Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

tylizard t1_j2udn22 wrote

I went to a Rwandan Church memorial in Nyamata in 2019. Hit harder than anything I have seen before anywhere because it was so fresh and in such an underdeveloped part of the world. They don’t have enough money to memorialize in any grand way but do the best they can. This church had pews and pews full of blood stained clothing. The doors and walls still had bullet holes. The outer door was still fragmented from a grenade. It honestly felt like they were still continuing to even clean up after the massacre.

269

MrHollandsOpium t1_j2vgsix wrote

The church in Nyamata is intentionally left like that. The Rwandan Government has taken out LOTS of money to upgrade certain sites of the genocide. They left Nyamata alone because of its rawness

168

masklinn t1_j2w64sk wrote

That sounds a lot like WWII sites which were left as-is for remembrance.

46

coolcoenred t1_j2wen53 wrote

Reminds me of the Sarajevo roses

20

aBoyandHisVacuum t1_j2xhamw wrote

My friends from Montenegro? Im sure i spelled it wrong. Said they were finally rebuilding or fixing there war torn home in ole yugolslavia. This was like 5 or so years. Ago. Unreal.

3

MadsMikkelsenisGryFx t1_j2xpv3l wrote

When the local government renovated Jallianwala Bagh they kept the walls and the well the same way.

1

ProceedOrRun t1_j2vy8nu wrote

Find and watch the film Shooting Dogs and you'll understand why. There's another one called Sometimes In April that explores the same events.

169

Cheyds t1_j2w4cnb wrote

100% second this. But I will say, it is EXTREMELY hard to find. I recommended it to someone last year and it took us quite a long time to find it.

59

ProceedOrRun t1_j2w5s9o wrote

I got them via pirate bay, too hard to find them legitimately, which is probably why pirating wins so often.

45

EyeGod t1_j2wddrl wrote

God, SHOOTING DOGS really affected me. Such an incredible, powerful film.

14

kewlbeanz83 t1_j2xa63t wrote

You should watch the "Shake Hands with the Devil" documentary.

10

TheAb5traktion t1_j2y6tvl wrote

And read the book the documentary is based on.

Shake Hands With The Devil was written by General Romeo Dallaire, who was the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda. The documentary is based on the book and him.

Another good book to read is We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families by Philip Gourevitch.

6

AchillesFoundation t1_j2ya469 wrote

Second reading this book. It is very thorough in documenting the role many nations had in allowing things to spiral into genocide, and just how much effort was put in to trying to head it off.

Of course, fair warning it's not for the faint of heart. There aren't many books that I can say "changed me" in some clearly identifiable way, and that was one of them. Such a failure of humanity in so many ways.

7

Kenevin t1_j2xl13s wrote

"Shooting dogs" is thst reference to D'Allaire mental breakdown?

2

ProceedOrRun t1_j2yc265 wrote

Don't think so. In the film it's pretty clear what it's about.

1

[deleted] t1_j2uhpwx wrote

[removed]

121

Cetun t1_j2v9ujb wrote

The problem at the time is that intervention was seen as neo-colonialist and bad. The US got roundly criticized for intervening in Somalia. People rightfully asked why the hell western troops were being sent to third world nations on peacekeeping operations which seemed to only produce collateral damage and bad blood between the occupiers and occupied.

Then Rwanda happens, all the western nations are frozen. Do they send in troops and get shit on at home and abroad about being the "world police"? Needlessly interfering with other people's problems. Perpetuating warfare by being in a place no one asked them to be in. They clearly were stuck in a catch-22, chose to try to downplay the genocide and hope it blows over so they could get out of having an occupying force overseas. Didn't happen and it looked bad.

A couple years later Kosovo happens, You see the USA and UN step up, they didn't want a repeat of Rwanda.

163

grundar t1_j2vk3q7 wrote

> The US got roundly criticized for intervening in Somalia.
> ...
> Then Rwanda happens

For reference, those were only 6 months apart:

The fact that so little time passed between those two events is highly likely to have played a role in determining the response to the latter.

104

Niccolo101 t1_j2vl4s8 wrote

>Then Rwanda happens, all the western nations are frozen. Do they send in troops and get shit on at home and abroad about being the "world police"?

No that's fair enough - but I think the crux of the issue here is that France was already operating in Rwanda. Civil war had broken out a few years earlier and France were already there, supporting the government against the rebels, training them, supplying them, etc.

Then, government-sanctioned gangs start up the genocide and France just... ignores it, because they don't want the rebels to gain ground. Hell, the French govt were aware that the "Presidential Guard", who they had trained, were actively murdering civilians (page 327).

It's one thing to jump into another nation's affairs, but it's another thing entirely to do nothing when you've already jumped in.

Seriously.

One of the stories (Page xviii) is of a terrified woman being chased by a gang. She runs out and collides with a parked car that two French soldiers are sitting in, desperate for help. One of the murderers comes up, sees the French soldiers, sees that they don't move, and drags the woman off. Later, they "kindly acknowledge" the French soldiers with a "smile and a friendly wave".

90

RevolutionaryHair91 t1_j2vrxta wrote

While I understand your point I think we also need to think in a very pragmatic way. Those soldiers in the story had orders and can't act on their own gut feelings. Taking a stance here would have had so many implications.

I don't see a way where France would not be blamed. If the French army had taken a strong stance and toppled the Rwandan power, I don't know if it could have prevented anything in terms of civil war and massacres, but it would have been sure to create a power vacuum in the middle of a bloody civil war from a western former colonial power.

I guess the best option was to leave completely, impose fast sanctions, and not get involved further. Still a massacre with a loss of influence as well for the aftermath.

27

Niccolo101 t1_j2vxbfb wrote

Point.

I am no politician and have, like, zero knowledge of the delicacies of international politics, so I can't authoritatively say what the correct action for the French government would have been. And I am not a soldier either, so I can't really fault the soldiers in the story too much - they did have orders of some kind. I have no idea what I would do when faced with such a scenario, so I'm not going to sit here in my armchair with 20/20 hindsight and say "Oh they all should have done X or Y".

But I can say that refusing to condemn the acts, lying to their own troops, not asking their allies what the hell they were doing, and even stymieing efforts to bring the perpetrators of the genocide to justice, were almost certainly not the right actions to take.

37

iThinkaLot1 t1_j2vgsk2 wrote

The West is always in a damned if you do damned if you don’t in these sort of situations. You’ll have just as many people on one side saying its right to intervene to stop genocide / revolution / terrorism, etc than you will on the other saying its neocolonialism / tyrannical, etc.

31

Dangerous-Leg-9626 t1_j2vyxng wrote

Lol they're not

French did intervene but on the guilty side

They don't have those "damned you do or don't" mentality when the rebel regroups and launched a fanatical counter offensive (or to be exact, a counter genocide) to avenge all the previous atrocities

They went straight to action, deploy by the thousands, and help the government evacuate. This was after they deployed tens of advisors helping the govt army

Oh and this is after they refused to evacuate the Tutsis that's gonna be killed en mass, they only let foreigners in. Not even Tutsi spouses were welcome

but when the genocidal Hutus came running? Lo and behold their attitude changed

14

fvb955cd t1_j393x0m wrote

There are also allegations that Kagame and the RPF didn't really want American intervention, and were pushing against intervention with soft politics in the US. The UN means some degree of stasis being placed on both sides, and the RPF, at the expense of civilian casualties in the ethnic cleansing, was routing the government forces very successfully, and did successfully push the government into a total, French protected rout out of Rwanda. Leading to Kagame's total control over the country to this day. Put a full UN mission in place and you conceivably just kick the can

1

DeadTime34 t1_j2vvc7o wrote

I wrote a paper about this, Rwanda directly led to the United Nations "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine which has been invoked more than 80 times since its introduction.

I argued that intervention to stop atrocity is needed, but we also need a democratization of the security council if allegations (and instances) of neo-imperialism are to ever be effectively resolved. Unfortunately that seems very unlikely, especially with the resumption of great power politics on the world stage.

−1

sartres_ t1_j2vvxyk wrote

You can't democratize the security council, that's the whole point. Why would any of the countries on it listen to weaker ones, if they were appointed? They'd just quit or ignore anything "binding."

14

DeadTime34 t1_j2vwc9n wrote

Right, it's clearly a contested idea, but this article details what it might look like. It doesn't advocate a complete democratization, but one in which a veto is tied to atleast one other country, so not unilateral (among other things). Don't get me wrong, I highly doubt this will ever happen in my lifetime, but it's not an unreasonable notion in and of itself.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/17/decolonizing-united-nations-means-abolish-permanent-five-security-council/

2

incomplete-username t1_j2vlmqv wrote

The US certainly had a hand to play, and did more then inaction to make the situation worse.

"Kagame is only in place at all because he serves a purpose

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/12/americas-secret-role-in-the-rwandan-genocide

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/07/exposing-the-crimes-of-the-cias-fair-haired-boy-paul-kagame-and-the-rwandan-patriotic-front/

https://harpers.org/archive/2019/08/brutal-from-the-beginning-paul-kagame-rwanda/"

Links were provided to me from a fellow i was discussing with on matters related to kagame and how much a shite guy he was.

−6

Domascot t1_j2vjze7 wrote

Your description of the US (and the west in general) as a morality-driven force doesnt reflect the reality at all.

−7

iThinkaLot1 t1_j2vl791 wrote

The West stopped ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. The UK stopped a civil war in Sierra Leone. France was helping fight against Islamic terrorists in Mali.

I agree its not always morality driven. In fact I’d say its mostly not - it’s mostly driven by self interest. But there has been times where interventions have had in part been driven by morals.

32

Domascot t1_j2vpjjk wrote

I think you should rather reverse the statement: it is rarely
driven by anything else than self interest. If you take a closer look
at any of your examples, you ll get a different picture.
The UK intervention was primarly meant to evacuate british
and other foreign citizens from Freetown, where they were eventually
attacked by the rebel forces. The biggest diamond mining corporation happens also to be british (Sierra Leone´s President used to sell-out
the diamond mines for military support, it was only after the long
civil war that a ban on "blood diamonds" was installed).
Uranium and oil in Mali as well as in Niger are big part of France´s
strategical interest in Westafrica so their intervention is not surprising
and can be clearly considered as a means to save "their" resources. And speaking about the Balkans, you might want to read what Taylor
Branch had to say about the leaders of the "west".
I understand the desire to see the west, especially the US, as some kind
of a "good" world police force, at least to some extend, but it simply doesnt
hold true, except in Hollywood movies.

−18

IngloriousTom t1_j2vy94o wrote

> Uranium and oil in Mali

There are neither uranium nor oil in Mali.

14

Domascot t1_j3mg5u2 wrote

See my links in other comment. Initialy i knew only about uranium in Mali, but i already suspected that
the oil fields in the neighboring Niger wouldnt stop at the border (despite not yet being extracted).

1

IngloriousTom t1_j3n9ti6 wrote

So France went to Mali to secure non exploited resources? Some of them discovered after they left?

Yeah you can believe it if you want, but that sounds stupid.

1

Domascot t1_j3og2j4 wrote

I admit i do believe...public and official sources, at least as long as they seem reliable.
If that sounds stupid for you, it´s fine for me.

1

IngloriousTom t1_j3orv7s wrote

Yeah, they protected non-exploited deposits, in the ground.

Sure, lmao.

Edit: as you could expect, the lunatic blocked me once he realized how absurd his ideas were.

1

iThinkaLot1 t1_j2w27fc wrote

> and other foreign citizens from Freetown

That doesn’t sound like self interest then does it?

> Uranium and oil in Mali

As the other commenter said. There is none.

> you might want to read what Taylor Branch had to say

Why would I care what Taylor Branch had to say with regards to genocide in the Balkans. I care more about what the people of Kosovo had to say - you know the people who where slaughtered. In that case I’ll just leave this here:

> Tonibler is a male given name in Kosovo, given in honour of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair following his role in the 1999 NATO air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.

9

Domascot t1_j3mg1zs wrote

Apologies for the late replay, but anyways..

About the uranium in Mali.
About the [oil](https://theconversation.com/how-oil-exploration-is-adding-to-malis-security- woes-85268) in Mali.
If you search around a little bit, you will find more sophisticing sources, but these should
be already sufficient.

> That doesn’t sound like self interest then does it?

Uh, i cant imagine a scenario where british troops would evacuate british citizens and tell
citizens of the commonwealth to wait for the next bus without damaging their "savoir"
reputation forever...

> I care more about what the people of Kosovo had to say

Then you should have probably read the article you left there thoroughly, because there is
an example why the name Blair was popular for a short term back then:

> The name was suggested by an Italian business partner and friend who sheltered the family when they were driven out of Kosovo in March 1999. "He had told me before the war that the only ones who would help us would be the English,"

The article is indeed very interesting, especially if you take a closer look at the actual economy of Bosnia,
which is overwhelmed by the influx of products imported by stronger economies. I could also throw in
how the bosnian people (actual people, who fled during that time) i know have a differentiated opinion
than simply looking at Blair as their "savior" or my personal (and certainly quite minor) participation,
but all this doesnt matter. Because either way, it would only mean that you have picked up
the one occasion after WWII, where western forces (mainly: US) got voluntarily involved for
a case not related to their interests or their citizens.
And now maybe compare this one time with the loong list of western(usually US) interventions..
Good luck filtering out those which support your opinion, i m honestly too lazy to do the same vice-versa :P

1

[deleted] t1_j2v9yp1 wrote

[deleted]

−1

Niccolo101 t1_j2vl84m wrote

Of a horrific topic. I knew some stuff about it, but this report is stomach-churning. Holy Moses.

1

Squirkelspork t1_j2vvd1n wrote

In the genocide museum in Kigali it says that France financed the weapons that were used in the genocide. It doesn't say if it was government or private but says all it took was $7 million USD

113

princeps_astra t1_j2w3o2d wrote

It was most definitely the government. François Mitterrand at the time was convinced (like lots of French people tbh) that the French language was going to fade everywhere to English, and that the francophone community of nations was, sort of, under siege by English.

He made it clear he supported the francophone side for this reason. Did he know what they planned to do? Hard to say, probably not, at least for the genocide, but the French government was most definitely in cahoots with them. And the French government very well knew about the planned coup. Not some private actor.

113

kbad10 t1_j2xonnx wrote

If they were paying for and supplying weapons, it would be surprising to not know what the weapons were for.

4

princeps_astra t1_j2xt9ky wrote

Oh they knew the coup against Tutsi power was about to be violent. It started with the assassination of the president by having his plane crash, they weren't planning for a peaceful transition of power

8

Narf-a-licious t1_j2xwy95 wrote

*coup against the Hutu power [government].

The Hutu nationalist were in power, and the coup was against them. I don't believe there is any solid consensus in the International community about whether President Habyarimana's plane was shot by extremist elements of his own regime (who were upset with his more moderate policies) or by RPF leaders (i.e. Kagame), but it is likely that France was in no way involved in that specific powder keg element.

EDIT: coup is only an accurate term if Habyarimana's plane was shot by his own extremist party members, otherwise it would be labeled an assassination.

8

princeps_astra t1_j2xzg88 wrote

Oh I wouldn't go as far as saying the French knew what would happen to the plane, but that they planned for an escalation of violence seems quite evident

1

frenchchevalierblanc t1_j2yoei6 wrote

French pilots died on the plane crash

1

princeps_astra t1_j3ebl5c wrote

I personally doubt that they knew about it. However, I also doubt they would have cared about the presence of French nationals if they were aware and cool with such a project

2

lastethere t1_j2w9di1 wrote

So Hutu speak French and Tutsi speak English in the same country? That is nonsense.

−46

princeps_astra t1_j2wa43f wrote

This situation also exists in Nigeria, where again the Francosphere and Anglosphere interests clashed during the Biafra war.

And uhh, maybe I should talk to you about Canada, Belgium, Spain, China, India, Ukraine, and countless other countries that practice bilingualism or even multilingualism

55

lastethere t1_j2wb4vb wrote

>The country's principal language is Kinyarwanda, which is spoken by nearly all Rwandans

According to Wikipedia. French and English are used, but there are not mainstream.

0

princeps_astra t1_j2xsspa wrote

In Africa, English and French are mostly second languages used in order for different ethnic groups to communicate with each other

Hutu and Tutsi are not ethnicities only dependent on their second language, it is an ethnic and class division supported by the Belgians. Divide et impera, classic stuff

1

Broad_Two_744 t1_j2we1nc wrote

It’s because the tutsi rebel group the rpf where base in English speaking Uganda.

10

A1d0taku t1_j2x287k wrote

Canada speaks French and English. Alot of ppl in USA speak Spanish, it's normal for multiethnic countries

3

RobertoSantaClara t1_j2xvnve wrote

> Canada speaks French and English

More like the Quebecois speak French and English, while the Anglophone Canadians only speak English and barely learn the most basic French outside of school.

3

Mizral t1_j2wsozj wrote

This is due to colonial powers picking sides. Tutsi's were picked as a 'ruling class' and given all the government jobs. After a bunch of decades of that it engendered hatred between the peoples and genocide was the result.

1

MisterCortez t1_j2xgbon wrote

Have you ever heard of a country called Canada? What about the history of Senegal and The Gambia?

0

lastethere t1_j2xmav5 wrote

Lot of stupid comments like yours. No need to do a tour of the World. Tutsi and Hutus shared the same country for millennials. No reason for one to speak English and the other French. They all speak Kinyarwanda, the local language.

−4

lastethere t1_j2w9rww wrote

Which weapons? Machetes? You find them in supermarkets. Small firearms where used but in smaller quantities.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022343306059576

15

ReferenceSufficient t1_j2xkod2 wrote

That’s the weapons neighbors used to kill their neighbors! Machetes! This was ethnic cleansing carried out by the people themselves, and the authorities didn’t stop it.

5

inmyelement t1_j2w4swh wrote

Thought it said $12 million but ya thought it was clear that France financial weapons in the days leading to the genocide

8

FormalOstriches t1_j2v9rit wrote

If you recall, Clinton later confessed his inaction was one of his biggest regrets? https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/bill-clinton-regrets-rwanda-now-not-so-much-in-1994 Woulda-Coulda. I hope we learn from history with enough gusto to practice peace, with force if necessary.

82

[deleted] t1_j2wth9l wrote

America is damned if it does get involved in foreign countries, and damned if it doesn't. There will always be people criticizing American foreign policy. If we had intervened, we would have been the demonized World Police, the Western imperialists who can't mind their own business, the white saviors "saving" people who don't want to be saved, etc. etc.

65

arcumnequi t1_j2x5wck wrote

That is the cost of having the world's most powerful and expansive navy and air force.

21

kbad10 t1_j2xp7l0 wrote

False. US gets involved only when there are benefits for US corporates.

−5

nachoolo t1_j2wgplw wrote

If I remember correctly, the inaction of the US/NATO during the Rwanda genocide is believed to be one of the reasons why Clinton decided to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo later on to stop the genocides of Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians by the Serbs.

62

ReferenceSufficient t1_j2xiinh wrote

Why is US responsible when it should be UN?

4

fvb955cd t1_j394ozb wrote

Because for all of its talk about a global response, the UN is helpless without the logistical support of major powers, which at the time was the US, and to a lesser extent, other members OF NATO.

1

princeps_astra t1_j2w332k wrote

Except force doesn't necessarily stop anything. It can make things much worse. There have been multiple foreign interventions made to pacify and separate the two sides of African ethnic conflicts and that rarely ends up with great results. Last one was in the CAR between the Seleka and the Anti Balaka

Edit : typo,it's the CAR not the BAR

32

JeffFromSchool t1_j2wrlsp wrote

Isn't this around the time that the US started to take a bunch of shit for playing "world police" getting involved in foreign conflicts that had nothing to do with them?

Other than US merely having knowlwdge of the events and the capability to intercede, what reason did they have to?

Some would say merely those two things create an obligation to intercede, others would call it imperialism.

7

arandomcanadian91 t1_j2vzrj5 wrote

It took them this long to finger France for this?

I know this 20 years ago when I was a kid, I had family in the CAF who had friends under the command of the UN Peace keeping force which was Canadian led. This mission is one of the reasons why Canada was still respected after what happened in Somalia, because our commander disobeyed direct orders and stood his ground with avaible resources to save as many as possible.

The French? Stood by idly while people were being butchered, General Dallaire asked the French for help and they stood by and watched the events happen.

Also the UN has a lot of blame in this, they held back resources that could have stopped the genocide within 12 hours. General Dallaire asked for battalion of Marines because he knew Canada didn't have forces in the region that could be immediately transferred to Rwanda within 24 hours. He was told there was no one available because of the Balkans which was complete horse crap since the US basically had units in the ME doing security in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi army at that point was well armed enough to fend off a crippled Iraq.

Also the French knew about the coup that was occurring which kicked off the Genocide, which means the UN/NATO knew about it as well, and before you guys go "Oh they wouldn't have known" the US literally has eyes in every government in the world that has access to high level intel, look at the Canadian ambassador to Iran during the revolution, he was a CIA operative, one of the highest level ones too. This means that the UN and NATO are complicit the only ones that aren't were the boots on the ground trying to stop it.

E: This means by this report that France is now also directly responsible for the First Congo war since it kicked off due to Rwanda invading to find and destroy the Génocidaires

E2:

Sorry I get highly emotional about this, I had friends who survived through this genocide and came to the US when I lived there, they were kids who lost family in the most horrific ways you could think of. I also know folks who were on the mission as engineers and the stuff they saw was unrepeatable by me.

57

Nihilokrat t1_j2wl28k wrote

Yeah, the book Daillaire wrote about the genocide is pretty horrifying on all levels. It is an accelerating descent into madness and the reader can feel the helplessness plaguing him and the ones on the ground. Had to put down the book several times.

19

JegElskerGud t1_j2wyvb6 wrote

Wouldnt the Rwandans be directly responsible? The French may have stood around and done nothing to stop it but ultimately the people doing the killing are the most responsible.

14

Narf-a-licious t1_j2xhrin wrote

The French held significant influence within the old Rwandan (Hutu nationalist) Government who went on to commit Genocide. At any point in the month long massacre that killed nearly a million people they could have put their foot down in order to, at the very least, tamp down some of the killing. Going beyond inaction, there have been an abundance of accusations that France actively participated by shuttling Hutu nationalist to cities, villages, or dwellings where Tutsi (or moderate Hutu) citizens were hiding and subsequently murdered. As the Genocide began to slow down and the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front, the rebel army who fought the Hutu Nationalist government both before and after the Genocide) began to gain control, the French helped to evacuate many of the genocidaire's (mostly of upper government position) out of Rwanda and into the DRC or abroad. The French were some of the first on the ground in the DRC to provide aid and create refuge encampments for the fleeing Hutu Nationalist who were now on the run after having murdered their neighbors. The French media blasted on about the dangerous RPF and the poor Hutu who were fleeing an unprovoked army who wanted them dead for no reason; don't mind the million dead Tutsi and Hutu brothers and sisters those Hutu Nationalist left behind them. And the reason for it all, essentially, is because French policy was to side with whoever spoke French. That's it. Seriously. They just didn't care about what was happening and they desperately wanted to keep French speaking leadership in control.

Check out the Wiki on Rwanda and do some source clicks, it has plenty of places to start on this topic, but really you need to find books and media written about the subject, of which several good ones have been mentioned in these comments.

EDIT: further to add, the French being found "complicit" is not the same as the French being found responsible (what you wrote). They helped further the cause of genocide in ways that go beyond simple inaction (inaction being the flavor of diplomacy the rest of the world adopted). The Hutu nationalist are the ones ultimately responsible and no one denies that, but while the rest of the world turned a blind eye the French were doing deals with the devil under the table.

2

JegElskerGud t1_j2yxigg wrote

I was responding to OP who used the phrase "directly responsible for".

3

arandomcanadian91 t1_j2zlsqu wrote

The French due to allowing the coup plotters and genociders to meet in the embassy with the military attache means they are directly an actor of the genocide therefore responsible. Much like the Belgians were directly responsible for the Congo Crisis because they ordered the murder of the Prime Minister of the Congo which directly lead to the crisis.

1

Mtothe3rd t1_j2xdmz3 wrote

They did the killing with weapons and training provided by the French.

1

JegElskerGud t1_j2yx6sb wrote

So is America directly responsible for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and 9/11?

3

arandomcanadian91 t1_j2zkam1 wrote

America didn't train the Taliban, that was the ISI. AQ had backing from many people in the Arab world, and their tactics weren't taught by them AQ hooked up with multiple other terror networks to actually build their doctrine, AQ was associated with the Chechens who had used AQ's tactics aside from flying planes into buildings against Russia during the 90's.

Pakistan though supported both AQ and the Taliban, the TTP (Pakistani taliban) was only founded in 2007 as a result of the US, and Pakistan cracking down on AQ in Pakistan.

1

arandomcanadian91 t1_j2zl9ax wrote

>Also the French knew about the coup that was occurring which kicked off the Genocide

I think you need to reread my entire comment, and then go do some reading.

The RPF (The current leaders of Rwanda) tried to prevent this from happening by fighting back against the government for years. The genocide was just the peak of the entire civil war.

1

fvb955cd t1_j39htz8 wrote

They are, but you're discounting the tactical implications of a modern, western army force stationed in the enemy capital, and allied to that enemy. The RPF was superior to the Rwandan army, but it wasn't superior to the French army. The french had the effect of making Kigali like an impenetrable castle that the RPF had to work around until the military situation was so favorable towards the RPF, and international condemnation of the Rwandan government so strong that France could no politically act as a major force multiplier, except to evacuate the perpetrators of the genocide.

1

aqueezy t1_j2xddm2 wrote

Not when the French are expressly financing millions for the weapons used

If I give a suicide bomb to a jihadi Im not exactly blameless for what happens next

0

Moon_Man_00 t1_j2xyqeg wrote

> If I give a suicide bomb to a jihadi Im not exactly blameless for what happens next

That’s a bad comparison. A suicide bomb is designed specifically to kill innocents, whereas basic weapons and training are not.

0

inmyelement t1_j2w64q2 wrote

Didn’t Kofi Annan admit that he regretted the UN’s inaction with regards to the genocide? Definitely remember reading that somewhere. In any case, too little, too late! Regret, my foot.

11

arandomcanadian91 t1_j2zm5g9 wrote

Yep the UN actually has come out on multiple occasions and used Rwanda as a reason for more funding. But countries are reluctant to fund peacekeeping anymore. Back in the 60's Canada was one of the biggest contributors, giving entire regiments to the peacekeeping forces. But even we have drawn down from what we used to be.

I think peacekeeping is a cause worth funding 100%, just like ending hunger which we could do easily.

1

eaglessoar t1_j2x4bsk wrote

> look at the Canadian ambassador to Iran during the revolution, he was a CIA operative, one of the highest level ones too

name so i can read more? any good books in general about high level cia hijinks?

2

inmyelement t1_j2w69fo wrote

Any good books on the subject? Been to Rwanda briefly and wanted to learn more about the specifics as well as the bigger picture…

25

coolcoenred t1_j2wf74p wrote

Shake Hands with the Devil is really good. It's written by Romeo Dellaire, the Canadian commander of UN forces in Rwanda. It doesn't necessarily have the best overall view, but it is best for understanding how the international community failed to help Rwanda.

35

PalmettoSpur t1_j2whvd6 wrote

An outstanding book. It does a great job detailing the atmosphere in Rwanda before and during the genocide, and also breaks down the complete and utter ineptitude of the UN in treating it as a “peacekeeping” mission, which prevented them from stopping the genocide in its tracks.

16

maryjolisa34 t1_j2x2tuj wrote

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families

By Philip Gourevitch

11

Narf-a-licious t1_j2xdoez wrote

I second this book. Very harrowing read. Philip is a French journalist, and he actually places a lot of blame on France in this book.

4

Slamdunk899 t1_j30mokh wrote

Alison Des Forges “Leave None to Tell thé Tale” is the definitive account of the genocide. It demonstrates how it was planned, and how it was pretty well known that it was going to happen and how the International community basically chose to do nothing.

1

Broad_Two_744 t1_j2wehqk wrote

It’s was obvious to literally everyone involved that they where complicit. Look up Opération Turquoise in which they literally helped hutus who had just committed genoicde escape into the Congo

23

manitobot t1_j2wm98u wrote

Just a reminder that France investigated itself and found no evidence of purposeful wrongdoing. Wow, how brave.

11

ReferenceSufficient t1_j2xi9ll wrote

I watched movie Hotel Rwanda, and it’s horrific killings was carried out by the ordinary people. It was neighbors killing neighbors.

4

tiganius t1_j2xh7t3 wrote

Obviously a report commissioned by the Rwandan government should be taken with a grain of salt, but given the number of coups in Africa that were stage/supported by France, none of this seems surprising

3

dorshiffe_2 t1_j2yulk9 wrote

Most of the time France is supporting the power in place (even if dictator) they don't stage that much coups in africa. They mosty corrupt the gouvernement it's less expensive than find a new one. And coup are bad for business.

1

MeatballDom t1_j2trpus wrote

There are obviously still fresh wounds and current political implications at play with regards to the events discussed in this article. Our priority here at this subreddit is to focus on the things that happened at least 20 years ago, and not those reverberating effects still occurring now.

With an event so closely tied to more modern politics and a story that clearly has some modern political implications the line between acceptable and rule breaking can be very blurry.

So we just ask that you try your best to ensure that the main focus here is on the past events (i.e. whether France was actually complicit in the 1994 genocide) and less so on the present events (i.e. how politicians might currently be acting regarding it). If you are unsure or have any questions feel free to contact the mods via modmail.

1

Creative-Link-7267 t1_j2xjkyq wrote

The French have been around atrocities for quite a while

0

CaveatRumptor t1_j2xojmk wrote

The article does not indicate what would have been the motive for France to participate on the level suggested in the article and claimed by several commentators. Selling a few guns seems hardly to be worth the risk. I've read in such journalists as Kapuszinski that African politics can be quite chaotic and unpredictible. I would venture to guess that the French didn't believe what they first heard and then floundered trying to find an appropriate response. Nothing I have read here seems like more than a deflection of blame from the African killers, and the extortion of guilt offerings.

0

[deleted] t1_j2we148 wrote

[removed]

−7

[deleted] t1_j2wll68 wrote

[removed]

−10

Dragon_Virus t1_j2vi7tx wrote

France implicated in/doing something bad in Africa?!?! How unexpected

−15

walliron t1_j2vpd99 wrote

They are largely being criticized here for inaction. Might wanna read next time

8

Dangerous-Leg-9626 t1_j2vzcju wrote

Lol they're not

French did intervene but on the guilty side

They don't have those "damned you do or don't" mentality when the rebel regroups and launched a fanatical counter offensive (or to be exact, a counter genocide) to avenge all the previous atrocities

They went straight to action, deploy by the thousands, and help the government evacuate. This was after they deployed tens of advisors helping the govt army

Oh and this is after they refused to evacuate the Tutsis that's gonna be killed en mass, they only let foreigners in. Not even Tutsi spouses were welcome

but when the genocidal Hutus came running? Lo and behold their attitude changed

19

[deleted] t1_j2wbi2g wrote

[removed]

−24