RWANDA-UN: Chilly Relations Between Kigali And The UN

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Analysis Chris Simpson

KIGALI, May 11, May 11 1998 (IPS) - After a week which saw UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan roundly humiliated by the Rwandan government, there seems little likelihood of a prompt rapprochement between the United Nations and the authorities here.

The tiff has further been widened by the suspension of the UN’s Human Rights Field Operation in Rwanda (UNHRFOR) and the expulsion of a UNHRFOR information officer.

Annan’s warning in Kampala, Uganda, that “there may come a time when we may have to cut our losses and focus where we can do useful work” has been widely seen as a belated response to the snub delivered to Annan in Kigali and a warning to Rwanda that there are limits to the UN’s patience.

But the Rwandan government remains unimpressed, with presidential spokesman Joseph Bideri stating simply: “when Kofi Annan sneezes, the Rwandan people do not catch a cold”.

Annan left Rwanda on May 8 trying to put as optimistic gloss as possible on a visit which even UN insiders confessed had been “disastrous”. His valedictory address played up the themes of partnership and cooperation, with the UN and the Rwandan government “moving forwards together”.

But the Secretary-General later made it clear he had not been notified of either the suspension of UNHRFOR or the impending deportation of the UNHRFOR information officer, Jose Luis Herrero. UNHRFOR’s operations are now on hold, with Head of Mission Gerard Fischer being summoned to Geneva for consultations with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Mary Robinson.

According to the government, there is, as yet, no suggestion of the mission being closed down, but the UN is being blamed for stonewalling and not acting on government proposals that it modify its mandate.

According to Bideri, Robinson herself agreed to a review of UNHRFOR’s mandate during her visit to Rwanda in December 1997, accepting the government’s arguments that the country had stabilised since UNHRFOR’s arrival at the government’s invitation in 1995 and a review was necessary. Bideri said the government had subsequently submitted its own proposals for changing the mandate, but had faced unacceptable delays.

“It’s now been two months and we have not received any communication from them in that direction,” he said. “Instead UNHRFOR officials have proceeded to carry on as if nothing had happened”.

Bideri said that UNHRFOR’s Head of Mission, Fischer, had been allowed into the country on the understanding that he was there to oversee a programme review and not to run UNHRFOR’s operations without a mandate. He said the government now wanted direct clarification of UNHRFOR’s position, hence the suspension and the proposed departure of Fischer to Geneva for consultations with his superiors.

UNHRFOR was advised of its suspension in a fax sent to Robinson on May 8.

Fischer is due to leave Kigali late Monday, with suggestions from the government that the problems be discussed outside Rwanda. “The ball is now very much in Mary Robinson’s court,” a senior government official emphasised. Fischer himself said he was confident UNHRFOR would not be thrown out of the country. “We are not getting ready to pack our bags,” he stressed.

But the UNHRFOR boss also maintains that it has been the government which has held back on getting a new mandate sorted out.

“We have submitted numerous proposals for different areas of activity, but the other party has not been ready to come to the table,” he said. “It is legitimate for the government to say we have not been as effective or efficient as we might have been, but there are certain facts that have prevented us from being so. We have not been twiddling our thumbs”.

Fischer emphasised that there were real discrepancies between the UN and the government as to how a human rights operation should work, particularly on the issue of monitoring. “We want to be able to monitor in a way which suggests corrective measures being applied,” he said.

Fischer confirmed that UNHRFOR had had serious problems with access to the more volatile parts of Rwanda, like the north- western regions of Ruhengeri and Gisenyi, but emphasised that the UN’s own security concerns had been the main factor in limiting operations. “The government has never denied us access,” he said.

Privately, government officials remain hostile to much of UNHRFOR’s work, feeling the mission has abused its original invitation and focuses too much on the government’s shortcomings. “They want to try and police us and that is not what we wanted,” one source commented. “They could leave here tomorrow and what would they have achieved? Nothing”.

UNHRFOR’s work has not been made easier by the expulsion of Herrero, which the government says is unrelated to the suspension of UNHRFOR.

At least 10 days prior to his deportation, Herrero was told he would be sent out. His offence was that he gave an interview to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) outlining the UN’s objections to the execution of 22 Rwandans convicted of Category One genocide crimes. “He accused us of being murderers and slandered our justice system,” a government source confirmed. “In another country we would have sued him for libel. Instead, we had to ask him to leave”.

Herrero was summoned on May 7 (Thursday) by the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and told that he had 48 hours to leave the country. The expulsion order was duly enforced on Saturday (May 9), with Herrero flying out of Kigali.

The government maintains there was no connection between the moves against UNHRFOR and Annan’s visit. “It’s all simply a coincidence,” a senior government source said. “There is nothing linking these events”.

But denials of a pre-meditated campaign are unlikely to impress either Annan or his subordinates in Rwanda, still bruised by the reception given the Secretary-General, which was far worse than they had anticipated.

The subject of weeks of elaborate planning, Annan’s visit went badly off the rails from the moment he entered the National Assembly building on Thursday. The speech of introduction from Foreign Minister Anasatase Gasana went from unctuous greeting to an historical account of the UN’s betrayal of Rwanda. Annan was clearly caught off-guard and further antagonised an already hostile audience by saying he had not come to “engage in polemics”.

Despite its acknowledgement of the international betrayal of Rwanda and its urgent pleas for reconciliation, Annan’s own speech was deemed wholly inadequate. The text was rejected, not only by the government, but by some UN personnel in Rwanda, who felt a more personal response to the genocide was called for, particularly given recent allegations about Annan’s own failure as then Head of UN Peacekeeping Operations to halt the killings.

Annan’s subsequent performance in a questions-and-answers session with deputies, which the UN had clearly not anticipated, made matters worse. Annan’s references to the heroic role played by some UN soldiers in 1994 and his statement that “Many people in this room may owe their lives to these soldiers” was seen as at best inappropriate, at worst plain offensive.

According to government sources, it was the speech alone which triggered the government’s decision to boycott the reception held for Annan later that evening, with a statement rapidly drafted to explain the stayaway by President Pasteur Bizimungu and Vice- President Paul Kagame.