|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Erlinder, William Mitchell College of Law Professor, was appointed Lead Defense Counsel by the United Nations International War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda in 2003. |
|
|
|
|
'Behind the Scenes' at the Hotel Rwanda
Peter Erlinder
The moving story of the heroism of one "Hutu" during Rwanda's descent into chaos, and the nomination of the film for an Academy Award, has refocused the world's attention on the tragedy of the massacres that swept Rwanda during 100 days in 1994. But the broader story behind the Rwanda tragedy, which is only alluded to in the film, generally reinforces the simplistic story of "vicious-racist Hutus" attacking the "minority" Tutsi which has been common fare in Western media for more than a decade.
However, during just the past year, defense teams at the U.N International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda have subjected previously well-accepted "facts" and "expert opinion" to the kind of scrutiny that is not possible in journalistic or academic exchange. New facts have emerged that place the entire Rwanda story in a political-historical context that requires re-evaluating everything we thought we knew about Rwanda.
Within the past year, it has been established that the U.S. Ambassador warned that civilian massacres would be an inevitable consequence of continuing the war of invasion. Cross-examination of UN General Dallaire and other Prosecution witnesses established that the massacres were actually part of the military strategy of Hotel Rwanda's "rebels" to destabilize the Rwandan Government, and that murdered "Tutsis" were considered "collateral damage" by the "rebel" leader, the current President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame.
In fact, the war in Rwanda was a war of invasion of a French-speaking nation from English-speaking Uganda, which wasóas declared in a 1988 Washington, D.C. press conferenceóorganized by remnants of the former Rwandan aristocracy....the Tutsi "minority." Much like the predominantly Spanish "minority" that supported the Batista Regime in Cuba, Hotel Rwanda's "rebels" were English-speaking, ex-patriot invaders. But their October 1990 "Bay of Pigs" invasion ultimately proved more successful than the original.
Also like Cuba, the pre-invasion Rwandan government was organized around state-owned enterprises that in the mid-1980s were a success "model" for Africa, including "affirmative action" measures to ensure participation by Hutu and Tutsi in all aspects of public life. By contrast, according to the UK's Economist in July 2003, the "rebel" government now in place in Rwanda is the most politically repressive in Africa and is responsible for two invasions of the Congo in which some three million people have been killed. (The UN announced another invasion into the Congo from Rwanda just last month.)
Background
from the W A M M International Committee
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question in Central Africa has been whether French-European or Anglo-American interests would dominate the vast resources of the region. The real story of Hotel Rwanda arises from the redivision of Africa by neocolonial powers, and the script was written in Washington, not Hollywood.
Fundamental to the violence and unrest in Rwanda is the classic tool of empires, divide and rule. The minority Tutsis were the rulers and the majority Hutus were the ruled. It began under colonial Belgium and is being continued by competing western powers, including the U.S., who are competing for economic and political control because of the vast mineral wealth of the area. This competition has resulted in a long history of distrust and violence in Rwanda, of which the terrible massacres in 1994 were part.
The myth of humanitarian intervention, or non-intervention, as the case may be: Should we have intervened in Rwanda? More to the point, our foreign policy should not be based on such greed as created the situation between Hutus and Tutsis in the first place. U.S. money and influence should not be used to kill others for economic reasons. |
