When I wrote the last post about Pastor Rick Warren and Rwanda, I naively hoped that he was unaware of the criticism of the Kagame regime. That was not the case, as he proved in an interview with Rwandan propaganda website The New Times. In this interview, Warren is asked about international criticism. To boil his argument down for you, you are not allowed to criticize Rwanda if you are:
- Hutu (he refers to ‘genocidaires’, but how does he distinguish between innocent Hutu and those who actually killed?)
- From certain countries like France
- The United Nations
- Someone who at some point worked in the Kagame government
If you are not in one of these categories, feel free to criticize the Rwandan Government, and I am sure Rick Warren will pay heed to you.
His response is so shockingly ignorant that I almost wonder if he uttered it or if it was placed into his mouth by New Times Goebbels-type hacks? If he did say this, then he is totally in lockstep with an Ahab/Herod figure, and should have no credibility anymore. Warren is committing the most basic ad hominem fallacy in his ‘reasoning’. Everything he says may be ignored because it does not deal with even one fact related to the heinous rule of Paul Kagame. The entirety of his answer follows:
Often times Rwanda receives the flacks from various international bodies and individuals, what do you make of such critics?
The criticisms against Rwanda are coming from four sources. They are all biased sources. The first group of critics is the genocidaires who are still alive, the Interahawe. They are in various places around the world and will do anything they can to depose the government. It is expected that they will criticise and speak ill of the country.
The second group is of certain countries like France that supported and protected the wrong group during the Genocide. They allowed the genocidaires to escape through and into DR Congo.
There was a break down in relations with France as Rwanda chose a path of its own that some people in France were not very happy with and hence the criticism.
The third group is the United Nations; they have blood on their hands, they did nothing when they could have stopped the Genocide. The UN has a guilty conscience. There is conflict on why is the nation least dependent on the United Nations is among the most successful. So their reports may be biased.
The last group is people who served in this government in the past and got caught in corruption and other vices. They were friends of Rwanda, but when they lost their jobs, they became bitter and go around writing articles full of criticisms.
All these four groups are biased and are in no position to provide balanced opinion about the country.