France Rwanda: French military officer on shadows and lights of the Duclert report

Conclusions of this work of two years, of a group of historians on "France, Rwanda and genocide against Tutsi", mark a historic turning point in this affair

Guillaume Ancel, a former French military officer and author who has published books on foreign military operations in Rwanda questioning the actions of the French state in Rwanda during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, has penned an article on the report of the Duclert commission, submitted on March 26 to President Emmanuel Macron. Among other facts, the retired lieutenant-colonel recalls that Operation Turquoise - which he participated in - was not a "strictly humanitarian" operation but a cover to try to put the Genocide masterminds back to power.

Below is Guillaume Ancel’s full article:

France-Rwanda, shadows and lights of the Duclert report

The report of the Duclert commission , submitted on March 26, 2021 to the Head of State, underlines the overwhelming responsibility of France and of François Mitterrand, then president, in the genocide of the Tutsi, in 1994. The conclusions of this work of two years, of a group of historians on "France, Rwanda and genocide of the Tutsi", mark a historic turning point in this dramatic affair .

A harsh light on the overwhelming responsibilities of the power exercised by François Mitterrand

The Duclert report is first and foremost a light in the tunnel of lies and denial that has characterized this issue for 27 years. Light because the conclusions are clear and implacable: the commission of historians establishes the overwhelming responsibility of the Mitterrandian power, which committed a serious political fault by bringing its support to the genocidaires of Rwanda , before and during the facts.

The genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda was the last genocide of the twentieth century, it killed a million people and it is undoubtedly the only one that we could have prevented, but that is not what we did in cause of the blindness and the excesses of this uncontrolled power.

The responsibility of François Mitterrand and his entourage is overwhelming, in particular that of his secretary general, Hubert Védrine. Now is the time to hold him to account, rather than continuing to listen to his “  love for geopolitics  ”.

The Duclert report clearly establishes the primary responsibility for this affair, which is political, and I salute the determination of President Macron who has allowed - this is historic - the recognition of this political and moral bankruptcy of the French state. Let us also recall that the commission shows that there has never been a double genocide : it is a Mitterrandian lie, invented to mitigate the responsibility of the genocide against the Tutsi, and it is called du negationism ...

Confusion between participation in genocide and complicity in supporting those who committed it

On the issue of complicity, the report's conclusion is imprecise and poorly explained. It has also earned me many reactions from eminent jurists who remind me that there is, in terms of complicity in genocide, no need to demonstrate the intention to destroy the targeted group, if the help made knowingly is established.

The commission concludes in fact that there is no complicity, in the sense of "will to be associated with the genocidal enterprise", but no one has ever imagined that François Mitterrand, Hubert Védrine or Admiral Lanxade have wanted to participate in the genocide of the Tutsi. The Duclert commission therefore confuses “participation” and “complicity”, which is inappropriate but perhaps not unintentional. It does not, moreover, apprehend the question from a criminal standpoint.

The question in law, - which the commission recognizes its incompetence but then why express itself on this subject? -, is that the materiality of the acts is established: the decisions of the Elysee have given de facto support to the genocidaires, in particular with Operation Turquoise to which I will come back, but without which the genocidaires would have been swept away by their "enemies" of the RPF.

More serious still, the deliveries of weapons during the genocide or the crucial decision taken by the Elysee to facilitate the escape of the organizers of the genocidefall within the scope of complicity. As for the awareness of their actions, even if the report underlines the blindness of the Mitterrandian circle, this ambiguous qualifier is not sufficient to protect these protagonists from their responsibility, which is considered "overwhelming" by this same commission.

France, as a state, has little risk of being prosecuted for complicity since only another state can accuse her and even Rwanda has not done so. On the other hand, personal responsibilities will, I hope, be engaged on the judicial level. And if the legal actions did not succeed, in particular because a Hubert Védrine will continue to protect himself behind the fact that he was not formally a "decision maker", moral and political guilt is now established. He will not be "responsible but not guilty" of this French disaster.

Indeed, the Duclert report unambiguously concludes that there is political and historical responsibility; it is indeed a question of “complicity” in having provided support to the genocidaires, these Nazis from the Great Lakes of Africa.

Gray areas that make the Duclert report a milestone

The work of this commission also has the merit of partially answering the question of "why" , but the Duclert report recognizes serious gaps in the analysis of the archives to which access historians have been able to access, drawing so many gray areas. , disturbing and dark:

Impossibility of accessing the archives of the parliamentary information mission of Paul Quilès in 1998, which was responsible for covering this disastrous intervention by France and in particular Operation Turquoise. These archives contain certain very critical elements on the military intervention, crucial testimonies which are not in the consulted archives, and which do not concern only the political decisions which prevailed. The absence of archives on the activities of Jean-Christophe Mitterrand, however suspected of having organized poor traffic with his alter ego of the Habyarimana clan, says a lot about the nature of the affairs of the “Africa adviser” of the Elysee Palace. , they cannot be left without follow-up.

An indigent analysis of military operations, by order?

But what is most disturbing in the Duclert report is the lack of analysis of military operations, and in particular of Operation Turquoise. On this point, the work of the commission is poor, it is a compilation of staff reports and the satisfaction of its leaders. Either this part had been entrusted to Julie d'Andurain before she was forced to withdraw, or there was an agreement with the military leaders so that the military responsibilities were not "analyzed" by this commission, which may be the same.

To come back to the facts, I recall that I participated in Operation Turquoise and that it was not a "strictly humanitarian" operation, it served as a cover to try to put the genocidaires back to power , it protected their flight. Facing the RPF and made it possible to deliver weapons to genocidaires in refugee camps, in particular via the operational base in Goma.

But the orders to retake Kigali would have "disappeared" from the archives studied by the commission; the combat operation launched against the RPF on July 1 would have left no trace, no more than the deliveries of arms or the polite escort. Evacuation of the organizers of the genocide to the Congo? The preservation of the radio of the thousand hills is presented as an ordinary operational subject, whereas it was the means of dissemination and propaganda of the genocidal government.

Beyond Turquoise, the fighting led directly by French soldiers without a war having been authorized, the lamentable diversionary maneuvers on the assassination of President Habyarimana and the disappearance of the black boxes from the plane are not even mentioned. . “Inappropriate” interventions by the French military were therefore carefully avoided.

Certainly my comrades in arms acted on orders, but their responsibility is engaged once they have agreed to execute them. It is not the role of historians to elude whole sections of this affair, and a very important work of critical research remains to be carried out on this military “co-production” of reprehensible facts. This essential analysis cannot be limited to pointing the finger at two general officers of the particular staff of the Elysee.

Moreover, the cases of arms deliveries, of operations against the enemies of the genocidaires or of Bisesero , constitute as many files which cannot be ignored, even if the level of responsibility is secondary compared to the political decisions of the Elysee. Moreover, the support of France did not stop with the end of the genocide and it is necessary to understand the consequences of the continuation of the "resistance" led by the Nazis who continued to be supported by the Elysee.

To establish also the secondary responsibilities of this matter

The fundamental idea was to refocus on France's political responsibilities, but turning a blind eye to military operations so as not to upset the army is not worthy of the work of historians, those of the Duclert commission. appear to have been blinded, in turn, in this part of the report.

This poverty of the Duclert report will satisfy those who believe that the army should not be blamed, starting with the military command which prefers to be judge and party, but in terms of democracy this bias is doubtful. More than ever, it is necessary that all the archives be accessible to all researchers, that they integrate the testimonies on the subject and that they can question the protagonists without waiting for them to be deceased, as it was not possible. be made to know and understand the war in Algeria. It is these gray areas that must now be illuminated.

The Duclert report marks a crucial but not conclusive step

We were a handful to fight for the truth to be made on this subject of Rwanda, starting with Patrick de Saint-Exupéry and Maria Malagardis, Stéphane Audoin-Rouzeau and Hélène Dumas, Jean-François Dupaquier and François Graner, the adjutant Chief Prungnaud and General Varret.

We have been supported by associations which defend the memory of the Shoah and human rights, by jurists and lawyers who want to live in a state of law, a few rare politicians who were not afraid of "elephants of the world." Socialist Party ”or the intransigence of the friends of Alain Juppé. It is now the President of the Republic who publicly recognizes the excesses and the bankruptcy of the Mitterrandian power on the Rwanda affair and we have the feeling of a crucial step forward.

But this Duclert report is insufficient to fully understand this affair, as this commission itself recognizes, and we must continue with this political will to seek the truth, it is an endless road, it is that of our democracy.