Of course, this was never the issue, nor the position I took. Just go back to all of the original posts, and one can see that I have made two main points along. 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; 2. The US and other major world powers did nothing to stop the genocide, and France actually intervened to protect the perpetrators.
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. 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), 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.
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. 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. I will not defend human rights abuses under any circumstances, but I do think that it is absolutely necessary to have an appreciation for the difficult circumstances the Rwandans face. Consider, for example, the following article from South Africa's Daily Mail and Guardian, "Balance of human rights and wrongs."
Rwanda: CHRIS MCGREAL on a nation trying to lay the ghosts of genocide to rest
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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? 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.
To free them would deny justice for victims and survivors, and broadcast that genocide goes unpunished.
Why not just ensure a fair trial with a lawyer, an impartial judge and the basic procedures common to Western courts? Amnesty International has criticised the genocide trials in Rwanda for failing to meet these standards.
But most of Rwanda's judges and lawyers died in the 1994 genocide, or fled afterwards because they were complicit in the killing.
The government has been furiously training new judges, young lawyers who on a few weeks' instruction weigh guilt and punishment.
Hardly satisfactory, but better than summary justice, or setting killers free. There are too few lawyers, and those there baulk at defending men accused of genocide.
But the biggest obstacle is the amount it costs to build a justice system from scratch, to train an impartial army and police force and maintain proper prisons.
Competition for resources is fierce. Funds spent on ensuring impeccable trials will be at the expense of other human rights, such as housing for the genocide's survivors, educating orphans and treating the mutilated.
While Rwanda's trials are far from perfect they are far better than is portrayed by comparison with due process elsewhere. There is often considerable evidence against the accused. Testimony of survivors and witnesses, and increasingly frequent confessions of guilt, are cathartic for those devastated by genocide.
Sentences are mostly lighter than for lesser crimes in the United States. Many accused of genocide are sentenced to less than 10 years.
Hundreds have been sentenced to death yet only a handful have been executed by firing squad. Those shot were the more notorious enforcers of the genocide who, the Rwandan government's defenders argue, were executed partly to satisfy survivors' demands for justice to be seen to be done.
Criticism of the trials is but one of several faults human rights groups find with Rwanda. The government is also accused of failing to curtail revenge killings of Hutus.
There are human rights abuses in Rwanda. But they should be distinguished from those perpetrated by regimes - such as the late General Abacha's in Nigeria and Robert Mugabe's in Zimbabwe - which use terror as a means of political control. The intent is different. Few could deny that the fledgling administration that took power after genocide had a massive task ahead of it. Whatever the shortcomings of their justice system, the new administration chose trials over mass executions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
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.
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --