About Time--Bagasora Convicted But the ICTR Blew It
Nearly 15 years but at last this walking, talking piece of excrement was found guilty.
Quote:
Rwandan Officer Found Guilty of 1994 Genocide
ACCRA, Ghana — A senior Rwandan military officer charged with being one of the masterminds of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was convicted on Thursday by a United Nations court in Tanzania of genocide and sentenced to life in prison.
Col. Theoneste Bagosora, 67, is the most senior military official to have been convicted in connection with the genocide, in which bands of Hutu massacred 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu. He was a leading Hutu extremist and the cabinet director for Rwanda’s Defense Ministry at the start of the slaughter. He and three other senior army officers had been on trial since 2002 at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which is based in Arusha, Tanzania.
Incredibly the court said there was no conspiracy:
Quote:
However, the court cleared Colonel Bagosora and the others on trial of conspiring to commit genocide before April 7, 1994. The trial lasted six years, during which 242 witnesses were heard.
Ms Desforge is equally out to lunch yet again.
Quote:
The exclusion of the conspiracy charge against the men is a blow to Rwandan officials, said Alison Desforges of Human Rights Watch, because it undercuts their argument that the genocide was not a one-time event but the inevitable product of an anti-Tutsi atmosphere dating from the colonial era.
“It brings us back to reality and says this genocide was a discrete historical event related to a specific set of circumstances,” Ms. Desforges said.
So the genocide was a spontaneous expression of hatred that just happened?
Linda Melvern's work disproves that line of thinking. Romeo Dallaire would also (I think disagree).
Good on the conviction. But the court blew it on the conspiracy. This will heighten conflict in the Congo, not reduce it.
Tom
prepare the apocalypse he once said
Tom,
Sadly, we saw this coming when former PM Kambanda shocked everyone by pleading guilty (early 98 ?). That relatively short trial kept most like Bagosora out of the lime light with Rwanda desperately trying to put someone behind bars.
Quote:
“The conviction should send a signal to all people with ongoing responsibility for atrocities in Congo,” he said. “If they are in effective control of armed forces, whether they are state troops, a rebel group or guerrillas, they are potentially criminally liable.”
Jeez, now that's a threat :wry:
Mixed feeling no love no hate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
MA
We will have to disagree on Kagame.
Is Paul hardnosed and calculating? Yes. You would have to be to do what he has done since 1990.
Is he the typical corrupt figure we both know? I don't think so; to the contrary he was brutally direct in dealing with corruption when I knew him and when people I am close to knew him.
Did Rwanda exploit its military successes in the DRC? No doubt. With the West's record in Africa, I find it curious that we would even consider stepping up on that soap box.
The blame for the fiasco in the DRC goes across international boundaries. The overall situation is abhorrent. It was in the making over decades, not just since 1998.
Rwanda however has changed dramatically.
Lastly let me add that I have long said that Paul Kagame ultimately is perhaps Paul Kagame's greatest threat. That to me will be the true test of his leadership: whether he will be able to pass on a stable government and become that most rare of African leaders, a former president.
Regards
Tom
My own impressions are mixed.
Economy: Paul Kagame is surely a hard nosed politician and an excellent salesman (His country depends for 50% on budget aid coming from abroad).
The Rwandan economy due to the genocide and structural problems (demography, lack of land,...) was in ruins when he came to power. Now ???? It still depends a lot on Foreign aid (still around 50%) but macro figures have been stabilized and GDP growth exceeds the population growth. Is he interested in development ? SURE. He needs it to keep control of the country (like most presidents).
Corruption: Kagame's allergy to corruption is well known, but does it really cover the whole span ? UN reports have shown in the past that people close to Kagame have made a lot of money in DRC. Did Kagame benefit of this money ? Possibly but not sure. Did he benefit from their support to his DRC policy because it brought them so money ? Sure. In conclusion, high level corruption during the wars in DRC and until very recently was tolerated as it reinforced Kagame's control over these guys and ensured they will support his policy. One bad point.
BTW: Sorry Tom but your historic argument about "With the West's record in Africa" is a bit empty. It just would justify anything (from "let's kill Christians because they killed Muslims during the crusades" to "you Germans have nothing to say because of AH") and would certainly be direguarded by Kagame himself as an excuse to repeat the errors of the past.
The DRC fiasco has multiple sources, but surely the Rwandan intervention of 1998 did not help DRC (and did help some in Rwanda). Let's be realistic now, since then Kagame understood he had more to gain by transforming Rwanda into an African Singapore with a veneer of democracy than by continuing to play the interventionist policy (entering DRC to hunt down the FDLR and staying). Why ? First, he needs the international community (aid donors) to like him (50% of the budget, international recognition,...). With RDF in DRC, everyday this image was tarnished. Second, internally, the risks was great to so some men of power use DRC as a training ground for their future ambitions inside Rwanda (making money, prestige,...that one day could lead to them challenging Kagame). Third, to control the population he needs to give them jobs, health,... DRC only enriched a few and did not benefit the average Rwandan "Joe", but further fuelled the impression of a regime orientated towards the defense of its own interests and those of the Tutsi community.
In conclusion, Kagame is not a clear cut mix between a successfull entrepreneur - Elliot Ness and Ghandi. No way. He is a very realistic politician who needs a good international reputation, development and support from inside his regime to stay in power. Hey...he is no superhero, nor a villain. :wry: