This article is a reaction to the Public Lecture of His Excellency the Ambassador Roeland Van de Geer, the current EU Ambassador in South Africa held at the University of Pretoria’s Faculty of Law’s in June, 1st 2011.
It is addressed to the Ambassador of the European Union in South Africa, the Deans of Faculty of Law, the Director of the Human Rights Center of the University of Pretoria, and my fellow students from the DRC in South Africa.
“Dans les beau vieux temps, les personnalités exerçant la fonction de diplomate, ministres, ambassadeurs et autres envoyés spéciaux, pour faire réussir leur mission, savaient parler avec respect, urbanités, politesse et civilités. La courtoisie et la diplomatie allaient de pair”.
Diplomatic matters warrant a minimum standard of respect owed to members of the international community, especially when dealing with political and controversial issues.
There is a common feeling of offence among the Rwandan students community at the University of Pretoria in reaction to the presentation of H.E. the Ambassador in June, 1st 2011 when he was addressing the question ‘Is peace possible in the Great Lakes Region?’
He uttered unverified remarks with regard to the President of the Republic of the Rwanda, saying, that the Rwandan Government deliberately incarcerated opposition leaders and that the Rwandan Government still carries out assassinations, that the Rwandan Government and army are dominated by Tutsi and they committed genocide against refugees in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
To state Rwanda being intolerant to any form of opposition, it can be postulated that there is evidence that one of the leading members of the opposition party (Victoire Ingabire), who was arrested in Rwanda, was involved in activities that was detrimental to the security of Rwanda.
It should be noted that the Government of the Netherlands (the country of origin of H.E Ambassador) is also processing certain evidence found in her residence in the Netherlands to help with the investigation of such arrests, even though it is possible that H.E the Ambassador was not aware of this fact.
Moreover, the case is in court and Victoire Ingabire has been given the right to defense. Making conclusion out of a process which is in court is simply speculative.
The so-called DRC and Rwandan Diaspora’s representatives declaration (made by two guys: one man called himself Gabriel said his Rwandese, and another lady whose her name was not identified) on the unwarranted assumptions of the Ambassador (supporting that the Rwandan Government deliberately incarcerated opposition leaders, carries out assassinations, and committed genocide against refugees in the DRC), which was issued on the topic just after the presentation, came as a surprise.
Rwandese, especially students, had no prior warning about such declaration; certain individuals took it upon themselves to speak on behalf of the Rwandese community without authorisation.
What is surprising is how such declaration would have been accepted by the University without investigating whether that individual had formal authorisation to speak on behalf of the community.
The unwarranted assumption can be explained as follows: Based on H.E. the Ambassador’s aforementioned statement, one might assume that such a presentation would not have been made, had the Ambassador sought or obtained the information from his predecessor Aldo Ayello:
“… la route de la mort (Gisenyi – Kigali), il y avait des embuches partout, le Rwanda était assiégé, attaqué régulièrement partout, trois à quatre fois par semaine par des incursions”.
In this regard no one can imagine how innocent civilians were victim of ex-FAR/Interahamwe terrorist activities: Mining vehicles, assassinations, torture … and now such talks that Rwanda sent its troops to the former Republic of Zaire unlawfully can be considered to be inhuman.
Rwanda’s invasion into DRC was a result of the indifference of the international community to address the issue of millions of genocide suspects who were re-organizing at Rwanda’s border to conduct genocide in Rwanda.
President Kagame raised those concerns many times during international fora.
It can be argued that the Government of Rwanda did so even before the UN Security Council .
“I think President Kagame did this in respect of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, especially Article 2 Common to the Conventions , as Aldo Ayello confirmed.”
“… Kagame savait qu’une opération militaire de telle nature ne peut pas se faire sans qu’il y ait dommages collatéraux’ mais il a essayé de l’éviter en laissant la communauté internationale de s’en occuper mais la réponse était non”.
Then, Rwanda had to act in self defence because the Rwandan Government proved that the former Republic of Zaire was unwilling to stop ex FAR/ Interahamwe activities within its territory, which, according to International Law principles, allows the injured state to act in self-defence.
The “principle of non-intervention yields to the international doctrine of the responsibility to protect”; which the DRC and International community failed to do. Thus, the right to protect its citizens fell back on the Rwandan Government.
The ex-FAR/Interahamwe received arms shipments in refugee camps, conducted military training exercises, recruited combatants and planned a final victory.
Refugees moved across borders with their weapons. When remnants of the FAR poured into Zaire, they brought machine guns, grenades, mortars and other light weapons .
Though some of the troops retreating into North Kivu were not disarmed, many weapons were either stocked for later use or replaced by new ones . When the genocidaires fled, they took with them most of Rwanda’s hard currency, vehicles and other public assets.
They shipped 20,000 tons of coffee, estimated at US $50 million, which they stocked in the store belonging to Mobutu’s family. In addition they carried 17 billion Rwandan Francs, which were kept by Mobutu .
This factor is crucial in understanding refugee participation in armed conflict even without the support of the host state.
For example, the ability of the refugees, militia and ex-FAR to rearm and further their continued participation in the insurgency in Rwanda is largely explained by the unwilling of the DRC Government (at that time) to contain their activities.
Host states must actively prevent the use of their territory for military and political activities by refugee. On this issue, the Government of Rwanda asked the ex Zaire Government to deal with that threat but without reaction.
They also asked the international community, especially UN Security Council as well as for assistance, but the response was negative.
As shown above, Rwandan military intervention was the last resort even though the Rwanda forces did not attack the refugee camps.
“La réponse des N.U. et de la communauté Européenne était non et donc l’opération est démaré et l’APR a encerclé en laissant un couloir ouvert mais n’a pas attaqué les camps, mais plutot le FDLR utilisait la population comme boucliers humais” and, this attitude is against Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law and the FDLR is responsible of such deaths that occurred.
In terms of the Ambassador’s statements that the Rwanda Government carries out assassinations in the present day and that the Rwandan army is dominated by Tutsi, I would argue that these statements should be justified by empirical evidence.
Otherwise, it would be ridiculous and shameful for H.E the Ambassador (as they said he is an academician) to argue the newspapers’ rumours.
Such a statement is a copy of statement made by genocide revisionists who are spending their time trivializing the 1994 genocide in order to distract the gallery on their crimes
There is also evidence to show that some Rwandan refugees were killed by former camp authorities in an effort to prevent their return to Rwanda, or to force them to accompany the FDLR on the frontline .
Innocent civilians in the DRC, together with Rwandan refugees, were killed by the retreating FDLR , the same some Rwandan refugees participated in the killing of Congolese civilians .
Corroborated testimony was offered to the effect that the FDLR was responsible for at least one large-scale killing of DRC civilians during its trek across the DRC .
Moreover, FDLR is still killing innocent civilians in Eastern DRC despite the absence of Rwandese troops. What is the EU doing for that?
In conclusion, I agree with Professor Ansungule who implored, “Your Excellency, you promised to not enter deeply in DRC and Rwandan conflict matters but you did. If I could mark you, I should give you at least 80% in entering into details. But your presentation was brilliant and I can say that you were wrong in choosing a political and diplomatic carrier because you are a good lecturer.”
Doubt can be cast upon the assertion that H.E. the Ambassador has experience as a lecturer/professor at various tertiary institutions, based on his use of unsubstantiated, sweeping statements and unwarranted remarks.
The tenure of the Ambassador as a special envoy in the great lakes should have helped him to grasp political dynamics of the region.
However, his presentation only portrays a person who has been biased in his analysis of the political dynamics and one wonders whether during his tenure he has not only helped to perpetuate the crisis rather than solving it!!
The Ambassador has also violated the basic requirement of a diplomat which is to avoid castigating leaders of another country with whom the EU has got relations.
The Ambassador should have been advised to be indeed a professor/lecturer with a biased analysis rather than a diplomat.
We hope that the statements were personal and not those of the EU with which Rwanda has so far been having good working relations.
In the light of International Humanitarian Law, an article which will set out to you that only the FDLR is liable for the death of all Rwandan refugees died in “Congo Wars” will coming soon.
Oswald Rutagengwa
LLM, Public International Law
University of Pretoria/South Africa
Email: rutgengwaoswald@ymail.com
Cell: +27783792219
