Sun May 22, 2011 8:19AM
Share | Email | Print
The British government is under pressure to review its close ties with Rwanda over reports that Scotland Yard informed two Rwandan expats in UK they could be targeted by the African government's hit squads.
Scotland Yard has told the two critics of Rwandan President Paul Kagame's government that they should be on their guard as Rwandan assassins are pursuing them in Britain.
This comes as London and Kigali have developed strong ties following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda with the British government hailing Kagame's efforts to rebuild the country.
The bilateral relations have grown so close that International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell has paid several visits to the country and Conservatives dispatch their MPs to the country every summer for voluntary work.
"Clearly such a suggestion of foreign nationals sanctioning violence on the streets of London is a very serious matter. The Government should ensure there is a full investigation and make public its findings where appropriate," said shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas Alexander.
The call was echoed by chairman of the All-Parliamentary Group on the Great Lakes Region of Africa Eric Joyce, who said ministers should make it their “priority" to investigate the allegations.
"I have a lot respect for what Kagame has done, but the Rwandan government has a reputation for not brooking any opposition," Joyce said.
This comes as Rwandan High Commissioner to London Ernest Rwamucyo insisted that his government “does not threaten the lives of its citizens wherever they live”.
Department for International Development has announced such reports will not deter them from giving Rwanda £83 million in annual aid payment.
AMR/AKM/H
Africa Great Lakes Democracy Watch
Welcome to Africa Great Lakes Democracy Watch Blog. Our objective is to promote the institutions of democracy,social justice,Human Rights,Peace, Freedom of Expression, and Respect to humanity in Rwanda,Uganda,DR Congo, Burundi,Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya,Ethiopia, and Somalia. We strongly believe that Africa will develop if only our presidents stop being rulers of men and become leaders of citizens. We support Breaking the Silence Campaign for DR Congo since we believe the democracy in Rwanda means peace in DRC. Follow this link to learn more about the origin of the war in both Rwanda and DR Congo:http://www.rwandadocumentsproject.net/gsdl/cgi-bin/library
Showing posts with label RWANDA-HUTU GENOCIDE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RWANDA-HUTU GENOCIDE. Show all posts
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Rwanda Genocide: Honoring the Dead Without Honoring the Lies
Written by Ann Garisson for the Global Research
On April 7 the United Nations began its annual commemoration of the anniversary of what we know as the 1994 Rwanda Genocide, when as many as one million Rwandans were slaughtered in 100 days.
![]() |
| The RPF Soldiers Cutting Genital parts of a Hutu Refugee in DRC 1997 |
The ceremonies raise several questions for all those who contest the received history of the Rwanda Genocide: How to honor Rwanda’s dead without honoring the lies?
And, how to honor six million more Congolese dead, but not commemorated, in the ongoing aftermath of the Rwanda Genocide when Rwanda’s war crossed its western border into neighboring D.R. Congo?
Though both tell the received history of the Rwanda Genocide; the BBC and Wikipedia mark its outset not on April 7th, as the UK, UN, and Rwandan officialdom do, but on April 6th, when, in 1994, the assassination of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundi President Cyprien Ntaryamira triggered the ensuing panic and violence that grew into the horror of the next 100 days and beyond. The two presidents were flying home from a conference between east and central African leaders in Tanzania, held to discuss ways to end violence between ethnic Hutus and Tutsis from Burundi and Rwanda, when their plane was shot out of the sky over Rwanda’s capitol, Kigali.
On the evening of April 6, 1994, the BBC reported:
The deaths of the presidents, both Hutus, look likely to make the situation in both states [Rwanda and Burundi] worse. Heavy fighting has already been reported around the presidential palace in Rwanda after news of the deaths spread. News agencies in Kigali said explosions have been rocking the city but it was not immediately clear who was involved in the fighting.
Carla del Ponte, lead prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals on Rwanda and Yugoslavia, in her book “Madame Prosecutor; Confrontations with Humanity’s Worst Criminals and the Culture of Impunity,” tells the story of how she was fired by the UN after announcing her intent to prosecute sitting Rwandan President Paul Kagame for the assassination of Presidents Habyarimana and Ntaryamira that triggered the genocide.
The received history says that former President Bill Clinton and the rest of the world stood by and let extremist Hutus murder up to a million Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus until current Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) army arrived in Kigali to end the killing, restore order and begin a reconciliation process. Volumes of interviews, testimonies, mass-grave exhumations and identifications as well as statistical analysis by five different teams of investigators, tell a far more complex story that includes a psychosis-induced mass-murder. Five teams of investigators came to varying sets of conclusions which University of Michigan Professor Allan Stam explained in Coming to a New Understanding of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide. Four out of five teams concluded that the vast majority of those who died were Hutus.
French is Dead, Long Live English!
Some say that Clinton could have stopped it with a phone call because the US and UK were backing Kagame’s RPF Tutsi Army, whose advance from the north after the assassinations stirred waves of panic and consequent violence in southern Rwanda.
But, whether he could have stopped it that easily or not, and/or at what point, the Rwanda Genocide ultimately represented the triumph of the US, the UK, and their allies over France in a fierce scramble for Central Africa’s vast natural resources, including the dense mineral wealth in eastern D.R. Congo.
President Paul Kagame, an English speaking Rwandan refugee in Uganda from the age of two, rose to become an officer in Uganda’s Army, then Intelligence Chief, then RPF Commander, after training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where future generals learn to plan invasions.
The RPF army invaded Rwanda across its northern border with Uganda in 1990 and arrived victorious in Kigali at the end of the 100 days following the Habyarimana and Ntaryamira assassinations.
Though reported to have stood by during the genocide, the US moved in to build a large military base in Rwanda almost as soon as the RPF triumphed, as reported in the New York Times, July 27, 1994:
The United States is preparing to send troops to help establish a large base in Rwanda to bolster the relief effort in the devastated African nation, Administration officials said today.(Administration officials’ claim that relief was the base’s purpose is disputed by those who dispute the history of the genocide.)
All Rwandans share the native African language, Kinyarwanda, “Rwanda” for short, but before the English-speaking RPF victory, urban, educated Rwandans also spoke French, the language of the dominant European power and thus the language in which Rwanda conducted international business.
The new RPF rulers declared English the language of business, causing enormous stress and dislocation to French-speaking Rwandan professionals, and in November 2009, the Commonwealth Heads of Government welcomed Rwanda, a former member of the Commonwealth’s equivalent, La Francophonie, as a member.
Shortly thereafter, “French is dead; long live English in Rwanda!” a news report from the English stream of French-based satellite channel, celebrated the end of 100 years dominance of the French language and French business ties.
Law Professor Peter Erlinder, former National Lawyer’s Guild President, lead defense counsel for the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, and author of the Rwanda Documents Project, offered these comments on the commemoration of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide:
“Commemorating the ‘Rwandan Genocide’ is certainly a noble goal, but without acknowledging the role of the current Rwandan President Kagame in the assassination of Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, and the crimes committed by his forces in their 90-day assault to seize power in 1994, whether those crimes are called ‘Genocide’ or ‘Crimes Against Humanity,’ converts a solemn remembrance into a farce of political deception and ‘cover-up, organized by the dominant member of the UN Security Council and Kagame’s most-important backer, the government of the United States.“Investigating judges in France and Spain have indicted Kagame and his RPF forces. US government and UN documents from 1994 confirm that Kagame’s RPF is guilty of mass-killings during all of 1994, which continue in the eastern Congo to this day. More than 6-million have died as a result of the Kagame-initiated war and violence in Central Africa and the former Chief UN Prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, has concluded that Kagame’s RPF is responsible for crimes that have been charged to the side that lost the Rwandan Civil War between 1990 and 1994.“In 2009, the four top-military leaders of the vanquished army have been acquitted of planning or conspiring to commit genocide, or any other crimes, in the UN Tribunal.“Del Ponte has publicly said that she was fired from her UN job by the US in 2003, when she insisted on prosecuting Kagame and the RPF.“There is much, much more to a ‘genocide remembrance’ than meets the eye even when the UN is involved and history is ignored, or ‘covered-up’ in the interests of superpower geopolitical interests.”
Never again?
This admonition from the web pages of the UN’s 2010 Rwanda Genocide commemoration could not more perfectly describe Rwanda as it is now, under Rwandan President Paul Kagame and his ruling RPF Party:
Warning Signs of Genocide
The Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, working with other genocide experts, has compiled a list of warning signs that could indicate that a community is at risk for genocide or similar atrocities. It includes:
• the country has a totalitarian or authoritarian government where only one group controls power
• the country is at war or there is a lawless environment in which massacres can take place without being quickly noticed or easily documented
The UN is at least good for comic relief, but pretending that these were warning signs of Rwanda’s past, and not its present, does not honor the dead. It honors the lies told by the US, the UK, and the UN to cover their responsibility for the loss of millions of African lives.
Senator Russ Feingold calls for political space in Rwanda
On March 2nd, as grenades exploded in Kigali, and Kagame’s political targets fled the country, Senator Russ Feingold, Chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Africa, read the Feingold Statement on the Fragility of Democracy in Africa, into the Congressional Record, calling on President Barack Obama to make human and political rights a condition for the support of the US and other “donor nations” in Africa.
Feingold stressed the urgency of the Rwandan political situation, with presidential election polls approaching in August.
The Africa Faith and Justice Network, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Friends of the Congo, the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Group, Reporters without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Greens/European Free Alliance, have also called for a free and fair election in Rwanda and an end to civil and human rights abuses.
This is advocacy within a very narrow, very contradictory political space, that of Western parliamentary democracy within the larger context of an unsustainable Western scramble for Africa’s energy and mineral resources, driven by the West’s unsustainable, growth-driven culture and economy.
Ann Garrison is an independent journalist and contributor to the San Francisco Bay View, Global Research, Digital Journal, KPFA and KMEC Radio News, and her own blog, Plutocracy Now: the War and Plunder Report. More of her radio/video reports available on YouTube.
Related articles
- Genocide court sentences Rwandan mayor to life (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Genocide court sentences Rwandan mayor to life (foxnews.com)
- Stephen W. Smith: Fables of Rwanda (lrb.co.uk)
- The Story of Rwanda Genocide - I (talesoftwonations.wordpress.com)
- The Story of Rwandan Genocide - II (talesoftwonations.wordpress.com)
- Lawyer asks int'l court to free Rwandan rebel (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Libya Isn't Rwanda (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
- FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Rwanda (reuters.com)
- From Egypt to African Great Lakes (valensny.wordpress.com)
- You: Rwanda: Kagame's dilemma (search.japantimes.co.jp)
Friday, October 1, 2010
Dispute Over U.N. Report Evokes Rwandan Déjà Vu
When drafts of a United Nations study recently surfaced accusing Rwandan forces of committing atrocities against Hutu refugees in Congo in the 1990s — crimes that could constitute acts of genocide — the Rwandan government protested vociferously. It even threatened to withdraw its peacekeepers from Sudan and elsewhere if the report was published.
The dispute immediately raised some pointed questions. Would the United Nations stand its ground, or would it suppress or alter a report about the past for the sake of the present?
But often lost in the debate was a salient déjà vu: The two sides had been in a similar standoff years before.
In the fall of 1994, just after nearly a million people had been killed in the Rwandan genocide, a team of United Nations investigators concluded that the Rwandan rebels who finally stopped the genocide had killed tens of thousands of people themselves.
But after strong pressure from both Rwanda and Washington and intense debate within the United Nations, the report was never published.
Sixteen years later, a 14-page official summary of that investigation paints a disturbing picture of the victorious rebel forces who would form the new Rwandan government.
The findings in the 1994 report tell of soldiers rounding up civilians and methodically killing unarmed men, women and children.
Several of the allegations are uncannily similar to the scale and tactics depicted in the new United Nations report, expected to be released on Friday, which says that these same Rwandan forces systematically hunted down tens of thousands of refugees fleeing across the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as attacking local Congolese Hutu.
The Rwandan government, whose reputation as one of Africa’s brightest success stories has been tempered by increasing allegations of political repression, has vehemently rejected the allegations in both reports as untrue.
“Rwanda faces enough challenges today, including systematic efforts to rewrite history and reignite hatred, to respond to 16-year-old recycled garbage,” said Rwanda’s foreign minister, Louise Mushikiwabo.
But Rwanda was not alone in suppressing the old report. One of the participants in the 1994 investigation said that American officials strongly urged the United Nations to block the findings because Washington believed that news of large-scale atrocities against Rwanda’s Hutu majority could reignite civil war.
A State Department official said “it does not appear” there was American pressure against publishing the report. Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations who was on the National Security Council at the time of the Rwandan genocide, declined to comment.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which commissioned the 1994 report, decided not to release it. At least one internal memo at the time from another United Nations branch said that although reprisal killings against Hutus might have occurred, they were not as widespread and systematic as the report alleged. Other United Nations officials close to the matter said that the pressure was more overtly political, and that senior officials went so far as to deny the report’s existence.
According to the 1994 investigation, Rwandan Tutsi soldiers had lured Hutus, including entire families, to meetings to discuss food and security. “Once a crowd had assembled,” the report said, “it was assaulted through sudden sustained gunfire; or locked in buildings into which hand grenades were thrown; systematically killed with manual instruments; or killed in large numbers by other means.”
Based on a survey of a quarter of the country’s communes, the report said that 20,000 to 35,000 Hutus were killed between April and September 1994, and that it happened “in areas where opposition forces of any kind — armed or unarmed — or resistance of any kind — other than attempts by the victims of these actions to escape — were absent.”
The report did not equate the killings with the far larger massacres of Tutsi carried out under Rwanda’s former Hutu government and extremist militias. “However grave the team’s findings,” the report said, “they do not mitigate, nor should they be permitted to obscure, the genocidal violence unleashed against the Tutsi people in April 1994.”
The 1994 report was obtained from United Nations officials. A member of the investigation team also spoke of its findings on the condition of anonymity, citing a contractual obligation.
“What we found was a well-organized, military-style operation, with military command and control, and these were military campaign-style mass murders,” the investigator said.
Sadako Ogata, then the leader of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, declined a request for an interview.
The investigator said he had sharply understated estimates of the numbers of Hutus killed, fearing a political backlash within the United Nations, which had been harshly criticized for its failed response to the genocide. In the end, the firestorm came quickly
But often lost in the debate was a salient déjà vu: The two sides had been in a similar standoff years before.
In the fall of 1994, just after nearly a million people had been killed in the Rwandan genocide, a team of United Nations investigators concluded that the Rwandan rebels who finally stopped the genocide had killed tens of thousands of people themselves.
But after strong pressure from both Rwanda and Washington and intense debate within the United Nations, the report was never published.
Sixteen years later, a 14-page official summary of that investigation paints a disturbing picture of the victorious rebel forces who would form the new Rwandan government.
The findings in the 1994 report tell of soldiers rounding up civilians and methodically killing unarmed men, women and children.
Several of the allegations are uncannily similar to the scale and tactics depicted in the new United Nations report, expected to be released on Friday, which says that these same Rwandan forces systematically hunted down tens of thousands of refugees fleeing across the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as attacking local Congolese Hutu.
The Rwandan government, whose reputation as one of Africa’s brightest success stories has been tempered by increasing allegations of political repression, has vehemently rejected the allegations in both reports as untrue.
“Rwanda faces enough challenges today, including systematic efforts to rewrite history and reignite hatred, to respond to 16-year-old recycled garbage,” said Rwanda’s foreign minister, Louise Mushikiwabo.
But Rwanda was not alone in suppressing the old report. One of the participants in the 1994 investigation said that American officials strongly urged the United Nations to block the findings because Washington believed that news of large-scale atrocities against Rwanda’s Hutu majority could reignite civil war.
A State Department official said “it does not appear” there was American pressure against publishing the report. Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations who was on the National Security Council at the time of the Rwandan genocide, declined to comment.
The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which commissioned the 1994 report, decided not to release it. At least one internal memo at the time from another United Nations branch said that although reprisal killings against Hutus might have occurred, they were not as widespread and systematic as the report alleged. Other United Nations officials close to the matter said that the pressure was more overtly political, and that senior officials went so far as to deny the report’s existence.
According to the 1994 investigation, Rwandan Tutsi soldiers had lured Hutus, including entire families, to meetings to discuss food and security. “Once a crowd had assembled,” the report said, “it was assaulted through sudden sustained gunfire; or locked in buildings into which hand grenades were thrown; systematically killed with manual instruments; or killed in large numbers by other means.”
Based on a survey of a quarter of the country’s communes, the report said that 20,000 to 35,000 Hutus were killed between April and September 1994, and that it happened “in areas where opposition forces of any kind — armed or unarmed — or resistance of any kind — other than attempts by the victims of these actions to escape — were absent.”
The report did not equate the killings with the far larger massacres of Tutsi carried out under Rwanda’s former Hutu government and extremist militias. “However grave the team’s findings,” the report said, “they do not mitigate, nor should they be permitted to obscure, the genocidal violence unleashed against the Tutsi people in April 1994.”
The 1994 report was obtained from United Nations officials. A member of the investigation team also spoke of its findings on the condition of anonymity, citing a contractual obligation.
“What we found was a well-organized, military-style operation, with military command and control, and these were military campaign-style mass murders,” the investigator said.
Sadako Ogata, then the leader of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, declined a request for an interview.
The investigator said he had sharply understated estimates of the numbers of Hutus killed, fearing a political backlash within the United Nations, which had been harshly criticized for its failed response to the genocide. In the end, the firestorm came quickly
Related articles by Zemanta
- Dispute Over U.N. Report Evokes Rwandan Déjà Vu (nytimes.com)
- Delayed UN report links Rwanda to Congo genocide (guardian.co.uk)
- U.N. Report on Congo Released to Angry Responses (nytimes.com)
- Identify the Congo killers and bring them to justice | Reed Brody (guardian.co.uk)
- Rwanda: UN report set to publish Friday threatens regional stability (cnn.com)
- Sympathy for Rwanda begins to fade (theglobeandmail.com)
- Report into Congo mass killings opens old wounds (theglobeandmail.com)
- UN's Congo report could spur genocide trials (foxnews.com)
- Rwanda to keep its peacekeepers in place (cnn.com)
- UN tones down Congo 'genocide' report (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




