#President Paul Kagame

[afrotumble]

Paul Kagame (1957- ) •

[yohane23]

Can the East African Community bring the Rwanda-DRC tension to an end

[dailyworldecho]

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Re: the Sussexes wanting to be elected president of the Commonwealth.

I'm reading the canon's assertion at face value without knowing whether Lady C provided information about this role and thus showing the Sussex delusions.

FYI, 2 things.

President of the CW is the Head of CW, currently held by KC3. It's a position voted in by the heads of state of member states. The Queen was voted in sequentially for reasons, but she had to lobby hard to get promise that KC3 would be CW's Head for the first term after her death. It's not a hereditary position.

President / Head of the CW is always a Head of state. The suggestion that The Queen would or could  appoint Harold ( or Meghan) in this position was always ridiculous and delusional. She created the QCW trust and handed it to them, but it is a charity created by her will and it stands or fails on it's own merits especially after her death not because the CW wants to continue supporting it for sentimental reasons when it's replicating many of it's own programmes. It's one of her schemes to give Harold (and Markle) something to do. And in the brief time that they were involved with it, failed to turn it into something substantial that could be tied to them. 

The next substantial role in the CW is it's chairperson. This role is also held by a head of state from the country that hosts the CW heads of state general meeting. Position is held for 2 years. Currently held by Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda.

Below this role is the CW secretary-General, currently held by Baroness Scotland. Another position that requires vote by the heads of state of member countries. All the holders of this position are verifiably highly credentialled with decades of real jobs, real social development experience, which the Sussexes do not have. This job is as close to being UN secretary - General as you can get. 

Finally, there are no celebrity CW ambassadors in the same way that UN has celebrity ambassadors. All the CW ambassadors are serious govt diplomats on a par with regular ambassadors sent to Embassies and consulates around the world. CW ambassadors Make up the board of Governors. 

The CW hasn't been captured like the UN such that they've created these celebrity ambassadorships and Vanity awards for inexplicable reasons. Seriously, why does the UN, a political body, need celebrity ambassadors? They bring nothing to the table beyond papstrolls. They have never affected any UN work and most of member states don't care about celebrity outreach or celebrities in general. 

I think the Sussexes didn't pay attention (NO!) to The Queen having to lobby to keep KC3 as Head of state for the first term if not longer. And because they were handed QCW trust, they didn't understand it's context within the organisation and also just think all these important positions are Vanity ones. 

And I can't emphasise enough how much the CW doesn't do celebrity ambassadors or celebrity in general. 

***********

Again, just because CW hasn’t done celebrity ambassadors in the last under the leadership of the ultimate ambassador (Her Majesty The Queen), doesn’t mean they won’t do it in the future. They never needed a celebrity ambassador when they had The Queen. They might need it under King Charles.

Do I think they’ll go the way of a celebrity ambassador? No. They just have to hang on long enough till the Waleses kids are grown and have become the new superstars. We’re right on the cusp of that happening.

[celticcrossanon]

The Commonwealth

My cranky rant for the day :)

Skip if this is of no interest to you, this is just me letting off steam.

Harry and the Commonwealth

I see a lot of misinterpretation of the Commonwealth of Nations with respect to Harry, and it drives me crazy.

Harry can not be 'King of the Commonwealth'. No such position exists.

Harry can not be 'Head of the Commonwealth'. That symbolic position is held by his father, King Charles III. The position is is appointed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

If King Charles III resigns form this role (which is highly unlikely), then another Head of the Commonwealth will be elected by the combined Heads of Government of the Commonwealth.

As the past three Heads of the Commonwealth have been the monarchs of the UK, if that trend continues then it is most likely that Prince William will be elected to the position, otherwise it is likely to go to another Head of Government within the Commonwealth, as discussed before the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. Harry is a non contender in my opinion.

The other top-rank positions of power within the Commonwealth of Nations are the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the Commonwealth Chair in Waiting.

The Chair in Waiting is the head of government of the last country to hold the CHOGM, so Harry automatically is not eligible for this role. It rotates once every two years.

The Secretary-General is elected for a maximum of eight years (two four-year terms) by the assembled heads of government and other ministerial representatives at every other CHOGM (so once every four years). Nominations for the election come from the governments of the member nations of the Commonwealth. it is highly unlikely that Harry would be nominated, and even more unlikely that he would be elected. Past Secretary-Generals are career diplomats and/or politicians, and Harry is neither.

The only position that Harry held with the word 'Commonwealth' in the title is the Presidency of the Queen's Commonwealth Trust, a charity that "provide[s] access to a global network of over 850 young leaders who are able to support each other and access insights and resources to further their work and impact." He was allegedly removed from that position in February 2021 and does not appear on the charity's website.

More detailed information on the Commonwealth of Nations below. Feel free to skip, this is for those interested in a bit about how it all works.

The Commonwealth of Nations

The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of 56 independent and equal countries. The member governments agree to shared goals such as development, democracy and peace. The values and principles of the Commonwealth are expressed in the Commonwealth Charter.

Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOG)

This is the is collective name for the government leaders of the nations with membership in the Commonwealth of Nations. They are invited to attend Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings every two years, with most countries being represented by either their head of government or head of state. The Commonwealth Heads of Government attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, held once every two years (see below).

CHOGM and the Commonwealth Chair-In-Office

Decisions for and about the Commonwealth of Nations are usually made at the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), where the Commonwealth nations' Prime ministers, Presidents, Kings or Queens, and any other heads of government, assemble for several days to discuss matters of mutual interest. 

Every two years the meeting is held in a different member state and is chaired by that nation's respective prime minister or president, who becomes the Commonwealth Chair-in-Office until the next meeting. 

The last CHOGM took place in Rwanda in 20222. The next one will be in Samoa in 2024.  (see https://thecommonwealth.org/chogm)

The current Commonwealth Chair-In-Office is the President of Rwanda, currently Paul Kagame. The primary responsibility of the Chair-in-Office is to host the CHOGM, a responsibility that starts their term as Chair-In-Office.

The Secretariat of the Commonwealth of Nations and the Commonwealth Secretary-General

The main body within the Commonwealth of Nations is the Secretariat. It  It is responsible for facilitating co-operation between members; organising meetings, including the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM); assisting and advising on policy development; and providing assistance to countries in implementing the decisions and policies of the Commonwealth. 

The Secretariat has observer status in the United Nations General Assembly. It is based at Marlborough House In England and has full diplomatic immunity.

The head of the Secretariat is the Commonwealth Secretary-General.

All Secretariat staff report to the Secretary-General, who is responsible for spending the Secretariat's budget, which is granted by the Heads of Government. It is the Secretary-General (not the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth), that represents the Commonwealth publicly. The secretary-general is elected by the Heads of Government at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings for up to two terms of four years.

The Secretary-General used to be assisted by two, then three Deputy Secretaries-General. As those posts have fallen vacant they have not been filled under the current Secretary-General.

The current Commonwealth Secretary-General is Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, PC, KC. Her second four year term expires in 2024.

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations

The Head of the Commonwealth of Nations is a symbolic position. The position represents the association of 56 independent members. Thirty-six member nations are republics, five have monarchies (Brunei, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malaysia, and Tonga), and fifteen member nations who are also commonwealth realms have the monarch of Great Britain. as their Head of State.

The Head of the Commonwealth serves as a symbolic leader, alongside the Commonwealth Secretary-General and  the Commonwealth Chair-In-Office, who also represent the Commonwealth.

The Head of the Commonwealth does not have any constitutional role in any Commonwealth state by virtue of their position as Head of the Commonwealth. They keep in touch with Commonwealth developments through contact with the Commonwealth Secretary-General and the Secretariat.

The head of the Commonwealth or a representative has been present in the past at the Commonwealth Games. The Baton Relay, held prior to the opening of each Commonwealth Games, carries a message from the Head of the Commonwealth to all Commonwealth Nations and territories.

The Head of the Commonwealth broadcasts a special message to the population of the Commonwealth on Commonwealth Day, the second Monday in March. They attend an inter-denominational Commonwealth Day service held at Westminster Abbey.

The position of head of the Commonwealth is not hereditary and successors are chosen by the Commonwealth heads of government. That being said, the three current and previous Heads of the Commonwealth have all been the monarchs of the United Kingdom.

REFERENCE WEBSITES

See also wikipedia for a general overview:

[warningsine]

As world leaders scramble to avert a full-scale war between Israel and Hezbollah, there is another conflict on a scale perhaps unimaginable to many they should rush to prevent as well.

It is a repeat, like Israel-Hezbollah in 2006, of a war that raged between the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda between August 1998 and July 2003. By the time it ended, nine African countries and 20 rebel groups were involved. At least 5.4 million people died as a result of fighting, disease and malnutrition and 7 million were displaced. Africa’s World War — or the Great War of Africa, as it came to be known — was the world’s deadliest conflict since World War II.

Today, conflict between Congolese and Rwandan leaders has sharpened dangerously, peace initiatives have collapsed, an arms race is underway and deadly clashes between both sides and militias aligned to them are frequent. All the warning lights for a repeat of the 1998-2003 war are flashing.

Tensions have been simmering for years, with frequent reports of serious cross-border clashes in the eastern provinces of Congo. War talk and violence ramped up in the run-up to the Congolese election in December and have intensified over the past seven months. Weeks before the poll, Congolese President Felix Tshisekedi said Rwandan President Paul Kagame was behaving like Adolf Hitler and had ambitions to expand Rwanda into eastern Congo.

"I promise he will end up like Hitler,” Tshisekedi warned. Rwanda said the Congolese president’s words were a "loud and clear threat."

On July 9, a United Nations expert report confirmed widely circulated accusations that Uganda and Rwanda are backing the powerful M23 rebel group in eastern Congo. The report warned that the crisis "carried the risk of triggering a wider regional conflict." Rwandan government spokesperson Yolande Makolo responded that Tshisekedi had "consistently threatened to declare war on Rwanda" and that her country "will continue to defend itself."

The reasons for the fighting are decades-old and complex, yet currently boil down to various players’ bid to dominate Congo’s abundant mineral resources.

After the 1994 Rwandan genocide, in which 1 million ethnic Tutsi were killed by mainly Hutu ethnic groups, militias implicated in the murders fled into eastern Congo. The Rwandan army pursued them, arguing that it had to arrest perpetrators of the genocide and destroy their networks. This happened again in 1998, triggering the great war and spawning a web of vested interests involving neighboring nations and armed militias, mercenaries, mining companies, local and regional politicians, China, the United States and other global powers seeking a toehold in the region. Large parts of Congo have since been occupied by ruthless armed groups profiting from illegal mining.

The country produces nearly 70% of the world’s cobalt, while the Great Lakes region that Congo is a part of is rich with tin, tantalum, tungsten, lithium and gold — all of which are key components of electric vehicle batteries, cell phones, refrigerators, jewelry, airplane parts, cars and other goods. As of 2020, Chinese firms owned or had stakes in 15 of the 19 cobalt producing mines in Congo. Between 2022 and 2050, demand for nickel will double, cobalt will triple and lithium rise tenfold, according to the International Energy Agency.

A conflagration will potentially affect or draw in other countries. Apart from Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi, a plethora of armed groups is already in the region. The 11,000-strong U.N. peacekeeping mission (which goes by the French acronym MONUSCO) was supposed to leave the country by year-end, but has been asked by the Congolese government to stay on indefinitely.

South Africa, Malawi and Tanzania already have troops in Congo as part of the Southern African Development Community’s peacekeeping mission deployed there last December. Congo’s neighbors Angola, the Republic of Congo, Tanzania, Kenya and Zambia could be pulled into the fighting. An East African Community Regional Force exited Congo in December and may be drawn back in.

That’s not all. The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, a nongovernmental organization, says that there are at least 120 armed militias operating in the region, while mercenaries such as those of Russia’s Wagner Group have been contracted by various players. And worryingly, Congo has been stocking up on arms. The country’s military spending experienced the highest increase in the world last year, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Spending on armored vehicles, drones and other military equipment more than doubled in a year to $794 million.

The 1998-2003 conflict ended because strong continental leaders intervened through dialogue. In 2000, African leaders adopted the Lome Declaration that expressly outlawed coups, thus giving the African Union the authority to stand up to belligerents.

The current political climate, called "an epidemic” of coups by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, makes it harder to intervene. Continental leadership of the type of the early 2000s is also lacking. In its last meeting on July 12, the African Union — its authority already undermined by swaggering coup leaders in Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and other nations experiencing democratic backsliding — failed to even place the Great Lakes crisis on its agenda.

Attempts to strike a new peace deal have floundered. On July 27, Tshisekedi told a meeting in Paris: "There are two processes. There was the Nairobi Process driven by Uhuru Kenyatta which, unfortunately, was subsequently managed by the new president William Ruto. He managed it very badly. The process is almost dead."

The second initiative, the Luanda Process led by Angolan President Joao Lourenco, has made little headway after a disastrous meeting in February.

What now? At the request of the U.S., the belligerents have been observing a humanitarian truce for nearly a month, but clashes have continued. This truce should be used by international leaders — U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has admirably been heavily involved with Lourenco — to encourage Tshisekedi and Kagame to dial down the rhetoric and come to the table.

China, which has sold arms to both sides this year and is the dominant foreign economic player in Congo’s mining sector, should do the same. Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates (both of which have mining interests in Congo) should also be acting. Crucially, other regional leaders such as South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya should be taking a leadership role alongside Angola’s president to avert a deterioration and assert Africa’s interests.

With 7.2 million people in the region already displaced by the war — 700,000 of them in just the first three months of this year — a further escalation would spell disaster for the continent.

[rhymeswithfart]

Send a letter to Congress via Friends of the Congo

"I am writing to ask your help in advancing peace in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The U.S. State Department, the Congolese government, the United Nations and a number of human rights organizations have said that the Rwandan government led by President Paul Kagame is backing the M23 rebels that are one of the major forces fueling conflict in the Congo

In 2013 the Obama Administration withheld aid from Rwanda for supporting this same M23 group and we would like For you to do the same today. The State Department says there is "credible evidence that Rwanda is providing support to the M23.

There is a US Law, P.L. 109-456, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act that says the Secretary of State is authorized to withhold assistance to countries that destabilize the Congo.

I ask you to act with urgency because valued lives are at stake in the Congo."

They need 49,689 more signatures!

[zvaigzdelasas]

[The East African is Kenyan Private Media]

French hard-left leader Jean-Luc Melenchon on Thursday denounced the "expansionist aims" of Rwanda in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), as fighting flared between rebels and pro-government armed groups.

"I wanted to reaffirm my fraternity with the Congolese people, at a time when they are facing a challenge that is totally imported," Melenchon said, after a meeting with DRC President Felix Tshisekedi.[...]

Elections are due on December 20, with Tshisekedi a candidate.

Independent UN experts, Kinshasa as well as Paris and Washington have accused Rwanda of backing the Tutsi-led M23 rebel group, which has captured swathes of territory in eastern DRC since 2021.

Kigali has denied the accusation.[...]

Melenchon said the M23 rebel movement "articulated by neighbouring Rwanda", reflected a "deliberate desire to disrupt... the functioning of democracy in the Congo" and challenge its "sovereignty".

He added that he hoped for a return to a ceasefire and that "Rwanda abandons the expansionist aims that we have heard Rwandan President Paul Kagame declare".

Melenchon arrived in the DR Congo on Tuesday for a one-week stay, after being invited by a university and accompanied by a delegation of three MPs from his France Unbowed party.

27 Oct 23

[allthegeopolitics]

A prominent opponent of the Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, has been barred from standing in next month’s election to challenge his three-decade rule. Diane Rwigara, the leader of the People Salvation Movement, who was also barred in 2017, launched her election bid in May and submitted her candidacy last week. Her name was missing from the provisional list of candidates announced by the electoral commission on Thursday (Jun 6).

Continue Reading

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ellen Ioanes at Vox:

The UK is again preparing to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda after Parliament created a workaround to enact a policy the high court declared unlawful.

Authorities have begun detaining migrants to deport to Rwanda under the revamped plan. But the policy faces major logistical issues, humanitarian concerns, and the likelihood that a future Labour government will scrap it. Former Home Secretary Priti Patel initially proposed the controversial law in 2022 as a way to reduce irregular migration, particularly via small boats across the English Channel, which is on the rise in the UK. Her successor, Suella Braverman, also advocated for the plan until she was fired in 2023; Prime Minister Rishi Sunak then vowed to “stop the boats” and promised that the policy would become law. Sunak succeeded on the latter front. Following legal challenges that saw the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights declare the proposal unlawful, a bill declaring Rwanda safe for migrants and that limits the courts’ ability to adjudicate the country’s safety was approved as law by King Charles in late April, despite heavy opposition from the House of Lords. The government published a video on May 1 showing law enforcement authorities detaining people to send to the East African country as soon as July.

The law has been resoundingly criticized by human rights advocates, immigration lawyers, and Labour politicians who say it violates international law and is, to quote shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, “an expensive gimmick.” The law is part of a broader effort by Sunak and his Conservative Party to burnish their image as their government struggles to maintain support in the lead-up to a national election. Irregular migration has increased in recent years, but it’s not the driver of the problems that the UK is facing, including ongoing cost-of-living and housing crises. However, it is among voters’ top concerns, making the extreme anti-immigration law an appealing policy for a dysfunctional party struggling to maintain power.

[...]

The UK’s Rwanda deportation policy, briefly explained

The Rwanda plan has been a policy priority for two years now, and it’s outlived two prime ministers and two home secretaries. The ostensible goal? To deter irregular migrations via the English Channel and other routes, ostensibly for the migrants’ own safety, and to disrupt human trafficking operations.

Though the government has declared Rwanda a safe country through its recent legislation, it is the threat of being sent there instead of potentially receiving asylum in the UK that is meant to deter people from entering the country. Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame claimed that his country was simply trying to help out with “a very complicated problem all over the world” when Rwanda and the UK struck their initial agreement in 2022. But Rwanda will be well compensated by the British government for its purported generosity (more on that later). And critics say it also benefits Rwanda reputationally despite Kagame’s autocratic tendencies (which include threatening or jailing political rivals, repression of the media, and changing the constitution to extend his rule), not to mention the UK government’s own concerns that Rwanda is not a safe place for LGBTQ refugees.

But immigration has become a key policy pillar for the conservative government post-Brexit. Former Prime Ministers Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, along with Sunak, all touted their tough stance on immigration, hoping to appeal to socially conservative party members who see immigration as a key issue. Sunak and Truss backed the Rwanda plan, which was first proposed by controversial former Home Secretary Priti Patel. The policy was deeply controversial from the start. It applies to the roughly 52,000 asylum seekers the government deems to have entered the UK illegally after January 2022. Under international law, everyone has the right to seek asylum, and countries are obligated to protect people in their territory seeking asylum under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The UK was one of the original signatories to that convention.

But under the new rule, regardless of whether their claims are valid, asylum seekers can now be detained, and forced to fly to Rwanda, where their asylum claims will ostensibly be processed and they will be resettled. The plan “is effectively removing the UK from the asylum convention, because it removes the right to asylum which is explicitly guaranteed,” Peter William Walsh, senior researcher at the Oxford Migration Observatory, told Vox in an interview. It also could change the UK’s legal structure: the UK has threatened to withdraw from the court’s jurisdiction should it rule against the Rwanda plan.

[...]

Costs are already adding up; though no one has been sent to Rwanda and just a handful detained, the UK has already paid Rwanda 220 million pounds (about $270 million) to create infrastructure for asylum seeker processing. That number could skyrocket to more than half a billion pounds total (about $627 million) to send just 300 people to the East African country, according to a UK government watchdog.

Because of objections from advocacy groups, the UK Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), no migrant in the UK has ever been transferred to Rwanda under the plan. (One migrant has been sent to Rwanda voluntarily under a separate policy that pays eligible migrants 3,000 pounds if they volunteer to be sent to the country.) As seven people awaited deportation to Rwanda in June of 2022, the ECHR intervened and issued injunctions stopping the migrants’ removal and pausing the controversial policy. Though the UK left the European Union in 2020, it is still part of the Council of Europe, which the ECHR has jurisdiction over, making the court’s decision legally binding. And in November 2023, the UK’s highest court ruled the scheme unlawful.

Sunak, however, doubled down on the Rwanda policy, introducing emergency legislation to have Parliament declare Rwanda a safe country, as well as working on a new treaty with Rwanda to address the court’s concerns that asylum-seekers might be sent back to their home countries. That legislation, the Safety of Rwanda Act, passed Parliament in late April and unilaterally declared Rwanda to be a safe place to resettle migrants, paving the way for King Charles’s approval and the Home Office’s moves to detain some migrants who arrived by irregular routes.

The United Kingdom’s highly controversial Rwanda deportation plan proposed in a bid to curb unauthorized immigration to the nation has already ignited controversy.

The UK cannot wait for the Tories to be gone.

[afrotumble]

Rwandese president Paul Kagame

[mariacallous]

This July, Rwanda will conduct its presidential election—an event that should represent a celebration of democratic principles. Instead, it already promises to entrench the persistent suppression of opposition voices by the current government in Rwanda. As a victim of this suppression, I find myself once again barred from participating in an electoral process that I, as a Rwandan, have a right to take part in.

In January 2010, after 16 years in exile, I returned to Rwanda, hopeful and determined to contribute to the country’s political landscape through peaceful and democratic change. My intention was to register my political party and run for president in the elections scheduled for later that year.

But instead of being welcomed into the political arena, I was arrested, tried, convicted, and subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison on charges widely criticized as politically motivated, including by Human Rights Watch, the European Parliament, and the U.S. Department of State. My trial, marred by irregularities and a lack of minimum fair trial standards, ended with a harsh sentence for crimes including “genocide ideology” — a controversial offense that has been used to silence dissent.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights later ruled in 2017 that my rights to freedom of opinion and expression as well as to a defense had been violated by the Rwandan state. Despite this, I was kept in prison for another year before being released by presidential pardon, a gesture I thought would be followed by opening political space in Rwanda. By then I had been imprisoned for eight years, five of which I spent in solitary confinement.

The African Court’s decision, which the Rwandan state has refused to recognize to this day, highlighted the broader issues of legal restrictions on speech and the challenges faced by political opposition in Rwanda.

Many international observers see Rwanda under President Paul Kagame as an exemplary country that has made significant progress. Since his party, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), took power by military victory, the Rwandan government has adeptly orchestrated communication campaigns and disseminated compelling narratives globally. These efforts, naturally, portray Rwanda favorably, showcasing its purported capability to address both domestic and international challenges from poverty to counterterrorism.

At the same time, the government’s commitment to deploying Rwandan soldiers in multinational peacekeeping missions has not only strengthened the country’s foreign relations but also projected the narrative of Rwanda as a developmental success. This carefully crafted public image is not reflective of reality.

Living in Rwanda, the limitations on citizen participation in decision-making under the leadership of the RPF is plain to see. The concept of the rule of law, intended to promote good governance, is largely absent. The legislature lacks the power to effectively challenge the executive, dominated as it is by RPF members and their coalition allies. Only compliant opposition parties are permitted to operate, contributing to the Parliament’s uncritical allegiance to the RPF.

Consequently, parliamentarians prioritize RPF ideology over constituents’ interests, significantly impacting policymaking. The judiciary’s lack of independence, with top officials appointed by the president and confirmed by the RPF-dominated Senate, results in precious few rulings against the government, and fewer still, if any, in politically sensitive cases.

The absence of effective checks and balances of government policies fosters a top-down approach, excluding citizen input and neglecting the immediate needs of Rwandans. Despite Rwanda’s impressive economic growth, as acknowledged by the World Bank, it is not inclusive and faces shortcomings in sectors crucial for genuine social and economic transformation.

Human capital development lags due to low education standards and high levels of malnutrition among children under the age of 5. The private sector remains underdeveloped and dominated by state and RPF enterprises. And the suppression of dissenting voices creates fear among different sectors of society, inhibiting genuine unity in Rwanda.

Additionally, Rwanda’s alleged support to the M23 rebel group in Eastern Congo and RED-Tabara in Burundi affect its relationship with neighboring countries in the Great Lakes region, creating continuous political tensions. This, in turn, impedes Rwandans from fully benefiting from the sort of regional integration that drives development.

Kagame’s pledge in 2000 to transform Rwanda into a middle-income state driven by a knowledge economy by 2020 has yet to materialize. Despite concerted efforts and notable progress in some sectors, Rwanda still ranks among the least developed countries in the world.

If I am permitted to run in the election, I would promote governance reform in Rwanda—a campaign promise that is perceived by the current authorities as a direct challenge to the status quo. Central to my commitment to genuine democratization is the initiation of inclusive dialogue among political and civil society stakeholders.

The priority is to strengthen institutions capable of upholding human rights and the rule of law, as well as promoting social justice. It also emphasizes the importance of remembering all victims of Rwanda’s troubled history, decentralizing power, enhancing civic education, and promoting equitable economic development across the country.

Through dialogue, my platform also seeks to address the issue of Rwandan refugees, which contributes to conflicts and political tensions in the Great Lakes region. The current Rwandan government perceives these changes as threats to their control, further complicating the path toward meaningful reform.

A recent decision by the High Court of Rwanda denying my application for rehabilitation—and thus the right to run in the upcoming presidential elections—exemplifies the ongoing judicial persecution directed at government’s critics. The Rwandan state has not only restricted my right to run for office, but also my ability to travel abroad, even for personal family matters such as attending my son’s wedding, witnessing the birth of my first grandchild, or visiting my gravely ill husband.

Legally, the actions of the Rwandan state violate the East African Community Treaty, which mandates adherence to fundamental principles of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

On April 30, I filed a case before the East African Court of Justice seeking to hold Rwanda accountable by restoring my rights and safeguarding the democratic aspirations of all Rwandans. This case is not just about an infringement on my personal liberties. It is about the systematic denial of the rights of all Rwandans to choose their leaders freely.

Rwandans have suffered long enough under successive regimes led by strongmen who have gained and retained power through violence. This pattern is not unique to Rwanda. It reflects broader global trend of governments manipulating legal frameworks to suppress opposition even without overt repression.

But the situation in Rwanda is a critical case study for how international legal mechanisms can support the enforcement of human rights standards and democratize domestic governance. The outcomes of legal proceedings before bodies like the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights or the East African Court of Justice can set precedents for promoting adherence to international human rights commitments while respecting national sovereignty.

Rwanda’s 2024 elections will serve as a litmus test for the government’s commitment to democratic principles. The best measure of success on that front would be to allow genuine opposition voices to participate.

[jordanianroyals]

Official Portrait: King Abdullah II, Queen Rania, Crown Prince Hussein & Princess Rajwa of Jordan with distinguished guests (including foreign royals & political leaders) & family members ahead of the official dinner banquet held at Al Husseiniya Palace on the occasion of the Crown Prince’s wedding on 1 June 2023.

Who's who from left to right:

King Philippe of Belgium; Tunku Azizah & Abdullah of Pahang, the queen and king of Malaysia; First Lady Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed & President Abdul Latif Rashid of Iraq; Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei. Prince Theyazin of Oman; Crown Prince Haakon of Norway; Crown Prince Frederik & Crown Princess Mary of Denmark; Princess Hisako of Japan; Crown Prince Khaled bin Mohamed Al Nahyan of Abu Dhabi. Prince Sébastien of Luxembourg; Princess Beatrice of York; Ilham Yassin; Princess Salma; Barham Salih, former president of Iraq & wife Sarbagh Salih.

U.S. First Lady Jill Biden, President Paul Kagame of Rwanda & wife Jeannette Kagame. Prince Mateen of Brunei; Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha & Margarita Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of Bulgaria; Princess Elisabeth of Belgium; Princess Muna; Hereditary Princess Sophie of Liechtenstein; First Lady May Mikati of Lebanon; Hereditary Prince Alois of Liechtenstein; Prime Minister Najib Mikati of Lebanon; Sheikha Moza of Qatar; Catherine, Princess of Wales; Prime Minister Masrour Barzani of Iraqi Kurdistan; Prince William; Khalid al-Saif.

Azza al-Sudairi; Queen Máxima and King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands; Queen Sofía & King Juan Carlos of Spain. Queen Jetsun Pema of Bhutan; Sheikha Muna Al-Klaib & Sheikh Ahmad Al Abdullah Al Sabah of Kuwait; Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, prime minister and crown prince of Bahrain; Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel of Sweden; Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands. Margareta, Custodian of the Crown of Romania & Prince Radu; Princess Iman; Princess Felicitas of Liechtenstein; Jameel Thermiotis; Prince Johann Wenzel of Liechtenstein; Prince Pavlos of Greece.

[spectrumofchange]

Thirty Years After the Rwandan Genocide:

A Look at Kagame’s Legacy and Rwanda’s Future

It has been thirty years since the Rwandan genocide, a harrowing episode in history where an estimated 800,000 people, including Tutsis, moderate Hutus, and members of the Twa ethnic group, were murdered by the majority Hutu ethnic group. This tragedy was fueled by a combination of Belgian colonial favoritism, hate-driven media, and the international community's inadequate response.

Tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis had long simmered. Belgian colonialists, influenced by now-debunked racial theories, favored the Tutsis, exacerbating resentment among the Hutu majority. In 1959, the Hutus revolted violently against the Tutsi elite and Belgian colonizers, resulting in many Tutsis fleeing to neighboring countries. The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), primarily composed of Tutsi exiles, was perceived as a threat to the Hutu government, intensifying the conflict.

On April 6, 1994, President Juvenal Habyarimana was assassinated. The identity of the assailant remains unknown, but the Hutu government quickly blamed the RPF, triggering a systematic campaign of murder. Over the next one hundred days, the genocide spread across Rwanda, only ending when the RPF captured Kigali on July 4, 1994.

In response to the genocide, the United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to prosecute those responsible. While the tribunal aimed to address the overwhelming number of cases and foster reconciliation, it had mixed results. It aided in justice but also exposed survivors to further trauma and threats. Despite criticisms, many believe it was crucial in Rwanda’s path to recovery.

Paul Kagame has been Rwanda’s president for the past twenty-four years, overseeing significant economic progress and poverty reduction. However, his presidency has been marred by allegations of human rights abuses, including restrictions on freedom of expression, repression of political opposition, and arbitrary detentions. The international community remains divided on how to reconcile Kagame’s economic achievements with these concerns.

The genocide remains a profound part of Rwanda’s legacy. As the country continues to navigate its path forward, it must balance economic progress with the protection of human rights. The global community's continued support will be vital in striving for a future where economic development and personal freedoms are harmonized.

[hasdrubal-gisco]

not many know this but paul kagame used to have an anonymous twitter account with like 3k followers prior to its deletion which he used to tweet about how rwanda is not involved in the mining operations in the congo, about how former (at the time current) south african president zuma is "a black retard" (real quote), to call the african union useless, and to attack journalists from abroad criticizing kagame's policies on press freedom