[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RWANDA: DEMOCRACY THWARTED
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-70
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-012 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Donald Yamamoto, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of African Affairs, U.S. Department of State................... 4
Mr. David Himbara, coordinator for Canada, Democracy in Rwanda
Now............................................................ 19
Major Robert Higiro, Rwanda Defense Force, Retired, coordinator
for the United States, Democracy in Rwanda Now................. 26
Mr. Mike Jobbins, manager, Africa Programs, Search for Common
Ground......................................................... 31
Mr. Adotei Akwei, managing director, Government Relations,
Amnesty International United States............................ 41
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Donald Yamamoto: Prepared statement................ 8
Mr. David Himbara: Prepared statement............................ 23
Major Robert Higiro: Prepared statement.......................... 28
Mr. Mike Jobbins: Prepared statement............................. 35
Mr. Adotei Akwei: Prepared statement............................. 44
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 60
Hearing minutes.................................................. 61
Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher
H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New
Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations, and
written responses from:
The Honorable Donald Yamamoto.................................. 62
Mr. David Himbara.............................................. 66
Major Robert Higiro............................................ 67
Mr. Mike Jobbins............................................... 68
Mr. Adotei Akwei............................................... 71
RWANDA: DEMOCRACY THWARTED
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m., in
room 2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order, and good
afternoon to everybody.
Rwanda is an important African ally. We know it. They have
been for a very long time. This East African nation has been a
valuable contributor to peacekeeping in Africa and is the sixth
largest troop and police contributor to U.N. missions.
However, reports have increased about the status of human
rights and rule of law inside Rwanda and its efforts to silence
critics living abroad.
This hearing will continue to examine the future of
democracy and the rule of law in Rwanda in light of persistent
criticism of its government's behavior at home and on the
international stage.
Rwanda is a constitutional republic dominated by a very
strong presidency. In 2015, the country held a constitutional
referendum in which an estimated 98 percent of registered
voters participated.
Approximately 98 percent of those who voted endorsed a set
of amendments that included provisions that would allow the
President to run for up to three additional terms in office,
meaning Paul Kagame could be President for more than 20 more
years.
His election to a third term in August 2017 was achieved
with 99 percent of the vote. A popular politician in the United
States and most other countries would be unlikely in most
circumstances to win nearly 100 percent of the vote in a free,
fair, and competitive election.
Consequently, it is difficult to believe that even someone
as widely admired as President Kagame could have been that
popular.
Such suspicion is stoked by reports of vote irregularities
and actions by the Rwandan Government to restrain opposition
activism and enact stringent controls on opposition activism
including legal restrictions on civil liberties and stringent
controls on the free flow of information.
An example of why there is skepticism about the nature of
free elections in Rwanda is the case of businesswoman Diane
Rwigara, who ran as a critic of Kagame.
Days after she launched her campaign, nude photos allegedly
of her were leaked onto the internet in an attempt to discredit
her. She said she would not be intimidated and continued her
campaign.
On July 7th, the National Electoral Commission disqualified
her and two other candidates on technical grounds, alleging
they had not collected enough valid signatures.
Amnesty International said that the election would be held
in a climate of fear and repression, and the Commission's
decision was criticized by the U.S. State Department as well as
the European Union.
Following the election, Rwigara launched an activist group
called the People's Salvation movement to challenge the regime
on its human rights record, saying that the country's
Parliament is little more than a rubber stamp.
Within days, her home was raided and she was arrested for
forgery and tax evasion. Within days, although she was
released, Rwigara was rearrested for forgery and offenses
against state security. Her mothers and her sisters were also
subsequently arrested for tax evasion.
This is not the only case of harsh punishment of those who
criticise the Kagame government. David Himbara, one of our
witnesses today, was a close advisor to President Kagame and
has an inside view of how this government deals with those seen
as failing the government or those who disagree with it.
He testified on the inner workings of the Kagame government
at our May 20, 2015 hearing on Rwanda. Another witness at that
May 2015 hearing was Robert Higiro, who told a chilling account
of being solicited to commit murders of two formerly high-
ranking military and security officials.
That account was backed by authenticated recordings of
Rwanda's security chief offering large sums of money for the
murders. In fact, after Mr. Higiro testified about his offer,
he had to move from Belgium to the United States because his
life was in danger.
Both of our Rwandan witnesses have new information today
that will be important for our Government's policy toward
Rwanda.
During a staff delegation to South Africa last year, two of
my staff spoke with officials of the Government of South
Africa, which was highly offended that the Rwandan Government
would be involved in the murder of a dissident on New Year's
Eve 2013.
My staff also spoke with Rwandan refugees in South Africa
who reported being afraid of officials at the Rwandan Embassy
in South Africa who said they had threatened them for seeking
asylum.
Again, Rwanda is not your typical dictatorship in which all
people suffer under an unpopular leader who does not provide
for social services or security.
Many Rwandans apparently generally feel the government is
acting in their interests, especially providing for interethnic
harmony.
It is this anomaly that we seek to better understand in
part through this hearing today. My office has compiled a
report on our Government's human rights issues with Rwanda and
we are due to discuss these matters with them further.
We would be a poor ally if we did not caution the Rwandan
Government about human rights abuses which the international
community cites.
And so I would just conclude, in reading over all the
testimony I just thought there were a number of important
points made by all of our witnesses. But Amnesty International,
I think, really brought home the fact that numerous journalists
have been imprisoned. The Rwandan Government continues to
suppress the independence and freedom of the media. This is
from their testimony for today.
They also point out that the international community
including the Clinton, the Bush, and the Obama administrations
have been at best half-hearted in confronting President Kagame
and pressing the Rwandan Government to reform its policy
regarding human rights and political space.
I would like to now yield to my friend and colleague, Karen
Bass.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As always, thank you for your leadership in holding today's
hearing on developments in Rwanda, especially regarding
examining democratic practices.
While Rwanda is geographically a small nation, its
condition and role in the stability of the Great Lakes region
is critical.
I also want to thank our distinguished witnesses today
including the Honorable Donald Yamamoto. We are happy you're
here representing the State Department. I do hope you won't be
acting forever.
Several members of the Rwanda diaspora and the
international human rights community--I look forward to hearing
your various perspectives on both the successes and challenges
of democracy in Rwanda.
Chairman Smith, I believe, very clearly laid out many of
the challenges and while I know that there are many challenges
across Africa and while it is very important to address the
challenges and concerns it is also important to talk about
where there have been some positive developments, especially
given Rwanda's history.
Rwanda experienced a very dark time in '94 when over
800,000 people lost their lives. The aftermath of the '94
genocide left the physical infrastructure and political
institutions destroyed.
The country lost skilled human resources and was left with
a dilapidated economy. Since that time, Rwanda has exhibited a
rare degree of internal stability and economic growth in a sub
region marked by armed conflict and violent transfers of power.
Over the last 23 years, Rwanda has sought to change the
course of the nation and embarked on an active effort to
improve citizens' health, boost agricultural output, promote
investment, and increase women's participation.
I do have to note that Rwanda is a world leader in women's
representation with over 64 percent of Parliament being women,
and that is compared to the United States, which is 18 percent.
Additionally, Rwanda has experienced an average of 7.6
percent growth per year over the last decade and this is in
part due to the pro investor policies, and Rwanda scores very
well on the World Bank's Doing Business Report, ranking 56 out
of 190 economies assessed in 2017 and number two in sub-Saharan
Africa.
According to the WHO, the World Health Organization,
between 1990 and 2016 life expectancy increased from 48 to 66
years. The mortality rate of children fell from 152 to 42
deaths per 1,000 live births and the maternal mortality rate
decreased from 1,300 deaths to 290 per 100,000. Literacy levels
in the country for both men and women are at nearly 70 percent.
Rwanda also plays a major role in peacekeeping across
Africa and Rwandan troops participate in multiple U.N. and
African Union missions.
Rwanda's peacekeepers are reportedly particularly valued
because of their training and discipline. So the country has
come a long way.
In spite of the progress, though, there has been a great
deal of concern over Rwanda's history of unilateral
intervention in the sub region and about restrictive political
environment.
Rwanda has the potential to be a strong regional leader but
to do this, like all countries, it must continue to address its
internal challenges.
For the country's own success, it should create a space for
freedom of expression, ensure the free flow of information in
the country and seek A.U. or U.N. authorization or mediation
when dealing with neighboring countries.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Smith. I would like to now welcome back to the
subcommittee the very distinguished Donald Y. Yamamoto, who is
serving as the acting Assistant Secretary of State in the
Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.
He has served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State in the Bureau of African Affairs from 2003 to 2006. He
was responsible for coordinating U.S. policy toward more than
20 countries in East and Central Africa.
He served as U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia from 2006 to 2009
and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Djibouti from 2000 to
2003, and he has testified many, many times before this
committee and he is more than welcome.
Mr. Ambassador, please proceed as you would like.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONALD YAMAMOTO, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF AFRICAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Yamamoto. Thank you very much. I submit the longer form
for the record.
Mr. Smith. Sure. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Yamamoto. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Bass, thank
you for the invitation today.
Since the United States has a very close and complex
relationship with Rwanda, since rebuilding the country in 1994
genocide, over the last 23 years Rwanda has made remarkable
gains in recovering from this tragedy.
At the same time, Rwanda's record in the areas of human
rights and democracy, while improved in some areas, remains a
concern.
U.S. policy toward Rwanda seeks to support those areas
where the government continues to make progress and urges the
government to effect change where it needs to do more,
especially in the expanding space of political dialogue and
competition to take steps toward democratic transition of
power.
Since the genocide, Rwanda's progress in the fields of
health and development have been dramatic and we have been
proud to partner in this process.
Over the last decade, child mortality has been reduced by
two-thirds. Life expectancy has risen to 64\1/2\ years of age
by 2016.
HIV prevalence has dropped from a little under 5 percent to
3 percent in the same period, and with support for the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS and Relief, PEPFAR, the
Government of Rwanda has reduced HIV transmission to newborns
to just 2 percent.
Likewise, the economic growth and opportunity have been
important aspects of our partnership with Rwanda over the
past--over the past 20 years.
In the last two decades, Rwanda's economic growth has
averaged about 7 to 8 percent, making it one of the leading
countries, according to the World Bank.
Rwanda is a major contributor to regional peace and
security. It is now the fifth largest contributor to
peacekeeping operations, and of course third in police
operations. Rwandan troops are regionally respected and
disciplined and participate in peacekeeping operations.
In South Sudan, Rwanda recently deployed additional
peacekeeping troops as part of the U.N.'s Regional Protection
Force and Rwanda is a priority partner in reforming the African
Union so that it is better prepared to resolve regional
conflicts. And President Kagame will take over the rotating
chairmanship of the African Union in January 2018.
Despite these positive areas, we continue to have
concerns--serious concerns about weak democratic institutions,
freedom of speech, respect for human rights in Rwanda.
There have been several important developments since the
subcommittee's last similarly-themed hearing on Rwanda in May
2015. In December 2015, Rwanda's voters approved a package of
constitutional amendments including one that enabled President
Kagame to stay in power beyond the two-term limit contained in
Rwanda's constitution.
In the run-up of that decision, we engaged in extensive
public and private diplomacy, urging the President to honor the
commitment he made in respect to term limits when he first
assumed office.
The constitutional amendments allowed President Kagame, who
had been in office since 2000, to run for a third term.
We continue to publically and privately emphasize our
conviction that constitutional transition of power are
essential for strong democracies everywhere and the efforts by
incumbents to change rules to stay in power will weaken
democratic institutions and undermine long-term stability.
The August 4th Presidential elections illustrate that
democracy in Rwanda remains far from perfect. As you know, the
President was reelected in an official tally of nearly 99
percent of the vote.
In the August 5th statement, we said we were disturbed by
the voting irregularities we had observed and reiterated our
longstanding concerns over the integrity of the vote-counting
process.
Three aspiring candidates were disqualified before the
election and we expressed concern of the lack of transparency
in the process.
We noted in our statement we hoped that these concerns will
be addressed before the 2018 parliamentary elections. Compared
to the previous Presidential elections in 2010, however, we
noted some progress.
This was the first election in which the Democratic Green
Party, the main registered opposition party in Rwanda, was
allowed to participate.
The Rwandan media has reported on the harassment of some
opposition candidates and government officials took action to
address complaints some cases by arresting local officials.
Since the election, Rwandan officials have targeted several
political opposition figures for questioning or arrest, and we
are concerned by, and are following closely, the case of Diane
Rwigara, one of the three disqualified Presidential aspirants.
Police raided her home on August 29th, arrested Ms. Rwigara and
two of her family members on September 23. We understand that
the Rwandan authorities have until September 28th to press
charges. In addition, we are following the arrests of at least
10 officials and members of an unregistered opposition party
earlier this month. The cases suggest that tight restrictions
remain on political competition and critics of the ruling
party.
Other serious human rights violations have been cited in
our reports to Congress and include arbitrary and unlawful
killings, the security forces' disregard for the rule of law,
restrictions on civil society organizations, government
interference with the press. Over the years, Rwandans have
reported to us the disappearance and suspected death of family
members at the hands of the Rwandan security services. NGOs
critical of the government are routinely denied registration to
operate in the country. Government officials have also
questioned, threatened, and arrested journalists who express
critical views on sensitive topics. The government has used law
criminalizing genocide ideology and divisionism along with
national security provisions to suppress dissent, prosecute
journalists, and pressure human rights groups to refrain from
investigating and reporting on the findings.
The administration continues to take action to address
these human rights situations in Rwanda. In March 2017, our
Ambassador in Kigali initiated quarterly high-level dialogues
with the government on civil society and media freedom.
USAID supports a number of targeted activities to promote
the rule of law. Some areas where we continue to work include
strengthening local NGO capacity to engage in policymaking
improvements and to laws governing NGOs, increasing the
capacity and skills of the media to provide independent
impartial information, and skills training for judges.
Rwanda benefits from the African Growth and Opportunity Act
(AGOA) and we have raised concerns to the Rwandan Government
regarding harassment of political opposition leaders and NGOs
as well as restrictions on media freedom with the context of
AGOA eligibility.
We are responding to Rwanda's request for help to combat
trafficking in persons, including improving prosecution skills
and closing gaps, and over the last decade we have worked
closely with the Rwandan Government, civil society, private
sector to combat child labor and thanks to our partnership,
approximately 5,000 children were removed from child labor in
Rwanda's tea-growing districts between 2015 and 2017 alone.
I would like to note some good news with respect to human
rights and governance in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda holds
public officials accountable for corrupt practices including
through prosecution.
Rwanda has also prioritized the fight against gender-based
violence and generally respects the rights of LGBTI persons.
Women leaders are promoted as evidenced by the fact, as the
Congresswoman stated, that 63 percent of Parliament members and
40 percent of cabinet officials are female.
Human rights are part and parcel of our ongoing dialogue at
all levels of the Rwandan Government and our consistent message
remains that allowing opposition figures, journalists, and
civil society to contribute to Rwanda's future is crucial to
building a knowledge-based economy and government seeks to
foster.
This includes ensuring freedom of expression, press
freedom, ability of citizens to criticize the government and
ruling party without fear of threats or violence or
intimidation.
And with that, I defer to you, Mr. Congressman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yamamoto follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you so much, Mr. Ambassador.
Let me begin by asking, did you, did the department,
consider the elections to be free, fair, and transparent? You
note that there is some progress.
You note that the Democratic Green Party, which got less
than 1 percent--I presume far less than that in the election--
rather than the other parties that might have had a more robust
showing on election day, as some progress and you also point
out that Rwandan media--you don't say whether or not we
independently verified it--reported on harassment of some
opposition candidates and that government officials took action
to address those complaints.
Is that all true or is it just something that was in the
local papers? Because you did point out in the next paragraph,
since the election Rwandan authorities have targeted--what a
word, targeted--several political opposition figures for
questioning or arrest.
So those who weren't happy with the results couldn't
participate the way they ought to have been able to and now get
further retaliation after the election. I don't see why that is
progress.
Mr. Yamamoto. Thank you, Mr.--thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So our relationship with Rwanda is one of a mixed
relationship on the issue of democratic concerns and human
rights issues.
But if we look at one issue--area is if the elections were
completely free, open, fair, and transparent in a U.S. context
would President Kagame win that election and the answer is he
has----
Mr. Smith. I don't think that is the question to ask. I
think it should be whether or not the process was free, fair,
and transparent and then let the people decide.
Mr. Yamamoto. Right. So after the Presidential elections we
had made a statement saying that we noted irregularities in the
process and that is an issue that we had raised with the
government and also looked at ways in which we could work with
the Government of Rwanda to improve the process in the
elections.
Let me also state that one positive point for the electoral
process since 2010 is that we did have the registration of the
Democratic Green Party and also the first debate--political
debate for the presidency.
Mr. Smith. But his numbers, obviously--President Kagame's--
have gone up to the point where they are almost 100 percent so
any sense that things are trending toward more openness,
transparency, would you be able to say here and now that it was
a free and fair election? Yes or no?
Mr. Yamamoto. And the answer is more complex and the issue
is that in our statement that we had stated that we had
concerns with the process of the elections because of the
irregularities that we noted and----
Mr. Smith. Like, what were the irregularities?
Mr. Yamamoto. The irregularities concerned the process and
procedures and the issue of having 98.9 percent of the vote,
that in itself denotes or relates to information of
irregularities.
Mr. Smith. And candidates were excluded from participation
in an arbitrary and capricious manner? Yes?
Mr. Yamamoto. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Why can't we just simply say it wasn't free, it
wasn't fair, wasn't transparent?
Mr. Yamamoto. That the--because on the overall issues that
we noted the irregularities and we noticed good points and bad
points, and so there is a process.
And what we hope to achieve in our overall relationship
with Rwanda is that this is a reliable partnership and that we
want to move it in a forward posture and that is what----
Mr. Smith. I agree on behalf of the people we should do
everything we can health wise, and everything to be of
assistance, even with dictatorships.
But I don't think we should look askance and not call it
for what it is. If it is a sham election we ought to call it a
sham election. You can't say that?
Mr. Yamamoto. And we agree with you. We agree with you 100
percent.
Mr. Smith. That it is a sham election or----
Mr. Yamamoto. That we look at elections and judge it by the
standards of a free, fair, transparent election process and
when there are irregularities we will call it out and that is
what we did in August.
Mr. Smith. But at the end of the day, a judgment has to be
made based on the evidence. But you cannot or will not make the
decision that it was not free, not fair, and not transparent.
Mr. Yamamoto. It was not a transparent process. I mean, it
was not a--irregularities in the process of the election.
Mr. Smith. At the end of the day, was it free and fair? No?
Yes?
Mr. Yamamoto. Again, Mr. Chairman, it becomes a very
complex process.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I am not sure why you can't make a
judgment. It is disappointing.
Human Rights Watch has documented that poor people--critics
of government decisions regarding land disputes and suspected
petty criminals have been arbitrarily arrested, held in illegal
detention centers, and in some cases executed, forcefully
disappeared, tortured, and mistreated. These tactics ensure
that citizens are afraid to speak out against the government,''
and they go through what you would call one irregularity after
another. Again, I don't know why the judgment can't be made
that this was not a free and fair election.
Amnesty International points out in their comments quite
extensively that the Rwandan Government continues to suppress
the independence and freedom of the media. Numerous journalists
have been imprisoned, harassed, and even killed while many more
have fled into exile over the years. Then they give specific
examples on that.
These actions mirror previous media crackdowns. Is there a
media crackdown? Was there before the election, during the
election, and after the election?
Mr. Yamamoto. Let me go to your first question, Mr.
Chairman.
So first is on the voting and the vote count irregularities
that we observed on the August 4th Presidential elections. We
are not able--we are unable to assess this election as free and
fair so that is our original statement.
We have communicated our observations and assessment to the
Rwandan Government. On the issues of human rights abuse during
the procedures and process of the elections before, during, and
after, we are concerned with any reports of human rights.
We have started, through our Ambassador, through our
Embassy, engaging with the government at all levels on these
issues and we express our concerns.
Mr. Smith. And, again, if I could, with all due respect,
Mr. Ambassador, we have had human rights dialogues in places
like Vietnam for years.
They have been a cul-de-sac where people meet, nothing
happens--a venting of disagreements--and then they are used as
an excuse for not calling out Vietnam for its egregious abuses
whether it be as a CPC country or as a violator with regards to
trafficking.
The dialogues are important but they can't be a substitute
for calling it the way it is in a forum like this or anywhere
else, particularly after the election.
Ninety-nine percent. One party is given the green light,
which was destined to lose massively. I don't see that as
progress when so many others were disqualified.
So I would take issue with your assessment of some
progress. I think, if anything, it is regression, given his
even better outcome that he had in the polls.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch documented
just how brutal this was.
As a matter of fact, Amnesty International said in their
testimony during the 23 years that the Rwandan Patriotic Front
has ruled the country there has been an unwavering often brutal
campaign against government critics and human rights defenders.
This campaign has included a tax on political opposition
members including arrest, detention, disappearance and
killings, restrictions on the media, and activities of civil
society and the creation of a climate of fear.
And now, as you have testified, since the election Rwanda
authorities have targeted several political opposition figures
for questioning or arrest. I mean, he's not even satisfied that
he got his outcome. Now he has to go after them and crush them
now.
Mr. Yamamoto. You know, as I said, Mr. Chairman, that the
relationship is complex but it is also a mixed record and I
know your position and we respect it and do emphasize that we,
as the government, are committed to looking at the concerns
that you have raised today and that we have raised them as well
directly with the government, and we continue to raise them and
to work with them to improve those areas where we believe that
we can make a difference.
And in some areas the Rwandan Government has made dramatic
increases from child labor issues to allowing opposition
parties to debates to accepting recommendations from the peer
group under the U.N. operations and to look at. So we note that
there is progress but there are, obviously, areas that we still
need to work on and we are doing that.
Mr. Smith. Let me ask you one final question. Major Robert
Higiro, obviously, testified before. He is here today, and he
was not believed at first by the State Department and I know
you have to do your due diligence and I deeply respect that. My
understanding is that you came to the conclusion that he had a
credible case when he came forward and said that he was offered
money--$1 million--to assassinate a general and a colonel who
had fled Rwanda to South Africa.
In his testimony today, he thanks America profusely. He had
a death threat against him when he was living in Belgium and
now has come to the United States.
He points out in his testimony that members of the
opposition parties and the media continue to disappear. Present
tense--not past tense, present tense.
How do you assess his revelations and this idea that
members of the opposition parties and media continue to
disappear?
Mr. Yamamoto. You know, our position remains very clear. We
have received the book from Mr. Higiro and I will diligently
read that in detail.
But, again, we remain concerned by the history of Rwanda's
treatment of opposition people and the issues that were raised
by Mr. Higiro and others, those are issues and concerns that we
will pursue and follow and follow up on.
And, again, on the other side, for the Rwandan side, is we
continue to help Rwanda build strong democratic institutions
and those--that is really fundamentally the bottom line is to
build those institutions which can address those concerns that
we have raised and continue to raise and those are issues that
we share with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. But, again, on those institutions, you're
talking about an electoral process that is egregiously flawed,
where is the success in building that institution? It just
facilitates a 99 percent vote.
Mr. Yamamoto. We have faith and confidence that through
these--through our efforts that we will be able to work with
this government and also others because we do see positive
developments and through, I think----
Mr. Smith. Do you see a change of attitude on the part of
President Kagame?
Mr. Yamamoto. I think that in certain areas we have seen
improvement. In other areas, we see----
Mr. Smith. He will be there until 2034, right?
Mr. Yamamoto. Under the changes in the constitution if he
gets elected two more times, sure.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Mr. Ambassador, what role, if any, should the U.S. play in
supporting Rwanda's stability and efforts to improve the
quality of lives of Rwandan citizens and what role should
Congress play?
Mr. Yamamoto. First of all, we extend our deep appreciation
to you, Madam Congresswoman, and to you, Mr. Chairman, for all
the efforts and issues you have raised to highlight the
concerns that you have on Africa but also on a wide range of
issues.
So the stability of not just Rwanda but of the region and
the states is critical not only to the security of that area
but also stability and concern for the entire continent, and
also it goes into our national strategic interest.
So let me say to your question is what is it that we would
like to achieve? We would like to see a stable democratic
country which respects the rights of the citizens, respects the
rights and freedoms of a free press and that it helps with the
education opportunities and opportunities in general of its
people.
Ms. Bass. So what are we doing in that regard, especially
in regard to democracy and governance?
Mr. Yamamoto. To that end, we have several USAID programs.
I think our development and assistance and assistance overall
is about $159 million a year.
On the one hand, on security side, the Rwandans have
remained extremely supportive and a very good partner in
peacekeeping operations and troops.
On the side of health care, you cited, Madam Congresswoman,
of the tremendous changes that they have made through health
care, through HIV/AIDS progress.
Ms. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Yamamoto And also on women playing a constructive role
in society, and also girls education and women entrepreneurs.
Those are areas that are positive and really stand as symbol
for other countries as well.
Ms. Bass. So in terms of our democracy and governance?
Mr. Yamamoto. And our democracy and governance is to create
strong institutions and, again----
Ms. Bass. We have specific programs. I worry about this
specific area because I know in the proposed cuts, if I am not
mistaken, this takes a major hit.
Mr. Yamamoto. And that does. Rwanda's democratic
institutions are still developing. We believe that and we need
to focus more on creating those strong institutions which can
carry between this President and to the next President and also
for successive leaderships.
That is what we want to achieve and I think those are the
objectives and goals that we are committed to along with our
NGO partners and also our discussions with the Government of
Rwanda.
Ms. Bass. So to what extent is Rwanda's continued
development progress contingent on continued donor aid or how
much is independent?
Mr. Yamamoto. In other words, to tie assistance to
benchmarks for development and--so on health care you can't
set--the benchmark is progress and that progress is clear and
evident----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Yamamoto [continuing]. From livelihood and length of
life expectancy and health care and HIV/AIDS. When you talk
about development and human rights and democratic values, we
have laws in place from our AGOA trading investments.
There is an aspect on democracy and human rights. As you
know, we have written letters of warning to the government on
human rights issues.
On the other issue is we have the Child Soldier Protection
Act (CSPA) law and then the other law that the Congress has
passed on the 2017 Appropriations Act.
So those are areas that we look at and say that these are
areas that we can hold the Government of Rwanda accountable.
So, for instance, we had suspended FMF--foreign military
financing. We had suspended IMET--military education. And,
really, this is----
Ms. Bass. What about direct military assistance?
Mr. Yamamoto. And direct military. We had not----
Ms. Bass. We suspended it. We suspended education and we
suspended----
Mr. Yamamoto. The FMF. Right. But in this past year we have
not renewed FMF but we have renewed--we have continued with
IMET because really in that----
Ms. Bass. What did you say IMET was again?
Mr. Yamamoto. International Military Education Training
program.
Ms. Bass. Uh-huh.
Mr. Yamamoto. So the IMET program really is, in many ways,
our--it is in our national interest as well because by taking
Rwandan troops and officers to the United States----
Ms. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Yamamoto [continuing]. To give them an education on
human rights, that makes them a better officer.
Ms. Bass. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass.
Just one final question. The State Department has long
declined to accept the various U.N. reports of Rwandan
involvement in the smuggling of resources from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo or its support for militia inside the
country. What is the view of the department today? There are
two reports on that.
Mr. Yamamoto. So we--so we continue monitoring the conflict
minerals in the Congo, which countries and operations are
developing, from foreign countries to regional states, et
cetera, and Rwanda has been in--in that area have been very
supportive, passing laws to monitor the conflict minerals and
we have been working with the Rwandan Government to reinforce
those laws and also to criminalize any individuals who has
engaged in illegal or illicit trading.
Mr. Smith. And, again, getting back, briefly, to Robert
Higiro, does the State Department believe him to be credible?
Mr. Yamamoto. I respect Mr. Higiro very much. I think the
position he held as an advisor to President Kagame and the
words that he presents in his testimony as the next witness I
stand ready to listen to what he is going to present and the
concerns of human rights, et cetera, we will continue to look
into those issues.
Mr. Smith. Now, this is Major Robert Higiro, who, again,
was offered $1 million to kill. So you believe he's credible?
Mr. Yamamoto. I respect him as an individual who has had a
senior position in the government and his issues of human
rights abuse or other concerns is an issue that we will look
into and we will work with him.
Mr. Smith. Because David Himbara was very high up with the
government but it is the major who was offered this incentive
to murder people. So you believe they are both credible?
Mr. Yamamoto. So let me--we will stand and listen to his
testimony today and we will have other--further conversations
later with him.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador.
Mr. Yamamoto. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and Madam
Congresswoman----
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Yamamoto [continuing]. Not only for having this hearing
but also for your concern, and we remain committed to working
with you because I think we share a very commonality in what we
want to achieve.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Ambassador.
I'd like to now invite to the witness table, first
beginning with David Himbara, who is coordinator for Canada at
Democracy in Rwanda Now.
As a former close aide to President Paul Kagame, Mr.
Himbara held a leading role focused on socioeconomic
development in Rwanda. Tasked with improving national
competitiveness, he spearheaded efforts that ultimately
improved Rwanda's ranking in the World Bank's annual Doing
Business Report. He's an author and his latest book is
``Kagame's Killing Fields.''
Next, we will hear from Robert Higiro, who is coordinator
for the United States at Democracy in Rwanda Now. Prior to
moving to the United States, he served as a major in the
Rwandan Defense Force.
He was part of the force that took control of Kigali in
1994 that toppled the then-Hutu government and helped bring an
end to the genocide in Rwanda.
After his decommission, he was tasked by the Rwandan
Government with assassinating officials and dissidents that
fell out of favor with the Kagame regime. Instead of following
those orders, Major Higiro went to the press and unveiled the
plot at great risk to himself. It led to his being insecure in
Belgium and the need for him to move to the United States for
his own personal security.
We will then hear from Mr. Mike Jobbins, who serves as the
Africa Program's manager for Search for Common Ground. He
previously worked in Search for Common Ground field programs in
the DRC in Burundi where he supported the startup and
management projects on SGBV prevention, refugee reintegration,
security sector reform, and post-war governance.
Mr. Jobbins has led field missions in humanitarian and
emergency settings in North Katanga, North Kivu, Equateur
provinces of the DRC. He also testified previously before this
subcommittee.
And then we will hear from Adotei Akwei, who serves in the
government relations office for Amnesty International. Mr.
Adotei is a political analyst and experienced advocate and
campaigner, a U.S. foreign security policy advisor as well as
an advocate for rights-based approach to ending poverty with
field experience in Africa as well as in Asia.
He is also a regular spokesman for Amnesty International
USA, for print, radio, and television in the United States,
Europe, and Africa and he, too, is welcome back to our
committee.
Mr. David Himbara, if you would begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID HIMBARA, COORDINATOR FOR CANADA,
DEMOCRACY IN RWANDA NOW
Mr. Himbara. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Karen Bass,
ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much indeed for giving
me--giving me the opportunity to talk about democracy and human
rights in Rwanda.
I would like to talk about three things. First, I want to
give the context of the recent elections. Then number two, I
want to talk about the elections themselves, and then number
three, I wish to talk about post-elections.
The context of the elections in Rwanda was the
constitutional amendment made in 2015. The constitutional
amendment did two things. One, it removed a very, very
important part of the previous constitution which said that, I
quote, ``under no circumstances should President of Rwanda
serve more than two 7-year terms.'' Why was this in the
original constitution?
It was in the original constitution because, historically,
since independence, each leader in Rwanda has come through
violence and then was removed by violence, and each of those
Presidents--and the main ones have been three--in their terms
each one managed to win elections by 98 percent. So this is not
just a Kagame issue. All of them.
And, of course, as I said, they became a power unto
themselves and we have not had any peaceful transfer of power
in Rwanda.
So that was the importance of that clause that under no
circumstances. This is what was removed by the amendment so now
President Kagame can stay in power until 2034.
Now, there was something even worse than that. There is
something even worse than that in the amendment. In the new
constitution they inserted what we call Article 114 and it is
called exemption from prosecution for a former head of state.
The article reads, ``A former President of the republic
cannot be prosecuted for treason or serious and deliberate
violation of the constitution when no legal proceedings in
respect of that offense were brought against him while in
office.''
Well, of course, it cannot be brought against him while
he's in office because he has immunity. So Kagame has immunized
himself even after he leaves power.
This article basically gives him license to commit any
crimes without any consequences. How do we explain this? By the
way, incidentally, I must say with a bit of sick humor these
amendments are being made by the women majority of Parliament.
These are women in the majority of Parliament at work.
So the numbers of women is great but the quality of work
they do is rubber stamping the worst possible. Okay.
So why is he doing this? We already know that even to come
here in the United States Kagame had to be given immunity.
The Obama administration asserted immunity for him because
there are already cases about the alleged role in the shooting
down of the previous President. This is the background behind
this.
But we also know that currently in the International Court
of Justice there is a quote by Congo that accuses Kagame the
crime of killing 3.5 million people. Rwanda and Uganda were
both taken to this court.
Uganda pleaded its case and lost and is paying reparations.
Rwanda denied jurisdiction of the court.
So this case won't disappear. It is sitting in there
somewhere. So that is the context. That is the context.
Then the elections themselves--I don't have to say much
because a lot was covered--99 percent out of 96 voter turnout.
This begins now to take us closer to the situation of North
Korea. But, incidentally, this clause that frees Kagame from
any prosecution, I have looked at the worst dictatorships. I
have not found any such protection.
Now, the elections themselves--I want to quote the British
Ambassador. The British Ambassador was among the observers of
the elections so I quote him.
He says that, ``Along with other international observers, I
personally saw irregularities with the counting of ballots and
voter tabulation.''
And then he concludes, ``We are concerned by the arrests
and it is concerning to see the targeting of opposition
figures.'' This is the British Ambassador in Rwanda.
So I really don't have much to say but now let me talk
about post-elections. Post-election is now revenge. It is a
period of revenge. It is a revenge big time, and revenge has a
single in particular--Diane Shima Rwigara.
Why her? Why her? There are a number of reasons why her.
First of all, she is the one who dared to raise issues of
democracy, issues of human rights, issues of moral corruption,
and by moral corruption she was saying that even in this
economic miracle people talk about the ruling party itself has
accumulated so much wealth that its conglomerate, Crystal
Ventures, is now worth $500 million while the same government
punishes and destroys other businesses.
Rwigara's own father was killed 2 years ago in a serious
accident. When the family protested, the government moved on
and demolished their hotel.
A month ago, another hotel, a competitor to the ruling
party--Tower Hotel--was demolished in broad daylight. Just 2
days ago, the leading Rwandan businessman, Tribert Rujugiro
Ayabatwa, his $20 million Union Trade Center was seized and
auctioned for $8 million.
So I guess I am running out of time. I see some signals
there.
So in conclusion, what we have here is a very costly
experiment. Even those people who talk about the good things--
the women in parliament--by the way, those women are--no one
has voted. That Parliament is a list compiled by the ruling
party--the senators, half of them appointed.
Don't confuse the senators in Rwanda with the senators in
United States or Congress people. No. These are lists--party
lists. Those who are not elected by the President, they are
elected by people he has appointed in other institutions.
Business success, absolutely not. Yes, if we talk about the
President traveling in a $60 million plane rented from his own
business at the taxpayers' cost, if that is success--I don't
think so.
So what should the United States be doing? I think the
United States, in my view, has overcompensated. During the
Clinton years during genocide, the government stood by while
terrible crimes were committed.
Then comes Kagame. So now we have gone overboard. He can do
no wrong. I think that it is time that we take a closer look.
We are not asking by any means to say stop health support or
stop education. No. But the same military that you are
supporting is the same military that is killing its own people.
So what is good with a military that is doing great in the
full when it is mowing down people in Rwanda and Congo? There
is a problem there.
I will simply say this. But first of all, I conclude by
thanking you very much for having this hearing but also let me
thank the Congress because I believe that in the budget law of
2017 there is a clause in there that says that for any
government in the Great Lakes region to receive military
support the State Department must verify if this government--if
any government is causing havoc--they are not using those
words--is causing havoc in the neighborhood.
So I think you ought to hold your State Department
accountable to see if they are doing this because we know for
sure that causing havoc in Burundi or in Congo has not stopped,
which I am sure my colleague here will say more about.
I thank you so much for giving me a few minutes to talk.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Himbara follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Himbara, thank you so very much for your
testimony.
I would like to now recognize Robert Higiro.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR ROBERT HIGIRO, RWANDA DEFENSE FORCE,
RETIRED, COORDINATOR FOR THE UNITED STATES, DEMOCRACY IN RWANDA
NOW
Major Higiro. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, members
of the subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
I thank you for giving me the opportunity to give testimony
on democracy and human rights in Rwanda. I wish to give
evidence. My purpose today is to give evidence to the fact that
democracy in Rwanda is impossible because of the environment
that exists in the country right now. The commander-in-chief of
the Rwandan security forces are part of the problem. Their
purpose is not to provide security, but, rather to kill
Rwandans and cause chaos in the region.
Let me begin with President Kagame himself. He is on the
record after the 2016 State Department report when they are
concerned by disappearances saying, those who talk about
disappearances are wasting time. As he puts it, ``We will shoot
them, if possible, in broad daylight.'' That is the President
saying it; I am just quoting him. It is not my words; it is his
words. We have seen the follow-up of his senior commanders,
brigade commanders, division commanders, echoing the same tone,
especially in the western region.
In the 2016 State Department's Human Rights Report, it
gives the most recent relatives in Rwanda. An increasing number
of people have disappeared or have been reported missing since
May 2015. That is since our previous hearing. Many of the cases
occurred in Rubavu district in the Western Province. According
to Human Rights Watch reports, most of these people were
detained by Rwanda Defence Forces, and we believe that they are
in military custody. Witnesses saw some of the local
authorities participating in this activity. One was the
executive Secretary in Rubavu district by the name of Mugisha.
He was seen taking part in those who were forcibly being
kidnapped together with security agents. Imam Mohamed
Mugemangango was shot and killed while in custody. At least
half a dozen of people have been murdered by the security
forces while in prison.
Extrajudicial killings recently increased as the security
forces cleared the capital of Kigali and major towns of poor
people, unemployed, and the homeless. Authorities are rounding
up poor people and arbitrarily detaining them in transit
centers. They have transit centers across the country. In its
2017 report, Human Rights Watch proved chilling details of
extrajudicial killing of 37 Rwandans suspected of petty
offenses such as stealing bananas or a car or a motorcycle in
the Western Province. That was between July 2016 and 2017.
Soldiers have continued to arrest and shoot most of the victims
in what appears to be an officially-sanctioned strategy by the
government.
The claims by the state against Rwandans never stop, and
this includes dissidents, those inside the country, and they go
as far as Europe. That is why I am here. I try to travel as far
as possible; they still come for you. We will get a chance to
elaborate on that.
Rwanda's destabilization of neighboring countries has also
not stopped, particularly in the Democratic Republic of Congo
and Burundi. In 2013 in DRC, Rwanda disarmed over 770 M23
Congolese rebel combatants it had previously sponsored to take
over the eastern part of the DRC. After the defeat of M23, over
770 crossed into Rwanda, the same number, and were detained in
Ngoma. According to the 2016 State Department report, the same
number mysteriously vanished. There can be no doubt about their
role; they are Rwanda's proxy army used to destabilize the
neighbors.
In the case of Burundi, Rwanda stands accused of recruiting
Burundian refugees into the armed groups who seek to overthrow
the government of President Pierre Nkurunziza. In its report,
``Asylum Betrayed: Recruitment of Burundian Refugees in
Rwanda,'' the Refugees International rebuked Rwanda in the
following terms: ``The Rwandan Government must act at once to
ensure the civilian and humanitarian character of asylum and
protected refugees from recruitment by non-state armed actors.
To that end, it must ensure that all efforts to recruit
Burundian refugees into armed groups--whether on or emanating
from Rwandan territory, and whether committed by Burundian or
Rwandan nationals--cease immediately.'' That was Refugees
International. ``Rwanda must also affirm publicly that the
recruitment of refugees into non-state armed groups on its
territory is a violation of international and Rwandan law.''
Mr. Chairman, I can't repeat what has been said, whether it
is on the peace prospect or the corruption. That is why I want
to conclude by thanking you once again for conducting this
congressional hearing on Rwanda. We trust that the United
States, being the main donor to Rwanda, will make its support
conditional to ending terror on its own people and the region.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Major Higiro follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Major Higiro, thank you very much for your
testimony and for your insights.
I would like to now recognize Mr. Jobbins.
STATEMENT OF MR. MIKE JOBBINS, MANAGER, AFRICA PROGRAMS, SEARCH
FOR COMMON GROUND
Mr. Jobbins. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Bass, and guests, it is an honor to join you today, and I thank
you for the work and to shine a candle to the crises facing
Africa and its Great Lakes region. I have been before you
before on Burundi and CAR and greatly appreciate you
maintaining the attention there.
My name is Mike Jobbins, and for the last 9 years I have
worked with Search for Common Ground throughout Africa and
around the world. Search is a conflict transformation
organization and we work to support peace, reconciliation, and
inclusive governance here in America and in 44 countries around
the world.
The testimony that follows is informed by my experience
with Search, but the opinions are my own, and I ask that the
written testimony be entered into the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Jobbins. Search was founded on the philosophy that
conflict is an inevitable part of human societies, and our aim
is to promote the positive aspects of conflict through
dialogue, inclusive decision-making, and creative thinking,
while preventing the negative aspects, including violence,
oppression, and humanitarian suffering.
We prioritized the Great Lakes beginning in 1995, opening
our first office in Bujumbura, as the region was wracked by one
of the worst periods of destructive conflict that the recent
history has seen, and made a long-term commitment, expanding to
Rwanda in 2006, with the aim of supporting inclusive decision-
making and reconciliation efforts following the tragic
genocide.
Over the past decade, Search worked with Rwanda media,
government, civil society, and local communities to support
reconciliation; address land disputes; build a capacity of
civil society and government institutions, with a particular
focus on youth and women in rural areas. And in preparing
today, I was asked to speak specifically to our work in Rwanda
focused on economic and social rights, particularly around land
as well as on supporting reconciliation and post-conflict
governance on the ground that affect ordinary Rwandans in the
country. And so, my testimony will focus primarily on those
topics.
To set the scene, Rwanda is the most densely populated
country in Africa, as has been noted. To bring that home, it is
slightly smaller than the state of Maryland with twice as many
people, nearly all of whom are dependent on subsistence
agriculture, and the population is growing quickly. When I
started first working with Rwanda 10 years ago, there were 9
million Rwandans. Today there are 12 million. And that is 33
percent grown in just 10 years.
So, it is growing quickly and the underlying math is very
clear. Rwandans needed, and still need, rapid economic
diversification and growth as well a system to effectively
manage land disputes and competition and the stresses that
rural populations were feeling as population grows and
resources became depleted.
And yet, despite the structural challenges in a dense,
landlocked, and post-conflict country, Rwanda experienced a
dramatic economic transformation. In the last 15 years,
according to the World Bank numbers, the economy has quintupled
with the GDP growing from $1.3 billion to $8.3 billion a year,
and a lot of that has been driven by a transition away from a
subsistence economy and commodity exports and toward greater
value-added services, cognizant and relevant to sort of the
stresses on rural agriculture.
Economic growth has been facilitated, as Congresswoman Bass
highlighted, by a regulatory environment that supports business
and entrepreneurship in line with the government's Vision 2020.
At the same time, in the context of scarcity, disputes over the
allocation, access, and ownership of land remain the most
common cause of conflict for ordinary Rwandans. The government
has tried to address this issue by adopting policies and
putting in place local conflict mediators known as Abunzi.
These mediators are put on the frontlines of solving serious
disputes among stressed rural populations faced with large
caseloads, varying degrees of training, and confronted with
serious social obstacles, particularly around gender. While
women are legally entitled to inherit property and, as noted,
there has been a great emphasis on women's political
participation, the right isn't always necessarily recognized or
respected in practice, due to traditional norms and struggles
that ordinary rural women have to access justice.
And so, to support alternative dispute resolution, Search
partnered with the Ministry of Justice to support 4,000 Abunzi
mediators, including female Abunzi, to support and train
community resource people who could serve as advocates for the
socioeconomic rights of marginalized groups and particularly
for women, and to produce radio programming to ensure that
rural residents understand land laws and policies and have the
opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns, and finally,
to build problem-solving skills, so that communities and
families can address land conflicts themselves without
referring to overstretching the justice system.
At the same time, it is clear that, given demographic
pressure, agriculture in its current form will not sustain
Rwanda's growing population. There has been an important focus
from the government and from its international partners on
developing alternative livelihoods and trying to ensure equal
access to opportunities, particularly for rural youth and women
to benefit from the economic transformation. But, as in all
societies undergoing rapid high-technology economic change, the
poorest and least educated struggle to take advantage of the
new opportunities in the service-oriented, globalized, and
educationally-intensive economy.
Impediments faced by Rwandans include a lack of information
and access to opportunities, a lack of capital and education to
seize those opportunities, and a lack of exposure to role
models and examples of entrepreneurship to roll those out and
take them to scale. And so, looking forward, alternative
livelihoods are critical and the kinds of partnerships of the
kind we have been developing with the private sector and media
to help ensure that Rwandans from the lowest socioeconomic
brackets have information access to take advantage of the
opportunities available.
In terms of reconciliation and post-conflict governance,
Rwanda's recovery from the horrific genocide 23 years ago has
been held as a modern-day success story, both in reconciliation
and good governance. Some of the statistics have been thrown
out earlier. I would also add that Rwanda ranks 44th on
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, some
of the best scores of any African country.
And this has been achieved through a governance model that
focuses on and prioritizes professional, results-oriented, and
technocratic governance with strong central leadership in
policymaking and implementation. The strong coordinating role
that the central government plays across society has helped
stamp out petty corruption and drive a coherent policy vision
and agenda.
But Vision 2020 also establishes a vision for
decentralization and ownership, local ownership, of government
policy. Ordinary local officials face the difficult task in
balancing the emphasis on efficiency and results with the need
for the more cumbersome process of creating opportunities for
citizen inputs, engagement in explaining policies to ordinary
people. The best Rwandan administrators establish two-way
communications with their citizens to tell and shape policy
implementation, but in other circumstances citizens struggle to
find a window to feed into decision-making in an environment
where there is not a robust policy discussion.
Socially, Rwanda has made admirable progress in reconciling
citizens from different backgrounds who have to live together
in their communities, despite the atrocities of the past.
Hundreds of thousands of people have been punished for crimes
committed, and on a day-to-day level, many people are moving on
with their lives. At the same time, barely a generation has
passed, a short timeframe to overcome the horror that has been
experienced. And while the country has set aside ethnic
identity in favor of national unity, recovery naturally takes
time and there is an awful lot that remains to be done over the
generations to come.
Media and civil society are absolutely critical to creating
the space for dialog, both about the past and about the policy
issues to lay a bedrock for sustainable peace, participatory
government, and effective long-term governance. Since 2006, we
have built strong partnerships with local government and
independent radio outlets and focused on building alliances
based on shared interests. But it is imperative that there are
capable organizations to facilitate sensitive dialogs on air
and in person in an open environment, so to strengthen the
capacity of media and civil society to work with authorities,
and work with authorities themselves to engage the population
in a constructive and inclusive manner.
In view of these few observations--and I am happy to share
more--I want to make four recommendations, in conclusion, for
U.S. policy. First, sustaining U.S. diplomatic engagement in
Rwanda and the region is vital. I think there is unanimity from
everyone in the room on that point. Although there are many
competing demands for attention in the Great Lakes region
alone, and let alone across Africa, this region can't be
forgotten and it deserves a high-level focus within the region,
adequate staffing and resources, both within the regional
bureaus as well as within Embassies and USAID missions across
the region.
While it may seem remote to many Americans, the horrors of
genocide, civil war, and humanitarian crises that have been
unleashed, and are still being unleashed in many parts of
central Africa, have cost far too many lives, but also cost far
too many dollars in international assistance focused on short-
term palliation of chronic crises, rather than putting the
region and its people on a path to a greater recovery.
Second, there are some things that the U.S. Government and
the Congress should learn from the experience of conflict and
recovery in Rwanda. Many conflict countries and fragile
contacts have been beset by seesawing international attention
focused on immediate short-term recovery, but not sustaining a
holistic engagement to economic recovery, political
participation, or reconciliation that are needed to sustainably
transition from fragility. That is something that needs
administrative action, but also congressional action to
authorize and to support holistic approaches to conflict and
fragility in the Great Lakes Region and beyond.
We recognize and appreciate the leadership that the
Congress has shown on women, peace, and security, and salute
the bill that just passed earlier this week. We also recognize
the Eli Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act, which
has been introduced back in May and can really make good on the
U.S. commitment to Never Again.
Third, regional economic integration is critical, given the
context of population density across the region and the need
for radical economic transformation and a shared economic
transformation. It is very clear that regional cooperation,
which at the moment is quite beset between Rwanda, Burundi,
DRC, and beyond, requires better cooperation across borders,
but also people-to-people reconciliation to stabilize the wider
region.
Finally, it is absolutely critical that the U.S. Government
continue its support and accompaniment of Rwanda in overcoming
the legacy of genocide and in reconciling itself to the
horrific events of the past. Even though Rwanda has made much
progress in dealing with the aftermath of genocide and the
series of massacres that have marked its history, the horrific
past and the related trauma still affect other avenues to a
lasting peace and stability in Rwanda and in the region.
Atrocities of this history and their consequences should pave
the way to a much more open society where conflicts and
differences can be dealt with openly and through dialog. The
U.S. Congress should focus its engagement in working with the
Rwandan Government in supporting the Rwandan people to build a
brighter future and to achieve this goal together.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jobbins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Mr. Akwei?
STATEMENT OF MR. ADOTEI AKWEI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL UNITED STATES
Mr. Akwei. Thank you. I would like to thank you both for
this opportunity to speak before your committee and, also, to
acknowledge and thank your consistent engagement and leadership
on issues related to Africa, human rights, and U.S.-Africa
policy, which has been, and continues to be, essential and
greatly appreciated.
Amnesty International is a global human rights movement
established in 1961 with 7 million members and supporters. We
have a presence in 70 countries and have offices in Dakar,
Nairobi, Johannesburg, and Abuja. We have been working to
improve the respect and protection of human rights in Rwanda
since the early 1970s.
Amnesty does not take a position on the type of political
system a country may have. It is our belief that fundamental
human rights must be guaranteed and upheld by all political
systems. We do consider the rights associated with elections
such as freedom of expression, association, assembly, among
others, to be critical not only to the election itself, but
also to the overall health of open political space. The way
governments engage with critics and voices of dissent, how they
interact with civil society and treat human rights defenders
are critical indicators that go beyond a single election.
With your permission, I would like to ask that our written
testimony be submitted to the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Akwei. The August 4th elections granted incumbent Paul
Kagame his third term in office. This followed the referendum
in 2015 which changed the constitution, allowing President
Kagame to stand again in 2017 and for two further terms, should
he desire to do so. In 2010, President Kagame won 93 percent of
the vote; in 2017, he won 99 percent.
During the 23 years the Rwandan Patriotic Front has ruled
the country there has been an unwavering and often brutal
campaign against government critics and human rights defenders.
This campaign has included a tax on political opposition
members, including arrest, detention, disappearances and
killings; restrictions on the media and the activities of civil
society organizations, and the creation of a climate of fear.
These concerns have been echoed by other human rights groups
and the United States Department of State, which noted in its
2016 report: Government harassment, arrests, and abuse of
political opponents, human rights advocates, individuals
perceived to be a threat to government control and social
order, restrictions on the media and the civil liberties. The
attacks and the campaign have included, as mentioned above,
attacks on the political opposition and, of course, the
restrictions on the media and civil society.
In 2010, Amnesty reported that the authorities tightly
controlled political space in advance of the 2010 elections.
Freedom of expression was unduly restricted by broad laws on
genocide ideology. Human rights defenders continued to exercise
self-censorship to avoid confrontation with the authorities,
and conventional courts still fell short of fair trial
standards.
In 2011, we reported that authorities restricted freedom of
expression and association. Media outlets that criticized the
government were closed down, editors fled, human rights
defenders faced intimidation, investigations into killings were
inadequate.
In 2012, Amnesty reported that the Rwandan Government
increasingly prosecuted individuals for criticizing government
policies and that there was a rise in unlawful detentions.
Violations included restrictions that were imposed on freedom
of expression arrests, unfair convictions of opposition
politicians and of journalists.
In 2013, Amnesty reported that the government still
continued to stifle legitimate freedom of expression and
associations; that the illegal detention and allegations of
torture by Rwandan military intelligence were not investigated.
This was the same year that the Rwandan Government was also
found by the U.N. group of experts to have provided military
support to the M23 armed group in the neighboring Democratic
Republic of the Congo, which was linked to rape, extrajudicial
execution, and the use of child soldiers.
The government's crackdown and restrictions on expression,
assembly, association, repression of journalists, human rights
defenders, and member of the opposition parties who openly
criticized the ruling government, use of unfair trials, and
unlawful detentions were raised in our reports of 2014, 2015,
and 2016. In 2017, we reported on the severe restrictions that
we thought were going to color and shape the run-up to the
elections. This was the result of over many years of the same
types of actions.
It is time for the international community to press the
Rwandan Government to change. Some have argued that Rwanda is
still emerging from the 1994 genocide. Others have argued that,
because Rwanda is doing well economically, the current
administration should be given more latitude. These arguments
must be rejected as they will subvert the common obligation to
stand for rights accepted to be universal and that countries
have committed themselves to, including Rwanda.
Amnesty International has called upon the Government of
Rwanda to embark upon a longer-term reform process, to open up
political space before the 2024 elections and, as you
mentioned, before the 2018 parliamentary elections, and
strengthen basic protections of rights beyond those.
The concerns I have outlined impact more than the next
election, and addressing them will require more than a
temporary easing of some laws, the release of a few people, or
even the permission to register a political party or NGO. The
assault on defenders and political space is quickening, and
Rwanda is becoming a role model for the wrong things as opposed
to the right things. It is not good for Africa. It is not good
for the United States or for the global community, as history
is littered with many examples of countries where political
intolerance has led to political conflicts, and that has been
extremely damaging. The global community failed Rwanda once
before. It should not do so again.
Specifically, we would like to suggest that Congress and
the Trump administration call on President Kagame and the
Government of Rwanda to prevent and ease restrictions on or the
harassment of members of the political opposition, their
supporters, on journalists, and human rights defenders, and
establish an independent judicial investigative mechanism into
serious violations of freedom of expression, assembly, and
association. We have named a number of specific individuals who
have disappeared that should be investigated.
Congress and the administration should also urge the Rwanda
Government to decriminalize defamation offenses and the review
of the Rwanda penal code. We would also urge the United States
to call on the Rwandan Government to reform the law on public
assemblies and to remove the requirement for prior
authorization for public assemblies and, instead, a regime of
prior notification.
We would also urge Congress to maintain and increase
funding for programs focused on building respect for human
rights, the rule of law, and independence of the judiciary. I
would like to echo my colleague from Search who raised the
issue of building the capacity of civil society and the media.
These are critical institutions and have to play their role in
establishing, along with the Rwandan Government, good
governance, human rights, and respect for the rule of law.
I will stop there. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Akwei follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Akwei. And thank you, all of you,
for your tremendous input today. I do have a few questions I
would like to ask.
One, I am concerned--and I have deep respect for Ambassador
Yamamoto--that we seem to be overvaluing, the State Department,
the U.S. Government, some facts like the participation of the
Democratic Green Party, which got approximately 1 percent of
the vote. Others who wanted to participate were precluded that
opportunity, and then, as he said, the holding to account of
the harassment of opposition candidates that was reported in
the Rwandan media. Whether or not that is true, I still don't
know. Was it a report, a false report, a sensational report
that, oh, we are holding officials to account? That is not
clear.
But, even in his own testimony, he goes on to say, as I
quoted earlier, ``Since the election, Rwandan authorities have
targeted several political opposition figures for questioning
and arrest.'' And then, he goes on and, accurately, quotes from
the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, pointing out
arbitrary or unlawful killings by security forces, disregard
for the rule of law, restrictions on civil society
organizations, government interference with the press, which
Mr. Akwei again and others have already made in their
testimonies in terms of the crackdown on journalists. It is
hard to call that some progress, frankly, when it seems to be
going in the precisely opposite direction, where the percentage
of the vote claimed by the President goes even higher than the
previous one, and he is in for life based on the constitutional
changes.
Your thoughts on that? Because I think we sometimes turn
the page far too quickly, if it should be turned at all, and we
are willing to look at one little seemingly bright, shiny
object that we can, then, cling to, and it is a surface appeal
argument. It has surface appeal that the Green Party
participated, but what about all the others? It is a talking
point that a lobbyist might want to push forward to a less-
than-critical set of eyes and ears. So, I am concerned about
that. Your thoughts on that, overvaluing this what I think is
regression, not progress, by the Kagame regime?
Secondly, as you pointed out, Mr. Himbara--and I should
have asked the Ambassador; I will by way of a written
question--when you pointed out and brought further attention to
Article 114, which gives immunity, which often means impunity.
Because if you are not going to be held accountable ever for
anything you do in office, including rape, having your soldiers
rape and kill and extrajudicial killings, and the like, you are
above the law completely for life. That needs to be much more
further emphasized in our bilateral relations and, hopefully,
in a multilateral way with Rwandans. If any of you would like
to comment on that?
And I thought your point, Mr. Akwei--and I quoted it
earlier, but it bears repeating--when you say, and you have so
brilliantly, reported on severe restrictions on human rights
defenders and the media, and the like, and you have done it
painstakingly. You also point out that the international
community, including the Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama
administrations, has been, at best, halfhearted in confronting
President Kagame and pressing the Rwandan Government to reform
its policy regarding human rights and political space. Those
kinds of omissions on the part of bipartisan administrations is
unconscionable because at the end of the day people get killed,
women get raped and abused, people go to prison, journalists
get harassed, and the people don't get the truth because it has
a chilling effect on what they write.
So, if you could speak to that as well? Because now we have
a new administration. It doesn't have all of its people in
place yet. But we need to say clearly and unmistakably to the
new White House: Don't repeat the bipartisan error of the past,
because we will get the same outcome. We will get more
impunity. So, whoever would like to go first? Yes?
Mr. Himbara. Mr. Chairman, very often we talk about a
smoking gun. I think Article 114 is a smoking gun. Article 14,
as you said, it is an opportunity. I wrote, in preparation for
this hearing, I wrote--or I read as many constitutions as I
could find anywhere, including even the constitution of the
Democratic Republic of North Korea. I could not find a
constitution that gives a green light to a head of state, not
only to commit crimes while in office, but also after he has
left office. So, I would assume that he is probably thinking
that, after he leaves office, he will probably put in a puppet
that would refuse to enforce international laws and say,
``Look, you can't touch him here. He's here.''
Because, as I said, there are cases here already in the
U.S. And in the U.S., this is a country where even a sitting
President can face law. So, really, the United States or even
the United Kingdom, this is a country that--Rwanda is a member
of the Commonwealth. How does the Commonwealth allow a country
that gives a green light to criminality on the part of the head
of state and get out of it?
So, here I would say that we should begin right there. We
can plan for the removal, because either you want to be
President and lead and build the economy and do these wonderful
things, empower women--that is great. But, if you make a
mistake, you cannot be above the law.
Thank you.
Major Higiro. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Normally, I like to go into the details of, if what Mr.
Jobbins just said, if what the State Department just said is
true, whether it is government building institutions in
Rwanda--so, what is the problem? Why is it that things are not
working?
I asked him before he started that, if Rwanda can really
develop so quick like they are saying--it is a landlocked
country, we have neighbors--how do they do it? How do it that
Burundi can't copy that, or Tanzania, or Uganda, or the DRC?
What is the magic? And if there is no issue, why are we here?
So, I like bringing to this committee exactly what I am
worried about. One, prisons criminalize Rwandans. And we all
know when you push people to the wall what happens. How did we
get to 1994? What really happened to get to 1994? It is this:
We talk about issues and people choose which side they want to
be on. They choose which truth they want to bring up.
Personally, I can talk about the genocide because I was there.
Sometimes Rwandans talk about the genocide; people have
different views. But, when it comes to me as a soldier who
tried to rescue people during genocide, I fought for 3 months
before we took over. I know exactly what happened. I know how
the Tutsis were being killed. I know of the crimes.
Then, we have what happened from 1994 to date. Again, I saw
it until 2010, when I was decommissioned. I was serving the
United Nations. I was a peacekeeper. I had two tours in Darfur,
one as a commander of soldiers, another one as a staff officer
heading the sector's information.
I know, too, that. I know how they work. I know the
discipline of the Rwandan soldiers. I know where it comes from.
And what I have been striving to give you and the State
Department, and other elements of the government, is the truth.
What people have to do with it is not up to me. But Kagame
knows all this. He knows we are going to come here and make
good speeches, talk about the corruption, and, you know, he
will say corruption is everywhere in the world.
And most of the people who still go to Rwanda--it doesn't
matter where you are working; it doesn't matter where you come
from; it doesn't matter if you are Rwandan--in most cases, they
will never criticize Rwanda. Do you know why? Because that is
their end.
The previous region representative of the Great Lakes
region, he failed to do his job. You either say what he is
telling you or don't come back. And it doesn't matter which
level they are on.
Now criminalizing Rwandans is in two ways. The Hutus, if
you follow deeply, most of them are reluctant to talk about the
current situation. Why? The moment you do that you become a
genocider. Therefore, we have had cases for the Hutus, and some
of them have been deported from the United States, have tried
to engage with the United States Government about these cases.
We are not saying we are supporting those who participate in
genocide, no. We are saying we need fair justice. Try them
here, right? Because there is no justice in Rwanda. No, that is
the problem.
So, the Hutus have to keep quiet because they are
genociders--that is it; no defense at all--everybody, even
those who are born today. Kagame himself said, even if they are
children, they have to be responsible for their parents'
crimes. So, up to when are Hutus going to be free? We don't
know as long as he is still living.
Now the second criminalization of Rwandans is the Tutsis.
Today the opposition political parties in the diaspora, some of
them have sympathizers inside the country, have raised the
paranoia in the country to the government. So, even these
recent arrests--for example, Diane Rwigara, I am very sure soon
you will hear that she is part of those political parties.
We have a group of five political parties who form the
coalition, and it is increasingly becoming stronger and, you
know, they are gaining voice. I have spoken this or discussed
this with the State Department because we always say, what is
the alternative? Should we just say Kagame is bad and that is
it? No. Rwandans have alternatives. They have seen that there
is no Hutu government which is going to work; there is no Tutsi
government which is going to work. That country was made for
them both.
The reconciliation he talked about is a fake
reconciliation. There is no way you can say that there is
reconciliation in Rwanda. By picking a Hutu to become a prime
minister every single time or some of them--he changed them in
the middle of the term--does not mean reconciliation.
When Kagame has rallies in the western region where it is
predominantly Hutu, when the Hutus show, it is a military
operation. They start beating them up and driving them to the
scene around midnight when Kagame is going to appear the next
day around 3:00. Yes, that is what happens.
So, everything we see is a shawl. What they do, what
Rwandans are concerned about, the Rwandan Government is
concerned with two issues. When you get $400 million and you
construct a trade center, a convention center, $400 million,
what you are doing is protecting, showing the image of the
country, right? Because $400 million can do a lot to the
population, build schoolhouses, water, everything that they are
lacking in the interior. So, the image of the country, that is
what they show everybody who goes to Rwanda.
Two, the image of the President, it is only him who can do
it, no one else. That is what they fight for. If you don't do
it, that is it. Now, today it is not about the Hutus and
Tutsis; it is everybody.
We have concerns with what is happening to families of
these people who have already been killed, as has been
mentioned. We have issues in the military. Four colonels were
recently arrested and taken to unknown locations. It is in my
submitted report. Many generals and colonels are out of a job.
And that is why I say that where we are today in Rwanda is
where we were just before 1994. Suppose anything happened in
Rwanda. Suppose Kagame got sick and died. What happens with all
this tension?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jobbins. Thanks for the question.
Just to focus on two things, I think one is, as we look at
political discourse and the political life in Rwanda today, the
way that we engage on these questions is fundamentally conflict
and reconciliation. There is no such thing as a success in
conflict resolution or reconciliation, neither here in America
nor Europe nor anywhere. It is an ongoing process. Every
political environment needs continual support to engage and
develop a discourse that is healthy to participatory decision-
making and to engagement. And Rwanda is no different from
those.
I think, particularly as we look at the political life of
ordinary Rwandans, to view as sort of a dichotomous absolutely
success or absolutely failure misses some of the nuance that
characterizes every society where we live and work.
Mr. Smith. If you don't mind yielding briefly, my thought
was that we give undue value, excessive applause to
extraordinarily minor steps, while the steps backwards are very
profound.
Mr. Jobbins. Thanks. No, I absolutely----
Mr. Smith. It is almost a straw man to think that any of us
think we are perfect--there is no perfection. We strive to it,
but when things are going in the wrong direction--that was the
essence of the question.
Mr. Jobbins. So, thanks. I really appreciate that.
What I wanted to sort of just underscore is, one of the
things that is at least most vexing to us is, as we look at
land, which is a life-and-death issue to ordinary Rwandans, the
degree to which citizens understand necessarily the policies
that impact them and have an opportunity to input into them is
a continual process and quite uneven in terms of the way in
which local governments, the way in which media, and others
engage with citizens and lay that groundwork in bedrock for an
informed policy debate.
And so, beyond sort of the policy and the political debates
around elections, one of the things that we look for, and
particularly in the U.S. focus on democracy in governance and
the partnership with Rwanda in the context of dwindling
resources, as Congresswoman Bass highlighted, is ensuring that
there is adequate attention on building civil society capacity,
supporting media, to cultivate and to build a context of
constructive political discourse, both around development but
also around the decisions that government takes. That is
something that is in line with the vision that has been laid
out by the government, but one where we see a need for
continued improvement.
I think there is almost no place on earth, I might say,
where the media environment has played a more negative role in
the genocide. It was certainly profound thinking for our own
organization how we engage in the role that media plays in
societies. And almost no place where the social discourse has
been as inflamed, and deliberately inflamed. And so, there is
almost no place on earth where more attention needs to be paid
to carving out and rebuilding a constructive media space, a
constructive civil society, and free expression space; for
citizens to really own and contribute to their own development
in partnership with their government, but also in partnership
with civil society and with other actors.
Mr. Akwei. Thank you very much for the questions. I think I
will just try to focus on the record of the previous
administrations, which I know you, in particular, and
Congresswoman Bass have fought very hard to try to correct.
A very good colleague and Africa expert once told me that
good friends don't let their friends do bad things to
themselves. And I think this is what happened, that there was,
as one of the previous panelists mentioned, there was an
overcompensation after 1994. There were regional tensions that
were genuine and credible, and the Rwandan Patriotic Fund had
the capacity and the ability to basically be a force for
stability. But that was also accompanied by what Representative
Bass said were genuine, incredibly impressive numbers in terms
of economic, social, and cultural rights progress. No one is
disputing that.
The challenge, I think, was that it became an ``either/
or.'' In other words, you are either in support of what was
seen as an economic superstar, and any criticism of that was
seen as a criticism of everything, which is extremely
unfortunate because, what government and what country cannot
have flaws as well as successes? Africa is no different.
I think this has also become part, unfortunately, of the
mindset of the government, that critiques or questions about
certain policies tend to be equated with critiques about the
government itself, whether legitimate or not. And that has
descended into a reticence going back to the Clinton
administration and the Bush administrations and the Obama
administration, where there was a reluctance, or it was almost
a struggle to get them to challenge and to actually take the
Department of State reports, which consistently documented the
shortcomings, and do something about it.
And I think your point is right, we may not have the luxury
to discuss the past, but we have the present and the future.
The Trump administration has to adopt a different tact because,
as our colleagues have said, the pressure is building. There
are trends now where the political space is closing, and Rwanda
is usually referred to as the epicenter. That, I think, is
extremely alarming because, as one of my colleagues just said,
wasn't that similar to where we were just before 1994, when
there was no space and no ability to engage in dialog? Not
simplifying things, but that is not where we want to go back
to.
Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to ask in terms of the government and from the
perspective of the U.S. what type of external pressure and
which messengers tend to have the most positive impact. I would
ask that of Mr. Jobbins.
Mr. Jobbins. Thanks a lot.
I think in terms of what we see as being constructive, the
challenge is there is a risk in overestimating the role that
external players and external pressure can play on shifting a
political environment or in assuming that all that is needed is
political will, rather than also forging a political way.
And so, even though I think some of my colleagues have
spoken about the concerns about public discourse, self-
censorship, like Adotei highlighted, but that is also about
encouraging positive models, supporting examples of how
citizens have engaged in creating role models that can craft
and foster constructive participation from citizens to their
own development and to the ultimate sort of you contribute to
political life.
Ms. Bass. So, let me ask you a little bit about that,
because I believe your organization is engaged in some of that.
And so, I wanted to know how you would assess the progress of
reconciliation and peace building in Rwanda and how it might
compare with other countries in the region.
Mr. Jobbins. Sure, absolutely.
I think, as many of you know, Rwanda has taken a very
different tact; for example, its colleagues or the neighbor to
the south in Burundi. There has been a very strong consensus
forged in Rwanda to move beyond an identification of the past
with Hutus and Tutsis, craft a national identity that we are
all Rwandans. That is something that characterizes Rwandan
society today. It is something that I believe, from
interactions with Rwandans myself and others, it seems to be
something that is broadly accepted.
We have worked with NURC, the National Union and
Reconciliation Council. And it is one that is obviously a
different tact from how, for example, we deal with difference
here in America. Here we talk explicitly about racial
differences. We also talk about our own history in a way that
is different, for example, from Brazil that has experienced
similar differences. Every society deals and defines--whether
it is class, religion, race, ethnicity, the divisions that make
it up are phrased differently and understood differently as a
legacy of history, as a legacy of culture, and as a deliberate
choice about the vocabulary that people choose to use to
describe themselves and to describe their neighbors.
The push toward reconciliation, and to move beyond that
framing, from all that we can see, appears to be in the surveys
that we have done, is quite genuine and felt by ordinary
Rwandans. The memory of the genocide, the desire to prevent
that, again, animates political life, but that doesn't mean
that there is not path dependency. That doesn't meant that
where you are today is completely divorced from where your
family was 25 years ago. And so, there is a degree of
differences linked to the past that can only be really
addressed with dialog.
Ms. Bass. I know that they are going to call votes in a
minute, but I appreciate that.
Mr. Higiro, I think I heard you say that some of the
opponents of Kagame have been deported from the U.S.? Did you
say that?
Major Higiro. No, it was not the opponents. The Hutus who
have cases linked to genocide crimes, yes, which have been
fabricated.
Ms. Bass. Oh, I see.
Major Higiro. Yes.
Ms. Bass. They were deported from here?
Major Higiro. Yes.
Ms. Bass. Recently?
Major Higiro. It is about a few months.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Major Higiro. The last case I know at least is a few
months.
Ms. Bass. I don't think certainly anybody in this room
feels that there is not a ton of problems that have to be dealt
with in Rwanda. As I stated in the beginning, I think our
chairman laid it all out.
But I am concerned, though, that if you paint a country as
completely negative in this political environment that we are
in, where they are calling for, the administration is calling
for a 30 percent cut in the State Department, that you can have
a situation where people just walk away, too. I don't think
that that would be positive on any account. People have to feel
as though there is some hope. Otherwise, what is the point?
So, those are my only questions. I do have to say, though,
that I thought it was rather unfortunate that you seem to be
pretty dismissive of the women parliamentarians in Rwanda, who
I meet with. They come here, as I meet with parliamentarians
and women leaders from around the world. I don't doubt the fact
that it might be a rubberstamp, but I don't think that the
women view themselves as irrelevant. I do think that women
around the world do look at that number and think that it is
pretty impressive.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I will just ask one final thought, or question, I should
say. Many have mentioned, including our Ambassador, the plight
of Diane Rwigara. If I have this correct, she has pointed out
that, she has criticized Kagame and his ruling Rwanda Patriot
Front for acquiring a $500 million business empire, Crystal
Ventures.
I introduced a bill just the other day, this week, on
Azerbaijan's ongoing and egregious human rights abuses,
particularly political prisoners. When I introduced the similar
bill in the last Congress, and it was roundly criticized by the
Baku government, I had met in Azerbaijan a journalist, Khadija,
who had exposed Aliyev's corruption. She was a reporter for
Radio Free Europe. We had a hearing when she was incarcerated,
and the head of Radio Free Europe came to this room and
testified. She was eventually freed. I don't know how free she
remains. But journalists who take that kind of risk--she had
gotten a 7\1/2\-year prison sentence--but no mention was made
by the White House to protest it, although Radio Free Europe
did, thank God.
I often find when you raise an issue that is country-
specific, they somehow think you have some ill will toward that
country. And certainly Azerbaijan did that. Vietnam does it
routinely when I introduce the Vietnam Human Rights Act, which
has passed three times in the U.S. House. It never got past the
Senate. When I wrote the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, which
held Lukashenko's government to account and imposed visa
denials and very significant economic sanctions against his
businesses, he denounced it. And I was just in Belarus a few
months ago. And we are getting the same kind of pushback from
Rwanda, that somehow we are singling out. And I do it with
China. I have done it with many countries around the world
where I have had country-specific human rights bills, some of
which have become law, like Belarus, and now, the most recent
one this week was on Azerbaijan. Last time, like I said, it was
roundly and derisively criticized by the Baku government.
Kagame has got the same view. This has nothing whatsoever to do
with anything but compassion and empathy and concern for the
people of Rwanda--they deserve better.
So, my question is--we have talked about the human rights
situation, the attacks on journalists, the attacks on
individual people, the attacks on Mr. Higiro and the threats
that he faced. My question is, do we know if Paul Kagame has
amassed a fortune anywhere? We often find even Yasser Arafat--
who was supposedly fighting tooth and nail on behalf of the
Palestinian people--upon his death, we learned that he amassed
a fortune that would have been well utilized for the people
under Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) control. And,
yes, he was a rich man, and we find that all over the world.
So, do you have any information or could you, if necessary,
get back to the committee, about Kagame's personal fortune?
Does he have one? Yes?
Mr. Himbara. When the Panama Papers came out, I think it
was last year, something extraordinary happened. He is the only
President in Africa that I know of that featured his
assistants. And I say it was extraordinary because elsewhere
there was uproar about the Panama Papers. But, because of the
situation in Uganda, no single paper would even dare discuss
the Panama Papers. It took nothing.
Mr. Smith. For the record, what was contained within the
Panama Papers?
Mr. Himbara. Oh, what was concerned is that he had, they
have offshore accounts that operate aircraft, private aircraft.
Now we know that in Crystal Ventures, Crystal Ventures is
Kagame, and RPF don't deny that Crystal Ventures exists.
Crystal Ventures has more employees than even the central
government. This is open.
Crystal Ventures thrives on cronyism, basically, contracts
from the government. Any opposition, any competition to Crystal
Ventures, destroyed. So, what is going on there is that, even
with clean records of corruption, see, what the report is about
is petty corruption. But, when we talk about institutionalized
corruption, then we are talking about something else.
The Crystal Ventures is open. Crystal Ventures has
aircraft; this is known, $60 million apiece. And what do these
two aircrafts do? They shuttle the President. So, the President
basically rents his aircraft from--so, there is Kagame, the
President, renting aircraft from Kagame, the chairman of
Crystal Ventures.
What is extraordinary is that all this is in the open. Now
the problem is no media in Rwanda would dare talk about this,
but foreign media is doing this. I refer to The Economist. Two
months ago, I think the title is--no, I forgot, but I will send
you. I will refer it to the committee.
The case of Crystal Ventures, the case of, you know, like
transferal of public resources from the government to Crystal
Ventures, even these loans he spoke about them, $4 million,
that has built the convention center. Government went into debt
for that money, but, suddenly, the owners of these hotels are
who? Crystal Ventures.
Major Higiro. Mr. Chairman, we have evidence of offshore
accounts which we can always bring to your office.
Mr. Smith. We will ask the State Department if they have
any knowledge of any personal corruption for President Kagame
and whether or not he has accumulated wealth that would not be
commensurate with the job of a President.
Anybody else like to add? But I do have to run. We have
only a few minutes left.
We deeply appreciate your testimony, your insights. It
helps enlighten, especially with the new administration. So,
thank you so very, very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]