Citation
2510 – 14-04
The SC working group dealt with the draft resolution submitted by NAM,
with the exception of stipulations concerning UNAMIR’s activity and
its future mandate.
Instructed by the SG, the Secretariat revisited the interpretation of
his letter of 13 April. De Soto stated that the SG had not intended to
suggest the withdrawal of UNAMIR but rather adapting it to new
conditions.
According to further information of the Secretariat, fighting
continues. Contours of [lines of] control are starting to appear in
Kigali. Fighting, however, is beginning to spread to other parts of
Rwanda. After the withdrawal of French and Belgian soldiers, the
airport, too, is being fought over. The informal meeting between
representatives of the provisional government and the RPF, with the
SRSG present, planned for 14 April, did not take place. Among other,
one condition of the RPF was the confidentiality of these
talks. However, the initiative received wide publicity and the talks
were therefore postponed to some later date. The Secretariat also
informed about the rampage of gangs, featuring especially members of
the Presidential Guard, which don’t respect the most elementary norms
of humanitarian law (wounded RPF members were dragged out of an
ambulance and killed under the eyes of the Red Cross).
The UN Secretariat orally presented two alternatives for the
functioning of UNAMIR under the changed conditions, which however
assume a cease-‐fire between the warring parties:
1. Presence of UNAMIR without the Belgian contingent (some 2000 strong). The
mandate would be adapted accordingly.
2. Leave only its political component in Kigali, i.e. the SRSG, his
personnel and protection (about 200 people).
The first alternative is realistic if progress is made in the peace
effort. It is also bound with certain conditions the belligerent
parties would provide to UNAMIR (guaranteed freedom of movement,
guaranteed security, declaring safe areas – e.g. the airport, etc.). A
certain time horizon would be determined for meeting the
conditions. The second alternative could be considered in the absence
of realistic chances for renewing the peace effort in the framework of
the Arusha agreements. Annan’s deputy Riza mentioned also a third
alternative, combining these two. The SG is inclined toward the first
one. Reports have it that both parties favor the presence of
UNAMIR. No serious discussion has taken place yet. NAM and other
members have requested time for consultations. The SC will return to
both alternatives, and to the draft resolution, during informals
tomorrow. It is expected that the text will be finalized and possibly
adopted.
In this context we point out an article in the NYT which puts the
situation and the domestic political developments in Rwanda in a
rather different light and negatively evaluates France’s support to
the essentially dictatorial regime of President Habiyarimana. The
article is appended. We also have at our disposal a report of Amnesty
International according to which there is no evidence of the
participation of RPF units in the mass mayhem and murder that followed
the air catastrophe.
The CZ delegation intends to establish contact with the RPF
representative in New York, at a lower level, if the HQ doesn’t
object.
