The unending and seemingly desperate campaign to free Paul Rusesabagina is getting more farcical by the day. Recently, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), yet another US newspaper making a mockery of journalistic ethics, gave its platform to the terrorist’s hard-line supporters, something it would never do if only one of the nine victims of Rusesabagina’s FLN terror grouping had been a US citizen. Pearson’s and Zoellner’s “From ‘Hotel Rwanda’ to ‘The Slaughter House’” calls on President Biden to pressure Rwanda into releasing a man responsible for the murders of innocent Rwandans. Perhaps, it is time Rwandans called on the US administration and the Belgian authorities to share with the international public opinion the information they have on the criminal activities that led Rusesabagina to prison. First, these governments can put an end to fallacious claims that Paul Rusesabagina is prosecuted for merely being a critic of the Rwandan government. These claims - rehearsed by Pierson and Zoellner - are easily and verifiably proven wrong by anyone who cares about facts. However, recent events demonstrate the need for Rwandans to call on the US and Belgian governments to share their own information about this case. For instance, a few days ago, wild rumours - promoted by an overzealous New York Times reporter -alleging that Rusesabagina was “denied food, water and medication” were debunked by a short statement from the US State Department, leading Rusesabagina, his family, his defence team and the lazy western media to adjust their deceitful, anti- Rwanda narrative. Since the contemptuous western media finds their governments’ pronouncements on Rusesabagina more credible than those of Rwandas institutions, then those who are trusted to tell the truth should leave no stone unturned. However, news editors, such as those at the WSJ, also have a responsibility to fact-check the falsehoods circulating in their pages. Their work on this case has been disgraceful for the most part. Secondly, if these governments were to be fully transparent on this case, it would, in turn, clarify what, seemingly, is still a mystery to Pierson and Zoellner; namely, the reason as to why “the U.S. government hasn’t put an ounce of pressure on Rwanda to release Paul Rusesabagina” as the two authors of this shocking advocacy for terrorism put it. The reason is quite obvious for any reasonable observer. After all, if the US has usually no qualms about amplifying the least credible allegations of human rights violations made by the openly hostile Human Rights Watch, why would it shy away from defending their Presidential medal of freedom recipient and demanding Rusesabagina’s immediate release? After all, his arrest is a tangible fact, unlike HRW’s unfounded allegations. Shouldn’t it be obvious to any reasonable person that the US administration is aware that Rusesabagina isn’t just the “critic” painted by Pearson and Zoellner. As a matter of fact, ten years ago, the U.S law enforcement authorities, tipped by Professor Michelle Martin, a US citizen and a former volunteer at the Rusesabagina’s foundation, launched investigations into Rusesabagina’s criminal activities. The FBI found evidence of Rusesabagina’s transfers of money to commanders of the FDLR -a genocidal outfit listed as a terrorist group by the US. The findings of these investigations were summed up in a letter dated October 4, 2013 from the US Department of Justice to Rwanda Prosecution authority. Logically, Pierson and Zoellner should know that it is unlikely that the same country whose findings serve as evidence in the ongoing trial will demand anything beyond “a fair trial”. Further, if fair trial, not the delusions about the “immediate release” of a terrorist leader, is a genuine concern, then the ongoing trial must proceed to its conclusion. Despite efforts to portray Rwanda as a lawless country, we are old enough to remember that only three years ago, and according to a report by the World Economic Forum, Rwanda ranked 1st in Africa and 23rd globally among the countries with the best judiciary system as far as judicial independence is concerned. In other words, Rwanda performed better than countries where the media onslaught against it originates from. Similarly, Belgian authorities who conducted a search at Rusesabagina’s house in Belgium have relevant information to share with well-meaning but misinformed citizens of the world. I remain convinced that the US and Belgian governments have a moral obligation to clarify the obvious reasons as to why they have been very quiet since Rusesabagina’s arrest; assuming they have no vested interests in the ongoing media onslaught against Rwanda. The EU parliamentarians were able to feign amnesia by overlooking decades-old European jurisprudence regarding the legality of luring suspected criminals into a trap of arrest. Shamelessly, they condemned Rwanda for actions that the European commission of Human Rights deemed legal in the case of “Walter Stocke vs. the Federal Republic of Germany”. The US and Belgian governments cannot yield to the pressure of defenders of terrorism. Neither will Rwanda.
