Rwanda French Grandeur And Complicity To Genocide By Alexandermwright

No. 85/2006

French Grandeur and Complicity to Genocidei By Alexander M. Wrightii Last week, after a former senior Rwandan diplomat reported to a tribunal that France was complicit in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, it remains whether the case will be put in front of the International Court of Justice in The Hague. That France should be accused of such allegations should not surprise anyone. In fact, it merely rehashes its traditional objective in Africa: to defend French grandeur, wherever and whenever it is in conflict with Angloambitions, at whatever the cost. Some would say such a mentality was bred in a small Sudanese fishing village in 1898.

If one draws a line from Cairo to Cape Town and from Dakar to Djibouti, the lines intersect in southern Sudan, through a village called Fashoda. As artificial and arbitrary as these lines are, thus was how the ‘Scramble for Africa’ was mapped out, and this was how the British and the French sought to carry out their colonial objectives in 1898. Fashoda, therefore, became the fault line for both their ambitions, and nearly preceded Sarajevo as the setting for the outbreak of World War One. Realising its strategic importance in their battle for colonial domination of Africa, both countries subsequently planted their respective flag in the village, each to the displeasure of the other.

While the issue did eventually become resolved diplomatically, the British victory nevertheless left a palpable stain on the psyche of the French. In fact, in his memoirs, former French General and President Charles de Gaulle listed the debacles that affected France in his youth and that had motivated him to dedicate himself to upholding France’s ‘grandeur.’ The first on the list was the Fashoda incident.

The concept of Francophonie is quite a fascinating one, and indicative of French stubbornness in Africa. The idea is that if someone, somewhere in the world, is attacking a French-speaking country, it is almost as if he or she was striking at France itself. Despite being a Belgian colony, France still considered Rwanda to be a part of Francophone Africa. Furthermore, the Great Lakes region has been the fault line for Franco and Anglo ambitions, thus increasing the region’s propensity to conflict. Just as the U.S. used the Cold War as justification for supporting tyrants around the world, so too did France use the notion of Francophonie as justification for supporting the likes of Mobutu in his last days, the cannibalistic Bokassa in the Central African Republic, or Habyarimana in Rwanda.

It is not too difficult, therefore, to understand why, after Tutsi exiles from Uganda; an Anglophone country; marched into Rwanda in 1990, that the French saw it as a case of an Anglo-Saxon plot. As a result, an estimated $100 million was spent on arms supplies to boost up the brutal Habyarimana regime in Kigali in 1990-1991. Subsequently, the Rwandan army grew from 9,000 in October 1990, to 28,000 by 1991. Even more, according to Human Rights Watch, on five occasions between May and June 1994, during the height of the genocide, arms shipments from the French government and French companies operating under government license were delivered to the Rwandan army at the Zairian border town of Goma. Furthermore, French intelligence sent white mercenaries fresh from the slaughter of Bosnia to Zaire to defend the crumbling Mobutu regime, which was not only completely isolated by the international community, but was harbouring the genocidaires from Rwanda. France, however, saw in Mobutu and Zaire an extremely important Francophone asset in Africa, given its location, size, and potential.

As Canadian Major General Romeo Daillaire, leader of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) observed, in 1994 the French were in fact using UNAMIR vehicles to move Rwandans of known extremist background to the airport, where they were flown out of the country. For example, of those privately escorted directly to Paris were Habyarimana’s wife, Agathe Kanzinga; the mastermind behind ‘Hutu Power’; her children, and the rest of her entourage. On arrival in Paris, she received a gift of some $40,000 from the French government. Among those whom the French refused to evacuate were the five children of the murdered Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, and long-standing embassy employees, most of them Tutsis. French President Mitterrand’s spokesman explained: ‘Our mandate does not authorise us to arrest them on our own authority. Such a task could undermine our neutrality, the best guarantee of our effectiveness.’

At a Franco-African summit in Biarritz, France, some four months after the genocide had ended, the French minister for cooperation described the new Tutsi-led Rwandan

government as ‘an Anglophone Tutsi government coming from Uganda,’ and thus was not invited to the summit. Furthermore, French President Jacques Chirac opened the summit with a moment of silence not to the victims of the genocide, but in honour of their long-time friend, Habyarimana.

I found it quite humorous to watch French Parliamentarian Jacques Myard on BBC World, obstinately defending France against the allegations of the former Rwandan diplomat. Wildly yelling at the camera, I think he actually believed what he was saying. He denied any French involvement in the genocide, claiming that France was one of the first to call for action against the genocidaires. He also vociferously accused Rwandan President Paul Kagame and the RPF for the assassination of President Habyarimana, failing to accept the possibility that Hutu hardliners were responsible. In fact, the evidence points towards the latter, in that his assassination was foreshadowed by Hutu hardliners in Kangura newspaper, and Radio Milles Collines.

This, however, is another issue. The question remains as to whether France will be held accountable for its complicity to genocide. While the international community is often reproached for its inaction in Rwanda, France should not only be reproached, but punished, for its direct involvement in mass murder, and support for genocidaires. It is time France got over its century-old grudge, especially when it is at the expense of so many lives. Stubbornness, unfortunately, is an integral part of French grandeur.

Please send comments to [email protected]

i

The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for International Political Studies (CiPS) ii Alexander M Wright is a Research Associate with the Centre for International Political Studies (CiPS)