Understanding genocide in Rwanda is especially difficult because it is mandatory to have a deep knowledge of the colonial history of the Great Lakes region but also a deep understanding of the evolution in each country of the region since their independence. Basically Rwanda and Burundi populations are divided in three groups: Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Hutu are farmers and represent the majority of the population (almost 80 %), Tutsi are shepherd and are mostly the ruling elite (20 % of the population), the Twa are potters and represent less than 2 % of the population. Hutu and Tutsi identity were not the central identity in the Great Lakes regions before colonization [1] . It is the colonial power and the church that divided them so strongly and defined them as racial identity. The Colonial power and the church implement the idea that Tutsi were racially superiors than Hutu, Twa, and should consequently lead them [2] . They also implement the idea that Tutsi were not natives but people from Ethiopia (Galla origins), Egypt or even Asia. Consequently when Rwanda gained independence, Hutu extremist considered that they had to free themselves from a second colonial power: the Tutsi one [3] . Persecution of Tutsi started in the early 1960’s and lots of Tutsi escaped in Ugandan such as the parents of Paul Kagme. Another consequence was that in Burundi, the ruling elite Tutsi, started to oppress the Hutu peasants in order to maintain their power. The attitude of the Hutu in Rwanda was used as justification of the attitude of Tutsi in Burundi and vis-versa. The events in the two countries reinforced the hatred between the two groups. Hutu and Tusti are not ethnic group in the sense of differences of culture, language or even physical differences. However Hutu and Tutsi are cultural constructed identity. Even if history prove that there are no ethnic separation between Hutu and Tutsi, it is false to consider that after the genocide Hutu and Tutsi are not central identity in Rwanda.
The role of France in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 and especially at the time of the genocide is at the heart of the controversy between the two countries. The Rwanda patriotic Front (RPF) composed of Rwandan refugees, mostly Tutsi, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. The Rwandan army fought back but had important difficulties. France and Rwanda had a military agreement; consequently France trained and also helped on the ground the government army. At the same time France tried to bring peace to the region and had pledge for a peace agreement especially after the Coup d’Etat in Burundi in 1993 which lead to ethnic cleaning. An agreement had been reach knew as the Arusha agreement: the main idea was to allow a transitional government in Rwanda with the return of the refugees and the integration of the RPF into the army. However, in Rwanda, the Hutu extremist reinforced their power, denounced the agreement and the action of the president. The RPF army was not also very content of the agreement because without France they would have taken the country. The president of Burundi and the president of Rwanda took a plane together leaving from Arusha. The plane was shot down in April 1994 near Kigali. The plane was a gift from France to the president of Rwanda and the pilots were French. The shot down of the President was the excuse needed for the Hutu extremist in order to start the genocide. There has not been any real research on who was responsible for the shot down of the plane. The RPF accused Hutu extremist but the other side accused the RPF. The families of the French pilots asked the French justice to start a procedure concerning the shot down of the presidential plane. It is the French antiterrorist judge, Mr. Bruguiere, who was responsible of the inquiry. He accused the RPF and close relatives of Paul Kagme and Paul Kagame itself to be responsible for the shot down of the plane and ask for international mandates against them in November 2006 [4] . As a consequence of that president Kagame order to shot down diplomatic relations with France on November 2006. At that time France never admitted any errors on the management of the Rwanda crisis and was the only western countries involved in the matters that did not present an apology. Also France refused several extradition of people accused to be génocidaires in Rwanda especially catholic priest.
The situation did not involve until the presidential election in May 2007. President Sarkozy and Foreign Affairs Minister Mr. Kouchner pledged to reestablished good relations with Rwanda. Mr. Kouchner has admitted some errors but refused any suggestion that France participated in the violence of genocide or helped the “génocidaires”. The French President also admitted mistakes on several occasions such as a meeting with President Paul Kagame in December 2007. A franco-rwandan committee was formed in order to define what should be the new base for a franco-rwandan relation. Also, since the beginning of Sarkozy presidency, the extradition of people accused of genocide has been facilitated [5] and France has given its supports to the nomination of the Rwandan general at the head of the Union Africa army in Darfur even if he was accused of slaughter [6] .
At the same time Rwanda engaged two procedures. First of all Rwanda has candidated for being a member of the Commonwealth. Rwanda is not a former UK colony and it is a member of the “francophonie”. Second of all, in April of 2006 President Kagame asked to an “independent” committee to study the involvement of France in the Rwanda genocide. The report was made public in august 2008 and the conclusions are terrifying. In this report, France has been accused to have trained the Hutu militia and helped to develop informatics list of suspects who were used in the first hours of the genocide. France has been accused to have sold weapons during the genocide. Also France has been accused to use the Operation Turquoise mission not in order to protect the population but in order to let génocidaires “finish the job” and to escape in Zaire. The report has advised the Rwanda government to engage in international pursuit against French citizen especially ranked soldiers and former Prime Minister (Mr. Edouard Balladur, Dominique De Villepin); Foreign Affairs Minister (Hubert Védrine, Alain Juppé).
France has condemned these accusations to be completely false but still reaffirm its will to reestablished good relations with Rwanda. It is important to notice that the French President did not react directly on the issue. The Minister of Defense has been the more vindictive but the Foreign Ministers office keep the focus on the need of reestablishing good relation with Rwanda and has underlined the evolution of the French position since Sarkozy presidency.
What will be the evolution of the relation between the two countries and the consequences are deeply uncertain. What can be the next move of France and Rwanda are only supposition and extrapolation.
The publication of the report underlined that for Rwanda efforts made by France since the election of president Sarkozy are no enough. President Paul Kagame has dismissed the independence of the French justice on the Rwanda issue. Consequently the refusal of the French government to put an end to the international mandate released by the French justice has been a huge point of disagreement. The resolution of this point is a preliminary for any talks between the two governments in the Rwanda point of view.
Rwanda government can decide to act in front of justice. Rwanda has been a strong advocate of the need of justice. Rwanda has international competence to prosecute crimes related to genocide. If Rwanda does such act the two countries will be at the same level: each one asking to the other one to extradite some of its citizen in order to be prosecuted. A consequence of that will be that any countries that have agreements of extradition with one of the two countries will have to take a position on the subject and organizations such as the European Union and the African Union will have to take position as well.
Another possible action for Rwanda would be to ask the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to judge the French officials. However the mandate of the ICTR will finish in less than a year, it will need a vote of the Security Council to be extended and it is unlikely that France will vote for it. To act in front of the ICTR could be a good political move for Rwanda government. It will put France on a difficult position because France has been a member of this tribunal since the beginning. It will underline that Rwanda does not want vengeance but justice. It will show, especially inside the African Union that Rwanda will fight for an equal international justice system where western countries can be prosecuted. It is important to underline that only the accusation made against France during the time of the genocide and Operation Turquoise can be prosecuted. Crimes committed before the genocide (1990 as before April 1994) are not part of the mandate of the Tribunal. However, if Rwanda acts in such way the pressure will be even greater on Rwanda to allow the tribunal to prosecute crimes committed by the FPR. If any action is taken in front of the ICTR by Rwanda it is likely that the Security Council will have to deal with the matter. The risk for the international community will be to show that International justice does not allow a justice from the South against the North.
It is also possible that individuals, especially Rwanda citizen but also association, will act in front of justice on the base of the Rwanda report in France, Spain, Belgium or Rwanda. This can be a better solution for Rwanda government because it will not be a State move.
Another possibility is that France deeply apologizes for the acts committed in Rwanda and consequently recognizes not only mistakes but errors as well. A move that will not be easy to made, even for the French President, because formers officials and people in the French army will strongly disapprove it. Some observers said that the strong reticence of actors such as general Lafourcade, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé, Edouard Balladur or the French socialist Hubert Védrine is one of the main reasons for the absence of agreement between the two countries. France and Rwanda can also propose to established something such as a “truth and reconciliation” committee with scholars of the two countries that can define what are the responsibilities of France and others countries before and at the time of the genocide. However President Sarkozy always said that he dismissed any kind of “repentance” as regard of colonialism or France presence in Africa.
In conclusion, the report made public by president Kagame show that Rwanda does not have a strong commitment to reestablish good relations between the two countries before France recognize its faults and stop to act in justice against Rwanda citizens. At the same time, the publication of the report put the Rwanda government under pressure because Rwanda government has always advocated justice and the report advice the government to act in front of justice. Since the publication of the report, the French has dismissed the accusation but always underlined their strong will to reestablish good relations with Rwanda. A political agreement can be found between the two countries if France recognizes its responsibilities and if the two countries decide to stop judicial action against each others. However another possibility is that Rwanda act in front of justice against French officials. If Rwanda chooses the judicial path there will be a need for countries to take side and for international organizations to be size of the matter. What will be next move from President Kagame is unknown and France does not have the initiative. A further worsening of the relation between the two countries can have consequences At The International level Especially Because Of The importance Of The Rwanda army (Involvement in Darfur) to aussi if French decided to reiterate by RPF soldiers Prosecuting form.
The role of France in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 and especially at the time of the genocide is at the heart of the controversy between the two countries. The Rwanda patriotic Front (RPF) composed of Rwandan refugees, mostly Tutsi, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. The Rwandan army fought back but had important difficulties. France and Rwanda had a military agreement; consequently France trained and also helped on the ground the government army. At the same time France tried to bring peace to the region and had pledge for a peace agreement especially after the Coup d’Etat in Burundi in 1993 which lead to ethnic cleaning. An agreement had been reach knew as the Arusha agreement: the main idea was to allow a transitional government in Rwanda with the return of the refugees and the integration of the RPF into the army. However, in Rwanda, the Hutu extremist reinforced their power, denounced the agreement and the action of the president. The RPF army was not also very content of the agreement because without France they would have taken the country. The president of Burundi and the president of Rwanda took a plane together leaving from Arusha. The plane was shot down in April 1994 near Kigali. The plane was a gift from France to the president of Rwanda and the pilots were French. The shot down of the President was the excuse needed for the Hutu extremist in order to start the genocide. There has not been any real research on who was responsible for the shot down of the plane. The RPF accused Hutu extremist but the other side accused the RPF. The families of the French pilots asked the French justice to start a procedure concerning the shot down of the presidential plane. It is the French antiterrorist judge, Mr. Bruguiere, who was responsible of the inquiry. He accused the RPF and close relatives of Paul Kagme and Paul Kagame itself to be responsible for the shot down of the plane and ask for international mandates against them in November 2006 [4] . As a consequence of that president Kagame order to shot down diplomatic relations with France on November 2006. At that time France never admitted any errors on the management of the Rwanda crisis and was the only western countries involved in the matters that did not present an apology. Also France refused several extradition of people accused to be génocidaires in Rwanda especially catholic priest.
The situation did not involve until the presidential election in May 2007. President Sarkozy and Foreign Affairs Minister Mr. Kouchner pledged to reestablished good relations with Rwanda. Mr. Kouchner has admitted some errors but refused any suggestion that France participated in the violence of genocide or helped the “génocidaires”. The French President also admitted mistakes on several occasions such as a meeting with President Paul Kagame in December 2007. A franco-rwandan committee was formed in order to define what should be the new base for a franco-rwandan relation. Also, since the beginning of Sarkozy presidency, the extradition of people accused of genocide has been facilitated [5] and France has given its supports to the nomination of the Rwandan general at the head of the Union Africa army in Darfur even if he was accused of slaughter [6] .
At the same time Rwanda engaged two procedures. First of all Rwanda has candidated for being a member of the Commonwealth. Rwanda is not a former UK colony and it is a member of the “francophonie”. Second of all, in April of 2006 President Kagame asked to an “independent” committee to study the involvement of France in the Rwanda genocide. The report was made public in august 2008 and the conclusions are terrifying. In this report, France has been accused to have trained the Hutu militia and helped to develop informatics list of suspects who were used in the first hours of the genocide. France has been accused to have sold weapons during the genocide. Also France has been accused to use the Operation Turquoise mission not in order to protect the population but in order to let génocidaires “finish the job” and to escape in Zaire. The report has advised the Rwanda government to engage in international pursuit against French citizen especially ranked soldiers and former Prime Minister (Mr. Edouard Balladur, Dominique De Villepin); Foreign Affairs Minister (Hubert Védrine, Alain Juppé).
France has condemned these accusations to be completely false but still reaffirm its will to reestablished good relations with Rwanda. It is important to notice that the French President did not react directly on the issue. The Minister of Defense has been the more vindictive but the Foreign Ministers office keep the focus on the need of reestablishing good relation with Rwanda and has underlined the evolution of the French position since Sarkozy presidency.
What will be the evolution of the relation between the two countries and the consequences are deeply uncertain. What can be the next move of France and Rwanda are only supposition and extrapolation.
The publication of the report underlined that for Rwanda efforts made by France since the election of president Sarkozy are no enough. President Paul Kagame has dismissed the independence of the French justice on the Rwanda issue. Consequently the refusal of the French government to put an end to the international mandate released by the French justice has been a huge point of disagreement. The resolution of this point is a preliminary for any talks between the two governments in the Rwanda point of view.
Rwanda government can decide to act in front of justice. Rwanda has been a strong advocate of the need of justice. Rwanda has international competence to prosecute crimes related to genocide. If Rwanda does such act the two countries will be at the same level: each one asking to the other one to extradite some of its citizen in order to be prosecuted. A consequence of that will be that any countries that have agreements of extradition with one of the two countries will have to take a position on the subject and organizations such as the European Union and the African Union will have to take position as well.
Another possible action for Rwanda would be to ask the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to judge the French officials. However the mandate of the ICTR will finish in less than a year, it will need a vote of the Security Council to be extended and it is unlikely that France will vote for it. To act in front of the ICTR could be a good political move for Rwanda government. It will put France on a difficult position because France has been a member of this tribunal since the beginning. It will underline that Rwanda does not want vengeance but justice. It will show, especially inside the African Union that Rwanda will fight for an equal international justice system where western countries can be prosecuted. It is important to underline that only the accusation made against France during the time of the genocide and Operation Turquoise can be prosecuted. Crimes committed before the genocide (1990 as before April 1994) are not part of the mandate of the Tribunal. However, if Rwanda acts in such way the pressure will be even greater on Rwanda to allow the tribunal to prosecute crimes committed by the FPR. If any action is taken in front of the ICTR by Rwanda it is likely that the Security Council will have to deal with the matter. The risk for the international community will be to show that International justice does not allow a justice from the South against the North.
It is also possible that individuals, especially Rwanda citizen but also association, will act in front of justice on the base of the Rwanda report in France, Spain, Belgium or Rwanda. This can be a better solution for Rwanda government because it will not be a State move.
Another possibility is that France deeply apologizes for the acts committed in Rwanda and consequently recognizes not only mistakes but errors as well. A move that will not be easy to made, even for the French President, because formers officials and people in the French army will strongly disapprove it. Some observers said that the strong reticence of actors such as general Lafourcade, former Prime Minister Alain Juppé, Edouard Balladur or the French socialist Hubert Védrine is one of the main reasons for the absence of agreement between the two countries. France and Rwanda can also propose to established something such as a “truth and reconciliation” committee with scholars of the two countries that can define what are the responsibilities of France and others countries before and at the time of the genocide. However President Sarkozy always said that he dismissed any kind of “repentance” as regard of colonialism or France presence in Africa.
In conclusion, the report made public by president Kagame show that Rwanda does not have a strong commitment to reestablish good relations between the two countries before France recognize its faults and stop to act in justice against Rwanda citizens. At the same time, the publication of the report put the Rwanda government under pressure because Rwanda government has always advocated justice and the report advice the government to act in front of justice. Since the publication of the report, the French has dismissed the accusation but always underlined their strong will to reestablish good relations with Rwanda. A political agreement can be found between the two countries if France recognizes its responsibilities and if the two countries decide to stop judicial action against each others. However another possibility is that Rwanda act in front of justice against French officials. If Rwanda chooses the judicial path there will be a need for countries to take side and for international organizations to be size of the matter. What will be next move from President Kagame is unknown and France does not have the initiative. A further worsening of the relation between the two countries can have consequences At The International level Especially Because Of The importance Of The Rwanda army (Involvement in Darfur) to aussi if French decided to reiterate by RPF soldiers Prosecuting form.
[1] CHRETIEN, J.-P. (2000). The African Great Lakes: two thousand years of history. Historical collection. Paris, Aubier.
[2] Thierry Marchal -Beck "Gorju Bishop, Bishop ethnologist: Science, Race, Religion or defining identities Burundi" edited by Annette Becker, June 2008.
[3] Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, nativism, & the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.
[4] This conclusion put the responsibility of the Genocide not on the Hutu extremist but on the forces of the RPF. In France, an abundant literature has been developed which acknowledge a “double genocide” in Rwanda or accused the RPF to have deliberately provoked the genocide in order to gain power. The main book of this kind of literature as been written by Pierre Péan in 2005 and has received the back up of Hubert Védrine.
[5] One of the main reasons for this facilitation is the end of the death penalty in Rwanda in 2007.
[6] Spain has an international competence as regard as crimes of genocide or mass slaughter. Consequently a justice procedure has-been starting to train in Spain Against RPF soldiers and Spain for international mandates Asked Against Rwanda Army Officers. It Is important to note tha That African Union regarded That There Was a risk of abuse of the "worldwide jurisdiction" and Refused to extradite people from Rwanda.
[4] This conclusion put the responsibility of the Genocide not on the Hutu extremist but on the forces of the RPF. In France, an abundant literature has been developed which acknowledge a “double genocide” in Rwanda or accused the RPF to have deliberately provoked the genocide in order to gain power. The main book of this kind of literature as been written by Pierre Péan in 2005 and has received the back up of Hubert Védrine.
[5] One of the main reasons for this facilitation is the end of the death penalty in Rwanda in 2007.
[6] Spain has an international competence as regard as crimes of genocide or mass slaughter. Consequently a justice procedure has-been starting to train in Spain Against RPF soldiers and Spain for international mandates Asked Against Rwanda Army Officers. It Is important to note tha That African Union regarded That There Was a risk of abuse of the "worldwide jurisdiction" and Refused to extradite people from Rwanda.
