Seventeen years after the genocide ,1994, Rwanda ie well on its way back to normalcy. It has been a very slow and difficult journey with many dangers, especially coming from the remnant Hutu death squads, who had fled to neighboring countries and who raided constantly to try and regain power or to sow discord and destabilize the government. The leadership of Paul Kagame and the decision not to pursue a policy of revenge and retribution against perpetrators of the mass killing , but instead to be directed by a policy of jusrice and reconcilation that would tamp down the ethnic hatred and divisions, have been responsible for the establishment of a legal system and for remarkable socio-economic progress....health, education and the economy.    Community- based courts were established, to allow accused and accusers to deal with matters locally (a masterstroke as it will allow the people themselves to decide ( after all they are the ones who have to live together again) and thus avoid the government direct involvement. Legitimacy, after all, comes from the people). Over 1,5 million cases have been tried, and of those found guilty, some were imprisoned but many more were ordered to perform community service and to repay victim's families out their earnings. This has allowed for the re-building of relationships, so useful if the country is to get over the past trauma.
     It has gradually done so. A court system was set up and a legal profession, capable of delivering justice for Rwandans was established with reforms that included abolition of the death penalty and changes to the penal code. The International Criminal Court for Rwanda, which was set up in Tanzania in1994, to try serious cases ( so far it has tried and convicted 29 of the main leaders of the genocide and there some cases on appeal or awaiting trial), has recognised this progress by asking for the first time in its history, for Rwanda's prosecutor-general to take over the case of a genocide suspect.
    Also. the United Nations High Commissoner for Refugees has declared that Rwanda is safe for the remaining 100,000 or so refugees (3 million have already returned). Further the UN has asked Rwanda to house war criminals from Sierra Leone and the European Court of Human Rights as well as Sweden, Norway and Denmark have ruled in favor of extraditing genocide suspects to Rwanda. What about Canada and Mugesera?
     Mugesera has waged a 15-yr. battle to avoid deportation . He is wanted on charges of incitement The latest gambit was his lawyers claiming that he risks totture if he returns, even though it is against the law to use torture in Rwanda. This is a tawdry, slanderous and even racist slur against not only a signatory  of the UN Convention against torture but a nation that took great pains to avoid revenge and retribution. Lawyers have to defend their clients but sometimes in desperation they try and destroy something that is good and beneficial, something to be celebrated. Rwanda deserve better than this maliciousness. "It is simply delusional to think anyone has to fabricate a single word about the genocide. Besides a mountain of other unequivocal evidence, we now have 15 years of the international Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda documenting exactly how the genocide was carried ouy, including the full confession of the prime minister during the 100 days. No one has to fabricate anything", Gerry Caplan, an expert on Rwanda. They are using any and everything to stop the inevitable.

     The Scottish National Party wants to hold an independence referendum in 2014, to end 300+ years of union with United Kingdom. It was by the Act of Settlement 1707, that the union was created. This was followed by two rebellions, when the  Scots supported challenges to the Protestant Hanoverian rule , and ended with the defeat of Bonnie Prince Charles at the brutal battle of Culloden in 1745.
     2014 is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the Commonwealth Games are to be held in Glasgow, but more importantly. it marked the 700th anniversary of the Scottish victory at Bannockburn, where they defeated the English army. The glow from these two events are supposed to rub off on the Scots, raising pride and nationalism. Prime Minister Cameron, himself of Scottish descent( as were many other British Prime Ministers and high office holders over the centuries) is opposed to independence and would prefer that any referendum be held no later than next year. "If Alex Salmond ( leader of SNP)wants a referendum on independence,why wait until 2014", he told Sky News, saying also that waiting is not good for business. The SNP won an overall majority in Scottish elections in May and promised to hold a referendum in the second half of the parliamentary term which ends in 2016 (the Conservatives of Cameron won only 15 ot the 129 seats).
     Scotland has many of the trappings of an independent nation.....its own legal system, flag, sports team, achievements in science and literature and since 1999 (devolution) control over health, education and prisons for its 5 million. It wouild have a strong claim to the lion's share of the North Sea oil revenues, though this would be strongly contested by the Brits.   
     A victory in the referendum is unlikely. The great majority of the Scots are satisfied with the present arrangement. It was 'devolution"( granting of more powers......that is weakening the unitary system of centralised powers), in 1999 that was the key to keeping the separatists movement from growing. As well there are so many examples of Scots holding key positions in government, business, labor and in every part of British society. In a poll conducted in December, by Ipsos MORI, only 38% would vote for full independence, while 58% were opposed.
     Pass the Scotch. Hold the ice.

     Foreign policy is driven by national interests and influenced by military and economic means and by perception but too often clouded by emotion and ignorance. Iran has been a very emotional issue for the United States since the hostage taking in 1979 and the overthrow of the Shah and thus America's Mid-East policy. The ignorance comes with the assumptions made, based upon arrogance of power, the superior feeling that comes with that arrogance and the failure to understand the"enemy", the history, the geography and most importantly the values. In Korea, in Iran, in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq, it has led to embarassing defeat and/ or withdrawal, leaving a situation more fraught with danger and instability.
   Korea continues to dog America and the world. Vietnam, thanks to native will, intelligence and dedication has stabilised, (the defeat of China in 1979 was the cement). Iraq and now Iran will continue to be thorns and can ultimately lead to all out war in the region, if the situation is not handled properly and so far American policy has been short-sighted and driven by emotion rather than its real interests.
    America's entanglement with Iran began with its collusion with the Brits to bring down the democratically- elected government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, over his plan to nationalise the oil industry, which had been dominated by Britain (Britain had invaded Iran from the south and Russia  from the north, in the early 1940's to prevent the Nazis from taking control of the oilfields. The Russians withdrew after the war but Britain stayed but needed American resources to hold on, as they no longer had the means to do so. India, its "jewel in the Crown" was gone and its other colonies were clamouring for independence). The Shah (who had been selling shoes in Italy) was put on the Peacock Throne and propped up, mainly by the Americans. His autocratic and corrupt rule was ended by the Ayatollah's religiously- driven revolution and America lost an important ally, its embassy was breached and hostages were taken and held for 444 days, while it stood by impotently. It has not been able to get over this and so supported Saddam in his 8 (1980-1988)-year war against Iran, which bled and weakened both sides and eventually led to Saddam being suckered to invade Kuwait and then being invaded, arrested and killed. Iran has since regained its strength and now dominates the Iraqi government, threatens Israel and trying to build its own "bomb".
      The past thirty years has seen America stumbling to find the correct approach. From the enmity of the Ayatollah to the moderation of Rafsanjani to the irratation of Ahmedinejad, no clear/consistent policy has emerged. Even Obama, who first try to engage and then changed his mind, unduly influenced by Israeli lobby and its supporters in the State Dept. still bitter about the past.
     America must understand that Iran is a major player in the region, and that it needs Iran in at least four areas. Firstly Iran share /meet borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan at Baluchistan. This is a crucial area for drug-trafficing, weapons smuggling and access by Islamic militants going to and fro, to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iran's co-operation can go a far way to neutralise this area/flow. It had been working with the American DEA and this must continue. Secondly, Iran has great influence with the Shia government of al Maliki in Iraq (60% of Iraq's population is Shia and many of the Shia leaders had lived for years in exile in Iran, the major Shia nation in the world). There will be over 17,000 Americans diplomats, CIA, DEA, contract workers in Iraq and Iran can be very useful as far as their safety and America's continued interests. Thirdly, Iran controls Hizballah, the major military force in Lebanon (which drove Israel out of Lebanon and continues to be of concern). Iran's help will be needed to handle Hizballah in any confrontation with Israel. Fourthly, Iran also can be of use in Syria where it is close with the Alewite(minority) government of Assad. Here Iran can be used to influence Assad's policy at home and also in Lebanon and with Israel.
     Sabre-rattling is not the answer. Iran can be brought into the fold. There will be concerns, given the  past histroy between the two countries, but this can be overcome with time and diplomacy. Obama was right the first time, but pressure from the Israeli lobby and the war-hawks on both the Democrats ( Schumer etc.) and Republicans (Mc Cain etc.), together with the on-going presidential election (where he cannot appear to be soft, especially given the raw emotion associated wit Iran), mean that there will be more threats and counter-threats (what with the military exercise and the threats to close the Staits of Hormuz, by Iran). Israel has also been talking about striking Iran's nuclear facilities.
     These are dangerous times and the  tough talk on both sides make the possibility of war, very real.