The Dead and the Undertaker: Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame threatens the West.
by David O’Brian
AfroAmerica Network.
London, Great Britain, March 20, 2009
It is often said that the dead doesn’t argue with the undertaker and that one of the most puzzling phenomenon is why criminals return to the scenes of their crimes. By challenging the West on BBC Hard Talk, the Rwandan dictator General Paul Kagame showed that the dead can challenge the undertaker and criminal often returns to the scene of the crime.
December 7, 2006: Paul KAgame defies and threatens FRANCE AND ADMITS TO KILLING HABYARIMANA.
On December 7, 2006, the West was shocked to discover, on BBC Hard Talk Show hosted by Stephen Sackur, the true face of the once darling African leader, one President Bill Clinton and his then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright used to label “the cream of the new breed of Africa leaders.” AfroAmerica Network had said then that the so much touted rare fruit was crawling with worms, and the world could only be appalled by the degree of the stinking rot displayed by the Rwandan dictator on one of the most reputable media in the World.
As if not satisfied, or rather like a criminal that goes back to the scene of the crime, Paul Kagame did it again on March 17, 2009. The only significant change was the date. The protagonists were the same: Stephen Sackur, the smart and engaging journalist trying to make a sense of the psychopathic mind of a dictator out of touch and ideas. The questions started where they were left off three years ago.
Let us go back to December 7, 2006.
With an unprecedented mastery of the Great Lakes Region of Africa geopolitical issues and challenges, Stephen Sackur relentlessly pursued the dictator of Rwanda, Paul Kagame. In a confrontational interview that lasted more than 20 minutes, neither Kagame nor Sackur gave away land. Kagame tried to intimidate the journalist, and the journalist retaliated with a mastery of his stuff and a calm that disarmed the dictator and led him to commit public relations mistakes that viewers may have not forgotten.
Yet, the interview was to boost the public standing of Paul Kagame, after he and his henchmen were indicted by the anti-terrorist French Judge Brugiere for the terrorist attack in 1994 on a civilian plane that carried the late Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira and their staff. Everyone on the plane, including the French crew, perished. After an inquiry conducted over 12 years, the reputed Judge Brugiere concluded that Paul Kagame ordered the terrorist attack and was assisted by 9 of his closest aides. International arrest warrants were issued against the nine aides by the French Justice System in late November 2006, while Kagame, as a head of state enjoys immunity, waiting for a ruling to try him through the International Criminal Court. Since then , the Spanish judicial system followed with their own indictments of 40 of Paul Kagame’s top aides for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda.
General Paul Kagame was used to the British media rolling the red carpet and covering him with praises, perhaps out of empathy stemming from the 1994 tragic events or for the lack of interest in the Great Lakes region of Africa. The dictator used to talk while the media listened. It must have been with anticipation that he entered the studios of BBC Hard Talk.
Alas, things did not go the way he anticipated. In December 2006, General Paul Kagame discovered with horror and stupefaction that the British media landscape had changed. Stephen Sackur showed him that British journalists can do their homework, and that the empathy and guilt, as any strong and unfounded emotions, may always wane down. Sackur folded his sleeves instead of being lectured by an African dictator, be he a friend and confident of some in the British political establishment, especially the former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now his personal advisor.
The highlight of the interview came when Stephen Sackur asked: “But do you believe you had a right to assassinate him [President Habyarimana]?” and
President Paul Kagame answered: “No, no, no! … for Habyarimana’s death. I don’t care ! I wasn’t responsible for his security. He wasn’t responsible for mine either. And he wouldn’t have cared if I had died. I don’t care that it happened to him. I was fighting that government, the government that made me a refugee for those years, for which I had a right to fight about, and the judge wants to ask me why?”
Like many who watched the show, Stephen Sackur was visibly shocked by these words from a head of state, What was the dictator thinking? But that was just an appetizer of what was to come on March 17, 2009.
March 17, 2009: Paul KAgame defies and threatens the West AND ADMITS TO DESTROYING EASTERN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
There are multiple hypotheses why a criminal returns to the scene of the crime: to retrieve their forgotten or lost weapon, to admire their work or correct mistakes that may have been made, or to get caught and earn fame.
Few may ever fathom why after the 2006 blunder and sheer stupid performance General Paul Kagame returned on BCC Hard Talk to be grilled by Stephen Sackur.
Perhaps, as it is known, Paul Kagame does not want to listen to reason: he is the Head of State, he has brought Hutus under control and they voted for him almost 100%. No one can tell him what to do or say; not to do or not say: he is the leader- the supreme leader- and he does not care about anything or anyone else.
And that what Stephen Sackur and all the BBC Hard Talk viewers may have gotten. Perhaps that was his mission, or perhaps he is just plain idiot.
The staff of BBC studios who saw him, for the second time, on March 17, 2009, may have felt the same chill down the spine they felt when they once again looked into Kagame’s protruding and blood injected eyes, watched his menacing gestures towards the journalist and the world, and listened to his legendary “I don’t care” tantrums. They may have been comforted in their Western citizenship, happy for not being Rwandans, both Hutus and Tutsis, who daily face the dictator’s ire.
As he did in 2006, on March 17, 2009 Paul Kagame, confronted with basic international affairs, showed he is not atop of national and world issues. Once again the case of the Congolese rebel General Nkunda imprisoned in Rwanda was raised and he didn’t care. His excuses remained the same: justifying his mistakes and crimes by the undying love of and for his people, whose majority happens to be the oppressed Hutus and less connected Tutsis.
In 2006 he blamed the interference and arrogance of France, this time around he blamed the naivety, ignorance, and arrogance of the West.
Instead of facing his problems he found scapegoats, In 2006 he blamed France for supplying weapons to Hutus, this time he went to length of indicting MONUC for supplying the weapons to Hutu rebels.
The journalist conceded that Paul Kagame may have concealed the recruitment of children in Rwanda and the money provided by his personal advisor and confident Rujugiro, but he asked a simple question: How about the tanks firing into Congo across the border from Rwanda in support of Lauren Nkunda’s rebel forces.
But Kagame doesn’t care.
Once again the journalist appealed to him by pointing out that he is the president of Rwanda and should care about the case of his the confident, Rujugiro, providing hundreds of dollars to Nkunda?
On holding Nkunda, Kagame blatantly said he is holding him outside the legal process, for political reasons, like millions of Rwandan who have been rotting in jails and dungeons for the last 15 years without trial or legitimate accusations. As a good African dictator he lent his support to none other than Bashir, the indicted President of Sudan.
In 2006, Stephen Sackur concluded:”You are a president of a nation. Do you believe it is responsible for you to seat here on this program and suggest that the Prime Minister of France was actively involved, colluded in the slaughter of a million people.”
Despite the wise warning, Kagame, like a dog biting his tail, responded in 2006: “I don’t need any advice”.
In 2009, Kagame pounded: “What I do not want is the arrogance of the West.”
Stephen Sackur was just shocked. What went in Stephen Sackur’s mind in his last last minutes of interview when he remained silent, like some one struck on the head by a mysterious force? He may forever wonder how, for the second time, a head of state may be so careless, tactless, arrogant, ignorant, and aggressive to the point of defying the entire West, after putting the Great Lakes region of Africa on the knees.
But our question is: What West the dictator of Rwanda was talking about? The West that keeps him on life support or the West that threatens to cut the lifeline. Either way, the dead may be challenging the undertaker.
©AfroAmerica Network, 2009
Comments on this entry are closed.