|
RALLY FOR THE RETURN OF | |
|---|---|
|
4, RUE A. CLUYSENAAR 1060 BRUXELLES BELGIQUE Tél: 32-2-5348035 Fax: 32-2-5348053 |
7, RESIDENCE MONTESQUIEU 49000 ANGERS FRANCE Tél/Fax: 33-41489987 |
December 31, 1995
On November 29, 1995, a summit of Heads of State of ZAIRE, BURUNDI, RWANDA, UGANDA and a special envoy of President MWINYI of TANZANIA, took place under the mediation of President Jimmy CARTER. The main topic on the agenda was the security in the Great Lakes region. Here below, RDR gives its position about the declaration released at the end of the summit.
1. In September 1995,the Rally for the Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) wrote a letter to President CARTER asking him to get personally involved in the Rwandan issue and to use his long experience in the peaceful settlement of conflicts. The announcement in NEW York on 22nd October 1995 of a regional summit on the crisis in the Great Lakes Region was received with a sigh of relief among the rwandan community in exile.
2. RDR was happy that the agenda of the summit made public during a press conference given by the Presidents of TANZANIA, ZAIRE and UGANDA and confirmed in a press release of CARTER CENTRE dated 13th November 1995, met its major concerns : return of refugees, national reconciliation and justice, matters related to the governance of the country as well as security in the sub-region.
3. The announcement was made at a time of high tension related to the deadline of 31st December 1995, set by the zairean government for the complete repatriation of rwandan refugees from Zaïre, as well as reemergence of acts of terrorism in Eastern Zaïre organised by people living in Rwanda and having strong connections with the current leadership in Rwanda.
4. Unfortunately, diversionary tactics of RPF which wants to hold on power against all adds, sabotaged the summit with regard to Rwanda. Hence what some observers considered a major political initiative achieved insignificant results.
5. Further to a memorandum which was prepared for the participants to the CAIRO summit, RDR feels duty bound to give its view on the meagre results of the Summit and its weakness and to put forward some proposals to advance peace process in Rwanda and in the sub-region in general.
6. The statement explicitly states that the CAIRO meeting was just a step of a longer process. This is an acknowledgement of the complexity of the stakes inherent in the crisis in the region. So it is still possible to correct the shortcomings which have been identified and place the process on the right track.
RDR will leave no stone unturned in enlightening President CARTER and others relevant Heads State, on the underlying causes of the rwandese crisis as well as on the deep feeling of rwandese refugees, excluded from the governance of their country, and of the rwandese people as whole.
7. Insistence on the prolongation of the mandate of UNAMIR in Rwanda to give confidence to returning refugees, is an acknowledgement although late that the RPF and its structures lack the trust of the rwandan people in general and refugees in particular.
Indeed even some members of the RPF government and many other independent sources, including UN agencies and international human rights organisations agree that the RPF Army constitutes the main source of insecurity in Rwanda. The Rwandan people need first and foremost to be protected from the RPF Army and against the excesses of the RPF political police known locally under the name of ABAKADA (CADRES).
8. The principle of voluntary repatriation of refugees has been reaffirmed. At the same time, the zairean delegation has indicated that the deadline of 31st December 1995 was no longer holding. It is hoped that he UNHCR will not continue its forced repatriation using various tactics, calling it " accelerated repatriation ".
9. Due to intransigence of RPF (with regard to Rwanda) the initial agenda was substantially cut down and only issues regarding its survival were tabled for discussion.
Furthermore, by objecting to the presence of any observer and representatives of refugees, RPF had nothing else in mind but to rewrite the history of Rwanda according to its wishes and to avoid real issues regarding the governance of the country, the formation of a truly national Army and other security organs, justice and national reconciliation, return to plural democracy, etc...
10. The civil war in Rwanda(and in Burundi), having forged a new map of the sub region made of blocs of alliance around warring parties, lack of serious counter propaganda to the one carried by the RPF has led to a superficial or even false diagnosis of the crisis (line 17-20). In this connection serious issues within the current administration like lack of a democratic culture in Rwanda, excessive power of the military in the governance of the country, with regard to the present political agitation have been deliberately omitted. In the same way, the role of colonialism has been exaggerated to cover up the weaknesses of the monarchical regime and of african elite and hence justify revisionism that is preached by the clique in power in KIGALI.
11. While the declaration rightly condemns horrors and gross violations of human rights in Rwanda in 1994, the statement seems to be unaware of the RPF policy of exclusion and persecution of anybody suspected of being a real or potential political challenger to the domination of power. This form of exclusion was condemned by the UN Secretary General during his latest visit to RWANDA.
12. The statement does not at all mention massacres and other gross violation of human rights committed by the RPF regime. Hence (Point H) the statement seems to adopt the racist and deriding theory that the reluctance of refugees to go back to Rwanda is due to intimidation by some groups in the camps. In other words the 2,5 million hutus are so childish that they cannot identify their real interests.
During the exercise of forced repatriation from Zaïre in August 1995, some refugees preferred to die by throwing themselves in RUSIZI river, while the UNHCR was looking on, than accept to be handed over to RPF. Those who doubted about the legitimacy of the fears of refugees were shocked to see corpses of people who had been handed over to RPF, floating on RUSIZI river.
13. Dealing only with the survival of some regimes in place, the statement ignores the demands underlying the present agitation both in Rwanda and Burundi (points b,d,e,i). With regard to Rwanda, as long as the RPF does not carry out fundamental reform to move to plural democracy and the rule of law, a political dead lock will prevail and it will not be brought about from outside necessarily. Whether it likes it or not, RPF must accept the principle of "one man one vote".
The policy of killing in the bud popular demands, kills democracy by promoting mediocrity and repression.
This is why the summit should have examined each legitimate demand of the opposition groups instead of condemning them in their absence.
14. Concern for justice(point f) rightly shown the case of late President NDADAYE, should have gone further to arise sympathy for his colleagues Presidents HABYARIMANA of Rwanda and NTARYAMIRA of Burundi, killed savagely, especially that this assassination triggered off the rwandan tragedy. The summit, in order to avoid the problem of double standards, should have supported the idea of a commission of enquiry into the assassination of the two Presidents.
15. The summit simply endorsed the promises made by President BIZIMUNGU Pasteur with regards to security of refugees(point g) without demanding any other guarantee.
However the statement is no different from the NAIROBI statement of January 1995 which Mr Pasteur BIZIMUNGU signed. This promise did not prevent the massacres of KIBEHO, KANAMA, IWAWA, NSHILI as well as political assassinations and disappearances of religious and political personalities.
Even if Mr Pasteur BIZIMUNGU had good intentions, he cannot commit his government let alone RPF. Power in exercised by the military High Command presided over by Paul Kagame. The latter organ can sack even BIZIMUNGU any time as it did in the case of TWAGIRAMUNGU Faustin, former Prime Minister.
16. With regard to the delicate issue of properties held illegally by RPF and its supporters, one can hardly see the point of conditioning the recovery of one's property to returning home in order to reclaim it (not recover !) What if one chose to reside outside Rwanda but wants to enjoy the fruits of his property ? What if he wanted to pass it to someone else to manage it for him or give it to a relative ? What if this conditions were a trap in as far as those who returned home and claimed their property including land, died or disappeared ?
Furthermore is it not hypocritical on the part of the RPF to promise the return of property while it is drafting laws to nationalise the same ?
All these are issues to which Mr BIZIMUNGU Pasteur cannot provide an answer.
17. The initiative of President CARTER is praise-worthy. However it would have been a positive innovation if it had been a mediation between refugees and the regimes in BURUNDI and RWANDA on the one hand and on the other hand, between the same regimes and the internal and external oppositions. Up to now the mediation has been between Heads of State present.
With regard to Rwanda, President Carter should listen more to the representatives of refugees and promote political dialogue between refugees and the RPF.
The mere discussion on the return of refugees without examining the underlying causes of the exodus(insecurity, bad governance, exclusion, lack of justice, monopoly of power by a monolithic Army etc...), is just avoiding a problem instead of resolving it.
18. Refugees want to return home rapidly and peacefully. For this to happen, they made concrete and realistic proposals to the RPF regime and to the international community. It is therefore indispensable for those refugees to be involved at all stages of the whole process aimed at solving their problem, as full partners.
Refusing to grant to more than 2,5 million hutu refugees what was readily granted to less than half a million tutsi refugees is applying a policy of double standards which is contrary to national reconciliation.
19. Ignoring important pertness like KENYA, UNHCR and the UN in the search for a solution to the crisis in the Great Lake Region deprives the CAIRO forum of invaluable assets. Confining the debate within neighbouring countries which at one time or another openly supported one of the parties in the conflict and/or financed the war is to prolong the agony of the rwandan people.
20. The future of Rwanda is a primary concern and duty of rwandans themselves. The challenge to mediators is to bring protagonists in the conflict to the same table of negotiations to discuss problems of their country.
Once they limit their role to consolidating or imposing the present stalinist RPF regime on a people that hate it, they will be falling into the trap of certain circles in western Europe and America and in the region, which, having invested so much in the RPF war, find it difficult to back track and thus prefer to maintain the same policy.
21. The political analysis of the rwandan conflict must go beyond a simple logic of choosing between two evils, i.e between the RPF regime and the regime it overthrew. The rwandan people are also entitled to look for excellence like other civilised people.
This is why the shortcomings of the government before 1994 cannot serve as an excuse for condoning RPF mediocrity.
In the same way, the misfortunes which befell Rwanda cannot be used to justify gross violation of human rights and repression carried out by the RPF regime.
22. The rwandan crisis did not start in April 1994. The work of mediators must therefore begin with shedding light on the role and interests of foreign forces in the origin and development of the rwandan tragedy.
At a time when the smallest rumour about an hypothetical rearmament of hutu refugees in zaïre shakes the international community, is it not fair for the mediators to try to answer the question that haunts the rwandan people, that is, who armed RPF and financed its war and in whose interest ?
Why is it that some powerful political circles take it upon themselves to protect a military oligarchy whose behaviour goes totally against a liberal and democratic society ?
23. The rwandan crisis and the problem of refugees in particular should be placed beyond the context of ethnic conflicts. It has to do with regional alliances. Pretending not to see the interconnection between the rwandan and burundian crisis and political ambitions of the Ugandan regime is to force doors which are already open and practising " a head in the sand" policy, thus avoiding real issues.
RDR sincerely hopes that reason will prevail over passion and propaganda, and that millions of rwandans in grief, who had a ray of hope in the initiative of President CARTER will not be eventually disappointed.
May the wisdom of President CARTER and other mediators place the vital and long terms interests of the people of the Great Lake Region above the immediate survival of some regimes dominated by ethnic and political minorities that are over armed but contested.
For RDR
NZABANDORA Chris
Director of Information