Temporary lack of vision

Right off the top, let me first say that I respect the work of Craig and Marc Kielburger very much. The two have worked tirelessly to address such issues as child labour and other inequities. However in an August 20, 2007 article in The Toronto Star about Rwandan president Paul Kagamé, they made a huge mistake, though one for which they should be excused, as the work they have done to better the lives of others far overshadows this one slip-up. Still, [the royal] we must shed some light on their error, lest their one-sided, sugar-coated take on Kagamé be perpetuated as truth.

In the article, the brothers presented a very narrow take on Kagamé. To read the account of their meeting with the president, you would swear the man deserves to be put right up there with the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. The truth is, the Rwandan government under Kagamé is well known in political and human rights circles for its many abuses, including attacks on the free press and the independence of NGOs, to name but a few.

The Kielburger’s article ran as follows:

A vision of stability in Rwanda
The Toronto Star
August 20, 2007
Craig and Marc Kielburger

"This is not the end of the struggle, but the beginning of our liberation," the bespectacled man says defiantly. "We have to improve conditions for schools, social programs and public welfare. True liberation is an end to begging and the ability so support oneself."

Standing behind a large podium, he seems almost out of place. He is speaking before a soccer stadium full of ordinary Rwandans, there to commemorate the end of the 1994 genocide. Despite his appearance, he delivers a powerful message.

The man describing his vision for the country as a stable, prosperous place, where people work hard and rely on no one but themselves, is Rwandan President Paul Kagamé. We watch from our seats as thousands of heads nod in agreement.

Kagamé also has a direct message for all the civil servants and government officials in the crowd. Corruption is inexcusable, he tells them. Their jobs are to serve their country in every way they can and to ensure Rwanda's success.

It doesn't take long to see that Kagamé, a central figure in Rwanda for more than 15 years, is no ordinary African leader. He was chosen to lead the rebel RPF army in overthrowing the genocidal government after the group's original commander was killed in 1990.

The trouble was, Kagamé was studying in the United States at the time. So he led the RPF's campaign via telephone until he could find a way to join them on the front lines.
Now as president, Kagamé faces tougher challenges than any he saw on the battlefield. Rwanda is a tiny, landlocked nation with an infrastructure destroyed by war and a population decimated by poverty and HIV/AIDS.

In the few days we spend as his guests, Kagamé tells us about growing up in Uganda, forced to flee anti-Tutsi violence with his family. He joined the army there and even became a commander. But he always had his heart set on returning to Rwanda.

Kagamé is highly disciplined, likely thanks to his years as a soldier. He often talks about the sacrifices he and his generation must be willing to make for the sake of future Rwandans. Only genuine and honest hard work will make his country prosper, he
insists.

There is reason for optimism. Just more than a decade after 800,000 people were murdered in three months, Rwanda's economy is growing twice as fast as those in the U.S. or Europe. Kagamé is leading the way by taking only a modest salary and refusing to use a chauffeur. He insists the government set a good example for citizens.

Of course, he does not come without controversy. Some Rwandans remain bitter for what they call an unnecessarily long war with the genocidal government that allowed even more people to die. But Kagamé explains his strategy simply by saying he had to be methodical in his attack to ensure victory over the government forces. He remains
unapologetic.

Now seven years into his presidency, Kagamé faces the same turning point his African counterparts have before him. Will his idealism cause him to stray from the path of good leadership and cling to power like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and so many others? Or will he keep putting Rwanda first, even when that means relinquishing power democratically?

Only time will tell for sure. But if Kagamé does stay true to his vision, he will become an inspiration to the next crop of African leaders.

Now, let’s take a closer look at some of the abuses for which the Kagamé government is well known.

It has been theorized that Kagamé is capitalizing on fears of a recurrence of the genocide in order to give it an excuse to clamp down on dissenting opinions, likely in order to further consolidate power. This theory is quite sound.

A popular tool used by Kagamé and his allies involves branding dissident groups – including political opponents, staff of NGOs, clerics, journalists, teachers and students – as ‘divisionist’ and/or blaming them for propagating ‘genocidal ideology.’ In a country that is still jittery after the rampage in 1994, the tactic has proven to be quite effective.

Regarding elections, there have been questions and concerns expressed by observers, including the European Union Observer Mission, as to the fairness of the August 2003 presidential election which put Kagamé into power. According to Front Line, Kagamé’s main (and probably only viable) competitor, former Prime Minister Faustin Twangiramungu, was arrested prior to the election; and several of his supporters were either arrested, detained or intimidated, many just two days before the vote. According to the U.S. State Department: "The actions taken by authorities during the 2003 election campaign period created an atmosphere of fear, so many groups simply chose not to meet. Members of political parties other than the ruling RPF reported that, because Rwanda had essentially become a one-party state, there was no sense in meeting."

Accusations by journalists against the Kagamé government have, in recent years, been common. They include: verbal intimidation; arrests (often without due process); receipt of death threats; beatings, abductions, disappearances and assassinations; expulsions; exile; blacklisting; censorship; and seizure of publications, printing presses and even entire media outlets.

Certain laws in Rwanda make life quite difficult for NGOs operating in the country. For instance, by law the government has a say in the selection of NGO staff and requires that the government approve NGO projects before they are sent to donors. Further, by law, NGOs are required to provide to the government all data and documents pertaining to their operations within one month of the government requesting them.

White the Kielburger’s note Kagamé’s contempt toward corruption, both Transparency International (TI) and the World Bank Institute have concluded that Rwanda has become more – not less - corrupt in recent years. Rwanda came 83rd out of 159 in TI’s Corruptions Perception Index in 2005, but a far lower 121st in its 2006 index. The World Bank Institute concluded that ‘control of corruption’ had declined from 44% in 2004 to just 24% in 2005.

None of this was even touched on in the Kielburger piece. Instead, they chose to gush that if "…Kagamé does stay true to his vision, he will become an inspiration to the next crop of African leaders."

Perhaps if the Kielburger’s took off their blinders, they would have written "…an inspiration to the next crop of African dictators.

Knock the war, but support the troops

A September 4, 2007 Letter to the Editor in The Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), was so ill considered and disingenuous, that I felt the strong need to attempt to remove the cancers from it. Unfortunately, after having done so, there was nothing good or healthy that could be salvaged from it. No loss, to be sure.

The entire letter ran as follows:

Hey, that's no way to say goodbye (Sep 4, 2007): I was distressed to learn our government has chosen to name a portion of Highway 401 the "Highway of Heroes."

Dictionaries point to both the mythological and mundane definitions of the word. Heroes are both characters of legendary or mythical stature as well as "illustrious warriors" of everyday life. The problem is that Canada's national identity and common life is rooted in neither the myth nor practice of war. The last true "illustrious warriors" this country produced were the citizen soldiers of the Second World War, men and women who made enormous sacrifices to protect the world from oppression in what has since been called the last truly just war.

The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada's making. Even though it is sanctioned by the United Nations, it is nevertheless clear that we are involved more as a means of protecting our economic relationship with the United States than protecting the world from oppression. As heinous as the Taliban were, they were principally a threat to their own people and were meant to have been dealt with locally.

Scholars have pointed recently to the frightening dimensions of militarization that have overtaken so many aspects of America's political and social identity and life. America has a truly professional military, a corps of people who have freely chosen to enlist themselves on behalf of their nation's political agenda. Let us make no mistake, in the modern world soldiering is a profession, and even if those who enlist are not paid
handsomely, they are nevertheless paid to further that agenda. One can only assume that they truly believe in it.

Canada's military is professional as well. If men and women enlist and put their lives at risk for what they believe in, that is their choice. However, their choice would not be my choice, and their sacrifices do not make them illustrious nor does it make them heroes in my eyes.

Therefore, the naming of even a portion of a major highway in such an eponymous manner disturbs me in as much as it points to Canada's own willingness to embrace the military myth.

First, the letter-writer proves to be quite selective in his use of the dictionary definition of ‘hero’. Yes, "[H]eroes are both characters of legendary or mythical stature as well as ‘illustrious warriors’ of everyday life." However, along with this pair of definitions, Merriam Webster’s also defines ‘hero’ as "one that shows great courage" and "an object of extreme admiration and devotion." (It appears that the letter-writer used Webster’s for his definition.)

Second, he states that "Canada’s national identity and common life is rooted in neither the myth nor practice of war." Has he never heard of the battle at Vimy Ridge, which countless academics have cited as the event which put Canada on the map? What of our reputation as peacekeeper, which is done not by peacekeepers, per se, but by heavily trained, armed fighting men and women? And why do we wear poppies on our lapels each November if what he says is true? Even if we accept what he says as fact, can it not, then, be argued that it’s all the better to name the section of the 401 "Highway of Heroes"? After all, if we rarely take part in war, should we not take special measures to recognize those Canadians who die in one when we do?

Third, he states that "The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada’s making. Even though it is sanctioned by the United Nations, it is nevertheless clear that we are involved more as a means of protecting our economic relationship with the United States than protecting the world from oppression." He is correct. The conflict in Afghanistan is the creation of a political agenda not of Canada’s making; it was of al Qaeda and the Taliban’s making (and not of the United States’, if that’s what he is implying).

Next, it is somewhat irrelevant that the action has been sanctioned by the UN. Though this is helpful to Canada, we have chosen to take part in the action in Afghanistan because the coordinated attack of September 11, 2001 triggered Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty which states that ''an armed attack against one or more of them [members] in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." Canada takes great pride in the role it has played in the world’s key multilateral organizations, with NATO being one of them. Further, if we are in Afghanistan to protect our economic relationship with the U.S. why, then, did Canada not contribute at least something – even just token - to the war in Iraq?

Finally, the letter-writer states: "America has a truly professional military, a corps of people who have freely chosen to enlist themselves on behalf of their nation's political agenda. Let us make no mistake, in the modern world soldiering is a profession, and even if those who enlist are not paid handsomely, they are nevertheless paid to further that agenda. One can only assume that they truly believe in it. Canada's military is professional as well. If men and women enlist and put their lives at risk for what they believe in, that is their choice. However, their choice would not be my choice, and their sacrifices do not make them illustrious nor does it make them heroes in my eyes."

It is doubtful that individuals join a nation’s armed forces with the express understanding that they are doing so to further their country’s political agenda. People join because the lifestyle appeals to them, because they don’t wish to sit behind a computer the rest of their working lives, because they wish to see the world, because they wish to help people, because they have few options due to poverty and lack of education etc. What’s more, several pieces of research (including my own) indicate that soldiers fight, not for God and country and not even for a given cause. They fight for those to the left and the right of them; they fight for their comrades. If the writer is implying that soldiers join the armed forces merely to become an implementer of governmental policy, that they know what they are getting themselves into and, thus, are not heroes; he is way off the mark. Could his viewpoint not be carried over to, say, policing and firefighting? Aren’t members of those professions paid professionals who make a choice to go into those lines of work? Can we not say that because of this, they are not illustrious or heroes?

For all his disingenuous and flawed thinking, the writer could just as much have argued that the relevant portion of highway 401 should not be named for a kind of sandwich.