The #Hege Implosion (Part III of III)


October 12, 2012 by soniauwimana

After dealing with the significant methodological shortcomings of the Group of Experts on the DRC led by Steve Hege, superlawyer Paul Butler moves on to the question of how Hege’s own longstanding biases have affected his work as the Group’s coordinator.

It is clear from the outset that, from his investigations, Butler find little ambiguity as far as Hege’s bias is concerned.  He writes:

So there.

Butler then goes on to document in great detail the many ways that this bias has been reflected in Hege’s previous writings, including the infamous Understanding the FDLR fact-sheet but also many others. Readers of this blog are familiar with this material, but what struck me was the fervor of Butler’s characterisation of Hege’s work:

I have not seen a Rwandan use such stark language to describe Hege’s agenda.  Butler was clearly alarmed by what he found, and for good reason.

After listing the many ways that Hege’s hostility towards Rwanda influenced the work of the GoE — which will be no surprise to any of my readers — he concludes in terms that can only be described as passionate.

Hostility. Distortions. Biases. Unfortunately for Rwanda, this has been the story of Steve Hege — and why its final chapter is way past due.


10 thoughts on “The #Hege Implosion (Part III of III)

  1. Peter de Mambla says:

    Is it possible that someone’s credibility may discount their argument? To claim credibility as irrelevant is to reveal a desperate wish to believe the arguments in question to be true regardless of whether they can stand up to scrutiny or not.

  2. Peter de Mambla says:

    “this does not necessarily mean that those making the arguments are not credible, but only that attacking them is a strategy to try to deflect attention from the arguments themselves.”

    Perhaps whether the arguments are valid depends upon the credibility of those asserting them. If the accusers are not credible, then what’s the point of validating the arguments and thereby lend them credibility? Was Judge Brugiere credible, for example? You would have preferred, no doubt, that his credibility never have been scrutinised and instead his wild allegations enjoy the status of unalloyed truth.

    Besides, when the GoR goes to the effort of providing “credible retorts”, as you put it … where does that get it? The Rwandan government responded with a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal to the allegations made by the GoE. So tell me … did you find the GoR’s rebuttal “credible”? Presumably if not, you’d be willing to point out which ones. Hey, I’d be willing to allow you to just point to one of the rebuttal’s points that you just didn’t find “credible”; and perhaps be kind enough to give your reasons why.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: