>combine their praise for kagame, because of the economic successes
>in rwanda, with condemnation for human rights organizations that
>have protested the abuses in his regime.
here is my brief response as an amnesty international country
specialist for rwanda and burundi
1. rwandan legislation against genocidal speech includes also
condeming "divisionism," i.e.speech that condones ethic identities
and politics oriented around that. so, it isn't simply advocating
genocide which is outlawed as such, but political organizing around
hutu or tutsi identities.
the problem does not lie in condemning hate speech as such. it lies
in using such legislation to stifle opposition to the regime.
(if such legislation governed this list, all discussion over North vs
South in nigeria would have resulted in everyone being arrested. nice, huh?)
what is more, the laws in rwanda are now abused, so that any
political opposition can be, and generally is, dubbed as violating
the above laws. burundi is trying to catch up here, arresting its own
journalists, barring the human rights watch researcher from entering
the country. such is the spill off effect of kigali.
what is even more, the effect of implementing the above laws is to
have created a state of fear with respect to the govt, fear that its
heavy hand will come down on you if you appear to be expressing
oppositional views to its policies or officials. check with ALL the
researchers working on rwanda now, and the reports detail a
generalized state of fear.
what is really at stake is how laws intended to protect people from
speech acts that support genocide have been deployed in the creation
of a police state.
and finally, when a human rights organization objects to this, it is
attacked as impeding economic progress.
such is the cynicism of the current state, not just in rwanda but in
the west as well when all you have to do is substitute the word
"terrorist" for "genocide" in the above and you will find effective,
if not totally legal, parallels
lastly, i despair at positions taken here, on our list, and
elsewhere, that somehow imagine that authoritarian regimes, police
states, totalitarian regimes, are better for the population that
loosey goosey liberal democratic regimes. the issues of state
repression and economic growth are conflated in meaningless ways.
after all, n korea is good at repression, not so good at economic
benefits. and rwanda's growth is not divorced from its successful
exploitation of foreign aid, following the genocide, and the
exploitation of congo's mineral resources now flowing through kigali.
there are those who stated that they are more interested in putting
food into people's bellies that in western democratic ideals.
i am interested in food as much as the next man; but i don't believe
that a police state is better at getting us food for people in need,
and i strongly believe that the authoritarian regimes that have
heavily abused state authority do so generally to serve the interests
of the few, typically state leaders and the military, who benefit
from repression. in rwanda, maybe as many as 10% enjoy this elite
status, but i can't really identify them or i might be arrested and
held indefinitely. (yes, prisons in kigali and guantanamo also have
that in common)
ken harrow
Kenneth W. Harrow
Distinguished Professor of English
Michigan State University
harrow@msu.edu
517 803-8839
fax 517 353 3755
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment