GCRHR says it discovered and catalogued ‘‘various methods used by  the RPF led authorities in coercing young people into taking various actions that cause extreme fear of authorities and psychological destabilization.’’ In doing so, the regime would be attempting to secure its political power and ‘‘minimize any threat to its replacement’’, warns the report.

The report collected several interviews from witnesses and victims, saying the Rwandan National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) and the ruling party RPF have been ‘‘forcibly engaging young people to participate in activities that aim to change and shape their beliefs of the RPF regime’’. Their [the NISS and RPF] aim is believed to ‘‘paint and build a positive image about the country at the international level and spy on its own population’’.

Research conducted by the GCRHR claims that young people who engaged in the mandatory two-month ‘‘civic education’’ camps for secondary school students ‘‘suffered severe distress and downheartedness that cause them to live in extreme fear of authorities’’. Furthermore, many of the participants are also said to have endured ‘‘psychological destabilization’’ after the experience.

In Busogo’s Camps, a Northern province inRwanda, the youth is reported to being separated in groups based on their ‘‘backgrounds or ethnic origins’’. The education given to the Tutsi group talks about unification, patriotism and controlling those ‘‘who are prone to commit genocide’’. In the Hutu group, the message is that any suggestions that RFP has committed crimes against Hutus is considered as genocide denial and if that happens it should be reported and dealt by the law ‘‘accordingly’’. What is more, a person with such beliefs or anyone who suggests that ‘‘many Rwandans are illegally imprisoned or harassed by the authorities’’ is an enemy of the state.

‘‘For young people whose personal, family or close friends’ experiences in hands of RPF controlled authorities, agencies and military have been different from what they are being taught and forced to believe; this training experience leaves them with severe distress. There have been reports of several mental breakdowns, suicides and attempts to commit suicide by youth who participated in these youth camp’’, reads the report.

Recruiting for rebels in the DRC

GCRHR researchers also found that the camps are used as a recruitment reservoir for rebel groups in Eastern Congo.  ‘‘There have been cases of disappearance of young people after they have participated in the training camps (…) Since 2007, it is an open secret that those missing young people were sent to join rebel groups that are supported by the Rwandan government in D.R. Congo.’’ An escapee from the armed groups in DRC told GCRHR that the RPF selects whom to send to Congobased on their Swahili language skills, level of education attainment in secondary school and their social status.

Passing on ideas

Interviews held with ‘‘former and current officials within the Rwandan government’’ reveal the RPF’s strategy to target young people between 16 and 30 years of age because ‘‘this age group has not experienced the civil war of the 1990’s nor the Rwandan genocide of 1994, or experienced these as small children’’. As such, their beliefs on these events are more prone to be shaped through education. Also, the age group constitutes great political power as they represent 40% of the Rwandan population and more than 60% of the voting population.

GCRHR found that the targeted youth is taught about the history of the country and its cultural values in favour of ‘‘the RPF ideology’’ that hails the party’s army forces as heroic leaders who ‘’helped to overturn the bad and discriminating history of Rwanda’’. Those who adhere to this new belief ‘‘become active or potential RPF ideology and leadership supporters, promoters and protectors.’’ Thence, the political ideas are passed on. Moreover, those that question or criticize ‘‘any of the officially approved ideology’’ are said to be ‘‘arrested, harassed, marginalized, forced into exile or made to disappear’’.

Training spies

Harassed to harass in the name of dignity also mentions the secret training of selected ‘‘newly graduated university students’’ in Nasho, in the East of Rwanda. The students are said to be trained in ‘‘advanced military methodology, communication and persuasive skills, various methods to identify an enemy of the state, and spying methodologies’’. Upon completion of the one-year program, the students are employed by the government ‘‘on different levels’’ where, among others, they have ‘‘particular tasks of secretly monitoring their colleagues and produce daily or weekly reports to the RPF secretariat, the Department of Military Investigation (DMI) or the NISS.’’

GCRHR researchers also report on the meetings and trainings organized by Rwandan embassies and High Commissions for the youth in the Diaspora, including those on scholarships. ‘‘During the trainings, meetings and camps that are organized under this program, young people are informed and guided on different activities and methods to use in order to achieve or contribute to the Diaspora youth and students program. They are also required to report to embassies and High Commissions information about any Rwandans who are seeking asylum or refuge in foreign countries. They are also required to report any opposition groups and their activities’’.

GCRHR

Based in London, the Global Campaign for Rwandan Human Rights is a self-proclaimed ‘‘international human rights campaign established to promote and campaign human rights of all Rwandans’’. The ten-months investigation included a total of 43 witnesses, most of them  in the age group of  19 to 35 years and was conducted in order to ‘‘paint the full picture of the current situation in Rwanda as it relates to the youth’’.

For its data collection, the GCRHR interviewed ‘‘young people studying and working in Rwanda’’ as well as ‘‘young international students under the Rwandan or donors’ government scholarships studying in the UK and the USA, young Rwandans seeking asylum in the UK, Belgium, France, Ireland and the USA’’. In addition, former and current officials of the government were also interrogated.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.ney

Link to report ‘‘Harassed to harass in the name of dignity’’: http://rwandansrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/RWANDA-Harassed-to-harass-in-the-name-of-dignity-APRIL-2013.pdf

A few days into the appeal trial of Ingabire, former FDLR members and co-accused Lieutenant-Colonel Tharcisse Nditurende, Lt Colonel Noël Habiyaremye, Captain Jean Marie Vianney Karuta and Major Vital Uwumuremyi told the Supreme Court that they ‘‘have never been members of such organization [the CDF], because it had never existed’’, according to the press release published on this 29^th of April by Twagirimana Boniface, Acting Vice-President of FDU-Inkingi.

Lieutenant-Colonel Nditurende admitted to have contacted Ingabire for ‘‘financial support’’ but says she ‘‘never responded positively’’. Regarding the prosecution’s evidence of e-mails in which he and Ingabire talked about the CDF, Nditurende revealed to the Supreme Court thatthe Ministry of Justice ‘‘forced him’’ to reveal the password of his e-mail account during his detention, thereby gaining ‘‘free access’’ to amend his messages.

In the first instance trial, the four witnesses pleaded guilty to conspiring with Victoire Ingabire to form the CDF armed group and affirmed that her aim was to ‘‘cause insecurity in Rwanda and force the government into peace talks by waging war’’.All four received ‘‘lenient’’ sentences for co-operating with the court: Vital Uwumuremyi was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months, Tharcisse Nditurende and Noël Habiyaremye to 3 years and 6 months, and Jean Marie Vianney Karutato to 2 years 7 months.

Controversial detention

In March 2013, Human Rights’ organization Amnesty International released its report Justice in jeopardy: The first instance trial of Victoire Ingabire in which it expressed concerns about the ‘‘prolonged incommunicado detention’’ of Ingabire’s co-accused, stating that it had ‘‘documented allegations of the use of torture to coerce confessions’’ in the detention Camp Kami where Nditurende and Habiyaremye were held before appearing in court. A defence witness also said that he and Uwamuremyi were held together at Camp Kami and the ‘‘terrorism-related accusations against Victoire Ingabire were fabricated under coercion from state security’’.

On the 25^th of March this year, Victoire Ingabire started her appeal trial after being sentenced to 8 years in prison for ‘‘genocide ideology’’ and ‘‘conspiracy against the government by use of war and terrorism’’ on the 30^th of October 2012. In its conviction, the High Court relied greatly on the confessions of the four witnesses.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Since the beginning of the national commemoration of the Rwandan genocide on April 7^th in Rwanda, 42 people are said to have been arrested for “harboring the genocide ideology” and “uttering inflammatory speeches that negate the genocide”, informs the Rwanda Bureau of Information and Broadcasting (ORINFOR).

The Rwandan police, however, insisted it has  gathered sufficient evidence for 33 of the arrests for  prosecution, while the remaining 11 are being further investigated for “suspicion of inflammatory speech» based on the genocide ideology law of the post-genocide period in Rwanda.

The country’s Commander in Chief, President Kagame called, in his annual commemoration speech, for a collective fight “against those who continue to deny or trivialize the Genocide against the Tutsi whether they are Rwandans or foreigners”. He added that there would be zero tolerance for “those with plans to propagate genocide ideology”.

“Genocide ideology”

Yet, to this day, because of the vagueness of the law at issue, it remains unclear as to what precisely defines and constitutes “genocide ideology”. Article 2 of Low No 18/2009 defines genocide ideology as follows:

“The genocide ideology is an aggregate of thoughts characterized by conduct, speeches, documents and other acts aiming at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate people basing (sic) on ethnic group, origin, nationality, region, color, physical appearance, sex, language, religion or political opinion, committed in normal periods or during war.”

Article 3 describes the characteristics of the crime of genocide ideology:

 “The crime of genocide ideology is characterized in any behavior manifested by acts aimed at dehumanizing (sic) a person or a group of persons with the same characteristics in the following manner:

1. Threatening, intimidating, degrading through diffamatory (sic) speeches, documents or actions which aim at propounding wickedness or inciting hatred;

2. Marginalizing, laughing at one’s misfortune, defaming, mocking, boasting, despising, degrading, creating (sic) confusion aiming at negating the genocide which occurred, stirring (sic) up ill feelings, taking revenge, altering testimony or evidence for the genocide which occurred;

3. Killing, planning to kill or attempting to kill someone for purposes of furthering genocide ideology.”

Rwanda has been criticized for violating its international human rights obligations and commitments to freedom of expression through this law, notably through its lack of a clear definition on what behavior is punishable and what is not, and the broadness of the terminology used for different conduct in article 3.

Furthermore, Amnesty International, in its 2010 report Safer to stay silent: The chilling effect of Rwanda’s laws on “genocide ideology” and “sectarianism”, found that “many Rwandans, even those with specialized knowledge of Rwandan law including lawyers and human rights workers, were unable to precisely define genocide ideology” and, remarkably, “even judges, the professionals charged with applying the law, noted that the law was broad and abstract”.

Up for review

In January 2011, the international criticism led to the Rwandan government committing itself to review the law at the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, now, two years later, very little has changed. Rwandans continue to be prosecuted based on the vague act, mostly resulting in convictions of opposition members and journalists. They are mostly found guilty of  “marginalizing the genocide” and “altering testimony or evidence” of the genocide whenever they refer to the atrocities allegedly committed by the current ruling party RPF.

Notably, one of the charges against Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza, President of opposition party FDU-INKINGI, was “genocide ideology and divisionism”. She challenged the rules before Rwanda’s  Supreme Court in in March 2012 in which she demanded a constitutional review of the genocide ideology laws because these were “threatening freedom of expression and the rule of law”. However, in October of  the same year, the Supreme Court dismissed the case  “on grounds of lack of merits” because Victoire “failed to add copies” of certain Rwandan laws mentioned in her case.

Yet in November 2012, shortly after the verdict, Rwandan Minister of Justice Tharcisse Karugarama proposed several amendments to the parliament that would make the law “definitive” by «clearly defining constitutive elements of the offences». The major change in the new draft is that the crime of genocide ideology, is characterized with speeches, documents, threatening words and other public acts aimed at exterminating or inciting others to exterminate a group of people based on tribe, religion, color, sex, among others. Furthermore, the punishments for the manifestation of a genocide ideology now varies between fines of 100,000 Rwandan francs and 9 years in prison, thereby lowering the maximum sentence of life. The characteristics of the crimes at stake were not further amended and the official law has yet to be approved by the parliament.

As such,  Amnesty International’s outcry in its report Rwanda: unsafe to speak out: restrictions on freedom of expression in Rwanda published in June 2011 still stands. Indeed, up until today Rwandan authorities are called to «accelerate the review of the genocide ideology law» because through its broad drafting it «criminalizes expression that does not amount to hate speech, including legitimate criticism of the government».

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

To answer this question, I will first define who Malthus is and what is meant by the so called “Malthusian model”. Secondly, I will demonstrate that what happened in 1994 can recur in Rwanda if no measures are taken to avoid this. Thirdly, I will provide some examples of Rwanda’s attempts to avoid the return of Malthus and last but not least I will make recommendations as to how the government can improve its strategies.

The Malthus model: The Genocide in Rwanda as an example

Malthus was an English economist who lived in the 18^th- 19^th century. He is the author of a famous and controversial article on the dynamic of population: An Essay on the Principle of the Population. The Malthusian model can be summarized as follows:  the available land limits the population growth vise versa. If the population grows more rapidly than the output, the output per capita reduces. This leads to poverty and a decrease in population growth as a result of limited food supply. As the population decreases, the available land per person increases which raises the output per capita. The better off people were, the faster the population would grow. As the population increases, the available lands decline. Consequently, the population would be so poor that “this poverty would in turn limit population to grow”.

Malthus asserts that this dynamic transition will lead, in the long run, to a level of output per capita characterized by a zero population growth. For him, the decrease of population is done in two ways: the preventive and positive checks.  The former refers to solving the overpopulation problem by a moral restriction such as limiting the number of children. The latter implies that nature can solve the overpopulation through other means such as war, famine, genocide etc.

Although the Malthusian model is mostly used to explain the population transition before and during the time of Malthus, this model can still be applied to understand some of the events that occurred in our current societies. As observed by renowned scholars such as Jared Diamond, the Rwandan genocide can be partially explained by the Malthusian model.

It has been argued that ethnic hatred was the only reason for the drastic events of 1994 in Rwanda. However, the erroneous conclusion made by many people is to see hatred as an exogenous justification to explain the tension between the people of Rwanda whilst there could be other possible driving forces that could have led to what happened in Rwanda. In his book “Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed”, Diomand found an instrumental variable which helps to control for endogeneity of hatred when explaining the genocide in Rwanda: the available land.  Indeed, on the eve of the tragedy, Rwanda was the most densely populated country in the world with an average of 272 people per square mile, one of the highest in Africa[1]. As an average measure, the distribution of the population varied. Therefore, some areas were more populated than others. For instance, there were about 2.040 people per square in Kanama, a district in North West of Rwanda[2]. The overpopulation and the lack of sufficiently arable land, combined with poor governance were, on the eve of the war, a sufficient environment propitious to Malthus’ theory.

In point of fact, jealousy and hatred started to appear between ethnic groups but also among people in the same group. Although the Rwandan government tried to tackle this problem of overpopulation through a preventive check, the positive check dominated. Catherine Andre and Jean-Philippe Platteau[3] assert that before and during the genocide, some people were killed in order to get their arable land. Even if the victims were mainly Tutsis, no ethnic group was spared.

19 years later, Malthus still threatens Rwanda

As discussed earlier, the overpopulation combined with lack of sufficient arable land is an instrumental variable explaining the hatred among ethnic groups. The question that then arises is; is present-day Rwanda protected from a new outbreak of Malthus? I will demonstrate that it is not.

Before the genocide, the government of Rwanda was aware of the overpopulation. Indeed, Rwandan government prior to 1994 used to run campaigns inciting people to use contraceptive methods[4]. However, this policy did not work well.

After the tragedy, birth control was no longer a priority for the government. Because of the killing of thousands of children during the genocide, birth control was a very sensible topic. Efforts made by the former government to reduce the Rwandan population were abandoned years after the genocide. From 1994 up until now, the Rwandan population has increased by almost 60%, rising from 6.6 to 11 million.

The Rwandan population’s density is still one of the highest in the world: 417 people per square km. In principle, this high population density is not problematic. There are other countries such as The Netherlands and Belgium that have a similar population density.  However, with its 11 million people and a growth rate of 2.7% per year, the Rwandan population is expected to double in 25 years. This means that the country will have 834 people per square km[5], a considerable increase compared to 417 per square km today. Rwanda’s population growth is problematic because it cannot be sustained in the medium and long term. For instance, the agricultural sector remains a major sector of employment (90% of the labor forces), and the country lacks natural resources. This surely cannot support the high population density. Moreover, although Rwanda has made remarkable progress economically and significantly improved its human development, inequalities in life expectancy at birth, education and income remain a challenge for the population. When adjusted for inequalities the country’s human development index of 0.434 as achieved in 2012 falls to 0.287, a figure close to where it was in the 80s.[6] In addition, property injustice occurred in the aftermath of the genocide helps to intensify hatred among people. It has been reported by Human Rights that several individuals were falsely charged and convicted of genocide with the objective of depriving them from their properties.[7] Hence, when one compares the land against the overpopulation issue in Rwanda prior and after the 1994 genocide, thinking about Malthus’ return could not be a completely wrong prediction. In case nothing is done to a) curb the demographical growth, b) reduce the poverty and c) restore justice (through a fair distribution of land), the positive check will restore the equilibrium that the Rwandan government would have failed to reestablish by the preventive check.

Failure of some Rwandese preventive checks

The first mistake made by the RPF led government has been to consider that the hatred among ethnic groups has a separate exogenous variable to explain what happened in 1994. A good policy would have been, in my opinion, to seriously tackle the overpopulation problem even if, in that period, birth control was a sensitive issue. However, after realizing that the Rwandan population was growing in an unsustainable way, many actions have been taken.

One of these is sterilization. Whilst my intention here is not to demonstrate whether sterilization is beneficial or not, my critic is rather linked to the way in which such sterilization program has been and continues to be implemented. When the sterilization program was introduced, the government aimed at sterilizing all the poor men. This measure has been extremely unpopular and the program was considered by most Rwandans as immoral. Indeed, forcing sterilization on people based on their income is pure discrimination against the poor and thus, morally inacceptable.

Another additional point that is worth mentioning, though it is not part of the Malthusian model, is the way in which justice has been done after the genocide. This could perhaps be another factor which expands hatred among Rwandans. After the genocide, many Tutsis who had settled in neighboring countries came back to Rwanda. Considering that some of them lacked housing, they started to appropriate themselves the houses and lands of Hutus who had then fled the country after the war. Sometimes, as mentioned above, they would unfairly allege the actual owners of the properties at issue as having participated in committing genocide. These allegations led many Hutus to prison.

Despite such selective yet national commitment, testimonies from victims of the genocide of 1994 heard on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s programme[8] of April 13^th 2013, reveal that many have not been compensated for their land confiscated through Rwanda government’s reconstruction programs. Furthermore, the genocide survivors claimed that they have not had justice in regards to their lands that were unfairly taken by people with more influence or given away by the authority in ambiguous processes. In this sense, Rwanda is at a very difficult turning point. On the one hand, restitution of property will require the government to implement policies towards new housing facilities. On the other hand, failing to provide for an effective remedy and thereby restitution, will further nurture hatred among Rwandans.

Conclusion

Malthus still threatens Rwanda. The overpopulation problem has not been solved yet and this can lead to another drama if the Rwandan government does not take the problem seriously.

The Government should, firstly, restore justice by releasing people who were falsely imprisoned in order to avoid nurturing more hatred among Rwandans. The Government should also nationally revise the land distribution. In such distribution, no ethnic group would feel excluded of the society.

Secondly, the government should promote education and development as where there is a higher standard of living, people tend to have fewer children[9]. However, the solution of overpopulation through education takes many years. With an adult literacy rate of 70%, does Rwanda have enough time to wait until all its people are educated in order to reach a sustainable growth rate of population? In the short run, as I have written previously, I am not completely against sterilization. Indeed, if sterilization is the only way to avoid another genocide, it should be used.  However, in this case, the decision of sterilizing someone or not should be based on criteria’s other than the financial situation of the person. As an example, it can be based on the maximum number of children that a household can have.

Cyiza Clément
Jambonews.net

Officially launched, on Monday April 15, 2013 by the Foreign Secretary, William Hague; the report of Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), acknowledges Rwanda’s impressive progress on social and economic rights as well as continued progress in advancing the rights of women and girls. Nevertheless, the UK expressed concerns about Rwanda’s constrained political space and the freedom of association and expression in general.

According to the report, “unregistered political parties experience harassment and the ability of political parties to secure registration ahead of the 2013 parliamentary elections will be a key test.” The UK says to be studying last year’s (October, 2012) conviction of opposition leader Victoire Ingabire who was sentenced to eight years by the High Court of Kigali, for conspiracy to undermine the country’s government and genocide denial. Her initial trial was denounced by renowned human rights organizations as “unfair and marred by irregularities”. Victoire Ingabire’s right to a fair trial is still in jeopardy, Amnesty international said in a report published last month. The UK says it will continue to follow the Ingabire case on the appeal, which started on March 25, 2013 and is still ongoing.

In 2009, Rwanda’s request to join the Commonwealth, although strongly supported by the British government, was heavily criticized by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI). The NGO, mandated to ensure the practical realization of human rights in the countries of the Commonwealth, was very skeptical about President Paul Kagame’s Rwanda membership in the commonwealth community. The reasons for this were, among others, the lack of political space and the RPF led government’s record on human rights. These were qualified as “very poor“.

The CHRI’s report presided by Professor Yash Pal Ghai, a Kenyan constitutional expert, concluded by stating that Rwanda does not merit the inclusion into the Commonwealth community: “It does not make sense to admit a state that already does not satisfy Commonwealth standards. This would tarnish the reputation of the Commonwealth and confirm the opinion of many people and civic organizations that the leaders of its governments do not really care for democracy and human rights, and that its periodic, solemn declarations are merely hot air.”

Rwandan support to DRC rebels M23        

The report also pins Rwanda for its involvement in the DR Congo conflict. “There is credible and compelling evidence of Rwanda’s support for the M23 militia who have committed human rights abuses in Eastern DRC, including the recruitment of child soldiers, sexual violence, murder and displacement of civilians” reports FCO.

Prior to FCO findings, the 2009 CHRI Report had also warned the Commonwealth about Kigali’s meddling in the bloody conflicts that have been going on for almost two decades in Eastern DRC.

Already in 2009, the CHRI declared that “President Kagame has used his power to give immunity from prosecution to some of those suspected of being perpetrators of the most serious human rights abuses. The Rwandan government’s ongoing activities in the DRC and its support for  Tutsi militias in Kivu have raised serious concerns, and indeed recommendations that senior figures in the RPF ought to be brought before international and foreign tribunals.”

The 2012 FCO report provides no new elements into what is widely known for years on the state of human rights and democracy in Rwanda. The report lacks sufficient concrete recommendations on how to improve the situation. However, the report gives a fair account of the events that occurred in that region and that alone makes it highly valuable.

As Jennifer G. Cooke of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) puts it: “In the coming decade, the greatest vulnerability that Rwanda will confront is the unyielding nature of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front and its inability—or unwillingness—to allow and manage genuine political competition and debate.”

Jack Mugabo
Jambonews.net

Kazarama told AFP that although M23 has no right to attack the latest expansion of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), he and his men reserved the right to “respond” and ” defend” themselves. He added that the consequences of such a battle would not be attributed to his military movement.

“The Kinshasa government and the Security Council of the United Nations will be held responsible for everyone who becomes displaced and all the disasters that will occur because of the deployment of the brigade,” he said.

Earlier, the military group denounced the creation of the brigade by the Security Council by stating that the UN was choosing for ‘’the option of war” instead of “encouraging a political solution”.

“Now, the forces of the peace organ [The United Nations] will fight citizen groups that demand good governance  in our country” declared Bertrand Bisimwa, the movement’s political President.

M23 has been terrorizing the eastern part of the DRC since its creation in April 2012, leading up to the take-over of the regional capital city of Goma in November 2012. MONUSCO has been heavily criticized for its lack of an offensive mandate that prevented UN peacekeepers from drawing unless they were attacked themselves.   The long-awaited approval came on last March 28^th, when the mission was strengthened by more than 3000 peacekeepers in order to “neutralize the armed groups,  including the M23, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces, the Alliance of Patriots for a free and sovereign Congo (APCLS), the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Mayi-Mayi.”

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

According to the National Youth Policy of Rwanda, 67% of the country’s population is under the age of 25 years. Unfortunately, the youth in Rwanda faces many challenges that prevent them from benefiting from their country’s progressing economy. Unexpectedly, some of these challenges are a result of the policies implemented in the country’s pursuit of economic growth. 

Education challenge

Rwanda kids in classroom

The lack of quality education is one of the challenges faced by pupils in primary schools in Rwanda and this is linked to the country’s budget constraints. Rwanda is a poor country which does not have the financial means to rapidly build sufficient education infrastructures. It lacks funds to train enough teachers and thereby guarantee quality education for all primary school pupils. The country already spends 4.8% of its GDP on education out of which 45.3% is allocated to primary education[1]. Despite such financial commitment, Rwanda still has a high but steadily decreasing pupil to teacher and class ratios estimated at 58 and 81 respectively[2].

Furthermore, this lack of quality education is also a consequence of neglecting to sustain primary education in the country. A report published in May 2012 by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact assessing the UK Department for International Development’s education programmes in three East African countries including Rwanda pointed out that “ there is no major study carried out by the ministries of education on teacher attendance or teaching time within school day as part of the core management of the education system.” The same report also discovered “a relative neglect of other aspects of teacher workforce management such as recruitment, retention and school leadership.” The concerns of teachers regarding the quality of education in primary schools in Rwanda, have previously been pointed out by Volunteer Overcoming Poverty (VSO) in its 2003 report titled “Seen but not heard” and also during a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) programme broadcasted in 2011 that featured interviews with teachers from Rwanda.  Teachers’ anxieties affecting their morale towards providing quality education include delayed and low salary payment, lack of tools to improve their professional performance, unsupportive management, and a perception that teachers in Rwanda are not appropriately valued in the society.

Due to the lack of quality education in primary schools, only half of the primary pupils in Rwanda meet curricular expectations in reading in their mother tongue while the majority does not meet curricular expectations in numeracy[3]. According to Rwandan Ministry of Education statistics, in 2011 there were 2,341,146 students enrolled in primary schools, accounting for almost 20% of the country’s population. However, due to low quality in education even in the case where these students manage to complete their primary school education, their literacy and numeracy levels could generally be well below expectations.

Another challenge facing young people in Rwanda is that a great majority of them is not able to complete primary or secondary school. This is happening despite the government’s efforts to make it possible for all children in the country to attend school by abolishing fees for primary and lower secondary studies. Such valuable policy has led to an increase in enrolment rate in primary schools. However, “half of the children who make it to primary school in Rwanda drop out before the end of primary school life cycle” says a recent global report by UNESCO published in 2012. The reasons of dropping out can be associated mainly with poverty, low quality education, and cultural perception towards girls. Enrolments in lower secondary school also remain low. The country’s Ministry of Education estimated the drop out rate in secondary schools at 7.4% in 2010. When that rate is aggregated to that of the children who drop out at primary school level, the number of young people who are still deprived from education at the end of each education life cycle becomes worryingly high.

Since many children from the poorer families are the most likely to drop out of schools, inequality in education remains a challenge to the overall Human Development Index (HDI) of the country. The most recent HDI report of 2013 indicates that Rwanda looses 29.4% of its HDI as a result of inequality in education. One can only hope that the new approach of dispensing aid through transferring cash and grant directly to the poorest in Rwanda, as recently announced by the UK DFID minister[4], will help children from the poorest families in the country to attend school and subsequently help in reducing Rwanda’s inequality in education. Furthermore, Rwanda’s supportive aim to achieve 12 years of free education for all within seven years[5] could also contribute towards reducing inequality in education within the country.

Nonetheless, other challenges deterring young people from attending secondary school despite being given the opportunity still linger.

Policy challenge

Building a house

One of the most poignant reasons that many young people in the rural areas of Rwanda do not attend or drop out of secondary schools is linked to the policies implemented to bring about economic growth in the country. This fact is explained in details by Marc Sommers, an internationally recognized youth expert.

In his research conducted on Rwandan youth published in 2012, Sommers explains that the Rwandan culture stipulates that for the youth to be recognised as adult men and women they ought to be married. In order to marry, a young man has to build a decent house first.  In the Rwandan rural area, such a house has to be roofed with tiles because roof tiles are easy to accumulate and have become the most preferable roofing option rather than expensive iron sheets that do not last long. Additionally, roofing a house with banana leaves is out of the question since it is viewed as a disgrace within the Rwandan society.

Sommers’ study asserts that prior to the Rwanda’s government policy that forbids cutting trees for environment purposes in 2005, roof tiles were cheaper for male youths to procure and thus faster to build a house. This is because roof tiles were hardened by firewood making its supply abundant.  After the policy was introduced, the supply of roof tiles declined while the demand remained high. Subsequently, the price of roof tiles soared and it is now difficult for male youths in the rural areas of Rwanda to build a house.  “The new method employed peat to fire tile ovens is unfamiliar and requires machinery and technical training which in order to secure, permission must be obtained from a national government in the city capital”, reads the research.

The research also points out that the housing policy mandating that all new houses be built in the villages referred as imidugudu affects young people. The policy was introduced among other reasons to manage land efficiently and increase agricultural production in the country. However, it imposes that large standard dimension houses be built, implying that male youths need to procure more roof tiles. However, considering that the price of roof tiles has significantly soared, young men cannot afford to build a large house in the new villages.

Partly due to the aforementioned policies, many young people in the rural areas do not attend or drop out of secondary schools in order to look for work. Young people prefer working rather than studying so they can start earning and saving towards buying enough roof tiles for their houses and marry, subsequently become adults within the Rwandan cultural society. However, finding employment will be another challenge for the Rwanda’s youth to overcome.

Unemployment challenge

Youth unemployment in Rwanda

Regardless of their education level and where they reside throughout the country, young people in Rwanda are facing a similar problem: unemployment.  The 2010 Rwanda’s Youth Statistical indicator states that youth unemployment in the country increased from 10.5% in 2000 to 28.9% in 2005. Moreover, according to the National Youth Policy, 42 % of whose age is between 14 and 35 years are either unemployed or working on seasonal small scale agriculture. While youth unemployment is a common issue to all African countries and beyond, the bottom line is that the economic growth that Rwanda has been achieving has not led to sufficient employment creation.  A report by the Institute of policy Analysis and Research published in 2011 suggests that “for the last two years in a row, Rwanda has ranked as one of the top reformers in the World Bank’s doing business indicators but ranked low on the UNIDO CIP indicator which shows the level to which growth has translated into economic transformation and subsequent employment creation.” The employment to population ratio that indicates the ability of an economy to create jobs for adults seeking employments moved from 86.7 in 2005/06 to 84.2 in 2010/11. The report explains that any ratio above 80% implies that there is an abundance of low quality jobs and a need to work in order to survive. This is the case with Rwanda’s fast growing economy. Farming remains the most likely and lowest paid job available for the majority of young people living in the rural areas.

The causes of youth unemployment in Rwanda also include the fact that young people, particularly those living in urban areas, do not have the skills required by potential recruiters. In addition, entrepreneurial skills are still low among the youth and entrepreneurship based on hawking in the streets is also restricted in the city capital, Kigali. Young people with such entrepreneurial venture have to a) seek a permit to sell their goods from the authorities; once the permit is granted they will be b) allocated a place in the city where to c) run their businesses. However, obtaining a permit requires money and connections, which the poor youths who emigrated from the rural area do not have. As a result, they are refrained from potential employment opportunities. This means that dropping out of school and searching for a job in order to buy enough tiles for houses is not enough. One will still have to migrate while not having any guarantee of securing employment in the city. In a special report compiled by Marc Sommer and Peter Uvirn published in 2011, it is stated that “Rwandan youth in villages and in Kigali primarily viewed rural-urban migration as an escape from humuliation and failure in rural areas rather than a way out of impoversishement.”

To sum up, the lack of quality education, the high drop out rates in primary schools, the low enrolment rates in secondary school and the lack of employment creation lead to questioning whether the country’s vision of transforming its economy from an agrarian to a knowledge based economy relying on ICT is realistic. In fact, a recent global report by UNESCO published in 2012 reads, in reference to Rwanda that “(…) it is not clear that ICT and other services, which tend not to create as many jobs as other types of industry, can help children of poor parents escape from poverty in a country where 90% of the population is engaged in agricultural production and the secondary gross enrolment ratio is only 36%”.

In addition to the aforementioned challenges, young people in Rwanda are continuously dealing with the hardships of their country’s past social and cyclical internal and regional political complexities. The repercussions are that an uneducated and unemployed young person is being exposed to different kinds of nuisances, particularly to the fact that Rwanda is located near a conflict zone in the East of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Furthermore, it was recently reported that the suicide’s number in Rwanda has increased from 94 in 2011 to 290 in 2012. Among the causes of suicide, economic programs that do not meet the aspiration of ordinary people in Rwanda were cited[6].

The Way Forward

Considering that the Rwandan youth remains the sole and main resource of the country, and that Rwanda will never be able to achieve its economic vision if a large number of its youth is not educated, the most viable solution for Rwanda is to increase its education budget in order to achieve quality education and develop the capacity of the majority of its youth. In particular, policy makers should ensure that the youth in Rwanda develop critical thinking capabilities that can be translated into entrepreneurial ideas for employment creation in the country. As for increasing the education budget, this could be achieved by taking the surplus from other over-funded programmes such as the military and public relations and allocate it to the youth education programmes.

The need to preserve the environment and to house the population in a modernised and orderly way to increase agricultural production should be supported. However, policy makers in Rwanda ought to take into consideration the cultural factors which also influence the behaviour of people within the society and in that perspective have economic implications. At the same time, policy makers have to ensure that the policies to be implemented in pursuit of economic growth are scrutinised to meet present and future needs of the Rwandan youth, to the extent of considering that the youth would want to be recognised as adults and enjoy a healthy family life within their cultural society.

Pursuing economic growth does not necessarily translate into people’s happiness. This concept originates from Bhutan, a landlocked state in South Asia located at the Eastern outskirts of the Himalayas.  In 1972, Bhutan rejected the Gross Domestic Product as the only measurement of its economy progress and instead used the Gross National Happiness. The new indicator measures the quality of life and social progress in a more holistic and psychological term. The concept has gained popularity in recent years to the extent that the UN has commissioned for a happiness index report to be compiled. The report outlines a list of factors demonstrating the causes of unhappiness among citizen of any nation. Surprisingly, some the causes of unhappiness outlined in the world happiness index report are the aforementioned challenges faced by the youth in Rwanda. Unemployment, lack of quality work, lack of quality education, failure of citizen to practice their culture and attain a family life when one wants to do so, are all listed as barriers to achieving happiness.  As explained Rwanda’s fast growing economy has not necessary addressed these barriers and it could be possible that it will never do, as far as the Bhutan’s concept is concerned. Therefore, Rwanda should also aim at bringing happiness to its youth alongside its economic growth.  In this first ever published happiness index report of 2012, Rwanda ranked 132 out of 156 countries, the second highest ranking country in the bloc of East of African after Uganda.  Could more be done by policy makers to improve the ranking of Rwanda’s happiness index? The report reads: “Policy goals should include high employment and high-quality work; a strong community with high levels of trust and respect, which government can influence through inclusive participatory policies; improved physical and mental health; support of family life; and a decent education for all”.

Written by Aimé Sindayigaya and edited by Jules Niyibizi

Visit www.insightfulquotient.com to read more insightful articles on Rwanda economics and human development.

The witness, whose identity has been hidden for safety purposes, explained his experiences in an episode of the Flemish TV show Terzake that was broadcasted on the TV station Canvas last Friday, April 5^th. He reports the “preparation” of Rwandan witnesses before testifying in Belgian court hearings and claims he was instructed by Rwandan authorities to lie in his accusations of the defendant.

“Rwandan judicial authorities are involved in it [the preparation of witnesses]. The Public Prosecutor drove me to the [Kigali] airport himself before I boarded the plane to Belgium (..) Rwandan authorities do not want to lose genocide cases abroad (..) If all witnesses were prepared in the same way that I was, then maybe all who were found guilty were actually innocent”, he declared, before adding that he did not want the Rwandan government to know who he is, because if they knew “they would hurt his loved ones in Rwanda”.

In the same emission, Filip Reyntjes, professor at the university of Antwerp, comments on the preparation of witnesses by Rwanda and confirms the existence of a tight cooperation between Ibuka and local prosecutors that aims at “preparing witnesses and serving them with scenario’s and scripts to memorize before sending them off to the trial hearings”. He also adds that witnesses who differ from telling the story as they were instructed to do by the regime risk ‘’sanctions and revenge’’, not only for themselves, but also for their families.

On his part, the Cameroonian journalist, Charles Onana, is quoted saying that the prompting of witnesses is a “well-organized system’’ that uses real victims of the genocide to testify against innocent defendants by acting as if the defendant was the actual perpetrator of the crimes committed against them. He concludes by noting that this system “will continue to exist as long as the RPF stays in power” and says he is “absolutely sure that witnesses will come to give false testimonies at the next Rwandan trials in Belgium”.

Belgium is said to host around 30 000 Rwandans and has, like many other European countries, trialed several Rwandans for their role in the Rwandan genocide. Up until now, twelve cases have been dealt with by the Belgian Public Prosecutor, most of them resulting in a conviction of the defendant. Witness statements have been known to play a key role in every case.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

Link to broadcast  :  http://www.canvas.be/programmas/terzake/server1-4fb24d04:13d7c2bafba:-79f9

(from 32minutes onwards)

Refugees from Rwanda in Goma, DRC, after the genocide in 1994. Photograph: Jon Jones/Sygma/Corbis

Before elaborating on such a difficult matter, it is important to note that the dynamics of the Rwandan society, just like in any other society, are those of high complexity. There are healthy and unhealthy tensions between different groups of people, ranging from ethnic, regional and political groups to poor and rich groups of people, going as far as before the period of colonization and back. So, although the majority of the media tries to reduce the Rwandan problem to that of ethnicity alone, the issue is in fact much broader and it involves more political than ethnical aspects.

Labels and definitions

Each year on the 7th of April, the current Government of Rwanda (GoR) advocates the commemoration of the ‘’Genocide against the Tutsi’’, that according to them refers to the   ethnic killings that underlie the  genocidal character of “Hutu extremists” killing their Tutsi neighbours for simply being born Tutsis. The brutal facts and testimonies of these occurrences are there not to be questioned, rather to be recognized and regretted by all Rwandans.

However, by deviating from the United Nations’ use of the term ‘’Rwanda Genocide’’ and choosing for the  label that says  ”Genocide against the Tutsi”, the GoR has, intentionally or not, excluded Hutu and other non-Tutsi victims from the official annual commemoration that now only talks about the Tutsi casualties. This would not be a problem if there had been no Hutu victims, but the exclusion of hundreds of thousands of deaths is something that cannot go by unnoticed as their loved ones too desire the space to properly mourn those whom they have lost.

Furthermore, the issue becomes more intricate when officials of the GoR are of the opinion that non-Tutsi victims were not caused by the genocide, but that they were ‘’unfortunately trappedbetween the cross fighting of the Rwandan Armed Forces (RAF) and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)’’, as once expressed by the Rwandan Ambassador to The Netherlands Immaculée Uwanyiligira at a commemoration conference.

The question that arises then, is how to differentiate between the various types of victimhood and how to grade them according to which scale of gravity?

War of memories

It is therefore no surprise that Rwanda’s modern day politics of victimization have caused what one might refer to as the ‘’war of memories’’ as most Hutus claim to be victims of the genocide as well and someTutsis argue that Hutus and other non-Tutsi victims were not targeted as an ethnic group and therefore do not deserve to be included in the official commemoration services. For instance, at the memorial service of the 7^th of April 2006 that was hosted by the Tutsi victims’ association Ibuka in Brussels,former member of the RPF  and President of the opposition party PDP Imanzi, Déogratias Mushayidi,  a Tutsi who lost his family in 1994 and who is now serving a life sentence in Kigali prison, was assaulted by an employee of the Embassy of Rwanda in Brusssels because he had been present at the memorial that took place the day before, on the 6^th of April, and included Hutu victims. After attending the service for 30 minutes, the employee questioned his presence and asked: ‘’How dare you come here to commemorate the genocide against the Tutsi when you were in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre alongside Hutus yesterday?’’.

Also, after having held a commemoration that included both Hutu and Tutsi survivors on the 19^th of April 2011 in London, members of the PAX organization that aims to bring together all ethnic groups were verbally attacked and threatened by other Rwandans who support the current Rwandan regime because ‘’it was really incorrect and inappropriate to talk of Hutu survivors’’.

When looking into definitions, article II of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as ‘’any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

In the case of Rwanda, Hutu victims feel that they fulfill the criteria as described in the abovementioned definition, notably with regards to the atrocities committed by the RPF upon their entry in Rwanda in 1990 and 1994,  in the refugee camps in the Congo[1]  and in the widespread mass killings in eastern DRC as detailed in the 2010 United Nations’ Mapping Report . Thus, in their eyes, the argument of exclusion given by the GoR is one of discrimination and leveling that leaves no room for a peaceful collective remembrance.

Also, for many Hutu victims, the use of the term “Hutu extremists” tends to be a reason for the stigmatization of the whole Hutu ethnicity. They argue that while victims were killed because of their ethnic origin, wrongdoers did not kill because of their ethnic origin.

National Commemoration: the 6^th or 7^th of April?

So instead, those excluded by the current GoR seek justice in organising their own marches of peace and commemoration services and have chosen to do so on different dates in April, one being notably the 6^th  and not the 7^th of April, because to them, April 6 is the day that marked the beginning of the mass slaughters as then Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundian President Ntaryamira were killed in the shooting down of  their plane. In the past years many  participants and sympathizers of April 6 , mostly Rwandans, have stood on the streets of both Paris and Brussels seeking and shouting for ‘’justice’’ and ‘’truth’’ to prevail so ‘’all victims can be remembered’’ and included in the genocide memorial.

In the specific case of Belgium, this has led to the 2007 ban on commemorations on the 6^th of April in front of the Belgian genocide monument by the Mayor of Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, the municipal where the memorial site is situated, after an intervention by the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs  and the Rwandan Community of Belgium (CRB), claiming that ‘’the authorization of such commemoration has been prone to cause incidents that have had consequences on the relations between Belgium and Rwanda, particularly those between the municipal of Woluwé-Saint-Pierre and the district of Kamonyi, sector of Musambira ’’.  Despite the ban, several Rwandans still gathered around the monument in 2008 and 2009, both incidents leading up to several arrests by the Belgian police. Although the commemoration protests and ceremonies have re-located away from the monument since 2010, they still take place each year.

Joseph Matata, a Rwandan Human Rights activist living in Belgium, in 2012 explained to Jambonews the reasons behind choosing the 6^th of April as commemoration date. When asked why the 6^th of April and not the 7^th or any other ‘neutral’ date, he said: ‘’The 7^th of April is not a date chosen by the Tutsi, it is a date that has been imposed by the President. He [Kagame]could not choose April 6^th, because on April 6^th he is accused of the crime committed against the head of states Juvenal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira. April 6^th scares Kagame. There is no neutral date, one has got to choose the right date. The date on which the chaos was created must be chosen, that is to say on April 6^th.’’ In the same way,  Mushayidi  in his testimony on the importance of the date,  expressed that the plane attack on the 6^th of April ‘’had triggered the events that shook everything in his own life and that of millions of others insideRwanda and in the region or around the world’’.

Together as one?

And so, as the dark clouds gradually surround the Rwandan atmosphere in the wake of the annual genocide memorial services, Rwandans all over the world echo the same cries of grief and unhealed wounds, but, regrettably, this is done in different camps where the largest separation     is found in the 6^th versus the 7^th of April, and in memory of Tutsi victims versus all victims. Now, 19 years after the massacres, nothing points to this year’s commemorations being different. This recalls Matata’s poignant question in an interview on the war of memories: ‘’ With all the elements that we now have, can we [Rwandans] not agree on one date to commemorate all our dead together?’’. As they say in Kinyarwanda, ‘’he who lives long enough shall tell’’.

Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net

This brigade, consisting of nearly 3 069 peacekeepers, includes three infantry battalions, one artillery and one special forces and reconnaissance company who will  be responsible for neutralizing the armed groups,  including the M23, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), the Allied Democratic Forces, the Alliance of Patriots for a free and sovereign Congo (APCLS), the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Mayi-Mayi.

Moreover, ‘’the Council will consider the continued presence of the Intervention Brigade in light of its performance and whether the DRC has made sufficient progress ​​in implementing its commitments under the PSC Framework [Framework Agreement for peace, security and cooperation in the DRC and the region] as well as the establishment and implementation of a national security sector reform roadmap for the creation of a Congolese “Rapid Reaction Force ” able to take over responsibility for achieving the objective of the Intervention Brigade,’’ reads the dispatch of the information Service of the UN.

Indeed, on February 24th, 11 countries in the region, including Rwanda and Uganda who according to a UN report support M23, signed the PSC Framework that commits them to protecting the territorial sovereignty of the DRC and to preserve peace and stability in the country.

The Special Envoy to the Great Lakes region, Mary Robinson, will be appointed by the Council to ‘’lead, coordinate and assess the implementation of national and regional commitments under the PSC Framework’’. She is also ‘’encouraged to lead a comprehensive political process that includes all relevant stakeholders to address the underlying root causes of the conflict’’.

‘’ The Secretary-General hopes that the strengthening of MONUSCO mandate, which also provides for the creation of an Intervention Brigade to address the problem of armed groups, will contribute to the restoration of state authority and long-term stability in the eastern DRC,’’ said his spokesman.

South Africa, Tanzania and Malawi will be contributing to the formation of the brigade.

“An opportunity for the Democratic Republic of Congo to enter a period of lasting peace”

The United Kingdom welcomed the adoption of resolution 2089 and thanked France ‘’for her leading role in reaching an agreement on this issue.’’

This resolution, adopted by unanimity, is “an opportunity for civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo, especially women and girls, to go about their lives in safety. Renewing MONUSCO’s mandate, with the inclusion of a specialized brigade, would contribute to the broad vision of peace and stability in the DRC. Implementing the accord should result in a world where justice is done and seen as such. A world where women of Eastern DRC no longer need to fear sexual violence and children are protected against the effects of conflict. This resolution is an important step in this direction, “said the Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the UN, Mark Lyall Grant.

Eugène-Richard Gasana, Rwanda’s UN envoy, said his delegation had voted in favour of the resolution because of its importance as an instrument for implementation of the Peace and Security Framework Agreement.

A turning point in the UN’s mission in the DRC

This is the first time that the Security Council endowed MONUSCO with an offensive mandate. Until now, the role of peacekeepers was essentially a defensive role aimed at the protection of civilians. Often, they would not have the right to draw unless they were attacked themselves.

In November 2012, the 17 000 peacekeepers of MONUSCO that cost about a billion dollars a year were accused of standing by and doing nothing when M23, which has been sowing terror in eastern DRC since April 2012, took over the city of Goma.

Origanal article in French by Laure Uwase

Translated by Jane Nishimwe

Jambonews.net