Muse Report shows how the French Government supported Habyiramana during the 1994 Genocide!

Just two days ago an American Law Firm studied the Rwandan Genocide as they say it themselves: “In light of that inquiry, the Government of Rwanda has retained the Washington, D.C. law firm of Cunningham Levy Muse LLP to review and report on the material available in the public record on the role and knowledge of French officials regarding the Genocide against the Tutsi” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 3, 2017). This here is will be quotes from that report that is on the role of the French Government in the Rwandan Genocide. Clearly, there has been allegations and has been some talk about that, concerning the arms and the knowledge of it. This report are putting light on some of that. I will take the quotes that is substantial for the French intervention in the civil war and genocide in Rwanda.

“The expansion of France’s military support and strategic advice began within days of the war’s commencement. On October 11, 1990, Defense Attaché Colonel René Galinié recommended sending French advisers into the field, northeast of the combat zone, to “educate, organize and motivate troops that had been ossified for thirty years and who had forgotten the basic rules of battle.” (…) “In addition to advice, French officials supplied the FAR with modern mortars, armored vehicles, and other vehicles, along with ammunition and rockets. French officials also provided and helped maintain helicopter-gunships, which fired upon RPF fighters. According to jokes at the time, the only thing Rwandan soldiers did was pull the trigger” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 12-13, 2017).

“Massacres of Tutsi continued throughout 1991, 1992, and up until the Genocide. French officials were aware of massacres at this time, as well as the role of the Habyarimana government and its military in them. Despite this knowledge, French officials maintained their support of the Rwandan military and funneled weapons into Rwanda” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 20, 2017).

“Thus, in February 1993, after the Noroît detachment had just been reinforced . . . , the Army Chief of Staff reminded the defense attaché that he was responsible for “ensuring that the Rwandan army does not find itself in a stock shortage of sensitive ammunition . . . and that deliveries to the FAR of military equipment be made in the utmost discretion.” In fact, in the timeline laid down in his end of mission report, Colonel Philippe Tracqui, commander of the Noroît detachment for the period from February 8, 1993 to March 21, 1993, noted “Friday, February 12, 1993: landing of a DC8 50 with a 12.7mm machine gun plus 100,000 cartridges for the FAR. Wednesday, February 17, 1993: landing of a Boeing 747 with discrete unloading by the FAR of 10 mm shells and 68 mm rockets (Alat).” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 23, 2017).

“The French Parliamentary Commission accordingly found: Faced with procrastination by Rwandan authorities and concerned about the stability of states and regional security, France never made the decision to suspend all cooperation, or even to decrease the level of its civil and military aid. Thus, President Juvénal Habyarimana was able to convince himself that “France . . . would be behind him regardless of the situation, and he could do anything militarily and politically.” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 27, 2017).

“Arms flows to the FAR were not suspended immediately by France after the imposition of the arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Rather, they were diverted to Goma airport in Zaire as an alternative to Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, where fighting between the FAR and the rebel RPF as well as an international presence made continued shipments extremely difficult. Some of the first arms shipments to arrive

in Goma after May 17 were supplied to the FAR by the French government. Human Rights Watch learned from airport personnel and local businessmen that five shipments arrived in May and June containing artillery, machine guns, assault rifles and ammunition provided by the French government. These weapons were taken across the border into Rwanda by members of the Zairian military and delivered to the FAR in Gisenyi. The French consul in Goma at the time, Jean-Claude Urbano, has justified the five shipments as a fulfillment of contracts negotiated with the government of Rwanda prior to the arms embargo” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 39, 2017).

“Information in the public record also shows that in the months that followed the Genocide against the Tutsi French officials continued to support génocidaires. On August 3, 1994, the UN Secretary General suggested that the international community should coordinate with UNAMIR to identify within the camps perpetrators of the Genocide against the Tutsi, with an eye to bringing them to justice. But instead, French soldiers escorted and released suspected génocidaires in Zaire. Between July and September 1994, French military helicopters evacuated Bagosora, along with Interahamwe leader Jean-Baptiste Gatete, and other ex-FAR troops and militia members, out of Goma” (…) “Finally, we urge the Government of Rwanda to seek France’s cooperation in this endeavor. To this end, France should make available its archives, documents, physical evidence and officials (current and former). Any investigation by the Government of Rwanda should evaluate what occurred in the 1990s, as well as what has happened since then, including France’s cooperation with this investigation into French complicity in the Genocide” (Cunningham Levy Muse, P: 48, 52, 2017).

This one collected lots of public information and put into account. This is damning evidence and not just random quotes from a mad-man, but from lawyers collected information as ordered by the Rwandan Government. The could have been done by the French, they might have given other insights and even transcripts we haven’t seen. Even as the Rwandan has and can get documentation on the actions during the genocide and before. Since the Rwandan Government wants closure and might want the French to answer for their crimes.

French President Francois Mitterrand at the time was loyal to President Juvenal Habyarimana, therefore wanted to stop the Rwandan Patriotic Front from overthrowing their man at any cost apperently. The French really showed it with the ammunition, training and also helping them flee with weapons to Zaire/Democratic Republic of Congo. Clearly, the French knew what they did and did it with a reason, as of they wanted someone loyal to them and also a weapons brother at any cost.

So the continued trouble of the Great Lakes Region has been created by the French as well. Since they let the Interahamwe and Ex-FAR leave with weapons in the refugee camps in the DRC. That has been an initial reason for violence since the 1990s. The French should step up and take responsibility for what they did and who they gave power to. Which also created this genocide. The PRF and President Paul Kagame did his part, the RPF is not a holy and non-violent movement who just brought peace. They also killed and took control. However, the French did aid and abide help to the other partner in the crime. Therefore, they are responsible for their part in this genocide. That shouldn’t be left alone and the stones should be turned, the ones sanction this and ordering this on behalf of Habyarimana and his government.

This report was compelling and it shows how disgraceful the French was and how they really wanted the dictator Habyirmana to continue to rule in Rwanda. Peace.

Reference:

Cunningham Levy Muse LLP – ‘REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF RWANDA ON THE ROLE OF FRENCH OFFICIALS IN THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TUTSI’ (11.12.2017)

Opinion: Why not try Tony Blair at the ICC for the Iraqi War?

There are big questions out there, many quests and many actions never answered for, many bullets and missiles shot without a concern or without doubt of the after effect. With this reach for power, allegiance to and who you represent; the validity of these actions that are after questions should also be put into the context for the reason for why a man or leader, a government executive who decided to invade another country.

After the vile and massive claims for terrorist threats, the aggressive attitude as the levels of fear from the American Government under the vicious control of George W. Bush and his regime. The Washington agenda and the clear retaliate after the 9/11 attacks. In this mind-set and this state of mind, the Americans went out the world in vengeance. Even when they had questionable evidence of conspiracy and planned to reshape the Middle Eastern countries and the places where ‘terrorist’ reside and the ones behind the terrorist attack on the American Soil; the then Government went together and tried to make a coalition for the second invasion of Iraq. This also through reports of WMD and other malicious ideas of Iraqi conspiracies… that would show the true colour of the Iraqi military and their capacity, even if it was constructed to fix the reasons for the military operation in the United States and United Kingdom.

In this state of mind, the recent releases of Chilcot report on the Iraqi Report and the indication of the aggression from the Western hemisphere towards the sovereign state of Iraq. That can be the invasion can be questioned, especially with the little evidence and the maladministration, which even made wise men like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice look like humble school-kids instead of statesmen and understudies of Dick Cheney.

The arguments that we’re put forward was certainly not truthful as the colluded ideas of grand estates with chemical, biological and harmful arms to hurt fellow population, that even Generals from the Iraqi army claimed we’re destroyed in the last war. Secondly the embargoes of the time together with the strained economy would not have given the Iraqi’s the wealth to recreate the weapons that the American and British claimed they had.

As the little sample of words and evidence questioning the reasoning for the invasion of Iraq under PM Blair and President Bush!

Manning’s Message to Blair in 2002:

“Bush will want to pick your brains. He will also want to hear whether he can expect coalition support. I told Condi that we realiised that the Administration could go it alone if it chose. But if it wanted company, it would have to take account of the concerns of its potential coalition partners. In particular:

– the Un [sic] dimension. The issue of the weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade European and wider opinion that the US was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal base. Renwed refused [sic] by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument’

– the paramount importance of tackling Israel/Palestine. Unless we did, we could find ourselves bombing Iraq and losing the Gulf” (Manning, 2002).

Second Message for argument for the Iraqi invasion for Blair:

“First, the THREAT.  The truth  is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case.  I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document.  My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensuer that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US.  But even the best survey of Iraq’s WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years ont he nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts:  the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know”, been stepped up” (…) “The second problem is the END STATE.  Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives.  For Kosovo” it was:  Serba out, Kosovars back” peace-keepers in.  For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability.  For Iraq, “regime change: does not stack up.   It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.  Much better, as you have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD before Saddam uses it or gives it to the terrorists.  This is at once easier to justify in terms of international law” but also more demanding.  Regime change which produced another Sunni General still in charge of an active Iraqi WMD programmme  would be a bad outcome (not least because it would be almost impossible to maintain UN sanctions on a new leader who came in promising a fresh start).  As with the fight against UBL, Bush would do well to de”personalise the objective” focus on elimination of WMD, and show that he is serious about UN Inspectors as the first choice means of achieving that (it is win/win for him: either Saddam against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freelyk” in which case we can further hobble his WMD programmes, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger ground for switching to other methods) – (Ricketts, 2002).

John Pilger:

“Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation” (…) “In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons” (…) ” When America and Britain crush Iraq, a new phase of their black propaganda will emerge – for which the British public ought to be prepared. This new range of deceptions will be designed to justify attacking a sovereign state and killing innocent people: a crime under international law, with or without a second UN resolution” (Pilger, 2003).

One Secret Memo said this:

“Blair continues to stand by you and the U.S. as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause” (…) “On Iraq. Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary. He is convinced on two points; the threat is real; and success against Saddam will yield more regional success”   (Colin Powell, 2002)

Tony Blair’s key forward:

“Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret. It is unprecedented for the Government to publish this kind of document. But in light of the debate about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), I wanted to share with the British public the reasons why I believe this issue to be a current and serious threat to the UK national interest” (British Government, 2003).

The Claimed plan for deception of WMD in Iraqi Government:

“Iraq has admitted to UNSCOM to having a large, effective, system for hiding proscribed material including documentation, components, production equipment and possibly biological and chemical agents and weapons from the UN. Shortly after the adoption of UNSCR 687 in April 1991, an Administrative Security Committee (ASC) was formed with responsibility for advising Saddam on the information which could be released to UNSCOM and the IAEA. The Committee consisted of senior Military Industrial Commission (MIC) scientists from all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes. The Higher Security Committee (HSC) of the Presidential Office was in overall command of deception operations. The system was directed from the very highest political levels within the Presidential Office and involved, if not Saddam himself, his youngest son, Qusai. The system for hiding proscribed material relies on high mobility and good command and control. It uses lorries to move items at short notice and most hide sites appear to be located close to good road links and telecommunications. The Baghdad area was particularly favoured. In addition to active measures to hide material from the UN, Iraq has attempted to monitor, delay and collect intelligence on UN operations to aid its overall deception plan” ( British Government, 2003).

An unknown wish from a British Citizen:

“I note the content on your letter and request that the Prime Minister be arrested. The matters you raise in your letter will not be investigated within the Wilshire Constabulary nor will your request that the Prime Minister be arrested be actioned” (Wilshire Constabulary, 2003).

Blair Answering accusations in 2003:

“Blair called the accusations “completely and totally false.” He added: “I simply ask the people, just have a little patience” while troops continue the search for weapons” (…) “Today, Blair dismissed her accusation. “The idea, as apparently Clare Short is saying, that I made some secret agreement with George Bush last September that we would invade Iraq in any event, at a particular time, is also completely and totally untrue,” he said” (…) “Even if our forces were now to unearth evidence of a major chemical or biological weapons programme in Iraq, many people in this country — let alone in the Arab world — would assume it had been planted. Such are the wages of spin.” (Richburg, 2003).

I have never accepted the reason for the attack on the Iraqi war, the ones that known me since I was teenager, know that I never liked Bush for his rhetoric or stance, as it was unjustified towards fellow human beings. If it was like that, then all men under the sun is guilty until the government catch you. Not literally, but not far-fetched as the terrorist we’re supposed to be smoked out from caves and huts by RPG, helicopters and tanks. That was the way the grand president Bush. He got a loyal ally who needed a prosperous foreign policy as he was struggling with the economic and progression on the social policies in the constituencies where he we’re elected. With that in mind, the terrorist threat came as cotton-candy and as a necessity for the Blair-Government and New-Labour doctrine.

This gift for Blair we’re used to make him statesman like and make him a giant, trying to leave a legacy of progressive behaviour and act of good governance. Instead it is tainted by the fact of being part a coalition that went into the Iraqi state, without legitimate reasons, except for their reach of power and so-called long-term plans for ‘Democratic Freedom’. While the cause for going we’re the Weapons of Mass Destruction and even connected to the men who attacked the Americans on 9/11. That is well known, but also the aftermath proves the validity of questioning the facts that we’re put forward, especially in the months after and the years followed. Even good journalist like John Pilger called in Propaganda in favour of the British American alliance like British American Tobacco Company who sells worldwide Phillip Morris cigarettes.

While other warmongering persons who went into wars for either gold or silver, for profits and for power. They are ending up behind bars in the International Criminal Courts, as they have done vindictive acts against the Humanity and created wars of destructions of society. The masses of dissolving the Iraqi state and the uncertainty and power vacuum created after the fall of Saddam Hussain, his family fall and the whole party that he lead. That proves the ICC can take favour in saving graces over the rich Westerners, but easily take other warlords.

There we’re act of Warlords, when we speak about the Iraqi war of Bush and Blair, the way the corporations we’re coming in fencing in the petroleum and the other resources while bombing the Iraqi state to bits and fragmenting the population more, while not delivering any system worth keeping and fragile government that followed. This through with so-called training of own army and police after the invasion was over and the Americans planned to leave the occupied country.

When we see all this with the manufactured evidence and argument together with the fear of terrorist, we can question why doesn’t Blair get discredited and even tried by the ICC? Why are the ballocks of the arrogance from the ICC?

Tony Blair and George W. Bush we’re Warlords, hands down, it is not fiction, not a fairy-tale it is not misguided to say so. You can see it on the math, the X+Y = War. The vast amount of deception, the use of United Nation Security Council, rewriting the evidence to fit as the UN Agents for WMD checks couldn’t find what the UK and USA needed. Therefore they made up words and vague arguments to seem like there we’re more implicated arms than it actually was. As the UK and US governments needed public perception behind them before attacking a foreign government.

The Attack and invasion also killed civilians with bombings, the torture of terrorist and taking prisoners without pleading in courts, Guantanamo prisoners and the vicious force against a demoted army that back in the past we’re trained to counter the Iranian problem of the Americans. So the Americans went at the army they trained to go against Iran, as the Iran after the American supported puppet ‘Shah’ fell after the Iranian revolution. This in mind, the Iraqi we’re plotted by the extended modernized force of UK and USA. This was in midst of fear by two Western Warmongers.

So while Liberian Warlord and President Charles Taylor we’re taken to the ICC and even got sentenced. That Jean-Pierre Bemba, the Vice-President of the Democratic Republic of Congo from 2003 to 2006. He is now sentenced by the ICC for acts against humanity. The list goes on men and woman from Africa, South America and Asia. There been a few from Europe and none who seems to be American, as the United States does not have men who acts against the humanity, even when they have broken record when it comes to invading and even sending para-troopers to get a puppet regime installed. Just ask the Chilean people on how the American installed Pinochet instead of the democratically elected Socialist Allende. This have none of the Americans behind the mission or aggression on peaceful Chilean ever gone to court for, that is since it is Americans, than its okay.

The reason why I say this, is that I have issues with the seriousness of ICC handpicking the African leaders and Warlords, not that they should not be judged or getting sentenced for their crimes against humanity, that is accepted and fine. But the initial prospects of justice for all and be a worldwide institutions bubble busts when they can put a warrant on the Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir for his atrocities over the years in Darfur and South Kordofan. That is accepted and understandable, as that is the accord of the ICC and he has been in charge of acts against humanity in these states in his own country using the guerrilla or militia Janjaweed against the civilians.

As this is known and the atrocities, the reports and reasons for the Iraqi war and amongst the destruction of the state of Iraq on flawed grounds, as the invasion and shambles of democratic values used to rhetorical saviour of the maladministration from US and UK using the WMD to gain access and grounds for shooting bullets and missiles to Basra and Baghdad. This got done fake evidence and fake publications, and with use of public perception triggered with the fear of more terrorist attack against their own soil. This staged and factored in a space of time where the UN we’re at a stalemate and the UN had checked for WMD in Iraq without first finding and then suspended as the Iraqis didn’t see the need for friendliness for the other world, when they we’re embargoing and sanctioning the Saddam Hussain regime. The one they in the end toppled with use of lies and deceit. With this in mind, the Blair and Bush governments didn’t do a ‘White War’ a justified conflict and conflict with people in mind, more with their Power in mind and earning political currency on fighting battles 1000 of miles away from their constituencies so the voters would not feel the terror or hardships created by the decisions made in the Oval office and Downing Street Number 10.

So the unjust war and unjustified aggression seems like an attack on humanity, as the machine-guns, RPGs, tanks and carpet-bombing of certain areas that was supposed to be filled with Weapons Mass of Destruction while the American companies secured with mercenaries from Black-Water and other companies of hired soldiers kept the Petroleum installations and Oil Wells in the hands American Companies and the ones that are put together at ‘Donor Conferences for re-building Iraq’ instead being a meeting place for the ones that want to earn money on the invasion and that being the main coalition connected with army contracts, apparently. That’s having proof of happening after the revealed information during and aftermath of the war.

If this we’re an African Warlord who traded diamonds, cobalt or Rare Earth Minerals, together with other valuable resources from the rocks and ground, the media and the ICC would put a warrant on the head of the leader, as they have done again and again. Which is justified as the raping of villages and stealing of resources from both state and the locals are not just; that is mutually accepted as the criminal and vicious killings by these warlords should be going to a fair court and get justice for the victims. But when American and British send armies into Iraq, fix the British and American corporations to earn money on war and export petroleum, than they are selling tainted oil to the world. They we’re acting as Warlords and acting upon their own gain while killing and destroying a nation, a sovereign nation, the nation might have an oppressive government, and they are not acting in the interest of Iraqis. Still, that did not justify the attack and invasion as the British and American Government, in the executive orders of Blair and Bush. They are responsible for the killings, murders and civilians who we’re deceased under their command.

The Reality today is no matter what argument, or legal domain that will question Blair or Bush, it will not happen, as the big-men of the West will not be taken to court, as they will not lose face or because of the standing in UN Security Council and other bigger International Forums as the G8 and other who set the agenda and assess the international community. This impunity and this disregard for the principal of equal justice for all men and woman under God; instead its unequal and for the ones that are not in the hands of the superpowers.

Tony Blair and other men should be tried for their lies and deceit, but that is not the worst; the worst is the lives that we’re effected, the reason for their demise, the deceased for the political gain of a Elite in America and British that we’re friends of the Executive, the Executives who earned on the Elites and gain trust with them, the basic knowledge of each other and trading on intelligence and making reasons for the invasion. The basic sense of the balance of power together with the misuse of the Executive position, that we’re used in both nations to manufacture an enemy and use the tides of fear to aggressively attack a foreign sovereign and its people.

There is time to question the allegiance of the ICC and their choices of the men and woman who are charged with crimes against humanity, the ones that have created havoc and violence against civilians without justified reason or even done it in good faith. This creates and gives space for more African leaders to say they are targeted and hunted down by a Post-Colonial Institution, instead of showing the face of equal laws for all mankind and the nations that have ratified the statutes and laws that binds the ICC to the Governments, the only one who hasn’t which been discussed is the United States, and that should also be scrutinized as they put moral authority on the whole world, but doesn’t give a token or fig in their own regard.

Why the ICC can’t put a warrant on Tony Blair as the former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, when the ICC has put charges on Deputy President William Ruto and others in the Kenyan Government? They even tried with witnesses and gathering evidence, why can’t do so about Blair and Bush, are they demi-gods that cannot be questioned, impeached or even brought to justice because of their passports, their smiles or their connection to the justices of the ICC. You can just wonder, what reasons they are not even complying with the gathered evidence and more secret memo’s and the internal documents of conspiracy coming out, proves the valid reason for unjust war against Iraqis. Peace.

Reference:

British Government – ‘IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THE ASSESSMENT OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT’ (About 2003)

Manning, David – ‘Prime Minster: Your Trip to the US’ (14.03.2002)

Pilger, John – ‘Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War’ (13.03.2003) link: http://johnpilger.com/articles/iraq-s-weapons-of-mass-destruction-were-almost-certainly-destroyed-following-the-gulf-war

Powell, Colin – ‘Memorandum for the President’ – Subject: Your meeting with United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, April 5 – 7, 2002 at Crawford – Secret/NOFORN DECL: 4/01/12

Ricketts, Peter – ‘Memo for Prime Minister’ (22.03.2002)

Richburg, Keith B – ‘Blair Rejects Criticism of Arms Evidence’ (03.06.2003) link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/06/03/blair-rejects-criticism-of-arms-evidence/fbdbb4af-b1b6-4fb1-8fc2-951be1a1f433/

Wiltshire Constabulary – ‘Chief Superintendent Patrick Stayt’ (24.11.2003) – Swindon Police

Owen Jones meets Michael Moore | ‘Trump is like the sound of dying dinosaurs’ (Youtube-Clip)

“With the release of his new documentary, ‘Where to Invade Next’, director Michael Moore tells me that a vote for Brexit would be like asking for relegation from the Premier League. We also chatted about Donald Trump’s chances of becoming the next American President, whether Bernie Sanders should carry on fighting Hillary Clinton and why Moore believes Tony Blair is more responsible for the Iraq war than George W. Bush” (Owen Jones, 2016)

Discussion: Should the French get jurisdiction for trials of Rwandan Genocide? Since they now are breaching international boundaries and judging acts not happening on French soil, but in Rwanda.

It is not that I am for the Rwandan genocide or partial in any sense of the actions done in Paris today. I will just spill the beans and ask for questionable trial and courtship in Paris as that is France, not Kigali that is Rwanda. If it still we’re tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania then this would be understandable for court outside as it was an agreement between United Nation and the Rwandan Government for this Tribunal as Peaceful change after the civil war and the genocide in 1993-1994 in the country. There I will question the action of the French Authorities today.

In Paris today:

“On Tuesday, Octavien Ngenzi, 58, and Tito Barahira, 64, will go on trial for allegedly playing a direct role in the massacre of hundreds of Tutsi refugees in a church in the eastern town of Kabarondo on April 13, 1994” (News Wires, 2016).

Because it is an important question and with the implication of history between Rwanda and the France; France have been the colonial master on the African Continent and still have control over the Central African Franc (CAF) and with that has an economic stake in many African nations. Still, this should not be implicated into why they can take Citizens of another Nation and also order their trial, even if it is breaching with Human Rights and Roman Statute. Most Countries have ratified the Roman Statute and also parts of UN Charter for Human Rights and even the Geneva Convention on justice in War. Still, this does opens the door from who has the right to sanction and the right to create justice.

Some people might say the Rwandan Government is a totalitarian and a Police State under strict control from a central government under the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) under President Paul Kagame who does not have the will to take certain Génocidaires to court as they might implicate certain close allies of the government. Still, that does not open the question that I will talk about. Because even if the courts and judges are premature and built for the Government in Rwanda, does not take away their jurisdiction and their own rights of rule of law in their own country. Even when it is the violations are a crime against humanity as Genocide.

Not that I want the men and woman behind an action of this size to get away is not my intention to discuss it. It is more the example of colonial law and the post-colonial acts that are not just or justified. We as people have to set standards and use our minds. I will not let the French or British control the Central Arguments, as much as I don’t want the Americans or Chinese doing it. What is important is this. We have Nations, which is a set territory, a territory where they keep citizens safe and have the monopoly for violence is for the state; in that sense that the nation have an Army to keep foreign forces away and the town a secure to raise families and work. Second part of that security is the internal security to make peace inside the country with a Police that takes criminals and courts of laws that with justification condemns and detain fellow citizens that have breached the national laws. All of this should be universal and understood, as ordinary understanding of what a state should do. And it with this matter I will take a step further.

Because this is important even when the States and Governments who controls their nations and does the wrong acts against fellow peers. Their citizens should then as long as the nation and state have ratified international laws and statutes get their crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court of Hauge. Even if the ICC and it’s attack on African Leaders, it still have the authority as given by the United Nation and the other bodies together with the ratified laws that the States and Government have signed at one point in time.

The problem I have and the reason for it is simple and it’s basic for any Republic/Kingdom/State/Nation their sovereign rights and their sovereign rule as a Sovereign Power in their own Territory as it is with the Army and the Police inside that nation. That is the main issue I have. Even when it comes to Crime Against Humanity.

Let’s say that the unlawful and unjust war from the United States of America under President George W. Bush who even address the world on 20^th March 2003, which started a war on false premise and lies to American public and the United Nations, without the international states accept for United Kingdom accepting the attack on the Sovereign Nation of Iraq under President Saddam Hussain. I am not saying President Hussain we’re a saint, as his acts with certain gas and weapons against Iran was not justified, still the matter at hand can question the jurisdiction of the ones implicated and breaches of justice from the American Government at the time and the United Kingdom Government who went in Iraq. They all certainly we’re behind acts against Humanity on some levels as they went to war and even did torture in certain chambers in Iraq. Can the Rwandan Government and their courts if they collect evidence and collect for instance affidavit of victims and of low-level civil servants of the time, could they take President Bush for trial at the High Court of Kigali?

I am just asking the question, because the case today is an act upon the same sovereign question as the former Mayors of two towns or villages are taken to court in Paris. They are in foreign land as they are not in the Jurisdiction and the Territory of where the crimes happen and in the State where the claimed Génocidaires are citizens.

If citizenship and if sovereign nations still means something, then we have to ask the question and ask the matter. Even when it grimes crimes and crimes against humanity as the laws should be the same for Western Nations as for the African Nations. This should open up the questions for French interaction with the Génocidaires of the official government at the time under President Habyarimana with the military training and equipment before Operation Turquoise turned into the UNAMIR mandate under Dallaire. In that sense, the black-box sage that never really been answered as the training and interference of the French, should give the Government under Rwandan Patriotic Front to be allowed to Court the French Men who served the Génocidaires, right? Since the French now is doing the same in Paris, just because they are French and European should not make them able to clean their hands of the blood, just as much as the RPA, now RPF should not be white-washed over time. The law should apply alike to either side. Something that should not be needed to explain or take on; as any crime on humanity and support of the attacks with weapons and structures should be taken to court as violation of these men and woman.

The case is not that the Génocidaires should be dealt with from authorities and the men behind killings should not be punished by the Government or any other piece international legal-body that has the jurisdiction on it. If so then the men and woman should go to international court or a national one that could offer a fair judgement on the causes behind the violations and assess the criminal activity.

But what bugs me is the easy way the French and Government of France overturn the Rwandan Government as a sovereign nation to turn their citizens and their eye-witnesses to Paris for the trial to concede the judgement of these two mayors. Not that I am defending the Mayors for their activity, it’s the actions of French I am still questioning.

That is why, why couldn’t the Rwandese if they could collect information on the French involvement and support of the late-President Habyarimana in the turns up-to the genocide. Since the French can now take Rwandese to court in Paris and collect the witnesses from Rwanda to serve these men and woman in the capital of France. There questions about it and if it is justified as the precedence this kind of cases set. As if the French Authorities still can grant them authority to get these people to be eye-witnesses in a court case of actions against humanity in Rwanda and not on the French shores or near Caen. Therefore since this court is not directly based on the Roman Statute or the other ratified laws where the crimes against humanity are involved and control the verdicts of the judgements. So the matter is that if it was so, since this a case that is about crimes done abroad in alien jurisdiction, it might should have been posted in the ICC and not the High Court or whatever name the Court have in Paris.

It is not that I want the two Mayors to free-men without a court judgement or get the Génocidaires of the Rwandan tragedy to not be tested in Court and get fair trials, so that the men and woman who has actually done their crimes get their punishment. But the way it is done and how it is conducted as long as it talks about Sovereign States and Territory; when coming to court and to be able to conduct justice to its citizens and the condemn the crimes, condone it and make sure that criminals get fair trials before serving time as felons. That shouldn’t be too much to ask. The question is if we twisted the Courts to Kigali instead of Paris, if the French we’re sent to be on trial in Kigali instead of Paris. That should be allowed to ask, as the Rwandan Government and the French Government are both Sovereign States. As Sovereign they have rights, over territory and their citizens and nations are bound to respect these in any sense and be responsible for justice, also over boundaries and borders. And also respecting the international conventions, laws and other ratified accords that set the standards for justice in the State as the Citizens need safety and security; something the state should provide and make sure they have, by the peaceful means and rule of law. Peace.

Reference:

New Wires – ‘Rwandan ex-mayors face trial in France over 1994 genocide’ (10.05.2016) link: http://www.france24.com/en/20160509-rwandan-ex-mayors-face-trial-france-1994-genocide-Ngenzi-Barahira