Black People : Second Thoughts on the Hotel Rwanda- Boutros-Ghali: a CIA Role

Discussion in 'Black People Open Forum' started by imhotepptah, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. imhotepptah

    imhotepptah Member MEMBER

    Jan 30, 2005
    Likes Received:
    +1 / -0
    Second Thoughts on the Hotel Rwanda
    Boutros-Ghali: a CIA Role in the 1994 Assassination of Rwanda's
    President Habyarimana?

    With war still raging in the Eastern Congo for the fourth time since
    1996, serious questions must be asked about the UN's inability to
    respond effectively. Former UN Secretary General Boutros-Ghali has
    been raising such questions ever since Washington vetoed his second
    mandate at the UN in November 1996. For the English version of my
    book Rwanda 1994, Colonialism Dies Hard, I interviewed Boutros-Ghali
    about the wars that have wreaked havoc on Central Africa and
    especially Rwanda and the former Zaire. His observations about the UN
    and the possible role of the CIA in the April 6, 1994 assassination
    of two African heads of state are stunning.

    In March 2004, the former Secretary General declared to the French
    daily Libération that a major problem at the UN was that the
    Department of Peacekeeping Operations was very infiltrated by the
    American authorities. Here, briefly, is how the UN is infiltrated and
    the impact.

    "The US authorities have taken control of the UN system through
    financial administration and the appointment of officers and staff
    who are paid directly by the United States. The UN doesn't have the
    means to appoint senior officers and specialist staff. When these
    people are selected and paid by a foreign government, they are
    obviously more loyal to that government than to the UN. As a result,
    reports presented to the Secretary General and to the Security
    Council are purged and modified." To find out more about this
    analysis, Boutros-Ghali recommends reading the paper entitled
    Multilateralism Besieged that he presented on behalf of the South
    Centre in October 2004 (

    "In practical terms," he added, "in the case of Rwanda, the
    Department of Peace-Keeping Operations (DPKO) would send me reports
    on the situation based on information provided by my special envoy
    Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, General Romeo Dallaire and others. But these
    reports would be purged, modified and drafted according to a specific
    foreign policy."
    Asked about the famous fax sent by General Dallaire to the UN
    headquarters in January 1994 describing a plan to eliminate many
    Tutsis, Boutros-Ghali replied: "That story is greatly exaggerated.
    There was not only one fax. Every day the UN would receive faxes
    saying 'We heard there's a plot afoot' And that leads to another
    weakness of the UN. The UN has no intelligence service. Member
    countries are much more informed about what's going on than the UN
    Secretary General. Moreover, they refuse to share their information!"

    Boutros-Ghali insisted that he does not wish to understate his own
    responsibility in Rwanda. "I said publicly that I failed in Rwanda. I
    did not succeed in convincing Security Council members to act. The
    United States with the strong support of Great Britain did everything
    they could to prevent the UN from intervening, and a majority of
    countries followed their lead." It should be noted that Boutros-Ghali
    declared on at least two occasions, including once to me in November
    2002, that the "Rwandan genocide was 100 percent American

    Why did the United States and Great Britain oppose intervening in
    Rwanda when it could have been helpful and necessary?

    Boutros-Ghali: "Is this not a repetition of Fashoda?" The reference
    is to the fort on the Upper Nile (now in Sudan) where French and
    British troops met in September 1898. France was trying to dominate
    Africa from Dakar to Djibouti while the British wanted to build a
    railway to link its 'possessions' from 'The Cape to Cairo'. France
    withdrew and conceded Fashoda to the British.

    "Central Africa has been the scene of an Anglo-American conflict with
    France. After all, what has happened in the Congo: war and at least
    100,000 Hutus killed. That whole affair has been suppressed. The
    report on those deaths was never published. The French supported
    Mobutu, while the Americans and the British were behind Uganda and
    Rwanda, and they won. The background to these wars is a repetition of
    Fashoda. It began with Rwanda, and before that Uganda, which is part
    of the Anglo-American block. Uganda has no political parties, but it
    is never criticized, never denounced. () If there had been no foreign
    aggression by a Uganda against Rwanda in 1990, there would have been
    no war and no genocide."

    Boutros-Ghali is astonished by the silence concerning the
    assassination on April 6, 1994, of the heads of state of two African
    countries, Rwanda and Burundi, which triggered the massive killing.

    "It is a very mysterious scandal. Four reports have been made on
    Rwanda: the French Parliament Report, the Belgian Senate Report, Kofi
    Annan's UN report, and the Organization of African Unity report. All
    four say absolutely nothing about the shooting down of the Rwandan
    President's plane. That just goes to show the power of the
    intelligence services that can force people to be quiet."

    The only partial exception is the seven year investigation conducted
    by the French anti-terrorist judge Jean-Louis Bruguière. That
    investigation has implicated current Rwandan President Paul Kagame
    and the Rwandan Patriotic Front for having planned, ordered and
    carried out the April 6 assassination. But the silence continues
    since the Bruguière report has not been officially filed, only
    having been leaked to Le Monde.

    According to Boutros-Ghali there's much left to be found out. "Judge
    Bruguière, who I invited to a conference in Monaco, told me that
    according to his investigation, the CIA was involved in that
    assassination. The Anglo-American intelligence apparatus is much
    stronger than France's. Perhaps the French secret service decided
    that they have no interest in making the Bruguière report public
    at this time."

    If the CIA was involved in the assassination of Rwandan President
    Habyarimana in April 1994, as the French judge has claimed, then it
    is easier to understand why the Official Story about the Rwandan
    tragedy continues to call that terrorist attack an "accident" or
    a "crash". Worse still, considering the terrible consequences that
    exceed the wildest predictions of any sorcerer's apprentice, serious
    questions remain unanswered about the efforts made and means used to
    erase the tracks leading to the criminals involved in the killing of
    the two African heads of state, and to misinform and mislead
    international public opinion about the real causes of the Rwandan
    tragedy that followed.

    Second thoughts about Hotel Rwanda

    Moreover, those who, like most of the movie critics, have been
    smitten by the two films about Rwanda now showing, "Hotel Rwanda" and
    the documentary "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Journey of Romeo
    Dallaire" should read, or reread, two important books that help put
    it all in perspective. The first one, to help come to grips with the
    wild imaginings about the devil and his cold hands, is Black Skin,
    White Masks (1952) by the great anti-colonialist writer and
    psychiatrist Frantz Fanon. The following excerpt is particularly
    relevant: "In Europe, Evil is represented by the Black man. The
    hangman is black, Satan is black, people talk of darkness, and when
    one is dirty, he is black * be it physical or to moral dirt.
    People would be surprised to see the very large number of expressions, if
    they were all recorded where the Black man is equated to sin."

    The second book, "The Africa that Never Was" (1970) is the product of
    a comprehensive study of mainly British literature on Africa from
    1560 to 1960. The authors, Hammond and Jablow, identify a set of
    conventions, metaphors and images that pervade the literature *
    and cinema * that together were developed during, and helped to
    legitimize, slavery and colonialism. Together they offer a fantasy
    vision of a continent and a people that never existed and never could
    exist. The authors show for example, that unlike for the tales about
    bloody wars in Europe, nobody in the literature on Africa finds, or
    attempts to find, social, economic, political, international or
    institutional reasons for the wars. Based on the literature, people
    just seem to like killing each other in Africa.

    It is sad to see that these colonialist views pervade modern
    literature and film about Africa and especially Rwanda.

    Robin Philpot is a Montreal writer. Rwanda 1994: Colonialism dies
    hard, the English adaptation of the French language book Ça ne
    s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali is now published in its entirety
    on line by the Taylor Report at