Updated: Apr 15, 2020
The Holocaust of The Congolese and The Roots of The Rwandan Equation :
The impact of externally shaped patterns on two social groups with antagonistic aspirations
Congo has been under recurrent attacks for centuries. The recent invasions in the 90's follow the same pattern of global predation that has prevailed in that country since the nineteenth century. In an interesting video published by the Friends of the Congo , the role of the United States and allies has been clearly pointed out in the support for the invasion of Congo by neighboring Rwanda and Uganda . However, while exposing the largely perceived part of the story, this document does not explain how the recent attack on Congo actually built up and later resulted in another Holocaust of the Congolese people and why. If one wants to understand how this crisis could unfold to such an extent, one needs to consider its epicenter. The origin of the current crisis in Congo is clearly located in Rwanda. In order to apprehend the extreme complexity of the Rwandan equation, a travel through its past is more than necessary. A situation of perpetual internal tensions has persisted in that country for decades. While counting only two of what is mistakenly thought of as major ethnic groups, the Tutsi and the Hutu, the deep-seated hatred between the two Rwandan social groups have no common measure in the region. Even though it could certainly be observed in earlier periods of their history, the rivalry between these communities has been greatly exacerbated by the western contact. We attempt to analyze the consequence of such an influence for an appropriate remedy.
The myth of superior beings from celestial realms and the source of the Nile.
The history of Rwanda, from the perspective of this presentation, is best approached by Dominique Franche . According to Franche, the Germans who were the first among the Europeans to occupy that part of the world, set the western standards of separatism in Rwanda. The Rwandan society was then framed in a European feudalistic pattern, where the Tutsi were considered lords and the Hutu, their serfs. Dominique Franche explains that such a categorization went even further with the Germans adding a racial differentiation to the identification of two social groups of the same color of the skin. The Germans were generally interested in physical differences. Those with a thin corpulence and tall were considered Tutsi. They portrayed these Tutsi as “white Negroes” or Caucasoid. In part because they were more inclined to attribute to them some refinements noticed in the organization of the established kingdoms. The existence of far more sophisticated ancient societies in Central Africa seems to have been totally ignored by the Germans. An example of one such society is precisely the ancient federation of Kongo which laid from southern Africa to the southern part of Cameroon. Ancient Kongo established since the late 1400's an equal partnership with the greatest western power at that time, Portugal, with its own social, economic and political structure, as observed by the Portuguese. The resort to slavery by the Portuguese, after the inevitable cultural deconstruction caused by the religious indoctrination, is the main reason that let the region vulnerable to the Arab razzias and later to the western exploitation in 1885 with the subsequent occupation in 1908. In the racist ideologies of the late 1800's, which still persist today, the ancient testament of the Bible had its share. The curse of Ham is the major excuse racist societies have resorted to in order to grant themselves a moral pretext to any harm they were willing to inflict on people of some different aspect. Franche reminds us how this story would be used to label all possible achievements in any civilization as of white origin. The growing evidence that the western civilization itself was a black achievement through Egypt, was a cause for concern for those who felt compelled to somehow mitigate such an evidence by segregating. Precisely because the region at stake was at the source of the Nile. Then, the differentiation established by the Germans would particularly resonate with the ideas the "Tutsi" were spreading about themselves. The myth of Tutsi as superior beings from a different world, the “Ibimanuka”, ordinarily entertained until then as an official lie by people of all phenotypes gathered in that group, was therefore reinforced in a formal racial system of discrimination by segregation. Such a myth and associated ideas of “white Negroes” are still vivid today in the communities, which have passed them on through familial channels of heritage.
The proxy war between two opposite western worlds
After world war I, Germany was deprived of its protectorates in Africa. Belgium was granted the Rwanda-Urundi territories. As a monarchy, the Belgians were more inclined to abiding by the feudalistic scheme the Germans had set by allying with the Tutsi in order to rule through them. The Belgians were handed Congo in 1908 by Leopold II, who proclaimed himself its owner while in reality being co-opted by western powers as a sort of manager in 1885 at the Berlin conference. In so doing they successfully avoided a clash among them as the Belgian King appeared to be a lesser threat. Later he would interestingly be broke and unable to pay his lenders back for his exploitation endeavors. It is only after world war II that the Europeans realized the terrible consequences of race ideologies and then the powerful Belgian Catholic Church decided to back a Hutu leadership in Rwanda-Urundi as the Tutsi started to appear extremely unpredictable to them. After a long period of empowerment by western countries, their increasing awareness for power control had become a serious problem since the Tutsi elite was now pressing for independence . In 1959, the Tutsi decided to leave the country after their monarchy and the system of privileges it provided were overthrown by the Hutu revolution. It's interesting to note, as Franche suggests, the symmetry with the history of Europe, where, in France, The third Estate (the common people of France of Gallic descent) would conquer their freedom from the Frankish nobility of German origin. It seems that since the beginning there is a natural association between the French and the Hutu through parallel histories. By moving to Uganda, the royalist Tutsi got closer to the British empire and other monarchist societies and organizations, after being rejected by the Belgian kingdom because of the Catholic Church. This move was the prelude to an indirect confrontation between two opposite worlds. The republican vs the royalist. The egalitarian vs the elitist. The Catholic vs the anti-Catholic. The francophone vs the anglophone.
The unlikely US support to the Rwandan Tutsi elite and the British influence
In 1990, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), based in Uganda, conducted a full attack on Rwanda. It was composed of the Ugandan diaspora which helped Museveni and his National Resistance Army, supported by Gaddafi, overthrow Okello in 1986. Okello was supported by the Zairean army which had just fought Libya when it had attacked Chad over a land dispute. The RPF was led by its charismatic leader, Fred Rwigema, former deputy commander of Museveni's NRA. Soon after the launch of the attack, he would be assassinated and replaced with Paul Kagame. Kagame had served as the head of the Ugandan military intelligence. He just completed a training at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in psychological warfare. He was among those who had a more radical approach in the attack on Rwanda. Rwigema, who fought various liberation wars from Mozambique, Tanzania to Uganda, in the contrary, seemed more idealistic and advocated a political strategy with the aim of conquering the hearts of Hutu populations, in order to preserve the life of the Tutsi who refused to go into exile. Referring to the risks these Tutsi populations were exposed to, short before the 1994 attack, Kagame is regularly quoted as having said that one can't make an omelet without breaking the eggs. For the Tutsi diaspora in Uganda, those who remained in Rwanda to comfort the idea of a national unity created by Hutu were traitors, and as such would be expandable in the extermination and the demonization campaign of the Hutu that was planned.
© By Paul Kagame
It seems the advent of Paul Kagame presented new prospects for his American supporters which were so far unreachable. Cameroonian author, Charles Onana , reveals that the CIA had been actively pursuing the acquisition of a small area of land in Rwanda since the 60's. For some unclear reasons, the Hutu authorities, helped among others by the Vatican, fiercely resisted the offer by this agency. Through code-named NASCIMENTO operation, one objective of the US presence in Rwanda was the control of a large part of the African continent through electronic monitoring equipments installed in that country and the access to the highly strategic mineral riches in neighboring Congo. UN Lead Counsel before the International Tribunal of Rwanda, Christopher Black , exposes the real goal of the invasion of Rwanda as a primary step to the invasion of Congo. He presents evidence indexed in UN files that involves a correspondence between Kagame and the newly reinstalled president of Burundi, Bagaza, in which Kagame was detailing their plans about Congo. Researcher and Rwanda expert, Helmut Strizek asserts that a formal deal was cut between Kagame and the US State department for an assault on Kinshasa in exchange with the annexation of the Kivus to Rwanda . Péan  explains that an ideological motivation is also at stake in the US foreign policy for the Central African region, which the Americans were willing to free from the French influence. Though such a design is dismissed by some people in the US, like Howard French , in this endeavor, the US have been intimately linked with the UK and Canada with the indisputable outcome of the transformation of an originally French-speaking country into an English-speaking one and also the uncommon affiliation of Rwanda with the commonwealth. The unquestioned French-British rivalry was clearly materialized in the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. With the Hutu having, as shown, a historical compatibility with the French, and the Tutsi, a shared dislike with the British of everything the French represented.
Despite the massive US-backed Ugandan support and the leadership of a US-trained officer, commander Pilate, as the troop named Kagame upon the assassination of Rwigema, as they were unwilling to submit to his command because also of his perceived unfitness, the 1990 invasion of Rwanda was a resounding flop. The Congolese and the French decisively intervened on behalf of the Rwandans. Later in 1994, a new invasion would take place, after the attack on the plane carrying the Hutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi with other officials, and its French crew. In an unprecedented campaign of falsification and demonization, the history of the killings that happened in Rwanda would be shaped and imposed by the victors . The Hutu, the French and the Congolese were the targets who had to be blamed for an entirely American-designed disaster  in a highly cynical plot. In recent years, the formal narrative about the Rwandan conflict has been exposed. UN experts, Professors Christian Davenport and Allan Stam demonstrated that the victims of the 1994 events were mostly Hutu, not Tutsi , .
Among the strongest supports the Tutsi received in the US were the Jewish-connected and pro-Israel officials in the US administration such as Madeleine Albright, who once described the Tutsi-dominated Rwanda as the “the pupil of the eye to the US”, Susan E. Rice  and, generally speaking the Clinton administration with Bill Clinton himself as a staunch supporter of Paul Kagame. This is in part due to an apparent feeling of guilt in the advocated inaction by this administration in the 1994 events in Rwanda, but it is in reality part of an economic game most of these officials are personally involved in .
The manipulation of the Jewish history and the connections in Europe.
Prior to the attacks of the nineties, the RPF had a whole political strategy it conducted throughout western countries. One such strategy was centered on the connection between their cause and the Jewish history. As compared to a more known Ethiopian diaspora, some decided to grant to Tutsi a Jewishness as part of a rather newly introduced Pan-Kush theory which attributes to some sub-Saharan populations, especially in the Great Lakes, a Hebrew origin. Various myths surround such a hypothetical filiation, with a curious connection with some equally hypothetical riches of King Solomon that some would precisely localize in the Great Lakes. As a matter of fact, Israel was a major support to the Tutsi-led RPF, particularly through the Mossad, given the tight links this agency had with Ugandan intelligence services. In Europe, key allies were found among Jewish political circles. In French-speaking Belgium, the conservative liberal (a variant of conservatism) party, PRL (currently MR) of Jean Gol , was a major support. Its connection with masonry was an even greater opportunity for Tutsi because of its antagonistic relationship with the powerful Flemish social-christian party CVP (now CD&V). It's interesting to note that in the specific case of Belgium, the Tutsi embrace the French-speaking part of the country when one would expect the contrary.
The reason for this is double. In addition to the fact that the Flemish-speaking Belgium is largely Christian, it is also less royalist and even hostile to monarchy. The French-speaking part, interestingly, is more royalist despite its general socialist inclination. The conservative liberals in Belgium are considered the most royalist in both linguistic parts of the country. The tendency of the Flemish to adopt an anti-monarchical position is largely due to a deep animosity against a long dominating aristocratic establishment which is inherently associated with the French language in Belgium and even in Europe in general. The leaning of the French-speaking Belgium toward monarchy seems paradoxical with the history of neighboring France, but it is better understood when one knows that Belgians from both linguistic parts, who are more of Germanic people, are simply not French. Just as French fries are not French, but actually Belgian. And the Kingdom of Belgium is one of a peculiar kind. It is actually the result of a popular will by which the newly-formed country decided to hire its own king among the reigning families in Europe; a sort of a people's monarchy. The Belgians picked Leopold from the House of the Saxe-Cobourg and Gotha of German origin, which is also known in the UK as the Windsor; after the bearers decided to change their identity after world war I because of anti-German sentiments. The fact that the above-mentioned aristocratic establishment from both parts of the country spoke French, was influential in the propensity of the Walloon to embrace monarchy, as they would identify themselves to an upper class. Hence distancing themselves from the Flemish, who are seen by them as awkwardly simple people and provincial, despite their leading position in the economy of the whole country. This, of course, notwithstanding the fact that both linguistic groups are globally of the same common status with a relatively poor command of French. Therefore, the French language could by no means be an obstacle in the alliance between the Tutsi and the Walloon.
Though politically speaking, Belgium is a hell of a headache, there are three basic tendencies that determine its position toward Rwanda: the global anti-French sentiment, the anti-Catholic one in some political parties like the liberals and the socialists from both linguistic groups who have strong masonic ties, and the pro-monarchy advocacy by some, and not the least, since they are also those who are connected with the powers of money. In a country where there is never a clear ideological demarcation in the formation of a ruling majority, neither an idea of a nation as such, nor even the one of a State , these three elements are the federating motives that will eventually bring politicians of various backgrounds together in their siding with the RPF. Globally speaking, however, by adding up each of the three tendencies in each community, the main pattern in the transposition of a European duality into the distant society of Rwanda that we can observe here is the Flemish vs the Walloon. With each group in Rwanda siding with its closest philosophical counterpart.
The Flemish and the Walloon are actually the perceptible manifestations of both State and nation in a bicephalous Belgium. The Flemish are largely Christian, anti-monarchist, and thus philosophically pro-France, though fiercely anti-French. Though monarchist and thus objectively anti-France, the Walloon are largely socialists and more of atheistic for the masses, or masonic for the elite, thus anti-Catholic. Interestingly, Catholicism, which is however shared to some extent among the two Belgian groups, would also be the basis of an auxiliary British-Belgian rivalry, as compared to the French-British antagonism, which is based on the language and the form of the regime. The original rivalry between Great Britain and Belgium being related, of course, to the dispute over Congo almost since 1885. It's a notorious fact that the British, who were particularly disenchanted with their dreams on Congo riches, were the strongest opponents to Leopold II because of his unwillingness to share with anyone, despite the spirit of the 1885 conference. They were among those who actively participated in his removal from Congo through a steadily sustained campaign of denunciations of the horrendous crimes committed by the Belgian autocrat . The first Holocaust of the Congolese, of more than 10 million victims .
In France, there is no class stratification or “communitarianism” as one can observe in anglo-saxon or feudal countries where people are even gathered on ethnic grounds. The RPF, by contrast with its approach in Belgium, had to resort to Jewish organizations and other advocacy groups  since France was politically consistent with its abiding ideas of “la République” which leaves no room to partisan considerations to affect the image or the interests of the country as a whole. These private organizations were largely hostile to the French foreign policy in Africa and generally expressed a firmly rooted resentment toward France because of its implication in the Jewish Holocaust under the German occupation. They were also very involved in the media where they had a notable influence. The fact that France was a strong ally of the Habyarimana regime and was traditionally linked with the Hutu majority that was in power since the social revolution of 1959, was the reason which incited these organizations to naturally fall in Tutsi's arms.
The French betrayal in the support to the Congolese
Because of the large support it had in Europe and the United States, the RPF was able to conduct the invasion of Congo after the 1994 civil war in Rwanda. The killings that took place in 1994 were labeled as a Tutsi genocide and received a formidable attention in all circles of power and mainstream media in the West. Such an attention only went intensified as the international judicial system  was fully supporting the RPF side of the story . Within the international community, France was the only country that was opposed to this huge anglo-saxon warfare that included Canada. Canada, with its own French-British dualities, has played a crucial role in the destabilization of not only the Democratic Republic of Congo since the 60's, but also of Rwanda and the Great-Lakes region in general . Though French-speaking Quebec is largely opposed to the Canadian federation, the liberals in that province, in power at that time, are fervent federalists and as such were supportive of the Tutsi as those on the federal level, despite the openly expressed hostility of the Tutsi toward French in Quebec where the language issue remains a highly sensitive one, no matter which party rules. The conservatives who later would take over the federal institutions, were also close Tutsi allies. In 2007, the advent of conservative Nicholas Sarkozy changed the whole situation in France. The DRC became internationally isolated and Rwanda acquired momentum in its zealous posture toward DRC with an equally increased defiant attitude toward the international community.
The openly admitted attachment to Israel of Nicholas Sarkozy and his foreign minister, who was an early friend of the Tutsi since the 90's, is regarded as the main reason for the French shift. The Tutsi had successfully associated their story with the Shoah. This fact incited people like Sarkozy and Kouchner, who have Jewish origins, to naturally side with the Rwandans despite the highly politically charged relationship between the two countries. Such a relationship was still influenced by a great part of the French political and military arenas. These French authorities considered Rwanda a hostile country for not only having assassinated French citizens in the shooting of president Habyarimana's plane that led to the 1994 events, but also for the subsequent demonization intended to blame the French as the masterminds of the killings of the Tutsi. The connections that Thierry Messan  revealed between the Mossad, the CIA, and Nicholas Sarkozy, who was exposed as an agent of these organizations, helps to understand the reorientation of the whole French policy of the Great-Lakes toward a US-UK-Canada conducted strategy. This explains the advocacy by Sarkozy, in a speech before the Congolese members of parliament, of shared space and mineral resources with its neighboring aggressor. This speech particularly outraged the Congolese since even the tone was openly mocking and undiplomatic because he went so far as to describe Congo as a strange and poorly-managed country.
Congo might indeed be seen as a poorly-managed country, but only to the extent that it went through the fire of the attacks by the anglo-saxon world because of its support to France in October 1990, among other things.
When History repeats itself. The second Holocaust of the Congolese people.
In 1988, the then Zairian officials conveyed a debate with the Belgian press as part of a clarification mission with the authorities of Belgium, after a conflict emerged between the two countries. During that debate, the Congolese officials made a surprising revelation about the fact that since 1960, each single Belgian frank brought into Congo had actually returned four times the initial amount to Belgium. They announced to the Belgian people the end of “privileges” in the relationship between the two countries. Though such a revelation was pretty shocking at that time, it was only recently that one could realize its full meaning thanks to another revelation made by prominent Congolese journalist and analyst, KWEBE Kimpele. Mr KWEBE, who was told by the late president MOBUTU Sese-Seko, informed us that in 1955, King Beaudouin of the Belgians made a trip to what was then considered a colony of Belgium where he instructed his occupying administration to stop forwarding the income from the exploitations to the vested interests, but to rather send the money to their mother country. Since the late 1800's, despite his extremely brutal methods of exploitation, which made millions of dead, Leopold II owed money to these groups as part of a loan for his Congo business. When he defaulted, in 1908, he managed to transfer the Free State of Congo to the State of Belgium which made the country its “colony” and dealt with the king's lenders. According to its calculations and the data it had on the deals it made previously, the Crown of Belgium noticed that the Congolese had already paid its lenders back four times the required amounts. So much so that any additional payment made to these vested interests in both Europe and the US would totally be abusive and the Crown felt entitled to get back its alleged possession from the Belgian State. This was the starting point of the second Congolese Holocaust as the United States and friends would decide to counter the king's ambitions by pushing the Congolese elite to obtaining independence. After independence, the country went through a series of horrific troubles that actually never stopped since then, while the plundering by western companies and their proxies was flourishing.
In 1988, after another trip of the late King Beaudouin of the Belgians in 1985, it seems history repeated itself when those Congolese officials went to Belgium to denounce the leonine situation between Belgium and Zaire. One year later, in parallel with the perestroika turmoil in eastern Europe, Mobutu would face a strong upheaval among the population. In April 1990, he was pressed by the Bush father administration to “democratize” the country. By taking advantage of an obscure event about a so far unproven massive assassination of students in a campus a few days later, in a fierce campaign led by tiny Belgium, virtually all economical links with western countries were broken as Mobutu was accused of killing his own people. The country was since then put on its kneels. Though a no-fly zone for "humanitarian" purposes was not decreed as it would probably be the case today, the country was nonetheless put under a full UN arms embargo, which would only be lifted in 2008, without full effectiveness up to now. Meanwhile, Congo was under permanent attack from two of its US thoroughly trained, heavily equipped, and decisively backed neighbors with a death toll exceeding 8 million so far.
In October 1990, when the armed forces of Zaire decided to intervene in Rwanda to stop Paul Kagame's assault, it seems they had the awareness of the greater consequences such an assault would have and felt compelled to act. The way the events would unfold later corroborates the idea that the Democratic Republic of Congo was caught in a long-planned, large and consistent predatory plot. The vested interests that were involved since the beginning with Leopold II were simply not likely to give up their prey, even when they were largely paid back. The previous efforts to disrupt the country from inside were only unsuccessful as all attempts to break it in small pieces miserably failed and the Congolese revealed in the course of their history extremely reluctant to part. This is the reason for the resorting by the West to exogenous agents in the eastern part of the country that were more likely to create the necessary conditions for a collapse in a divide-and-conquer approach. In a recent declaration at the Brookings Institution, before being fired a few days later, former US assistant secretary of state for African affairs openly suggested the dismantlement of Congo by quite an absurd pretext. He and many people in his administration have recurrently supported the idea that the consequences of western predation in the region are by some strange logic the cause of the instabilities in the region that would require the secession of a particularly rich part of the country, long-coveted by the same western powers.
The particularity of the Rwandan society was a manna from probably hell for the United States and associates in this strategy. It seems that this country bore all the needed antagonisms that were just likely to help in the disruption of Congo. An exacerbated internal rivalry between two groups was brought into a country of 450 groups that had no similar experience. The reality of such an exacerbation is indisputable. It suffices to have a look at the situation in neighboring Burundi which shows a lesser intensity in the confrontation between the two groups. What we observe for example in Burundi is the absence of a systematic link between physical attributes and the membership to a particular class as one would be hard-pressed in that country to tell who is Hutu and who is Tutsi on the sole basis of someone's phenotype. This indicates that the distinction between the two groups was of social essence at the origin. Not physical, certainly not racial as segregated by Westerners. And as a determining factor in the distinction between the Rwandan experience and the Burundian one, there is certainly the approximation with the British empire by the Tutsi community of Rwanda. The French vs the English worlds found a blank field for a battle they would not have in their modern societies. If there is one most important antagonism that resulted from the western influence and that led to the terrible killings in the Great-Lakes region of Africa, it is certainly the issue of monarchy vs republic since it resonates with the situation in Rwanda. It seems the Hutu and later the Congolese went through a retribution war like many societies which have freed themselves from the tyranny of feudal enslavement, despicable exploitation or vicious occupation. The Congolese have known these three forms of oppression and the unspeakable damages they are facing are only to the extent of the cumulative effect of the rejection of these three types of domination. In both cases of Rwanda and Congo, for the current crisis, the United States have been the arm of both the British and the Belgian Crowns that apparently vowed revenge on these countries.
Though traditional societies in the African continent are monarchical in essence, the constraining necessity to bring together people of different conditions and memberships has only found a satisfactory answer in the equalizing virtue of a republic. In the absence of western paradigms of separatism and domination, one could still consider a situation where a relatively limited country in space would be ruled by a king, but even such a situation has proven very complicated in the past for precisely tiny little Rwanda. As a matter of fact, different kingdoms have always fought each other in that country, with the most prominent of the Kanyingini having its area of influence no further than Kigali, while nonetheless claiming lands deep inside DRC . One can only recognize the more than necessary resort to an equalizing approach, even in small African countries where there seem to be no limit to further conflicts over power, no matter how is reduced the sphere of influence of such a power, be it by dissection of communities or by reduction of territories. And the fact that these antagonisms seem to be more vivid in such reduced spaces since they are otherwise mitigated in larger countries, only compels us to acknowledge a no-domination idea that a feudal system cannot provide. In the case of Rwanda, by a staunch support to the Tutsi and their regime, the polarizing role played by the United Kingdom, with its ambitions and its long-established tradition of separatism, is particularly detrimental as it reveals itself as the coronation of the standards set by the Germans, and then supported by the Belgians, before ending up in what has actually become a racial conflict. Interestingly, the strongman of Rwanda, despite his royal descent, seemed to have his own agenda. He decided not to handover power to a king that he kindly invited to return to the country as a normal citizen while maintaining the privileges of his fellow Tutsi in the same feudalistic pattern a formal monarchy would provide, though in a disguised fashion, as the "ethnic groups" have officially been banned. This unclear status explains the reason why the Tutsi community itself is divided and many Tutsi are found to be living in exile or openly opposed to the power in Kigali. Paul Kagame actually became the new king under the cover of a strange republic where minorities win elections and challengers, especially those considered of serf descent, are simply jailed for “disrespect”, supposedly to some “historical facts”. An absolute banana monarchical republic of divine right, so to spea