Rwanda and its critics

This has undermined the establishment of a conducive atmosphere in which an open discussion of the state of the media in Rwanda can take place. It has also forced the government into a siege mentality – giving up any hope that it can constructively engage human rights organisations and the media in meaningful dialogue on press freedom. Inadvertently (or perhaps even advertently) the very organisations that claim to promote freedom and human rights in Rwanda have actually undermined the foundation on which such a more meaningful conversation can be constructed.

For those interested in an informed discussion of democratisation in Rwanda, it would be important to overcome prejudices first. That means the facts of every case involving a death or an arrest must be the basis of the debate and evidence should replace stereotypes and prejudices. This is not to say the government is always right. Rwanda government officials make many mistakes. Rather, it is to say that the state often has legitimate issues that should be listened to and its side of the story given equitable space in newspapers and airtime on television and radio.

For example, in 2011, the British police happily publicized allegations that it had “reliable information” that Kigali had sent a hit squad to kill two Rwandan dissidents in London. Many people think the UK police acts professionally even though its own government report in 2,000 said racism is institutionalised in the force. Instead of asking the UK to substantiate the claims, human rights groups and most media went on a condemnation spree against the Rwanda government.

People in Rwanda see this overt prejudice by media and human rights groups. This has generated a self-destructive impulse – Rwanda’s leaders make little effort to influence international public opinion because their experience is that regardless of what they say, their voice will not be heard. This fatalism – the belief that what it does or says will not matter – has allowed its enemies to sell every outlandish accusation to an increasingly biased international press and human rights community. Now, even governments of western nations are falling into the trap.

The basic principle governing every accusation is that he who alleges must prove their allegation. The British police have made grave allegations against the government of Rwanda. Yet journalists do not take them to task to explain why they believe the allegations against the government of a friendly country. Instead the questions are directed at Rwanda to prove its innocence against outlandish allegations.

To flip this coin: there have been accusations against the US government under George Bush that it hijacked the planes on September 11, 2001 and rammed them into the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC. Like all such outlandish claims, mainstream media in America and the rest of the western world have never given it space or airtime in print and broadcast media. And even when they have brought it forth, it has only been to show the existence of some lunatic fringe opinion within their society – but never as an accusation to even debate.

But when a similar outlandish accusation is made against the Rwanda government, journalists employ a double standard. An American reporter who cannot ask his president to keep explaining himself to the world that he is not the one who ordered the 9/11 attacks insists that the president of Rwanda should keep defending himself against similar outlandish claims. The same journalist who presents these outlandish allegations as legitimate issues for debate in Rwanda knows that when a one Rosie O’Donnell made the allegation of the American government being responsible for 9/11 on ABC TV’s The View program, she was fired that very day.

It is this double standard that allows a Rwandan dissident to walk into the UK police office, motivated by a desire to embarrass the government for purely propaganda reasons, and sell them an outlandish allegation.

If the Rwanda government did not send a hit squad to kill dissidents in the UK, how do they prove that beyond stating the fact?

The more troubling part of these accusations happened in Sweden late last year. The Swedish government, acting on a tip to its police from “a reliable source” decided to quietly expel a Rwandan diplomat. Immediately after, the “reliable source” revealed his identity. He is Gasasira, a journalist who escaped from Rwanda accusing the government of political persecution. He wrote on his blog boasting how he duped the Swedish police and caused its government to expel a Rwandan diplomat.

Just before his escape from Rwanda, Gasasira had complained to Kagame at a press conference that his life was in danger. Kagame invited him to a private meeting to listen to his concerns. After the meeting Kagame ordered the chiefs of intelligence, the army and police to offer protection to this critical journalist. He continued with his critical journalism. However, one evening an unknown gang overpowered Gasasira’s bodyguard and injured him. The government of Rwanda again took care of him evacuating him to South Africa for medical treatment. What better illustrates the commitment of the government of Rwanda to offer protection to every citizen, supportive or even critical than this story? And why does Terril, who lives in Rwanda and should know this story not spread it?

It is one of those pranks of history that Gasasira, who had been reported missing and killed by the government of Rwanda is the same person who showed up in Sweden to make these claims. Had he not revealed himself, the claim that government of Rwanda caused him to disappear would still be as popular among human rights groups and their journalistic allies as the claims of hit squads.

The journalists who reported the expulsion of a Rwandan diplomat from Sweden did nothing to ask Stockholm to explain its reasons for expelling the diplomat and evidence to support its allegations. The Swedish government knows that it would have been required to adhere to particular standards if it sought to expel a British or French diplomat.

Since the story broke, the Swedish government has made no effort whatsoever to substantiate its allegations by providing telephone calls, email exchanges, evidence of undiplomatic activity by the diplomat. The Swedish government gets away with such blatant misconduct simply because the victim is a poor African country. The same applies to mass media and human rights groups. Even when the person who duped the Swedish police has revealed the details of the plot, none of these have taken up this issue.

Anyone conversant with the immigration system of the UK knows that it would take the police minutes to find names of members of the alleged hit squad and apprehend them. They have not. Instead, the British claim they blocked the suspect from entering the country from Belgium. Why would the British government block a suspected criminal from entering the country instead of arresting him? Is this too much to ask?

The Rwanda government asked the UK government to name members of the hit squad. It did not. If there is credible information regarding attempted murder, the UK police would establish some prima facie evidence first before running to publicise mere allegations. The same applies to Sweden which has failed to furnish the government of Rwanda with any explanation whatsoever on why it expelled the diplomat. Would the two governments behave that way if the country involved were Belgium?

There is therefore a clear case of double standards. I ask Terrill to do no favors to the government of Rwanda but to only use the same standard of proof and verification, fairness and balance, of context and completeness when reporting on Rwanda as he would if he were reporting on America or Sweden. But why doesn’t he and others do this? I will explain this next week.