Spelling suggestions: "subject:"outros"" "subject:"noutros""
1 |
Rwanda, l'Opération Turquoise et la controverse médiatique (1994-2014) : analyse des enquêtes journalistiques, des documents secret-défense et de la stratégie militaire / Rwanda, "l'Operation Turquoise " and the media controversy (1994-2014) : analysis of journalistic investigations, top-secret files and military strategyOnana, Auguste Charles 21 December 2017 (has links)
Le 22 juin 1994, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU vote la résolution 929 autorisantle déploiement d’une force multinationale humanitaire, neutre et impartiale au Rwandaayant pour mission de mettre fin aux massacres. Concrètement, c’est la France, àl’initiative de ce projet, qui va assurer le commandement de la mission dénomméeOpération Turquoise. Celle-ci se heurte à l’opposition des rebelles tutsis du FrontPatriotique Rwandais, aux réserves des organisations humanitaires mais elle reçoit lesoutien appuyé du gouvernement intérimaire rwandais hutu. L’Opération Turquoisesuscite surtout une vague d’accusations dans la presse française, le président FrançoisMitterrand et les militaires français étant accusés de « complicité de génocide », voire de« participation au génocide ». Ces accusations perdurent et reviennent régulièrementdepuis plus de vingt ans, relayées par des journalistes qui disent avoir découvert puisrévélé « l’inavouable » rôle de la France au Rwanda.Cette étude analyse les enquêtes journalistiques menées de 1994 à 2014 et lesconfronte aux documents confidentiels et secret-défense issus des archives américaines,françaises, rwandaises et onusiennes, ainsi qu’à la stratégie militaire mise en oeuvredurant l’Opération Turquoise. Elle permet ainsi d’identifier les sources sur lesquellesreposent ces accusations et d’en évaluer le bien-fondé. Ce faisant, elle met en évidence lafaçon dont la recherche s’est concentrée sur le génocide au détriment de la lutte arméeinitiée par le FPR de 1990 à juillet 1994, laissant de côté des aspects essentiels à lacompréhension de la tragédie rwandaise. / On the 22nd June 1994, the UN Security Council passes the resolution 929authorising the deployment of a multinational humanitarian, neutral and impartial force toRwanda having as its mission to put an end to the massacres. In concrete terms, it isFrance, on initiative of this project, who goes to carry out the command of the missionnamed Operation Turquoise. This comes up against the opposition of the Tutsis rebels ofthe Rwandan Patriotic Front, to the reservations of the humanitarian organisations but itreceives the backup support of the acting Rwandan Hutu government. OperationTurquoise incites above all a wave of accusations in the French press, with the PresidentFrançois Mitterand and the French military soldiers being accused of 'complicity ingenocide', even of taking part in the genocide. These accusations have endured and havebeen regularly coming back for more than twenty years, relayed by journalists who claimto have discovered then revealed the shameful role of France in RwandaThis study analyses the journalistic inquiries led from 1994 to 2014 and comparesthem with confidential secret defence documents stemming from American, French,Rwandan and UN records, as well as the military strategy put in place during OperationTurquoise. It also allows identification of the sources on which these accusations lie andevaluation of their validity. In so doing, it brings to the fore the way in which the researchhas focused on the genocide to the detriment of the armed struggle initiated by the RPFfrom 1990 to July 1994, leaving aside essential aspects in the comprehension of theRwandan tragedy.
|
2 |
Les relations entre le gouvernement intérimaire rwandais et la communauté internationale (8 avril-18 juillet 1994) / The relations between the interim government of Rwanda and the international community (April 8 – July 18, 1994)Mouzer, Frédérique 29 June 2018 (has links)
L’analyse des relations entre le gouvernement intérimaire rwandais et la communauté internationale durant le génocide de 1994 met en évidence la primauté du facteur politique voire géopolitique sur la prise en compte de considérations strictement juridiques et humanitaires de la part de l’ONU et des États tiers les plus impliqués dans cette crise (Belgique, France, États-Unis). La marginalisation progressive du gouvernement intérimaire sur la scène internationale, au moment où il sollicite une aide extérieure pour mettre fin aux massacres, ne s’est pas accompagnée d’un renforcement des effectifs et du mandat de la Mission des Nations Unies pour l’Assistance au Rwanda (MINUAR), qui constituait pourtant la principale demande des autorités rwandaises au Conseil de sécurité. Ce désengagement de la communauté internationale s’est effectué au détriment de la sécurité et de la protection des populations civiles menacées. Dans le même temps, la criminalisation de ce gouvernement a contribué à faire entériner l’acceptation d’une issue militaire au conflit souhaitée par la rébellion du Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR), au mépris des accords de paix et de partage du pouvoir d’Arusha signés en 1993. La présomption de culpabilité à l’égard du camp gouvernemental a par la suite fortement impacté la justice internationale, le Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda (TPIR) ayant échoué dans sa mission consistant à juger tous les auteurs de crimes commis en 1994 et à favoriser la réconciliation nationale, du fait de son manque d’impartialité et d’indépendance tant au niveau des poursuites et de l’instruction que du rendu de ses jugements et de leur pleine application. / An analysis of relations between the interim government of Rwanda and the international community during the genocide of 1994 demonstrates how political, even geopolitical, factors were given priority over strictly judicial and humanitarian considerations by the UN and the third-party states most implicated in this crisis (Belgium, France, the USA). The progressive marginalisation of the interim government on the international scene, at the time when it was soliciting external help to put a stop to the massacres, did not see a reinforcement of staff or of the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), which nonetheless constituted the principal demand of the Rwandan authorities to the Security Council.This disengagement on the part of the international community happened to the detriment of the security and protection of the civil population under threat. At the same time the criminalisation of this government contributed to the endorsement of a military outcome to the conflict ; the outcome desired by the rebellion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), contravening the Arusha Accords signed in 1993. The presumption of guilt attached to the government camp subsequently had a strong impact on international justice, as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) had failed in its mission of judging all the perpetrators of crimes committed in 1994, and of favorising national reconciliation, due to its lack of impartiality and independence as much at the level of investigation and prosecution as at the level of the delivery of the judgments and their enactment.
|
3 |
Sovereignty, Peacekeeping, and the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), Suez 1956-1967: Insiders’ PerspectivesHilmy, Hanny 13 February 2015 (has links)
This research is concerned with the complex and contested relationship between the sovereign prerogatives of states and the international imperative of defusing world conflicts. Due to its historical setting following World War Two, the national vs. international staking of claims was framed within the escalating imperial-nationalist confrontation and the impending “end of empire”, both of which were significantly influenced by the role Israel played in this saga. The research looks at the issue of “decolonization” and the anti-colonial struggle waged under the leadership of Egypt’s President Nasser. The Suez War is analyzed as the historical event that signaled the beginning of the final chapter in the domination of the European empires in the Middle East (sub-Saharan decolonization followed beginning in the early 1960s), and the emergence of the United States as the new major Western power in the Middle East.
The Suez experience highlighted a stubborn contest between the defenders of the concept of “sovereign consent” and the advocates of “International intervention”. Both the deployment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) and its termination were surrounded by controversy and legal-political wrangling. The role of UNEF and UN peacekeeping operations in general framed the development of a new concept for an emerging international human rights law and crisis management. The UNEF experience, moreover, brought into sharp relief the need for a conflict resolution component for any peace operation. International conflict management, and human rights protection are both subject to an increasing interventionist international legal regime. Consequently, the traditional concept of “sovereignty” is facing increasing challenge.
By its very nature, the subject matter of this multi-dimensional research involves historical, political and international legal aspects shaping the research’s content and conclusions. The research utilizes the experience and contributions of several key participants in this pioneering peacekeeping experience. In the last chapter, recommendations are made –based on all the elements covered in the research- to suggest contributions to the evolving UN ground rules for international crisis intervention and management. / Graduate / hilmyh@uvic.ca
|
Page generated in 0.0531 seconds