Saturday, October 18, 2014

MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY





[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International




Have you read Dr. Charles Kambanda's analysis of Linda Malvern's letter to BBC? It will undoubtedly send chills down Linda's spine.
___________
Sneak peek:
___________
"Ms. Melvern and her group miss on some important facts about the militia, including the Interahamwe, some of who committed the horrible massacres.
(i) It is wrong to think that all interahamwe were Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. Referring to all interahamwe as Hutu militia is a misstatement of fact. The interahamwe boss in charge of recruitment and politics - Robert Kajuga – was Tutis and so were a significant number of the interahamwe
(ii) When Rwanda embraced multiparty politics in 1991, each political party had its own “Youth Wing to animate party meetings, organize and mobilize for the party. MRND (the then ruling party’s Youth Wing was called Interahamwe. PSD (another political party) had Abakombozi as its Youth Wing. MDR’s Youth Wing was called Inkuba. PL’s Youth Wing was called Jeunes liberaux. As the war and party politics progressed, each Rwandan community -including political parties and their youth wings – developed “radical groups”.
(iii) There is overwhelming evidence that some members of each political youth wing/militia participated in the 1994 massacres and that each political party militia was hostile against others. Reducing these militia groups to “Hutu militia” is distortion of facts.
(iv) There is proof of, and the type of war RPA/F was engaged in against the then government dictate that, RPA/F cadres infiltrated all political parties’ militia as early as 1991. Probably, some of these RPA/F infiltrators engaged in the 1994 massacres.
(v) There is sufficient evidence that by the time of the 1994 massacres, all political parties of that time, including RPF, had some ‘radicalized’ members and militia. Therefore, simplifying the phenomenon of who killed who during such circumstance, like Ms. Melvern appears to suggest, is inconsistent with qualitative research approach."
-
"Ms. Melvern and her group should inquire, from the government of Rwanda, about the 2004/2005 household-to-household nationwide survey of the Tutsi who died during the massacres. Why did the government of Rwanda and donors invest so much money in a survey whose findings were never made public? Who had interest in not publishing that survey? Wouldn’t have made a good argument for Kagame, who has paraded human skulls for tourists throughout the country, to show a breakdown of village by village Tutsi who died during the massacres? Interestingly, every apart of Rwanda has skulls of the 1994 massacres victims. However, by April 1994 when the massacres started, RPF had significant territory under their control. How did the “Hutu” penetrate RPA/F held territory to massacre the “Tutsi”? Why there isn’t any District in Rwanda without the 1994 massacres victim skulls yet a significant chunk of Rwandan territory was under RPF control? Inquiring into these and other critical questions is what Ms. Melvern calls “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern’s world. Ridiculous"
-
"Inconsistent statistics argument: Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that the entire post-independence Rwandan population census reports indicated the ethnic and religious affiliation of each Rwandan. The last population census before the 1994 massacres took place in 1991. The 1991 Rwanda population census indicate that the total population was 6.2 million people; 14% Tutsi, 84% Hutu and 1% Twa and others. No post-independence Rwandan population census report had bigger figures than the 1991 population census report. However, after the 1994 massacres, the total number of the people butchered is put at 1.3 million people – in any case, well above 1 million people were brutality butchered. The number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres stood at around 350,000 people. The proper equation, for purposes of determining the number of the Tutsi who died during the1994 massacres should be: 14% of the total population – (minus) the total number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres."
______________
Full text below:
______________
MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY
To : Mr. Tony Hall,
Director of BBC Board Casting House
Portland Place, London W1A 1AA
UK
FROM: Charles KM Kambanda, PhD.
Attorney and Counsel-at-law, New York, US
October, 15th, 2014
RE: MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY:

Introduction:
I am writing to you as a Rwandan researcher, human rights defender and an Officer of Court in New York State; I am bound by the Constitutional Oath of Office. I taught at the National University and other institutions of higher learning in Rwanda for over a decade after the 1994 massacres. I am writing from my firsthand and lived experience of the unfortunate Hutu/Tutsi conflict. I am a Rwandan who was born to a Rwandan refugee family in Uganda. I supported RPF before, during and after the 1990 war. Like many other Rwandans, I lost countless family relations to the massacres in Rwanda. I am a Rwandan scholar – based in the United States of America – who is interested in sustainable peace and co-existence between and/or among the diverse people of Rwanda. I belong to no Rwandan political party. It is my submission that no side to the insane Tutsi vs. Hutu conflict is exclusively for victims or perpetrators of the senseless crimes that have characterized these two, generally, hostile groups. Both sides to the armed conflict committed horrible massacres before, during and after the 1994 massacres.
Accept my heartfelt gratitude and respect for the BBC team that prepared the famous Rwanda’s Untold Story documentary. The BBC team that worked on this documentary did a tremendous job documenting the background and the intricate web of the crimes both sides allegedly committed during, before and after the 1994 horrific massacres. What your team did is investigative journalism; Descartes (the great French philosopher) called it the Methodical doubt. In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ says “the Truth will set us free”. The producer of the documentary dug deep into the truth which different parties to the Rwandan conflict do not want the world to know because that truth will set people free. The BBC, as an institution, deserves credit for the great film. It is my submission that Ms. Melvern and her group’s “rebuttal” of the BBC documentary should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
A. Inquiry into the causes, manner, perpetrators and victims of the long and bloody Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict in Burundi and Rwanda before, during and after the 1994 massacres in Rwanda is not a closed chapter as Ms. Melvern’s missive appears to suggest.
The 1994 massacres occurred within the context of a bloody ethnic civil war between the Hutu (a Hutu dominated government) and Tutsi (Tutsi dominated rebels). There are well documented ethnic based massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi before and after the 1994 massacres. The well documented Tutsi/Hutu massacres include:
(i) The 1993 Burundian massacres where the Tutsi butchered the Hutu.
(ii) The Gersony, UNCHR sponsored report which detailed the insane massacred RPF /A perpetrated against the Hutu under the then Tutsi rebels held territory.
(iii) RPF/A (predominantly Tutsi) slaughter of internally displaced Hutu refugees camp.
(iv) Some Tutsi and some Hutu militia on-slaughter of the Tutsi and the Hutu during the 1994 massacres.
(v) RPF/A slaughter of the Hutu in Congo (both native DRC Hutu and Rwandan Hutu refugees as documented by the UN Mapping Report).
Investigating the similarities and differences between these reoccurring insane massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi without favor is, in my opinion, not only necessary but also a noble cause. The documentary does exactly that. Apparently, any objective inquiry into these crimes is what Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers call “[using] current events to either negate or to diminish the genocide… to promote genocide denial”. All the above well documented crimes, committed by the same people against the same people in different places and time, create an unequivocal need for social research. Social research is a continuum. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest that their research finding on these complex social political phenomena in the Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict is conclusive.
B. Ms. Melvern and her team resort to name calling instead of addressing the substantive issues the interviewees, individually, and the entire documentary raised. In most instances, Ms. Melvern and her group do not substantiate their generalized attacks on the individual interviewees, the BBC and the documentary producers
Ms. Melvern and her group characterize the BBC documentary as “old claims […] similar material using similar language [that is] part of an on-going Hutu power campaign of genocide denial”. This is an absurd approach especially for social science researchers and journalists for various reasons:
(i) The BBC documentary, as the title of the documentary suggests, was intended to interview different people with rarely mentioned personal experience of what happened in Rwanda during, before and after the 1994 massacres. Such statements must be as old as the events the statements describe if those statements are proper representation of what happened. Therefore, whether those statements are “old claims” is a tautology. How would statements explaining what happened 20 or so years ago be “brand-new” statements for every BBC viewer of the program?
(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group deliberately apply “Hutu power”, term with no known definition to confuse their readers. What’s Hutu power? What is the composition of Hutu power? Where is Hutu power? Research methodology and formal logic prohibit use of unknown and undefined terms for any purpose, especially while addressing critical social problems.
Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers claim that “the parts of the film which concern the 1994 genocide, far from providing BBC viewers with an ‘Untold Story’ as the title promises, are old claims”. This is a serious allegation against the BBC “on behalf of BBC viewers”. This allegation implies that Ms. Melvern and her group met “BBC viewers” and Ms. Melvern and her group are authorized agents of the “BBC viewers” to complain to the BBC on behalf of what Ms. Melvern calls the BBC viewers. Is Ms. Melvern or any individual signatory to their letter the “BBC viewers” and so the signatory are complaining to the BBC for having viewed “old claims”? Are these researchers who signed the letter presenting their perception of the BBC documentary as “old claims”? Is Ms. Melvern presenting “some” or “all” BBC viewers’ perception of documentary? Did Ms. Melvern and the researchers who signed the letter purposively fail to distribute their term “BBC viewers” properly? Is Ms. Melvern unfamiliar with the rules on distribution of terms? Why didn’t they distribute their term “BBC viewers” so that the readers know, with substantial certainty, the scope of the “BBC viewers” these researchers are referring to?
Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “at the heart of this [Hutu power] campaign are convicted génocidaires, some of their defen[s]e lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and their supporters and collaborators … like the programme … The BBC programme Rwanda’s Untold Story recycles their arguments and provides them with another platform to create doubt and confusion about what really happened”. This is absurd ad hominem because:
(i) A reasonable person would not confuse the person, ideas and research, of defense counsel with the client’s real or alleged crimes. Ms. Melvern and her fellow researchers appear to impute the ICTR “convicted genocidaire” some ICTR defense counsels.
(ii) Carl Del Ponte, the former ICTR prosecutor, Michael Hourigan who was an investigator and prosecutor at ICTR, among others scholars wrote widely about the ICTR’s cover up of the RPA/F crimes during the 1994 massacres.
(iii) Ms. Melvern and her group know or they should know for sure, that the BBC documentary producer did not interview any ICTR convict. How do the distinguished researchers, who signed the letter, relate the BBC documentary interviewees’ testimony with ICTR “convicted genocidaires”?
(iv) Courtesy and common sense requires Ms. Melvern and her group to explain how the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” exercised undue influence and pressure over the documentary interviewees. Is it rational that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires”, as Ms. Melvern and the group put it, would influence a significant number of society as to form what Ms. Melvern appears to call a global campaign of supporters and collaborators to create doubts and confusion about what happened?
(v) The documentary producer interviewed Rwandans and other nationals. Some of the interviewees are Tutsi and former RPF/A members. How did the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” recruit these Tutsi 1990/1994 war opponents into supporters and collaborators? Aren’t Ms. Melvern and her group oversimplifying very complex issues under cover over of their deliberate ad hominem?
(vi) The documentary features prominent non-Rwandan scholars and legal practitioners. Ms. Melvern and her group conveniently dismiss all these prominent professionals’ views under a terribly sweeping statement “all of those professionals are supporters and collaborators of the ICTR convicted genocidaire”. Ordinarily, social researchers and journalists avoid sweeping statements. How do the “convicted genocidaire” influence a cross section of people – including prominent professionals like lawyers and academics the documentary producers interviewed?
C. What Ms. Melvern and her group calls the three lies of the documentary are real controversies among Rwandans and social science researchers. These contentious issues are proper subject matter for social research and investigative journalism.
Ms. Melvern and her group cite what they call lies in the BBC Documentary as “[…] lie about the true nature of the Hutu Power militia […] an attempt to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered in the genocide, […] an effort to place the blame for shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994 on the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)”. Each of the three accusations, which Ms. Melvern and her group call “BBC Documentary lies”, deserves thorough analysis for validity and truth.
1. On the true nature of the Hutu power militia
Ms. Melvern and her groups argue that “the BBC documentary allows a witness to claim that ‘only ten percent of the Interahamwe (militia) were killers. In fact, the majority of Hutu Power militia forces – estimated to have been 30,000 strong – were trained specifically to kill Tutsi at speed, and indoctrinated in a racist ideology, part of genocide planning. There is eyewitness testimony by several militia leaders who cooperated with the ICTR”.
First, it is absurd to discredit the entire documentary or issue therein because “one of the interviewees made a mistake in [his] quantitative estimation” of the internahamwe who allegedly perpetrated the massacres. Interestingly, Ms Melvern protests the BBC interviewee’s estimation of the number of the Interahamwe by introducing her own estimation about the number of the internahamwe. Why does Ms. Melvern want her readers to believe her estimates, not the BBC interviewee’s estimations of the interahamwe numbers? Second, Ms. Melvern and her group miss on some important facts about the militia, including the internahame, some of who committed the horrible massacres.
(i) It is wrong to think that all interahamwe were Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. Referring to all interahamwe as Hutu militia is a misstatement of fact. The interahamwe boss in charge of recruitment and politics - Robert Kajuga – was Tutis and so were a significant number of the interahamwe
(ii) When Rwanda embraced multiparty politics in 1991, each political party had its own “Youth Wing to animate party meetings, organize and mobilize for the party. MRND (the then ruling party’s Youth Wing was called Interahamwe. PSD (another political party) had Abakombozi as its Youth Wing. MDR’s Youth Wing was called Inkuba. PL’s Youth Wing was called Jeunes liberaux. As the war and party politics progressed, each Rwandan community -including political parties and their youth wings – developed “radical groups”.
(iii) There is overwhelming evidence that some members of each political youth wing/militia participated in the 1994 massacres and that each political party militia was hostile against others. Reducing these militia groups to “Hutu militia” is distortion of facts.
(iv) There is proof of, and the type of war RPA/F was engaged in against the then government dictate that, RPA/F cadres infiltrated all political parties’ militia as early as 1991. Probably, some of these RPA/F infiltrators engaged in the 1994 massacres.
(v) There is sufficient evidence that by the time of the 1994 massacres, all political parties of that time, including RPF, had some ‘radicalized’ members and militia. Therefore, simplifying the phenomenon of who killed who during such circumstance, like Ms. Melvern appears to suggest, is inconsistent with qualitative research approach.


2. Ms. Melvern and her group’s argument on Rwanda’s population statistics before the 1994 massacres is false and invalid. Ms. Melvern and her group use inadmissible evidence to support their argument
Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “the programme [the BBC documentary] attempts to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered, a typical tactic of genocide deniers. The false figures cited are provided by two US academics who worked for a team of lawyers defending the génocidaires at the ICTR. They even claim that in 1994 more Hutu than Tutsi were murdered – an absurd suggestion and contrary to all the widely available research [reports]”.
Inconsistent statistics argument:
Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that the entire post-independence Rwandan population census reports indicated the ethnic and religious affiliation of each Rwandan. The last population census before the 1994 massacres took place in 1991. The 1991 Rwanda population census indicate that the total population was 6.2 million people; 14% Tutsi, 84% Hutu and 1% Twa and others. No post-independence Rwandan population census report had bigger figures than the 1991 population census report. However, after the 1994 massacres, the total number of the people butchered is put at 1.3 million people – in any case, well above 1 million people were brutality butchered. The number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres stood at around 350,000 people. The proper equation, for purposes of determining the number of the Tutsi who died during the1994 massacres should be: 14% of the total population – (minus) the total number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres.
For unknown reasons, Ms. Melvern wants her audience to rely on reports and/or stories, made/told after the 1994 massacres, to ascertain the country’s population’s statistics before 1994. The only proper authority when in issue is the population statistic of a country, is that country’s population census. How does the world end up with over one million Tutsi dead and about 350,000 Tutsi survivors yet the Tutsi were only 14% of a population of 6.2 million people? Even if all the 14% Tutsi had been killed, it was impossible to have the over 1 million human skulls “Tutsi victims” that are paraded in genocide memorial centers. Is it possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but they ended up killing themselves more than they killed their “target”, the Tutsi? Seeking for answers to such clear statistical inconsistences is called “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern and his fellow researchers’ world. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to push all these inconsistences down their readers’ throat because “some reports say so”. This, in my considered view, is undermining human intelligibility.
Ms. Melvern and her group should inquire, from the government of Rwanda, about the 2004/2005 household-to-household nationwide survey of the Tutsi who died during the massacres. Why did the government of Rwanda and donors invest so much money in a survey whose findings were never made public? Who had interest in not publishing that survey? Wouldn’t have made a good argument for Kagame, who has paraded human skulls for tourists throughout the country, to show a breakdown of village by village Tutsi who died during the massacres? Interestingly, every apart of Rwanda has skulls of the 1994 massacres victims. However, by April 1994 when the massacres started, RPF had significant territory under their control. How did the “Hutu” penetrate RPA/F held territory to massacre the “Tutsi”? Why there isn’t any District in Rwanda without the 1994 massacres victim skulls yet a significant chunk of Rwandan territory was under RPF control? Inquiring into these and other critical questions is what Ms. Melvern calls “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern’s world. Ridiculous
3. Ms. Melvern and her group twist facts about shooting down the plane of the then Hutu president, which is widely believed to have triggered the 1994 massacres
Ms. Melvern and her group claim that the BBC film “argues that the shooting down of the plane on April 6, 1994 was perpetrated by the RPF. This same story was promoted by Hutu Power extremists within a few hours of the president’s assassination and promoted ever since by génocidaires and a few ICTR defense lawyers. The film pays no heed to a detailed expert report published in January 2012 by a French magistrate Judge Marc Trévidic. This contains evidence from French experts, including crash investigators, who proved scientifically that the missiles that shot down the plane came from the confines of the government-run barracks in Kanombe on the airport’s perimeter – one of the most fortified places in the country, and where it would have been impossible for the RPF, armed with a missile, to penetrate”. This argument is a deliberate set of twisted facts and lies that the journalists and researchers cannot have appended their signature to naked lies if their motive had been justice, fairness and good faith rebuttal of the BBC documentary. The following are the nasty twisted facts and lies in Ms. Melvern’s argument “shooting down the president’s plane”:
(i) Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane is the legal and proximate cause of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda. Shooting down of the plane has been investigated by two distinct and separate courts; the French and Spanish courts. Both courts indicted and issued arrest warrants for Kagame and his top RPF commanders for their alleged criminal responsibility for shooting down the plane. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern appears to argue that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” and some of the ICTR defense attorneys “influenced” both the French and Spanish court to indict and issue arrest warrants for Kagame and his former bush war top commanders. Really!
(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group do not inform their readers that the ICTR former prosecutor carried out thorough investigations into Kagame and his then rebel leaders’ role in the massacres. The ICTR prosecutor was ready to prosecute Kagame and his fighters who allegedly committed crimes under the ICTR jurisdiction; war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Shooting down the plane was part of the charges against Kagame and his then rebel fighters. Instead of accepting to face justice at the ICTR, Kagame rushed to President Bush for “rescue”. President Bush ordered the then ICTR prosecutor – Carl Del Ponte – to desist prosecuting Kagame and his former rebel fighters because Kagame is a USA ‘ally’. The prosecutor chose to resign than compromising our professional ethnics because selective justice is not justice. These facts are well documented.
(iii) The French court indicted, and/or issued arrest warrants for, Kagame and his top rebel commanders for the shooting down of the plane. Ms. Melvern and her friends know or should know that a court decision is not overturned by a mere report of experts. A court decision is overturned by another superior court’s decision in form of an appeal or the same court’s review of its decision. Ms. Melvern knows or should know that the French Court indictments and/or arrest warrants for Kagame and his alleged partners-in-crime are on file. It is absurd that Ms. Melvern and her group seek to abuse the purpose and character of expert reports the way they use Judge Marc Trévidic report in their argument. In any case, the French Court has not pronounced itself on the experts’ report Ms. Melvern and her group uses for their argument. This is academic dishonesty of the highest order.
(iv) Ms. Melvern and her group appear to ignore the fact that the BBC documentary features some of Kagame’s former top rebel commanders who testify that Kagame ordered the shooting of the plane. These former top rebel commanders’ testimony is admissible evidence in courts of law; it is an “admission”. Some of the former RPA/F top leaders who testified in the documentary are Tutsi and they incriminate themselves. Linda and her fellow researchers should have analyzed these central facts before dismissing the BBC Documentary as “lies”. It is true these former rebels’ testimony may be subject to impeachment for bias. However, since we are not in court yet – and it is court’s exclusive powers to conclude on whether or not a witness is biased against the accused – Ms. Melvern and her group cannot sweep these former RPA/F top leaders’ testimony under the carpet. In any case, Melvern and a significant number of the signatories to the letter can also be impeached for bias in favor of Kagame because of their constant, sometimes bordering with insanity, defense for Kagame at all costs, including telling lies for that purpose. Whatever the case, the BBC is not reasonably expected to go into the intricate law of evidence on impeachment of witnesses’ rules before selecting their interviewees.
D. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to present evidence of “planning genocide” to BBC yet; the ICTR prosecutor needed, but failed to get, sufficient evidence to prove “planning” the 1994 massacres with intent to destroy the Tutsi in whole or part.

Ms. Melvern and her group give an impression that they have, and are presenting, evidence of “ genocide planning” yet in the famous Military 1 and Military 11 which prosecuted all the top military and national security officials found that all that evidence did not prove “ planning” genocide. The ICTR indictments of all the accused in Military 1 and Military 11 alleged that the accused had pre-made lists of the Tutsi to be killed, the accused had a well laid strategy to exterminate the Tutsi and that the accused had trained and distributed militia to perpetrate the Tutsi genocide. There was no evidence at the ICTR to prove these allegations and court acquitted all the accused on genocide account. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern recycles these allegations, which the ICTR examined and found baseless, for her argument to attack the BBC documentary. If Ms. Melvern had the evidence she claims to prove that the Hutu “planned” the genocide, why didn’t Ms. Melvern take her evidence to the ICTR in the Military 1 and Military 11 which examined ‘planning’ the genocide allegation?
Ms. Melvern and her team, fallaciously, argue that “Jane Corbin, who presented the programme, even tries to raise doubts about whether or not the RPF stopped the genocide. The authority on this subject is Lt.-General Roméo Dallaire … Dallaire is categorical. ‘The genocide was stopped because the RPF won and stopped it’”. Ms. Melvern and her group ignore that the then very powerful and one of the top RPA/F commander, General Nyamwasa Kayumba said that “Kagame’s concern was not to stop the genocide. Kagame’s intention was to take power”. Without efforts to reconcile these critical and diverse positions by different actors, Ms. Melvern makes very disturbing conclusion, “RPF stopped genocide because Gen. Romeo Dakkaire said it”. Is that academic honesty as she claims she is?
Ms. Melvern and her group agree that the BBC documentary lasted for less than an hour. The film features some scholars and people with firsthand information about what happened. What Ms. Melvern and the group blames the BBC documentary for is that the BBC documentary producer did not feature the group’s favorite scholars, practitioners including Dallaire, Philippe Gaillard and Dr. James Orbinski. In my considered view, Ms. Melvern and her group are probably mistaken about how investigative journalism and social research operates. The purpose of the film was to bring to light the “Untold story” about the massacres in Rwanda. It follows that the “popular account of events” was not the subject matter of the documentary. What value would the BBC add to its diverse viewers if the BBC was to avoid controversial social issues for “popular” views? It is impossible to interview everybody for one single research project.
E. The 1994 massacres cannot be detached from Rwanda’s social political culture. A researcher that seeks to close investigations and/or research into the culture that gave birth to the 1994 horrible massacres is probably naive
The 1994 Rwandan massacres were a logical sequence of a complex unresolved social and political dynamics. At the core of this insane conflict is each side’s failure to perceive the other side as a legitimate group with equal rights. In this conflict, the “other group” has no legitimate history, story and existence. Each group’s heroes are the other group’s evil men. Vengeance, dehumanizing the ‘other group’ and exterminating “our” enemy is spontaneous characteristic of an ordinary Hutu or Tutsi. “Secrets and lies” in “our” group against the “other” group are the major features of the Hutu vs Tutsi troubled co-existence. Settling for one group or side’s narrative, without critical thinking and reexamination of these two groups’ co-existence history and crimes, is settling on a appallingly slippery cliff.
Unfortunately, the current government of Rwanda and its complex network of lobbyists consider any critical reflection on RPA/F role in the horrific crimes “genocide denial”. This undesirable Government of Rwanda position is clear in its draconic laws, including “genocide revisionism laws”. Kigali government, its lobbyists and, surprisingly, some academics are inclined to refer to the BBC documentary – a very critical inquiry into the different events during, before and after the 1994 massacres – as “genocide denial”.
Conclusion
What happened during, before and after the 1994 massacres is extremely complex that any social researcher who claims to have perfect and conclusive knowledge of the 1994 Rwandan massacres, like Ms. Melvern and fellow researchers claim, must be treated with the contempt they deserve. “Genocide denial” should not become a social-political tool to suppress critical thinking, human intelligibility and human freedoms.
The BBC has a choice to make. Remain critical and investigative or become a morale booster for those who hold power and lose the trust and confidence of the ordinary people who are yarning for justice and fairness. The Hutu/Tutsi conflict has caused way too many horrible massacres in Burundi, Rwanda and DRC. The victor vs. Vanquished narrative, like Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest, should be discarded. For BBC’s credibility and very long history of service, a critical approach to the Hutu/Tutsi conflict is the only sustainable and value adding way to go.
I would be happy to take on Ms. Melvern and her group in an open debate over all the issues they raised in their letter.
Dr Charles Kambanda



The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Rwanda – Génocide : Il faudra réécrire l’histoire du génocide rwandais









[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]


Docteur Théogène Rudasingwa, ancien chef de cabinet de Paul Kagame
et ancien ambassadeur du Rwanda aux Etats-Unis
L’histoire du génocide rwandais, telle qu’elle est présentée par Paul Kagame, est sûrement au point de s’effondrer. Pour la première fois depuis 20 ans, un grand média, la BBC, a diffusé un documentaire qui remet profondément en cause la version officielle de la tragédie rwandaise. Tout au long du documentaire, il est rappelé que toute personne qui ose contester l’histoire du génocide rwandais, telle qu’elle est présentée par Kagame et les médias dominants, fait l’objet de menace, de chantage ; est trainé dans la boue, traité de négationniste, de révisionniste, voire d’antisémite et de génocidaire, comme cela est rappelé dans un autre documentaire, de julien Teil intitulé « Rwanda, 20 ans après l'histoire truquée ». Un climat malsain, entretenu depuis deux décennies, et qui a fini par rendre impossible tout débat contradictoire sur cette affaire et la possibilité d’examiner sereinement des preuves, des témoignages et des faits qui, dès le début, contredisaient la version officielle.

Dans le documentaire de Jane Corbin, « Rwanda’s Untold Story »[1], la journaliste britannique prend la précaution de tendre le micro à plusieurs personnalités qu’on ne saurait soupçonner de sympathie avec des « Hutus génocidaires ». La magistrate suisse Carla del Ponte, ancienne Procureure du Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda et pour l’ex-Yougoslavie ; le général tutsi en exil Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, ancien compagnon d’armes de Kagame et ancien chef d’Etat-major de l’armée rwandaise ; le docteur Théogène Rudasingwa, ancien chef de cabinet de Paul Kagame et ancien ambassadeur du Rwanda aux Etats-Unis ; l’éminent professeur belge Filip Reyntjens. La journaliste britannique assure que le président Paul Kagame et son parrain Tony Blair, ancien Premier ministre britannique, ont été sollicités mais qu’ils ont décliné la demande de participer au documentaire.
Trois vérités au moins:
Au moins trois vérités capitales se dégagent des deux documentaires. Première vérité : Paul Kagame est l’homme qui a commandité l’attentat du 6 avril 1994 contre l’avion du président Juvénal Habyarimana. Deuxième vérité : il y a eu, dans le conflit rwandais, plus de Hutus massacrés par les hommes de Kagame que de Tutsis massacrés par les Interahamwe. Troisième vérité : la guerre du Rwanda n’avait pas pour enjeu le Rwanda. L’enjeu de la guerre du Rwanda c’était le Zaïre de Mobutu et ses immenses gisements miniers. Américains et Britanniques devaient s’emparer militairement des régions minières du Zaïre (l’actuelle République Démocratique du Congo), en se dissimulant derrière l’armée tutsie de Kagame. Une mission qui devait passer par la diabolisation des Français et l’éjection de la France de cette région que convoitaient les puissances anglo-saxonnes opérant sous couvert de Kagame.
Sur l’attentat du 6 avril, les témoignages de Faustin Kayumba et de Théogène Rudasingwa, deux anciens proches de Kagame et, aujourd’hui, deux grandes figures de l’opposition rwandaise, devraient suffire à enlever les derniers doutes de nos esprits pour au moins deux raisons. La première est que personne au monde n’a jamais été plus proche de Kagame, en ces moments décisifs de l’histoire du Rwanda que Kayumba et Rudasingwa. C’étaient ses confidents. Pour pouvoir contester leurs accusations contre Kagame, il faut avoir été beaucoup plus proche qu’ils ne l’étaient. Impossible. La deuxième raison est que ces deux leaders tutsis, étant des figures de l’opposition rwandaise[2], ils incarnent ce que sera la vérité officielle du Rwanda après le règne de Kagame, qui n’est pas éternel. Il est donc tout à fait responsable de commencer à anticiper ce que sera l’histoire officielle du Rwanda de demain, à savoir que c’est Paul Kagame qui avait commandité l’attentat du 6 avril 1994, acte considéré par l’ONU comme le facteur déclenchant du génocide.
Le responsable du génocide
Ce qui, mécaniquement, amène à la question de savoir qui est le responsable du génocide rwandais. Carla del Ponte avait prévenu après sa nomination en tant que Procureure du Tribunal d’Arusha[3] que s’il s’avérait un jour que ce sont les rebelles tutsis qui ont abattu l’avion du président Habyarimana, toute l’histoire du génocide rwandais devra être réécrite. Nous y sommes. En d’autres termes, à la responsabilité des Interahamwe, qui avaient usé de machettes, il faudra ajouter la responsabilité de celui qui ordonna de lancer les missiles. Faustin Kayumba résume l’histoire à venir du Rwanda par cette sagesse, parlant de Kagame, de l’attentat et des massacres : « Si nous sommes en pleine saison sèche et que vous jetez une allumette dans l’herbe, vous viendra-t-il à l’idée de penser que l’herbe ne brûlera pas ? »

Il faut rappeler dans quel climat explosif était le Rwanda en avril 1994. Le documentaire en fait mention et Bernard Desgagné en donne un résumé exhaustif. « La guerre et l’occupation du territoire par les tueurs de Kagame, à partir de septembre 1990, avaient donné lieu à des massacres de masse de la population civile hutue. Un million de réfugiés essentiellement hutus, chassés de leurs terres, s’étaient agglutinés autour de Kigali, dans des camps de la mort d’où l’on sortait une centaine de cadavres par jour, à cause des maladies et de la faim. De plus, un grand nombre de réfugiés en provenance du Burundi avaient afflué au Rwanda en 1993 pour fuir les massacres dont étaient victimes les Hutus dans ce pays, aux mains de l’armée et de civils tutsis. Voir leurs frères burundais ainsi persécutés ne fit rien pour rassurer les Hutus du Rwanda »[4] devant l’armée tutsie de Kagame.

« Lorsque l’avion transportant les deux présidents hutus fut abattu, les Hutus, déjà martyrisés, en vinrent à la conclusion que le FPR et ses partisans ne voudraient jamais de la démocratie »[5], ce que confirment d’ailleurs le documentaire de la BBC ainsi que de nombreux témoignages et des faits avérés. « Pour Kagame, le pouvoir a toujours été au bout du fusil, et non dans les urnes. Certains Hutus, désespérés et fous de rage, prirent des machettes et décidèrent de tuer ceux qu’ils percevaient comme les responsables de leurs souffrances. Qu’on le qualifie de génocide ou non, le massacre des Tutsis, en avril 1994, n’était pas le résultat d’un plan diabolique du pouvoir hutu. (…) Il a duré quelques jours seulement et était essentiellement terminé à la fin d’avril. Par comparaison, les massacres de Hutus et d’opposants politiques, eux, sont systématiques et bien organisés par le FPR. Ils se sont étirés sur 24 ans, jusqu’à aujourd’hui »[6]. Dans un précédent article[7] au sujet des corps flottants récemment découverts sur le lac Rweru, nous avons fait remarquer que, vingt ans après le génocide, les populations hutues continuaient d’être massacrées au Rwanda, sous nos yeux indifférents et avec la complicité des grandes démocraties européennes et américaines, qui financent et parrainent Paul Kagame tout au long de ses interminables massacres.
Les victimes invisibles


La deuxième vérité du génocide rwandais est que la majorité des victimes furent des Hutus et non des Tutsis. Dans le documentaire, les chercheurs Christian Davenport et Allan Stam posent une question arithmétique et mettent les chiffres sur la table. Il vivait au Rwanda environ 500.000 Tutsis avant le génocide. Selon l’association Ibuka, proche de Kagame, 300.000 Tutsis ont survécu au génocide, ce qui revient à dire que 200.000 Tutsis ont péri dans le génocide. Or le génocide rwandais avait coûté la vie à 800.000 personnes, selon l’ONU, 1.000.000 selon le régime de Kagame. D’où cette question : qui étaient les 600.000 à 800.000 autres victimes ? Une question embarrassante. Les deux chercheurs américains y répondent par cette formule simple : « entre ce que l’opinion a été amenée à croire et la réalité des faits, il y a une énorme différence ». Dans un remarquable ouvrage du Canadien Robin Philpot, intitulé « Ca ne s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali », et qui lui a attiré les foudres des médias occidentaux pro-Kagame, dont Radio Canada, l’auteur, dès 2005, remettait déjà en questions les chiffres officiels et le discours convenu des médias dominants sur le drame rwandais. Il ne sera pas le seul à être réhabilité lorsque la version actuelle du génocide rwandais sera définitivement battue en brèche[8].
Enfin, la troisième vérité : les vrais enjeux de la guerre du Rwanda. On ne comprend pas comment Kagame a réussi à mettre dans sa poche nos grands médias, nos dirigeants politiques, nos grands universitaires, voire nos universités qui continuent d’enseigner l’histoire mensongère du génocide rwandais ; nos associations, nos ONG, voire de respectables institutions internationales comme l’Union européenne, toujours docile devant ce dictateur africain. On ne comprend pas comment le monde entier s’est mis à suivre de façon moutonnière un quelconque maquisard africain, à peine instruit, et à la tête d’un tout petit pays enclavé au cœur de l’Afrique, pauvre et dépourvu d’enjeux stratégiques. On ne comprend pas comment Kagame et ses parrains ont réussi à berner le monde entier si on ne regarde pas la frontière ouest du Rwanda où s’étend l’ancien Zaïre de Mobutu avec ses immenses gisements miniers.
Taisez-vous et Kagame vous rendra riche !
Nous sommes au début des années 1990. Les gens ne le savent pas encore, mais il va y avoir des centaines de milliards de dollars à gagner dans un secteur dont le marché n’est que balbutiant. En Europe, on utilise encore des cabines téléphoniques pour appeler nos proches, le minitel pour traiter les données et des gros téléviseurs cathodiques qui pèsent comme des parpaings. Mais l’humanité va effectuer un grand bond dans le temps, et à moins cher. Les nouvelles technologies de l’information ! Les Américains, les Britanniques, les Israéliens et les Canadiens ont repéré un pays en Afrique, le Zaïre de Mobutu. Dans son sous-sol gisent les plus importantes réserves mondiales d’au moins quatre minerais indispensables à la fabrication d’une foule d’appareils qu’on appellera téléphones portables, écrans plats, consoles de jeux, smartphone, tablettes[9],… Le colombo-tantalite, aussi connu sous le nom de coltan. C’est le minerai dont est extrait le tantale, indispensable à la fabrication des condensateurs, ce qui permettra de miniaturiser les appareils électroniques tout en améliorant leur performance. Mais aussi la cassitérite[10] ; le wolframite[11], le cobalt, l’or, le diamant, l’uranium, le chrome,…
Internet, dont personne ne sait vraiment ce que ça veut dire en 1990, va transformer la vie des milliards de gens sur la planète. Mais pour contrôler ce marché extrêmement juteux, il faut contrôler les gisements miniers, et surtout ne rien révéler aux populations locales et ne rien payer à l’Etat zaïrois.
Tout comme George Bush entreprendra de renverser Saddam Hussein pour s’emparer du pétrole irakien, Bill Clinton entreprit de renverser Mobutu pour prendre possession des gisements miniers du Zaïre. Mais Clinton s’y prend autrement. Il ne doit surtout pas utiliser directement la brutalité de l’armée américaine contre des populations africaines, les Congolais. Il se servira d’un Africain pour massacrer d’autres Africains. L’opération sera menée par Paul Kagame et son ami ougandais Yoweri Museveni. Kagame obtiendra tout ce qu’aucun dictateur africain n’a jamais eu : une complaisante couverture médiatique en Europe et en Amérique, des instructeurs militaires américains, canadiens, israéliens et britanniques, des renseignements, des armes,… et, plus important : la totale impunité, quel que soit le nombre des gens qu’il voudra tuer. La Cour pénale internationale devra se taire comme une tombe. Les chantres de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme en Europe et en Amérique, devront faire semblant de ne pas voir les crimes de Kagame. L’appel pour la création d’un Tribunal pénal international pour le Congo devra rester lettre morte, malgré des millions de morts. Les journalistes occidentaux devront se montrer complaisants avec le plus effrayant massacreur de la planète devenu, par magie, « le chouchou des grandes démocraties ». Marché conclu !
Le problème, pour la crédibilité de nos démocraties, et même pour la conscience de ceux qui profitent du confort des appareils électroniques, grâce à l’occupation brutale et le pillage du Congo par les hommes de Kagame, c’est que l’homme n’arrive pas à se fixer des limites. Kagame continuera à tuer au-delà de « sa mission », et sans compter. Le rapport Mapping de 2010 ouvre juste une lorgnette sur les crimes du dictateur rwandais. A force de tuer sans compter, il a fini par créer la panique et l’effroi jusque dans les rangs de ses proches. Faustin Kayumba le décrit comme « un homme qui aime tuer ». La journaliste belge Colette Braeckman le décrit à peu près dans les mêmes termes[12]. Filip Reyntjens qui intervient dans le film de Jane Corbin le décrit comme le plus grand criminel du monde encore en fonction. Bref, une sorte de massacreur pathologique, devenu un problème pour tout le monde à la fois.

La mainmise de Kagame sur le Congo, qui se poursuit, sera responsable de la mort de plus de six millions de Congolais et des centaines de milliers de femmes violées. On n’oublie surtout pas que plus de 300.000 réfugiés hutus rwandais furent massacrés dès les premier mois de l’occupation du Congo par les hommes de Kagame avec l’appui des Etats-Unis, du Canada et du Royaume-Uni. Le massacre s’est poursuivi au Congo et au Rwanda. Même des rescapés du génocide préfèrent s’exiler et fuir le Rwanda, leur propre pays qu’ils avaient cru devenir un havre de paix après les atrocités qu’ils avaient subi. Exil où le dictateur sait aussi atteindre ses victimes. Dernière victime en date, Patrick Karegeya, son ancien compagnon d’armes et ancien chef des renseignements rwandais, assassiné en Afrique du Sud le 1er janvier 2014.
Où sont passées nos valeurs ?
Nous en sommes donc là avec l’histoire de ce petit pays dont la paisible population n’avait rien demandé à personne mais que nos grandes démocraties décidèrent un jour d’utiliser pour gagner de l’argent. Mais aussi pour se discréditer et se ridiculiser pour longtemps aux yeux des Africains. Pour s’emparer des gisements miniers, toutes les valeurs de la civilisation occidentale furent enterrées dans les collines du Rwanda et les zones minières de l’Est du Congo. Les experts de l’ONU ont publié plusieurs rapports dans lesquels apparaissent nos multinationales impliquées dans le pillage, en marge des aventures militaires de Paul Kagame au Congo. Patrick Mbeko a établi la liste de ces multinationales et leurs ramifications. Elles sont liées à une foule de décideurs politiques américains, canadiens, britanniques, israéliens et européens de premier plan. Mais aussi aux patrons des grands médias occidentaux et aux personnalités qui façonnent notre manière de penser[13]. Une véritable maffia au cœur de nos démocraties. Kagamé devait être solidement protégé, jusque dans les coulisses des médias. D’où la loi du silence dans les grands médias sur la plus grande campagne d’extermination des populations depuis la Seconde guerre mondiale. Une boucherie financée à 100% par les contribuables européens et américains[14].
Il faut espérer que, dans un proche avenir, de courageux journalistes emboîteront le pas à leur consœur Jane Corbin pour éclairer l’opinion internationale sur ce qui s’est passé au Rwanda et au Congo ces vingt dernières années. Une démarche qui contribuera énormément à aider les Rwandais à se réconcilier. Le peuple rwandais ne méritait pas ce que l’Occident lui a fait subir. Surtout pas pour des enjeux miniers dont son sous-sol est dépourvu. Si les Congolais savent pourquoi ils sont massacrés, les Rwandais, eux, ont été massacrés pour rien !
Boniface MUSAVULI
The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Sunday, October 5, 2014

Hotel Propaganda




What really happened in Rwanda in 1994
ANTHONY BLACK | October 3rd 2014.





 in the Truth is coming out !

Isaiah 42-46:

 “Hear, you deaf.  Look, you blind, and see!



In the evening of April 6, 1994 a plane carrying the Hutu leaders of both Rwanda and Burundi was shot down as it approached Kanombe airport.1 The assassins had little trouble targeting the flight as only one of the two runways was open, the other having been closed two months earlier on the orders of Canadian General Romeo Dallaire. Simultaneous to the shootdown, that is on the eve of April 6, a 30,000 RPF (Tutsi) army based in Uganda invaded from the north. At the same time, hundreds of covert armed RPF cells came to life in and around Kigali and began attacking Rwandan government forces (FAR). The population, roughly 85% Hutu, and encompassing at least a million refugees in and around Kigali displaced by previous RPF incursions from Uganda, began to panic. A genocide was about to begin.
But it was a genocide neither against, nor by, the actors cited in the ‘official’ narrative. Indeed, Rwanda circa 1994, is, in all likelihood, if not the, then certainly one of the greatest propaganda swindles of all time. This is the story of that swindle and of the scandalous truth that lies buried beneath it.
Historical Context
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, Rwanda was a feudal kingdom ruled by a Tutsi minority over a Hutu majority. Following the Berlin Conference of 1885 Rwanda came under the suzerainty of Germany which was, itself, replaced as colonial overlord following WW1, by Belgium. Rwanda’s feudal order remained intact, however, until 1956 when the Belgians finally organized elections. Then, in November 1959, the Hutu majority overthrew the Tutsi monarchy. Many Tutsis fled, the majority ending up, significantly, in Uganda. It was from this perch in Uganda that the exiled Tutsi aristocracy launched, between 1960 and 1973, a series of violent attacks against the Rwandan regime. These were repulsed and for the next decade and a half Rwanda enjoyed a period of relative peace.
It is worth noting at this juncture that, though much of the Tutsi aristocracy fled in 1960, those Tutsis who remained were well integrated into Rwandan society and body politic. Thus, both the government and army contained significant numbers of Tutsi personnel even through the height of the crisis in April 1994. In fact, the Rwandan Army (FAR) continued as a multi-ethnic organization even as it was forced to retreat into the forests of the Congo in July of 1994; this after having run out of ammunition due to a Western embargo on arms supplies – an embargo not applied to the RPF.
Up until 1990 there was no further interference in Rwanda from Uganda. Nevertheless, by then the Tutsis exiles living there had become one of the main elements of the Ugandan Army. As such, when Museveni came to power – having been handpicked by the US and Britain to oust the socialist, Milton Obote – a third or more of his army consisted of Tutsis. Many of these held high office, including Paul Kagame.
Kagame had been (and remains) an erstwhile client of Washington from well before he claimed to have ‘saved Rwanda from further genocide’ in 1994. Not only had he served as director of Ugandan military intelligence in the 1980s, but he had also received training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,2 and had been the beneficiary of constant US material and diplomatic support from the moment he assumed control of the RPF.
Upon the collapse of the USSR in 1989/90 the US and the UK began a general militarist expansion which included the targeting of Yugoslavia and Rwanda; Yugoslavia as it was the last real bastion of working socialism in Europe, and Rwanda as it was a working model of socialist development in Africa. In addition, the US had turned against Mobutu (of Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) as he was beginning to ally himself politically with China. The Rwandan president, Habyarimana, was subsequently approached by Washington to allow his country to be used as a staging ground for an attack on Zaire (to this day, a cornucopia of precious resources prized by the West). His refusal caused the US to look to other agents in furthering its strategic interests. They found the Tutsis in Uganda, ever thirsting for restoration of their hegemony in Rwanda. Furthermore, Museveni had begun to feel uneasy about the numbers of Tutsis in his ranks and was looking to be rid of them. The opportunity to satisfy these disparate desires soon came.
On October 1, 1990 the self-styled Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) launched a surprise attack from Uganda. Though calling themselves a force of ‘liberation’ the offensive was a thinly disguised invasion by Uganda itself. Initially, the justification for the invasion put out by the RPF was that of attaining the right of return of Tutsi refugees. This claim, however, was belied by the fact that Rwanda had, under UN auspices, already agreed a few weeks earlier to the return of all Tutsis who wished to do so. That accord required Tutsi representatives to travel to Kigali to determine both the logistics of that population movement and their subsequent accommodation within Rwanda. The delegation was expected at the end of September, 1990. They never arrived.
The attack killed tens of thousands of Rwandan civilians. These crimes, though well documented, have never been accounted for, nor did the UN or ‘international community’ ever seek to account for them. Indeed, there was not even a shred of condemnation of the Ugandan/RPF invasion, this despite the clamour raised only two months earlier with regard to the advance of Iraqi forces into Kuwait. In point of fact, the US and its allies supported the aggression against Rwanda and US Special Forces operated alongside the RPF from the beginning. This support notwithstanding, the small Rwandan army (with some help from a Congolese battalion) was eventually able to repel the invading forces.
Following this attempt using a proxy force to overthrow the state, the United States brought political and economic pressure to bear upon Rwanda’s one-party socialist state (MRND). The President, Juvenal Habyarimana, instead of resisting, agreed to alter the constitution and in 1991 Rwanda became a multi-party democracy. Though the Rwandan government effected this as an offer of peace, what followed was anything but peace. Thus, rather than work towards reconciliation, the RPF turned from the tactics of open warfare to those of guerrilla terrorism.
In 1992, and whilst RPF forces were busy planting mines, assassinating politicians and blaming it on the MRND, a coalition government was formed with the front parties of the RPF. These agents, with US backing, quickly seized control of key ministries and succeeded in appointing the Prime Minister. They also gained control of the intelligence services which they then began to dismantle. In essence, the ‘power sharing’ arrangement had largely given over control of the country to the very forces long bent on its destruction.
The RPF itself, meanwhile, engaged in a ‘talk and fight’ strategy; always agreeing to a ceasefire, pressing for more power, then launching new attacks on the civilian population. The most egregious of these assaults was their breaking of the ceasefire and the launching of a major offensive in February of 1993. Seizing the town of Ruhengeri, RPF forces murdered some 40,000, mostly Hutu, civilians. Once again, the ‘international community’ remained dutifully silent.
The Rwandan army, though hamstrung by the civilian ministries, managed to repulse the RPF attack. Finally, in August of 1993, the Arusha Accords were signed under pressure from the United States and its allies, and from which the RPF obtained major concessions. The Accords dictated the formation of a broad-based transition government to be followed by general elections.3 But for the RPF – as for the United States – there was a fatal fly in the electoral ointment. To wit, the RPF knew that they could not win such elections; this not only because they were unpopular with the majority (85%) Hutu population, but also because they had precious little support amongst many of Rwanda’s internal Tutsis whose lives and businesses they had destroyed. Rather than prepare for elections, the RPF prepared for something different.


Dr. Rudasingwa Theogène
RNC chairman
UN reports document the massive build-up of men and weapons coming in from Uganda during this period. In fact, the UN force (UNAMIR) supposedly deployed to ensure a peaceful transition acted, instead, as a cover for the US and its allies, i.e. Britain, Belgium, Canada, to assist the illegal build-up. General Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general in charge of the UN force, hid this build-up not only from the Rwandan Army and the President, but also from his immediate superiors, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh and UN Secretary General Boutros Ghali. These machinations were accompanied by death threats against Habyarimana, threats made all the more significant by the murder of the first Hutu president of neighbouring Burundi, Melchior Ndadaye, by Tutsi officers in October 1993.4
The result of the 1993 RPF offensive was the forced migration of hundreds of thousands of Hutus from northern Rwanda towards Kigali so that by April, 1994 over a million refugees were encamped close to the capital and hundreds of thousands more in camps to the south. The RPF, meanwhile, did all it could to paralyze the functioning of the government, to exacerbate racial tensions, and to prepare for war.
<
Who Killed Habyarimana?

The triggering event in the ‘Rwandan genocide’ of 1994 is generally agreed to be the shooting down, on April 6, 1994, of the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana, the Hutu president of Rwanda, and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the Hutu president of Burundi. The official story has it that unidentified ‘Hutu rebels’ were the villains who targeted their own countrymen in some vague attempt to gain power. No evidence was ever adduced in support of this threadbare thesis, but in any case, even if so, the official villains failed spectacularly in their objectives as the country quickly fell to invading Tutsi forces leaving a small minority (Tutsi) population to rise like the Phoenix to its former position of national privilege and oligarchical control. No one in the Western mainstream media has ever commented on the exceeding peculiarity of this bizarre turn of events, never witnessed before, in which the supposed victims of a genocide end up as the victors of the conflict.
The paradox is soon resolved, however, if we countenance the much more likely scenario that the decapitation of the state leadership was the first stage in a final offensive of a war started four years earlier. That the assassination was part of an RPF coup d’etat is given further support by the fact that a 30,000 man RPF force was already marching against Kigali hours before the plane was destroyed, and that RPF forces inside Kigali were attacking government positions within hours of the shootdown. The Western audience, naturally, was, and has never since, been informed of these rather pertinent contextual facts surrounding the events of April 6, 1994. To boot, the official response to Habyarimana’s assassination was and has remained one of determined indifference; a strange thing given that it involved the highest official in the land. Even stranger given that, and according to virtually every independent expert on the subject, the ‘genocide of 1994’ simply would not have happened had Habyarimana not been assassinated. Nevertheless, though all the circumstantial evidence points towards the assassination being part and parcel of a US-backed RPF coup d’etat against the government of Rwanda, it would yet be helpful if there was direct evidence implicating RPF forces in the murder. There is.

As in one of those classic ‘B movie’ plot twists where the bad guys inadvertently hire a good guy who turns the table on his benefactors, so too did the lead official of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) hire an investigator into the crash who turned out to be an honest man. Reporting back to Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour in 1996/97, Australian lawyer, Michael Hourigan, found evidence directly linking the RPF (and the CIA) to the assassination. Far from pleasing Arbour, however, Hourigan’s diligence was rewarded with censure. According to Hourigan, Arbour became “aggressive” and “hostile” when informed of his findings. What Hourigan didn’t know at the time is that Arbour, after having launched the investigation, had been directed by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who had handpicked her for the job) to quash the inquiry. And so she did. Arbour would later (again under the aegis of Albright) be promoted to Canadian Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Hourigan’s report, though suppressed at the time, would, nevertheless, surface many years later in the hands of one of the defense teams at the ICTR. The report would also have its findings later corroborated by numerous sources. Thus, the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, having been called in to investigate the deaths of three French nationals who were aboard Habyarimana’s doomed flight, launched an exhaustive eight-year investigation. He concluded that the plane had indeed been destroyed by the RPF and that the assassination was part and parcel of Kagame et al’s plan to take over Rwanda by force. Bruguiere went on to issue nine warrants for the arrest of high-ranking members of the RPF whilst also requesting that the ICTR take up Kagame’s prosecution.
What’s more, not only have other French – and Spanish – legal officials since confirmed Bruguiere’s findings, but many highly placed members of the RPF have stepped forward publicly to implicate Kagame and the RPF in the assassination. All have suffered the same fate of official international silence and suppression, and some of the latter have suffered assassination themselves.5
This culture of suppression and official silence has also plagued the ICTR from its inception. In particular, it became the explicit policy of the ICTR to forcibly limit its mandate solely to the investigation of ‘genocidal intent’ by Hutu government figures, i.e. without any reference whatsoever either to the political context of the conflict or to the mounting evidence implicating the RPF as invaders and genocidaires. In short, the ICTR, much like its sister tribunal, the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), proved itself from the outset to be little more than a Washington-sponsored kangaroo court.6
This transparently politicized policy has continued apace throughout the trials. When, for instance, the more independently-minded Carla Del Ponte replaced the pliable Louise Arbour, she was quickly terminated as Chief Prosecutor after calling for a ‘Special Investigation’ into the actions of the RPF; this despite making a case for such an investigation with then UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan. Of course, Anan’s refusal to look into the crimes of the RPF should come as no surprise as it was he who, a) was head of the peacekeeping operations in 1994, and is thus implicated in the events, and b) was handpicked by the US to replace his predecessor, Boutros-Ghali.
Boutros-Ghali, It might be remembered, had come uncomfortably close to scuttling the entire US/RPF invasion scenario when, in May of 1994, he acceded to a request by the Rwandan government to send 5500 UN troops to Rwanda to reinforce the 2500 already stationed there; this so as to stabilize the country at a time when reports of growing ‘chaos’ were issuing forth daily in the world press. These efforts were, however, categorically thwarted by the Clinton regime which used its influence to remove the proposal from the UN agenda. Instead, the UN troops already stationed there, far from being reinforced, were withdrawn. Later, Boutros-Ghali, in conversation with Rwandan expert Robin Philpot, would expand on these matters declaring that, “The genocide in Rwanda was 100% the responsibility of the Americans!”7Hardly any wonder, then, that in 1996 US Ambassador to the UN, the ubiquitous Madeleine Albright, would veto his re-election making Boutros-Ghali the only UN Secretary General in history not to be granted a second term in office.
Inconvenient Truths
On August 26, 2010 the French newspaper Le Monde revealed the existence of a draft UN report detailing the most serious human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo over an eleven year period (1993 – 2003). The report described how, following the RPF’s takeover of Rwanda in 1994, it proceeded to carry out “systematic and widespread attacks” against Hutu refugees who had fled to neighbouring DRC. These attacks it stated, “could be classified as crimes of genocide.”
Save for it having been leaked to Le Monde, it is clear that the report was well on its way to being buried alive, its cover-up a near certainty. But this was hardly the first instance of a cover-up of a UN report vis a vis Rwanda. As early as October 11, 1994, Robert Gersony, an employee of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), then attached to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, made an oral presentation to the UN Commission of Experts on Rwanda. Gersony had been dispatched to survey the situation inside Rwanda to determine if conditions were right for return of the Hutu refugees who had fled the RPF. Instead, he found that the RPF had been committing massacres of the Hutu population in Rwanda starting in April 1994 through the date of his presentation. On page 4 of the UN record of Gersony’s presentation (a record which surfaced in the defense proceedings at the ICTR), we read:

Significant areas…have been the scene of systematic and sustained [emphasis added] killing and persecution of the civilian Hutu population by the Rwandan Patriotic Front…..These actions were consistently reported to be conducted in areas where opposition forces of any kind – armed or unarmed, or resistance of any kind….were absent. Large scale indiscriminate killings of men, women and children, including the sick and elderly were consistently reported.
Now, I remind the reader that the killings detailed here were being perpetrated not, as in the official narrative, i.e. by Rwandan government troops, but by the supposed saviours of the country, i.e. the RPF.
Though much evidence surfaced early on that the official genocide narrative was in sharp disagreement with reality, all later independent reports have continued to corroborate this finding. In a 2004 paper, for instance (and reinforced in a more recent 2009 report), US academics Christian Davenport and Allan Stam concluded that, of the many hundreds of thousands of deaths (possibly as high as two million)8 that occurred in Rwanda from April through July of 1994, the “majority of victims [at least two thirds] were likely Hutu and not Tutsi”. Noteworthy is the fact that Davenport and Stam were initially sponsored by the ICTR – that is until their findings contradicted the official narrative whence they were sent packing.
Still, Davenport and Stam have refrained from taking the implication of their own research to its logical conclusion, i.e. that Kagame’s forces were the only agents responsible for committing “systematic” killings in the areas they overran, or that such systemic violence was part of a pre-existing plan by the US-backed RPF to invade and overthrow the legitimate government, the latter in order to install a formerly privileged minority – and Western comprador elite9– to power within Rwanda.
If the academics have been content to sit on the fence, not so one of the more famous lay figures of the Rwandan debacle. It is ironic in the extreme that Paul Rusesabagina, the real-life hero of the movie Hotel Rwanda - a film unashamedly promoting the official narrative – has himself, in numerous interviews, completely gainsaid that narrative. He has, thus, repeatedly denounced the RPF as the real genocidaires, and has called a Kagame a “war criminal” and “dictator” who is responsible for mass killings not only during the takeover of Rwanda in July 1994, but ever since both in Rwanda and in his US-backed incursions into the Congo. Indeed, so fervent have the denunciations been that Rusesabagina is now officially listed as a ‘terrorist’ and ‘genocide denier’ (a prisonable offence in Rwanda) by the Kagame regime.

No matter, the movie continues to circulate, sans critique; Rusesabagina’s views and denunciations, do not.10
Whose Genocide(s)?
It is something of an embarrassment to the US architects of the ICTR that the tribunal, though explicitly tasked with indicting only members of the Hutu government, have failed singularly in successfully prosecuting any of them.11Not only have the most senior members of the MRND - through the spirited efforts of the various defense teams – been acquitted, but the mass of evidence so assembled has stood the entire official narrative on its head, and has implicated, au contraire, the RPF – and its foreign accomplices – in the genocide.
There was, however, one highly publicized piece of evidence proffered at the tribunal by prosecutors as they sought to prove a ‘planned genocide’ by the MRND government. This was the so-called ‘genocide fax’ allegedly sent to the New York UN headquarters on the night of January 10th, 1994. That this was the only piece of documentary evidence claiming direct planning of a genocide put forward in the trial is, itself, telling. Had there actually been such a plan (by the MRND), the logistics would have left a paper and/or electronic trail a mile wide. Instead, there are no orders, minutes of meetings, notes, cables, faxes, radio intercepts or any other type of documentation indicating that such a plan ever existed. And then, of course, there are the actual events on the ground which, as we have seen (and shall see further), suggest nothing of the sort. Nonetheless, there is the lone sepulchre of the ‘genocide fax’. What to make of it?12
To make a long story short, the fax is a forgery. There was a fax sent to the UN headquarters on January 10th, 1994 (a copy of a cable sent by Romeo Dallaire to another Canadian, General Baril), but this was not the fax that was entered into evidence in the Military II trial (ICTR vs Ndindiliyimana)13 in October, 2005. Ndindiliyimana’s defense counsel was able to definitively establish that the original fax dealt only with ‘weapons caches and seeking protection for an informant’, whereas the fax subsequently entered as evidence, having first had time stamps, dates and paragraphs altered, had mysteriously sprouted an addendum about government plans to kill Tutsis and Belgian soldiers.14 Conflicting testimony both between Dallaire’s earlier and later statements, and between statements made by Dallaire and Lt. Col. Claeys (a Belgian officer who claims to be one of the authors of the original cable), further proved the document’s inauthenticity. Such was only reinforced when Dallaire’s immediate superior, Jacques Roger Booh-Booh, stated that he had never seen nor heard of the fax or any of its alleged inflammatory contents. Eventually, the ‘genocide fax’ was simply withdrawn as evidence by the court. Puff! One might wonder, then, why tens of thousands of MRND personnel are today still in prison, this whilst not one RPF figure has even been indicted. But so it is.
If documents supporting a pre-meditated plan by the MRND have failed to materialize, not so it turns out when it comes to the RPF. In the same trial that saw the outing of the fraudulent ‘genocide fax’, evidence was presented suggesting nothing other than a master plan by Kagame and “our Belgian, British and American collaborators” for the taking not only of Rwanda, but of Zaire. In a letter from Kagame to fellow Tutsi, Jean-Baptiste Bagaza of Burundi, dated August 10, 1994, Kagame thanks Bagaza for his help in “taking Kigali”. He then relates his communications with “our big brother Yoweri Museveni” and talks of “some modifications of the plan” noting that:
We have found that the presence of large numbers of Rwandan refugees at Goma, and the international community, can cause our plan for Zaire [emphasis added] to fail. We cannot occupy ourselves with Zaire until after the return of these Hutus….In any case, our external intelligence services continue to crisscross the east of Zaire, and our Belgian, British and American collaborators [emphasis added] the rest of Zaire. The action reports are expected in the next few days.
Now, what this letter seems to indicate is that the attack on Rwanda (from 1990 onward) was not the prime objective of Kagame and crew after all, but was, rather, merely the gateway to an attack on Zaire/Congo. The significance of the latter became apparent when, on November 1, 1996, the aforementioned Goma was, in fact, attacked and taken by the RPA (the re-named RPF) along with Burundian and Ugandan forces. This assault was heavily backed by the United States and eyewitness accounts tell of large American cargo planes filled with arms landing in Kigali in the last two weeks of October, 1996. The taking of Goma was, it is pertinent to note, the prelude to the ensuing genocidal carnage that has overtaken the Democratic Republic of the Congo ever since. To properly understand this last statement we need to backtrack a bit to April 6, 1994, and look at the events that unfolded immediately following the assassination of Habyarimana.

******
Once the plane had been shot down, an RPF army, as noted earlier, invaded from the north whilst armed RPF cells began attacks inside Kigali itself. These cells represented some 15,000 or so troops that the RPF had illegally secreted into Kigali under Dallaire’s watch [As the UNAMIR force commander he was charged with the responsibility of allowing, under the Arusha Accords, no more than 600 RPF into the city]. In the sector of Kigali known as Remera the RPF killed everyone on the night of the 6th and 7th, wiped out the gendarme camp there, wiped out the military police camp at Kami and launched major attacks against Camp Kanombe, Camp Kigali, and the main gendarme camp at Kacyriu.
The Rwanda government and army called for a ceasefire that same night and the next day. The RPF rejected the call. The Rwandan government then asked for UN help to control the situation. Instead, the US arranged that the main UN force be pulled out whilst flying in men and supplies to the RPF using C130 Hercules aircraft. The Rwandan Army, short of ammunition and unable to contain the RPF advances offered an unconditional surrender on April 12th. The RPF rejected this offer and began shelling the Nyacyonga refugee camp, where the one million Hutu refugees were located, so provoking their flight into the capital.
The effect of one million people flooding into a small city that itself was under bombardment caused mayhem and panic. To make matters worse, the RPF used this flood of people to infiltrate its men behind FAR lines. This heightened to fever pitch the panic amongst the Hutu population who then began killing anyone they did not recognize. The late Dr. Alison Des Forges (a noted expert on Rwanda), in her testimony before the Military II trial at the ICTR in 2006 stated that the RPF claim that they attacked to stop a ‘genocide’ was a myth; just propaganda to justify their attempt to seize power by force of arms. She also testified that the Rwandan government did not plan and execute genocide. This accords with the (early) testimony of Romeo Dallaire who confirmed that there was no planned genocide by the MRND. In addition, the deputy head of Belgian Army intelligence, Col. Vincent, similarly testified that the idea of an MRND-backed genocide was a complete fantasy.
The fighting in Kigali was intense. UN officers – confirming testimony made by FAR and RPF officers before the ICTR – state that the RPF was launching hundreds of Katyusha rockets every hour around the clock whilst the Rwandan Army ran out of grenades in the first few days and were reduced to fighting with hand-made explosives. Nevertheless, the siege of Kigali lasted three months and only ended when the Rwandan Army literally ran out of all ammunition and thence ordered a general retreat into the forests of the Congo.
RPF officers testifying before the ICTR have stated that the RPF killed up to two million Hutus in those 12 weeks in a deliberate campaign to eliminate the Hutu population. The Akager River, the length of which was under RPF control throughout, ran red with the blood of Hutu victims massacred on its banks. It is here that Robert Gersony’s report, filed as an exhibit before the ICTR, lends support to this testimony and to the fact of a systematic and planned RPF massacre of the Hutu population.
As the Rwandan Army (including its Tutsi officers) retreated into the Congo forest, the Hutu population, in fear for their lives, fled with them in their millions. Meanwhile, in local villages, Hutu neighbours attacked Tutsis either in revenge for the murder of Hutus or fearing death at their hands. Tutsis also attacked Hutus. It was total war, though a war clearly fuelled and instigated by the US-backed RPF invasion.
The RPF later pursued the Hutus through the Congo forest and, between 1996 and 1998, killed hundreds of thousands and possibly millions. All the while the RPF was assisted by the United States. Thus, the US cynically thwarted plans (in November 1996) devised by the French and the European Union to send a 10,000 man UN force to assist and guarantee the safe return of the refugees; a plan which if it had been effected would likely have forestalled the ensuing multi-million death toll in the Congo. Moreover, the UN Rwanda Emergency office in Nairobi was, in fact, manned by US Army officers and acted as the operational headquarters of the RPF. Finally, not only did US Special Forces fight alongside the RPF during this period, but intercepted radio messages from Kagame to his forces in the field suggest that both Belgian and Canadian forces were involved as well.
Operating, then, under the Orwellian pretext of ‘hunting for genocidaires’, Kagame & Co. conducted a decade long invasion/occupation of Zaire/Congo. The overall strategic thrust of this assault was threefold. First, it was an attack on French interests in Africa, interests that were immediately taken over by the United States. Second, the assault was part and parcel of the overthrow of Mobutu (toppled in May of 1997). Ultimately, however, the capture of the Congo was about booty. As such, this single treasure chest contains not only large deposits of diamonds, gold, copper, uranium and tantalum (used in computers and cell phones), but also much of the world’s reserves of chrome, platinum and cobalt.
To the question then, ‘Whose genocides were they?’, the answer yet resounds through the din of propaganda, ‘They were ours’.
Shaking Hands with the Devil
In assessing responsibility for the tragedy of Rwanda – and the ensuing events in Zaire/Congo – we must not stop at those already indicted in this essay. For none of this could have happened without the overt complicity of numerous ‘humanitarian’ NGOs including especially, Human Rights Watch, which, in the early days prior to the RPF’s final solution, headed up a totally bogus, unsubstantiated report (issued March 6, 1993) condemning (and so de-legitimizing in advance) the Rwandan government for a ‘genocide’ that, in fact, had yet to take place - and which would, in the event, be committed by the very agents it conspired to defend, i.e. the RPF. And, naturally, none of this could have happened without the willing complicity of the Western mass media who swallowed hook, line and sinker every piece of propaganda issued by the Clinton Administration.15
As Canadians we are more than ordinarily complicit as it was the Canadian government (under Jean Chretien) that worked hand-in-glove with the Americans throughout this period. In particular, of course, three Canadians, Louise Arbour, General Maurice Baril and General Romeo Dallaire played leading roles in the ‘affair’. For services rendered they were, all three, handsomely rewarded: Arbour, as already mentioned, with promotion as Supreme Court Justice and thence as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Baril with promotion to Chief of Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces (in Sept. 1997), and Dallaire with appointment as Canadian Senator for life.
Of the three, however, Dallaire’s role is particularly noteworthy, for it is he who has, ever since, been portrayed, and portrayed himself, as a hero in the Rwandan tragedy; and who has, as such, been pre-eminently involved in spreading and maintaining the Big Lie with respect to it. Dallaire’s 2003 epic,Shake Hands With the Devil,16 an ironically named Faustian tract, fails spectacularly to elucidate the author’s otherwise well documented actions during the events.
It is well established, for instance, that Dallaire knew of – and, effectively, facilitated – the build-up of RPF forces inside Kigali prior to Habyarimana’s assassination. It is well established that Dallaire, rather than reporting to and receiving orders from the UN, as was his mandate, was, instead, reporting and receiving instructions from American military commanders. It is also a fact that Dallaire, only two months prior to the assassination of Habyarimana, closed down one of the only two runways17 into Kigali airport - upon request of the RPF. It is also the case that Dallaire covered up the massacre by the RPF of MRND people elected in by-elections in the north of Rwanda in November, 1993. Evidence presented at the ICTR further implicates Dallaire in supplying intelligence to Kagame and the RPF forces throughout the period leading up to April 6, 1994.
Whenever Dallaire has faced formal questioning regarding his actions in Rwanda his testimony has been strictly managed and censored. Attempts by independent journalists and investigators to interview and question him have met with refusal and/or silence. And those questions are many and serious. Apart from the items already listed, they include:
How did the lady prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, come to be murdered at the UN development compound (the morning after Habyarimana had been assassinated) just a short time after he, Dallaire, arrived there? Why did he do nothing to save the lives of the Belgian UN soldiers - suspected of being the team that shot down Habyarimana’s plane - who were subsequently killed at Camp Kigali? Why, and under whose command, did Belgian army units in certain strategic positions in Kigali abandon them and all their weapons to the RPF? Why did UN army units attack MRND army units, but never the RPF? Why did he fail to report that US forces, using Hercules C-130 aircraft, were supplying men and weapons to the RPF? Why, when Dallaire had his headquarters at Amahoro stadium in Kigali after April 6 through the rest of the month, did he allow RPF forces to enter and subsequently murder Hutu refugees who had fled there for safety? And, of course, why did he lie about the ‘genocide fax’ of January 11, 1994?
Still, all in all, Dallaire was merely a bit player in a much larger drama, a drama written and produced in Washington, D.C.
Of Credibility and Credulity
In the two decades that have elapsed since the overthrow of the Rwandan government – and the subsequent killing of millions of it’s peoples, and those millions more killed in the Congo – the Big Lie has flourished virtually unabated. Though the likes of Robin Philpot (‘Rwanda and the New Scramble for Africa’), and Ed Herman and David Peters (‘The Politics of Genocide’) have, of late, lent this revised narrative a slightly higher profile, more generally – and notably amongst the Left – the ‘official’ narrative of Rwanda circa 1994 continues to hold sway. So much so that Rwanda has become, in Philpot’s resonant phrasing, “a useful imperial fiction”, i.e. a shining example of the ‘need for intervention’ that is deployed whenever and wherever ‘humanitarian imperialism’ seeks to invade and destroy nations opposed to it.
It need not be so. At the very least amongst the Left, it should never have been so. In the early days of the Rwandan debacle, one anomalous event stands out like the proverbial sore thumb transparently pointing the way to what was really ‘going down’ in the beleaguered nation. That event was the majority withdrawal in May of 1994 of the UN troops stationed in Rwanda, i.e. essentially clearing the way for the unobstructed overthrow of the government. This one item alone, irrespective of the fact that the corporate media habitually lies about virtually all matters of significant political import, should have tipped off observers of the Great Game to the idea that something rotten was taking place in the state of Rwanda. But it didn’t. And that, given what subsequently transpired in Yugoslavia and later Libya – where again, significant sectors of the Left bought into the official narrative – and given what is today transpiring in Syria and Ukraine, is problematic.
If there is one lesson, then, that we can take from the tragic events adumbrated herein – and, though hardly new, is a notion that bears vigorously reinforcing – it is that whatever information is fed us by the state and by the corporate mass media with regard to fundamental global strategic happenings, the only historically consistent and logical stance to take is to assume that the truth lies 180 degrees in the opposite direction. This should be our default position, until proof is rendered otherwise, in every instance.
In the meantime, to bear witness to the truth of what really happened in Rwanda falls to you. As Noam Chomsky once wrote with regard to an earlier suite of imperial crimes, ‘For yours is an historic mission, and one you should not soon forget.’
_________________________________________
Footnotes
1. Servicing the capital city of Rwanda, Kigali.
2. The US Army’s elite, commander general staff college devoted to the high-level planning of invasion scenarios.
3. This despite Museveni never having held an election from the time he shot his way into power in the mid 80s up to the present day.
4. Ndadaye had won the country’s first free elections, and in the aftermath of his murder, 250,000 Hutus were massacred by the Tutsi army of Burundi, and hundreds of thousands fled to Rwanda.
5. Assassinations by RPF agents of opponents to the regime have been many. Of note, however, two priests from Quebec, Claude Simard and Guy Pinard, were murdered Oct. 94 and Feb. 97 respectively. In addition, and rather chillingly, it is a matter of public record that a very long ‘hit list’ targeting opponents is, to this very day, sponsored by the Kagame regime.
6. Unlike the famous Nuremberg tribunal, the ICTR omits any reference to wars of aggression or foreign intervention (the ‘supreme international crime’ according to Nuremberg), and so, effectively, condones them. Moreover, the refusal to consider who instigated the war essentially runs cover for the instigators.
7. More fully, “The genocide in Rwanda was 100% the responsibility of the Americans….The United States, with the energetic support of Great Britain, did everything they could to prevent the UN from sending troops to Rwanda to stop the fighting. And they succeeded”.
8. The exact numbers have never been definitively established. Initial reports claiming 800,000 were mostly pulled out of a hat. Still, later research (including testimony before the ICTR from former RPF officers themselves) seem to indicate that in the months following Habyarimana’s assassination, the numbers were, at the least, in the many hundreds of thousands, and possibly as high as two million. Hundreds of thousands of Hutus were also forced back to Rwanda at gunpoint starting in November of 1996, and hundreds of thousands more (possibly more than a million) were subsequently pursued and killed in the forests of the Congo. The Congolese themselves, of course, have suffered many millions (i.e. 5 to 10) killed in the US-backed RPF/Ugandan invasion and plundering of the east of the country since 1996.
9. Evidence of this can be witnessed in the bilateral agreement that Rwanda, under Kagame, signed with the United States in 2003, giving each other immunity from prosecution; the former before the ICTR, and the latter before the International Criminal Court. Rwanda was also the only African country to back the US invasion of Iraq that same year. Moreover, much of the plunder of the Congo has since been funneled to the West through Kigali.
11. That is, no government minister or military officer has, of the time of writing, been convicted of conspiracy to commit genocide. Of the 60 or so high-ranking members of the government that have been indicted, roughly a dozen have been acquitted, whilst the rest remain – twenty years after the event – on trial. Ordinary Hutu prisoners have been, through various legally illegitimate means, i.e. duress, threat, deception etc, induced to plead guilty. But again, no convictions bearing on the crime of ‘genocide’ has ever taken place. Moreover, the full extent of the criminality of the court setup and proceedings at the ICTR (even to the extent of assassinations of witnesses under UN custody) is worthy of an essay in and of itself. Indeed, the latter can be had (by contacting the author) vis a vis a paper, currently in manuscript, by ICTR defense lawyer Christopher C. Black (the ‘Rhodes Address’), and soon to be delivered in Rhodes, Greece.
12. The case of the ‘genocide fax’ occupies a particularly important place in the ‘official’ narrative in as much as this was the only purported document, skimpy as it was, testifying to some measure of MRND conspiracy to a planned genocide. So important to the official storyline, in fact, that the ‘fax’ continues - despite having been exposed as a forgery before the ICTR - to be trotted out and adduced as ‘evidence’ to this very day.
13. Specifically, ‘The ICTR vs General Augustin Ndindiliyimana’. Christopher C. Black was the lead defense counsel for Ndindiliyimana, the latter, having occupied the role of Chief of Staff of the Rwandan Gendamerie during the period in question. Ndindiliyimana was, just recently, acquitted of all charges at the ICTR.
14. It was proved that this fake fax was put in UN files (to replace the original fax) by British Army Colonel, R.M. Connaughton, on November 28, 1995.
15. Though special ‘commendation’ should go to Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker, who was instrumental in propagandizing on behalf of the Clinton Administration and the RPF. Gourevitch was also the brother-in-law of Jamie Rubin, the right-hand man of, then, US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.
16. Dallaire published his book three years after another Canadian author, Carol Off, published her hagiography (‘The Lion, The Fox and The Eagle’) on Dallaire, Arbour and Lewis Mackenzie. Both Dallaire and Off, it turns out, relied on the same ghostwriter / researcher, Sian Cansfield, whence the existence of passages of the first volume lifted straight into the second. Both belong on the fiction list. 
17. More accurately, one of the two axes of the one runway was closed.
The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine