What do Bill Clinton, the Rev. Rick Warren, Harvard's Michael Porter, and Google's Eric Schmidt all have in common? According to Philip Gourevitch, writing in this week's New Yorker, they are all friends of Rwandan President Paul Kagame -- part of his "kitchen cabinet" of advisers. Like Stephen Kinzer of the New York Times, Gourevitch has definitively fallen under the spell of Kagame and his ambition to turn Rwanda into the Singapore of Central Africa.
There are, however, several assertions in this piece which are a bit dodgy, not least of which are Gourevitch's estimates of the numbers killed in the 1994 genocide. Most reports put the number at 800,000, with anywhere from 10-20 percent of those actually being moderate Hutus. Gourevitch simply says a million Tutsis.
That may seem like a minor quibble, but I think it reflects the underlying problem with Gourevitch's somewhat starry-eyed analysis. In his shattering accounts of the genocide published in 1998, Gourevitch brought us up close and personal with both victims and perpetrators. It was great reportage. Not much big picture needed.
At the time it seemed like a clear-cut case of good and evil, with Kagame coming across as George Washington, David Ben-Gurion and Gen. Patton rolled into one painfully thin looking Tutsi warlord. The problem is that even back then, Gourevitch seems to have bought Kagame's line that the mass killings occurring in the Congo -- some estimates say up to 5 million, mostly civilians -- many of which were being carried out by Rwandan troops or their proxies, were somehow justified because of the genocide.
Over the course of the latter conflict, Rwanda-based mining interests (which have yet to sign on to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative) have been accused of plundering the riches of neighboring Congo in the "fog of war" created by Rwanda's 15-year crusade to bring every last génocidaire to justice. No one can argue that the Rwandans have the right to seek justice. But for Gourevtich to take on face value Kagame's claim that his government didn't "supply anything" to the recently deposed Congolese-Tutsi militia leader Laurent Nkunda is disingenuous at best.
According to the Economist, the U.N. has plenty of evidence to the contrary, and one wonders why Gourevitch doesn't at least mention it -- never mind asking Kagame about it.
The best part of the article was the photo of Paul Kagame by brilliant South African photographer Pieter Hugo. Check out his other work here.
(First published May 1, 2009 in World Politics Review)
Showing posts with label Kagame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kagame. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Sheen Comes off Kagame
What did the BBC do for Rwanda's information minister, Louise Mushikiwabo, to suspend their programs and call them "a real poison with regards to the reconciliation of the Rwandan people" yesterday?
The Beeb broadcast an interview with former Prime Minister Faustin Twagiramungu, now living in Belgium, who said that as a Hutu, he could never apologize for the 1994 Genocide. (A Rwandan government spokesperson was invited to participate in the program, but declined.)
This is not the first time that Mushikiwabo has taken issue with the BBC. Last August, according to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Mushikiwabo threatened to shut down both the BBC and the Voice of America if they didn't stop their "non-factual" reporting.
None of this should come as a surprise. In his hagiographic profile of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, "A Thousnad Hills," NY Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer points out that Kagame's role models are autocratric rulers like Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew and Malaysia's Mohammad Mahatir.
Friends of Kagame's Rwanda, like Kinzer, suggest that all this censorship is necessary -- in the short term at least -- to keep harmony in a society that was traumatized by the 1994 genocide and whose faultlines remain volatile. Organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House don't quite see it that way, and have consistently complained that social harmony in Rwanda is being achieved through the abregation of human rights.
Much of what Paul Kagame has done in Rwanda is admirable and no doubt necessary. But after Rwanda's dubious adventures in the Congo and the steady diet of repressive measures that Rwandans have been subjected to, some of the sheen is coming off his image. In France, Kagame is officially viewed as a criminal, on a par with the perpetrators of the genocide, because of the heavy-handed revenge his soldiers took on defenseless Hutu civilians.
U.S. policymakers will likely never take this line on Kagame, stemming in part from U.S. guilt over inaction during the genocide. But that's no reason to ignore ugly incidents of censorship and repression.
(First Published April 27, 2009 in World Politics Review)
The Beeb broadcast an interview with former Prime Minister Faustin Twagiramungu, now living in Belgium, who said that as a Hutu, he could never apologize for the 1994 Genocide. (A Rwandan government spokesperson was invited to participate in the program, but declined.)
This is not the first time that Mushikiwabo has taken issue with the BBC. Last August, according to a report by the Committee to Protect Journalists, Mushikiwabo threatened to shut down both the BBC and the Voice of America if they didn't stop their "non-factual" reporting.
None of this should come as a surprise. In his hagiographic profile of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, "A Thousnad Hills," NY Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer points out that Kagame's role models are autocratric rulers like Singapore's Lee Kwan Yew and Malaysia's Mohammad Mahatir.
Friends of Kagame's Rwanda, like Kinzer, suggest that all this censorship is necessary -- in the short term at least -- to keep harmony in a society that was traumatized by the 1994 genocide and whose faultlines remain volatile. Organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Freedom House don't quite see it that way, and have consistently complained that social harmony in Rwanda is being achieved through the abregation of human rights.
Much of what Paul Kagame has done in Rwanda is admirable and no doubt necessary. But after Rwanda's dubious adventures in the Congo and the steady diet of repressive measures that Rwandans have been subjected to, some of the sheen is coming off his image. In France, Kagame is officially viewed as a criminal, on a par with the perpetrators of the genocide, because of the heavy-handed revenge his soldiers took on defenseless Hutu civilians.
U.S. policymakers will likely never take this line on Kagame, stemming in part from U.S. guilt over inaction during the genocide. But that's no reason to ignore ugly incidents of censorship and repression.
(First Published April 27, 2009 in World Politics Review)
Friday, August 8, 2008
The Way of Kagame
Stephen Kinzer, former Times correspondent, has written a curious book about Paul Kagame, current leader of Rwanda. Kinzer's approach is to tell Kagame's story from the beginning and then let Kagame, in his own italicized words, comment on the ideas and incidents that Kinzer has highlighted. This makes for a nice balance of author and subject but more often than not Kinzer seems uncertain whether Kagame's particular approach is really as wonderful as Kinzer desperately wants it to be.
Why is Kinzer so eager to see Kagame succeed? That's a simple enough question to answer. The Rwandan genocide was a horrendous event and one can only feel sympathy for the Rwandan people and wish them well in overcoming the disastrous effects of that grusome episode. One also senses a real affection for Kagame on the part of Kinzer who undoubtedly views him as an immensely heroic (even romantic?) figure. A true guerrilla leader/statesman in the mold of Che Guevara. A man who also bent history to his own will.
One of the most remarkable revelations in this book is that fact that foreign diplomats posted in Kigali are often at odds with their home governments in how to deal with the overtly authoritarian and at times repressive actions of Kagame's government. When Kinzer interviews these diplomats the same rationale seems to emerge: we don't like everything Kagame is doing but it seems to be working so let's not rock the boat. Kinzer also makes short work of critical analysts from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who according, to Kinzer, are short-sighted and may even have an anti-Kagame bias.
This is not to say that Kinzer himself is totally on board with the Kagame Way. Far from it. He asks all the right questions about all the appropriate issues, but his bias is always to give Kagame the benefit of the doubt. In fact he gives more than a benefit: he ends up suggesting that the Kagame Way might be the most appropriate way for the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
What would this mean? Basically a shift away from democratically elected governments to one party, 'enlightened' authoritarianism. Highly aggressive population control schemes, coupled with an emphasis on education, particularly of the technical kind. It also means state involvement in all aspects of the economy as well as hyper-security measures that are designed to undermine any organized resistance to the state's control. In other contexts, these measures would be reviled by the international community: in Rwanda the diplomats note that the streets are clean, that there is no visible crime in their particular neighborhoods and that the people are industrious, punctual, and polite. (What's there for a foreigner not to like?)
Given what Rwanda has been through it is hard to argue that what exists there now is much better than what went on before. It is also hard not to admire Paul Kagame. He is 'serious' (a 'serious' word in Rwanda), and fearless and does seem to be in the mold of other enlightened strong-men like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore and Mahatir of Malaysia.
Whether there are other Kagames waiting in the wings of other African nations is highly doubtful. The best hope is that young politicians in other African countries will see that Kagame is offering a way that is not totally dependent on the 'kindness of strangers' i.e. foreign aid, and a way that stresses hard work and honesty over corruption and greed.
As for enlightened despotism: well let's hope that the world and Mr. Kinzer believe that even Africans deserve better.
A Thousand Hills:Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It
John Wiley & Sons 2008
www.stephenkinzer.com
Why is Kinzer so eager to see Kagame succeed? That's a simple enough question to answer. The Rwandan genocide was a horrendous event and one can only feel sympathy for the Rwandan people and wish them well in overcoming the disastrous effects of that grusome episode. One also senses a real affection for Kagame on the part of Kinzer who undoubtedly views him as an immensely heroic (even romantic?) figure. A true guerrilla leader/statesman in the mold of Che Guevara. A man who also bent history to his own will.
One of the most remarkable revelations in this book is that fact that foreign diplomats posted in Kigali are often at odds with their home governments in how to deal with the overtly authoritarian and at times repressive actions of Kagame's government. When Kinzer interviews these diplomats the same rationale seems to emerge: we don't like everything Kagame is doing but it seems to be working so let's not rock the boat. Kinzer also makes short work of critical analysts from organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who according, to Kinzer, are short-sighted and may even have an anti-Kagame bias.
This is not to say that Kinzer himself is totally on board with the Kagame Way. Far from it. He asks all the right questions about all the appropriate issues, but his bias is always to give Kagame the benefit of the doubt. In fact he gives more than a benefit: he ends up suggesting that the Kagame Way might be the most appropriate way for the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa.
What would this mean? Basically a shift away from democratically elected governments to one party, 'enlightened' authoritarianism. Highly aggressive population control schemes, coupled with an emphasis on education, particularly of the technical kind. It also means state involvement in all aspects of the economy as well as hyper-security measures that are designed to undermine any organized resistance to the state's control. In other contexts, these measures would be reviled by the international community: in Rwanda the diplomats note that the streets are clean, that there is no visible crime in their particular neighborhoods and that the people are industrious, punctual, and polite. (What's there for a foreigner not to like?)
Given what Rwanda has been through it is hard to argue that what exists there now is much better than what went on before. It is also hard not to admire Paul Kagame. He is 'serious' (a 'serious' word in Rwanda), and fearless and does seem to be in the mold of other enlightened strong-men like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore and Mahatir of Malaysia.
Whether there are other Kagames waiting in the wings of other African nations is highly doubtful. The best hope is that young politicians in other African countries will see that Kagame is offering a way that is not totally dependent on the 'kindness of strangers' i.e. foreign aid, and a way that stresses hard work and honesty over corruption and greed.
As for enlightened despotism: well let's hope that the world and Mr. Kinzer believe that even Africans deserve better.
A Thousand Hills:Rwanda's Rebirth and the Man Who Dreamed It
John Wiley & Sons 2008
www.stephenkinzer.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
