Pages

Tuesday, 26 May 2020

Madame KABUGA,Waterloo: Quand des forces de sécurité ne respectent pas le deuil d’une famille

Madame KABUGA,Waterloo: Quand des forces de sécurité ne respectent pas le deuil d'une famille

3 ans ago

Madame Josephine Mukazitoni Kabuga

Madame Joséphine Mukazitoni  est décédée le 03 février 2017.  Elle fut enterrée à Waterloo le samedi 11 février 2017. Elle avait 75 ans. Voir pièces jointes (la carte-souvenir recto-verso)

Précisons que feu Madame Joséphine Mukazitoni est l'épouse de Félicien Kabuga  ancien homme d'affaires rwandais d'avant 1994. Félicien Kabuga était un proche de l'ancien président Habyarimana par alliance.  Aussi, après l'assassinat du président Habyarimana, les massacres qui ont suivi et la prise du pouvoir par le FPR, Félicien Kabuga s'exila comme presque tous les dignitaires hutus de l'ancien régime.

Dès la création du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda (TPIR) en 1996, Félicien Kabuga fut accusé d'avoir été le « financier du génocide » et recherché par ce tribunal. Jusqu' à sa clôture en 2014, le TPIR n'avait pas toujours mis la main sur Kabuga. Le Mécanisme pour les tribunaux Pénaux Internationaux (MITC) qui a repris le flambeau du TPIR coure toujours derrière Félicien Kabuga sans succès, malgré la prime de cinq millions de dollars que les USA ont offerts à quiconque aiderait à son arrestation. Mais certains analystes pensent plutôt que cet homme qui serait maintenant âgé de plus de 80 ans et qui était malade déjà en 1994 nécessitant des soins réguliers et particuliers serait déjà mort et donc que ni l'ONU ni le régime rwandais ne mettront jamais la main sur lui. Mais les équipes de recherches de l'ONU épaulées par les agents locaux sont toujours à pied d'œuvre et un budget est annuellement voté pour la recherche de Kabuga. C'est donc un job qu'ils n'entendent pas perdre même en sachant très bien que Félicien Kabuga ne serait plus de ce monde.

C'est l'épouse de ce personnage le plus recherché du monde qui vient de trouver la mort en Belgique où elle vivait depuis plusieurs années entourée de ses nombreux enfants.

Cette famille se plaint de subir des harcèlements depuis des années, il y a déjà quelque temps, l'une des filles de Kabuga nommée Claudine avait été perquisitionnée, alors qu'elle sortait de la maternité et avait retrouvé sa maison complètement retournée !  Mais à la mort de cette dame, les actes de harcèlement se sont multipliés de façon exponentielle.  Tout au long de la semaine de deuil , la famille a été victime d'un acharnement des agents de sécurité et de la police au mépris du respect du deuil dont elle croyait avoir droit dans un pays démocratique qu'est la Belgique.

Le summum fut atteint la veille de l'enterrement. Le soir du 10 février vers 18h00, la maison Kabuga à Waterloo a été perquisitionnée par une quinzaine d'agents dont Michel Stassin, ancien commissaire de la Police Fédérale belge au Parquet de Bruxelles, aujourd'hui détaché au Rwanda et en Tanzanie (Arusha) pour spécialement traquer Félicien Kabuga , comme le montre sa carte de visite. La rumeur dit même qu'il aurait acquis la nationalité rwandaise, mais c'est à vérifier.  Certains sont restés à l'extérieur et les autres sont entrés dans la maison. Ils ont fouillé toute la maison de fond en comble.  L'un des agents (un black qui de toute évidence était un envoyé  du régime de Kigali spécialement commis  pour ça) filmait toute la scène des fouilles avec son téléphone. L'une des personnes présente l'a remarqué et la famille a exigé que la vidéo soit effacée. Quant à Michel Stassin il essayait de leur faire comprendre que le dossier de Félicien Kabuga était vide et que donc il devrait se livrer car il ne risquerait rien ! Pour impressionner et en gage de sa bonne foi, il a laissé sa carte de visite.

Apparemment les enquêteurs de l'ONU et de Kigali ainsi que des polices du monde qui sont sur les trousses de Félicien Kabuga auraient reçus des informations comme quoi ce dernier se serait déguisé en femme. Ceci est apparu lors de cette fouille-perquisition  du vendredi 10 février 2017 au domicile de Madame Kabuga décédée à Waterloo. L'attention des agents qui connaissent toutes les filles de Kabuga  a été attirée par une fille qui s'y trouvait mais qu'ils ne connaissaient pas.  Ils ont alors insisté pour que son identité soit révélée et qu'elle soit fouillée, ce que la fille a refusé. Et comme la situation commençait à dégénérer, les occupants des lieux ont obtempéré et la fille s'est révélée être une des cousines des enfants de Kabuga.

N'ayant pas trouvé Félicien Kabuga chez son épouse, ils se sont déplacés vers la résidence de l'une de ses filles Winnie, ils ont fait le même cinéma mais en vain…

Un service de sécurité bien organisé

Le jour de l'enterrement samedi 11 février 2017, les organisateurs qui s'en doutaient, avaient déployé un service d'ordre et de sécurité conséquent. Il fallait en effet encadrer et canaliser une foule de plus d'un millier de personnes venues de tous les coins du monde et surtout veiller à ce qu'un incident  n'ait lieu entre certaines des personnes antagonistes qui devaient se côtoyer. Mais surtout, il fallait éviter que des agents ouvertement envoyés par le régime du FPR profitent de cette occasion pour narguer la famille éprouvée. Ce fut le cas d'un certain Lewis Murahoneza alias Kigurube. Cet individu condamné par les Gacaca pour génocide, mais apparemment ayant été gracié en se rendant au Rwanda en 2013, (ce qui énerve certains rescapés : https://nkbnkb.wordpress.com/…/condamne-pour-genocide-au-rwanda-libre-a-kigali/est devenu l'un des plus zélés agents du régime de Kigali en Belgique. Ces tentatives pour couvrir l'événement furent vaines car il fut gentiment éconduit et sommé de quitter même le territoire de la commune de Waterloo. Il en aurait été de même si les nouvelles recrues du FPR comme Albert Rukerantare avaient tenté le coup. Par contre certains des membres ou agents du FPR furent tolérés car ayant des liens avec la famille éprouvée ou encore jugés inoffensifs à cette occasion. Ce fut le cas par exemple de madame Pulchérie Nyinawase qui préside l'association des Intore (miliciens) du FPR vivant en Belgique et pompeusement dénommée « Diaspora Rwandaise de Belgique : DRB- Rwanda Rugali» ou de monsieur Emmanuel Ndagijimana  a.k.a Idi Amin, ancien ambassadeur du FPR à Paris. Chapeau bas donc à ce service d'ordre et au protocole de la famille Kabuga qui tout en restant vigilent s'est aussi montré tolérant et au fait de la situation générale.

La messe dans une église archicomble a été célébrée par Monseigneur Servilien Nzakamwita , Evêque du Diocèse de Byumba la région natale de Félicien Kabuga et de son épouse. Tout un symbole quand on sait que Mgr Servilien Nzakamwita est un tutsi venu spécialement du Rwanda et qui ne peut donc pas être accusé d'être un « génocidaire », alors que Félicien Kabuga est lui accusé d'avoir commis le génocide contre les tutsi ! Monseigneur Sérvilien était d'ailleurs entouré d'autres prêtres rwandais de tous bords.

Ce service de sécurité de la famille Kabuga avait évidemment aussi un œil sur leurs homologues « officiels » que sont les agents des services de sécurité de l'Etat eux aussi présents en nombre.

C'est ainsi qu'il a été noté que, en face de l'église, des agents en civil avec une surveillance à distance étaient présents et au cimetière, d'autres étaient aussi présents dont une femme qui circulait au cimetière. Celle-ci était venue dans une voiture banalisée avec deux autres collègues. Elle a finalement quitté les lieux en courant pour rejoindre ses collègues qui tournaient en rond dans une voiture non loin de là.

De même à la salle de réception le soir, la police avec des voitures banalisées, a continué à tourner dans les environs et au moment ou la plupart rentrait vers 22h00, certaines voitures ont été arrêtées et fouillées, non sans demander benoitement aux occupant s'ils savaient où se trouverait le mari de la défunte ! Pour ces personnes dont la plupart venait d'autres pays, ces agissements aux méthodes peu respectueuses ont été particulièrement choquants. Ceux dont l'émoi nous est parvenu étaient loin de s'imaginer que des participants à un enterrement pouvaient être harcelés par ceux-là même qui étaient censés assurer l'ordre.

Conclusion

Les rwandais en général et la famille Kabuga en particulier, ont été choqués par ce show inutile et indécent des agents des services de sécurité belges et alliés. D'aucuns se demandent si cet acharnement au mépris du respect du deuil familial n'a pas des relents racistes. Une famille non africaine pourrait-elle subir un tel traitement de la part des mêmes agents ?  Ce serait alors oublier que même les africains, comme les enfants et petits enfants de Félicien Kabuga,  qui ont grandi ou sont nés en Belgique connaissent bien leurs droits et qu'ils n'hésiteront plus à les exiger ou à dénoncer ceux qui tenteraient de les fouler aux pieds. Ne pouvaient-ils pas opérer plus discrètement et en respectant le deuil de cette famille car sachant pertinemment bien qu'ils  n'allaient pas mettre la main sur Félicien Kabuga à cette occasion (et à jamais)? A moins que ces services voulaient à tout prix faire le « buzz » avec un scandale pareil. Ce ne serait pas à leur honneur.

Sé : Pseudo

Jean- Charles Murego

Categories: Monde




Fw: [uRwanda_rwacu] Re: US, UK Want Review of “1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi” Appellation – THE CHRONICLES | Rwanda [1 Attachment]

Explanation of Position on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Rwandan Genocide

Home Explanation of Position on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Rwandan Genocide

Ambassador Kelly Craft
Permanent Representative
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
New York, New York
April 23, 2020

Explanation of Position on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Rwandan Genocide

Since the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda and the establishment in 2003 of the "International Day of Reflection on the Genocide in Rwanda," April 7 has become a solemn day to commemorate the more than 800,000 men, women, and children whose lives were lost during 100 days of unspeakable violence.  The United States joins consensus with the entire UN General Assembly to support the continuation of this "International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda" so that each year, we may continue to honor the victims and the survivors who carry the memories of these atrocities.

This annual day of reflection is a reminder of our common humanity and recommits us to protect the vulnerable, prevent mass atrocities, and respect the inherent dignity of every human being.

The United States remains committed to supporting the people of Rwanda in their efforts to preserve the evidence of the 1994 genocide.  Indeed, one of the strongest measures we can take to prevent mass atrocities from occurring again is to preserve the history of what has taken place and to properly capture the scope of the acts committed.

As such, the United States is concerned that changes made to the text – starting in 2018 and extended today – narrow the focus of the resolution to the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and fail to fully capture the magnitude of the violence that was committed against other groups.  Many Hutu and others were also killed during the genocide, including those murdered for their opposition to the atrocities that were being committed.  Failing to honor and remember these victims presents an incomplete picture of this dark part of history.

Revising the language used to describe past genocides sets a dangerous precedent and risks leading to revisiting other days of reflection.  We support the resolution's overall aim to reflect on the genocide in Rwanda, but also must underscore that our understanding of the circumstances of the genocide in Rwanda has not changed. 

We urge our fellow member states to insist that histories of past genocides and other mass atrocities do not fade over time.  We owe it to each and every victim of these crimes to faithfully carry forward their memories as part of our vow of "never again." 

We are also concerned about the removal of the reference to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, which continues its important work to hold those responsible for genocide accountable.  The United States urges all states to cooperate with the IRMCT, including its search for eight Rwandans still wanted for their roles in the genocide.

The United States firmly believes that respect for all human rights, including freedom of expression, is critical in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities.  We reiterate that any efforts to counter incitement and hate speech should respect freedom of expression.

We must also express our disappointment in the negotiation process that led to this resolution.  The result is a weaker text that strips out references that would have benefited the Government of Rwanda in its efforts to seek accountability, while forcing Rwanda's allies, including the United States, to accept language we find concerning.  While we are not calling for a vote lest others get the wrong impression about our unwavering support for justice for victims of the genocide, we are concerned that the negotiation process potentially weakened the text, limited the impact, and added unexpected costs. 

As we reflect on the Rwandan genocide this year and always, the United States joins with the people of Rwanda and the international community in solemn reflection to commemorate all of the victims killed in the genocide in Rwanda, and to recommit to doing everything in our power to prevent such atrocities from happening again.

4.20.2020 Letter to GA President



----- Forwarded message -----
From: Nzi Nink nzinink@yahoo.com [uRwanda_rwacu] <urwanda_rwacu@yahoogroups.com>
To: "urwanda_rwacu@yahoogroups.com" <urwanda_rwacu@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 May 2020, 21:27:06 BST
Subject: [uRwanda_rwacu] Re: US, UK Want Review of "1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi" Appellation – THE CHRONICLES | Rwanda [1 Attachment]

Thanks for pointing it out.
It's ridiculous!
Here is how US & UK Amb. signed:

Explanation of Position on the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Rwandan Genocide | United States Mission to the United Nations

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-position-on-the-un-general-assembly-resolution-on-the-rwandan-genocide/



###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
###

On May 26, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Nsengiyumva Celestin <cnnsengi@yahoo.fr> wrote:

Nzi Nink: did you notice the signature of the Rwandan lengthy rebuttal? Ambassador Rugwabiza calls herself HE. The phrase "His Excellency" is a diplomatic address for foreign dignitaries, including foreign ambassadors. It is never used to introduce self . You never say" I am HE XXXX. Never! Other Permanent representatives sign their names, as follows:
 Name
Ambassador
Permanent representative of the Republic of XXXXXX to the United Nations

Le mardi 26 mai 2020 à 14:14:09 UTC−4, Nzi Nink nzinink@yahoo.com [uRwanda_rwacu] <urwanda_rwacu@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :


 

US, UK Want Review of "1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi" Appellation

alt UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Donald Trump during the latter's visit in London

In a rare shift of policy, both the United States and the United Kingdom are fiercely opposed to referencing the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994 as "1994 genocide against the Tutsi", according to documents only emerging now.

The US and UK also accuse government of Rwanda of attempting to "force" its desires on the international community. In response, Rwanda also accuses both countries of "distorting" facts about the genocide.

The letters from all sides about the issue give a rare insight into a long political fight that seems to be getting underway. The emergency of the battle between Rwanda and its biggest backers over what really happened in Rwanda, gives new ammunition to a growing platform of people and institutions that have cast doubt on the genocide.

The heart of the matter here is that up until April 2018, President Paul Kagame had put his personal political weight behind a push for a change of the terminology and language used on the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda. All along, the media, governments, international bodies and academia called it as the "Rwandan genocide" or "genocide in Rwanda".

Government of Rwanda successfully managed to convince the UN General Assembly to unanimously adopt the language the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi", and April 7, when the genocide began, as "International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda".

Since then, it became illegal in international law to refer to the genocide that took place in Rwanda by any other appellation. All countries were also expected to adopted national laws that address the genocide as per that UN General Assembly resolution.

Two years down the road, the U.S and UK, both veto-wielding UN members, want the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi" wording revisited. Through their permanent representatives at the UN, both countries as well as Ireland (together with UK), submitted official positions that are going to shock the world.

The US, UK positions, communicated separately, were filed in response to the draft resolution prepared by Rwanda and other partner states, in the lead up to April 7, 2020. Rwanda filed this new resolution to back up that of 2018.

In this project, Rwanda prepared the draft in collaboration with Argentina, Gambia, Norway and Qatar. The new draft resolution was to require the UN, individual states and other bodies to arrest fugitives, back Rwanda's judicial system, and also support survivors..

The new draft resolution also sought to require the UN Secretary General "to modify the title of the outreach programme to "outreach programme on the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and the United Nations" and to take measures to mobilize civil society for remembrance and education in the context of the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide, and to report annually to the General Assembly on the implementation of the programme."

The new draft text was submitted by Rwanda to President of the UG General Assembly on March 6. The following days and weeks were for intense negotiations on the spirit and actual wording of the draft by all countries concerned.

The United States, UK and Ireland submitted written letters for record to express their opposition to the wording of the draft text and the 2018 resolution. All the documents are published in the UN database and have been obtained by The Chronicles.

The new twist is highly significant because the US and UK have stood out as the single biggest backers of the government of Rwanda. They have provided international legitimacy and money.

The US, in addition to tens of millions of annual funding, it has put up $40m to hunt for eight key genocide fugitives including the alleged financier of the genocide Felicien Kabuga caught last week in Paris. Former US President Bill Clinton has put Rwanda on his to-do list for many years.

The UK too, though accused of taking too long to prosecute five genocide suspects on its territory, has also provided international legitimacy and money to Rwanda. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has particular attachment to Rwanda, including even proposing how cabinet is organized.

According to sources, the US and UK did also oppose the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi" language in the 2018 UN resolution. However, they did not veto and it passed. The difference with current situation is that the US-UK opposition has become public. Why they decided to go public about their positions is what will give fodder to the genocide negationist lobby.

In letter dated April 20, the US Ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, writes: "the United States is concerned that changes made to the text – starting in 2018 and extended today – narrow the focus of the resolution to the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and fail to fully capture the magnitude of the violence that was committed against other groups."

"Many Hutu and others were also killed during the genocide, including those murdered for their opposition to the atrocities that were being committed. Failing to honor and remember these victims presents an incomplete picture of this dark part of history."

"Revising the language used to describe past genocides sets a dangerous precedent and risks leading to revisiting other days of reflection. We support the resolution's overall aim to reflect on the genocide in Rwanda, but also must underscore that our understanding of the circumstances of the genocide in Rwanda has not changed."

The US added: "We must also express our disappointment in the negotiation process that led to this resolution. The result is a weaker text that strips out references that would have benefited the Government of Rwanda in its efforts to seek accountability, while forcing Rwanda's allies, including the United States, to accept language we find concerning. While we are not calling for a vote lest others get the wrong impression about our unwavering support for justice for victims of the genocide, we are concerned that the negotiation process potentially weakened the text, limited the impact, and added unexpected costs."

The US envoy even goes further: "The United States firmly believes that respect for all human rights, including freedom of expression, is critical in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities. We reiterate that any efforts to counter incitement and hate speech should respect freedom of expression."

The UK's chargé d'affaires at its the UN mission, Jonathan Allen, in April 20 letter, writes: "Whilst we did not break silence on the text, we would like to use this opportunity to express some reservations on the text."

"These reservations relate to the substance – we disagree with framing of the genocide as purely as the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi"…."

"As noted in previous resolutions, we believe that Hutus and others who were killed should be recognized. Our concerns also relate to the process – we note that there were some shortcomings in regards to the transparency in the negotiation and adoption processes."

Four days after the US, UK letters of opposition to the new draft, Rwanda filed its response, and the language in their particularly on the UK, shows President Kagame and his team clearly amused with what was unfolding.

Through Rwanda's UN envoy Valentine Rugwabiza, Kigali is clearly not ready to be bullied. While the US, UK letters are about two pages, Rwanda submitted lengthy rebuttal of four pages.

Rugwabiza writes: "It is interesting to note that while both Explanation of Positions (EOPs) underscored the importance of historical facts and collective memory in averting the recurrence of genocide, they stated the exact opposite by distorting these very historical facts and by ignoring the UN Security Council resolutions and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) jurisprudence to which they are both bound."

She added: "The demands being made against Rwanda appear to create a mechanism of remembrance outside the principles of the United Nations. However, if the positions of the United States and United Kingdom suggest the renegotiation of the UN Genocide Convention in as far as a collective decision is taken to remember "others" outside of the targeted group for extermination, then indeed this call for the renegotiation of the convention and a suggestion that as it stands the Convention is inadequate and that it should be revised beyond the "narrow" confines of targeted groups."

Kigali says the fact that April 13 is dedicated to "remembrance of politicians and others who, although not being part of the targeted group, were killed for opposing the extermination of Tutsis", shows that it is committed to the "pursuit of reconciliation".

The Rwandan envoy tells the Americans and British that: "Rwanda has walked the tight rope of applying the Convention of commemorating the group that was targeted for extermination while being as inclusive as possible without compromising the very purpose of genocide commemoration."

Adding: "Rwanda supports the US call for member states to hold those responsible for genocide accountable and takes this opportunity to remind the United Kingdom to arrest and try genocide suspects on its territory who are yet to face justice for their role in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, as one of the strong measures to prevent impunity and the recurrence of genocide."

Kigali also addresses accusations by the US that it arm-twisted the UN community into taking its position on the draft text. "…with regard to the negotiation process, Rwanda has neither the authority nor the desire to "force" any member into accepting a resolution language," says the Rwandan envoy.

The US and UK, both did not vote against (meaning veto) the new UN resolution, allowing it to pass on April 29.

The new UN General Assembly resolution is titled: "International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda", adopted by the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session on 20 April 2020″.

It reflects all the changes submitted by Rwanda together with key ally Qatar and two others, in their original draft from March.

Despite the passage of the new UN resolution, the mere fact that the US and UK opposition was made formally and has been made public, has given rare momentum to President Kagame's virulent critics and their supporters outside Rwanda.

Now, they know their positions are backed up by UK and US. Had it been a country like France which has shaky relationship with Kigali, the opposition to terminology on the genocide would have had less impact as it is going to have going forward.

As of now, it remains unclear what the US-UK positions mean in reality, and what will happen in the years to come. But already, reactions on social media show a big Pandora's box has just been opened.

Email your news TIPS to info@chronicles.rw or WhatsApp +250738160269.
You can also find us on Signal


###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
###

Fw: [uRwanda_rwacu] US, UK Want Review of “1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi” Appellation – THE CHRONICLES | Rwanda

Ariko amashyaka ya politike arakora iki ngo ashyigikire iyo gahunda ya US na UK. Nasomye no mu kinyamakuru cya Kagame "Igihe" kivuga ko ngo  genocide y'abatutsi izakomeza yubahirizwe ku geza  ubuziraherezo ngo kuko byanditswe  muri constitution yu Rwanda. None se icyo kinyamakuru  kiyobewe ko  iyo constitution y'u Rwanda yasimbuye n'indi? N'iyo iriho izasimburwa n'indi.

Nzi Nink: did you notice the signature of the Rwandan lengthy rebuttal? Ambassador Rugwabiza calls herself HE. The phrase "His Excellency" is a diplomatic address for foreign dignitaries, including foreign ambassadors. It is never used to introduce self . You never say" I am HE XXXX. Never! Other Permanent representatives sign their names, as follows:
 Name
Ambassador
Permanent representative of the Republic of XXXXXX to the United Nations

Le mardi 26 mai 2020 à 14:14:09 UTC−4, Nzi Nink nzinink@yahoo.com [uRwanda_rwacu] <urwanda_rwacu@yahoogroups.com> a écrit :


 

US, UK Want Review of "1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi" Appellation

alt UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and US President Donald Trump during the latter's visit in London

In a rare shift of policy, both the United States and the United Kingdom are fiercely opposed to referencing the genocide which took place in Rwanda in 1994 as "1994 genocide against the Tutsi", according to documents only emerging now.

The US and UK also accuse government of Rwanda of attempting to "force" its desires on the international community. In response, Rwanda also accuses both countries of "distorting" facts about the genocide.

The letters from all sides about the issue give a rare insight into a long political fight that seems to be getting underway. The emergency of the battle between Rwanda and its biggest backers over what really happened in Rwanda, gives new ammunition to a growing platform of people and institutions that have cast doubt on the genocide.

The heart of the matter here is that up until April 2018, President Paul Kagame had put his personal political weight behind a push for a change of the terminology and language used on the massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda. All along, the media, governments, international bodies and academia called it as the "Rwandan genocide" or "genocide in Rwanda".

Government of Rwanda successfully managed to convince the UN General Assembly to unanimously adopt the language the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi", and April 7, when the genocide began, as "International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda".

Since then, it became illegal in international law to refer to the genocide that took place in Rwanda by any other appellation. All countries were also expected to adopted national laws that address the genocide as per that UN General Assembly resolution.

Two years down the road, the U.S and UK, both veto-wielding UN members, want the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi" wording revisited. Through their permanent representatives at the UN, both countries as well as Ireland (together with UK), submitted official positions that are going to shock the world.

The US, UK positions, communicated separately, were filed in response to the draft resolution prepared by Rwanda and other partner states, in the lead up to April 7, 2020. Rwanda filed this new resolution to back up that of 2018.

In this project, Rwanda prepared the draft in collaboration with Argentina, Gambia, Norway and Qatar. The new draft resolution was to require the UN, individual states and other bodies to arrest fugitives, back Rwanda's judicial system, and also support survivors..

The new draft resolution also sought to require the UN Secretary General "to modify the title of the outreach programme to "outreach programme on the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda and the United Nations" and to take measures to mobilize civil society for remembrance and education in the context of the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, in order to help to prevent future acts of genocide, and to report annually to the General Assembly on the implementation of the programme."

The new draft text was submitted by Rwanda to President of the UG General Assembly on March 6. The following days and weeks were for intense negotiations on the spirit and actual wording of the draft by all countries concerned.

The United States, UK and Ireland submitted written letters for record to express their opposition to the wording of the draft text and the 2018 resolution. All the documents are published in the UN database and have been obtained by The Chronicles.

The new twist is highly significant because the US and UK have stood out as the single biggest backers of the government of Rwanda. They have provided international legitimacy and money.

The US, in addition to tens of millions of annual funding, it has put up $40m to hunt for eight key genocide fugitives including the alleged financier of the genocide Felicien Kabuga caught last week in Paris. Former US President Bill Clinton has put Rwanda on his to-do list for many years.

The UK too, though accused of taking too long to prosecute five genocide suspects on its territory, has also provided international legitimacy and money to Rwanda. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has particular attachment to Rwanda, including even proposing how cabinet is organized.

According to sources, the US and UK did also oppose the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi" language in the 2018 UN resolution. However, they did not veto and it passed. The difference with current situation is that the US-UK opposition has become public. Why they decided to go public about their positions is what will give fodder to the genocide negationist lobby.

In letter dated April 20, the US Ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft, writes: "the United States is concerned that changes made to the text – starting in 2018 and extended today – narrow the focus of the resolution to the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, and fail to fully capture the magnitude of the violence that was committed against other groups."

"Many Hutu and others were also killed during the genocide, including those murdered for their opposition to the atrocities that were being committed. Failing to honor and remember these victims presents an incomplete picture of this dark part of history."

"Revising the language used to describe past genocides sets a dangerous precedent and risks leading to revisiting other days of reflection. We support the resolution's overall aim to reflect on the genocide in Rwanda, but also must underscore that our understanding of the circumstances of the genocide in Rwanda has not changed."

The US added: "We must also express our disappointment in the negotiation process that led to this resolution. The result is a weaker text that strips out references that would have benefited the Government of Rwanda in its efforts to seek accountability, while forcing Rwanda's allies, including the United States, to accept language we find concerning. While we are not calling for a vote lest others get the wrong impression about our unwavering support for justice for victims of the genocide, we are concerned that the negotiation process potentially weakened the text, limited the impact, and added unexpected costs."

The US envoy even goes further: "The United States firmly believes that respect for all human rights, including freedom of expression, is critical in the prevention of genocide and other mass atrocities. We reiterate that any efforts to counter incitement and hate speech should respect freedom of expression."

The UK's chargé d'affaires at its the UN mission, Jonathan Allen, in April 20 letter, writes: "Whilst we did not break silence on the text, we would like to use this opportunity to express some reservations on the text."

"These reservations relate to the substance – we disagree with framing of the genocide as purely as the "1994 genocide against the Tutsi"…."

"As noted in previous resolutions, we believe that Hutus and others who were killed should be recognized. Our concerns also relate to the process – we note that there were some shortcomings in regards to the transparency in the negotiation and adoption processes."

Four days after the US, UK letters of opposition to the new draft, Rwanda filed its response, and the language in their particularly on the UK, shows President Kagame and his team clearly amused with what was unfolding.

Through Rwanda's UN envoy Valentine Rugwabiza, Kigali is clearly not ready to be bullied. While the US, UK letters are about two pages, Rwanda submitted lengthy rebuttal of four pages.

Rugwabiza writes: "It is interesting to note that while both Explanation of Positions (EOPs) underscored the importance of historical facts and collective memory in averting the recurrence of genocide, they stated the exact opposite by distorting these very historical facts and by ignoring the UN Security Council resolutions and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) jurisprudence to which they are both bound."

She added: "The demands being made against Rwanda appear to create a mechanism of remembrance outside the principles of the United Nations. However, if the positions of the United States and United Kingdom suggest the renegotiation of the UN Genocide Convention in as far as a collective decision is taken to remember "others" outside of the targeted group for extermination, then indeed this call for the renegotiation of the convention and a suggestion that as it stands the Convention is inadequate and that it should be revised beyond the "narrow" confines of targeted groups."

Kigali says the fact that April 13 is dedicated to "remembrance of politicians and others who, although not being part of the targeted group, were killed for opposing the extermination of Tutsis", shows that it is committed to the "pursuit of reconciliation".

The Rwandan envoy tells the Americans and British that: "Rwanda has walked the tight rope of applying the Convention of commemorating the group that was targeted for extermination while being as inclusive as possible without compromising the very purpose of genocide commemoration."

Adding: "Rwanda supports the US call for member states to hold those responsible for genocide accountable and takes this opportunity to remind the United Kingdom to arrest and try genocide suspects on its territory who are yet to face justice for their role in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, as one of the strong measures to prevent impunity and the recurrence of genocide."

Kigali also addresses accusations by the US that it arm-twisted the UN community into taking its position on the draft text. "…with regard to the negotiation process, Rwanda has neither the authority nor the desire to "force" any member into accepting a resolution language," says the Rwandan envoy.

The US and UK, both did not vote against (meaning veto) the new UN resolution, allowing it to pass on April 29.

The new UN General Assembly resolution is titled: "International Day of Reflection on the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda", adopted by the General Assembly at its seventy-fourth session on 20 April 2020″.

It reflects all the changes submitted by Rwanda together with key ally Qatar and two others, in their original draft from March.

Despite the passage of the new UN resolution, the mere fact that the US and UK opposition was made formally and has been made public, has given rare momentum to President Kagame's virulent critics and their supporters outside Rwanda.

Now, they know their positions are backed up by UK and US. Had it been a country like France which has shaky relationship with Kigali, the opposition to terminology on the genocide would have had less impact as it is going to have going forward.

As of now, it remains unclear what the US-UK positions mean in reality, and what will happen in the years to come. But already, reactions on social media show a big Pandora's box has just been opened.

Email your news TIPS to info@chronicles.rw or WhatsApp +250738160269.
You can also find us on Signal


###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
###
__._,_.___


__,_._,___

Fw: [ibukabose_rengerabose] L’arrestation de Félicien Kabuga, ou quand les médias rajoutent un chapitre à la fausse histoire du génocide du Rwanda


L'arrestation de Félicien Kabuga, ou quand les médias rajoutent un chapitre à la fausse histoire du génocide du Rwanda

alt

Par Bernard Lugan.

alt

L'Akazu n'a jamais existé et Félicien Kabuga n'a pas fondé les Interahamwe.

Félicien Kabuga qui vient d'être arrêté en France est présenté comme étant à la fois le financier de l'Akazu, une cellule familiale qui aurait préparé le génocide, et le fondateur des Interahamwe, milice associée au génocide des Tutsi et des Hutu alliés au FPR du général Kagamé, les « Hutu modérés » des médias. Or, l'Akazu n'a jamais existé et Félicien Kabuga n'a pas fondé les Interahamwe.

alt1. L'Akazu n'a jamais existé

Devant le TPIR, le Procureur a échoué à convaincre les juges « au-delà de tout doute possible », que :

– le génocide du Rwanda avait été planifié au sein de l'Akazu, une prétendue cellule familiale postulée avoir été financée par Félicien Kabuga et dirigée par Protais Zigiranyirazo, beau-frère du président Habyarimana,

-que le maître-d'œuvre de cette opération criminelle était le colonel Théoneste Bagosora, qu'il présentait comme le« cerveau du génocide ».

Considérant que le Procureur n'avait « pas établi le bien-fondé de sa thèse » , dans leur jugement du 18 décembre 2008, tout en le condamnant pour n'avoir pas su contrôler ses prétendus subordonnés, les juges acquittèrent le colonel Bagosora du principal chef d'accusation, l' « entente en vue de commettre un génocide ». Celui qui avait été présenté comme le « cerveau » du génocide n'avait donc pas programmé ce dernier…

Puis, le 16 novembre 2009, la Chambre d'appel du TPIR acquitta Protais Zigiranyirazo, le chef du prétendu Akazu. Il était d'ailleurs difficile de faire autrement car la Défense avait démontré que l'Akazu n'avait jamais existé puisqu'il s'agissait d'une invention de l'opposition au président Habyarimana…Les deux « inventeurs » vinrent même témoigner devant le TPIR pour expliquer toute l'affaire (voir à ce sujet mes publications citées en fin de communiqué).

Et pourtant, dans la plus totale ignorance du dossier, les médias osent écrire que Félicien Kabuga était le financier d'un Akazu fantasmé…

2. Félicien Kabuga n'a pas fondé les Interahamwe

Dans le contexte de pré-guerre civile qui ensanglantait le Rwanda des années 1992-1994, tous les partis politiques se dotèrent de milices. Tous, y compris le PSD (Parti social-démocrate), un parti très largement tutsi dont la milice était les Abakombozi (Libérateurs). 

Chronologiquement, la  première de ces milices, les Inkuba (Foudre) fut fondée par le MDR (Mouvement démocratique républicain)  un parti hutu à dominante sudiste qui combattait le régime du président Habyarimana.

En réaction, à la création des Inkuba, le parti présidentiel, le MRND (D) (Mouvement révolutionnaire national pour le développement et la démocratie), se dota des Interahamwe (Ceux qui vont ensemble).

Cette milice fut fondée par un Tutsi nommé Anastase Gasana. Membre du MRND (D), ce dernier adhéra ensuite au MDR et devint conseiller du premier ministre (MDR) Nsengiyaremye avant d'être nommé Ministre des Affaires étrangères du gouvernement d'Agathe Uwilingiyimana, un gouvernement d'opposition au président Habyarimana. Anastase Gasana rallia ensuite le FPR et il devint même ministre dans le premier gouvernement  constitué  au mois de juillet 1994, après la victoire militaire du général Kagamé.  

Ainsi donc, le fondateur des Interahamwe, ces « tueurs de Tutsi », était lui-même Tutsi…et il fit une brillante carrière ministérielle sous le régime tutsi victorieux… Pour mémoire, le co-fondateur de ces mêmes Interahamwe, Eric Karagezi était également Tutsi (TPIR-2001-73-T, lundi 6 mars 2006,  Des Forges, page 31). Quant à la milice elle-même, elle était dirigée par un autre Tutsi, Robert Kajuga…

Il est donc pour le moins insolite de constater que tant de  Tutsi aient pu avoir de tels rôles essentiels dans la création, l'organisation et le fonctionnement d'une milice présentée comme ayant préparé et commis le génocide des Tutsi…

Le FPR avait également infiltré nombre de ses membres au sein des Interahamwe. Devant le TPIR les noms et les pseudonymes de plusieurs d'entre eux ont été cités. Dans la période qui précéda le génocide, donc avant le 6 avril 1994, leur mission était double :

– provoquer le chaos afin de déstabiliser politiquement le régime Habyarimana,

– discréditer les partisans de ce dernier aux yeux de l'opinion internationale en faisant porter sur eux la responsabilité des violences qui secouaient alors le pays.

altDevant le TPIR, l'ancien Premier ministre Jean Kambanda a déclaré à ce propos sous serment que:

« (…) les Interahamwe (…) étaient commandés à partir du siège de l'état-major du FPR. Sur les cinq dirigeants des Interahamwe au niveau national, je parle du Président, du premier et du deuxième vice-président et de deux trésoriers, trois sur cinq avaient été officiellement recrutés et injectés dans la direction des Interahamwe par le FPR dans sa tactique d'infiltration » (TPIR-98-41-T  Kambanda, 20 novembre 2006, p.69).

Voilà qui illustre une fois encore  la fausse histoire du génocide du Rwanda « pieusement », et hélas, parfois même servilement, récitée par les médias qui parlent et écrivent sans savoir, se contentant de recopier les notes  distribuées par les  services du général Kagamé.   

Se reporter à ce sujet au livre de Bernard Lugan Rwanda: un génocide en questions et mes Dix ans d'expertises devant le TPIR


alt


Plus d'informations sur …

le blog officiel de Bernard Lugan

IMPORTANT

Pour vous abonner à l'Afrique Réelle et recevoir l'intégralité des communiqués et analyses de Bernard Lugan ainsi que les numéros mensuels de l'Afrique Réelle, rendez-vous sur cette page.



###
"Hate Cannot Drive Out Hate. Only Love Can Do That", Dr. Martin Luther King.
###
__._,_.___


.

__,_._,___

“Uwigize agatebo ayora ivi”. Ubutegetsi bukugira agatebo ukariyora uko bukeye n’uko bwije.

"Ce dont j’ai le plus peur, c’est des gens qui croient que, du jour au lendemain, on peut prendre une société, lui tordre le cou et en faire une autre."

“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

“The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.”

“I have loved justice and hated iniquity: therefore I die in exile."

KOMEZA USOME AMAKURU N'IBITEKEREZO BYA VUBA BYAGUCITSE:

RECOMMENCE

RECOMMENCE

1.Kumenya Amakuru n’amateka atabogamye ndetse n’Ibishobora Kukugiraho Ingaruka ni Uburenganzira Bwawe.

2.Kwisanzura mu Gutanga Ibitekerezo, Kurwanya Ubusumbane, Akarengane n’Ibindi Byose Bikubangamiye ni Uburenganzira Bwawe.