The Leaked U.N. report: Why the DRC Mapping Exercise is actually anexercise in misconstruction

One of the biggest news stories to hit Kigali in recent memory has flooded the local and international media as speculation abounds regarding a leaked United Nations draft report that “in one version” accuses the Rwandan army of possible war crimes, including genocide. Yet careful analysis combined with a thorough and historical perspective is required to understand the relationship between Rwanda, the U.N, the DRC and that perilous word: genocide. The preliminary report has been met with furor from Rwandan officials, namely, Foreign Minister Louise Mushikiwabo who has written a letter to the U.N. Secretary General (that letter was subsequently also leaked) threatening to withdraw the thousands of Rwandan troops now serving in U.N. peace-keeping missions around the world. “The U.N. can’t have it both ways. You can’t have a force serving as peacekeepers and it is the same force you are accusing of genocide,” Mushikiwabo said in a press conference about the report. This nearly 600-page report raises several questions about both the nature of the study and the timing of its leaked release (it has to be noted, too, that the report’s pages carry a clear “draft” watermark). What’s it really about? First, it is critical to note that it is not a report about Rwanda or even the Rwandan Army in Congo. The intention of the report is to call for accountability for atrocities committed in Congo from 1993 -2003. While large numbers of Hutu refugees were killed in the DRC during that period, most news stories focus on possible RPA (now RDF) involvement in these killings rather than the report’s call for a truth and reconciliation commission. Also, most of the data in this document is about forces that are far removed from the Rwandan army and, despite what media reports may suggest, only a small fraction of the report refers to the Rwandans directly. Those who wish to scandalize the RDF are betting on the notion that the average person will never actually read the report. The U.N. researchers were not scientific in their approach. They required only two sources for each event cited in the report, regardless of the gravity of the incident. That’s the same requirement a local newspaper reporter has and is a far cry from the rules of evidence born by prosecutors and criminal investigators. The report states that the mapping team “was not concerned with pursuing in-depth investigations or gathering evidence of sufficient admissibility to stand in court” but rather with “providing the basis for the formulation of initial hypothesis of investigation by giving a sense of the scale of violations, detecting patterns and identifying potential leads or sources of evidence”. The report itself merely concludes that a further investigation would be required to determine if crimes had taken place. The problem is that it does this with dangerous language and an incendiary approach and the leaking of it has left Rwanda’s critics salivating. Regardless of the outcome of further investigations, for years to come, amateur analysts will look at this report, see Rwanda’s relative prosperity compared with the crisis in DRC and draw their own conclusions. The U.N. Human Rights Office had to know that once they leaked a report with the word “genocide” into the public domain that, even if the evidence they had would not stand up in court of law, the damage would be done in the court of public opinion. To understand why, one must appreciate the historical and political setting. History and context In January 1994, General Romeo Dallaire sent a now infamous cable to the U. N. Head of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO) in New York advising that he had information regarding imminent attacks on the Tutsi population in Kigali. Dallaire indicated that he had credible information on arms caches being held by would-be genocidaires and would move to seize them. The DPKO Chief baulked and subsequently ordered Dallaire not to take action to stop the massacres. The man that gave that order would later become the Secretary General of the U.N.: Kofi Annan. In April of 1994 thousands of then FAR and Interahamwe militia would say that the president being killed combined with the presence of RPF troops in the country left them with no choice but to slaughter hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of civilians as well as rape tens of thousands of women in response. Despite this, the U.N. and its peace-keeping force still had no sincere response. Both the U.N. and the United States refused to call this “genocide” at the time. Using that word would have required the U.N. Security Council to take action. But when referring to events 15 years in the past, the word gets misused in dodgy and reckless ways After the RPF took Kigali in July 1994, a mass exodus occurred with many genocidaires “along with many innocents” fleeing to neighboring countries, particularly DRC (then Zaire). The U.N. finally stepped in, providing more than one million dollars per day in aid to feed and shelter the very people who just finished decimating a population. By the time all was said and done, the core of the forces responsible for the genocide against the Tutsi had reassembled across the border with the benefits of U.N. shelter and plenty of innocent human shields. Kofi Annan did eventually issue a couple of reluctant apologies on behalf of the U.N. for its inaction during these events but he has never taken personal responsibility for his own errors. Many believe that this report, commissioned towards the end of Annan’s tenure as Secretary General, is his final attempt to redeem himself by sullying the reputation of those who did act to end the genocide against the Tutsi. From those U.N. camps and the surrounding communities, ex-FAR and former Interahamwe militia continued to launch attacks on Rwanda for years. At the time, Rwanda’s future was still very much in doubt. As any country would, Rwanda entered DRC to eradicate a real and present danger to its national security. But Rwanda didn’t just indiscriminately attack Hutu people in DRC. On the contrary, it embraced them. The U.N. report doesn’t mention and critics don’t want you to remember that during most of the period which this report covers, Rwanda repatriated hundreds of thousands of Hutus back to Rwanda from DRC. In fact, the President of Rwanda went to Gisenyi to welcome these people home. By the way, that president, Pasteur Bizimungu, was a Hutu. Incredibly, this report suggests he oversaw the genocide of his own people. And if this was an attempted genocide, it marks the first time in history that a government tried to extinguish a people while simultaneously bringing them home, feeding them, educating them and giving them healthcare. If you buy the idea that Rwanda wanted to commit wholesale slaughter against the Hutu population, why do it in Congo where the Rwandan government has so little control? Critics say that the government has total control in Rwanda. If they wanted to slaughter a large segment of the population, why not do that here where they can manage the media and security? We are instead made to believe that it was RPF policy to take the massacres on road to the lawless and unpredictable DRC. That just doesn’t add up. The leaks The fact that DRC’s problems seem so unsolvable combined with Rwanda’s relative prosperity and good governance causes frustration to a lot of people. It’s just too difficult to believe that such a large segment of the Rwandan population could have participated in mass rape and slaughter of its own people in 1994. It’s much easier to assume that this small country suffers from an evil elite minority. This belief, combined with a need to somehow “explain” the crisis in DRC has helped to shape a small but powerful culture of people in the development community who detest Rwanda and loathe its every success. Large institutions like governments and the U.N. with powerful military forces rely on a level of secrecy to maintain security. Recent leaks in the United States military ranks have resulted in international investigations and arrests as well as numerous news reports looking into the nature of the leaks. But the U.N. disclosed this report as well as a confidential letter from Louise Mushikiwabo to Ban Ki Moon and there has been no mention of an investigation into the leaks. After hundreds “if not thousands” of articles on the subject, not one piece of investigative journalism from the USA or Europe (where the leaks had to have occurred) regarding the supposedly unauthorized disclosures has emerged. Bureaucrats, scholars and journalists who work with the U.N., Rwanda and the DRC know that many in that circle have been itching to turn the tables on Rwanda for years. And it is also understood that, despite recent warming of relations between France and Rwanda, the place to start with an attack on the RPF is with a Paris-based newspaper like Le Monde, where the leaked report first emerged. It’s now clear that the people behind this report had a motive beyond obtaining and presenting the facts. The leaks and the UN’s apathy towards them belie that ulterior motive. What now? The Rwandan government has threatened to pull its troops from all U.N. peace-keeping operations if the U.N. publishes this report in its current form. In response, Ban Ki Moon has personally implored Rwanda to keep its troops in places like Darfur and Haiti. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay has so far been unwavering in her stance regarding the report, however she has agreed to delay its release until October 1 and allow Rwanda and other countries to publish comments along with the report. It is unclear what Rwanda will now do with its troops. Some observers suggest that the best way to combat the abusive language within the report is for Rwanda to continue its proud work in other regions. Just last year President Obama praised RDF peace-keepers in Darfur as “disciplined”, “remarkable”, “model soldiers”. Perhaps continued service is the best way to contest an unprofessional document like the DRC Mapping Exercise. Also, Rwanda knows the importance of preventing genocide and the best way to do that in Darfur, Chad and Haiti is to stay. Ends