The rejected testimony. (Dossier: Rwanda).

Uwe Freisecke is a German journalist who works for the American magazine, Executive Intelligence Review. He is one of three people who were to testify in June as expert witnesses in the defence of Andre Ntagerura, a former Rwandan transport minister, at the UN Tribunal for Rwanda based in Arusha, Tanzania. But the Tribunal judge, Lloyd George Williams of St Kiffs and Nevis, ruled that the testimonies were "irrelevant and inadmissible". We invite readers to judge for themselves. Freisecke focused on the fact that Rwanda's 1994 genocide was an international conflict, not an internal one, and thus the blame must be spread far and wide.

"If one searches for the reason of the Rwandan catastrophe of 1994, strategic factors are more often neglected than acknowledged. But without taking them into account, the truth cannot be found. And justice becomes selective.

While local actors are being punished, the often more powerful international culprits go untouched. The events in Rwanda in 1994 were not an internal armed conflict. They were caused by international intervention from the outside.

To limit the discussion one-sidedly to the internal dynamics of Rwandan society and history neglects the fact that it were interventions from the outside, which set the conditions for the catastrophe to unfold and helped one side of the conflict to conduct its military operations.

Western powers, most prominently the Anglo-American powers with the Francophone powers acting as competing junior partners, have caused the crisis in the Great Lakes region of Africa during the 1980s and 1990s in a two-fold manner and are therefore responsible for the human catastrophe that followed.

First, they ruined the region economically, like the rest of the continent, through the IMF's structural adjustment policy.

Secondly, they intervened with covert operations to manipulate simmering conflicts for the purpose of political control. The combination of both led to the disaster in Rwanda in 1994.

To understand this, the following strategic considerations must be taken into account:

1. Events in Rwanda in 1994 have to be seen in the context of the war, which started in 1990 and continued in the series of armed conflicts in the Central African region up to the present. It becomes clear that these conflicts are largely founded on a geopolitical strategy of Western powers, most prominently the United States and Great Britain, towards Africa, which can best be characterised as neocolonialist.

2. The specific involvement of the US and British governments with the party which started the war in 1990, amounts to a far-reaching political, if not juridical, indictment of those governments for the criminal consequences of their actions.

3. The economic conditions, imposed by the international financial institutions on the Habyarimana government destroyed the social fabric of Rwanda right at the time when war was launched against it, intensifying the sense of desperation among the population.

4. The political struggle over the right of refugees to return turned into a violent power struggle and the ghosts of Rwanda's past, of the conflict between the majority and minority population groups, came back full force. The assassinations of three Hutu presidents within a period of six months escalated the tensions to the bursting point.

5. The Western powers never showed any serious commitment to be the guarantor of the questionable Arusha peace agreement. After its breakdown, conscious of its consequences, they decided against an intervention to stop the carnage.

6. Events in Rwanda and the region show that the motivation for Western policy in Africa is not just interest in raw materials. It is also based in the devilish ideology of population control.

7. Those considerations show that the often-disseminated theory, that events in Rwanda in 1994 were the result of one ethnic group having committed genocide against another ethnic group is not based on the totality of facts.

Therefore, it is highly questionable to consider members of the political elite of this first group to be guilty of having committed genocide, because of their affiliation and government function. Such accusations become even more questionable in the case of Andre Ntagerura, who had been known for his pro-development commitment.

The 1 October 1990 invasion of Rwanda from Uganda by troops calling themselves Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) started a process of devastating regional wars, which has not stopped to this day. In Rwanda the war resulted in the assumption of power by the RPF in July 1994.

Two years later, Rwandan, Burundian and Ugandan troops invaded Zaire, erased the camps of refugees who had fled from Rwanda and Burundi in Zaire's Kivu province, and drove a so-called rebel force, the Alliance of Democratic Forces (ADF), with its new leader Laurent Kabila, all the way to power in Kinshasa in May 1997.

One year later, troops from Uganda and Rwanda again invaded Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, under the pretext of supporting the rebel movement, the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD).

The armies of Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola intervened to save the Kinshasa government and in a stationary war faced the invading forces along a frontline dividing the Congo.

The Financial Times of London called this cynically "Africa's First World War". The magnitude of human suffering and the loss of life goes far beyond anything the world has seen since World War II.

A conservative estimate would put the number of dead resulting directly or indirectly from the conflicts in East/Central Africa in the last 12 years at more than five million. But they could be as many as eight million.

In the meantime, the Ugandan and Rwandan controlled rebel forces in Congo's East loot the country of its natural resources, especially diamonds and coltan, like never before.

How was it possible that after the end of the Cold War in 1990, the world allowed this part of Africa to collapse to such barbarism and suffering? Was not a peace dividend promised to the countries of the developing sector? And was Africa nor supposed to receive a double dividend from the end of the Cold War and of apartheid in South Africa?

It would be naive to try to find answers to these questions in the local conditions. Africa has become the target of a dangerous new form of unilateralism, which emerged after the Soviet Union disintegrated as a superpower. In Africa, the Anglo-American alliance of Great Britain and the United States led this type of unilateralism to new extremes with old methods. The new extremes are the dimension of exploitation of the natural resources of Africa and of the devastation Inflicted upon the population. The old methods are covert militaty and intelligence operations to exploit and manipulate local and regional conflicts for the purpose of political and economic control. The new unilateralism confronts Africa with an attempt by the Anglo-American establishment to re-colonise the continent.

The British press led this discussion openly. One example is an article by Norman Stone in the 18 August 1996 edition of The Observer under the title, "Why The Empire Must Strike Back -- Only A Programme of 'Enlightened Re-imperialism' From Europe Can Put Right The Bloody Mess Made Of Its Former Colonies In Africa".

The hypocrisy though is that much of the "bloody mess" was created by Western policies of economic and financial injustice towards Africa, which is inherent in the policies of the old Bretton Woods institutions, the World Bank and IMF.

And furthermore, very often, Western governments and secret services have had bloody hands from intervening directly in the affairs of African nations.

It took 40 years for the Belgian government to admit its involvement in the murder of Patrice Lumumba in Congo in January 1961 and to apologise for it. It took 30 years for the British Foreign Office to release the documents, which show that Britain and Israel were the real force behind the 1971 Idi Amin coup against Milton Obote.

It does not need to take again 30 or 40 years until investigations show how the US and British governments were involved in the series of wars and power changes in Rwanda, Burundi and the Congo, starting in October 1990. The evidence is already clear today.

In April and May 2001, US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney [recently voted out, at 2002 primaries, see NA, October] sponsored hearings before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights Committee on International Relations on the humanitarian crisis in Central Africa.

In her opening statement, McKinney said: "The accounts we are about to bear today will assist us in understanding just why Africa is in the state it is in today. You will hear that at the heart of Africa's suffering is the West's, and most notably the United States', desire to access Africa's diamonds, oil, natural gas, and other precious resources. "You will hear that the West, and most notably the United States, has set in motion a policy of oppression, destabilisation and tempered, not by moral principle, but by a ruthless desire to enrich itself on Africa's fabulous wealth.

"While falsely pretending robe the friends and allies of many African countries, many Western nations, and I'm ashamed to say most notably the United States, have in reality betrayed those countries' trust, and instead, have relentlessly pursued their own selfish military and economic policies.

"Western countries have incited rebellion against stable African governments by encouraging and even arming opposition parties and rebel groups to begin armed insurrection. The Western nations have even actively participated in the assassination of duly elected and legitimate African heads of state and replaced them with corrupted and malleable officials. Western nations have even encouraged and been complicit in the unlawful invasion by African nations into neighbouring countries." The hearings heard testimony how Commonwealth companies, such as American Mineral Fields or Barick Gold, which counted former US President George Bush [Senior] and former Canadian prime minister Mulroney as members of its international advisory board, were making deals about future mining rights with rebel forces in the Congo during the wars. The hearing discussed how the activities of these companies during the First Rwandan invasion of Congo/Zaire in 1996 overlapped the activities of US intelligence operatives in connection with the advance of Laurent Kabila's AFDL [rebels]. Such officials were from the US embassies in Kinshasa, Kigali, and Kampala, as well as from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA).

The hearings heard testimony how US covert operations supported the first Rwandan invasion of Congo in 1996 as well as the second one in 1998. Part of the support was an official US training programme, called Enhanced International Military Education and Training (E-IMET), which were conducted for the RPF government in Kigali prior to the invasion of Congo-Zaire in October 1996. But during the 1996/97 and again the 1998 campaigns of the Rwandan and Ugandan military inside Congo, covert operations of US forces, including mercenaries or PMCs (Private Military Contractors) such as Military Professional Resources (MPRI) from Alexandria, Virginia, USA, played a critical role.

Sources in the Great Lakes region have repeatedly reported the presence of black US soldiers among the Rwandan and rebel forces. The US Pentagon and intelligence agencies supposedly also supplied and still supply satellite and other intelligence to the invading forces during the different phases of combat in Eastern Congo.

If it is so clearly established that US and British Commonwealth private and government interests were involved in those operations which the RPF government in Rwanda starred for occupation of the Congo since 1994, the question arises, how deeply were they involved before that in the process from 1990 to 1994 when the RPF took power in Rwanda?

In the course of the power struggle in Rwanda after 1959, tens of thousands of Tutsi fled into exile to neighbouring countries or overseas. By the middle of the 1980s, a Rwandan Tutsi Diaspora was well established in the United States, Canada, Belgium, Uganda, Kenya, and other African countries. Many were young children when they left with their parents or had already been born in exile. They only knew about Rwanda from the memories of their parents.

In Uganda, the Rwanda Refugees Welfare Association (RRWF) was organised. It later became the Rwandan Alliance for National Unity (RANU). Between 1981 and 1986, the year Museveni took power in Kampala, RANU operated from Nairobi, Kenya. Its seventh congress was held again in Kampala in December 1987, when the name was changed into Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). It had now become a political organisation striving to achieve the return of the refugees and their children to Rwanda.

During the Obote regime in Uganda, thousands of Rwandans in exile joined Museveni's National Resistance Army (NRA) and fought with him until victory in 1986. The two most prominent were Fred Rwigyema, who commanded the RPF troops at the beginning of the invasion of Rwanda on 1 October 1990 and Paul Kagame, who took over the military command of the RPF after Rwigyema was killed.

Rwigyema knew Museveni from exile in Tanzania in the 70s. Both Rwigyema and Kagame belonged to the small group of Museveni's friends, who started his guerrilla war in Uganda in 1981. Museveni, Rwigyema and Kagame belonged to what some have called the "Dar Es Salaam Kindergarten" of left radical revolutionaries.

A further consolidation of the RPF's strategy to mobilise the exile community for a return to Rwanda took place at the world congress of Rwandan refugees held in Washington DC in August 1988.

This congress was organised by the Association of Banyarwandans in Diaspora in Washington, supported by the US Committee of Refugees, a government-funded organisation, the executive director of which was an American [name withheld by NA for legal reasons].

The Banyarwanda newsletter at the time thanked [the American] for his "daily efforts and contacts on their behalf." [He] became a committed lobbyist for John Garang, the rebel leader and Museveni ally of the Sudanese Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), and for the cause of the RPF in Washington.

[The American] was among the RPF troops when they made their final move towards Kigali in the summer of 1994. In November 1996, during the attack of AFDL and Rwandan forces on the Mugunga refugee camp outside Goma in eastern Zaire, [the American] was with Laurent Kabila. Of the later he spoke during testimony to the House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights on 4 December 1996, in Washington.

The role of [the American] among the RPF raises a critical question. How much was he as a US official involved in influencing the decision of the RPF to adopt a policy of the right of refugees to return by force to Rwanda?

It is not known that he ever discouraged the RPF leadership from their strategy of violent return. On the contrary, from his praise of the RPF's military victory in Rwanda in 1994, one can only conclude that he was supporting it. Possibly he encouraged the RPF leadership in this strategy. This constitutes a serious problem for the US government at the time and it should be further investigated.

Rwanda had an internationally-recognised government, which enjoyed normal diplomatic relations with Washington, other stares, and the UN. How then could the US government directly or indirectly support the RPF, which was committed to fighting their way back into Rwanda by violent means? It fits into the strategy to use rebel warfare as a means of changing power in Africa, which later became so obvious in Washington. The declared RPF intention to return to Rwanda by force should have prompted a strong counter reaction from the US government, because it clearly is a violation of international conventions.

One should just imagine if East German refugees, of whom there were tens of thousands in West Germany during the 1960s, had organised themselves into an organisation, which would have attempted to invade East Germany in 1980. This would probably have caused World War III. But more likely, it would have been stopped early by the US, British and French military forces in Germany.

The RPF leadership drove its commitment to return to Rwanda, if need be by force, to its conclusion and invaded Rwanda from Uganda on 1 October 1990. The overwhelming majority of these well-armed fighters were active members of the Ugandan National Resistance Army (NRA).

The military leaders of the RPF were all high-ranking officers in Museveni's army. So it would be fair to say, that on 1 October 1990, the Ugandan Army invaded Rwanda, even if they called themselves "rebels".

Fred Rwigyema, the commander of the RPF forces, was a major-general of the NRA and its deputy commander. Paul Kagame was a major in the NRA and head of intelligence and counter-intelligence. Dr. Peter Bayingana was also a major and head of the NRA medical services. Chris Bunyenzi was a major and commanding officer of the NRA's 306 Brigade. Major Sam Kaka was commanding officer of the NRA'S military police.

Even though President Museveni of Uganda has repeatedly denied any knowledge of the invasion beforehand, this is not credible. Especially because his assurances to the Rwandan president, Habyarimana, that he would stop the "Rwandan boys" were never fulfilled.