memory of the genocide remains particularly fresh. Erlinder, even back in the United States, represents a grave ideological threat. Not only does he shamelessly disregard the facts of history, but he also upsets the already delicate balance that has been carefully designed by the current administration. His prosecutors made a terrible judgment call when they brought in evidence for which Erlinder had diplomatic immunity. That was a mistake. Regardless of that fact, Erlinder blatantly violated Rwanda’s constitutional law. He knew that he had done so when he came here to defend an opposition politician that had been arrested for a similar crime.

Regardless of the superficiality of ethnic identity in Rwanda, the wounds from the genocide remain raw. People have not forgotten, and no matter how fabricated ethnicity actually may be, it’s very real now. The international community has reproached the Rwandan government, saying that the laws regarding Genocide Ideology, Revisionism, and Divisionism are too vague. They have been interpreted by the international media as tools used by the government to repress opposition politicians and subdue criticism from civil society. And sometimes they are. The question I’ve come to ask is about justification though. Whether or not there are genuine civil rights abuses (there are) and political repression (still debatable in my opinion) my judgment on those facts is based mostly on my Western bias and circumstantial evidence. My time here has taught me to take a much wider variety of information into account. Though some of that information may be anecdotal, it is necessary to rely on something aside from the international media.

One of the aspects I’ve begun to consider is the large population of Rwandese that live outside of the political realm- those who are living in poverty, those who are uneducated, or those who have no access to media sources (especially media sources that aren’t under the careful watch of the current administration). When questioning the viability of democracy in this country I think it’s important to consider the ability (or inability) of such a large population (very likely the majority) of Rwandese to make informed decisions about their leadership. As an American, I believe, perhaps idealistically so, in democracy and human rights. Questioning those beliefs, however, has become crucial to my understanding of this country. When it comes to political justification in Rwanda, the accessibility of understanding and information become crucial aspects of democratic potential. When it comes to free speech, taking into account the examples above, it is reasonably understood why the government maintains strict control over civil society, thus limiting the genuine pursuit of democracy.

In the upcoming August elections, everyone knows that Kagame will be re-elected. He has, for all practical purposes, led the country since 1994 (serving as vice president under Bizimungu until 2000). In total, by 2017 he will have served for 23 years- not a short time. Most people question whether or not, at the end of his final term, he will attempt to change the constitution effectively extending his stay in office. I don’t think that will happen. The real question in my mind is whether or not the next leader of this country will be Kagame’s protégé (or proxy), or if that leader will come from an opposition stance. Considering the current administration’s control over civil society, it seems unlikely that a legitimate opposition party will be able to actually develop (probably one of the reasons the government has such strict control over civil society). I say legitimate with the view that the current opposition candidates rely on the ethnic and historical debates present here (probably another reason why the government has such strict control over civil society). Until an opposition party that has a legitimate platform emerges, the current administration (or its affiliates) is justified in maintaining their leadership position. After all, the RPF has managed to build this country out of nothing in only 16 years. Recognizing the strides that this country has made under the current leadership, I question what opposition candidates might do differently or what they might have to offer aside from controversial changes in the retelling of history. Under the RPF, primary education has become free. As an American, I find it particularly ironic (nonetheless a great success) that this country has a universal healthcare system.

In a way, everything in this country is framed by it’s violent past, but in order to move past that, politicians and constituents have to stop relying on this rapidly aging debate and instead focus on issues of greater consequence. Of all the promise that this country shows, its gaping ethno-historical wounds restrain its progress.

Furthermore, considering socioeconomics and the elite of this country (or Kigali rather), I often ponder its relation to current politics and history. Since 1959, when the Belgians effectively switched allegiances from the Tutsi minority to the Hutu majority, ethnic violence began driving Rwandese into neighboring countries, Europe, and the U.S. The Diaspora only increased over nearly half a century of ethnic violence. When the RPF restored peace in ’94, the Diaspora (many of whom had been living in deplorable refugee situations) returned en masse. Under the Habiyarimana regime, one could say that education did not particularly thrive. The general instability of Rwanda during that period did not provide much in terms of educational capacity. When the Diaspora returned however, they returned with Western (or Ugandan) education. Out of the political and economic collapse of the genocide came a group of well-educated individuals (who spoke English I might add) that helped to restore the country’s stability and promoted the astounding success since ’94. Therefore, when it comes to the rising generation, those in their late 20s or early 30s that are to be the future leaders of this country, they are generally former members of the Diaspora, and children of the returning elite. It follows then, that some of the government’s most influential supporters have a vested interest in maintaining the current version of history. The Diaspora- the people that were driven out of their homeland only to watch their fellow countrymen be ruthlessly tortured and killed- have a strong motivation to maintain that history. “Never Again” is a compelling rhetoric, especially for the historical victims.

Progress, like that made by Rwanda, always comes at a price. Perhaps that price is the suspension of civil and political rights. Perhaps I need more time. Taking all of this into account, I suppose it’s easy to see why no one has attempted to illustrate a well-rounded image of Rwanda and its politics. There are truths here that cannot be broached comfortably (or in a reasonable amount of words). Because of those difficulties, attempts to understand often transform into awkward comedy. I’m reminded of the man who threw the beer in my face and the Westerners that chastised my naïveté. I don’t understand their history or their perspective (beer guy was probably having a bad day, and the emails were probably a response from people who respect the opinion of Josh Kron more so than that of a 20-year-old intern). Understanding Rwanda, however, is much more difficult and correspondingly more consequential. I am sad to leave this beautiful country, with its rolling hills and wonderfully mild climate, because I know that there is still more to discover. Although, even if I stayed here for the rest of my life, I would in all likelihood feel the same way. The progress that I have made in the past 6 months is similar to that of Rwanda- it has come at a price. I have to admit though, that understanding myself is easier than understanding my current surroundings. I’m not so worried about going back to Western culture, or reverse culture shock. In fact, I’m not really worried at all, because I know that the price of my own progress is this intensified passion of understanding.