ngoshwe
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 4,141
- 951
[h=2]President Jakaya Kikwete should re-think his aberrant comments[/h]
Editor,
I can understand why Rwandans would hypervent with white-hot anger against President Kikwetes extremely insensitive call that our government negotiate with the FDLR genocidaires. It is almost as if his proposal was deliberately intended to provoke.
How else can you explain such a mindless proposition right in the middle of the period when we commemorate our losses during the 100 days of 1994 when the FDLRs ex-FAR and Interahamwe genocidal antecedents were busy in their orgy of Tutsi extermination?
The fact that he a President and former foreign minister of a neighbouring country, with which Rwanda maintains close and brotherly relations can overlook the horror and trauma Rwandans feel about the vicious FDLR and its genocidal precursors to suggest negotiating with them, knowing their ideology is still to exterminate Tutsi everywhere and any Rwandans who do not share that ideology, is purely a sign of moral vacuity.
I nevertheless think we should keep our equanimity and not get involved in bad-mannered insults of a head of state of a brother East African partner no matter the provocation. Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo has, in my view, said everything Rwanda and Rwandans need to say about President Kikwetes aberrant suggestion.
We do not need him to unsay something that is already out in the open. I believe the impassioned and very angry responses of Rwandans in this paper, on Twitter and elsewhere will have given President Kikwete a full idea of what we all think of his suggestion.
I think we should be gracious enough to consider he will never attempt making such a hare-brained call again, and leave it at that.
Mwene Kalinda, Kigali, Rwanda
Reaction to Pan Butamires commentary, Will Kikwete retract his statement?, (The New Times, May 31)
[h=2]Negotiating with terrorists: are dirty deals possible in the Great Lakes?[/h]
Negotiating with terrorists? Well, this depends pretty much on what one understands by both terms terrorists and negotiation.
One would try to define it as listening and being prepared to make concessions, to those who use violence against civilians to achieve political aims.
The purpose of this article is to question the validity of the narrative that democracies do not negotiate with terrorists which is quite contradictory in practice and also to examine if such negotiations would be even thinkable, let alone being possible in the context of the Great Lakes region where some democratic states indirectly push for such an outcome even though they still view the region as the not so democratic.
From a Eurocentric view, some argue that this debate is really relevant only in democracies as dictators would have no interests in negotiation, but this contradicts the post 9/11 realities as the West saw a dramatic change in the security structure, shift in political discourse and move to a no negotiation policy position when dealing with terrorists who are explicit security threats. The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple.
Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. In other words, negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means.
Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent, they insist.
Let us not dwell on the premise of the above argument for a moment, instead have a quick look at few pros and cons of negotiating with terrorists, as the ultimate aim should always be to find ways by which to arrive at a peaceful conclusion.
In general, (1) negotiation is the simplest form of keeping an open dialogue with terrorist groups, understanding them and encouraging them to take part in the political process without arms.
The opposite side to that, however, is that by opening the dialogue gives them the political legitimacy which they do not deserve; hence it is better to have no relationship whatsoever until they renounce violence. This shows they voluntarily opted out the democratic process.
(2) Historical accounts show that negotiations have led ceasefires (i.e. Bill Clintons negotiation with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, PLO and John Majors secret talks with the Irish Republican Army, IRA) both of which aimed at advancing peace in respective regions.
The counterargument would be that terrorists want all or nothing (only with few exceptions, of course) and fragile peace in the Northern Ireland took time whereas the Middle East has never seen meaningful peace.
Back to the question as to whether democracies do dirty deals with terrorists, and yes in practice they do often negotiate with terrorists. It is public knowledge for instance, that the British government maintained a secret back channel to the IRA even after it had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991.
Other countries such as Spain (i.e. sat down with the separatist group Basque know by its acronym ETA in 1988) only six months after the group had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing, and Israel that is known for being tough on terrorism (i.e. secretly negotiated the Oslo accords in 1993) even though the PLO continued its terrorist activities and refused to recognize the state of Israel.
What is clear here is the disconnect between what governments publicly say and what they actually do, and the problem with the no negotiations rigid stance has consequently prevented any systematic and meaningful research on how best to conduct such negotiations.
It leaves the following questions open: How can a democratic country talk to terrorists without jeopardizing the integrity of its political system? What kind of terrorists are susceptible to negotiations? When should negotiations be opened?
In the light of recent suggestions by the Tanzanian President at the African Union (AU) Summit that Rwanda should negotiate with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) - a movement on the list of terrorist organisations and accused of having participated in the 1994 genocide that took over a million Rwandan souls, one would wonder why he thought this debate had a merit.
However, this is as an academic talk that is possibly more appropriate for a classroom full of college students enrolled on peace or war and conflict courses in some furthest lands with little knowledge of regional context and reality.
When and why did he take such position and more importantly why now? In politics, there is a theory of political timing which gives the opportunity for politicians to control and influence the events in such way as to maximize the political benefits.
For example, they will use the media platforms (i.e. news) to increase public attention and sway their electors. This incident however turned out to be a sum of political opportunism and muddled diplomacy given the leaders familiarity of regional political dynamics and great knowledge of the FDLRs link to the genocide that still troubles the moral conscience of the world, and subsequent mayhem in the Eastern DR Congo.
So what does this tell us about the regional politics? What about the East African Community (EAC) train that is supposedly moving on the same direction? How about the EAC joint military training exercises? Any related or unrelated dimensions to the intervention brigade force?
Clearly, there is a need for common understanding and approach on how to tackle security problems in the Great Lakes region, and so far the regional leaders have appeared to be unified in that front; but one hopes the recent divergence in opinion is not going to derail that process.
This is not an alarm that cooperation among EAC states will be affected, nor does one believe it would right for the community; but it is critically important for the citizens of the region to be informed of these matters as they have potential implications on the countries relations.
Is it politics, stupid? I guess sometimes, the answer is simply yes! Some would argue that the region is suffering from a security crisis, but others would rather say, it is a political one. Simple arithmetic would have made us believe that leaders in the region share views on how to combat various armed groups in the region, but some of us are probably naive and should stick with the idea that truth only belongs to God.
It is customary in international relations that any countrys political sovereignty must be respected and in this case, Rwandas national security matters are not the prerogative of a foreign President.
Call it a diplomatic incident or else but asking for an independent states to negotiate with an armed group whose agenda is to kill and maim Rwandans is very insensitive and, one hopes this issue will be dealt with swiftly in a mature way by the respected countries.
Contact email: jb_jakes[at]texas.usa.com
Negotiating with terrorists: are dirty deals possible in the Great Lakes? - The New Times Rwanda
[h=2]Rwandans never succumb to threats or blackmail[/h]
Rwandans have a way of shrugging off unpleasant things that seek to distract them from getting on with whatever task is at hand. They always have an apt response that is often a resolute and defiant statement with the strength of a solemn vow.
The most current one is to say: dukomeze imihigo. A very liberal translation of this is: lets stay the course, keep our objectives in sight and attain our goals. It is a way of saying; we shall not be distracted or diverted.
This has proved an effective rallying point for the nation whether in nation-building or countering adverse events.
The latest such attempted distraction from our course has been the unsolicited advice from our good neighbour President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania for Rwanda to hold talks with the FDLR terrorist group based in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We may not discount the good intention behind the advice. It was probably good neighbourly advice conveyed with neighbourly insensitivity. Or perhaps it was a message from elsewhere delivered with the bluntness of the impatient messenger. It could even have been a smokescreen for other motives. It does not really matter.
It does not matter whether the advice rose from a burning desire to join the ranks of that elite group of peacemakers and earn a Nobel Peace prize in the bargain. Sainthood, particularly on earth, is very tempting.
You only have to desire it. Saintliness is, of course, less attractive. It requires a higher moral standard and degree of selflessness that most mortals lack.
There have actually been publicly acclaimed peacemakers who have also stoked the fires of conflict.
Whatever the reason for the good neighbours advice, it certainly did not divert Rwandans from their course for long. It was meant with dukomeze imihigo.
And sure enough foreign experts and media were soon reporting imihigo that had been delivered. At the weekend, Foreign Policy Magazines Profitability Index ranked Rwanda the fifth best investment destination globally.
The magazine projected that the country was now more likely to pull in more investors and that the resulting increased revenues would reduce the fiscal deficit and heavy dependency on aid.
Now, this was evidence of the benefits of staying the course and attaining goals. The news carried more benefits for Rwandans than debating whether it was or was not a good thing to sit, talk and even sup with the devil and at the end hug him and say all is well and he was no longer an outlaw.
Problem is the devil revels in being an outlaw. That is what gives him distinction and relevance. He is by nature destructive and asking him to build anything is demanding the impossible to deny his very nature.
If President Kikwetes advice was meant to distract, it has done the opposite. It has put people on their guard and made them more determined to not be derailed but to deliver more imihigo.
Before the most recent attempt to get Rwandans to take their eyes off the ball as it were, there were others with the same intention. These previous cases were also met with the resolute call for staying the course dukomeze imihigo.
Only last year, an avowed FDLR apologist led a United Nations Group of Experts in fabricating a report that sought to make Rwanda responsible for the governance weaknesses in the DRC.
The absence of the state in huge parts of the enormous country has spawned numerous rebel groups. The man, Steve Hege, and the people whose errand he was running spared no effort in trying to divert Rwandans from their path. They actually did manage to convince some countries to cut their support to Rwanda.
In the event, Rwanda kept sight of its goals, got elected to the United Nations Security Council and became a moderating voice on the council.
The economy did not crumble. Novel ways of raising capital were sought. The resilience of Rwandans was once again in evidence.
Interestingly, in other previous cases intended to divert Rwanda from its development course have been linked in some way with FDLR and the genocide against the Tutsi.
Take the case of the French judge Louis Bruguiere or the so-called Mapping Reports, for instance. Both were meant to exonerate perpetrators of the genocide by placing the blame on the victims.
They failed and Rwandans went on with their imihigo.
We have seen it all before advice, threats, accusations of all sorts and blackmail. They have not distracted us from our course. Even today, the latest friendly advice will not divert Rwandans. Nor will it absolve those responsible for the genocide of their crime.
In the meantime, Rwandans will keep their eyes on their goals and move to attain them. Dukomeze imihigo.
Blog: josephrwagatare.wordpress.com
Contact email: jorwagatare[at]yahoo.co.uk
Editor,
I can understand why Rwandans would hypervent with white-hot anger against President Kikwetes extremely insensitive call that our government negotiate with the FDLR genocidaires. It is almost as if his proposal was deliberately intended to provoke.
How else can you explain such a mindless proposition right in the middle of the period when we commemorate our losses during the 100 days of 1994 when the FDLRs ex-FAR and Interahamwe genocidal antecedents were busy in their orgy of Tutsi extermination?
The fact that he a President and former foreign minister of a neighbouring country, with which Rwanda maintains close and brotherly relations can overlook the horror and trauma Rwandans feel about the vicious FDLR and its genocidal precursors to suggest negotiating with them, knowing their ideology is still to exterminate Tutsi everywhere and any Rwandans who do not share that ideology, is purely a sign of moral vacuity.
I nevertheless think we should keep our equanimity and not get involved in bad-mannered insults of a head of state of a brother East African partner no matter the provocation. Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo has, in my view, said everything Rwanda and Rwandans need to say about President Kikwetes aberrant suggestion.
We do not need him to unsay something that is already out in the open. I believe the impassioned and very angry responses of Rwandans in this paper, on Twitter and elsewhere will have given President Kikwete a full idea of what we all think of his suggestion.
I think we should be gracious enough to consider he will never attempt making such a hare-brained call again, and leave it at that.
Mwene Kalinda, Kigali, Rwanda
Reaction to Pan Butamires commentary, Will Kikwete retract his statement?, (The New Times, May 31)
[h=2]Negotiating with terrorists: are dirty deals possible in the Great Lakes?[/h]
Negotiating with terrorists? Well, this depends pretty much on what one understands by both terms terrorists and negotiation.
One would try to define it as listening and being prepared to make concessions, to those who use violence against civilians to achieve political aims.
The purpose of this article is to question the validity of the narrative that democracies do not negotiate with terrorists which is quite contradictory in practice and also to examine if such negotiations would be even thinkable, let alone being possible in the context of the Great Lakes region where some democratic states indirectly push for such an outcome even though they still view the region as the not so democratic.
From a Eurocentric view, some argue that this debate is really relevant only in democracies as dictators would have no interests in negotiation, but this contradicts the post 9/11 realities as the West saw a dramatic change in the security structure, shift in political discourse and move to a no negotiation policy position when dealing with terrorists who are explicit security threats. The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple.
Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. In other words, negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means.
Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent, they insist.
Let us not dwell on the premise of the above argument for a moment, instead have a quick look at few pros and cons of negotiating with terrorists, as the ultimate aim should always be to find ways by which to arrive at a peaceful conclusion.
In general, (1) negotiation is the simplest form of keeping an open dialogue with terrorist groups, understanding them and encouraging them to take part in the political process without arms.
The opposite side to that, however, is that by opening the dialogue gives them the political legitimacy which they do not deserve; hence it is better to have no relationship whatsoever until they renounce violence. This shows they voluntarily opted out the democratic process.
(2) Historical accounts show that negotiations have led ceasefires (i.e. Bill Clintons negotiation with the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, PLO and John Majors secret talks with the Irish Republican Army, IRA) both of which aimed at advancing peace in respective regions.
The counterargument would be that terrorists want all or nothing (only with few exceptions, of course) and fragile peace in the Northern Ireland took time whereas the Middle East has never seen meaningful peace.
Back to the question as to whether democracies do dirty deals with terrorists, and yes in practice they do often negotiate with terrorists. It is public knowledge for instance, that the British government maintained a secret back channel to the IRA even after it had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991.
Other countries such as Spain (i.e. sat down with the separatist group Basque know by its acronym ETA in 1988) only six months after the group had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing, and Israel that is known for being tough on terrorism (i.e. secretly negotiated the Oslo accords in 1993) even though the PLO continued its terrorist activities and refused to recognize the state of Israel.
What is clear here is the disconnect between what governments publicly say and what they actually do, and the problem with the no negotiations rigid stance has consequently prevented any systematic and meaningful research on how best to conduct such negotiations.
It leaves the following questions open: How can a democratic country talk to terrorists without jeopardizing the integrity of its political system? What kind of terrorists are susceptible to negotiations? When should negotiations be opened?
In the light of recent suggestions by the Tanzanian President at the African Union (AU) Summit that Rwanda should negotiate with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) - a movement on the list of terrorist organisations and accused of having participated in the 1994 genocide that took over a million Rwandan souls, one would wonder why he thought this debate had a merit.
However, this is as an academic talk that is possibly more appropriate for a classroom full of college students enrolled on peace or war and conflict courses in some furthest lands with little knowledge of regional context and reality.
When and why did he take such position and more importantly why now? In politics, there is a theory of political timing which gives the opportunity for politicians to control and influence the events in such way as to maximize the political benefits.
For example, they will use the media platforms (i.e. news) to increase public attention and sway their electors. This incident however turned out to be a sum of political opportunism and muddled diplomacy given the leaders familiarity of regional political dynamics and great knowledge of the FDLRs link to the genocide that still troubles the moral conscience of the world, and subsequent mayhem in the Eastern DR Congo.
So what does this tell us about the regional politics? What about the East African Community (EAC) train that is supposedly moving on the same direction? How about the EAC joint military training exercises? Any related or unrelated dimensions to the intervention brigade force?
Clearly, there is a need for common understanding and approach on how to tackle security problems in the Great Lakes region, and so far the regional leaders have appeared to be unified in that front; but one hopes the recent divergence in opinion is not going to derail that process.
This is not an alarm that cooperation among EAC states will be affected, nor does one believe it would right for the community; but it is critically important for the citizens of the region to be informed of these matters as they have potential implications on the countries relations.
Is it politics, stupid? I guess sometimes, the answer is simply yes! Some would argue that the region is suffering from a security crisis, but others would rather say, it is a political one. Simple arithmetic would have made us believe that leaders in the region share views on how to combat various armed groups in the region, but some of us are probably naive and should stick with the idea that truth only belongs to God.
It is customary in international relations that any countrys political sovereignty must be respected and in this case, Rwandas national security matters are not the prerogative of a foreign President.
Call it a diplomatic incident or else but asking for an independent states to negotiate with an armed group whose agenda is to kill and maim Rwandans is very insensitive and, one hopes this issue will be dealt with swiftly in a mature way by the respected countries.
Contact email: jb_jakes[at]texas.usa.com
Negotiating with terrorists: are dirty deals possible in the Great Lakes? - The New Times Rwanda
[h=2]Rwandans never succumb to threats or blackmail[/h]
Rwandans have a way of shrugging off unpleasant things that seek to distract them from getting on with whatever task is at hand. They always have an apt response that is often a resolute and defiant statement with the strength of a solemn vow.
The most current one is to say: dukomeze imihigo. A very liberal translation of this is: lets stay the course, keep our objectives in sight and attain our goals. It is a way of saying; we shall not be distracted or diverted.
This has proved an effective rallying point for the nation whether in nation-building or countering adverse events.
The latest such attempted distraction from our course has been the unsolicited advice from our good neighbour President Jakaya Kikwete of Tanzania for Rwanda to hold talks with the FDLR terrorist group based in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
We may not discount the good intention behind the advice. It was probably good neighbourly advice conveyed with neighbourly insensitivity. Or perhaps it was a message from elsewhere delivered with the bluntness of the impatient messenger. It could even have been a smokescreen for other motives. It does not really matter.
It does not matter whether the advice rose from a burning desire to join the ranks of that elite group of peacemakers and earn a Nobel Peace prize in the bargain. Sainthood, particularly on earth, is very tempting.
You only have to desire it. Saintliness is, of course, less attractive. It requires a higher moral standard and degree of selflessness that most mortals lack.
There have actually been publicly acclaimed peacemakers who have also stoked the fires of conflict.
Whatever the reason for the good neighbours advice, it certainly did not divert Rwandans from their course for long. It was meant with dukomeze imihigo.
And sure enough foreign experts and media were soon reporting imihigo that had been delivered. At the weekend, Foreign Policy Magazines Profitability Index ranked Rwanda the fifth best investment destination globally.
The magazine projected that the country was now more likely to pull in more investors and that the resulting increased revenues would reduce the fiscal deficit and heavy dependency on aid.
Now, this was evidence of the benefits of staying the course and attaining goals. The news carried more benefits for Rwandans than debating whether it was or was not a good thing to sit, talk and even sup with the devil and at the end hug him and say all is well and he was no longer an outlaw.
Problem is the devil revels in being an outlaw. That is what gives him distinction and relevance. He is by nature destructive and asking him to build anything is demanding the impossible to deny his very nature.
If President Kikwetes advice was meant to distract, it has done the opposite. It has put people on their guard and made them more determined to not be derailed but to deliver more imihigo.
Before the most recent attempt to get Rwandans to take their eyes off the ball as it were, there were others with the same intention. These previous cases were also met with the resolute call for staying the course dukomeze imihigo.
Only last year, an avowed FDLR apologist led a United Nations Group of Experts in fabricating a report that sought to make Rwanda responsible for the governance weaknesses in the DRC.
The absence of the state in huge parts of the enormous country has spawned numerous rebel groups. The man, Steve Hege, and the people whose errand he was running spared no effort in trying to divert Rwandans from their path. They actually did manage to convince some countries to cut their support to Rwanda.
In the event, Rwanda kept sight of its goals, got elected to the United Nations Security Council and became a moderating voice on the council.
The economy did not crumble. Novel ways of raising capital were sought. The resilience of Rwandans was once again in evidence.
Interestingly, in other previous cases intended to divert Rwanda from its development course have been linked in some way with FDLR and the genocide against the Tutsi.
Take the case of the French judge Louis Bruguiere or the so-called Mapping Reports, for instance. Both were meant to exonerate perpetrators of the genocide by placing the blame on the victims.
They failed and Rwandans went on with their imihigo.
We have seen it all before advice, threats, accusations of all sorts and blackmail. They have not distracted us from our course. Even today, the latest friendly advice will not divert Rwandans. Nor will it absolve those responsible for the genocide of their crime.
In the meantime, Rwandans will keep their eyes on their goals and move to attain them. Dukomeze imihigo.
Blog: josephrwagatare.wordpress.com
Contact email: jorwagatare[at]yahoo.co.uk