Here we go again. France is reopening investigations into the shooting of the plane carrying president Juvenal Habyarimana in April 1994. The plane is, and shall remain, the dominant theme in a strategy that simultaneously pursues two mutually reinforcing objectives – pragmatic and psychological – with the intent being, respectively, to shield the elite from shame and accountability and to preserve a collective conscience of an honourable past of a people. This sense of the collective-self is often affirmed during electoral season. It is, therefore, no wonder that France seeks to boost its psychological ego at the time when elections in that country are heating up, with the leadership turning to a quick shot in the arm of blind nationalism. And so, France has awoken to the situation in Syria to try to “fix” the Arab World. In Africa, the Habyarimana plane is the gift that keeps on giving; it helps to continue hoodwinking a gullible electorate about France’s legacy of humanitarianism in the heart of Africa. But they don’t learn. On Rwanda France knocks on the wrong door. The strategy may help win elections but its counter to the long term interests of the French people because it shifts accountability for genocide from the present to future generations. It doesn’t erase anything. Here’s how. There are two narratives. One is about the plane; the other is about genocide. France hopes to use one narrative to escape responsibility for the other. Moreover, if the narrative of the plane dominates, time becomes an ally. Not only will eye-witnesses to crime have died, so will the French political and military elite who are implicated in genocide directly or as accessories to it; they won’t be around to account and France will escape the shame and infamy of being a genocidaire state. This is the mutual interest between the state and the implicated individuals. Consequently, they’ll do everything to divert attention away from genocide – towards the plane. In other words, the plane is a vehicle for denying justice by delaying it. The rest is the difference between tactical and strategic objectives – one helps achieve the other. This is how President Kagame becomes a person of interest for the French elite and the state. Kagame is one of those eye-witnesses who must be removed from the scene. That he has control of the state makes him an eye-witness like no other. This means that he always exists in the crosshairs of the French elite and the state. Preoccupation with the plane helps to legitimise France’s quest to eliminate witness number one. This man is the tall mirror in front of French society; he disturbs its claims to civilisation, and forces an entire people into a schizophrenic existence, a cognitive dissonance where even his silence represents a threat. This is the level of paranoia that Kagame has on the French psyche. At its root, this is about the possession of moral authority and the right to exercise it. The French perceive moral authority in zero-sum terms. They perceive – rightly so – that Kagame enjoys moral authority over them and that they must wrestle it away from him. Thus, it’s this quest to reclaim moral authority over the natives – in the broad sense – that explains why they will never let go of the plane; it’s as if Kagame threats an entire French – and by extension European – civilisation. Precisely, in the duo narrative a discourse on genocide necessarily credits those who stopped it and confers upon them the requisite moral authority; on the contrary, it confers a moral emptiness to those who committed it. It’s through the plane that France seeks some redemption. It is the only vehicle through which it can restore a sense of pride for a past it is unable to account for; this it cannot achieve as long as Kagame is still around. Kagame is France’s kryptonite. Its bet is that once the narrative of the plane triumphs, it can quickly mobilise around it to dispose of Kagame. It is how France has always dreamt it could exorcize the nightmare that history bequeathed it. But I have news for France. They’d better of think of Kagame as a symbol not as a person. The quest to depose Kagame and install a stooge who is easy to control is greatly flawed. Indeed, even if they were to get rid of him, their stooge would not be able to govern Rwanda. He’d face serious resistance. No longer can Rwanda run under foreign suzerainty. In other words, they can kill Kagame the person but they cannot kill Kagame the idea. Compaore was able to rule Burkina Faso because Sankara hadn’t been around long enough to effect a psychological shift among the Burkinabe the way Kagame has been able to do with Rwandans. In short, there are a thousand Kagame’s. There will be millions in the near future. These are likely to be tougher on France than Kagame ever was. Kagame is the best France can hope for. His conception of justice is forward-looking. His record shows that for him the future is more important than the past. However, the pettiness in Paris will not allow them to exploit this magnanimity. As a result, they are mistaking it for nativity. Which is why France’s kryptonite recently hinted that he might sever diplomatic ties with France. Pettiness has a price, too. I’d not be surprised if he also instructs that the Mucyo Report gets forwarded to the Prosecutions Authority to do the needful. If convicted – even in absentia – they’d carry the shame they wish to bequeath future generations of innocent Frenchmen and women. See you in court, France.
