[DDave3]

France and genocide: the murky truth

How far was Mitterrand's Government involved in the slaughter of hundred of thousands of Rwandans?

Linda Melvern

There is remarkable television footage shot in the first days of the genocide in Rwanda. It shows a large room in the French Embassy in Kigali filled floor to ceiling with shredded documents. This was probably the paper trail that might have revealed the depth of involvement between the Elysée Palace and the Hutu faction responsible for massacring hundreds of thousands of Tutsi and opposition Hutu.

This week Rwanda's commission of inquiry published its findings into the role of France in the genocide of 1994. The report - the fruit of two years' work that includes the testimony of 638 witnesses, including survivors and perpetrators of genocide - is damning. It says that certain French politicians, diplomats and military leaders - including President François Mitterrand - were complicit in genocide. The French authorities knowingly aided and abetted what happened by training Hutu militia and devising strategy for Rwanda's armed forces. Training and funding was also given to Rwandan intelligence services on how to establish a database later used to draw up a “kill list” of Tutsi.

The most shocking allegations come from survivors who allege that French soldiers participated in the massacres of Tutsi. These soldiers were a part of Operation Turquoise, a French military intervention in June 1994, an ostensibly humanitarian mission that had the backing of the UN Security Council.

The Rwanda report directly contradicts an earlier investigation by the French Senate, which reported in 1998 that France had in no way “incited or encouraged” the genocide. But it also builds on the Senate's earlier work, which had revealed how some French actions had been “regrettable”, and “the threat of a possible genocide had been underestimated”.

What happened in Rwanda in 1994 is a milestone event; in a few terrible months, up to one million people were killed in organised massacres, planned in advance by the Hutu regime. Its aim was to create a “pure Hutu state” by eliminating the minority Tutsi and all opponents of its extremist Hutu Power ideology. This was done by mobilising the country's unemployed youth into a militia called the Interahamwe; 30,000 young men were recruited and trained to kill with agricultural tools. They were indoctrinated with a racist anti-Tutsi ideology. There were no secret death camps. The killing was in broad daylight.

The French had favoured the Hutu cause since the 1960s. The rule by the majority Hutu in this one-party state was considered democratic. The overt discrimination against the minority Tutsi and the human rights abuses against them were largely ignored. By 1990 some one million Rwandans were living as refugees in neighbouring states, Tutsi who had fled during murderous anti-Tutsi campaigns. In October 1990, the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) invaded from neighbouring Uganda to force a return home for them. The French immediately sent elite troops to defend the regime in Kigali and in the three years of civil war that followed the French military and French-supplied weaponry ensured its survival.

These French forces stayed for three years, until late 1993 when UN peacekeepers were sent to monitor an internationally brokered peace agreement providing for the return of the refugees and a transition from a Hutu dictatorship to a power-sharing democracy that would include the Tutsi minority.

Drawing on documents recently released from the Paris archive of Mitterrand, the commission clearly describes the motive for French policy in Rwanda. These documents show how the RPF invasion was considered as clear aggression by an Anglophone neighbour on a Francophone country. The RPF was a part of an “Anglophone plot”, involving the President of Uganda, to create an English-speaking “Tutsi-land”. Once Rwanda was “lost” to Anglophone influence, French credibility in Africa would never recover. The policy was to avoid a military victory by the RPF.

The French journalist Patrick de Saint Exupéry alleges that the French created a secret command of the Rwandan Army through what he called a “légion présidentielle”. This was a group of elite operatives that was answerable only to Mitterrand and which drew up battle plans and military strategy, and built a psychological warfare capability with operatives trained in the manipulation of public opinion.

My own work has shown that not all French military operatives left Rwanda when the UN peacekeepers arrived in 1993. When the genocide began six months later there were senior French officers attached to key units in the Rwandan Army - the para-commando and reconnaissance battalions, and the Presidential Guard. It was French-trained soldiers from these units who, early in the morning of April 7, had orders to eliminate members of Rwanda's political opposition - and to kill anyone with a Tutsi identity card. Without a full accounting from these French officers the story of the crucial early hours of genocide will never be complete. To date only three French officers have testified at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda - and only then in defence of Rwandan military officers on genocide charges.

The French Senate discovered how policy towards Rwanda had been made by a secretive network of military officers, politicians, diplomats, businessmen, and senior intelligence operatives. At its centre was Mitterrand. French policy had been unaccountable to either parliament or the press. This has made the discovery of the truth about France's role in the genocide difficult. It may be that a true reckoning of France's responsibility will never be possible.

Linda Melvern is the author of Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide (Verso 2006)

I had known that Belgium had a long history of colonial involvement in Rwanda and had sent around 500 troops as peacekeepers in 1994. Indeed, historians generally agree that the original origins of the deep hatred between Tutsi and Hutu did not exist until the Belgian colonists imposed European theories of race and power upon them, and deliberately antagonised them into two groups. But I had no prior knowledge of French involvement and certainly not to the degree that this article, and her work, is stating.

[clearthought]

Belgians are certainly guilty of plenty of autrocities in central Africa (e.g. Congo area), as are the French, who, as we all know, acted terribly in Chad and Algeria, among other colonial areas. Greedy Europeans raping Africa of its resources and livelihood, oh what a world we live in.

[Ombrageux]

The French political and military class as a tendency of grasping at Africa as a vestige of great power glory.. It is not all bad, I would argue France's actions particularly Chad against Colonel Qaddafi and containing the Darfur crisis are worthy of praise.

Central Africa, which became considered a French 'sphere of influence' in the 1970s has been a disaster however. I haven't studied the details. France is not the only or even primary factor (the invasion of Rwanda by generation-long refugees is the most important). It is true that, at the height of the genocide, French action consisted primarily of evacuating the people responsible for it among genuine refugees (the moral equivalent of, say, evacuating the Germans of Prussia from the wrath of the Red Army in 1945).

It is also true that there have been other massacres despite France. Many of the people France evacuated from Rwanda were subsequently killed in the Rwandan invasion of Congo (perhaps 400,000 dead). Equally, although France supported the stability of the Mobutu government (rightly or wrongly), what has instead transpired is the collapse of the government due to foreign invasion and a deadly second 'scramble' for the Congo by its neighbors (that war has cost between 3 and 5 million lives).

[Order]

I had known that Belgium had a long history of colonial involvement in Rwanda and had sent around 500 troops as peacekeepers in 1994. Indeed, historians generally agree that the original origins of the deep hatred between Tutsi and Hutu did not exist until the Belgian colonists imposed European theories of race and power upon them, and deliberately antagonised them into two groups. But I had no prior knowledge of French involvement and certainly not to the degree that this article, and her work, is stating.

Historians do not generally agree on that. Read the newer research by Jan Vansina: Antecedents to Modern Rwanda: The Nyiginya Kingdom. The Belgions only exacerbated a situation that was already critical and violent.

Belgians are certainly guilty of plenty of autrocities in central Africa (e.g. Congo area), as are the French, who, as we all know, acted terribly in Chad and Algeria, among other colonial areas. Greedy Europeans raping Africa of its resources and livelihood, oh what a world we live in.

They indeed were, just in different time periods. The French only established themselves as "protecting power" of Hutu-Rwanda after the Belgians ceased being interested. The findings of the commmission are imo quite credible though. The obsession with an "anglophone" invasion from Uganda had been widely documented before. It is certainly also true that the French delivered weapons etc. There is first-hand evidence from peacekeepers who observed it.

However, I am not so sure about the French intentions. The people in the French ministries in 1994 responsible for Africa were certainly despicable creatures but I don't think they would have condoned a fullblown genocide. My guess is that they honestly believed that they trained the Rwandan army for repelling attacks from RPF invaders and not for internal genocide. Maybe they considered some "purges" necessary but certainly not widespread massacres.

[Ombrageux]

To understand the French mindset you have to start from the assumptions that:
A) The pre-genocide Rwanda government, for all its faults, is the legal, legitimate government with widespreading popular support.
B) The invading RPF, in itself, worsens the intercommunal relations in Rwanda, they are foreign, and they cannot impose minority Tutsi rule on Rwanda.
C) The RPF is only able to do these things because of the support of Uganda, a state the Americans are very supportive of.

All of these are basically true, although that doesn't excuse nonsense worries about "anglophones". It is not an unreasonable position though. The French position only becomes untenable when the genocide is underway and, far from reversing themselves, basically continue to arm the genocidaires and evacuate the Hutus (genocidaires included).

[Order]

Concerning point c) My mentioning of worries about "anglophones" was referring to the French seeing Uganda/RPF as an American tool. The French are crazy about their language but I would never claim that they commit genocide for the sake of it.
b) foreign is not exactly the right way to describe it. They were refugee of Rwandan descent, even though largely born outside Rwanda. I don't know what the average Rwandan thought about them, whether they were seen as a "foreign" other but I think we could agree that they were not seen as foreign as for example a Congolese.
Having said that, I agree that the attacks of the RPF massively worsened inter-"ethnic" relations because they made the Tutsi living in Rwanda appear as the "enemy within". On the other hand, Tutsis were not treated as equal citizens anyway. Judging the RPF as simply bad is a biased view which I would not necessarily accept as "basically true".
a) Widespread popular support. I think that is untrue, at least since the 1980s when Rwanda became embroiled in economic turmoil, I think it was because of changes in the terms of trade of coffee, and certainly in the 90s when the regime's position became so untenable that despite oppression opposition parties began to be created everywhere. The genocide was a reaction of elements which saw their power evaporating exactly because their public backing was so limited. What better way of preserving it than whipping up ethnic hatred.

[Batko]

The US was behind the Rwandan Genocide:

Rwanda: Installing a US Protectorate in Central Africa
by Michel Chossudovsky

The civil war in Rwanda and the ethnic massacres were an integral part of US foreign policy, carefully staged in accordance with precise strategic and economic objectives.

From the outset of the Rwandan civil war in 1990, Washington's hidden agenda consisted in establishing an American sphere of influence in a region historically dominated by France and Belgium. America's design was to displace France by supporting the Rwandan Patriotic Front and by arming and equipping its military arm, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA)

From the mid-1980s, the Kampala government under President Yoweri Musaveni had become Washington's African showpiece of "democracy". Uganda had also become a launchpad for US sponsored guerilla movements into the Sudan, Rwanda and the Congo. Major General Paul Kagame had been head of military intelligence in the Ugandan Armed Forces; he had been trained at the U.S. Army Command and Staff College (CGSC) in Leavenworth, Kansas which focuses on warfighting and military strategy. Kagame returned from Leavenworth to lead the RPA, shortly after the 1990 invasion.

Prior to the outbreak of the Rwandan civil war, the RPA was part of the Ugandan Armed Forces. Shortly prior to the October 1990 invasion of Rwanda, military labels were switched. From one day to the next, large numbers of Ugandan soldiers joined the ranks of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA). Throughout the civil war, the RPA was supplied from United People's Defense Forces (UPDF) military bases inside Uganda. The Tutsi commissioned officers in the Ugandan army took over positions in the RPA. The October 1990 invasion by Ugandan forces was presented to public opinion as a war of liberation by a Tutsi led guerilla army...

Full article

[QatzelOk]

So far, what I'm hearing is that the Rwanda civil war and massive deaths are a result of France and America's colonial involvement in the region.

This makes it similar to Haiti's current situation. Having been "torn between two hegemons," Haiti and Rwanda have been torn to pieces.

I guess Dr. Frankenstein is at his worst when he's competing with other mad scientists. But how do you put the monster back into the box? And whose responsibility is it to do so?

[GandalfTheGrey]

The whole tutsi - hutu divide was entirely invented by German and Belgian colonialists. They gave the tutsis an artificially privileged status in society and taught them that Darwinian evolution had made the tutsis naturally superior. Thats where the roots of the tutsi-hutu conflict began - entirely European colonial.

[Order]

The whole tutsi - hutu divide was entirely invented by German and Belgian colonialists. They gave the tutsis an artificially privileged status in society and taught them that Darwinian evolution had made the tutsis naturally superior. Thats where the roots of the tutsi-hutu conflict began - entirely European colonial.

Not correct. Hutu and Tutsi existed as different social groups before the Europeans arrived, the European scientific racism just put the label "race" on those differences. When the first German colonisers arrived at the end of the 19th century Hutu-Tutsi relations were already at a boiling point because the increasingly large and more centralised pre-Rwandan Nyiginya Kingdom created an unprecedented exploitation of Hutu peasants. In fact, Rwanda was almost in a state of civil wars and millenial movements were spreading across the country because the oppression became so unbearable.

[Okonkwo]

The whole tutsi - hutu divide was entirely invented by German and Belgian colonialists

Not correct. Hutu and Tutsi existed as different social groups before the Europeans arrived, the European scientific racism just put the label "race" on those differences.

You can't get a definite answer on the question when and how the Hutu-Tutsi divide originated. So to claim anyone's theory false may be all too easy, the lack of a better explanation that would be supported by facts makes the claim null and void.

There are several theories:

*Tutsi are a Hamitic people from Ethiopia that conquered the Hutu hundreds of years before the arrival of Europeans
*Hutu and Tutsi are one people and were divided by the colonists as a part of the colonialist power structure
*The two groups are related, their differences exaggerated by the Europeans
*The two groupds are the same but a split occured when the colonialists designated the Rwandans on the basis of ownership and religion.

[Order]

You can't get a definite answer on the question when and how the Hutu-Tutsi divide originated. So to claim anyone's theory false may be all too easy, the lack of a better explanation that would be supported by facts makes the claim null and void.

There are several theories:

*Tutsi are a Hamitic people from Ethiopia that conquered the Hutu hundreds of years before the arrival of Europeans
*Hutu and Tutsi are one people and were divided by the colonists as a part of the colonialist power structure
*The two groups are related, their differences exaggerated by the Europeans
*The two groupds are the same but a split occured when the colonialists designated the Rwandans on the basis of ownership and religion.

The Hamitic Hypothesis is a complete lie, it is totally discredited in academic circles as a intellectual tool to make Rwandan society intelligible to racists. If you are interested I can supply you with references. 2 and 4 are also unlikely to be correct, see the source I referred to above. It is not as if there was no evidence. There is plenty, it was just discovered only recently and many older writings do not reflect it.