Fela's Fury

There are three misconceptions about the Rwandan civil war and ensuing genocide that permeate and stain perceptions of the massacres. One is that the slaughter was “senseless” and a veritable melee of bloodthirsty brutes who randomly hacked to death and shot random civilians at checkpoints throughout the country. We underestimate the true brutality of the war if we succumb to such falsities. The Rwandan genocide was highly developed and planned for perhaps a decade or more. Orders came all the way from the top following the death of president Juvenal Habyarimana and the slaughter was arranged via broadcasts on RTLM, the extremist radio station, as well as secret government documents arranged by Habyarimana’s wife. Illiterate farmers may have helped to carry out the genocide, but their orders were coordinated from the top, by former, hard-line government ministers. The anachronistic identity card system was exploited by the genocidaires and used to accelerate the killing. This was not “senseless,” but a calculated, machiavellian genocide that killed with more ruthlessness at one of the most efficient rates in history, second only to the Atomic bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The next mistake the world makes in its analysis of Rwanda is the standard belief that the genocide was inevitable -- that the conflict between Hutu and Tutsi was centuries-old. This, too, is a grave miscalculation. Though physical differences between the two do exist, Hutu and Tutsi got along fine until ethnocentric dogma was injected into Rwandan culture by early social Darwinist explorers, who lauded Tutsis as distinctly un-African, ethnically Ethiopian and descendents of Christ, and the Belgian colonial authorities. The introduction of identity cards that included ethnicity by Belgium exacerbated tensions that were already being stirred by the colonial authorities as a means of consolidating hegemony. Fostering tribalism was a means of dividing the country and pitting the majority Hutu, who comprise 85% of Rwanda, against the traditional rulers of the region – the Tutsi. Three years prior to independence, in 1959, hatred manipulated by the colonial authorities resulted in the overthrow of the largely ceremonial Tutsi monarch, which set in motion the path that culminated in the April 1994 genocide. The revulsion of Tutsis in Rwanda was an artificial construct designed to strengthen colonial rule.

The early violence in nascent independent Rwanda addresses the final solecism – that the violence that mutated out of the hatred was solely committed by Hutu extremists. It was, unfortunately, a two-way street. Massacres that killed thousands of Tutsis between independence and the RPF invasion in 1990 sometimes resulted in reprisal attacks on Hutus by angry and bitter Tutsis. In 1972, in Burundi, Tutsi soldiers massacred 200,000 Hutus. Ethnic violence continued, culminating in the deaths of 300,000 between 1993 and 1994. Though the 1994 genocide provides genuinely solid moral imperative to the observer, it is foolish to ignore the heinous crimes of both sides.

If literature on Rwanda is judged solely by how it addresses these three issues, Romeo Dallaire’s Shake Hands With The Devil fails. That Dallaire was the United Nations commander in Rwanda during the genocide, his book provides priceless insight from a perspective not previously published and is thus an invaluable resource to anyone interested in Rwanda. It is, however, necessary, in any work on the genocide, that proper background be given, and there is only passing mention. Instead, Dallaire provides invaluable information on the immediate run-up to the genocide. At over 500 pages, the book is a detailed supply of information of the year Dallaire spent as head of UNAMIR, filled with emotion and explanations (though no excuses) for the UN’s inaction and, if read alongside a historical work such as Gerard Prunier's The Rwandan Crisis, is a remarkable tool.

Dallaire’s book is well-written, especially considering the subject matter and the author’s ability to suppress an otherwise forgivable emotional slant. In vivid terms, Dallaire describes driving through the streets of Kigali, avoiding drunken bands of Interahamwe and the bodies that litter the streets. At the same time he provides insight into his colleagues’ activities, regaling the reader with stories of missions on which his Ghanaian, Polish and Belgian soldiers were deployed.

The only problem with his insight is that, compared the collection of stories compiled in Gourevitch’s We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, Dallaire’s book lacks a victim’s narrative, although his account of a descent into post-traumatic stress disorder evokes some of the uncomfortable claustrophobia one experiences when reading first-person accounts of the genocide.

Dallaire’s dealings with the woefully incompetent UN and its member states, particularly the United States and France, are at once disturbing, irritating and even funny, in the way the 700 Club is funny. Not once does Dallaire avoid blame for the failure of UNAMIR, although it is blatantly obvious that he gave everything he could to the mission and that fault for the mission’s failure lays squarely on the feet of the UN, who refused to augment the mission or alter the rules of engagement, and the likes of the United States, who had means to intervene and proved it, according to Dallaire, by deploying troops to evacuate expatriates, with ease, but withdrawing them immediately thereafter.

Neither the genocidaires, the UN, international community or even the RPF rebel movement are spared blame. Dallaire decries the RPF’s refusal to speed up its advance on Rwanda, as though it could have done more to halt the genocide, which I question. He also rages at Paul Kagame and the RPF leadership for launching attacks on or near UN installations and neutral territory. He writes:

[Kagame] had promised to keep his guns clear of the airport, but not only had some of his rounds fallen on the runway, but the terminal housing the Ghanaian battalion had suffered deliberate artillery and mortar assaults, and we had established that the firing had come from RPF positions.

Dallaire’s thesis is, perhaps, that everyone is to blame. The RPF is far from glorified after they wrest control from the RGF and the UN civilian administrators in Rwanda are (justifiably) characters to be laughed at, frequently demanding swanky cars and accommodations while jetting off to Nairobi, all the time.

The book is a frustrating read. Dallaire struggles to find a way to intervene to stop the killing, but he is prevented from doing so by the lack of equipment provided by the United Nations and the withdrawal of the Belgian soldiers following the deaths of eleven of them at the hands of the RGF early in the genocide. The reader, like Dallaire, becomes effectively and emotionally involved in the story.

By the end of Dallaire’s stay and the end of the book, it becomes apparent that nobody in UNAMIR leaves the mission unscathed. Dallaire recounts, vividly, the story of several Polish military observers, held at gunpoint by Interahamwe, who are forced to witness a massacre in a church:

Methodically and with much bravado and laughter, the militia moved from bench to bench, hacking with machetes. Some people died immediately, while others with terrible wounds begged for their lives or the lives of their children…There was no mercy, no hesitation and no compassion. The priests and the MILOBs, guns at their throats, tears in their eyes, and the screams of the dying in their ears,, pleaded with the gendarmes for the victims. The gendarmes’ reply was to use the rifle barrels to lift the priests’ and MILOBs’ heads so that they could better witness the horror.

I wrote earlier that the book lacks the first person account of the victim, but upon finishing, it is obvious that Dallaire, too, is a victim of the genocide whose wounds have not yet healed, and perhaps never will.

America-allied Mauritania foils extremist-sponsored coup plot

Rush for natural resources still fuels war in Congo

China Looks To Africa

- The Arab League meets this week to discuss a unified policy on the Darfur "situation." Thusfar, news from the conference has been grim. The Arab League has refused to apply or support sanctions on Khartoum, and has also requested more time for the Khartoum regime to comply with UN demands. Khartoum's vice president, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha said that "due to logistical problems and limitations we have at the moment, I don't think the time frame is practical." If this is indeed the case, which I doubt, given Sudan's ability to arm, equip and train the Janjaweed in the region with relative ease, then it is Khartoum's doing. The rebellion in Darfur began because of the regime's neglect for Darfur and its people. This has been the case since independence in 1955, practically. When around a million people died of starvation in Darfur in the mid 1980's, it wasn't the Khartoum government that came to the rescue, but rather Qaddafi and the Libyans, who may well prove Darfur's sole, albeit opportunistic, ally in the Arab League meetings

- Bad news continues for Darfur with news that the deployment of the African Union's proposed 2000-strong peacekeeping force has been delayed. Obviously the situations -- the genocides -- in Rwanda and Sudan are different, but the international response to both is strikingly similar. The AU's hesitancy is remarkably similar to the frequently delayed deployment of soldiers and supplies to UNAMIR and UNAMIR 2 in 1994, which cost countless lives. Peacekeeping is not an end, nor is it a particularly helpful means, these days. Success in combatting genocide begins with logistical support and committment from those capable to provide it and ends with enforcement.

Multiple outlets have reported, albeit under the radar, massacres in the Ivory Coast. Unfortunately, with the U.N.'s snail's pace approach to Darfur and a complete absence of coverage of atrocities on Lake Kivu in the DR Congo or against the Anuak tribe in Southwest Ethiopia, this likely is not going to draw the ire of the international community, which is terrible considering these massacres come on the heels of the Ivorian Civil War which has been raging off and on since 2002 and has engulfed the country into a north-south power struggle between loathsome rebel factions and opportunist politicians. The Ivory Coast used to be a symbol of stability for the entire African continent, but as soon as Houphouet-Boigny died, the country's economy plummeted and fear and xenophobia took over. Interesting how this is often the case in France's former colonial and hegemonic holdings.

As ABC reports, both Amnesty International and the U.N. have produced reports of the massacres and the Security Council has even laid down its typical condemnations of the event. But of course, it doesn't demand media attention or a declaration of genocide unless a million people have already been killed.

Posting has been non-existent for the past few days because I've been trying to power through several books: the excellent (thusfar) and newly-released memoirs of Lt. General Romeo Dallaire's time as UN Force Commander in Rwanda, Shake Hands With The Devil, and Bill Berkeley's journalistic overview of Africa's conflict zones over the past 20 years, The Graves Are Not Yet Full. I'll have reviews of both as soon as I finish them.

Presently, news on the continent is about as bleak as it has been for the past several weeks. The situation in Darfur remains the same. Airdrops began on monday but the Khartoum government is protesting the 30 day deadline set by the woefully inadequate Security Council resolution to disarm the Janjaweed. Bureaucracy will kill the people at risk. The violence has not stopped, and 30 days of the international community twiddling its thumbs waiting for the Khartoum goverment to not comply with the resolution will just result in needless deaths.

The United Nations Security Council, today, passed resolution SC 1556. During debate, the resolution, co-authored by the UK and America, was stripped of any mention of potential sanctions against either the Janjaweed militas or the Khartoum government, proper. The preamble makes no mention of genocide, which was expected given the moral imperative such a statement would force upon the UN.

Worse yet, the operative clauses take little advantage of the Security Council's power. Little, if any, mention of possible international intervention in the crisis is made. Instead, the resolution points to and lauds the African Union mission, which provides only 300 troops and under 100 observers for an area larger than France.

The one demand made by the resolution is the following, neutered, clause:

6. Demands that the Government of Sudan fulfil its commitments to disarm
the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice Janjaweed leaders and
their associates who have incited and carried out human rights and international
humanitarian law violations and other atrocities, and further requests the Secretary-
General to report in 30 days, and monthly thereafter, to the Council on the progress
or lack thereof by the Government of Sudan on this matter and expresses its
intention to consider further actions, including measures as provided for in Article
41 of the Charter of the United Nations on the Government of Sudan, in the event of
non-compliance;

The Chinese and the French are castrating any possible solution to the genocide to protect their oil interests. A shame, really.

According to the BBC Monitoring service, three Arab television networks -- al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and LBC Television -- ran brief stories on Darfur today, including one on threats of sanctions by the EU.

Things in Congo-Kinshasa go from bad to worse.

A rebel movement in Bukavu thought to be supported by Rwandan president Paul Kagame died down thanks to regional mediation from the likes of South Africa.

Yesterday, Joseph Kabila, son of the late Laurent -- the marxist 'freedom-fighter' who at least had the ousting of Mobutu on his CV -- declared that a coup d'etat launched against him had failed.

Now, the crisis in the east has reached a new high, with fighting in Bukavu intensifying.  General Nkunda, the renegade general supported by Kagame had previously captured some key towns along Lake Kivu, in June, violating a ceasefire in the process.  Nkunda has justified his assault on the eastern holdings of the Congo by declaring that he's only out to protect the Banyamulenge -- ethnic Tutsis regularly harassed by Interahamwe refugees of Rwanda.  In the process of his protective mission, however, thousands have been added to the 3.3 million long list of people killed in the Congolese civil war, and thousands more are currently in jeopardy after fleeing the fighting.

According to the Kampala Monitor, the Lord's Resistance Army launched a devastating raid on SPLA-held territory in Southern Sudan that left 40 people, including civilians, dead. 

If ever there were a referendum to determine which terrorist group is the world's most loathsome, the LRA, with its support of Islamic fundamentalism in Sudan and Hutu Power butchers in Bunia and Bukavu, would surely get a few votes.

Thankfully, the United States classifies the LRA as a terrorist organization, which has clearly done a lot of good for the thousands murdered and displaced by these maniacs across Central Africa.

According to al-Jazeera, this morning,  Sudanese president, Omar al-Bashir has accused the International Community of using the Darfur crisis as a means of targeting Islam and the Khartoum regime. 

The notion that the world is using Darfur to demonize the Muslim faith is completely nonsensical for the sole reason that the people of Darfur are predominantly (65-75%) Muslim.  al-Bashir's argument seems a diversion from the fact that this is a racist war being waged by Sudan's Arab majority against a black African group of peoples.

As the article continues, it addresses Egypt's concerns that the global community is too hard on Sudan.  As has been the case for apologists in Kurdistan, Bosnia and Rwanda, Egypt's foreign minnister, Ahmed Abul Ghait, merely declared the situation "complex."  Nevermind the figures that 1,000 people a day may be dying in Darfur, that up to 50,000 have already perished or that aid workers are being forced back into Chad by Arab marauders...

So much for Islamic unity -- blacks need not apply.  An excellent editorial for the Wall Street Journal by the Tunisian journalist and muckracker Kamel Labidi, several weeks ago, addressed the silence on Darfur of the Arab press and Arabic religious figures.  The Darfur policy of Egypt, long thought of as a "moderate" Arab regime, serves as unlikely confirmation of Labidi's thesis:  This is a racist war, and the Arab World wants no part in ending it.