France bears ‘overwhelming responsibilities’ over Rwanda genocide
aljazeera.com
aljazeera.com
Guilty of late intervention, maybe, but so is everyone else. But this is a strange argument, it feels like Rwanda blames France like a teenager would their parents.
I'm quite fed up with this shaming and rewriting history movement, and I really hope the French one day would stop to shame and accuse their country. I'm not against more patriotism like in the US.
I think it's really good that we finally can know what happened and why.
Seriously, what benefits would France get from a genocide? For me, this is just a move from Rwanda to find someone to blame because the country cannot admit it's sins, it is way easier that way.
Oof. Tell that to Algeria.
- Ben Kiernan, "Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur" (2007)
This is just one short pithy quote; having done archival research concentrating on this period, I can personally testify that the amount of dry, bureaucratic references to "extermination" by French colonial administrators and professionals is nauseatingly large. If the colonizers saw what they were doing as the whole-scale extermination of a people (and those murderous ideologies coincided with the actual extermination of living human beings by the thousands), you're going to have a really tough time convincing me or anyone else that what occurred was not genocidal violence.
1) While you may not describe any of France's horrific imperial violence against its colonies as approaching genocide, as someone who has studied France's colonial history in a professional context, I'd disagree and recommend reading up on the subject. Particularly France's colonial conquest of Algeria; apologists for France's colonial history love to overlook that 1/6 to 1/3 of the native Algerian population was wiped out in the second half of the 19th century. Beyond Algeria, it requires a powerful willed ignorance to look at France's relationship to say, Haiti, or Senegal and not see inhuman, genocidal levels of extermination taking place as a matter of course.
2) More importantly, Mitterrand had a very strong reason to favor the Hutus and sit back while they eliminated the Tutsi. As Al-Jazeera mentioned in the article:
"Mitterrand and his inner circle were also fearful of the encroachment of English-speaking influence into francophone Africa under influence from Uganda and Kagame’s RPF. The report tells of French decision-makers trapped in “post-colonial” thinking who supported the “racist, corrupt and violent” regime of Habyarimana facing a Tutsi rebellion considered as directed from English-speaking Uganda."
This has been extensively documented for some time, just not officially confirmed by the French government itself - I myself wrote the following in a presentation I gave at the University of Pennsylvania ~ 2015:
---
Il est important de souligner ici le rôle de la France et les Etats-Unis pendant ces premiers conflits entre le Front patriotique rwandais et l’armée Rwandaise, le début de la guerre civile Rwandaise.
Victor-Manuel Vallin écrit dans son article, « France as the Gendarme of Africa, 1960-2014 » que, je cite « During the Cold War, an economic rivalry had already started between France and (primarily) the United States…but this competition reached a new level in Rwanda. The Tutsi RPF guerrillas were arguably supported by Uganda and ‘perceived by French policy makers as hostile to France’ and ‘under Anglo-Saxon influence.’ »
« Uganda and Paul Kagame (leader of the RPF) had long been currying favor with the US policy-making establishment, and as such, the RPF’s incursions of the early 1990s were perceived by President Mitterand as the beginning of a regional domino effect that could eventually lead to English-speaking domination over central Africa to the detriment of France and the Francophonie. The very status of France as a power would then be at stake.»
Mitterrand's motive in covering up the Hutu extremists' role in shooting down President Habyarimana's plane, and in sitting on his hands while violence escalated, etc, is quite clear. Just because you seem to want to remember some sort of sanitized Mitterrand doesn't change what he knew and when. At the time, the anticipated benefits of France's actions vis-a-vis Rwanada would have appeared to be continued dominance and colonial influence over that sphere of Africa, resisting the encroachment of American spheres of influence. This would have been seen as of prime importance as France's relationship to the USA, especially when it comes to spheres of influence in Africa and the Middle East, was quite contentious at the time.
3) On the most irrelevant point you make: French soldiers "born in France" (I'm assuming you meant that repugnant dog whistle "français de souche" - for non-francophone readers, this term basically translates to "white French") not being able to "recognize a Hutu from a Tutsi". Well, first of all, they didn't need to be able to, as the Belgians instituted a national ethnic identity card system during their colonial administration of Rwanda and this system was kept and reinforced by the French once they took colonial control. This system was kept even after independence. I don't say this because I think individual French peacekeepers on the ground were complicit in atrocities, but to point out that the very ethnic stratification that fueled the genocide was a colonial imposition then ruthlessly utilized by Belgium and France to rule the country via divide and conquer. The "français de souche" in military intelligence knew very well how to distinguish one colonial subject from another, and also knew, in very fine detail, about the paramilitary activities that formed the run-up and mobilization for the genocide.
"Defenders" of France do France, French history and the French people a terrible disservice and injury by refusing to acknowledge the true, horrifying legacy of France's colonial empire.
Was France particulary guilty for its colonial actions? It was not worst nor better than ANY other country in ANY other times... It doesn't mean that it's good - and maybe France, as the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme country - should have held higher standards... but truth is: we were not better nor worst than anybody else.
2) Well, I'm happy that you learn geopolitic-101. That's a good beginning. And you'll see that it's "common practice". Actually, that's the basic rules of the games between nations
3) I don't say that France has to be proud because it prefered to "look elsewhere" to keep a geopolitical position. But at least, we're pleading guilty publicly. And we'll be welcoming for others countries to do the same...
France's colonial history was appalling, as were many if not all colonial histories, but the article at the heart of this thread was about France's particular postcolonial history in Rwanda, not about other colonial or postcolonial situations involving other countries. And my original response was to contradict someone trying to flatly deny any French culpability whatsoever in the atrocities committed in Rwanda in the 90s. Whatever you're trying to do here with "well sure France was a horrific colonial overlord but so were X, Y and Z" is completely beside the point.
Wow are you really that uniformed?
Algeria, Senegal and Vietnam comes instantly to my mind
It's quite concerning to see so much lack of the least basic subtelity these times... are you spending too much time on social networks ?
To quote from Linda Melvern's excellent "Intent to Deceive: Denying the Genocide of the Tutsi":
"The genocidaires continue to maintain that the mass murder of the Tutsi resulted from a 'spontaneous uprising' by an angry population. They argue there was no genocide of the Tutsi. With no planning or preparation, they argue the intent to destroy a human group was lacking, and so with no intent, the 1948 Genocide Convention does not apply. The idea of a spontaneous slaughter is not borne out by direct witnesses, by survivors or by the collective research of internationally recognized experts."
Case closed.
That's NOT the definition of Genocide.
>It's quite concerning to see so much lack of the least basic subtelity these times
Samesame, is it because it's about the "good guy" france, or are you really so arrogant about it?
France directly aided the Hutu government because they were worried about Anglophone influence in the region. Both before, during and after the genocide, France helped the perpetrators. Even their "humanitarian" efforts were largely skewed towards helping Hutus. When the French and Belgians were busy evacuating their own expatriates, they refused to help any Tutsis, even spouses. They did help evacuate Hutus.
France supplied arms to the Interahamwe for Gods sake. The people that slaughtered women and babies, who skewered heads on spikes, threw grenades into churches full of innocent people and literally gang raped women to death.
I am strongly against historical revisionism and this recent obsession with holding current generations accountable for actions that occurred hundreds of years ago, but this is not either of those things.
The genocide was unimaginably horrific and France's complicity is well documented. It also happened less than three decades ago. This has nothing to do with patriotism, and France should feel immense shame for how it acted in Rwanda.
overwhelming is defined as [1]:
- 2a: to cover over completely : SUBMERGE
- 2b: to overcome by superior force or numbers
- 2c: to overpower in thought or feeling
So to claim that France bears "overwhelming responsibilities" begs the question: overwhelming of what? Overwhelming the responsibilities of the people who actually committed the genocide?! And if not that, then what the heck is the word "overwhelming" doing there?
Suggesting that anyone but the people who committed the atrocities bear "overwhelming responsibility" for them is sick, infantilizing, racist and revisionist.
The people who committed those atrocities were human beings with full agency, not infants, not subhumans, and they alone bear the overwhelming responsibility for their actions.
They don't even have the tired Nazi accomplice excuse that the French ordered them to commit it, because that would be a lie.
The title of the article is bullshit. Maybe it is quoted bullshit, but it is bullshit none the less. Aljazeera's job is not to be a stenographer for liars.
I'm not sure if you intended to reply to my comment, but I can't say I disagree with that statement. I was responding to this comment by the parent poster, which surely deserves the same derision as that given to those you accuse of misapplication of blame:
> So, we speak about people who decided one day to kill their neighbours with machete. France and the French have nothing to do about it whatsoever.
You're saying using orders from leadership to commit crimes is a tired excuse. Are you therefore claiming that executors of orders bear all of the responsibility? So then, in particular, all of those in Nazi leadership that never actually fired a gun bear no responsibility?
In reality there's universal* consensus that Hitler and Goebbels et al do bear overwhelming responsibility for the atrocities of the Holocaust.
*Excluding ideologically driven contrarians/deniers
Not something I claimed.
> In reality there's universal* consensus that Hitler and Goebbels et al do bear overwhelming responsibility for the atrocities of the Holocaust.
Feel free to provide a citation.
No but it follows immediately from what you did claim (quoted in my previous reply).
>Feel free to provide a citation.
I need a citation for the fact that Hitler (and to a lesser extent Goebbels) are synonymous with the words Nazi and Holocaust? Really?
That is not what you claimed. You need a citation for the claim you made, then we can talk about you citing other claims.
Nobody can convince me that Ruggiu was not a secret service agent. Look what happened to him after he was a convicted war criminal. Italy set him free immediately.
But I would not only blame France alone. Most western states were complicit in these ongoing war crimes. The Kongo world wars included everybody. Ruanda controls the Kongo mines (as well as the Kongo presidency). https://www.quora.com/Are-we-heading-towards-World-War-III/a... (there somebody edited out his name btw)
I'm trying to find the right words but I'm found wanting.
It feels like a political play as a sort of non-threatening reminder of who's boss. I cant help but think the ulterior motive, especially in these tough economic times, might yet be more sinister than the downcast eyes of Macron. That being said, I do respect Macron and his vision for the EU, just wish he'd keep his policies in the EU and France and let go of Africa.
France still has undue influence in African politics till this day - so its hard to explain their timing and reasons, a few decades too late. Rwanda has moved on to become a real power in continental politics especially on development and the EAC. Not to mention that Kagame is super well respected as statesman (and feared).
It's a hypothesis though and nothing more.
We see headlines of three kinds. First the US and UK media with the headline "France cleared of complicity". Other press overwhelmingly report France "guilty" or "complicit". China and some others play it tactful: Partially complicit, but not really. All without reading the actual report!
The paragraph which caused these opposing headlines was "France bears "heavy and overwhelming responsibilities" over the 1994 Rwanda genocide, a report by French historians says, but they found no evidence of French complicity." (AP, international whitewashing services)
Thanksfully there exist actual reports, plus all the war crime tribunals. With the hate media tribunal the best. For background, France was believed to be the supporter of the racist, extremist Hutu's against the pro-western "Uganda Tutsi" elite. Tutsi being called Watussi (the "tall ones", the "warriors") in earlier decades.
https://www.vie-publique.fr/sites/default/files/rapport/pdf/...
(Conclusions in english at the end)
The UN wanted to do something, but the US kept them locked up in channels debating exactly what constitutes genocide (and threatening an outright veto if they didn’t) until it was too late.
The US claimed a humanitarian role in Somalia, but were really just protecting US interests (primarily oil). We didn’t have any significant interests in Rwanda and Somalia blew up in the Clinton regimes face, so they made the decision to let them die by not intervening.
Clinton claimed ignorance, but the few UN troops present sent back very clear information about what was happening. All the US citizens leaving (not to mention everyone else from other countries) knew what was going down. Either the president was lied to or he lied about not knowing. I don’t see how the former was possibly and the misdirection in the UN points directly to the latter.
In truth, it’s probably the banality of evil that preventing a genocide isn’t glamorous. It might cost soldier’s lives and people won’t be horrified because there aren’t stacks of dead bodies when everything is done (nobody notices when the system does its job). A cold, calculating politician would see the right thing is all risk and no visible reward. I guess Bill “Lolita Express” Clinton shouldn’t be accused of caring about other people’s well-being.
Epstein didn’t kill himself and I begin to wonder if the couple dozen suicide victims whose death benefitted the Clintons so much were similar kinds of “suicide”. I guess that’s a question for another time though if true, could explain the kind of moral character that would allow such decisions.