At UN,
Rwanda
Genocide
Blamed on
France, UN
Peacekeeping
No FDLR Plan
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 27,
more here
-- When the
Rwanda
genocide was
remembers at
the Kwibuka 20
ceremony at
the UN on
February 27, from
the podium
France was
twice blamed
for working
with
genocidaires
and helping
them escape
into the
Democratic
Republic of
the Congo.
On the podium
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon, who
has praised
French troops
even his UN
human rights
counterpart
Navi Pillay
noted they'd
left Muslim
communities
vulnerable to
attack, looked
uncomfortable.
Ban mentioned
his "Rights Up
Front"
program,
without
mentioning its
roots in the
2009 failure
of his UN in
Sri Lanka, as
tens of
thousands were
killed.
Following
Rwanda's
Permanent
Representative
Gasana,
genocide
survivor Immaculee
Ilibagiza
spoke movingly
of barely escaping
slaughter,
but then
speaking of
forgiveness.
Gerald Caplan
said he would
be less forgiving,
and was.
He twice
blamed France,
specifically
for Operation
Turquoise
which current
UN Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous defended
and promoted
in the
Security
Council in
1994 as
France's
deputy permanent
representative,
click here for
a memo.
Caplan also
mentioned Bill
Clinton, for
example -- but
Clinton has
apologized,
unlike
Ladsous.
Instead, Ladsous
simply refuses
to answer this
and other
critical questions
at the UN, and
the UN accepts
it, even tried
to dictate how
Ladsous can be
covered.
Forgiveness is
one thing, and
censorship is
another. The
February 27
ceremony was
nothing but
class. But day
to day at the
UN, with
scribes
braying about
only the M23
and not the
FDLR, it's
another story.
Even earlier
on February
27, when Inner
City Press
asked Ban's
spokesperson
Martin Nesirky
when UN Peacekeeping
will go after
the Hutu FDLR
militia, he
responded he
would not
speak to operational
activities
that "have not
yet started
and that might
not start." Click
here for that.
In
late January after
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:
"Noting
with
deep concern
reports
indicating
FARDC
collaboration
with the FDLR
at a local
level,
recalling that
the FDLR is a
group under
United Nations
sanctions
whose leaders
and members
inchide
perpetrators
of the 1994
genocide
against the
Tutsi in
Rwanda, during
which Hutu and
others who
opposed the
genocide were
also killed,
and have
continued to
promote and
commit
ethnically
based and
other killings
in Rwanda and
in the DRC,
and stressing
the importance
of permanently
addressing
this threat"
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:
"107.
The Group
interviewed 10
FARDC soldiers
in Tongo, in
North Kivu,
who reported
that FARDC and
FDLR regularly
meet and
exchange
operational
information.
These same
sources stated
that FARDC
soldiers
supplied
ammunition to
the FDLR. Col.
Faida Fidel
Kamulete, the
commander of
FARDC 2nd
battalion of
601st Regiment
based at
Tongo, denied
such
collaboration,
but declared
to the Group
that FARDC and
FDLR do not
fight each
other."
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.
* * *
These
reports
are
usually also available through Google
News and on Lexis-Nexis.
Click here
for Sept 26, 2011 New Yorker on Inner City
Press at UN
Click
for
BloggingHeads.tv re Libya, Sri Lanka, UN
Corruption
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
UN Office: S-303,
UN, NY 10017 USA
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest service,
and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2014 Inner City Press,
Inc. To request reprint or other permission,
e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
|