Survivors sue UN for 'complicity' in Rwanda genocide

DC · January 11, 2000, 10:25 AM

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/Wo...da110100.shtml

Survivors sue UN for 'complicity' in Rwanda genocide

By Karen MacGregor in Johannesburg

11 January 2000

The United Nations is being sued, for the first time in its
history, for alleged complicity in the crime of genocide.
Lawyers are instituting a case on behalf of two Rwandan
women whose families died during the 1994 genocide in
which 800,000, mostly Tutsi people, were slaughtered
by Hutus.

The women – the widow of a former Rwandan supreme
court judge and the sister of a Tutsi former cabinet
minister – accuse UN soldiers who were meant to
defend their families of either handing them over to their
killers or running away.

They are being represented by the former South
Australian crown prosecutor Michael Hourigan, who quit
his job as an investigator with the UN's International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in disgust at UN inaction
and barriers to his investigation, and also by the human
rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, a fellow Australian.

Mr Hourigan, who works for a US law firm, told the
Melbourne Age that genocide had been committed
against Rwandans in the presence of a UN force, and
that the murders in question were "caused by the
cowardice, negligence and bungling of UN forces".

This is the first time that a formal claim for reparations for
such conduct has been made against the UN. Mr
Hourigan would not reveal the damages sought, but said:
"It is recognised in domestic and international law that
when you commit a tort you compensate for the
damage."

Last month the UN released the damning findings of a
three-man inquiry, headed by the former Swedish prime
minister Ingvar Carlsson, that showed the organisation
was guilty of a catalogue of failures during the genocide in
which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in
100 days. The killings, which wiped out three-quarters of
the Tutsi population, began after the Rwandan president
Juvenal Habyarimana died when his plane was shot
down by unknown attackers.

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has expressed
regret, and admitted UN failings in responding to the
genocide. The Rwandan government has called on the
UN to help reconstruct the country, and genocide
survivors have asked the UN to set up a fund to
compensate victims.

One of the women suing the UN is Anonciata
Kavaruganda, the widow of a Rwandan supreme court
judge, Joseph Kavaruganda, who was killed because he
sympathised with the Tutsis. She claims UN troops from
Ghana, responsible for protecting her family, drank and
socialised with Hutus while she and her children were
being tortured. The other woman is Louise
Mushikiwabo, whose brother, Lando Ndaswinga, was
the only Tutsi minister in the Rwandan government. He
was shot with his mother, wife and two children. She
claims UN troops ran away when the killers arrived.

Mr Hourigan has given the Melbourne Age documents
that place a large amount of the blame for the genocide
on Mr Annan, who at the time was the head of UN
peace-keeping operations. Secure cables sent to his
office by the UN commander in Rwanda, General
Romeo Dallaire of Canada, and a UN special rappateur
show that Mr Annan was given extensive warning that
genocide was taking place and was asked for more
troops. The cables warned that UN forces would hand
over people "for inevitable killing rather than use their
weapons to save local people", that ethnic cleansing was
accelerating and that government radio was "exhorting
the population to destroy all Tutsis".

The documents, headed "most immediate", were never
given to the UN Security Council. Mr Hourigan has
asked why testimony by the two women, which was
given to the Carlsson inquiry team with copies of the
Dallaire cables, was not mentioned in its report.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

Jeff Thomas · January 11, 2000, 12:14 PM

Excellent, excellent, excellent! People like Annan are criminally negligent, and this is an international example of the results of so-called gun control. The UN strips people of their arms, puts them in 'safe areas' or otherwise lies to them about being able to protect the population and then, voila - genocide. Big surprise. How many times did this happen in the 20th Century? How many more times will it take for bozos like Annan to recognize there is a pattern here?

Well, we have http://www.firearmslitigation.org for the anti-self defense movement. Perhaps it is indeed time for http://www.genocidelitigation.org so that reality can thrust its pesky nose into this debate.

See http://www.iansa.org if you want to see the UN's latest efforts in this area. They don't learn. But, then again, they're generally ensconced safely in New York, so what do they care?

Also, DC, didn't a similar report come out a few months ago about the UN's (or was it NATO's?) similar performance in the former Yugoslavia?

From my perspective, this is an exact analogy with the perspective that we don't need guns ... we can just call 911. Our LEO's will always keep us safe, and they'll always be there in time. Right.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited January 11, 2000).]

DC · January 11, 2000, 01:11 PM

Jeff...
Yes, there were a few posts here about NATO being held responsible in court for worsening Kosovo problems.
Alas, the search function here isn't the best so I only found one related: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/fo...threadid=24465

There are more hiding on TFL

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

DC · January 11, 2000, 07:32 PM

More...UN denies it...what a surprise.

World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Mailing List
________________________________________

The Age - Victoria - 12/1/2000

UN denies culpability for genocide

By MARK RILEY and PAMELA BONE NEW YORK
Wednesday 12 January 2000

The United Nations is set to exercise its broad diplomatic immunity to
avoid moves by two Australian lawyers to sue it for alleged complicity
in the Rwandan genocide which left 800,000 dead.

The UN denied on Monday that it had any legal culpability in the 1994
killings, despite being criticised from an independent inquiry for not
taking greater action to head off the murderous wave.

Mr Michael Hourigan, a US-based former South Australian prosecutor, and
leading human rights lawyer, Mr Geoffrey Robertson, are preparing to sue
the UN on behalf of two Rwandan women who lost family members in the
killings.

The women claim that UN peacekeepers sent to protect their families
either handed them over to the rampaging Hutu militants or ran away when
the fighting broke out.

A UN spokesman said on Monday that the organisation did not believe it
had anything to answer for in the courts, and warned that any legal
action could have a damaging effect on the future of all peacekeeping
operations.

"I can't say that we will definitely use our immunity, because there is
no case at the moment and everything is hypothetical," Mr Fred Eckhard,
the official spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan,
said.

"But I can say that if we allowed our peacekeepers to be brought to
courts and tried over matters like this, that would be the end of
peacekeeping."

A UN official later said the organisation would exercise its immunity
if the matter got to a court.

Mr Eckhard said the UN soldiers in Rwanda were never given a Security
Council mandate to become involved in the fighting. "We were not there
to stop a war - we were there to facilitate a peace process," he said.

Mr Hourigan said a formal letter of demand to the UN is being prepared.

"We will first ask for a settlement or reparations package for the
families. If the UN refuses to settle then we will ask for a private
arbitration before a negotiated international tribunal. This type of
settlement process is known to the UN and has precedent in
international law," he said.

"But one must remember that no one has ever brought this type of
complaint against the UN before. So we are really making international
law."

However, there is precedent for the principle, he said. "The world
demanded that the Nazis and their allies compensated the victims of the
Holocaust. The world has just demanded that the Iraqis compensate the
victims of its military aggression in Kuwait. Why shouldn't the United
Nations be required to make good its damage in Rwanda?"

Mr Hourigan was an investigator with the UN International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, and uncovered diplomatic cables sent to the UN
headquarters in New York warning of the genocide. The US Secretary of
State, Dr Madeleine Albright, who was the US ambassador to the UN at the
time of the 1994 genocide, refused to appear before the independent
inquiry, which was chaired by the former Swedish Prime Minister, Ingvar
Carlsson. Dr Albright is reported to have been in favor of cutting UN
peacekeeping forces in Rwanda to 270, which is what the Security
Council ultimately ordered.

The cables, from the UN commander in Rwanda, the Canadian General Romeo
Dallaire, went to Mr Annan in his then-capacity as head of peacekeeping.

An independent inquiry into the genocide, commissioned by Mr Annan and
headed by former Mr Carlsson, issued a report last month criticising Mr
Annan and other senior UN officials for failing to sound the alarm
earlier.

It also condemned the lack of political will on the UN Security Council
to act against the massacre. The Security Council met while the killings
were continuing and voted to reduce, rather than increase its military
presence in response.

The Security Council decisions on Rwanda had the strong support of the
US Government, which did not want to become involved in another
peacekeeping tragedy so soon after suffering heavy losses in Somalia.

Mr Annan emphasised the Rwandan peacekeepers' lack of power in his
response last month to Mr Carlsson's report.

He said that of all his aims as Secretary-General, "there is none to
which I feel more deeply committed than that of enabling the United
Nations never again to fail in protecting a civilian population from
genocide or mass slaughter".

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

Jeff Thomas · January 11, 2000, 08:12 PM

So, let me get this straight - governmental bodies, such as municipalities, HUD and perhaps one day, the U.N., can sue firearms manufacturers. And, they can also strip citizens, aka human beings, of their means to self defense. But, when the city, the federal government and the U.N. are unable to protect their citizens, aka human beings, from bad guys, then they can skate based upon various legal maneuvering?

Boy, this is sounding more and more like a situation that would benefit from, let us say, revolutionary developments?

This is unacceptable public policy.

DC · January 11, 2000, 08:42 PM

Jeff...
Yep, you got it. Commoners, proles, peons,serfs, the average human has no recourse....take it up the rear and like it...or "we" will kill you.

Our own government is removed,distanced and unresponsive to its owners....would a world/UN gov't be less so?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

Jack 99 · January 11, 2000, 08:43 PM

When are we going to get out of this worthless, Socialist organization? What a crock.

When the blue helmets show up to "help," why should we be surprised when they're fired on? Hate to see U.S. Soldiers in that mess, but if the UN showed up to "help" me, I think I'd have to take a pop shot or two as well.

January 11, 2000, 10:25 AM	#1
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: September 30, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,241	http://www.independent.co.uk/news/Wo...da110100.shtml Survivors sue UN for 'complicity' in Rwanda genocide By Karen MacGregor in Johannesburg 11 January 2000 The United Nations is being sued, for the first time in its history, for alleged complicity in the crime of genocide. Lawyers are instituting a case on behalf of two Rwandan women whose families died during the 1994 genocide in which 800,000, mostly Tutsi people, were slaughtered by Hutus. The women – the widow of a former Rwandan supreme court judge and the sister of a Tutsi former cabinet minister – accuse UN soldiers who were meant to defend their families of either handing them over to their killers or running away. They are being represented by the former South Australian crown prosecutor Michael Hourigan, who quit his job as an investigator with the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in disgust at UN inaction and barriers to his investigation, and also by the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, a fellow Australian. Mr Hourigan, who works for a US law firm, told the Melbourne Age that genocide had been committed against Rwandans in the presence of a UN force, and that the murders in question were "caused by the cowardice, negligence and bungling of UN forces". This is the first time that a formal claim for reparations for such conduct has been made against the UN. Mr Hourigan would not reveal the damages sought, but said: "It is recognised in domestic and international law that when you commit a tort you compensate for the damage." Last month the UN released the damning findings of a three-man inquiry, headed by the former Swedish prime minister Ingvar Carlsson, that showed the organisation was guilty of a catalogue of failures during the genocide in which 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in 100 days. The killings, which wiped out three-quarters of the Tutsi population, began after the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana died when his plane was shot down by unknown attackers. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has expressed regret, and admitted UN failings in responding to the genocide. The Rwandan government has called on the UN to help reconstruct the country, and genocide survivors have asked the UN to set up a fund to compensate victims. One of the women suing the UN is Anonciata Kavaruganda, the widow of a Rwandan supreme court judge, Joseph Kavaruganda, who was killed because he sympathised with the Tutsis. She claims UN troops from Ghana, responsible for protecting her family, drank and socialised with Hutus while she and her children were being tortured. The other woman is Louise Mushikiwabo, whose brother, Lando Ndaswinga, was the only Tutsi minister in the Rwandan government. He was shot with his mother, wife and two children. She claims UN troops ran away when the killers arrived. Mr Hourigan has given the Melbourne Age documents that place a large amount of the blame for the genocide on Mr Annan, who at the time was the head of UN peace-keeping operations. Secure cables sent to his office by the UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire of Canada, and a UN special rappateur show that Mr Annan was given extensive warning that genocide was taking place and was asked for more troops. The cables warned that UN forces would hand over people "for inevitable killing rather than use their weapons to save local people", that ethnic cleansing was accelerating and that government radio was "exhorting the population to destroy all Tutsis". The documents, headed "most immediate", were never given to the UN Security Council. Mr Hourigan has asked why testimony by the two women, which was given to the Carlsson inquiry team with copies of the Dallaire cables, was not mentioned in its report. ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

January 11, 2000, 12:14 PM	#2
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,780	Excellent, excellent, excellent! People like Annan are criminally negligent, and this is an international example of the results of so-called gun control. The UN strips people of their arms, puts them in 'safe areas' or otherwise lies to them about being able to protect the population and then, voila - genocide. Big surprise. How many times did this happen in the 20th Century? How many more times will it take for bozos like Annan to recognize there is a pattern here? Well, we have http://www.firearmslitigation.org for the anti-self defense movement. Perhaps it is indeed time for http://www.genocidelitigation.org so that reality can thrust its pesky nose into this debate. See http://www.iansa.org if you want to see the UN's latest efforts in this area. They don't learn. But, then again, they're generally ensconced safely in New York, so what do they care? Also, DC, didn't a similar report come out a few months ago about the UN's (or was it NATO's?) similar performance in the former Yugoslavia? From my perspective, this is an exact analogy with the perspective that we don't need guns ... we can just call 911. Our LEO's will always keep us safe, and they'll always be there in time. Right. [This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited January 11, 2000).]

January 11, 2000, 01:11 PM	#3
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: September 30, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,241	Jeff... Yes, there were a few posts here about NATO being held responsible in court for worsening Kosovo problems. Alas, the search function here isn't the best so I only found one related: http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/fo...threadid=24465 There are more hiding on TFL ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

January 11, 2000, 07:32 PM	#4
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: September 30, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,241	More...UN denies it...what a surprise. World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Mailing List ________________________________________ The Age - Victoria - 12/1/2000 UN denies culpability for genocide By MARK RILEY and PAMELA BONE NEW YORK Wednesday 12 January 2000 The United Nations is set to exercise its broad diplomatic immunity to avoid moves by two Australian lawyers to sue it for alleged complicity in the Rwandan genocide which left 800,000 dead. The UN denied on Monday that it had any legal culpability in the 1994 killings, despite being criticised from an independent inquiry for not taking greater action to head off the murderous wave. Mr Michael Hourigan, a US-based former South Australian prosecutor, and leading human rights lawyer, Mr Geoffrey Robertson, are preparing to sue the UN on behalf of two Rwandan women who lost family members in the killings. The women claim that UN peacekeepers sent to protect their families either handed them over to the rampaging Hutu militants or ran away when the fighting broke out. A UN spokesman said on Monday that the organisation did not believe it had anything to answer for in the courts, and warned that any legal action could have a damaging effect on the future of all peacekeeping operations. "I can't say that we will definitely use our immunity, because there is no case at the moment and everything is hypothetical," Mr Fred Eckhard, the official spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, said. "But I can say that if we allowed our peacekeepers to be brought to courts and tried over matters like this, that would be the end of peacekeeping." A UN official later said the organisation would exercise its immunity if the matter got to a court. Mr Eckhard said the UN soldiers in Rwanda were never given a Security Council mandate to become involved in the fighting. "We were not there to stop a war - we were there to facilitate a peace process," he said. Mr Hourigan said a formal letter of demand to the UN is being prepared. "We will first ask for a settlement or reparations package for the families. If the UN refuses to settle then we will ask for a private arbitration before a negotiated international tribunal. This type of settlement process is known to the UN and has precedent in international law," he said. "But one must remember that no one has ever brought this type of complaint against the UN before. So we are really making international law." However, there is precedent for the principle, he said. "The world demanded that the Nazis and their allies compensated the victims of the Holocaust. The world has just demanded that the Iraqis compensate the victims of its military aggression in Kuwait. Why shouldn't the United Nations be required to make good its damage in Rwanda?" Mr Hourigan was an investigator with the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and uncovered diplomatic cables sent to the UN headquarters in New York warning of the genocide. The US Secretary of State, Dr Madeleine Albright, who was the US ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1994 genocide, refused to appear before the independent inquiry, which was chaired by the former Swedish Prime Minister, Ingvar Carlsson. Dr Albright is reported to have been in favor of cutting UN peacekeeping forces in Rwanda to 270, which is what the Security Council ultimately ordered. The cables, from the UN commander in Rwanda, the Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, went to Mr Annan in his then-capacity as head of peacekeeping. An independent inquiry into the genocide, commissioned by Mr Annan and headed by former Mr Carlsson, issued a report last month criticising Mr Annan and other senior UN officials for failing to sound the alarm earlier. It also condemned the lack of political will on the UN Security Council to act against the massacre. The Security Council met while the killings were continuing and voted to reduce, rather than increase its military presence in response. The Security Council decisions on Rwanda had the strong support of the US Government, which did not want to become involved in another peacekeeping tragedy so soon after suffering heavy losses in Somalia. Mr Annan emphasised the Rwandan peacekeepers' lack of power in his response last month to Mr Carlsson's report. He said that of all his aims as Secretary-General, "there is none to which I feel more deeply committed than that of enabling the United Nations never again to fail in protecting a civilian population from genocide or mass slaughter". ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

January 11, 2000, 08:12 PM	#5
Jeff Thomas Senior Member Join Date: December 9, 1998 Location: Texas Posts: 4,780	So, let me get this straight - governmental bodies, such as municipalities, HUD and perhaps one day, the U.N., can sue firearms manufacturers. And, they can also strip citizens, aka human beings, of their means to self defense. But, when the city, the federal government and the U.N. are unable to protect their citizens, aka human beings, from bad guys, then they can skate based upon various legal maneuvering? Boy, this is sounding more and more like a situation that would benefit from, let us say, revolutionary developments? This is unacceptable public policy.

January 11, 2000, 08:42 PM	#6
DC Moderator Emeritus Join Date: September 30, 1998 Location: Calif Posts: 4,241	Jeff... Yep, you got it. Commoners, proles, peons,serfs, the average human has no recourse....take it up the rear and like it...or "we" will kill you. Our own government is removed,distanced and unresponsive to its owners....would a world/UN gov't be less so? ------------------ "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!

January 11, 2000, 08:43 PM	#7
Jack 99 Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 1999 Posts: 1,085	When are we going to get out of this worthless, Socialist organization? What a crock. When the blue helmets show up to "help," why should we be surprised when they're fired on? Hate to see U.S. Soldiers in that mess, but if the UN showed up to "help" me, I think I'd have to take a pop shot or two as well.