First - I wonder what basis you have for claiming what I wrote is “dangerous?” Dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the numerous aid and missionary groups that point to Rwanda as their “model of excellence” because it exposes issues that have been ignored while the western world tries to ease its conscience?

Secondly - everyone’s heard the “European divisions/ethnicity” cause of the genocide before, and I’ve researched it in depth. But what is missed in this simplistic argument is that virtually no “ethnic” conflict in the world can be explained so easily. Ethnicity (like religion) is more often used as a visible characteristic upon which demagogues like to rally the base. The causes of the Rwanda Genocide were not ethnic - only the killing was. Even then, in parts of the country without substantial Tutsi populations, the percentage of people killed nearly matched other areas - because if there weren’t Tutsi to kill, the genocidaires found Hutu” collaborators” and even Twa to blame for their problems.

I know Kigali looks nice (and western) and aid workers like to point to it as a some evidence of “growth”- and YES, it is growing and amazing to see such development. But most of Rwanda doesn’t live in Kigali.

Most of Rwanda doesn’t have access to the “streaming Internet” to hold their politicians accountable. Most of Rwanda is rural, and every city is not like Kigali - far from it. Most of Rwanda is far more concerned with erosion and dwindling crop yields, educating their children, and access to medical care than watching Rwanda’s version of C-SPAN over the internet.

Moreover, while a “western-style” economy in Kigali may look “good” to us, how does it help the average Rwandan? Ignore GDP and per capita income - those are misleading. How does making everyone who wants to sell something get a license and wear a vest encourage enterprise and business? How does controlling an economy so that only a select few are free to do business encourage wide-spread growth? Inclusive economies have little control - this is what allows EVERYONE to participate if they want to - not the few that can afford the license fees, or know the right people. That kind of strict regulation only works when an ENTIRE population is largely educated and has equal access to the formal economy. That is NOT Rwanda (not at this point, at least). Make no mistake- Rwanda is still a developing country and cannot ignore 80% of its population so the other 20% can feel like they’ve created a “mini-Singapore” in the heart of Africa.

I know that relying on English media in a Francophone country where most people speak Kinyarwanda is not reflective of the bigger picture. But be that as it may, the English press is still a poor excuse for independent media. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a mouthpiece for the government line. Surely clamping down on free speech because “Hutu power radio incited the 1994 genocide” isn’t a solution for a pluralistic, democratic society.

However, there was one major development over the past few months that I see as significant:

The arrest and detention of Laurent Nkunda (I might have spelled that wrong). The Tutsi warlord - long backed by Rwanda - that was free to wage his own genocide against Hutus living in the Congo was a blatant symbol of Kagame’s government’s desire to exact revenge - and Kagame’s decision to put an end to his reign in Kivu is significant and bodes well for the future. It has directly led to increased economic activity in Kivu, as well as cooperation between Congo and Rwanda. It has eased the refugee and human migration issues in eastern Congo. This was a significant step to moving past “revenge” policies (or at least the perception of such policies among Hutus) and into a forward-looking future.

As I think I mentioned in a reply above, I don’t imagine that Rwanda will ever see a genocide on the scale and ferocity as in 1994. There will never be another 1 million killed by machetes - the country’s psyche won’t allow it.

But what I can imagine is a low-level conflict, one that pushes people out of their homes, where violence is sporadic and scattered, but enough to make people worry and consider leaving the country. Think something more similar to Sudan or Palestine.

And just like Sudan and Palestine, it’s not about ethnicity or religion. It’s about land - usable land. Something that the 7 billion people on Earth are increasingly finding in short supply.

But then again, it’s comforting to just assume that “well, Hutus killed Tutsis because they were a different ethnic group, tribe, or religion” - using those words that we reserve only for describing problems in the non-white regions of the world.

Because if we assume that, we can excuse ourselves from guilt the next time it happens and we don’t do anything to stop it (just like in Sudan, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Somalia, etc.)

I wish you realized how misleading is your view on Rwanda. I’m not sure how long you have been living there, or how much research you have done, but it is certainly dangerous to make such misleading statements.

First of all, I’m not Rwandan, so there are no hidden interests in what I say here. But it does frustrate me to read articles such as yours. Because if one dares to talk so confidently on such delicate contexts, then one needs at least to be rigorous.

You are certainly not being rigorous when you mention that the same factors that led to the Rwandan Genocide are still there today. The main factor for the Genocide was decades of politics based on ethnic divisionism. The use of the ethnic card politics was started by the colonial governments and when on for fours decades after independence. Well, the government of Paul Kagame is the first government that is actually rejecting the politics of divisionism and working for the prosperity of all Rwandans, whichever ethnic group they belong.

The government of Rwanda is certainly working for the country to become a strong democracy but this cannot happen overnight as you would appreciate if you understood the context. Last December took place in Rwanda the annual National Dialogue, where any citizen could call to Parliament and directly hold politicians accountable. Furthermore, the National Dialogue was live streamed through the Internet, so all the world, including you and the Rwandan Diaspora could see and hear by themselves this event. It is true that the law won’t allow certain political parties to register if they base their politics on ethnic divisionism, and revisionist theorist of the Genocide. But, Wil, many European countries have also strong laws against the revisionism of the Holocaust as well as against racism. There is also a vast academic literature that explains the reasons why a country after a conflict cannot have a western-style democracy overnight, since this might create further instability.

As for media freedom, do you realize that it was precisely in the name of ‘freedom of press’ that a specific radio and newspaper where allowed to publish the messages that triggered the Genocide? So do not be so dogmatist because the historical facts are proving you wrong. Did you know that the current government is promoting media literacy and debate workshops among schools in order to raise critical citizens. What gets more democratic than this? And let me tell you that these debate workshops are run by civil society organizations.

As Marie said, if you read the newspapers every day you would see how critical they can be of the government. If you were able to read Kinyarwanda you would also see that there are very critical newspapers which are not published in english but which are very much read by Rwandans. If there are articles talking about the hope that kagame has brought to the country, is not because media are controlled but because indeed many Rwandans are hopeful of a government who is actually committed and determined to bring sustainable peace and development in the country.

I could go on and on. For the first time after decades, Rwanda has had 16 years of peace and stability, it is one of the few countries to be on the right path in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and it is the country of the whole region that is more effectively fighting against corruption.

So, I know you are trying to be righteous, but, unfortunately, you are getting it wrong in the case of Rwanda.

Anna

I take your lack of evidence to dispute facts to mean you have no answer, and are content to keep living in a world where your own GDP/per capita is the only one that really matters.

And your equating others who disagree as being mass-murderers is a common tactic used by those who wish to silence opposition. It smacks of Israelis who accuse any critics of their apartheid state as being anti-Semitic and Nazis. Or of US Republicans that accuse any Americans who criticize the military as being pro-Al Qaeda.

I had hoped this would simply stimulate discussion - yet I see it’s quite obvious that you have no intention of discussion.

Given your unwillingness to debate with facts, and your personal (and baseless) attacks on other commentors who disagree with you, consider your thread now closed.

And by the way, thanks for including a link to my site on allafrica.com. I appreciate the free publicity…

Otherwise, why not use his name? Or he fears for his life, because Kagame does not allow free speech?

I can see you are genuinely COMPLETELY astray, because you talk about a Rwanda completely alien to me. And I am TOTALLY sincere when I say that.

If I don’t get time to respond to your bizarre ramblings, I promise to get someone else who does, if for nothing else, at least to give you an opinion of another Rwandan, much as Marie Collins has done a stellar job of it.

Ain’t done with you yet, watch this space!