On April 21 1994, the UN Security Council (UNSC) passed Resolution 912 approving the reduction of the UN Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) troops from 2,500 to 270. This sent a signal to the planners of the genocide, the ex-Rwandan army, Interahamwe death squads, and Hutu extremists that the international community would not stop them from carrying out their diabolical mission, the extermination of Abatutsi in Rwanda.
Those mass murderers and their international backers felt that Rwanda was too small to be shared among all Abanyarwanda and thus chose to eliminate Abatutsi. The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which launched an armed struggle, in October 1990, to restore national unity and reclaim the right of Rwandan refugees who had been condemned to exile for over thirty years, redoubled their efforts to stop the killings.
As their offensive gained ground and became a threat to the mass murderers, the UN Security Council, on June 22, passed Resolution 929 approving the French-led Operation Turqoise that was composed of 3,000 troops ostensibly deployed to save the lives of those in danger in Rwanda. Why did the UN Security Council act in such a manner?
According to French Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, France had a “moral” duty to intervene or else the survival of an entire country would be at stake and the stability of the Great Lakes region seriously compromised. Why did it take France, the United Kingdom (UK), USA and Russia two months to become “deeply concerned by the continuation of the systematic and widespread killings of the civilian population”. After all, when the resolution reducing UNAMIR troops was adopted, “the Council expressed its alarm and condemnation of the large-scale violence which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians, displacement of people, looting, rape and a breakdown of law and order”. Did these defenders of international security feel that insecurity would be reduced by reducing the troops deployed to guarantee security?
Well, as was revealed in the following weeks, the UNSC-approved and French-led intervention was an attempt to support a genocidal regime. When that failed they escorted their murderous clients into Eastern DR Congo where they were fed, clothed, sheltered, and supported by the international community. Some of those murderers, claiming to be democratic, continue to cause havoc in Eastern DRC, killing, looting and raping with impunity. Many of their leaders have been granted asylum in Europe and North America and have yet to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity. On March 28, the UNSC passed Resolution 2098, sponsored by France and USA, to neutralise armed groups in Eastern DR Congo. Why are governments that did not act to stop the genocide at the outset, subsequently facilitated the escape of mass murderers into Eastern DRC where they have killed, looted and raped with impunity for the past 19 years, and granted asylum to their leaders, so keen to “neutralise” them?
The UK “Permanent” representative to the UN said that the Security Council and the United
Nations had entered new territory. “The UN Stabilisation Mission in Congo (MONUSCO) troop contingents, whether part of the intervention brigade or not, must be willing and able to implement its entire mandate. This is one mission with one mandate, one special representative and one force commander. MONUSCO must conduct all its tasks in an integrated manner, whether or not those performing them were in uniform. This is a recipe for success.” British Foreign Minister William Hague, on April 11, hosted G8 foreign ministers in London where they welcomed UNSC Resolution 2098 which renews the mandate of MONUSCO reinforced with an intervention brigade to enable it to carry out its mandate to protect civilians, neutralise armed groups, and improve peace in the region. Why wasn’t this recipe adopted in April 1994?! Why was a recipe for genocide adopted instead? Isn’t this proof that the planners of the genocide, the implementers and their international partners know what they were doing? Or could it be that the defend
ers of international security are schizophrenics? If so then the UN Security Council should be renamed the United Insecurity Council.
Reflecting on the vehemence with which the international partners in the Great Lakes region have accused Rwanda and Uganda of causing insecurity in Eastern DR Congo, sabotaged their effective operations to neutralise internationally-recognised terrorist organisations like the so-called Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) and Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and sought to disrupt budgetary allocations to development projects, it is clear that there is a method to their madness. It is called fascism.
Rwanda and Uganda have demonstrated that they do not have a schizophrenic foreign policy.
Witness their deployment of peacekeeping troops to Somalia, Sudan and South Sudan. Why would governments that are eager to promote peace and reconciliation in distant lands, sponsor killing, looting and raping in a neighbouring country? I guess such an inconsistency only makes sense to schizophrenic fascists. If the international partners in the Great Lakes region are genuinely interested in the welfare of the Congolese, shouldn’t they address the root causes of the conflict and fund initiatives that improve governance, socio-economic justice and security?