Skip to main content

Paul Rusesabagina: another tribunal for Rwanda needed

http://therisingcontinent.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/paul-rusesabagina-another-tribunal-for-rwanda-needed/

Paul Rusesabagina: another tribunal for Rwanda needed

Paul Rusesabagina and Don Cheadle
Paul Rusesabagina and Don Cheadle
In a long interview given to Daniel Kovalik and published on the Counterpunch website, Paul Rusesabagna, the Rwandan famously portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda by Don Cheadle, touches on a range of varied and critically important issues. He talks about 1)  criminal charges against him from the Rwandan government, 2) Rwanda civil war and genocide from 1990 to 1994, 3) massacres of Kibeho of 8,500 Hutu internally displaced in 1995, 4) bigger number of Hutu than of Tutsi who died during the Rwandan war, 5)6 millions of Congolese dead further to wars of invasion by Rwanda and other countries including Uganda, 6) UN Mapping report published on October 1st, 2010, 7) rebel group M23, 8) the U.S. role, and 8) forced sterilization of Hutu men in Rwanda.
The following is only an extract where he highlights the importance of revisiting the justice which was provided to Rwandans through the International Tribunal Court for Rwanda.
DK:  I read somewhere that you think there needs to be a new truth tribunal in Rwanda.  And, why is this, what was wrong with the first international criminal tribunal on Rwanda?  What were the shortcomings there? 
PR:  This is the problem.  In 1990, the RPF, consisting mostly of Tutsis living in exile, invaded Rwanda from Uganda.   So, when they invaded Rwanda, there was a civil war for 4 years.  In that civil war, that army, those rebels, we called them rebels at that time, were killing each and every person, every Hutu on their way.   People fled their homes.  They were occupying slowly.   And, by 1993, early 1994, before the genocide, we had about 1.2 million displaced people who were surrounding Kigali the capital city, having to bathe in town, going to sleep in the open air in camps, dying every day, hungry.  So, in 1994, these rebels, who had already signed a peace accord with the government, killed the President.   That is a fact which almost everyone knows.  So, when they killed him, the genocide broke out.  Now, we were in a civil war where civilians were being killed by both sides.  The civil war never stopped.  The genocide happened within a civil war.   Both sides killed, and now, afterwards, in July 1994, when the period of the genocide ended, after 3 months, 90 days, the Tutsi rebels took power.   They took power in blood from both sides.  And, the international community gathered the United Nations, and they decided to put up a tribunal for Rwanda.   That tribunal was supposed to try and convict Rwandans who killed Rwandans for a period of time from January 1 through December 31 of that year [1994].   From January 1 through December 31 of that year, I saw myself with my own eyes, this [RPF] army tying people with their hands behind their backs and beating their chests, breaking it, throwing them into containers, burning their bodies, and spraying their ashes into the national game preserve.  I am a witness to this.  But, because the Hutus lost the war, they are the only ones being tried and convicted.   So, the international tribunal, the international criminal court for Rwanda, is a court for the losers.  But, both have been killing civilians.  They say that the Hutus committed the genocide, but the Tutsis also committed war crimes, crimes against humanity.
To read the full interview, please click here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

Rubaya Mine Under USA’s Control: Kagame Has No Grounds to Object.

Rubaya Mine: Strategic Interests, Regional Conflict and the DRC–USA Cooperation Framework Rubaya mine, located in Masisi territory in North Kivu, eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, is a Congolese resource. It was a Congolese resource before the M23 advanced on it, it remains a Congolese resource today, and it will remain a Congolese resource regardless of what any regional actor claims, implies or pursues. That is not a political position. It is a statement of international law and sovereign right. This foundational point must be stated plainly because it is frequently obscured in discussions about the conflict in eastern Congo. Debates about security narratives, mineral partnerships and geopolitical alignment risk creating a false impression that Rubaya's ownership or governance is somehow open to negotiation between external parties. It is not. The Democratic Republic of the Congo holds sovereign authority over its territory and its natural resources. N...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute