OK, I'll go back to your original post, where you wrote
In message <4b.1a31f78.270cae7b at aol.com>, LeoCasey at aol.com writes
> The current Rwandan government includes
>both Tutsis and the non-racist Hutus. These are basic facts, easily checked.
Yes, they are basic facts, easily checked, by anyone, but Leo, who proceeded in ignorance of the events of this year, in which the ethnic dictatorship of Paul Kagame became apparent, with the expulsion of the last important Hutu from Kagame's cabinet. This, recall in a country that it overwhelmingly Hutu.
Citing Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Leo insisted that the Kagame government was mixed. But these are the very sources that have condemned Kagame's government for what it is, an ethnic dictatorship.
>1. A genocide took place in 1994 in Rwanda, organized by extreme racist Hutus
>against Tutsis and non-racist Hutus who tried to stop it, and claimed one
>million lives;
And where exactly, did I deny that there had been a mass slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus? Leo, like a good student of Goebbels, keeps parroting this lie in the hope that it will stick. But I have never denied that there was indeed a wholesale slaughter of Tutsis, by Hutus in 1994.
There was also slaughter of Hutus, by RPF forces, and is to this day a racially exclusive dictatorship in Rwanda.
>2. The US and other major world powers did nothing to stop the genocide, and
>France actually intervened to protect the perpetrators.
Again, this point is now well-established. The US had extensive links to the RPF, that invaded the country in 1994 (reference cited from Washington Post but not challenged by Leo), furthermore, the New York Times reports that the UN investigation into the killing of Habyarimana that is generally agreed to have been the starting point of the slaughter.
What the US' contribution to the genocide was is a matter of debate. That the US intervened in Rwanda through its proxy, the RPF is settled.
>
>All of this is entirely independent of the 'correctness' of the current
>Rwandan government, or its actions in pursuing justice with regard to the
>genocide, on in the ongoing war in the Congo.
OK, so where's this going....
>I happen to believe that those
>are very complicated issues, for reasons I can outline below. I have disputed
>factual inaccuracies which Jim made, such as the claim the current government
>is entirely Tutsi (it is not),
Oh come on. That is just silly. Is Human Rights Watch wrong to say that the RPF has forced all Hutus out of important posts? Why would they say that? Are they too know to be cast beyond the pale alongside those other extremists, the Washington Post, the New York Times, Amnesty International, Covert Action Quarterly etc etc
>but it does not follow from that it is a model
>of ethnic harmony. Some, but not all, leading Hutu figures in the government
>have resigned. It is not clear to me how to sort the various claims around
>this resignations with the information we have: did one resign and go into
>exile because of a parliamentary investigation into corruption on his part,
>did another leave because of a personality clash and personal power struggle
>with Kagame, as the government claims, or did they leave because the
>government was not intent on being multi-etnic. Always armed with the correct
>line, Jim knows the answers in advance; I think the matter is more
>complicated.
Well, yes I was awake in February/March when the government imploded, and took note of the fact that the RPF's predominantly Tutsi social base could no longer reconcile itself to a Hutu figurehead. But a child could have seen that coming.
>
>Further, when Jim finishes reading through all of the reports which I cited,
>he will discover that not only Amnesty International but also Human Rights
>Watch have issued reports with disturbing charges of human rights abuses on
>the part of the government.
I didn't need to look through the reports you posted, because I was well ware of the human rights violations, which, were first reported in the magazine that I worked for Living Marxism. Now, belatedly, you acknowledge the truth of what was reported there, that Kagame's regime is an ethnically exclusive dictatorship.
>Jim wants to accept what they have to say about
>that, but ignore what they have to say about the genocide and the
>responsibility of major Western powers.
But, again, I never argued that there was not a mass slaughter of Tutsis in 1994, nor indeed that the major powers were not complicit. Indeed I argue that their intervention was decisive.
> I will not defend human rights abuses
>under any circumstances, but
There's always a but. But what for fuck's sake? What is it that makes it OK for the RPF to indiscriminately jail, torture, summarily execute, persecute? What is it that puts Kagame's government above criticism?
>I do think that it is absolutely necessary to
>have an appreciation for the difficult circumstances the Rwandans face.
It's enough to make you puke. You are making apologies for people being killed right now on no evidence, without any right to defend themselves, while their lawyers are being disappeared? I just don't understand how, with good conscience you can make the switch from self-righteous condemnation on one hand to ready apologetics on the other.
>Consider, for example, the following article
>HERE is the dilemma: 100 000 men are stuffed into prisons little better than
>disease-ridden cattle pens. Most have been there for years waiting for a
>trial. When they finally see a courtroom, there's a fair chance the hearings
>will last no more than a few days, and they will not have a lawyer. But if
>convicted, thousands face the prospect of a firing squad.
>
>Surely a denial of basic human rights?
Yes. That is exactly what it is. All the rest is propaganda. Listen to weasling Chris McGreal trying to make a case for 100 000 people detained without due process, facing the firing squad:
>But consider that these men are
>accused of genocide. Some of those charged with mass murder during Rwanda's
>100 days of slaughter in 1994 are innocent. The majority are not.
Amazing. No need for a trial, then. Because Chris McGreal is on hand to establish that 'on the balance of probabilities that the accused probably did it!
No lawyer, just a firing squad.
>
>Now I am sure Jim has an easy solution to that set of circumstances, an
>obvious and completely correct path for the Rwandan government to take. But
>he and I seem to live in different political and moral universes.
Yes, I live in a moral universe, where you cannot justify killing people by claiming political expediency. I live in a universe, where people deserve justice whether they are Tutsi or Hutu.
Leo adopts a high moral tone for some (Hutus), but makes excuses for others (the RPF). Why? Are Hutus naturally bad, and Tutsis naturally good?
Killing people is wrong.
-- James Heartfield
Great Expectations: the creative industries in the New Economy is available from Design Agenda, 4.27 The Beaux Arts Building, 10-18 Manor Gardens, London, N7 6JT Price 7.50 GBP + 1GBP p&p