Click here to scroll up Click here to scroll down

Interview with Jeune Afrique Magazine

In July, 2000, the President of the Republic of Rwanda, H.E. Paul Kagame was interviewed by Jean-Dominique Geslin of Jeune Afrique Magazine on a wide range of topical issues. Below is the full transcript of the interview.


QUESTION: Mr. President, you have been Head of State now for about two and a half months. Before you were referred to as the ‘strong man’. Now you are President. What have been the differences for you personally since you assumed office in April?

ANSWER: Well, even before I became President in April, I performed a number of responsibilities in government. What difference there is today is added responsibility in dealing with the many problems of Rwanda now as the President. Certainly as Head of State, I think one has probably more responsibilities than anyone else in the country. So personally, it is one further step in the direction of performing duties and responsibilities for my country. That is the only difference.

QUESTION: Your relations with the other political parties have been soured lately, beginning with the departure of the former President of the National Assembly, Joseph Sebarenzi Kabuye, followed by Pierre Celestine Rwigema then former President Bizimungu. Is there a pattern in all these departures from government?

ANSWER: I don’t know why these events were taken by some people to be a very strange problem. Personally, I don’t see it as strange at all, especially if we are to get accustomed to the fact that leaders should be accountable. And to a certain extent, they are actually replaceable. Leaders are replaceable This would have been a very strange problem if we took it that leaders are not replaceable. But in my view leaders are one, accountable and two, they are replaceable - as long as it is done in a manner that follows established norms in a given situation like laws, regulations and other things.

In these cases, it was through a process of accountability, and it was to later give meaning to our belief that leaders are replaceable. They must be fully accountable for their actions to the people.

But the reasons for these leaders losing their positions are different. The former President of the National Assembly left for reasons totally different from those that took the Prime Minister, and these were both very different from those that made the former President to resign.For the former President of the National Assembly, he had problems with his own party. He also had problems with the National Assembly itself. So he was caught in-between the problems he had with his own party which had sponsored him in the first place and supported his candidature as President of the National Assembly on the ticket of belonging to that party, and then he had problems with the National Assembly itself in the sense that he was accused by members of the Assembly of running the institution like it was his own property. It was easy politically for him, having failed to fully account for these actions both to the National Assembly and to his own party, to leave. This was easy and possible.

The former Prime Minister had cases to explain before the National Assembly to whom he was accountable. There were different cases for which he had to answer. There were cases to do with corruption and other cases of misconduct. Playing a role as Prime Minister and government coordinator, it came to a point where he could not go on with all these cases against him, so he resigned.

For the former President, it was similar to that of the former President of the National Assembly. He was caught up in problems with his party, the Rwandese Patriotic Front, and with the National Assembly. In that process he preferred to resign also. So, for me, I do not find anything strange in the fact that leaders can serve for some time and then for reasons either of their own making or originating from elsewhere, they can resign their posts or be made to leave. What is important is that we make sure that whatever happens, change takes place in a manner that follows established rules and regulations.

QUESTION: Before there was a Hutu President and a Tutsi Vice-President. Now the situation is different, there is only a Tutsi leader. Is this not a problem for the public image of the country since power is controlled by a minority in Rwanda?

ANSWER: Well, it all depends on what you call ‘leadership’, or what you are looking at in terms of the reference you are making about ‘leadership’.

First of all, let me explain that in our situation we do not believe that our country should be exclusively for Bahutu, Batutsi or for Batwa. Power should be shared. This can be out of competence or for certain political reasons, all sorts of circumstances can result in people becoming leaders in their own right at different levels.

Yes, we had a Hutu President, but that does not mean that Batutsi or Batwa do not have a right to have one of them as a President of the country. What we are looking at is that the President of Rwanda should be Rwandese, irrespective of whether he is from one ethnic group or the other. That is the bottom line. That is the most important thing for us.

Then when you look at the whole government, you have Kagame who is a Mututsi, but you have the Prime Minister and other Ministers who do not necessarily belong to the same ethnic group that I belong to. So there is respect for power sharing in our situation.

But I am sure what you would have preferred in your analysis of leadership is just looking at the President and Vice-President. But we believe that others at various levels are also leaders in their own right.

One also needs to look into the whole history of things. For example, initially I served as Minister for Defence. That Ministry happened to fall under my responsibility. Today, someone else is in charge of that Ministry. So things have changed, but still the balance is maintained. For us that is the most important thing.

The balance is not just for its own sake, but also to create a sense that there is no exclusivity. There is no exclusivity of an ethnic group or groups of individuals to certain positions in government.

QUESTION: How do you envisage Rwanda’s democratization process proceeding?

ANSWER: We have started the democratization process. In our case, we do not necessarily have to do it in the same manner another country has done it. In our situation, due to the past political problems, we decided to take certain measures and move things in a certain direction, and take steps one at a time. This is so that necessary caution is taken so that we do not slide back into the past which has been characterized by a lot of problems.

We established a transitional period this was following the Arusha peace accord which we had reached with the Habyarimana regime. We have maintained that as the guiding set of principles. The guiding principles are hinged on real power sharing. Power sharing means that you bring into the mainstream political groups of all tendencies, be it ethnic background, be it on regional basis or any other considerations, political parties and so on.

Today, we are trying to move beyond that transitional period, and we are doing so systematically. The transitional period was aimed at stabilizing the situation in the country. We had to return security, we had to deal with the problem of justice, we have do deal with the problems of reconciliation, we had to repatriate and resettle our people back into the country, and so on. So we had to lay the foundation on which we would be able to progress. In terms of democratization, we have started with the grassroots elections. We have already had elections at the Cellule and Secteur levels. Towards the end of this year we will have elections at the Commune and Prefecture levels.

Throughout next year, we will be drafting the new constitution. We need to have a new constitution that will take into account all the conditions in the country and reflect our history and look towards the future.

We think that within the remaining three years transitional period, we should have done enough to move into general elections ­ both Presidential and Parliamentary elections. Should we succeed in completing the task of creating the necessary conditions for the elections in two years, then we will have general elections in two years without any problem. The three years is the maximum, but we can do it in less time. Three years is the time that is legally set for us, the time in which we need to work to complete everything before the elections.

 QUESTION: This morning in your Liberation Day speech, you spoke about reconciliation. The government has adopted the Gacaca trial system. But it does not allow for appeal, and there is no defence for defendants?

ANSWER: Defence is allowed, you are wrong. But even where one has had no defence, one can appeal. In cases where one feels they have not been treated well in the process of the trial, they can appeal. There is room for appeal. Appeals are provided for. And defence is also allowed.

QUESTION: But it is mass justice, and each case is different.

ANSWER: Absolutely, each case is different. But I think care has been taken to make sure that while indeed the cases are different, they fall under the general framework of genocide. It is a question of proof and responsibility. It is also a question of whether there are any witnesses. This genocide crime was actually committed in the open in this country. Mass justice is actually what Gacaca should be. Genocide was committed all over the country. It was committed within the population. The victims were the population, the perpetrators are the population, the witnesses are the population.

But there is something wider than that which we are looking at. This is not just a process of justice. It is also a process of reconciliation. It is a process where people can participate in holding others accountable, as well as being able to forgive them. So it is a mixture of all sorts of things.

QUESTION: A form of therapy as well?

ANSWER: It is indeed a form of therapy, no doubt about it. It is a process where some can come out and repent and be forgiven. It is an exercise we think can help our society to heal.

We have opted for Gacaca because of a very peculiar problem which we had. We have well over 100,000 prisoners in jail for genocide related crimes. If we rigidly followed rules of prosecution and classical justice, we would spend another couple of centuries in this process. So, we had to improvise.

The alternative would have been even worse. If we had said, following the normal process of trials would take too long, so let us just release everybody, we would have had a terrible situation on our hands. People can decide to take the law into their own hands, a situation which we have managed to prevent. You can have a repeat of killings.

So we have had to improvise two major things in this process. One, we have categorized responsibilities in terms of, for example the authors of genocide, those who were not authors but committed very serious crimes and those who committed lesser crimes like looting and destruction of property. We have four major categories, this enables us to focus of the first two categories. The first category are the authors of the Genocide, those who formulated the ideology and spread it and ensured that it was carried out. The second category are those who actually got involved in the serious crimes, but were not necessarily the authors. The other categories, we would like to quickly deal with them through the Gacaca Courts. This will also help the healing of our society.

Gacaca was not formulated without a basis. It existed in our history many years back. Traditionally this is how problems were dealt with. People with integrity would sit on the village court and they would hold people who had committed offenses accountable. This can be modernized, or in some ways fused with the classical justice system, to give us a way to deal with this large number of prisoners we have. Otherwise it can cause chaos.

So, I don’t think we are hurrying into the process. We are really taking it as a step by step process to reach where we are today.

QUESTION: So with Gacaca, how long do you think it will take for Rwandans to digest the genocide?

ANSWER: It will take many years. I don’t think it will take a short time for us to deal with the many consequences of the genocide. I think it will be with us for a very, very long time.

But then we have to find a way to move forward as quickly as we can. We cannot be held hostage by the tragedy of our past. We have to deal with it but also advance and make progress in many other areas. We believe that you can deal with genocide and whatever other problems it has created for us, but at the same time, address other issues that are also crucial in building society and the country as a whole. So you have to do both.

But as you are aware, even now fifty years after the Holocaust, people still talk about it. People are being compensated, and it is fifty years after, but you can still even see people being arrested for crimes they committed fifty years ago. But this did not prevent Europe from developing into what it is today. We think we can deal with genocide as well as being open to advancements in the future.

 QUESTION: While we are still on justice, what is your opinion about the criticism of Human Rights Watch about the conditions in prison, and that of Amnesty International which claims human rights violations by Local Defence Forces?

ANSWER: First of all, I believe that be it Human Rights Watch or other human rights organizations, they are being unreasonable. How can they complain that our prisons are not comfortable. Even those Rwandans who are not in prison do not live in comfort, leave alone those who are in prison. People outside the prisons are not comfortable at all. Some are naked, others are barefooted, others are dying of all sorts of poverty-related illnesses. And they only talk about those in prison? Certainly, those in prison cannot have a much better living than those living outside it.

But we provide for them what we can, what is within our means. We can only do things within our means. And to the best of my knowledge, the prisoners receive two or three meals a day. In Rwanda, there are many people who go for days without a meal. So we try to do our best.

About the Local Defence Forces, well they are not angels. They occasionally commit offenses for which they are held accountable. On that point, I have no doubt that we hold people accountable if they commit offenses. There may be cases where our response is not adequate because of lack of resources and information, offenses have been committed here or there. But given the background of our society, offenses and crimes are likely to be committed. There has been so much friction and misunderstanding within our population which we are dealing with. What is important is that we have put in place a process and mechanisms to deal with that. Institutions to deal with these matters have been created, where they did not exist before we took office.

I think it would be important for those making criticisms about what is happening in Rwanda to put everything into context. They must understand what problems we are dealing with, and the underlying causes of those problems. They must also understand the means and the capacity available in Rwanda to cope with the magnitude of these problems. Otherwise everywhere in the world, even in the most developed countries, have cases for which they can be blamed. So what about us who have inherited a very complicated situation. I think we have really tried our best, and we have done well.

Sometimes when one looks at these statements, you realize that these organizations are not serious. For example in 1994, we had almost the entire population of this country displaced. We had people leaving the country as refugees, we had internally displaced people, to the extent that at one point the whole population of Rwanda was displaced. We dealt with all that and put it all in order. Many governments around the world would have collapsed under this strain. We withstood that enormous pressure, overcame the immediate problems, and we are still here dealing with other problems. Yes, there have been human rights violations. But they have been dealt with and continue to do so. We have been able to rebuild the justice system from scratch. It is now working. We had to train people first to do that. We had to put other justice infrastructure in place too. We had to go begging around the world for the funding to put some of these things in place. Not everybody was generous in supporting us, but we have still built the basic infrastructure to a reasonable level. So when these people turn around and start criticizing us for some of the problems that are still there, I think it is unfair. I think that instead we should really be given credit for having passed a very difficult situation, and still been able to progress despite the difficulties.

We have also been able to progress and restore the dignity and integrity of Rwanda and Rwandans.

QUESTION: Rwanda is still at war with Congo. But you met with Mr. Kabila in Eldoret. What did you discuss with him? You had once said that you had had too many bad experiences with Kabila to have any confidence in him.

ANSWER: Well, one has to keep talking nevertheless. We make friends, sometimes even in the process of making these friends you make enemies. The aim has, however, been to make friends with different people in the interests of peace, and so that we can move forward. Sometimes, the outcome is not what you wish for, but you have to keep trying. We have had numerous problems with Kabila, but we must find ways and means to overcome those problems so that we can move forward.

We met in Eldoret to discuss matters related to the events taking place in Congo which have a relationship with a number of our problems. So in the spirit of the Lusaka agreement, we thought that we could meet with Kabila to follow up on some of the things that we had agreed on that would find solutions to the problems of Rwanda, those of Congo, and the whole region. So it was within this context that we met with Kabila.

QUESTION: But do you have confidence in him Mr. President?

ANSWER: Well confidence is another matter altogether. It needs to be built over time, and it can be built on the results of the commitments made to each other as co-signatories, or real actions on the ground can enable us to work together with confidence in each other. If there is a lack of results, that can undermine confidence. It is a question of making commitments, and being focused on what we want to achieve.

QUESTION: Did you discuss about diamonds?

ANSWER: No. Diamonds for what? I think this issue of diamonds and the wealth of Congo is being overplayed. It is being used to explain some of the failures and happenings in Congo and the region.

Diamonds have only helped rich people get richer. They have never made poor people get rich. We are poor people, and diamonds have not done anything for us.

Even Kabila has not been made rich by diamonds. Other people have been made rich and benefited from the diamonds, but not the Congolese. The Congolese are just as poor as the Rwandans you see here. So you ask where the Congo’s diamonds and the wealth associated with that goes, you will not get an answer.

QUESTION: Why did the RPA fight with Museveni’s army in Kisangani?

ANSWER: It was a very unfortunate situation. But, it had nothing to do with the wealth of Congo in my view. It has a lot to do with other matters regarding our relationship and a bit of our history with them. The situation is not easy to explain. But Uganda and Rwanda have had very close ties. Many Rwandans were born in Uganda and others worked there. There has been a lot of interaction. That interaction can breed friendship, but it can also cause some problems once circumstances and situations change.

The reality of a different situation having evolved has not sometimes been clear to everyone, and this kind of situation can create problems once in a while. This is probably one of the elements that could have caused the misunderstanding.

QUESTION: President Moi has visited you here. Is it true President Museveni was not pleased by this?

ANSWER: I do not know. I cannot speak for President Museveni.

QUESTION: President Moi was accused of having supported genocidaire six years ago.

ANSWER: Well, all I can say is that today he is our friend. We are aggressively looking for friends and partners in the search for peace. Peace for our country, and peace for the region. In the wider context we would like to see peace on the continent. That is our major interest. We try to achieve this by making friends, and working with them to realize our vision for peace.

QUESTION: The RPA is in Congo because of security concerns. How many Interahamwe are operating in the DRC?

ANSWER: It is not easy to determine the exact number, but they are in the thousands. They would not be very effective if they were not being supported by the administration in Congo. They become a problem when they are working with governments against us. So our main concern is security, and we shall deal with it in the best way possible.

QUESTION: If your problem is only with the Interahamwe, why do you find it necessary to support rebels fighting Kabila?

ANSWER: The question is which came first, and the actual character and identity of the force you are talking about. You cannot equate the DRC rebels with the Interahamwe and ex-FAR. The Interahamwe and ex-FAR are people with blood on their hands. They are responsible for the genocide that claimed one million lives in Rwanda in 1994. The rebels in Congo are groups with legitimate grievances with Kabila’s administration. It is a political issue, and it can be resolved politically between Kabila and the rebels.

Our support for the rebels came afterwards, and as a way for us to deal with our security concerns that already existed. The rebels are people with legitimate political grievances. This has been recognized by everyone, including Kabila who signed the Lusaka agreement.

So these two issues are not the same. They cannot, and should not be equated.

QUESTION: I agree that is difficult for you to withdraw before UN forces are on the ground. However, the UN says the belligerents must first withdraw before the deploy any forces.

ANSWER: The UN is distorting the Lusaka accord. This is going to lead to another failure for them. Lusaka did not talk about that.

Lusaka talks about having forces on the ground as withdrawal is taking place. So they are changing the whole thing. Sometimes the UN wants to have easy victories. They look for easy answers to very difficult problems in order to win victories for themselves. This can only cause further problems. In any case, if the problems would be solved by everyone withdrawing, what would be the purpose of the UN coming in when problems are resolved? If we were simply to withdraw and problems are resolved, then what would the UN’s role be?

I believe that the UN should come in to contribute towards finding a solution. Not to come in when a solution has been found. On this point I really do not agree with them.

QUESTION: Would 5,000 UN peacekeepers be sufficient?

ANSWER: It would not be enough, but it would be a presence that commits the UN to do whatever has been required of them by working with others who are also part of that solution in Congo. The UN alone cannot resolve anything of course. They have to work in the general context where others also make a contribution.

Five thousand peacekeepers might not be enough. But it commits them the problem and efforts to find a solution. It is enough to commit them, but it is not enough to deal with the problem given its magnitude.

QUESTION: What are your relationships with UNITA?

ANSWER: We have no relationship with UNITA.

QUESTION: Some people say some weapons...

ANSWER: People can say what they want. I cannot stop them. Some people speak nonsense, I can’t stop them. Others create rumours, I can’t stop them.

But I have been surprised. UNITA works more with Europe than with Africa. Africans are being blamed for working with UNITA. But I hear UNITA people giving interviews in Paris, Brussels, London. And they come and blame Rwanda for UNITA? Why doesn’t anyone ask why UNITA is giving interviews in Paris? Why aren’t these people arrested if they are criminals? We are being blamed for nothing. We have no relationship with UNITA at all.

UNITA buys arms. We do not sell arms. We don’t manufacture them. They come from Europe. Europe supplies UNITA with arms. And UNITA supplies diamonds to Europe. So it is unfortunate that we are being blamed. They say they have been capturing documents and people. They should produce the evidence that we are working with UNITA. That is all we can ask. In any case what would be the motive for us to work with UNITA? What would we get from them?

QUESTION: You are very close to South Africa. French speaking Africa seems to be very far way from you. What are you relationships with some of these French speaking West African countries?

ANSWER: We have contacts with them. We work with them.

QUESTION: But you are more involved with East Africa and COMESA though.

ANSWER: Yes. But in our position, wouldn’t you do that yourselves. It is a question of logic. Just get the map of Africa. Check where Rwanda is in relation to all these countries. There is more in common between Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya and so on, than any other country. It is a question of logic, be it from the geographical or economic points of view. You cannot convince me that what Rwanda can do with Guinea Bissau is greater than what we can do with Tanzania which we use as a route for our imports and exports. I really do not. understand the rationale. Just because somebody speaks French? We are not going to feed on French, we are going feed on exports and imports. We are not going to feed on English either. We are going to feed on economic realities. Can our exports get out and our imports come in at a good price? It is a question of logic.

QUESTION:What about the linguistic choice. Are you learning French?

ANSWER: I am trying. But I do not have enough time. If I did have the time, I am sure it would not be terribly difficult. I already understand quite a number of things. I am not a good speaker. I cannot speak French, but if I listen carefully, I pick a lot of things.

QUESTION: Do you think English and French can co-exist in Rwanda today?

ANSWER: I think so. And it could be a great advantage to our country. Both languages are assets to our country. If you ask my personal view, I would encourage all Rwandese to be able to speak both languages. That is my personal view.

I will not promote one language against another. My view is that those of our people who have access should learn both languages.

QUESTION: Is there a conflict between French speaking and English speaking Rwandans?

ANSWER: If there is a conflict we should be able to manage it. There is a bigger conflict when you have people who speak neither language. They are just ignorant, and they cannot communicate with foreigners. So potentially there is a bigger conflict area there. But for those who speak French and English, if there is a conflict, it would be a very easy problem to manage.

If we found them quarreling, we would stop them and teach them how it is advantageous to speak both languages.

Anyway, we have a common ground because we all speak Kinyarwanda. It is very interesting. In our Cabinet meetings, there are those who speak French and those who speak English. We don’t need interpreters. In the end we understand each other and pass resolutions. Kinyarwanda unifies us, if anyone needs to elaborate on something they use Kinyarwanda.

If there are any problems, it is with people who are unreasonable.

QUESTION: What is the state of relations with France?

ANSWER: With France we are looking for an improvement in relations. We have not got it yet. But our aim is to improve our relationship with them. But relations have not been getting worse. They have not been getting better, but they have not worsened either. So we are limping on like that. Hopefully, the time will soon come for us to improve relations.

QUESTION: And with Belgium, things are more clear?

ANSWER: Well, I think there is progress. There is quite some progress in our relationship. We need to keep encouraging it.

QUESTION:Do you hope for Mia Culpa from France as the Belgians did?

ANSWER: The question is why wouldn’t they do it anyway? Why don’t they Mia Culpa? But that is not the only determining factor, and I don’t think that’s the way they understand it.

QUESTION: You are very close to Washington..

ANSWER: How I wish we were. Certainly much less so than people think. But we have no problems with them.

QUESTION: Are the Americans and the French fighting to have Rwanda within their sphere of influence?

ANSWER: If that were the case, they would know better than ourselves. I really do not know of any wars being fought between the French and the Americans. All I know is that there are more things that bring them together than divide them. When it comes to dealing with Africa, they are more united than conflicting. They seem to be in agreement on their policies towards Africa.

QUESTION: Is Kigeri welcome in Rwanda?

ANSWER: Yes certainly. But not as King of Rwanda. Not as the constitutional leader of our country. That is not within our mandate to decide on. That can only be decided on by the people of Rwanda collectively. But he is welcome to Rwanda. No doubt about it. He has every right, like other Rwandese, to return to his country. But to be enthroned as King, that we have no right to do.

QUESTION: Are you a Republican?

ANSWER: Do you want my personal opinion? Yes, I am a republican. I do not believe in hereditary leadership. That is unscientific in my view. I do not believe in a lineage of people, from father to son, being the only ones to rule a country. Suppose one of them is a stupid man? Why should he rule the country just because he is the son of the King? It is not proper at all. I do not support that.

QUESTION: Monsignor Misago has been acquitted. What is your opinion about that?

ANSWER: My opinion is that is an issue of justice. The courts can convict or acquit people. That is justice.

QUESTION:We spoke of a Mia Culpa of France. What about the Catholic Church. What are you relations with the Catholic Church after the Genocide?

ANSWER: Relations exist. They are not bad.

QUESTION: The Church is often cited as a power which counters that of Governments. Is that so in Rwanda?

ANSWER: Well, there have been problems in our history. State matters and Church matters can be separated, although there are points of convergence in terms of the development of the country. Both have definite roles in society. They meet somewhere in terms of how they impact on the general development of the population. There are areas where roles are separate, and they should not be mixed up.

QUESTION: What is your opinion of the rumour that RPA assassinated Habyarimana?

ANSWER: Well, that issue remains unresolved. So everyone comes up with their own versions of the story. They have accused the Rwandese Patriotic Front, they have accused the United States, they have accused Uganda, they have accused France also. There are also allegations that it was Habyarimana’s own people, others say it was his wife. But the issue remains unresolved. But it needs to be established why those who were in charge of the situation did not establish the facts, and why they were not able to do so.

QUESTION: Rwanda’s image in Europe is not very good. However, in the last few months, you have abandoned your military fatigues for civilian attire. You also receive more journalists now, and try to explain and present a civilian outlook. Is this a new occurrence?

ANSWER: About meeting the press, I met them much more when I was Vice-President and Defence Minister than I do today.

About my personal image, I am not sure what image people want me to project. But whether I am in uniform of civilian clothes, I am the same person.

Both during the war and afterwards, I have always played both a civilian and military role. Yes, there was a big portion of the military, but I also played a political role. I was also a political leader as Vice-Chairman of the Rwandese Patriotic Front. I was dealing with political issues of organization, mobilization and diplomacy. This continued after 1994, until now I play more of a political and diplomatic role than anything else. For the image of Rwanda, I image that when people are talking of Rwanda, they should not detach it from its history. Again, it is about the context. Why did the same people like Rwanda during the Habyarimana era. He was a solider too, he was a General. Why was there so much love for him do you think? I am certainly not going to do the things Habyarimana was doing in order to have a good image among Europeans. Apparently, this image thing is a very complicated issue.

Our image will have to be built on our own realities and circumstances. We are not going to change our ideology, our thinking and our politics or the future development of our country just to create an image that will be pleasing to some people in Europe.
© The Government of Rwanda.