Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 more here -- After the UN's Democratic Republic of the Congo mission MONUSCO was extended one year, with a reference to the 1994 "genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed," UN Security Council pen-holder Gerard Araud of France came to speak to the media.

   While Araud has resisted Press questions following articles comparing the treatment of a French diplomat to a more recent Indian case, on March 28 he answered two Press questions, in his way. So we note it.

  As soon as Araud finished his prepared remarks, apparently written by his spokesperson Frederic Jung, Inner City Press asked of something Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said, calling on the Security Council to ensure accountability in implementation of the mandate -- to neutralize the Hutu FDLR.

  Inner City Press asked Araud how the Council - on which France is a Permanent member - would ensure this, and why after the M23, the Mission went after the ADF before the Hutu FDLR.

  Araud answered dismissively, but he answered, calling it a military and not a political question. Many would disagree if the sequencing of targeting the Hutu FDLR is not political, but it is an answer, and we report it.

  After that, the Reuters bureau chief was called on by Jung to ask about Ukraine and North Korea. On the former, no mention was made of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's meeting with the leader of the Svoboda Party, adjudged as both racist and anti-Semitic. Perhaps as Svodoba tried to ban the video of it beating a TV executive, these findings too can be banned.

 To the side, the former Reuters bureau chief was observed by a member of the Free UN Coalition for Access cackling happily that Araud had been dismissive of Inner City Press' first question - this same scribe began the March 27 nearly empty press conference about the ICTR by asking leadingly about its fights with Paul Kagame. But no questions on MONUSCO?

  As a second question to Araud, Inner City Press asked a simple one, about the genocide language in the new resolution (which Inner City Press put online after the vote, before the UN or French mission did, here.)

  Araud said, correctly, that it is the same language as in January's Resolution 2136.  Inner City Press reported on that process in January:

When the Democratic Republic of the Congo sanctions resolution was adopted by the UN Security Council, 15-0, Rwanda's Permanent Representative Gasana emerged from the Council chamber. Inner City Press asked him about his DRC counterpart's comment that Gasana was educated in the Congo. Video here and embedded below.

  Gasana laughed and said he was born in Burundi. He mused that the Congolese might want to adopt him. Then he turned to go.

  Wire services Reuters and Agence France-Presse pursued him to the esclator, where Reuters UN bureau chief asked Gasana about Rwanda being accused of supporting the M23. Gasana replied that the DRC has other problems, for example in Katanga. He said Rwanda is a scapegoat for the DRC's wider problems.

  Reuters insisted that the Group of Experts report had been welcomed by the Security Council resolution.  "Because they need that," Gasana replied. "This is the raison d'etre of the Security Council."

  Nothing was asked there about the fight in the Council on how to described the 1994 genocide and the compromise language in the resolution. AFP's outgoing scribe was there, but asked nothing. Nor when the DRC Permanent Representative spoke minutes later at the UNTV stakeout, in French. This is how the UN works.

  An hour later at the UN's noon briefing, Inner City Press asked the UN's acting deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq for an update on any accountability for the mass rapes in Minova by units of the Congolese Army the UN supports, and if UN Peacekeeping, led by Herve Ladsous, is investigating links between the Congolese Army and the FDLR militia. On this, Haq said to look at the Council's resolutions. Video here.

  In the January 30 resolution, the language compromised on is "the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide were also killed."

  Sources exclusively told Inner City Press that the United States resisted calling it a genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda, even saying that there is a US policy against referring to it in this way.

   Inner City Press has asked the US Mission to the UN for an explanation. It was said one might be forthcoming after the vote.

  Where would such a US policy be written down? It seemed strange, particularly during a time of Holocaust events at the UN, from one about Hungary to another about Albania.

   On January 29, Inner City Press asked a US Council diplomat, who said spokespeople would be asked. Inner City Press was told to wait for the language to be final, then, for the vote.

  In the Council's January 29 debate, the representative of the DRC spoke about Rwanda and the M23 rebels. Rwanda's Deputy Permanent Representative replied with a series of questions: was it Rwanda who killed Lumumba? Was Rwanda responsible for Mobutu? Who hosted and failed to separate the genocidaires from Rwanda in 1994?

  This continued on January 30 after the vote.  Rwanda Permanent Representative Gasana said UN Peacekeeping should investigate links between the DRC Army and the FDLR.

  The DRC representative asked to be given specifics about links between his country's army the FARDC and the FDLR militia. The resolution voted on provides:

   As Inner City Press exclusively put online last June, some of these links were even specified in the UN Group of Experts report, for example:

  Going further back, it is impossible not to note, particularly given the lack of explanation or transparency, that US Permanent Representative Samantha Power began her 2001 article "Bystanders to Genocide" in the Atlantic with this sentence: "In the course of a hundred days in 1994 the Hutu government of Rwanda and its extremist allies very nearly succeeded in exterminating the country's Tutsi minority."

  Given that, why would the US Mission be saying it had a policy of describing the genocide as being against the Tutsi minority? Inner City Press asked again: Since I'm told that the US has said that there is a government position not to say the 1994 genocide was against the Tutsis, can you say what that policy is? Why does it exist? Does it apply to other genocides or atrocities?

 As noted, Inner City Press also has pending with the US State Department a number of requests, including a Freedom of Information Act request regarding the Administration's Atrocities Prevention Board.

  A Rwandan diplomat told Inner City Press these were Hutu killed not because of their ethnicity but because they opposed the genocide against the Tutsi. "This is a precedent," the diplomat said. Watch this site.