Matière et Révolution

All stand with the Iranian people against all their enemies !

Karob, Robert Paris — 2026-03-01T05:39:20Z

All peoples of the Earth, including the American, Israeli, Iranian, Sunni Arab and all others, must strongly denounce the new mass crime committed by the American and Israeli armies against the Iranian people !

The worst dictatorship in the world is not Iranian, but imperialist. The greatest cause of world war is not Iranian, but imperialist. The greatest risk of the use of thermonuclear weapons is not Iranian, but imperialist. The oppression that claims the most victims is not Iranian, but imperialist. The most dangerous armed alliance currently facing all peoples, including the Iranian, American, and Israeli nations, is the one currently bombing Iran. The greatest danger of death for the Iranian people, which is added to, not subtracted from, that caused by the Ayatollahs' dictatorship, is that of the bombings by the US and Israel. They strike civilian homes, they strike schools and hospitals ; they claim to be targeting only the regime, but it is the people who bear the brunt of the blows, the dead, the wounded, the destruction—who pay the price !

It is American imperialism that poses the primary threat to world peace, along with its Israeli accomplice.

Under the pretext of fighting the Ayatollahs' dictatorship and their nuclear industry, the US and its allies have imposed countless sacrifices on the Iranian people, which they call "sanctions," depriving them of the health, security, and well-being that the regime was already rationing. Imperialism doesn't prevent the Iranian people from being attacked ; it attacks them even more.

Certainly, the Ayatollahs' regime is a brutal dictatorship that has recently demonstrated its capacity to kill unarmed protesters, women, and young people, and that oppresses the Iranian people, particularly women. But American imperialism recently admitted that, ultimately, it was not on this issue that it intended to exert pressure on the regime, but rather on those of nuclear power and oil production.

Around the world, Trump is primarily targeting oil, which he can offer to American companies, and other mineral wealth, which he can steal to serve the trusts !

All wealth should return to the people if they overthrow their dictatorships, not to imperialism, and they can only overthrow them to improve their lives by acting on their own and not by relying on imperialist armed interventions…

Bombing homes, schools, and hospitals will not convince the Iranian people that imperialism is acting to rid them of a dictatorship !
Just ask any of the peoples who have "benefited" from imperialist intervention against the dictatorship they were under. Ask the Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan, Yemeni, Yugoslav, Libyan, Malian, and many other peoples if the imperialist army has opened up a future of peace, well-being, women's freedom, health, and security for them, and if the human cost of the imperialist bombings has been offset by reconstruction and other benefits ! Certainly not !

By massively bombing Iran, the US and Israel claim to be "giving the Iranian people an opportunity to free themselves from the dictatorial regime of the Ayatollahs." But they are careful not to say what kind of regime they would like to see in its place. And it's certainly not because they are letting the working people decide for themselves what better future they will build for themselves !

American imperialism, through Trump's policies, has chosen to tell the world that the US needs no one to impose its will by force on the entire world through its armed forces—in short, a message of terror and dictatorship. There is no guarantee that American violent terror will do anything other than add to the terror of the Iranian regime and exacerbate existing suffering.

As for the idea that the Iranian people could take advantage of the bombing to rise up, it may seem plausible, but it ignores the fact that imperialism waited until the Iranian people were completely crushed by repression before intervening militarily ! What cynicism to then issue injunctions like : "Take advantage of it, it's the only opportunity you'll ever have to revolt !"

Trump employs his "by force" method all over the world, and nowhere does he give the impression of consulting the people about their own future. There's no reason to believe it would be any different in Iran ! Neither in Venezuela, nor Greenland, nor Panama, nor Cuba, nor Mexico, nor the Sahara, nor Gaza, did Trump consult the people of the country in question before advancing the agenda of American imperialism. And everywhere, the method he used was barbarity : bombing, kidnapping, assassination, the summary physical elimination of enemies, threats including death threats, blackmail, atrocities, wars… And Trump uses the same crude and violent bandit-like methods in his domestic US policy. He has no respect for the American people, and he's unlikely to have any for the Iranian people either !
He blithely tramples all individual and collective rights and the justice of the American people. He destroys jobs with the same brutality with which he tears up contracts signed by the country and all rules, both national and international. The Iranian people have no reason to trust the one who bombs them to ensure their future security. They are paying a heavy price knowing that American imperialism has subjected them to sanctions for years under the pretext of punishing the regime by depriving it of medical care and many resources.

It is not only the Iranian people, but all the peoples of the world who are threatened by such a policy based on the theme "you obey, you bunch of slaves, or I'll crush you, I'll kill you !"

There will be no peace, no security, no law, no justice, no well-being, no freedom for any people until imperialism is definitively and globally overthrown. And the only force capable of eradicating imperialism is the revolutionary proletariat, provided it organizes itself en masse and autonomously from bourgeois and reformist forces, and thus unites with all those who revolt, all those who suffer, all those who are exploited and oppressed, with women, young people, small artisans, small shopkeepers, small farmers, small fishermen, small taxi drivers and truckers, and so on. These are the councils of the working people, elected and recallable, from sovereign and decision-making assemblies, which are called these councils of the working people of the soviets, of the committees and pickets of yellow vests, of the shuras as in Iran, of the tanacs as in Hungary or of the MKS as in Poland, of labor committees as in England, of revolutionary committees as in Spain, etc…

Yes, the revolutionary proletariat is the only one capable of leading the entire working people through the soviets and seizing power through its organs of struggle, uniting behind it all the oppressed or threatened social strata and linking them to committees of foot soldiers and foot police who refuse to obey the old order. This is how revolutionary workers can put an end to imperialism and capitalism, as well as all the dictatorships of the world.

We cannot avoid social revolution. Not in Iran, not in the USA, not in Israel, not anywhere ! If we try to avoid social revolution, we will pay for it with imperialist barbarity and its massacres. The sooner we decide to take our future into our own hands, the less imperialist violence we will suffer, and the less the world we inherit will be destroyed, plunged into barbarity, and in ruins. Let's overthrow them before they kill us and sacrifice our children as they have promised !

All stand with the Iranian people against all those who oppress and kill them, from the Ayatollahs to the monarchy and imperialism !

What does it mean for Haiti to be occupied by foreign armed forces ?

Robert Paris — 2026-02-23T09:21:00Z

Washington sent warships this month to deploy 'gunboat diplomacy' while the island nation continues its freefall of violence and corruption

Early last week, U.S. warships and Coast Guard boats arrived off the coast of Port-au-Prince, as confirmed by the American Embassy in Haiti. On land in the nation's capital, tensions were building as the mandate of Haiti's Transitional Presidential Council neared expiration.

The mandate expired Feb. 7, leaving U.S.-backed Prime Minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé in power. Experts believe the warships were a show of force from Washington to demonstrate that the U.S. was willing to impose its influence, encouraging the council to step down. It did.

This is far from the first time in history that the U.S. has asserted control over Haiti's politics, but as the country remains wracked by gang violence, corruption, and poverty, many are left wondering how effective this latest U.S. intervention really has been.

An estimated 90% of Haiti's capital is said to be controlled by gangs and, in 2025 alone, the United Nations estimates nearly 6,000 people have been killed and thousands injured amid rampant kidnappings and attacks — not to mention nearly half of the population is currently facing acute hunger. And with the fate of future elections still hanging in the balance, an air of uncertainty continues to hang over the troubled nation.

The Transitional Presidential Council, which Washington played a role in installing in April 2024, was intended to be a temporary entity to exercise presidential powers until either a new president was elected or the mandate expired. The council was created following a string of unprecedented political events following the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse in 2021, leaving a power vacuum.

With no functioning parliament, two men claimed power in Haiti, creating widespread confusion. One of the men, Ariel Henry, eventually took over, ruling without elected institutions amid worsening gang violence and weakening state authority. It was then that the U.S. and other international institutions stepped in to create the Transitional Presidential Council, which served as the head of state until very recently.

The presidential council stepped down last weekend after intense political pressure from the United States, just days after U.S. ships arrived in the Bay of Port-au-Prince. This comes after the council's vote to oust the prime minister was met with decisive pushback from the U.S., which views Fils-Aimé as a stabilizing force against gang violence and a potential ally.

And though widespread gang violence prevented Haiti from holding a presidential election Feb. 7 as envisioned at the start of the mandate, Washington-backed Fils-Aimé is now expected to remain in power as the country readies itself to hold general elections — for the first time in more than a decade.

A statement from the U.S. Embassy on X said the presence of American warships off the coast in recent days “reflects the United States' unwavering commitment to the security, stability, and a brighter future for the Republic of Haiti” and that it is intended to reaffirm “partnership and support” and “ensure a safer and more prosperous Haiti.”

But experts who spoke with RS say the presence of the ships sent a stronger message that could be interpreted as a show of support for Fils-Aimé to retain power and a threat if he did not. The ships were a “show of force,” according to Robert Fatton, a political science professor at the University of Virginia and author of several books on Haiti.

Antoine Dupré :

"If one day on your shores

Our tyrants are reappearing

That their fugitive horde

"Serve as fertilizer for our fields."
Haiti : Food, care, homes

No military occupation !

NOU PA VLE RETE ANBA DJOL OKENN PEYI ETRANJE

We do not want to place ourselves under the control of foreign countries

GRO PEYI-YO KITE AYITI VIV

Let the major countries let Haiti live

REVOLISYON SEL SOLISYON

Revolution is the only solution

Haiti being militarily occupied by the most ferocious armed forces of several countries means that the world's ruling classes are so afraid of the oppressed that the proletarians of half an island who might rebel worry them to the point of preemptive, massive military occupation. The great powers are concerned with popular reactions, not with saving victims and helping surviving populations, contrary to what they would have us believe here. If the world's armed forces rushed to intervene, it was to prevent the power vacuum caused by the earthquake that destroyed public buildings, state buildings, and the buildings of foreign occupying forces from turning into a social earthquake. And these forces hide their fear of the Haitian people behind alleged looting, but when you're starving, helping yourself to supplies in stores is simply a matter of survival ; it's not a crime ! The real bandits are the great powers that have been plundering Haiti for hundreds of years, imposing dictatorships on it, and have done nothing to rid it of death squads, macoutes or others, military, paramilitary or militias.

To understand the role of foreign armies in Haiti, it's important to remember that the American, UN, and French military interventions didn't begin with the earthquake. They already claimed to be defending the safety of the civilian population, while ordinary people were constantly being extorted and murdered by armed groups. The true aim of foreign armed interventions, especially that of the US, was to suppress the social uprising of the working people that began in 1986, when the Haitian people rid themselves of the Duvalier dictatorship, which was supported by Western countries. Yes, the working people of Haiti experienced a revolution, attacking the barbaric "Tonton Macoutes" and overthrowing the dictatorship of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, which was backed by the US.

"The earthquake in Haiti has given rise to 'one of the greatest relief operations in the history of the United States,' President Barack Obama said yesterday in a solemn address at the White House, alongside his predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, whom he tasked with raising funds for the victims, while Hillary Clinton arrived yesterday in Port-au-Prince.

The US Secretary of State will attempt to address the logistical challenges posed by the distribution of international aid and seek solutions to deliver this aid to Haitians, while US military personnel are already deployed on the ground. Thus, recognizable by their black berets and red and blue patches bearing the letters "AA," paratroopers from the US 82nd Airborne Division have been positioned in large numbers at the Port-au-Prince airport since Friday.

Alongside the site's only congested runway, some "paratroopers" have set up camp, while others have deployed in this nerve center for the delivery of aid, signaling the end of the relative anarchy that had reigned since Tuesday's earthquake at the airport, which was deprived of its control tower.

Nearly 10,000 American troops in the area

More American paratroopers were expected to arrive throughout the weekend aboard transport planes from North Carolina, bringing the total to 3,500. With the anticipated arrival of the Marines and their three accompanying ships, 9,000 to 10,000 American troops will be deployed to Haiti and at sea starting tomorrow. — Jean Guisnel

"France weeps over the 40,000 corpses on the tiny island, and the whole world rushes to dry the Republic's tears. But what was it like when, a few centuries ago, France shed torrents of blood to seize the Lesser and Greater Antilles ? At sea, off the coast of East Africa, lies the volcanic island of Madagascar. Fifty years ago, we saw how the Republic, now inconsolable and mourning the loss of its children, then subjugated the stubborn natives to its yoke with chains and the sword. No volcano opened its crater there ; it was the mouths of French cannons that sowed death and desolation. The fire of French artillery swept thousands of human lives from the face of the earth until this free people prostrated themselves face down and the queen of the 'savages' was dragged, as a trophy, into the 'City of...'" Lights."

Rosa Luxemburg in "Martinique" (1902) :
Ever since imperialisms and local ruling classes have claimed to save us through military and police interventions, we are dead...

Their armed gangs kill more surely than earthquakes and cyclones !!!!

Major powers are worried about Haiti !!!

Haiti : The "humanitarian" intervention masks a war against the rebellious people

When Western states justify their military intervention, they claim to be blocked by riots of people fighting over food supplies and by looters. This is false ! The food supplies blocked at the airport are not due to bandits or riots... Haitians denounce foreign troops because they know who they are. Since 1994 for the US, since 2004 for all foreign troops, they have occupied the country, and it's not to save them from a natural disaster ! They intervene against the population. They claim that if aid isn't arriving, it's due to the state of the roads. This is false ! They claim to want to save the Haitian people—this is false !

Where does the concern of the major powers towards the Haitian people come from ?

Without delay, a massive armed force (tens of thousands of soldiers) from the US, France, and the rest of the world landed in Haiti following the devastating earthquake that struck the capital, Port-au-Prince. And despite media rhetoric attempting to portray them as providing humanitarian aid, their primary task is restoring order. They are equipped for repression, not rescue. Rescue teams are hampered by the priority given to deploying the military.

From the outset, it's impossible to hide the fact that the primary concern of the major powers is popular reaction, not rescuing victims or helping surviving populations, contrary to what they're trying to make us believe here. While some buildings occupied by Westerners were quickly rescued, this wasn't the case for neighborhoods inhabited by Haitians. Most people received neither food nor medical assistance.

No government forces or military participated in the initial emergency rescues carried out entirely by the local population. Some rescue teams affiliated with NGOs have still not been able to reach the area, while the armed forces present outnumber the rescue teams by hundreds of times. A hospital plane and rescue teams with dogs were refused because the deployment of Marine troops was prioritized, given the emerging popular uprisings.

The world's armed forces rushed to intervene to prevent the power vacuum caused by the earthquake, which destroyed public buildings, state buildings, and the headquarters of foreign occupying forces, from turning into a social earthquake. Of course, the armed forces speak of insecurity, accusing Haitians of attacking shops, but when people are starving, is that really a crime ?

To understand the role of foreign armies in Haiti, it's important to remember that the American, UN, and French military intervention didn't begin with the earthquake. It was a product of the social uprising that swept through Haiti in 1986 when the Haitian people set out to rid themselves of the Duvalier dictatorship, which was supported by Western countries. Indeed, the working people of Haiti experienced a revolution, attacking the "Tonton Macoutes" and overthrowing the dictatorship of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, backed by the US. The regime was permanently shaken. Only recently have the major powers occupying Haiti been able to allow the Haitian army to return to its headquarters, which had been completely deserted after the revolution.

And the tens of thousands of foreign soldiers who have occupied the country since 2004 had no intention whatsoever of challenging the dictatorship and poverty that reign in one of the poorest countries in the world. No, they came to occupy this country against its population because it could threaten the Haitian government and ruling class.

This so-called "peacekeeping force" has done nothing but violently attack the population of poor neighborhoods and slums alongside local armed forces and police. During the last food riots in 2008, the ordinary people of Haiti, among other demands, called for the withdrawal of UN and foreign troops. All these armed forces did nothing against the ruling class, against poverty and exploitation. Nothing in the face of the hurricanes. The one that destroyed Gonaïves, the most revolutionary city in the country, and left its people devastated and mired in mud, without this so-called "international community" lifting a finger.

The earthquake has completely destroyed the credibility of the government, and the major powers fear that the Haitian people will seize the opportunity to get rid of their oppressors.
As for the workers here, far from falling for the hypocritical humanitarian propaganda of the great powers, they should wish for the Haitian people what their oppressors fear most : that the people liberate themselves and that the revolutionary island rise from its ashes....!

Home > 16- EDITORIALS FROM THE VOICE OF WORKERS > Editorial 17-01-2010 - The major powers are worried about Haiti !!!
Editorial 17-01-2010 - Major powers are worried about Haiti !!!

Saturday, January 16, 2010 , by Robert Paris

THE VOICE OF THE WORKERS

"Workers of all countries, unite !"

Karl Marx

How international forces repress the poor population, the film
Haiti : The "humanitarian" intervention masks a war against the rebellious people

International armed forces only monitor poor neighborhoods while the rich maintain armed gangs that loot, terrorize and murder.

The horrors of exploitation in Haiti

The food riots

Armed groups loyal to the Haitian government intervened against the population in 2004
Where does the concern of the major powers towards the Haitian people come from ?

What were the major powers doing in Haiti ?

The social revolt of the population

The Duvalier Dictatorship, the film
A BRIEF HISTORICAL REMINDER :
In 1984, and especially in 1986, the Haitian people set out to rid themselves of the Duvalier dictatorship, which was supported by Western countries. Yes, the working people of Haiti experienced a revolution, attacking the barbaric "Tonton Macoutes" and overthrowing the dictatorship of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, backed by the USA. The regime was permanently shaken. Only recently have the major powers occupying Haiti allowed the Haitian army to return to its headquarters, which had been completely deserted after the revolution.

In the aftermath of February 7th, the fall of Duvalier, groups of unemployed youth and workers, armed with sticks, machetes, knives, stones, and jerrycans of gasoline, roamed the streets in the working-class neighborhoods of cities and some rural areas, chanting and targeting the Tonton Macoutes, their homes, shops, vehicles, and the offices of the VSN, the dictatorship's party. However, the barracks and military posts were not attacked, and weapons seized from the Tonton Macoutes and other torturers of the regime were returned to the barracks ! Meanwhile, leaders of the Duvalier dictatorship were exonerated through a very slight period of opposition, such as de Ronceray and Bazin, and notorious torturers like Ti Boulé went unpunished. The Tonton Macoute militias were attacked by the people, but neither the army nor the government did anything to systematically disarm the armed gangs of the powerful. Many neighborhood activists and members of peasant or religious associations turned to this kind of political opposition, comprised of the talkative but largely inactive, and even less socially radical, democratic petty bourgeoisie : the KONAKOM and other "democratic movements." Or the Democratic Liaison Committees or PANPRA. The movement of grassroots church committees, or Ti-Légliz, or the "Alpha missions" (meaning literacy and awareness-raising), offered a broad framework for poor youth and were more concerned with the plight of the most destitute than the democratic petty bourgeoisie, but they had no program that politically expressed the interests of the masses in the face of the military leaders and the ruling classes. The CATH union also emerged at the forefront of the "democratic sector," even though, in fact, it offered no clear prospects for the exploited. And CATH, like the rest of the political opposition, quickly became caught up in political maneuvering. As for the Stalinist party, Theodore's PUCH, its reputation for radicalism was undeserved. Theodore systematically aligned himself with the most fashionable generals or colonels of the moment. After "acknowledging" General Namphy, defending Jean-Claude Paul, celebrating with Avril, applauding Abraham, and congratulating Cédras, Theodore ended his career by applying for the role of representative in power of the oppressors of the Haitian people, as prime minister of the military dictatorship ! He, who had earned his stripes among the activists of the uprising, accepted the position of prime minister of the dictatorship before it withdrew its offer. When the PUCH called for a "yes" vote in the referendum of March 29, 1987, many people definitively distanced themselves from it.

The failure of this Haitian revolution stemmed from the fact that the parties and social, labor, religious, and political organizations that led it, far from desiring a seizure of power by the oppressed, aimed only to bring the people back into line. They never warned the people against Duvalier's barely reformed army. They never called on the people to unite with the rank and file, nor on the latter to disobey their superiors. They never sought to disarm the militias of the powerful. They never hoped that this revolution would challenge the ruling classes and their system of exploitation. On the contrary, all their efforts were focused on reconciling the people with the army, the people with the ruling classes. The union leaders, religious figures, social democrats, and Stalinists collaborated, ultimately bringing the demagogue Aristide to power. He completely discredited himself by becoming a puppet of the US in 1994. Whether or not Aristide remained in power, social peace was never restored. This is why American and then international troops intervened, fearing a resurgence of the Haitian revolution !

1984 : The proletarian revolution began in Haiti

1984 : More than 200 peasants were massacred in Jean-Rabel after a demonstration for access to land. The Haitian Bishops' Conference launched a short-lived educational program throughout the country.

In 1984, for the first time since the beginning of the Duvalier dictatorship, riots broke out, and slum dwellers looted food warehouses.
Anti-government riots occurred in all the country's major cities.

The first riots began in May 1984 in the city of Gonaïves. Despite the usual repression, the clashes and demonstrations continued. Schoolchildren and high school students protested, chanting, "Down with poverty, down with unemployment !" Repression units, the "Tactical Units," were sent from Port-au-Prince, and on November 28, 1985, the army killed three young men.

Three deaths too many, which would lead to demonstrations in various provincial cities.

Post-Duvalierism

In November 1985, a youth demonstration was brutally suppressed. There was widespread unanimity against the regime.

In Port-au-Prince, at the beginning of January 1986, school directors, including those of Saint-Louis de Gonzagues, Bird College and Sacré-Coeur, establishments frequented by the middle and upper classes, decreed a day of mourning and prayer.

Part of the bourgeoisie, through the Association of Industries of Haiti, began to speak of democracy in a communiqué dated January 11, 1986. It was followed by the Haitian Medical Association.

In Cap Haïtien, 40,000 demonstrators gathered on January 29, 1986 to demand the departure of Duvalier.

Throughout the provinces, young people stood up to the militiamen and soldiers who were shooting and killing. In Port-au-Prince, the Tonton Macoutes were concentrated and regrouped. A state of siege was declared on the evening of January 30, 1986.

Duvalier and his supporters, especially those who knew they would not have a gilded exile, were still going to try to maintain their position.

But the Duvalier dictatorship proved incapable of crushing the uprising. For the United States, which until then had been unstinting in its support, it became urgent to stop the mass movement. Duvalier had to be eliminated while the revolt remained focused on him.

In early February 1986, new riots shook the country's main cities. On February 7, Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to flee to France on a U.S. military plane. Political parties, now legalized, sprang up by the dozens, as did newspapers and radio stations, but it was a National Governing Council (CNG), composed of six Duvalierists, that was tasked with overseeing the transition. The October elections saw a turnout of less than 5% of registered voters. In contrast, the new constitution, adopted in March 1987, was ratified by a very large number of voters. The Tonton Macoutes disrupted the legislative elections, which finally took place in January 1988. A Duvalierist, Leslie Manigat, was elected ; in June, a military coup brought General Namphy to power, only to be ousted in September by General Prosper Avril. He resigned in April 1990. Ms. Ertha Trouillot, chosen by the twelve opposition parties, then presided over a civilian transitional government. In December 1990, regular elections were finally held. Father Jean-Baptiste Aristide (a priest expelled from his order in 1988 for his perceived far-left views) was elected president of the Republic by a large majority. In September 1991, following a bloody coup and violent repression, a military junta led by General Raoul Cédras seized power. Aristide went into exile in the United States. The US imposed an economic blockade on Haiti, further worsening life on the island. Driven by poverty, thousands of Haitians fled or attempted to flee the country. Seeking to buy time, the coup leaders evaded American orders. In September 1994, the United States, with UN approval, finally sent an expeditionary force to the island. President Aristide was reinstated on October 15, 1994. In December 1995, René Préval, a member of Aristide's governing coalition, was elected President of the Republic and appointed Jacques Edouard Alexis as Prime Minister in 1998. In November 2000, in a country without a Parliament since 1999, Aristide returned to power after elections boycotted by the opposition and marred by irregularities.

The Bush administration chose to get rid of Aristide, whom it never liked, because he had ceased to be useful from the perspective of American interests. The political crisis that began last December, which transformed into a military crisis in early February, showed that Aristide, having lost his credibility with the population, had lost his ability to maintain order.

During his first election in December 1990, Aristide was swept up by a vast popular movement that led to his election to the presidency with over 67% of the vote. This momentum was brutally halted a few months later, in September 1991, by the military coup led by General Raoul Cédras. While Aristide had consistently celebrated "the reconciliation of the people and the army" since his election, Cédras and his clique set about demonstrating the opposite by subjecting the country to a bloody repression.

The leaders of American imperialism were not displeased to see the Haitian military wreak havoc in the working-class neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince. But the military did not simply subdue Haiti's working class. They subjected the already depleted Haitian economy to such plunder, expanding racketeering, corruption, and drug trafficking to such an extent that it became an embarrassment even for the bourgeoisie itself, including American bosses who wanted to exploit Haitian workers in peace, earning a dollar and a half a day. The Clinton administration eventually became convinced that it was still preferable to have Aristide in power, properly disciplined and disciplined during his American exile, than a crumbling military dictatorship.

Aristide was reinstated in 1994 after the landing of 20,000 marines ousted Cédras from power. At the time, Aristide retained some credibility with the poor masses, but he worked tirelessly to extinguish all the hopes they had placed in him, doing absolutely nothing to improve the lot of the working class. On the contrary, while the regime's elite and Aristide himself grew richer, the country, already one of the poorest in the world, sank even deeper into misery and famine. Simultaneously, Aristide increasingly relied on the police and armed gangs under his control, the "Chimères," to control the slums, terrorize, and silence the population.

The fact that leaders of the current rebellion, such as Louis-Jodel Chamblain and Guy Philippe, known for their involvement in numerous assassinations and atrocities during Cédras's time, were welcomed as liberators in Port-au-Prince and several other cities, demonstrates the extent to which Aristide's regime had become disconnected from the population. Certainly, many of the crowds who came to cheer them, perhaps the majority, came from the affluent neighborhoods of Pétionville, which had never accepted Aristide. But there were also people from working-class neighborhoods, applauding the former oppressors for having rid them of a regime that had become dictatorial and was widely despised.
Six years of insurrection

On February 7, 1986, after weeks of anti-government demonstrations, "President for Life" Jean-Claude Duvalier, known as Baby Doc, was ousted from power and sought refuge in France. General Namphy became president of a National Governing Council (CNG) composed of four military officers and two civilians.

On February 9, five thousand demonstrators demanded the formation of a civilian government.

On November 17, 1986, a general strike began to demand the dissolution of the CNG

On November 29, 1987, the elections were cancelled.

On January 17, 1988, elections were held under the auspices of the army. Voter turnout was low. Leslie Manigat became president.

On June 18, 1988, Namphy regained power and, on June 22, appointed a military government.

On September 10, 1988, a massacre occurred during a mass in Port-au-Prince.

On September 18, General Prosper Avril, head of the presidential guard and former confidant of BébéDoc, overthrew Namphy. Throughout the following year, General Avril survived several coup attempts and was unable to restore social peace.

In 1990, former "Tonton Macoutes" terrorized the streets of the capital. Neo-Duvalierists created the Union for National Reconciliation, led by Roger Lafontant. A wave of popular protest prevented this party from participating in the elections.

On December 16, 1990, Father Jean Bertrand Aristide, a supporter of "liberation theology," won the presidential election by a landslide and became president on February 7, 1991. He was overthrown on September 30, 1991, by a coup d'état led by General Raoul Cédras, commander-in-chief of the army.
An article from November 1991

Haiti after the coup – While diplomacy deals with Aristide, the army deals with poor Haitians

On September 29 and 30, the army high command seized power in Haiti, for the umpteenth time since the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship.
But unlike previous coups, this latest one did not simply replace one general with another, one clique of officers with another. The ousted and expelled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is the first civilian president elected under relatively regular conditions in the nearly two centuries since the existence of the Haitian state. He was elected in December 1990, by a veritable landslide victory, supported by the poorest classes of Haitian society, the impoverished peasantry, and the slum dwellers of the city's slums.
This young priest, courageous during the final years of the Duvalier dictatorship, from a poor background, who denounced social inequalities, poverty, and the continued presence of Tonton Macoute dignitaries at the helm of power even after Duvalier's departure, had become, in just a few years, the hope of the impoverished Haitian masses who dreamed of change but did not yet imagine they could empower themselves to achieve it. His surprise candidacy in the December 1990 presidential election shook up an electoral campaign that the masses had previously observed with apathy. It sparked genuine electoral mobilization, thwarting manipulation and ballot stuffing in the cities and overcoming the traditional fear of the authorities in the countryside. Aristide was elected in the first round with 67% of the vote, some six times more than his closest rival, Bazin, a candidate who nevertheless had significant money and resources, and who was supported by both the Haitian bourgeoisie and Washington.
Washington and Paris, the two tutelary powers, with their constant stream of observers on the ground, immediately grasped the significance of the event, and despite their previously expressed reservations about Aristide, they were among the first to recognize the legitimacy of the new president.

Aristide, already elected, wasn't even officially sworn in yet when the first coup attempt occurred to prevent it. On the night of January 7, a small group of civilians and military personnel, led by Roger Lafontant, Duvalier's former Minister of the Interior and the main leader of the far-right Macouti, occupied the presidential palace and forced the interim president, Ertha-Trouillot, still in office, to resign. But no sooner had the news spread than thousands, tens of thousands of men and women left the working-class neighborhoods to surround the presidential palace and the army headquarters, to the point that the army, initially cautiously waiting to see what would happen, decided to arrest the small group of coup plotters to protect them from the popular fury.
And so, barely six months later, Aristide was brutally removed from the presidential palace, arrested but saved at the last minute by, it seems, the interventions of the French and American embassies, then sent to Venezuela.

This time, the coup plotters had prepared the ground. It wasn't one of those coups Haiti has become accustomed to since the fall of Duvalier—without going back any further—reduced to a showdown between rival military factions and sometimes resolved after a few exchanges of gunfire. This time, the population was targeted, to terrorize them, to prevent them from reacting as they had in January. The trucks from the "military training camp" from which the coup originated, supported by SUVs filled with armed civilians firing at anything that moved, had already claimed several hundred lives when General Cedras, the Chief of Staff, announced he was seizing power.

It does not matter whether the coup was prepared and executed from the outset by the general staff or whether the latter joined the movement once the coup had been initiated by the extreme right-wing Macoute, military or civilian (several hours after the start of the shooting, speaking of their perpetrators, Cedras was still saying "the rebels").

The armed repression was massive and bloody. The number of victims is estimated at over five hundred dead, with several thousand wounded. The indiscriminate shootings of the early days by an army that was all the more savage because it was not assured of victory, were followed by a more systematic, clearly class-based repression against the poor neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince, Carrefour, Bel Air, and against the slums of Cité Soleil, Cité Carton, etc.

Initially, there were reactions in many neighborhoods of the capital and even more so, it seems, in some provincial towns. But in Port-au-Prince, systematic gunfire from armed military and civilian groups shattered any gatherings that might have converged on the city center, as had happened in January. Attempts to stop the military trucks with trenches and planks of nails were thwarted by the intensive use of firearms, which the population had not anticipated. In some provincial towns—notably Gonaïve—the resistance was more determined, sometimes forcing the military to retreat locally. But it was an unequal struggle. The population was unprepared, neither materially nor, above all, politically, to face such a violent and bloody offensive by the army.

Aristide and the army

The population had, however, demonstrated its capacity to react in January. Furthermore, the army was numerically small, with only seven thousand soldiers for a population of six million, and, more importantly, for a capital city of nearly one million inhabitants, a large proportion of whom lived in the poorer neighborhoods. At the time of Aristide's rise to power, it was notoriously divided between cliques of officers more adept at trafficking and smuggling than at military service. Moreover, while the officer corps as a whole, as well as a segment of the troops heavily influenced by the far-right Macoute faction, harbored a visceral hatred for Aristide and the "populace" he claimed to represent, Aristide, on the other hand, enjoyed sympathy among some of the rank-and-file soldiers, generally drawn from the poor peasantry.

But neither Aristide, nor the "progressive nationalist" movements that, in the wake of Aristide's election, were propelled into the corridors of power, sought to prepare the poor masses for the inevitable confrontations with the army. Nor did they attempt to turn the soldiers loyal to the new regime against hostile officers, even indirectly, even by simply asking the soldiers to keep an eye on the latter so that they could, if necessary, prevent them from doing harm.

On the contrary. They went to great lengths to explain that, with Aristide's rise to power, the army had changed its character, that it was now linked to the people. Even Lafontant's failed coup, in which the army's role was far from glorious, served as an opportunity for Aristide to thank the army on behalf of the people for having defended democracy. Aristide was saying nothing different from the entire political establishment, or indeed, from Paris or Washington—but precisely. The man speaking was carried by the confidence, the hopes, and above all, the illusions of the impoverished majority of the population.

Even the few purges at the top of the army carried out by Aristide, or the dismissal of Chief of Staff Abraham in favor of the young Cedras, which were presented by both Aristide's friends and opponents as highly radical measures, contributed to deceiving and disarming those who had brought Aristide to power. Wasn't the new president demonstrating that he had more power than the general staff ? And didn't this young generation of senior officers, members of the general staff or barracks commanders, who occupied the positions left vacant by the survivors of the Duvalier era, represent a new army, more modern, less corrupt, and more accepting of democracy ? At least, that's what Aristide and the entire supposedly "progressive" movement stirring in his shadow kept repeating.
It was Aristide himself who thus restored the credibility of the officer corps in the eyes of the soldiers. as in the army as a whole – that is to say, its general staff – among the people.

However, on the night of July 28-29, a first alert, a first aborted attempt, was launched from the naval base in Port-au-Prince. It failed after several hours of negotiations, without Aristide or his Prime Minister Préval deigning to offer the slightest explanation for the causes of the coup and the promises they had to make to defuse it.
Aristide and Parliament.

It is true that, during the same period, Aristide and the so-called "Lavalasse" movement that supported him had other targets. The regime was heading towards an institutional crisis, pitting the President of the Republic against Parliament. The political class, traditionally as cowardly as it was ambitious, which had for a time kept its head down in the face of the landslide victory for Aristide, began to raise its head. Parliament was composed in part of spineless individuals gifted with exceptional resilience, who had managed to survive the successive military regimes of coup after coup since the fall of Duvalier (some had been in opposition to him, others, his former ministers). Facing them was a new generation of politicians, elected in the Aristide wave. These two rival components of Parliament, however, eventually found themselves united in a common hostility towards Aristide, who had little regard for Parliament and appointed a government composed of technocrats and close associates.
Aristide's supporters invoked the will of the people, who had given Aristide a majority. Those hostile to Aristide invoked the constitution and the rights of parliament. But they all wanted their role recognized and rewarded with a ministerial post or, at the very least, with one of those political positions that allowed them to appoint relatives and friends to lucrative posts within the state apparatus or nationalized companies.

Despite their ambitions, the parliamentarians would have been too cowardly to unleash the parliamentary harassment against Aristide and his Prime Minister that took off just two or three months after Aristide's investiture and grew increasingly intense during the summer. But these parliamentarians—petty bourgeois opportunists admiring the wealthy bourgeoisie, or bourgeois themselves—sensed the shifting winds among the privileged classes.

The vast majority of the privileged classes never forgave Aristide for stepping outside his role as "priest of the poor" (or more accurately, outside his role as a priest, period). They were even less forgiving of having been imposed on him by "the populace." While the political leaders of the bourgeoisie, with the support of the American embassy, had spared no effort for several months—all verbal, but nonetheless—to convince the generals to withdraw from the political scene and allow elections to take place, it was to ensure the accession to the presidency of Marc Bazin, a former high-ranking international civil servant, former minister under Duvalier Jr., and above all, a true bourgeois and a man of the Americans. But not to install Aristide in the presidential chair !
Once in power, however, Aristide did them no harm. He took no measures that could have curbed the appetites of a voracious privileged class, accustomed to making fortunes not through production—the productive sector being essentially in the hands of foreign capital... or the State—but through commerce, speculation on food prices, smuggling, and, more often than not, the outright plundering of state coffers. No measures were taken, not even in areas where a thorough overhaul would have been necessary from the perspective of the bourgeoisie's own general interests (no measures, for example, to stop smuggling, denounced by a segment of the bourgeoisie that suffered from it ; no measures to end the plundering of Haiti's electricity resources, even though capitalist enterprises not equipped to produce their own private electricity were doomed to disappear, etc.).

No action was taken even against this layer of "big shots" who dominated the countryside by seizing state lands or dispossessing peasants of their land.

Aristide therefore chose not to attempt even a simple reform of the most glaring injustices in Haitian society ; he didn't even try to modernize the functioning of the state and the economy, unlike some "nationalist-progressive" regimes in the developing world that had attempted in the past. This is similar to certain attempts made in Haiti itself in the past, notably by Salnave, the military man who briefly seized power in Haiti at the end of the last century to try to modernize the country through a paternalistic "progressive" dictatorship, and who proved capable of using the poor to break the resistance of the privileged classes, even paying off the former when they returned.

Even what was presented as a fight against corruption within the state apparatus, or as a struggle to "de-Macoute" the civil service—a fight that was obviously well-received by the poor majority of the population and which resulted in the dismissal of a considerable number of civil servants, officials, and even employees—often served as a cover for outright economic layoffs, or simply as a way to replace the men of the previous regime with new ones, not necessarily less corrupt or less arrogant toward the poor.
But to deceive the poor, Aristide engaged in a flurry of speeches. He did the worst thing imaginable : he verbally promised measures against the privileged classes, but never took any action. He gave them the impression that the poor represented a threat to their wealth, their peace of mind, even their lives, but without giving the poor the means to defend themselves, let alone to assert their rights.
This demagogic aspect of Aristide's rhetoric was, however, largely offset by other aspects directed toward the United States, the IMF, and the World Bank, toward which Aristide adopted a low profile. He himself, and even more so the nationalist leaders who supported him and who had previously made anti-Americanism and hostility toward the IMF the expression of their radicalism, executed a complete about-face. The American ambassador, and even more so the French ambassador, were propelled to the rank of friends of the Haitian people. Aristide's ministers announced their desire to cooperate with the IMF to secure loans.

Even with regard to the local bourgeoisie, Aristide's demagoguery stopped at the distinction, repeated throughout his speeches, between patriotic bourgeois—whose friendship the regime sought—and "patripoche" bourgeois. There again, it was just a clever turn of phrase...

Nevertheless, the privileged classes were not wrong to distrust, if not Aristide himself, then at least those who brought him to power. For Aristide's election was indeed perceived by the exploited classes as their victory. This is what engendered the illusions that would so greatly contribute to their disarmament on September 28-29. But before that, the idea that they had a friend in the presidential chair, a man close enough to understand them and who had become president thanks to them, encouraged their demands.
This was true for the workers in the industrial zone who, a few weeks before the coup, began to mobilize, demanding an increase in the minimum wage of 15 gourdes—roughly the same amount as francs—per day, a meager sum in any case, but above all, eroded week after week by accelerating inflation. Oh, it wasn't a militant mobilization, at least not yet ; it was rather the desire to express an aspiration for a president whom they believed to be a friend. And since the minimum wage depended on a parliamentary vote, in opposition to Aristide, it even became a way to support him. Nevertheless, there was a shift in the climate that employers perceived as such, immediately launching a fierce press campaign against these workers' demands, which they claimed threatened to "ruin the economy," and threatening to relocate their capital elsewhere, to another country in Central America or the Caribbean.

In the countryside, too, changes occurred, still minor—challenges to the rights of land-grabbing gentry, delegations of peasants to the capital to complain to those in power about officials who were dispossessing them, a few land occupations—but these could only be felt intensely by the rural elite, accustomed to imposing their will on the poorest peasantry in Latin America.
And then, in the capital, there were simply these poor, unemployed, day laborers living off odd jobs, vagrants, small-time dealers, who didn't demand much, but who dared to occupy bits of sidewalk in the bourgeois neighborhoods. This "arrogance" of the "populace" fueled the hatred of the privileged against those who couldn't, or worse, wouldn't "control" them.

It was the rising hatred within the bourgeoisie that emboldened the parliamentarians before it did so to the general officers recently promoted by Aristide himself, who were generally children of wealthy neighborhoods, where they owned villas and swimming pools. Significantly, however, it was against parliament that Aristide was able, on occasion, to appeal to the streets. Thus, on August 13, when the Préval government was threatened with a vote of no confidence, Aristide's supporters mobilized several thousand demonstrators from the poorer neighborhoods to violently oppose the vote—and successfully so. Having accomplished this, some of the demonstrators attacked the headquarters of the CATH, one of the country's main labor unions, whose leader, despite claiming allegiance to Aristide, was criticizing certain aspects of his policies. The premises were ransacked, as was that of the radical nationalist organization KID, whose leader was nevertheless one of the promoters of Aristide's campaign.

Given the feelings that parliament and parliamentarians inspired among the poor masses, Aristide's supporters had little difficulty mobilizing against them in the slums. Nevertheless, even though it was the slums that provided the troops, they were not mobilized to express their own aspirations or impose their own demands. They were mobilized, through obscure parliamentary maneuvers, to support a government that had done nothing for them. It is also true that parliament was merely a smokescreen. Parliament made people forget about the army. But it was from the army that the blows came.
And when the army's time came, it benefited from the support of the bulk of the bourgeoisie, the privileged classes, the majority of whom were convinced that the chaos had to end.

Aristide's troops—those hundreds of activists from working-class neighborhoods, whom Aristide said he wanted to form into a "Lavalas militia," and who were beginning to learn how to organize the population in order to mobilize them in defense of the Préval government—were, on the other hand, in no way prepared to train the population to defend itself against the army. This was, in part, undoubtedly linked to the level of determination of the population. But it was this way, above all, because the Aristide leaders wanted it that way.

Aristide did not suffer the same fate as Allende. It is not even out of the question that he might serve again one day. But the masses were exposed to the blows.
And now ?

Unlike many other coups in the past in the South American hemisphere, it is unlikely that the United States was behind the coup in Haiti (although the American government may have its own policies, and its various agencies others). Even if Aristide was not their preferred choice, he offered them assurances of goodwill. Moreover, his election made it possible to ensure the pseudo-democratic transition that had seemed impossible to achieve since the fall of Duvalier, which dates back to February 1986, so great was the self-serving irresponsibility of the military clans who did not want to be removed, in favor of civilians, from the positions that best facilitated the plundering of state coffers.

Furthermore, the United States, its ambassador who acts as the country's de facto prime minister, and its experts are the first to know that the Haitian army, whose brutality does not compensate for its internal corruption and incompetence, would be no match for a genuine popular uprising. Did American leaders have reason to fear that removing Aristide would provoke a popular uprising ? One can assume that the United States, or at least its political leaders, had no desire to try that. But one can also imagine that, once the experiment has been attempted—and succeeded—the United States will learn from it and accept the situation.

While France condemned Aristide's overthrow and called for his reinstatement—albeit verbally, but it was a start—the United States adopted a more nuanced stance, which evolved over time. It is also true that France, a small power but one whose distant colonial past fueled certain ambitions in Haiti, seemed to have placed its bets on Aristide to bolster its position against the Americans.

But it is the United States that matters. After condemning the coup and initially calling for Aristide's return, they soon began to adopt the accusations of dictatorial tendencies leveled against Aristide. This shift mirrors the shift observed by the coup leaders themselves. Cedras has always maintained that he seized power only to prevent Aristide from establishing his dictatorship. And to demonstrate his "democratic" goodwill, he did not take the presidential seat, but instead installed the person who, according to the constitutional order of succession, should replace the president and prime minister in the event of a vacancy : the senior judge of the Court of Cassation, Joseph Nérette. And to further this charade of respect for the constitution, he forced parliament, surrounded by the army, to officially ratify the choice.

In truth, military coercion did the parliamentarians more good than it frightened them (except for Aristide's few loyalists). In the event of unrest, they could use coercion as an excuse for having done what they wanted. While the army was massacring people in the streets, carrying out raids and arrests, the new "interim president" appointed a prime minister, a former president of a human rights league (!), who began negotiating with representatives of the political parties, none of which were banned. Rid of Aristide, the entire political scene—including Théodore, head of the Haitian Communist Party—rediscovered its purpose, began to conspire, discuss future elections, distance itself more from Aristide's "dictatorial tendencies" than from the actual dictatorship of the army, and thus prepare a new "democratic transition" with new elections, which the army seems willing to accept.
While the United States remained committed to the economic embargo against the new government, a common ground was emerging between its leaders and Cedras to find a way to return to "constitutional order." Cedras declared himself ready to hold elections as soon as possible—it was only Aristide's return that he categorically opposed. He knew that, on this issue, he fairly well represented the sentiments of Haiti's privileged classes who, on the one hand, wanted the embargo lifted—the oil embargo in particular risked paralyzing all economic activity—even if it meant reinstating Aristide, but who feared even more that Aristide might return as a victor and that this return could trigger an explosion of uncontrollable anger and a desire for revenge among the poor.

Oh, Aristide, for his part, is making political concessions ! First, to the army, from whose "healthy elements" he always declares the return to democracy must be expected ! Then to the foreign powers—the United States, France, and even Venezuela, which is hosting him—in whose actions he declares he is placing his hopes. And finally, to the fears of even the privileged classes and the political class, by gradually reducing his demands, by agreeing to be subordinate to parliament, and thus virtually accepting the role of a president who merely inaugurates chrysanthemums. He is now asking for practically nothing more than the replacement of Cedras as head of the army—which, incidentally, allows him to place the blame for the military coup and repression solely on the "madness" or "ambition" of the Chief of Staff. But perhaps Aristide will even have to accept Cedras. Will he be able to return to the presidency then ?

The United States might accept Aristide's return, which some Latin American countries, like Venezuela, strongly support. But this return must not appear as a victory for the poor masses, but rather as a gift from Western democracies.
The problem for the United States, as for the privileged classes, is not Aristide, but still and always this impoverished Haitian mass, with its immense capacity to endure misery and oppression, from which all the scoundrels, great and small, who have made fortunes off its back have so greatly benefited ; but also with its sudden, explosive outbursts of anger. As a French senior officer naively reminded us recently when questioned about the possibility of a French military intervention in Haiti to "restore democracy" : "After all, it was the Haitians who gave the French army, the best in the world at the time, under Napoleon, a truly memorable thrashing." The Haitians that French and American leaders fear are not Cedras and his army, certainly not. The entire problem for the imperialist powers is convincing this army to behave more responsibly. But above all, without harming it, because if this army collapses, how could the United States avoid military intervention, either direct or under the auspices of the OAS (Organization of American States) ?
An article from January 1992

The Haitian army, being nothing more than a collection of armed brigands driven primarily by the immediate interests of the various cliques into which it is divided—each more or less linked to similar cliques within the privileged civilian class—even if Cédras wants the "Théodore solution," he would need considerable maneuvering to impose it. The Cafeteria (Editor's note : a military unit linked to the Tonton Macoutes, the group behind the coup) has not necessarily had its final say. And even if there are means—money, promises of promotion, perks—to defuse Major François's opposition, he constantly breeds others like him within the ranks of an officer caste rotten to the core. Especially since this segment of the privileged class, enriching itself within or around the Tonton Macoute mafias, has just demonstrated once again, through its protests around Parliament, etc., that it does not want anyone to alter the current situation, which suits it perfectly. It only takes one of the Tonton Macoute clans to feel, rightly or wrongly, threatened with being removed from a lucrative position for its allies or henchmen in the barracks to attempt yet another armed coup.

And we saw, on September 30th, how the action triggered by a limited number of soldiers from the Cafeteria and the Training Camp (Editor's note : the other military unit behind the coup), supported and financed by bourgeois Tonton Macoutes, drew in the entire army, and then, from there, the whole political class. Cédras, like his predecessors, prefers to follow the initiatives of the regiments most directly linked to the Tonton Macoutes, which are also often the most irresponsible, even from the perspective of the privileged class's interests, rather than dismantle the army. And on this point, Cédras knows he can count on the understanding of American leaders. The United States would have no trouble bringing this small and uncombative army to heel, an army whose irresponsibility and corruption bother them. But it is the only army at their disposal in Haiti to control the poor. There are no others. Unless it is in a political position to intervene militarily, or to deploy troops from another nation, the United States will protect the Haitian army, that is, its general staff and officer corps. If the United States is powerless in the face of the Haitian army's political incompetence and irresponsibility, it is because it does not want to do otherwise. And it is the same political mechanism that ensures that even the few—very rare !—intellectual leaders within the general staff, those capable of understanding that the pseudo-democratic form of government in no way threatens the role of the army—in many Latin American "democracies," starting with Venezuela and Colombia, the army plays a role in social life as overwhelming as in Haiti, if not more so—even these "intellectual leaders" always end up giving in to the most corrupt and macho elements within the army. This was demonstrated under Avril. It is being rebuilt under Cédras. The Cédras or the Avril cannot attack the François, Régala, J.-C. Paul, except with a blunted foil, without really hurting them – except by poisoning them secretly (Editor's note : allusion to the death of J.-C. Paul, head in his time of the main barracks of the capital, notorious drug trafficker, who died of poisoning).

This is why Cédras is equivocating and trying to appease the hotheads in the army. This is also why, incidentally, the army will always be marked by the Macoute regime, subject to pressure from the far right. This is why only fools can dream of a "democratic army," and only those who want to deceive the poor can defend the illusion.

Theodore, prime minister ?

Although not certain, Theodore's accession to the post of Prime Minister is nevertheless not implausible.

The bourgeoisie, almost entirely delighted by the coup of September 30th, is nonetheless suffering the consequences of the embargo. Oh, not personally : for those with money, there is no embargo. While the poor starve, as the price of rice, sugar, and so on has skyrocketed, the bourgeoisie have no trouble obtaining luxury foodstuffs, and if they so desire, eating caviar and drinking champagne. Not all of them are even suffering from the embargo in their businesses. For those who profit from smuggling—generally the sectors most closely linked to the Tonton Macoutes—the embargo is even a gift : it fuels smuggling, it allows them to raise prices to increase profits and shift the blame onto the embargo. Moreover, since the "Lavalas supporters" (Editor's note : Aristide's followers) offer only the embargo as a hope to the poor masses, the latter don't even protest against the price increases for fear of appearing to oppose the embargo. By enduring the price hikes, the poor believe they are suffering for Aristide's return, when in reality, they are only suffering to further enrich a number of large merchants and speculators.
Despite its advantages for some in the privileged class, the embargo is nonetheless detrimental to the businesses of all those who rely on "legal" international trade : subcontractors in the industrial zone, companies that buy or sell abroad. Furthermore, the embargo's impact on fuel supplies makes it more difficult for all productive businesses to operate.

If, therefore, the appointment of Theodore – whose servility towards them has been evident to the privileged classes over the past five years – is likely to give the United States a pretext for abandoning the embargo, it would suit the interests of a large part of the bourgeoisie.

From the American perspective, it may seem paradoxical that Washington would accept, even sponsor, the appointment of a man who is still the secretary-general of a party that proudly proclaims itself communist, even if he promises to resign should he become Prime Minister. And Washington would surely have preferred Bazin. This old "communist" label itself—which the Americans know perfectly well means nothing, given that Théodore is even prepared to stoop lower toward the US than Duvalier did at certain times—nonetheless provides an advantage from the Americans' point of view. They trumpet their commitment to the "democratic process." As recently as early December, Alvin Adams stated in an interview on Radio Métropole that there was no question of ending the embargo before the "restoration of constitutional order," which requires "the return of Aristide." Alvin Adams – like the State Department – would like to be able to do without Aristide, but he needs a solution that leaves him in the good role of defender of democracy, even if that word only covers a barely disguised dictatorship.

But what more could be asked of the military as a "democratic gesture" than to accept as Prime Minister a "man of the left," even a former "communist," who also has Aristide's own endorsement ? The United States, which doesn't need to be more royalist than the king, could then proclaim that the democratic process was back on track—and lift the embargo. Even if, "temporarily," Aristide were asked to remain abroad, as Theodore envisioned. Even if, behind the puppet Theodore, the army had a completely free hand to continue its policy of repression, as well as its lucrative little schemes.

There remains the army itself. From the perspective of the political leaders within the military, Théodore has several advantages. He was the first non-Macoute political leader to support the military coup and to hail Cédras as the "savior of democracy." This deserves recognition. Especially since it wasn't a moment of weakness : from 1986 onward, from Namphy to Avril, Théodore had courted every general who came to power. And when he seemed to pursue an "independent" policy toward the general in the presidential chair, it was to support Colonel Jean-Claude Paul.
Furthermore, Théodore made many political concessions to the Macoute circles themselves. He was one of those who, after Duvalier's fall, campaigned for "national unity," even explicitly stating that Duvalierists should have their place in this union.
It is not certain, however, that Theodore will be accepted by the Macoutic circles and their extensions within the army. Hence, to convince them, Theodore's veritable declaration of love during his press conference addressed to the army. But since feelings aren't everything, Theodore also promises the army money and greater resources.

Honorat or Theodore : in any case, power will be in the hands of the general staff.

The coming days will reveal who will impose their solution : those in the ruling circles willing to make some concessions to the "democratic process"—that is, to the American recommendation to disguise the dictatorship behind a constitutional façade—or those who refuse. This will inevitably lead to a kind of showdown between the powerful figures in power. This showdown may remain discreet, but it could also manifest itself in armed demonstrations, or even a new attempted coup. Theodore's home was reportedly threatened for the first time by an armed military group. It seems that, despite the "assurances" he claims to have, some soldiers are not to be believed. Given the army's state of indiscipline, even within its own high command, and even if the "assurances" come from Cédras himself, they are no guarantee of success... [...]. If the Théodore government finally takes office and the United States gives it its blessing—and if the military agrees, why wouldn't they, since even Aristide endorses Théodore—the poor masses will then witness the full extent of democracy granted to them under the aegis of the privileged classes. The absolute power of the section leaders in the countryside ; the systematic interventions of the military in slums ; the repression, the torture, the assassinations ; the right of all those who hold a shred of power, by virtue of their uniform, their revolver, their position—or their money—to steal from and plunder the poorest. Just like before. Just like in Duvalier's time. Except that multiparty politics will exist—but it has existed for five years already, and even the perpetrators of the September 30th coup didn't abolish it—and that clashes, verbal or armed, in Parliament will serve as a substitute for "democracy." These cowardly, greedy, spineless parliamentarians, subservient to every passing power, are, at best, what is granted to the poor masses as "representatives of the people." And this Parliament, which, without even changing its composition, has shifted from supporting Aristide to supporting Cédras-Nérette-Honorat, is the supreme guarantor of "democracy" !
It is likely that the poor masses won't even have the right to Aristide's return, because a "solution" will surely be found to keep him away, held only in reserve by the imperialist powers, in case, in the future, it becomes necessary to appease the poor masses. But if, despite everything, Aristide were allowed to return and if he were not transformed into a martyr by a Tonton Macoute soldier as soon as he set foot on Haitian soil, he would in any case be a helpless hostage.

Military policy

In the shadow of the negotiations under the auspices of the OAS, the army continues its policy of repression. During the coup, the indiscriminate, widespread repression aimed to strike the masses, to terrorize them. This was intertwined with the vengeance of all the Tonton Macoute thugs who felt threatened under Aristide, even though Aristide merely made speeches against them, without actually harming them.
For the past few weeks, something else has emerged. Through arrests, house searches, and targeted assassinations of activists, a political will is manifesting itself : the will to decimate, demoralize, and incapacitate this generation of activists who emerged before and after the overthrow of Duvalier—these women and men who lead associations, neighborhood committees, and the Ti Église (a Haitian parish church), who provide the foundation for the political organizations that claim to want to change Haiti in a more democratic direction.

These few thousand young people had many successive illusions, and their determination to act had many limits. Their perspectives were vague, and generally boiled down to the conviction that the order of things under Duvalier should not return, but without really knowing what needed to be done to make that happen.

But their mere existence was a threat to the established order, to the privileged class, to the military. Not for who they were or what they said, but for what they were likely to become. And also for what they did—despite the moderate nature of their activities—because the peasant associations, the youth groups in the countryside, and the neighborhood committees in the cities represented, in themselves, a challenge to the authority of the section leaders, a threat to control embezzlement, a structure parallel to the military structures. And even though the committees and associations never gathered large numbers, were neither very active nor radical, they did, in fact, foster a climate of political discussion. The ruling class in Haiti never tolerated the development of such a breeding ground. From it could emerge activists and organizations capable of providing the poor masses with the frameworks and structures they need to defend themselves and, fearing the fears of the wealthy, to liberate themselves !

Despite the repression, this activist milieu did not disappear. But it was severely tested and, above all, lacked prospects. It believed in democracy and freedom, and this conviction gave it the courage to overthrow Duvalier. It then believed in elections, but the massacres in Vaillante Alley blocked this prospect. Disoriented, it regained hope and believed it had found a new direction when Aristide ran for office.
Aristide was elected. But—whatever one's opinion of his six months in power—September 30th showed that this power depended on the goodwill of the army, and that, despite what Aristide himself said, it was the same army as before, ferocious against the exploited classes.

What are the prospects ?

The activists who emerged in 1986 and who weren't so terrified by the repression that they abandoned the struggle are, in a way, at a crossroads.
Those who are frightened by the repression, who become discouraged, are, in a sense, vindicating the military, who will conclude that terror is effective. But one cannot be an activist forever without prospects. And the one offered by the Lavalas leadership is not one. Distributing leaflets, doing graffiti, etc., to support the embargo certainly requires courage from the activists who do it, and this courage deserves respect. But the embargo doesn't depend at all on the activists. It depends on Bush's decisions. He can abandon it whenever it suits him. To offer this to the activists is to offer them inactivity, powerlessness. Furthermore, this means using them to campaign and spread illusions among the masses—the illusion that they can trust the leaders of the imperialist world, the Bushes, Mitterrands, or Ocampos, to fulfill their democratic aspirations. But what will happen tomorrow if the embargo only results in a Theodore-Cedras government ? How can we continue to honestly justify the sacrifices imposed on the poorest in the name of the embargo ? Activists must reflect on this question. They must realize the futility of this policy. Are the masses not sufficiently mobilized or mobilizable to propose an alternative ? Perhaps. But making them believe in Santa Claus or Bush's democratic goodwill won't help raise awareness among the poor and, above all, in their self-confidence.

And then there's something else. The embargo, even as presented by the Lavalas leadership, is only a means to an end. The goal is to bring Aristide back.
But even if they succeeded ?

The day before the coup, Aristide was exactly where the Lavalas supporters wanted to put him. He theoretically held power. He had the support of 67% of the electorate. And yet, the clearly expressed will of more than two million men and women—to speak only of those who voted—was trampled upon by this corrupt, undisciplined, pathetic, and ferocious army, by barely more than four thousand men, some of whom were actually Aristide supporters.

But how was this possible ? Why were four thousand men able to impose their choice of leaders on several million citizens ? And above all, how can this be prevented in the future, even in the "optimistic" event that current developments lead to the return of Aristides ?

To ask these questions honestly, and to pursue them to their logical conclusion, is to challenge the policies of Aristide and the Lavalas leadership during their time in government. It is to challenge the lie of the "people-army alliance," to challenge an entire policy that consisted of offering the poor only words of hope, while the bourgeoisie was given advantages under the pretext of winning them over to the "Aristide cause." Ultimately, the bourgeoisie financed the coup, and the poor masses, denied the means to defend themselves and whose heads were filled with a false sense of security, were unable to defend themselves.
Activists who do not ask themselves these questions, who do not dare to go all the way with these ideas and break with their past illusions, are condemned, at best, to ineffectiveness and at worst, in the event that the masses were to get into a frenzy to the point of forcing the ruling classes to bring back Aristide to calm them down, they would be active accomplices in lies to disarm them again.

To accuse the poor, present or future, of being incapable of resisting the military would be sickeningly stupid. The country's so-called "elites" have always accused "the people" of not being ready for democracy, not being ready for development. And this kind of accusation came from this "elite," this intelligentsia, whose few most honest members have generally always fled abroad to secure a less wretched life ; and whose majority used their knowledge and positions to contribute to the privileged classes' plundering of the people.

The only way to avoid replicating this attitude within activist circles is to clearly and consciously choose the side of the exploited classes. There is no room in Haiti, not even for a truly effective democracy, without choosing to fight to organize the exploited classes, the working class first and foremost, discreetly, piecemeal during difficult times, and increasingly openly as the poor learn to defend themselves. Even for the relative freedoms and rights granted to other peoples, we cannot rely on top-down solutions. Salvation can only come from below. The working class and the poor neighborhoods organizing for their class interests—political as well as material—and giving themselves the means to defend themselves, this is the only possible foundation for democracy.

But this cannot be achieved by incantation, by chance, in the heat of events. It requires activists who defend this policy. It requires that they have made a fundamental choice beforehand. And this choice is that of the only political strategy that stems from the idea that it is the seizure and exercise of power by the organized proletariat that can radically transform society and overthrow not only the officer caste, the Tonton Macoutes, but the entire propertied class—that is to say, the choice of Marxism and communism.

At a time when the possibility of Theodore coming to power, as well as the collapse of regimes in Eastern European countries, shows the depth of the rot reached by "official" communism, this ideology which has only kept the "communist" label to better betray its spirit, to serve the bureaucracy of the former Soviet Union, it is essential that our generation of activists, after so many illusions, errors, hesitations, uncertainties, reconnect with the ideas of class struggle, with communism, with the battles that the proletariat wages, through its advances and retreats, to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie.

And if this choice is made, even by a significant fraction of the activist community, a truly revolutionary organization serving the proletariat could emerge from the trials of repression. A revolutionary organization whose activists would retain the enthusiasm of the youth of 1986, but without their illusions and naiveté. Activists who would know that freedom and democracy are inseparable from social equality, and that this social equality will not be given to the exploited classes, but rather that the exploited classes have the power to impose it by taking control of all the wealth of this country and its use. In that case, history may hold surprises not only for the uniformed executioners, but for the entire bourgeoisie, both Haitian and international.
An article from 1993

The return of Aristide […] that is the concession that the general staff has agreed to […].

This was, in fact, the only concession. For the rest, Aristide was forced to concede on almost everything. The American press reported that, until the very last moment, Aristide hesitated to sign the agreement, so many unsavory things were being asked of him. But at the last minute, he finally gave in. To save face, he refused to meet Cédras personally. But upon his return, he will have to meet and interact daily, if not with Cédras himself, then at least with the other members of the general staff, who are equally responsible for the September 30th coup. Incidentally, the Lavalas supporters (1) present as a sign of Aristide's future power the fact that he will be responsible for appointing the future commander-in-chief. This is an outrageous claim after what happened on September 30, 1991, under the authority of Cédras, who had already been appointed by Aristide. But in addition, Aristide would have to appoint the new commander-in-chief from among the generals of the high command, and there were only four, all equally responsible for establishing and maintaining the military dictatorship : Biambi, Duperval, Max Mayard, and Cédras himself.
On the most important issue, Aristide had already conceded long before the Governor's Island negotiations by granting amnesty to the entire army for its coup. He only clung, for months, to the idea of expelling Cédras from the army and even from the country. This was tantamount to absolving the civilian and military leaders responsible for September 30th, because it certainly wasn't Cédras alone, nor even flanked by Colonel François, who personally massacred the three thousand victims of the repression. But at the last minute, they even persuaded him that Cédras himself would not be dismissed, but rather "assert his right to retirement." The army thus refused to provide even a single scapegoat from its own ranks. No, on the contrary, its leaders proudly asserted that they had been right to stage the coup, thereby bringing about, to use Cédras's recent cynical expression, a "democratic correction" to Aristide's regime. By signing the Governor's Island Agreement, Aristide not only absolved the army of the past coup, but he also implicitly granted it the right to bring about this kind of "democratic correction" to the functioning of the political system in the future.

Not only will the army still be there after October 30th, with the same general staff, the same hierarchy, the same rabid dogs, and therefore in a position to overthrow Aristide whenever it chooses, but it will be able to do so with the tacit approval Aristide has just given it. Furthermore, the threat of a coup will serve as justification, even for the Lavalas leaders, to oppose all demands and even to disavow demonstrations in favor of Aristide. "No provocations" so as not to give pretexts to the coup plotters. This is the name on which the opposition will be silenced. Without even having to intervene, the general staff will exert constant pressure on political life. Which will not prevent it, however much Aristide discredits himself, from intervening anyway. […]

From today onward, however, there is a pretense of recognizing Aristide as head of state. He will officially appoint the future Prime Minister, whom the American advisors have undoubtedly already chosen for him. This Prime Minister will, however, have to be approved by Parliament.
There is obviously a surreal aspect to the power theoretically granted to this collection of doormats, on which all the military have wiped their feet, called Parliament and the Senate. And let's not dwell on the ridiculousness of all these people, fussing about, taking themselves seriously in the role assigned to them. They do, however, have a function. By pretending to increase the role of Parliament, that of the President of the Republic is diminished.

We saw how easily the army dismissed Aristide two years ago, even though he enjoyed the authority of the most widely elected president in Haiti's history and was accused of concentrating too much power in his own hands, particularly in relation to Parliament. Well, this time, even officially, he will have only a limited role. The Prime Minister will govern. Parliament will control the Prime Minister. And of course, the army will still be overseeing everyone, under the tutelage of the United States. And Aristide will no longer be the "elected president," but the "rehabilitated" president, brought back by the grace of the United States, as conservative publications like Haiti Observateur are already keen to point out.

It doesn't matter ; Aristide is now, once again, the president. His signature will now be required on official documents. He was even given permission to speak on national radio. Oh, with precautions, so as not to offend the military or the Tonton Macoutes : Aristide had to make his first statement since the signing of the Governor's Island Agreement on an American radio station. But the national radio stations agreed to broadcast his speech. It's true that he wasn't at all aggressive toward the military coup leaders. On the contrary, he addressed the army, saying that it is "the responsibility of the current leaders of the military institution to guarantee everyone's safety." His message was heeded : that very evening, the military, in the name of maintaining order, beat Lavalas activists and sympathizers who were demonstrating in Cité Soleil, brandishing portraits of Aristide. […]

Why did the United States sponsor Aristide's return ?

Although the acceleration of negotiations for Aristide's return in recent weeks is clearly the result of increased pressure from US leaders, for many poor people it is still their victory.

There is some truth in this feeling among the poor masses. Ultimately, it is the fear of the poor masses and their revolts, both in Haiti itself and, more generally, in the volatile region of the Caribbean and Central America, that makes Aristide useful to American imperialism (just as Juan Bosch is useful to them in the Dominican Republic) (2). But only ultimately, because if, in practice, the Americans have accelerated the movement for Aristide's return, it is precisely because the masses are demobilized and Aristide's return will only be perceived as a victory passively, and certainly not as a dangerous encouragement to join the struggle. Moreover, this is one of the reasons why the imperialist powers, who have treated Aristide as head of state from the beginning, have nevertheless been in no hurry to pressure the military to accept his return ; One of the reasons, also for adding, even now, an additional waiting period until October 30, is that the imperialist leaders want it to be done gradually, so that the masses do not emerge from their apathy.

Because if the choice to bring back Aristide was made by the Americans the day after the coup, it was obviously not to respect the feelings and interests of the poor masses but to deceive and demobilize them and avoid the danger represented by these hundreds of thousands of poor Haitians gripped by hunger, living in subhuman conditions and, moreover, terrorized by a bloody military dictatorship that is hardening day by day.

Aristide still lives on in the hearts of the poor masses of the population, despite everything. By sponsoring his return, the United States is trying to regain his credibility for maintaining order and stability in Haiti.

That's why they used their influence to convince the army to accept the return. The UN-imposed blockade is also a means of exerting pressure. While some sectors of the bourgeoisie benefit, others suffer. The political and military crisis triggered by the September 30th coup is detrimental to business. It's no coincidence that the meeting of political parties to give parliamentary cover to the US-dictated solution will be followed by a meeting of Haitian and American business leaders and IMF representatives with Aristide. Haiti interests them, especially because of the low wages. But for business to thrive, order is essential. And social peace is crucial : that's what they're asking Aristide to guarantee.

The far-right Macoutic movement and so-called progressive nationalists oppose American interference.

A civilian mission, and soon an international police force, are supposed to guarantee the smooth running of the transition period.
The civilian mission is already in place. Its members are not solely occupied with lounging by the pools of the luxury hotels where they are staying. Radio Métropole reported that it organized meetings in several provincial cities, bringing together section leaders and the officers or non-commissioned officers commanding local military posts, to convince them of the necessity of democracy. At the end of these meetings, notably in Hinche, they distributed the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the soldiers present. The latter must have appreciated this commendable educational effort. The mission was somewhat less successful in front of Saint-Jean Bosco (3) or in Cité Soleil where, although duly summoned by Lavalas officials, the international observers had to be content with watching the soldiers beat the demonstrators, while themselves being subjected to a barrage of insults.

As for the military mission, it hasn't arrived yet. The signatories and protectors of Governor's Island are being very discreet about it. It is expected to consist of around a thousand military personnel, from Latin American countries or perhaps Francophone countries, officially intended to ensure that the transition takes place.

Would this military presence discourage any potential coup attempts by the most hardline Macoutic factions ? Perhaps, but it's not certain. It is at least as much intended to demobilize the poor masses, if only by reinforcing the argument : there's no need to mobilize to protect Aristide's return ; there are troops for that.

Meanwhile, however, the potential presence of these foreign troops is the pretext invoked by the Macoutic circles to cloak their inherent hostility to Aristide's return in the trappings of outraged nationalism. This is nothing new. For two years, the military coup leaders, the far-right Macoutic faction, and drug traffickers have made extensive use of nationalist or Black nationalist demagoguery to deny anyone the right to interfere with their freedom to traffic and murder in their own country. All this, of course, does not prevent them from depositing their stolen money with the very imperialist power whose interference they pretend to oppose, nor from whining for its recognition.

However, the denunciation of foreign intervention is also the reason invoked by some so-called progressive nationalists, such as Ben Dupuy and more generally the Haiti Progress movement, to distance themselves from Aristide.

The poor should certainly not see these foreign troops as friends, much less protectors, even if they are officially sent to protect Aristide's return. These troops, instruments of United States policy, are just as much enemies of the poor masses as the Haitian army.

But the verbal anti-imperialism of people like Ben Dupuy shouldn't obscure the fact that these same people didn't protest at all, let alone resign, when Aristide, still at the National Palace, advocated for a marriage between the army and the people. These nationalist-progressive cliques are just as responsible as the most moderate Lavalas supporters for the disastrous policies that disarmed the poor in the face of the army. And even today, by breaking with Aristide on the issue of verbal anti-imperialism, these people continue to deceive the poor, concealing their responsibility for the repression by the national state apparatus, the national army. Indeed, it is precisely in this that even their supposed anti-Americanism, even their supposed anti-imperialism, to which their progressive political identity is limited, is completely bogus. Since the American occupation troops were withdrawn from this country almost sixty years ago, it is indeed "our" national state apparatus, it is indeed "our" army, "our" political class, that have been the principal instruments of imperialism.
That is why workers, day laborers, the unemployed, the rural poor, the proletariat have nothing to expect from either the protagonists of the Governor's Island Agreement or its most vocal opponents […]

Voice of the Workers, July 15, 1993
***
Since this text was written, the process imposed by the United States has begun. A process of democratization ?

Not even on the garden side !

Oh, the actors planned in the "democratization" scenario played their parts. Aristide, for starters, inaugurated his role as "restored president" by gracing with his presence this meeting of businessmen, organized in Miami. There, American capitalists interested in subcontracting in Haiti met with representatives of major Haitian bourgeois dynasties, such as Mews and Bigio, proud to have financed the coup, and Brandt, the "Rockefeller of Haiti," according to the Miami Herald, who reportedly spearheaded a fundraising effort among business leaders to help the coup government pay the soldiers' salaries. The highlight of the meeting was Aristide's embrace of the president of the Haitian Chamber of Commerce, representing all these prominent figures. These same business circles had no trouble accepting Aristide's nomination of Robert Malval, the head of one of Haiti's largest printing companies, as his candidate for Prime Minister.

The constitutional procedure was scrupulously respected. The Senate, then Parliament, debated Malval's candidacy, with numerous motions and counter-motions. Malval indulged himself by giving his government a vaguely "left-wing" slant, by including some former ministers or high-ranking officials from the "Lavalas" government overthrown by the army ; by giving the Ministry of National Education to the current leader of KONAKOM, a party considered "socialist" ; and by appointing as Minister of Social Affairs a close associate of Théodore, former Secretary General of the former Communist Party.

In his inaugural address, Malval preached "national unity", "forgetting the past", "dialogue between all", before calling "on all exiles without exception to return to the country".

The call was heeded. Generals Namphy and Avril, the two military dictators of the post-Duvalier era, who had been in exile even under Cédras's military dictatorship, returned to the country. Frank Romain, one of the leading figures of the Duvalier regime, also returned. Simone Duvalier, wife of François and mother of Jean-Claude, is leaving for Haiti. And rumors are circulating about the possibility of Jean-Claude Duvalier himself returning. Thus, it is possible that the former dictator, ousted in 1986, could be back in Haiti even before Aristide, the current president, can set foot there again.
Even behind the scenes, the "democratization" is therefore primarily benefiting the far-right Macouti faction. This was enough, however, for the United States, as soon as Malval was sworn in, to consider democracy underway, lift the embargo, and unfreeze the accounts in American banks of the most notorious figures responsible for the coup.

On the inside, this brand-new Caribbean democracy is a carbon copy of the military dictatorship. Even during the inauguration ceremony of Malval, Aristide's designated Prime Minister, soldiers beat the few dozen young people who had gathered near the gates of the National Palace to cheer Aristide. And the few Lavalas activists, naive enough to take Malval's call for the "return of the exiles" at face value, who decided to leave their internal exile to return to their towns or villages, were generally seized upon arrival, beaten, arrested, and sometimes tortured by the official authorities, who were now supposed to be obeying Malval and Aristide.

The American "great democracy" is quite ready to accept these imperfections in the democratic process... There are plenty of other "democracies" of this ilk in this world. However, it may be more troubled by the provocative activism of all those who, Governor's Island Agreement or not, Cedras Agreement or not, do not want Aristide's return, any more than they want anyone to touch their privileges, large or small, their positions, or their illicit activities.
The "attachés"—a kind of civilian auxiliary to the army—have twice expressed, in a provocative and undisguised manner, their hostility to the ongoing process. The first time was by assassinating several supporters of Evans Paul, the legitimate mayor of Port-au-Prince, during his attempt to be reinstated in office. The second time, by intervening, armed, against the peaceful commemoration of the massacre at the Saint John Bosco church, perpetrated during the Namphy dictatorship. Isméry, a prominent liberal businessman close to Aristide, was killed by several shots fired at point-blank range, and five other people present were murdered with machetes, before the assassins calmly left. All this happened in front of UN observers who, in fact, witnessed...

These are not isolated reactions from a few far-right thugs. A segment of the privileged class, starting with the military hierarchy, profits too much from smuggling, racketeering, and drug trafficking to even risk being excluded from it.

Will the United States eventually intervene, either directly or under the auspices of the UN or the Organization of American States ?

Will they simply postpone Aristide's return until the legitimate president, exercising his fictitious prerogatives from emigration, finally reaches the end of his term ?

Faced with the clear refusal of part of the army and the far-right Macoutic to accept Aristide's return, American leaders are speaking with increasing insistence of a "new police force", overseen by specialists from an international intervention force.

The Haitian army is small in number, poorly disciplined, with a hierarchy corrupt to the core, and largely linked to drug trafficking. But it is the only force facing the impoverished masses—with, it is true, the support of auxiliary troops under the "section leaders," the "attachés," the private militias of the powerful (4), and the far-right Macoutic movement. This is why, despite all the talk of "democratization," the United States is careful with the Haitian army, just as the army protects the far-right Macoutic movement—even though they would like to use the pretext of protecting Aristide to train it, modernize it, and make it somewhat more reliable.

The impoverished masses of Haiti cannot even hope for the right to a few democratic freedoms without the army and its auxiliaries being swept aside. At certain points during the last seven years—in the months following Duvalier's fall, as well as later, just before Aristide's rise to the presidency, when a spontaneous and violent mobilization of the poor neighborhoods thwarted an initial coup attempt—these masses clashed with the army and forced it to retreat. But all the institutions they trusted were conspiring to deflect their anger, to prevent them from becoming aware of the situation.

The poor neighborhoods, deceived and betrayed before being bled dry, now seem demoralized, resigned, without any prospects other than hoping, nonetheless, that Aristide will at least return, without expecting much. No one can predict when, how, or at what pace the impoverished masses will regain their self-confidence. It was their awakening that ended Duvalier's dictatorship and ensured, for a few months, a climate of relative democratic freedom. It is their awakening that could, once again, change the balance of power, and certainly not the "democratization" sponsored by the United States.

(1) Lavalas supporter : a supporter of Aristide. The expression comes from the Creole word "lavalasse," which refers to the sudden flooding of a river, sweeping away everything in its path. One of Aristide's slogans during his campaign was to call for a "lavalass" of votes in his favor.

(2) Saint-Domingue.

(3) Church near the poor neighborhood of Cité Soleil where Aristide had officiated. Now half-burned by arson, it was the site of several massacres perpetrated by Tonton Macoutes.

(4) Grandon : landowner or powerful notable of the countryside.

1966-1968 : Black Power, or when the Black uprising in the USA was heading towards social revolution...

Robert Paris — 2026-02-18T12:09:00Z

Black Power : "Black power," a term borrowed from Richard Wright's book, *Black Power*, written in 1945. A movement launched by Stokely Carmichael (head of the SNCC in 1967). Black Power is a radical movement that aims to overthrow white power in order to assert Black power.

Black Panther Party : Founded in October 1966 in Oakland, California by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, under the name Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. It adopted a revolutionary orientation and claimed to be Marxist.

Nation of Islam : A political organization founded by Wallace Fard in 1931. It advocates separatism, emphasizes the "Africanism" of Black Americans, and Islam as a unifying force for Black people. Under the influence of Malcolm X, the party had nearly 40,000 "Black Muslims" by 1964.

Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) : A political organization, with Martin Luther King Jr. as its president, created by Black leaders in the South in 1957 following the success of the Montgomery bus boycott in Alabama. This party fights for civil rights through nonviolence.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) : Founded in April 1960 in Atlanta, Georgia, by students who supported sit-in protests, this party emerged as the leading advocate for civil rights. In late 1968, it abandoned its nonviolent principles and changed the meaning of its "N" to promote Black nationalism, becoming the Student National Coordinating Committee.
The socio-political context of the Black Power movement

Two events occurred during the summer of 1966 that would profoundly influence the development of the Black movement ; at first glance, they seem to have nothing in common, but in fact, they were both responses to the oppression of Black people, and in the deeper dialectic of history, they were indeed linked. The first took place on a very hot summer day in June in Mississippi : James Meredith, the first Black graduate of the University of Mississippi, was undertaking his famous "March Against Fear" through his home state. The march was followed by FBI agents, journalists, photographers, sympathizers, and Stokely Carmichael.

He had just been elected president of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and he knew Mississippi, a particularly odious symbol of Black oppression. He had firsthand knowledge of the state of material destitution and political servitude that, despite the so-called civil rights laws, remained the dominant characteristic of the lives of Black residents of that state. He also knew about white violence in that same state—violence of which Meredith was a victim soon after the start of her audacious march. Carmichael also knew that parades and marches had not changed, and could not fundamentally change, these conditions of existence. He and other SNCC leaders had for some time been searching for more effective and direct ways to launch the assault on this monolithic structure of exploitation that seemed impregnable and impervious to all moral argument. They believed they had found a solution in the idea of Black political power. Willie Ricks, another SNCC leader present at Meredith's march, reduced the phrase to two words : Dark Power. They were powerfully expressive and could become a living formula ; Carmichael and Ricks would soon prove it.

The media seized upon the new slogan, treated it as sensational news, and carried it across the country to the ears of a panicked American public. (...)

The second event, though equally important, received far less attention and did not give rise to hysterical discussions ; except for specialists, it was considered quite ordinary. In fact, it was a speech by McGeorge Bundy, president of the immensely wealthy Ford Foundation, at the annual banquet of the National Urban League in Philadelphia, and there was nothing to make headlines about. Bundy declared that the Ford Foundation had decided to contribute to the achievement of "full equality for all Black Americans." His audience was not surprised, as the Foundation had for some time been working to improve higher education for Black people and had contributed to the League's housing projects. (...) what the delegates of the Urban League, like the general American public, were unaware of, however, was that the Ford Foundation, which was already playing a leading role in the neo-colonialist penetration of the Third World, was preparing to carry out a similar penetration into the militant Black movement. (...)

The situation of the Black movement in the summer of 1966 was dominated by three main factors : a) the civil rights movement had reached a stalemate and, in its wake, was followed by urban revolts provoked by the state of stagnation of the ghettos ; b) the new leaders, such as Robert Williams and Malcolm X, who had been the pioneers of a still embryonic nationalist movement, had been broken, one by forced exile, the other by assassination before they could set up mass political organizations ; c) the Vietnam War and other events in the Third World were giving Black activists in the USA more and more to think about.

As for the first factor, the non-violent, Southern-centered civil rights movement had reached a dead end. In countless cities, activists and tens of thousands of Black people had hopefully engaged in numerous demonstrations and marches, had allowed themselves to be brutalized, beaten, imprisoned, even killed, and had followed the calls of moralistic leaders who had invited them to "love the enemy" and "turn the other cheek" because all this suffering would one day lead to freedom.

After several years of intense struggles marked by numerous deaths, it became clear in the summer of 1963 that a renewed effort was needed to bring about this long-awaited day of freedom. Activists spoke of marching on Washington and blocking the city until Black people achieved full equality. But this momentum was quickly neutralized by the Kennedy administration and the coalition of liberals and unionists within the Democratic Party, who considered the Black electorate their property. Thus, the March on Washington, with its 250,000 participants, became a summer picnic in honor of John Kennedy and his Civil Rights Act ; Black people were invited to find the answer to their prayers there.

(…) As for the bill, it was finally passed in 1964. On paper, it ended racial discrimination in electoral procedures, certain public places, certain jobs, and the school system. But the problem with this law, as with the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was its implementation. Black people who felt their civil rights had been violated had to initiate a long and complicated legal process to obtain redress. (…) In short, these delays, this slowness, taught Black people and their leaders that a law means nothing if it is not effectively enforced. (…) The federal government had the power, but it needed the support of Southern reactionaries, who held several committee chairmanships in the Senate and the House of Representatives. From then on, the civil rights laws simply became further proof of this well-known truth : that American democracy is subject to the economic and political interests of those who truly hold power.

In 1964, the experience of the Mississippi Democratic Party for Liberty (MFDP) provided further confirmation. (...) In Mississippi, where the Democratic Party branch was racist, the activists of the SNCC believed they could challenge and defeat it by creating a parallel political structure, thus winning at the National Convention in Atlantic City. By proclaiming their loyalty to the national leadership, unlike the "regular" delegation, the MFDP dissidents believed they could have the racist delegation expelled and achieve a victory in the democratic struggle for change. But the party, needing support in the South, reverted to racism and rejected the dissidents. Another bitter lesson for the Black movement. The Black civil rights movement failed not only because of these setbacks, (...) but also because of the bourgeois nature of the movement. (…) As proof, he did nothing to improve the living conditions of the poorest segments of the Black population. (…)

The explosion began in 1964 with the Harlem riots and other uprisings in 14 cities, and it continued throughout the country with the "hot summers" of the 1960s. These uprisings were spontaneous and unorganized, but they followed an internal logic. Attacks and looting were primarily directed against the properties of white merchants who exploited the Black community : this was the case in Harlem, and later in Watts. In essence, Black people were reclaiming the goods that had been stolen from them in the form of underpaid labor and exorbitant prices.

Through this kind of action, these rioters, who were far from being a tiny minority, rejected the leaders of the civil rights movement and demonstrated the need for new leaders capable of leading the fight against oppression, poverty, and subjugation, and who could truly speak for the majority of Black people. But the emergence of such a new leadership would have constituted a direct threat to the established order, and the authorities could be expected to try to break it by any means necessary. Nonviolent demonstrations, a moral challenge to injustice, were not a threat to the established order, to the powers that be. But if Black people began to arm themselves, even for self-defense, then everything changed. An unjust social system must maintain a monopoly on the forces of repression. If this monopoly can be broken, one is not far from being able to break the system.

This is why a leader like Robert Williams, who in the late 1950s organized a Black chapter of the National Shooting Association in Monroe, North Carolina, could not be treated as a negligible adversary. (…) Williams was immediately attacked by the press, and the white liberals who supported the nonviolent civil rights movement turned their backs on him. (…) Williams first sought refuge in Cuba, where he remained for three years, and then in China. (…)

Malcolm X, to whom the ideological father of the Black Power movement is attributed, and in whom the exasperated masses of Harlem saw the new leader they had been waiting for, was assassinated just fifty weeks after officially breaking with the Black Muslims. (…) He was an activist, and this trait was the reason for his break with Muhammad (leader of the Black Muslims). In the 1960s, Black activists increasingly accused Black Muslims of talking a lot and doing nothing. The Black movement was growing ; it was no longer enough to loudly denounce the “white devils.” Yet, Black Muslims remained aloof from all forms of political and social action ; Malcolm, for his part, was beginning to have doubts about the wisdom of such a course. In his “Autobiography,” he acknowledges that at that time, he thought that “the Nation of Islam could have been even more useful to Black Americans if it had finally taken action.” But this conception clashed with the objectives of Muhammad and his lieutenants. Malcolm was suspended in December 1963, officially because of his controversial comment on the assassination of John Kennedy : "Chickens come back for more" (in other words, hatred boomerangs). But it soon became clear that the suspension was indefinite, and that Malcolm was no longer welcome among Black Muslims. In March 1964, he himself announced his definitive break with them. He declared that he was ready to fully commit himself to the national campaign for civil rights, because every local struggle "can only raise the level of consciousness of Black people."
From then on, he began to rebuild his entire ideology. He saw the necessity of Black unity for their struggle to be effective. He proclaimed himself an adherent of Black nationalism, which he defined as an autonomous movement of Black people for their freedom, their right to justice, and their equality. The central idea was that Black people should control the economic, political, and social institutions of their own communities, and he identified with the notion of self-determination.
After the split, Malcolm rejected separatist utopias, such as the idea of returning to Africa or creating a Black state in America. But at the same time, he rejected integrationism, an empty phrase or attempt to integrate Black people into a declining white society. Unlike Black Muslims, who attributed the oppression of Black people to the wicked nature of the white race, Malcolm understood that it was the social structure that had been the cause not only of Black poverty but also of white racism. In a 1964 speech, he declared :“The system of this country cannot grant freedom to African Americans. It is impossible for this system—this economic system, this political system, this social system, in short, for this system. This system in its present state is incapable of granting immediate freedom to the Black people of this country.” (…)

While advocating for self-determination for Black people, he was aware that this goal could not be achieved within the framework of capitalism. Unlike some Black nationalists, he understood that it was in the interest of Black activists to fight for a radical transformation of American society as a whole, a prerequisite for effective self-determination. Otherwise, Black control of Black communities would in no way signify liberation, since these communities would themselves remain a subordinate part of a society founded on the exploitation of man by man. (…)

In a speech delivered in New York on April 8, 1964, he outlined the main features of this process as he saw it developing :

"So, when Black people today seek what America recognizes as their rights, and are subjected to the brutality of those who deny them, they are within their rights to do whatever is necessary to ensure their own protection. That's what they did last night in Cleveland : to the police who pointed fire hoses at them and bombarded them with tear gas, they responded with a hail of rocks and bricks. Two weeks ago, in Jacksonville, Florida, a Black man who wasn't even twenty years old threw Molotov cocktails at them."

Well, ten years ago, Black people weren't doing this. The lesson to be learned is that today they are waking up. They used stones yesterday, Molotov cocktails today, and the day after tomorrow, anything they can get their hands on… Twenty-two million African Americans are ready to fight right now for their independence… I'm not talking about a non-violent struggle or a struggle where you turn the other cheek. Those times are over. They belong to ancient history.

And as if to ensure that his audience, mostly white, could not be misled, Malcolm added that the black revolt was turning into "a genuine black revolution" .

“The revolutionary struggle is never waged by turning the other cheek. Revolution is never founded on loving one's enemies and forgiving offenses. The revolutionary struggle is never conducted to the tune of ‘We shall overcome.' Revolution is the shedding of blood.” (…)

He did not live long enough to see the results of his actions. On the morning of February 13, 1965, his house was set ablaze with Molotov cocktails, but he and his family managed to escape unharmed. At the time, he attributed the attack to Black Muslims, but very quickly, he came to suspect other elements. He knew the true capabilities and limitations of Black Muslims. The following Sunday, these "other elements" achieved their goal and assassinated him during a meeting in New York. (…)

Malcolm X's ideas could not be assassinated as he had been. The idea of the necessary link between the struggle of Black Americans and the broader struggle of the Third World, in particular, was not going to vanish. (…) On January 6, 1966, the SNCC published a statement publicly opposing the Vietnam War and supporting the campaign against conscription. (…) However, on January 4, 1966, an SNCC activist, Sammy Younge Jr., was murdered in Tuskegee, Alabama, for wanting to use the restroom reserved for whites at a gas station. This event hastened the release of the already drafted statement (from the SNCC). “Sammy Younge was killed because American laws are not enforced ; likewise, the Vietnamese are being massacred because the United States, in its policy of aggression, refuses to enforce international law.” (…) We are in complete agreement with all those in this country who refuse to answer a call to arms that would force them to give their lives in support of an American aggression carried out in the name of this freedom which is nothing but a deception in our country ; we will give our support to all those who refuse to go and fight in Vietnam.

Finally, the declaration stated that "the creation of democratic structures throughout the country" was a valid, albeit illegal, alternative to conscription ; a few months later, the SNCC fully committed itself to resisting recruitment based on a nationwide action plan.

Such was the political context of the summer of 1966, the context of Stokely Carmichael's initiatives. He was striving to inherit Malcolm X's ideology and apply it under these conditions. But he still hesitated on his path, torn between reformism and revolution, unsure whether he would be a rebel or a Black revolutionary. This conflict was characteristic of the entire Black movement and foreshadowed the conflict that would soon erupt between these two types of Black activists. (…)

In any case, in a resounding article published in the "New York Review of Books" on September 22, 1966, Carmichael directly addressed the problem of power : how to attack and weaken oppressive white power and create against it the liberating force of Black power ? (...) The language was still cautious, but the revolutionary potential was evident. Since 1966, it has become clear that the revolt would necessarily be violent, because the defenders and propagandists of the mythology of property rights will not allow peaceful change. (...)

In 1966, at its Baltimore congress, CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) adopted the slogan of Black Power. The unanimously adopted resolution declared :

“Black Power is the effective control and self-determination exercised by Black people in their own sectors.

Power means complete control of the economic, political, social, and educational life of our community, from top to bottom.

Exercising power at the local level is simply what other groups in American society have done to gain a share of initiative in the life of American society.

The summer of 1966 was as decisive a turning point for CORE as it was for the SNCC. Until then, CORE had been an integrationist movement that trusted in nonviolence to achieve its goals. (…) CORE experienced a period of eclipse during the development of the Civil Rights Congress, presided over by William L. Patterson, until 1951, then during the campaigns of Martin Luther King, and again at the beginning of the student sit-ins around 1960. But in 1961, after organizing the Freedom Marches in Alabama and Mississippi, it once again attracted the attention of the entire country, and its composition changed ; in 1963, for the first time, it had an absolute majority of Black members. This was because it was attracting many activists disillusioned with the NAACP. (…)

At its 1965 convention, whose central theme was the awakening giant, the black ghettos, CORE repealed the article in its statutes that prohibited all direct political activity. (…) The Black Power motion passed by CORE at the 1966 convention apparently abandoned the goal of integration that had been the movement's objective (…)

While SNCC and CORE launched the Black Power slogan, the masters of white power had already begun to outline their counterattack. It wasn't so much the slogan itself that had awakened them, but rather the internal situation that had already led to the radicalization of the Black movement, a situation characterized by the inability of the civil rights movement to prevent the continued impoverishment of Black people, and by the urban riots that followed. (…) The new answer began to emerge in this speech by Ford Foundation President McGeorge Bundy, delivered on August 2, 1966, at the National Urban League banquet in Philadelphia : “We believe that the full equality of all Black Americans is today the most urgent domestic issue, and we believe that the Ford Foundation must play its full part in this matter (…)” Thus, the Urban League was poised to become the most powerful, though least talked-about, organization to “manipulate” the progressive Black movement. From its ultramodern building on East 43rd Street in New York City, the Foundation engaged in funding and influencing numerous organizations, both moderate and radical, such as CORE, SCLC, the National Urban League, and the NAACP ; acting directly or indirectly through these and a few others, it hoped to channel the Black liberation movement and prevent urban uprisings. (…) It was under Bundy's leadership, formerly the president's special advisor on national security, and who, in that capacity, had been one of the principal promoters of the intervention in Vietnam, that the Foundation decided in 1966 to extend its activities to the Black movement. (…) In 1950, the Foundation, into which war profits had been invested, expanded, and its scope of action extended to the entire United States and 80 foreign countries. (…) In 1962, Dyke Brown, then vice president in charge of public affairs, could write that the Foundation "had moved from the realm of public administration to that of political life." Its programs, he added, "were increasingly tending toward programs of action, and no longer merely research," which implied that certain "political risks" had to be taken. (…)

And that is why, a year after Bundy's aforementioned speech, she granted a substantial loan to CORE, a loan intended for "peaceful and constructive efforts" in the Hough district of Cleveland, which had been the scene of violent riots. That is also why, finally, she announced in September 1968 that she planned to invest $10 million to help foster Black capitalism.

In short, it has transformed into one of the most subtle and refined instruments of American neo-colonialism, including that which is exercised in the colony of the interior.

Bundy, when he took over the leadership after his time in the White House, was the ideal man for such a policy. (…) He had simultaneously supported Kennedy and Johnson's policy of military intervention in Vietnam and the policy of maintaining contacts with the USSR. He was therefore very well prepared to work with Black organizations, including those that championed the slogan of Black Power (…)

In the fall of 1966, two pivotal events occurred for the Black movement. In September, there was the first attempt—not entirely conscious—to implement the doctrine of Black Power in a concrete situation. This concerned education, which in New York was in crisis. Parents in Harlem were demanding effective control of a school, IS 201. The other event took place on the other side of the country and went largely unnoticed : the founding of the Black Panther Party in Oakland, California.

In January 1965, Malcolm X said , "I believe that there will ultimately be a conflict between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a conflict between those who demand liberty, justice, and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation… It is incorrect to characterize the Negro revolt simply as a racial conflict of black against white, or as a purely American problem. On the contrary, we see today a global rebellion of the oppressed against the oppressor, of the exploited against the exploiter."

As if to answer all those who believed or wanted to believe in an Obama, Malcolm X already responded : Malcolm : "You put the Democrats forward and the Democrats put you behind."

Chronological landmarks

1946 Supreme Court decision prohibiting segregation in public transportation.

1947 First Freedom Rides, demonstrations whose goal was to obtain the implementation of the Supreme Court decision of 1946.

December 1, 1955 : Rosa Parks, in Montgomery, Alabama, refuses to give up her seat to a white man, as required by law. This marks the beginning of a scandal and a foundational struggle.

February 1960 Greensboro sit-in (North Carolina), against segregation in a cafeteria, starting point of the civil rights movement.

August 28, 1963 : March on Washington with over 200,000 people. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech in which he aspires to a united America, without segregation.

July 4, 1964 : The Johnson administration adopted the Civil Rights Act : from now on, the justice system could intervene to put an end to racial segregation in public places.

February 21, 1965 : Assassination of Malcolm X, in the middle of a meeting.

August 11, 1965 Watts riots, Los Angeles, which lasted a week (34 dead, 1071 injured, 400 arrests).

June 1966 Launch of Black Power by Stokely Carmichael.

October 1966 Foundation of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP).

December 4, 1967 : Luther King launches the Poor People's Campaign.

February 12, 1968 : Beginning of the Memphis (Tennessee) garbage collectors' strike.

March 18, 1968 : Luther King speaks to striking garbage collectors in Memphis.

March 28, 1968 : Luther King leads a demonstration in Memphis which is violently dispersed.

April 4, 1968 : The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis. Martin Luther King Jr. had said, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, (...) seek reconciliation, justice, not victory." His death sparked a wave of riots in more than 125 cities. The government deployed 75,000 soldiers and National Guard troops, while 50,000 troops were placed on alert at military bases. The suppression of the demonstrations resulted in 46 deaths, 3,500 injuries, and 20,000 arrests. The Washington Post noted that, in the nation's capital itself, the riot had mobilized 20,000 people, three-quarters of whom were Black workers. The mass of poor Black people was losing patience. She could no longer bear the unemployment, the discrimination in hiring, at school or in housing, the unsanitary conditions of the ghettos, the police brutality, nor knowing that many of them were dying every day in Vietnam, in a war for interests that were not their own.

A segment of Black Americans was becoming radicalized. The death of non-violent Martin Luther King at the hands of a white gunman vindicated those within the Black movement who concluded that nothing could be achieved without struggles, including violent ones, against a system that ruled through violence.

Radical Black nationalist organizations like Black Power and the Black Panthers were about to experience a surge in popularity. This radicalism among some Black people expressed their determination to end subjugation.

Attica prison

The Attica prison riots were uprisings of prisoners at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, United States, which took place between September 9 and 13, 1971.

The prisoners had demanded better living conditions, showers, resources for studying, and less censorship of mail and visits. At that time, they were entitled to one shower per week and one roll of toilet paper per month per person.[1] One of their simplest demands was to have unlimited access to toilet paper.

An initial request had been submitted by letter before any physical action was taken. Then, in response to rumors of the torture of two prisoners, the inmates revolted, taking forty-two guards and civilians hostage. The prisoners negotiated with a team of mediators who had been brought in and included Tom Vicker, a writer for The New York Times, James Ingram of the Michigan Chronicle, State Representative Arthur Eve, and other elected officials. A guard injured during the riot died in the hospital on Saturday, September 11.

Twenty-eight of the prisoners' demands were accepted, but the demand for amnesty for the prisoners involved in the guard's death was rejected, and any prisoner involved would be liable to the electric chair (ultimately, no death sentences were handed down). Negotiators from both sides requested the presence of Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who refused to come, believing his presence would do nothing to resolve the conflict.

After a four-day riot, 211 New York State police officers stormed the correctional facility. The final toll was 10 guards killed (9 of whom died during the assault, killed by police weapons) and 29 prisoners (4 prisoners were killed by their fellow inmates, the other 25 by police).

The media reported that the prisoners had slit the throats of several of the hostages (one newspaper, for example, had headlined "I saw open throats") but this was contradicted by medical expertise.

The Attica riots drew media attention to the state of prisons in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. They also highlighted the racist nature of the American prison system and the fanaticism of its guards. Twenty-seven years after the riot, the State of New York was cleared of wrongdoing in a lawsuit brought by the families of the slain inmates, and in the fall of 2004, the State of New York finally awarded $12 million in compensation to the families of the deceased prison guards.

More than thirty long years have passed since that drizzly morning of September 13, 1971, when federal troops stormed Attica Prison in New York State. Our contributor Dénètem offers a sophisticated, insightful, and critical analysis of this revolt, one of the most significant among American prison populations, embodying a profound challenge to the US system of legitimation. After examining American prisons in their threefold dimension as zoos, factories, and concentration camps, he deciphers the revolutionary potential of the inmates' defiance, which was on the verge of creating a counterculture, a training ground for a rejected youth yearning for a different world.

"Search and destroy"

The Attica uprising and its political significance cannot be understood without considering the context of near civil war in which it occurred. "The workings of the American justice system can be described as a 'search and destroy' mission targeting Black youth" (Prisons of Misery, Wacquant). The police and even military harassment (in 1965, in Los Angeles : the violent repression of the Watts ghetto uprising) of Black American youth truly began in the 1960s, with the rise of the Black liberation movement.
The political assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X should not obscure the fact that members of the Black Panther Party were the primary targets of police repression. The case of Mumia Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther still on death row, testifies to this relentless persecution. Faced with police brutality and racist violence, the Black Panthers saw themselves as resistance fighters : their black leather jackets and berets were a clear reference to the French Resistance. Ideologically, they drew as much from Mao's Little Red Book as from Sartre's existentialism or Frantz Fanon's *The Wretched of the Earth*. In practice, they established not only armed self-defense groups (against police violence) but also a comprehensive social and cultural policy : "community survival programs" and free services such as clinics, schools, and transportation to prisons. Above all, this party distinguished itself from other Black organizations (sometimes highly nationalist and sexist, like the Nation of Islam) by its willingness to work in partnership with other progressive groups, such as pacifists (against the Vietnam War), gay and feminist movements (see the writings of Panther Angela Davis), and others.
Faced with the threat of a broad coalition of radical left-wing movements emerging, in 1969, FBI Director Edgar Hoover declared the Black Panther Party public enemy number one and launched a ten-year counterintelligence operation, codenamed COINTELPRO. Dozens of Panthers were killed in police-provoked shootings, and hundreds of members and sympathizers were imprisoned. By necessity, the Black Panthers were thus at the forefront of prison struggles. "The struggle in the prisons has become a new front of the revolution" (quoted by Michelle Perrot in *Les ombres de l'histoire*), declared George Jackson, one of the Panthers' leaders. Jackson's case is emblematic : sentenced to life in prison in 1961 for stealing $70 from a gas station, he developed his ideology in prison through reading Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Frantz Fanon, and other thinkers. In his writings, he called young people like himself, who had been denied access to education and employment, those forced to educate themselves in prison, the "intellectuals of the lumpenproletariat" (the unemployed, delinquents, and marginalized).
Prisons had indeed become veritable centers of political training for young Black Americans. Books like the Communist Manifesto and Mao's Red Book were rewritten by hand in simplified language and used in basic literacy groups. Newspapers and a whole body of prison literature were produced by inmates, and manuscripts were smuggled to outside publishers. Jackson's own book, The Brothers of Soledad (Folio, introduction by Jean Genet), circulated widely in American prisons, where it was eagerly sought after. The liberation of minds was to become a weapon against the oppressor. Jackson devoted all his energy to transforming the mentality of lost Black youth into that of Black revolutionaries, into political consciousness. “I was in revolt. I was in prison, looking around for something that would really enrage the guards. I discovered that nothing enraged them more than philosophy.” On August 21, 1971, using a pretext of an escape attempt, the guards at San Quentin, California, coldly murdered George Jackson. It was time to silence this hotbed of dissent…

“Hearing the rumble of battle” (in Discipline and Punish)

The death of George Jackson left a profound void, intense emotion, and a sense of revolt throughout American prisons. Although his death occurred in California, on the other side of the United States, it almost immediately triggered a spontaneous hunger strike, joined by a large number of inmates, at Attica Correctional Facility in New York. On September 9, 1971, the 1,500 inmates of cellblock D decided to escalate their actions by staging a riot : they took 40 guards hostage and quickly gained control of the facility. The situation at the Attica Federal Penitentiary had long been volatile. Attica represented the innermost circle of American prison hell : overcrowding, an ultra-disciplinary and punitive regime, appalling hygiene conditions, nonexistent medical care, and so on. Jackson's death thus acted as the spark that ignited the powder keg. What reveals the determined, thoughtful and, in a way, legitimate nature of the rebellion of the prisoners in this prison is precisely the tone and content of the declaration made by the Attica Liberation Committee :
“We, the prisoners of Attica, seek to end the injustice suffered by all prisoners, regardless of race, creed, or color. The preparation and content of this document were established through the unified efforts of all races and social classes within this prison. It is established, and widely known, that the New York City Department of Correction has transformed institutions originally intended for the social correction of individuals into the concentration camps found in present-day America. Given that Attica Prison is one of the most classic examples of organized cruelty inflicted upon humanity, the following list of demands has been adopted. We, the prisoners of Attica, say to you, the self-righteous of society : the prison system that your courts ratify is the terrifying grimace of the paper tiger, the coward in power.” This manifesto is respectfully presented to society as a protest against the despicable and corrupt slave traders : the Governor of the State of New York, the New York State Department of Corrections, the New York State Legislature, the New York State courts, the courts of the United States, the New York State Department of Parole. And those who support this system of injustice. This list of demands will be presented to you. We are trying to act through democratic channels. We feel there is no need to dramatize these demands. (Excerpt from *Au pied du mur*, published by L'Insomniaque) Twenty-six demands follow, concerning : the right to education, the eight-hour workday, union rights, the ability to shower regularly, decent food, access to healthcare…

A popular support movement organized outside the prison. The Prisoners' Solidarity Committee, a group founded the previous year by Youth Against War and Fascism, raised money and chartered buses so that prisoners' families could travel to Attica. The Solidarity Committee also ensured that prisoners had access to legal aid by contacting lawyers and legal professionals. Members of the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers, and other protest groups gathered around the prison to carry out various actions : demonstrations in support of the rebels, raising public awareness, and lobbying politicians. Negotiations were scheduled to begin on September 13. But on D-Day, the state sent nearly a thousand men—federals, National Guardsmen, assault troops—who, through a lightning operation of extreme violence (automatic weapons, grenade launchers, helicopters, etc.), managed to retake the prison in less than an hour. The assault left 43 dead, including ten hostages, and 200 wounded. Prison authorities claimed that the inmates had slit the throats of the ten hostages. But autopsies by forensic pathologists revealed that the hostages had not died from their throats being cut, but from wounds inflicted by gunfire from law enforcement ; a finding confirmed by the McKay Commission of Inquiry of the State of New York.

Two American television films depicting the riot were produced :

* in 1980 : Attica, by Marvin J. Chomsky, with George Grizzard,

* in 1994 : Against the Wall, by John Frankenheimer, with Samuel L. Jackson.

In addition, a documentary entitled Attica, also American, was made in 1974 by Cinda Firestone.

In 1964, three men disappeared without a trace in Jessup County, Mississippi. They were civil rights activists. FBI agents Rupert Anderson and Alan Ward were assigned to solve the case. Anderson was an experienced man, acting with diplomacy and determination. Ward, younger and impatient for results, behaved more roughly, deploying a large number of men who occupied the town. He publicly interrogated a Black man named Hollis, who was brutally beaten a few hours later. The town was gripped by a wave of violence : churches and houses burned.

Anderson continues the investigation using more subtle methods. His suspicions fall on Sheriff Stuckey and his deputy, Pell ; the latter is protected by his wife. The arsonists are arrested, but the all-white jury sentences them to derisory terms.

The atmosphere is toxic and explosive : a man is lynched, while Townley, the leader of the Ku Klux Klan, incites hatred and violence. Mrs. Pell, the deputy sheriff's wife, disgusted by these events, decides to speak out and reveals to Anderson the location of the bodies of the three missing men. Tilman, the mayor, begins to fear and provides information to the FBI, leading to the arrest of the culprits : Swilley, Cowens, Bailey, Stuckey, and Pell.

The film demonstrates the impossibility of fighting fascism through state and legal means... and other than through radical social mobilization.

The Symbol of the Unconquered / Oscar Micheaux, 1920s. Oscar Micheaux, playwright, theater director, and protester through image and words, was the first African American to denounce the plight of his fellow African Americans, particularly apartheid, an active and more than tolerated system at the time. Black people had gone from being slaves to servants, and all Hollywood productions were steeped in these ideals. Thus, to counter D.W. Griffith's famous "Birth of a Nation," an apologia for the white nation and the Ku Klux Klan, Micheaux directed "Within Our Gates" (added to the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress in 1992 for its historical significance). Following the same demonstrative approach, a few years later he directed the fictional film "The Symbol of the Unconquered," which highlights the difficulty of accepting oneself as a Black man in a country where you are killed for the color of your skin. Everything still remained to be conquered.
A major film.

The Bus / Haskell Wexler. 1963 : March on Washington : white people finally stand alongside Black people in a symbolic march for freedom and the abolition of segregation. A documentary on the road, with vivid framing, white hues, and the bittersweet scent of ideals confronted by reality, where we discover that committed white people still hold a certain naive and domineering view of their Black counterparts, where we finally understand why the Chinese, once fraternal, turned away from their former friends of color, and where we learn that the difference between Africans and Black people is merely a matter of nationality, but a fundamental one nonetheless. Decisive weeks for the advancement of ideas and the understanding of future movements.

Black Natchez / Edward Pinkus, David Neuman. While the Civil Rights Act was passed (1964), some regions saw the Ku Klux Klan reach record levels of popularity, and their crimes go unpunished. Black people suffered. They suffocated. Gathered in ghettos in Mississippi and elsewhere, they remained isolated in their demands. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), founded in 1909, was challenged in the 1960s. The Black population of Natchez was in turmoil, tensions were rising. The representatives, Charles Ever at the forefront, seemed too far removed from reality, too close to white people…insurrection was imminent but was averted, with a constant sense of disappointment and a simmering rage within each of them, marking the end of an illusion along with the end of the association.

Harlem Story / Shirley Clarke. 1963 : The rage simmering in the provinces is already present, in the heart of every Harlem kid waging fratricidal gang wars against other impoverished children. "The whites gave us their God but not their hands." This phrase, amplified by the assertion of black as the only dominant color, sets the tone for the film : A film in black, with a few wisps of white smoke—the smoke of drugs, the smoke of hope that vanishes. A dark film, where the gun ("the piece") becomes the only means of becoming, and of surviving. A jazz story at the limits of life.

Black Panthers / Agnès Varda. With the more or less acknowledged failure of peaceful organizations, the need for more offensive action seemed to be the order of the day for some. Bobby Seale, a young activist who had been close to the NAACP for a time, created the Black Panther movement in 1966 with Huey P. Newton (who was close to the ideals of Malcolm X). Two years later, a large part of the Black American population was won over by these new activists, who protected them from pigs (white police officers) and allowed them access to services from which they had previously been denied (education, healthcare, transportation, etc.).

1968 : Huey P. Newton is on trial, Agnès Varda is in Oakland. With her small, melodious, and impassioned voice, she offers us a fresh and insightful perspective on the most rebellious (and contested) movement of the era. The people speaking out are no longer older men in suits, but muscular, armed thirty-somethings in leather jackets and sunglasses, hands in their pockets but with well-structured minds—a new, more radical vision of the struggle, also expressed in concrete action. The observation : women are now on equal footing with men and are making their mark at conferences. The funk style is born…

Epstein's gang is the capitalist class !

Robert Paris — 2026-02-16T12:02:00Z

Epstein's gang is the capitalist class !

In France, as in the USA or the UK, there's a desire to make people believe that the Epstein affair, a pedophile crime involving the super-rich, only implicates the Trump clan, but that's completely false : the entire owning class is involved in this lucrative case of minors forced into prostitution for the ultra-rich of this completely rotten world…

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_Epstein

Admittedly, Epstein was a personal friend of Trump…

https://www.forbes.fr/societe/tout-savoir-sur-la-relation-entre-donald-trump-et-jeffrey-epstein/

But Epstein was also a friend of Clinton and the Democrats, as Trump has pointed out. Except that Trump had chosen a master organizer of pedophilia as his best Democratic friend.

https://www.bfmtv.com/international/amerique-nord/etats-unis/affaire-epstein-pourquoi-l-ancien-president-bill-clinton-est-auditionne-ce-mardi-par-le-congres-americain_AN-202510140027.html

In fact, he mainly did business with all the rich and powerful people in the world, who were willing to pay a high price for fresh sexual flesh… And they defended him, got him out of prison, but they also had him killed when all this came to light…

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/08/12/le-point-sur-l-affaire-jeffrey-epstein_5498757_3210.html

When Americans learned, stunned, on Saturday, August 10, that Jeffrey Epstein, the New York billionaire accused of organizing the sexual exploitation of underage girls, had been found hanged in his Manhattan cell before being declared dead, American public opinion was outraged : Epstein knew secrets that were deadly to the most powerful Americans and could threaten to reveal them…

One of the people Epstein could have denounced is Prince Andrew of the British royal family, who participated in sex parties with underage girls at Epstein's house !
But many other extremely wealthy individuals are also implicated ! Epstein's death is also a symptom that there is something rotten in the capitalist system...

The Epstein affair of high-class pedophilia is tarnishing not only Trump but the entire Western ruling class that Trump is trying to protect…

https://dosequotidienne.ca/2025/09/11/le-carnet-secret-depstein-revele-le-gratin-mondial-lempire-de-lhorreur-devoile/

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/05/affaire-jeffrey-epstein-bill-et-hillary-clinton-assignes-a-comparaitre-au-congres_6626862_3210.html

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/07/19/pers-j19.html

https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2019/07/10/pedocriminalite-le-seisme-judiciaire-de-l-affaire-jeffrey-epstein_1739316/

https://atlantico.fr/article/decryptage/affaire-epstein-jusquou-pourraient-aller-les-revelations-en-cascade-permises-par-la-publication-des-e-mails-du-financier-americain-Etats-Unis-Donald-Trump-Ghislaine-Maxwell-Prince-Andrew-personnalites-Xavier-Raufer

Three major global banks (Barclays, JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank) had a culpable relationship with the pedophile Epstein and have admitted it…

https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/etats-unis/affaire-epstein-une-juge-de-new-york-devoile-une-liste-de-noms-2044275

Trump's USA had initially decided to close the Epstein case which implicated, among others… Trump !

There would be no publication of the beneficiaries of organized pedophilia.

The victims would not be sought or compensated.

Those guilty of child sexual abuse would not be sought out and convicted.

This is what happens when pedophiles are in power !

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/07/08/affaire-jeffrey-epstein-le-ministere-de-la-justice-americain-et-le-fbi-ecartent-toute-nouvelle-revelation_6619685_3210.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-fr-fr

But public opinion in the US seized upon the Epstein affair ! Trump had to back down and even break with his supporters who were pushing to suppress the case…

https://www.sudouest.fr/economie/achat/rupture-avec-certains-soutiens-volte-face-sur-l-affaire-epstein-debut-de-fracture-entre-trump-et-le-mouvement-maga-26762151.php

Trump and the Epstein affair : a real problem for the American president...

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_entre_Donald_Trump_et_Jeffrey_Epstein

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/questions-du-soir-l-idee/pourquoi-l-affaire-epstein-se-retourne-t-elle-contre-trump-6667778

Trump then changed his position and supported the release of the dossier...

https://www.lesechos.fr/monde/etats-unis/nous-navons-rien-a-cacher-trump-fait-volte-face-et-exhorte-le-congres-de-voter-pour-la-publication-du-dossier-epstein-2198952

She should turn against him unless… he has covered his tracks in the case…
https://www.france24.com/fr/am%C3%A9riques/20251120-dossier-epstein-comment-donald-trump-peut-encore-limiter-les-r%C3%A9v%C3%A9lations

He even hopes to turn this affair against his Democratic detractors…

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/etats-unis-trump-exige-une-enquete-sur-les-liens-entre-epstein-et-bill-clinton_237441

And it's not impossible !

But the Epstein affair is not just about a bunch of Trumps, it's about the whole capitalist gang !

https://www.courrierinternational.com/long-format/analyse-ce-que-les-e-mails-de-jeffrey-epstein-revelent-d-une-elite-americaine-qui-a-perdu-pied_237815_1

Pedophile crime in the USA is openly and publicly protected by the Trump administration...

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/07/16/aux-etats-unis-mike-johnson-le-president-de-la-chambre-des-representants-demande-de-la-transparence-sur-le-dossier-epstein_6621498_3210.html

We also saw how deeply the British monarchy and the country's ruling class were implicated in the Epstein pedophile network. It's the entire propertied class that's descending into corruption...

The links between the Epstein affair and the British monarchy have so deeply tarnished the latter that it became necessary to publicly acknowledge them and sever the link by removing Prince Andrew from the royal line !

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/affaire-epstein-ce-qu-a-dit-la-principale-accusatrice-du-prince-andrew-a-la-bbc-3954710

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/10/17/le-prince-andrew-empetre-dans-des-scandales-comme-l-affaire-epstein-renonce-a-son-titre-royal_6647819_3210.html?utm_source=firefox-newtab-fr-fr

https://fr.yahoo.com/news/emp%C3%AAtr%C3%A9-l-affaire-epstein-prince-182755971.html

https://www.tf1info.fr/culture/royaume-uni-charles-iii-camilla-prince-william-kate-middleton-les-windsor-unis-face-au-scandale-le-prince-harry-de-retour-au-tribunal-2278543.html

https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/fondation-du-roi-charles-pas-de-poursuites-apres-le-scandale-21-08-2023-VOCRHUMSG5CY7CTYJI4QQDKXX4.php

https://www.lesoir.be/403935/article/2021-11-01/royaume-uni-quand-le-scandale-jeffrey-epstein-eclabousse-la-royaute-et-la

https://www.closermag.fr/royautes/prince-charles-revelations-explosives-sur-ces-services-demandes-au-pedophile-jimmy-savile-1545876

https://www.starmag.com/royautes/le-prince-charles-ami-proche-dun-des-plus-grands-predateurs-sexuels-du-royaume-uni-508573.html

Prince Andrew is kicked out of the royal family because of his links with Epstein…

https://fr.euronews.com/2025/10/30/le-prince-andrew-va-perdre-son-titre-de-prince-et-quitter-le-royal-lodge

But in the UK, as in the USA, as everywhere else, there is something rotten, and that is the entire owning class…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7579

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/aux-etats-unis-l-onde-de-choc-des-dossiers-epstein-20251130

https://major-prepa.com/anglais/jeffrey-epstein-quand-le-pouvoir-protege-le-crime/

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/07/19/pers-j19.html

The Epstein affair is not an exception, a special case, a particular scandal in the capitalist world where you are never asked how you became a billionaire, whether it was through pedophilia, drugs, arms sales (the main channel of organized crime), slavery, banditry, corruption, prostitution, the sale of human beings, murder or simply… the exploitation of the proletariat !

Will Trump recolonize the world ?

Robert Paris, Tiekoura Levi Hamed — 2026-02-14T11:59:00Z

Towards a recolonization of the world ? A new imperialist policy to replace globalization and neocolonialism ?

The latest US imperialist intervention in Venezuela, where it claims it will take oil, accompanied by threats across Latin America and Greenland, suggests that Trump is capable of directly seizing the riches he wants to take from all corners of the world.

Trump wants white people to reconquer… South Africa, for the US to reclaim Greenland, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, the Gulf of Mexico, Panama, the Arctic, outer space, and… Gaza ! But he's not the only one… Israel wants to colonize "Greater Israel" by devouring Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and many other lands…

But the "recolonization" movement isn't limited to these two countries, nor to two figures like Trump and Netanyahu. There's a genuine trend emerging globally with the idea of resuming colonial plunder. The former colonial powers also see themselves as colonizers. And even the new ones…

The new colonization rush is not limited to the poles and outer space…

Thus, France, recently ousted from Africa and Algeria, would gladly return with its armies, as the former Chief of Staff, General Lecointre, openly stated ! And neither General Mandon, the new French Chief of Staff, nor Macron, Lecornu, Retailleau, Hollande, Valls, the center, the right, or the left would contradict him… Colonial nostalgia flourishes all the more because the coffers are empty, and these people envision refilling them by recovering uranium from Niger, gold from Mali, and many other riches from Algeria or Burkina Faso !

And the new imperialist powers, Russia and China, and also other medium-sized powers like Turkey, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and India, see themselves playing roles of regional domination, by waging some wars and taking advantage of the clashes between the two imperialist blocs.

Europe, marginalized by Trump and threatened by Russia, would like to become a militarily unified power capable of intervening by conquering territories, but the diverging interests of its constituent states prevent it from doing so. Consequently, France, Italy, Germany, and even the United Kingdom could act independently to reclaim remnants of their former colonial empires…

“Recolonization”—what is this insane idea that is beginning to tempt not only defeated generals ousted from Africa, not only a demagogue like Trump, but the entire capitalist world in its collapse ? It would allow rich countries to invade poor countries, taking advantage of their economic and military superiority, to steal from them, plunder them, rape them, and kill them. And at the very least, to threaten them with such actions to force them to back down on their demands to sell their products at exorbitant prices, to impose an unequal and imperialist trade.

The aspirations of formerly colonized peoples in Africa, North Africa, Asia, and South America to have colonial crimes and the debt owed by colonizers to the oppressed and plundered populations recognized, and even to make them pay, rekindle the thirst for revenge among former empires. Hence the hatred of Trump, Retailleau, Valls, Macron, Lecointre, and many others. A new little war and they would gladly return, this time as victors ! But it's not so easy… It would require pretexts such as Trump's defense of Christians in Nigeria, or France's fight against jihadism in the Sahel, or against dictatorships like those of France and the USA in Libya and Syria…

Is this merely demagogic rhetoric, empty threats, or a policy that imperialisms and regional powers could consider ?

Neocolonialism is currently at an impasse, and countries like France are finding it increasingly difficult to exploit their former colonies. Access to energy resources in Algeria and Niger is contested. These countries also want to make France pay for its colonial past. Hence, a desire within French imperialism to return to simple colonial conquest, neocolonialism having run its course, undermined by popular anger and the ambitions of African officers.

On the other hand, the new imperialisms (Russia and China) are very aggressive in the world with the Russian army and Chinese capital… They contribute to facilitating the desire of former colonial states to separate from their former dominant power…

The rise of China and Russia is undoubtedly a game changer. Great powers cannot confront each other directly without risking the global destruction of the planet they wish to continue exploiting. However, they can challenge each other's influence, control, and exploitation of entire regions of the world, as China and Russia are currently doing in Africa. And they can retaliate with local wars and recolonizations, indirect wars between great powers… This is what they have done in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Gaza, Iran, and elsewhere… And imperialist powers can thus reconquer territories to occupy them completely, as Trump is proposing in Gaza, Venezuela, Panama, and elsewhere…

Would capitalism, completely rotten, its operating system blocked, only capable of delaying its historic fall since 2007-2008 through completely artificial financial interventions, be capable of reviving itself by acting in this way ?

These great powers can temporarily exploit minerals, energy, and all kinds of wealth through such plunder if they were to actually reoccupy and colonize a territory. They can deceive their populations into believing in a new global domination. They can imagine thus refilling the coffers of their governments, their central banks, their banks, and their industries, and supplying them with cheap raw materials.

But it is impossible for capitalism to revive itself in this way, to resolve the intractable problem that is stifling it : the overaccumulation of large capital. For it is the excess of capital that is killing capitalism, and it is not by going off here or there to enrich oneself through plunder that one can cure this catastrophic ill for the entire system.

Plundering the world may lead to wealth, but it doesn't reduce the proportion of unproductive investments relative to total capital. Colonial profit means conquering riches, certainly, but it doesn't generate new productive investments ; it doesn't create new added value.

The capitalist world already possesses far too much wealth relative to its capacity to invest it by creating surplus value extracted from human labor. Even by directly re-enslaveing the former colonial peoples, capitalism would merely be changing the form of exploitation of these countries' populations, a form of exploitation that has been carried out through neocolonialism since the end of direct colonialism.

Recolonization : a solution for an imperialist world emerging from an old international order called "globalization" without knowing how or where to go ?

https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/ei/2008-v39-n2-ei2470/019195ar/
Does the new policy of American imperialism towards South America, South Africa, India, and the Middle East signify an attempt to return to the policy of colonizing the world ?

Trump's new attitudes toward the formerly decolonized Third World are surprising. Will he follow through on this policy ? Will decaying capitalism seek a way out through a new, violent, and destructive invasion of the planet ? Through a recolonization of the world ?

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/09/25/diwp-s25.html

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionnisme_am%C3%A9ricain_sous_Donald_Trump

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/03/08/l-obsession-americaine-de-l-expansion-exacerbee-par-donald-trump-entre-en-conflit-direct-avec-les-limites-de-la-planete_6577149_3232.html
Trump's colonialist attitude within the USA

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/03/07/comment-donald-trump-ravive-le-mythe-americain-de-la-frontiere_6576863_3232.html

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/la-revue-de-presse-internationale/la-revue-de-presse-internationale-emission-du-vendredi-28-mars-2025-7111088

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/une-agence-federale-recrit-l-histoire-raciale-americaine-sous-la-pression-de-trump_229612

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/israel-palestine-trump-et-la-colonisation-une-question-de-politique-interieure-americaine

https://www.politis.fr/articles/2025/07/monde-reportage-en-louisiane-trump-reviser-la-memoire-de-lesclavage/

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/israel-palestine-trump-et-la-colonisation-une-question-de-politique-interieure-americaine

https://journals.openedition.org/esa/6445
Trump's colonialist attitude towards immigration

https://www.lopinion.fr/international/donald-trump-annonce-la-suspension-definitive-de-limmigration-venant-du-tiers-monde

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/11/28/donald-trump-annonce-qu-il-va-suspendre-definitivement-l-immigration-venant-du-tiers-monde-apres-l-attaque-de-deux-membres-de-la-garde-nationale-a-washington_6655196_3210.html

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2024/12/12/pers-d12.html

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2017/02/pers-f13.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/12/02/refugies-residents-permanents-ou-meme-citoyens-naturalises-l-administration-trump-cible-la-figure-de-l-etranger-bien-au-dela-des-sans-papiers_6655643_3210.html
Trump's colonialist attitude towards Canada, Greenland, Panama, the Arctic, etc…

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionnisme_am%C3%A9ricain_sous_Donald_Trump

https://www.pressegauche.org/Trump-la-fin-du-libre-echange-le-retour-du-colonialisme

https://www.sciencespo.fr/cso/fr/actualites/groenland-danemark-et-etats-unis-le-passe-colonial-dans-la-dynamique-actuelle/

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2131677/frontieres-etats-unis-canada-trump

https://www.liberation.fr/international/amerique/menaces-dannexion-du-canada-et-du-groenland-par-trump-le-retour-a-lesprit-de-conquete-dune-puissance-expansionniste-20250317_FM5I5FC67NHT7A5IY77G75ZFYQ/

https://legrandcontinent.eu/fr/2025/02/21/que-veut-trump-en-arctique-geopolitique-des-ambitions-imperiales-au-groenland/

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/l-esprit-public/canada-panama-groenland-trump-le-grand-bluff-5379970

https://www.france24.com/fr/am%C3%A9riques/20250108-canada-groenland-canal-de-panama-folie-des-grandeurs-d-un-trump-expansionniste
Trump's colonialist attitude towards new Israeli settlements

https://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2017/01/24/donald-trump-aiguillon-de-la-colonisation-israelienne_5067949_3218.html

https://alencontre.org/ameriques/amelat/trump-face-a-la-palestine-une-vision-coloniale-du-monde-qui-perdure.html

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/etats-unis/donald-trump/trump-choisit-un-defenseur-de-la-colonisation-au-poste-dambassadeur-en-israel-ae407818-a13e-11ef-b119-2c8e787cc364
Trump's colonialist attitude in wanting American control over the Gaza Strip

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/02/06/txcn-f06.html

https://contre-attaque.net/2025/10/01/le-plan-trump-pour-gaza-un-projet-colonial-et-un-chantage-visant-a-poursuivre-le-genocide/

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/02/13/pers-f13.html

https://www.rtbf.be/article/donald-trump-aux-commandes-a-gaza-projet-realiste-ou-brulot-politique-11499784
Trump's colonialist attitude towards Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and all of South America

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/affaires-etrangeres/trump-et-l-amerique-latine-le-nouveau-front-6265812

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/geopolitique/geopolitique-du-mardi-02-decembre-2025-8463850

https://www.humanite.fr/monde/amerique-latine/venezuela-colombie-panama-comment-donald-trump-veut-refaire-de-lamerique-latine-larriere-cour-des-etats-unis

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/geopolitique/geopolitique-du-jeudi-16-octobre-2025-3126169

https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/tuez-les-tous-les-etats-unis-se-sont-ils-rendus-coupables-d-un-crime-de-guerre-01-12-2025-2604422_24.php

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/honduras/honduras-son-candidat-ne-gagne-pas-donald-trump-se-fache-71b31da8-cf85-11f0-b23a-af5f5b40838c

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2025/12/01/ingerences-et-incoherences-de-donald-trump-sur-le-continent-americain_6655550_3232.html

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/un-monde-connecte/google-maps-s-apprete-a-renommer-le-golfe-du-mexique-en-golfe-d-amerique-vers-la-balkanisation-de-l-internet-6051200

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/11/28/zeww-n28.html

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/en-colombie-la-peur-des-pecheurs-face-aux-frappes-de-trump-20251130

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/affaires-etrangeres/trump-et-l-amerique-latine-le-nouveau-front-6265812

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/venezuela-trump-ressuscite-la-sombre-histoire-des-ingerences-de-washington-en-amerique-latine_236827
Trump's colonialist attitude towards India

https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/economie-avec-ses-droits-de-douane-trump-sape-les-liens-entre-l-inde-et-les-etats-unis_233656

https://www.lexpress.fr/monde/asie/droits-de-douane-donald-trump-a-pousse-linde-dans-les-bras-de-la-chine-PZMIK3CLVJHRVDGLF2E6S2AFOE/

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/31/sommet-en-chine-humiliee-par-donald-trump-l-inde-met-en-scene-le-rechauffement-de-ses-relations-avec-pekin_6637899_3210.html
Trump's colonialist attitude towards Africa

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/12/02/donald-trump-s-en-prend-violemment-a-la-somalie-un-pays-pourri-selon-lui-et-promet-de-durcir-l-immigration-aux-etats-unis_6655756_3210.html

https://www.jeuneafrique.com/1696250/politique/trump-et-les-africains-anatomie-dune-maltraitance-par-francois-soudan/

https://afrique.lalibre.be/79843/les-vraies-raisons-de-la-menace-de-donald-trump-dintervenir-au-nigeria-pour-secourir-les-catholiques/

https://thiareglobalvision.net/2025/06/17/trump-et-lafrique-une-diplomatie-du-mepris-assumee/
Trump's colonialist attitude towards South Africa

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_pour_les_r%C3%A9fugi%C3%A9s_blancs_sud-africains

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/podcasts/geopolitique/geopolitique-du-vendredi-28-novembre-2025-4133860

https://www.lapresse.ca/international/afrique/2025-11-27/decision-de-donald-trump/l-afrique-du-sud-s-insurge-contre-son-exclusion-du-prochain-sommet-du-g20.php

https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2025/02/03/donald-trump-accuse-l-afrique-du-sud-de-confiscation-de-terres-et-dit-interrompre-tout-financement_6529149_3212.html

https://www.bfmtv.com/international/amerique-nord/etats-unis/donald-trump/donald-trump-evoque-un-genocide-en-afrique-du-sud-d-ou-vient-l-accusation-du-president-americain_AN-202505210860.html

https://defimedia.info/trump-sanctionne-lafrique-du-sud-pour-sa-loi-sur-lexpropriation
Trump and the recolonization of the world

https://www.wsws.org/fr/articles/2025/01/09/pers-j09.html

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8493

https://shs.cairn.info/article/RFEA_113_0005?lang=fr&ID_ARTICLE=RFEA_113_0005

https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/comment-donald-trump-pourrait-suspendre-l-immigration-en-provenance-du-tiers-monde-20251128
The Democrats are no less recolonizing than Trump

For example, in Haiti… Or towards Israel…

https://www.pressegauche.org/Palestine-Haiti-du-terrorisme-colonial-a-la-domination-neocoloniale

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Uphold_Democracy

https://www.lemonde.fr/un-si-proche-orient/article/2024/12/22/joe-biden-jusqu-au-bout-a-la-traine-de-benyamin-netanyahou_6461951_6116995.html
American imperialism is not the only one contemplating recolonization.

Australia is recolonizing, Belgium regrets the colonization of the Congo, France regrets its colonies, New Zealand is excluding the Maori, etc…

https://www.equaltimes.org/apres-la-debacle-du-referendum?lang=fr

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/australie/australie-il-ny-aura-pas-d-aborigenes-au-parlement-5409034

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7871

https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/colonisation-la-belgique-regrette-mais-ne-s-excuse-pas-3409939

https://www.rtbf.be/article/voici-le-rapport-sur-le-passe-colonial-belge-quand-l-histoire-continue-de-deranger-notre-monde-politique-11324605

https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2025/09/GOUVERNEUR/68720

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/11/27/en-nouvelle-zelande-une-politique-antimaorie-tres-loin-de-l-identite-biculturelle-du-pays_6417006_3210.html
In the name of anti-workism, a return to the colonial past…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_nVZAl4eGQ

https://lecourrier.ch/2025/05/20/trump-ier-pape-de-lanti-decolonialisme/

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/etats-unis/donald-trump/trump-celebre-christophe-colomb-et-rejette-tout-hommage-simultane-aux-amerindiens-9e429b38-a581-11f0-aa8e-e39f42e4d309

https://www.lhistoire.fr/trump-fait-de-lhistoire

https://www.lemonde.fr/videos/video/2025/04/20/guerre-culturelle-comment-trump-essaye-d-imposer-un-recit-mensonger-de-l-histoire_6598187_1669088.html

https://www.telerama.fr/debats-reportages/a-washington-trump-s-attaque-aux-musees-et-pose-la-premiere-pierre-de-son-revisionnisme-historique-7024983.php

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rint_0294-3069_2011_num_92_1_1254

https://books.openedition.org/septentrion/16168?lang=fr

https://www.leparisien.fr/international/etats-unis/on-aime-les-italiens-trump-celebre-la-memoire-de-christophe-colomb-et-rejette-tout-hommage-simultane-aux-amerindiens-09-10-2025-LPEYDLZW3JAZHHCNSPC46W4VQI.php

No to the denial of colonial genocide

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8494
French colonialism, the return ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3675

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9ologie_coloniale_fran%C3%A7aise

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3504

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2423

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7791

Is Trump causing the collapse of the old world, or is it the other way around ?

Robert Paris, Tiekoura Levi Hamed — 2026-02-12T11:58:24Z

The misinterpretations in moralistic commentary on Trump's policies are intended to further disorient the working people…

It's not Trump who explains the state of the world, it's the state of the world that explains Trump and... everything else...

We hear people who are horrified by Trump's policies exclaiming "Trump is a madman," "Trump is an idiot," "Trump is a public danger," "Trump is an absolute horror," etc. Even if they add that capitalism is to blame, like some far-left groups, their explanations are incomplete and, in fact, they explain nothing by saying all this.

Trump's new American policy certainly seems to be a historic turning point, not only for the US but for the world. Some reformers argued that his program shouldn't be taken literally and that he would inevitably back down once elected. This is not the case at all. Whether it's the formation of his government team, his first executive orders, or his latest inflammatory statements, Trump has not backed down in the slightest.

Trump is at war with migrants, with workers, with American democracy, with South America, with international law, with international diplomacy, with Europe, with Africa, with peace, with democracy worldwide, with peace. Trump causes everything. Trump explains everything. That's the comment we hear more and more. But this comment explains nothing. Why is the US shifting now ? Why does no force seem capable of stopping him or even opposing him ? Why can he act in a way that no American president has used before, not even the first Trump ? The favorable commentary offers no more explanation than the hostile commentary. Where does the change come from ?

Of course, it's understandable that Trump's thuggish methods are shocking. But condemnation isn't an explanation. To say that "Trump is EVIL," "Trump is the devil," and that he must be exorcised is an almost religious reaction, but not a fighting strategy.

Both within the United States and in international relations, Trump is resorting to violence that was unheard of in so-called democratic countries or that was no longer used in international relations. He is replacing diplomacy with gunboat diplomacy, both domestically and internationally. However, there is a considerable leap from this to believing, or suggesting, that the personal character of the American president alone explains the entire new global situation.

It is clear worldwide that the situation is shifting towards increasing violence, increasing dictatorship, and increasing war and civil war. The USA is not alone in demonstrating this. Europe is too. Asia and the Middle East are as well. Africa too. Everywhere, entirely new things are happening. It is because the world has changed that the capitalist class is changing its policies. It is going directly to war against the people. It has decided to respond to the wave of Arab Spring uprisings with a counter-revolutionary offensive. It is ceasing to be on the defensive. It is attacking. This is not unique to any particular head of state. They are all changing. They are all taking the path of war. Because war is the order of the day in the world situation. And, more fundamentally, because capitalism is tipping over, collapsing, dying. And also because the people are revolting. It's important to remember that the wave of revolts and revolutions around the world also had a completely new character, challenging old dictatorships, old clan systems, and rotten neo-colonialisms that had persisted for decades, even longer. Yes, people have risen up, and the ruling classes are changing their policies to respond. The capitalist class has an interest in not waiting for everything to collapse and must lead a preemptive counter-revolution.

It's not enough to simply say, "Look, what Trump is doing is disgusting." If he can do it, it's because the capitalist class believes it's in its interest. And we must explain why it thinks its interest must be defended through entirely new methods. What has fundamentally and drastically changed in the world ?

Instead of recognizing that if there's a global turning point, it's because the system has reached the end of its tether—that of prolonging itself through artificial financial methods—it's not just that the United States is at the end of its rope, but that the capitalist world as a whole has also reached its limit. It's that the race among states to accumulate debt in order to bail out bankrupt trusts and banks has run its course. Their response is a new race to the bottom in debt, fueled by massive wartime military spending.

Some capitalists say "long live Trump," others say "down with Trump," but both aim to deceive the people, to bind them to false friends, to lead them down false paths. By giving them a false target. By giving them a false objective. By giving them a false explanation of the situation.

The so-called anti-Trumpers talk about peace and democracy. The pro-Trumpers talk about a resurgence of American or Western dominance.

Both sides are careful not to explain that the origin of the wave of popular revolt that began in 2010 stemmed from the global economic and social collapse of capitalism in 2007-2008. And that Trump's aggressive and reckless policies are explained solely by big capital's headlong rush into the abyss before it.

The pro- and anti-Trump bourgeoisies are careful not to mention that the reason for this collapse is global, not just American, and that global capitalism has reached unavoidable limits, limits it has been encountering since 2008. These limits mean that capitalism is incapable of pushing its own system any further. Its very success—the super-profits of a few billionaires—are such that they exceed the absorption capacity and the productive reinvestment capacity of big capital. This has forced the system to act recklessly, constantly producing bogus investments, like subprime mortgages, Bitcoin, or the delusional investments in AI.

To avoid making such a point, the comments assert : everything is Trump's fault. It's Trump's own method, it's Trump's madness, it's Trump's aggression that explains everything in the world, that is the cause of everything. It's worth noting that not long before, we were being told that Putin explained everything, or Netanyahu explained everything, or Erdogan in Turkey, or the Supreme Leader of Iran, or the dictator of North Korea, or even Macron explained everything that threatened the world…

It's all the fault of one man. We're all too familiar with this kind of explanation : the madness of one man to explain why a capitalist democracy suddenly descends into fascism and world war. It's the lie we were fed for Hitler's rise to power in 1933. Yet behind this "madness" lay the massive financial and political support of the capitalist class—German, but also European and American—against the risks of a proletarian communist revolution.

But did the Spring uprisings pose such a threat to the owning classes ? Of course they did, even if the people are unaware of it ! Even if these same commentators are careful not to say so. It is precisely the reactions that followed that reveal it. This is particularly evident in the fact that so-called democracies like the USA, but also like France, did everything they could to help dictatorships crush the popular revolt. And the famous American, or French, democracy also violently crushed the revolt in their own countries. Let us remember the brutal repressions in Minneapolis and Paris ! For the wave of revolts and revolutions also reached the richest countries. This, too, is the novel aspect of the situation. The collapse originates from the dominant capitalist countries ! The violence of the capitalist response is explained by the fear of the owning classes. Trump and Musk make no secret of the fact that their motivation is hatred of the communist revolution, just as Hitler did not.

The moralizing commentators can't admit it. If Trump is the fighter against communism in defense of capitalism, then they are forced to… support him !

This is the whole tragedy of American Democrats ! They can only gently and moderately denounce the method but… not the stated goals… Otherwise they are accused of supporting communism, which Trump does not hesitate to do.

The moralizing commentators on the situation, as well as the pseudo-democrats and reformists of all stripes, will say that the communist proletarian threat is a myth being stirred up by Trump, not a reality. But that's wrong !

It is true that the wave of revolts and revolutions around the world has a social character, that it denounces the order of the capitalist class, that it does not only threaten a few dictatorships in poor countries, but also stirs up the working people of rich countries, and that it threatens capitalist power everywhere in the world. We saw this particularly with the Yellow Vests in France. We have recently seen that the mere fear of a resurgence of the movement from the grassroots of these working people has brought down prime ministers, destabilized anti-social attacks, especially on pensions, placed the government in a pre-revolutionary situation, destabilizing everything linked to the power of the wealthy, from parliaments to the bureaucratic apparatus of the unions.

This is the social and political destabilization that Trump's policies seek to address, both within the USA and abroad.

To denounce Trump alone is to mistake the symptom for the cause of the disease. It prevents people from confronting the situation.

If Trump is stirring up counter-revolution in this violent, seemingly crazy but actually logical way, it's because the American owning classes are indeed threatened by… social revolution, much more so than by China and Russia, than by Iran and North Korea…

The United States is divided, but not so much between Democrats and Republicans as between rich and poor. The MAGA movement's main goal is to deceive a segment of the poor and turn them against the other segment. Because a fight between billionaires and the American people wouldn't last a minute and would be won by revolution… One percent of the population can only govern against the entire population by pretending to defend the people's interests. Hence Trump's need to invent a multitude of scapegoats, such as immigrants, neighboring nations, economically competing countries, and so on.

Trump's policies can only be explained if we understand the current state of the capitalist system itself, its total impasse, and if we understand that it is the impasse of capitalism that makes the communist revolution of the soviets inevitable !

Yes, what is inevitable is that the wave of revolts and revolutions, if it continues, will make people aware of the need to revive the Soviet revolution ! Far from being more crazy and blind than other heads of state, Trump is simply aware of this threat that hangs over all capitalist owners, in the USA as well as elsewhere, and even in Russia and China.

Wouldn't pushing the American population to tear itself apart, deliberately fostering an internal civil war within the US, be dangerous for the ruling class ? Not if the bourgeoisie knows in advance that the collapse of the economic system will inevitably lead to such a civil war, the only way to avoid revolutionary dangers becoming to divert this civil war into a struggle between two bourgeois factions. Not if both sides are bourgeois and imperialist, just as the global bourgeoisie pretended to be divided between pro-fascists and anti-fascists at the end of the 1930s.

Of course, this isn't about distancing ourselves from the people mobilizing against Trump, nor is it simply a matter of telling them that Trump = Biden = Obama is enough to address the situation. It's about recognizing that the bourgeoisie is in no way threatened if we let the Democrats lead the fight against Trump, and also recognizing that this is a class struggle, in which only the communist and Soviet proletariat (not in the Stalinist sense, of course) can represent a real prospect. Even though young people, women, immigrants, Black people, homosexuals, etc., are mobilized and should not be overlooked, the root of the problem, the cause of the destabilization of the United States, is the class struggle. The foundation of this social and political destabilization is economic : it's the collapse of global capitalism, starting with that of the US in 2007-2008, and its consequence, the fact that the ruling class knows that no matter how much it delays it, the result will be a new social revolution within the United States itself. His entire policy aims to divert the revolution, to create new oppositions, between whites and others, between Muslims and others, between men and women, between young and old, etc., so that the class opposition is diverted and drowned out, and also to ensure that the rebels turn either to Trump or to the Democrats, that is to say, in both cases, to their enemies.

The more the global economic situation deteriorates, the more states become bankrupt, and the more financial bubbles threaten to burst, the more we will find ourselves in numerous situations where the convergence between the "democratic" bourgeoisie and fascism will increase, with regimes becoming more and more extreme right-wing, as we see with the "democratic" accession of the extreme right to power in Japan, India and... the USA... This is not explained by political struggles, but by the fall of capitalism in 2007-2008, a fall which has not actually been followed by any recovery and cannot be.

What proves that the rise of Trump is not an epiphenomenon and is linked to such profound and even historic changes in the capitalist system beyond even a "simple" economic crisis, or the symptom of a capitalist impasse ?

First of all, it's clear that Trump is more than just another political upheaval in the US. The American far right has never governed directly and openly. The desire to incite a domestic civil war has never been so blatant. Trump's policy is to give state power the primary role of a far-right force in every sphere…

The American ruling class calculates that an internal civil war between rich and poor will become inevitable as soon as the economic collapse resumes, as it did in 2007-2008, and central banks and governments no longer have the financial means to contain the catastrophe. They even foresee a civil war between exploiters and exploited, since it has been avoided for many years, notably by 9/11, the American "wars on terror" coupled with the Patriot Act to control the working class and "left-wing" activists. The far right, however, has not been controlled or broken during this same period ; quite the opposite.

In all past attempts at organized far-right movements by the bourgeoisie, there was always a significant element of risk, particularly the risk that the far right's rise to power would provoke a revolution, whereas the goal was to deflect or suppress it. In hindsight, one might argue that the far right has always succeeded : from Germany in 1918 to Germany in 1933, from Spain in 1936 to France in 1938, and so on. But this is false. Initially, the coup d'état by the Spanish army in Morocco, led notably by Franco, sparked the proletarian revolution in Spain. But there is another famous counter-example : the Russian Revolution itself, since it was Kornilov's counter-revolutionary coup that paved the way for the Soviet revolution in October 1917. In any case, the calculated nature of the ruling class's choices when a country slides into fascism in one way or another is no longer in doubt, even if some intellectuals continue to bombard us with the "conspiracy theory." It is no longer in doubt that it was not the fanaticism of the Nazi troops that created Nazism, but rather the choices of the trusts, the banks, and the General Staff, and these latter were by no means fanatical. The question has resurfaced for the ruling class since the historic collapse of the global economic system in 2007-2008, which was followed by a wave of revolutions in the Muslim world, but not only there. The American policy for responding to this is itself called "counterinsurgency," which means fomenting counter-revolutionary "insurrections," white armies, terrorist groups, militias of mass murderers, killers who eliminate activists and committed workers under the pretext of fighting terrorism or dictators. The far right is increasingly being called upon by the ruling classes to govern, as clearly demonstrated by the choice of Trump as head of the United States. It is no surprise that his chief defense advisor is an active-duty general specializing in "counterinsurgency" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump has only recently come to power, and he has already demonstrated that he is not afraid to incite all forms of internal civil war within the USA : against immigrants, against women, against homosexuals, or against Black people, but also against freedoms and democratic rights (press, demonstrations, unions, etc.). Even though Trump was elected, it is significant that the global capitalist ruling class is relying less and less on the so-called democratic political system to maintain world order and more and more on counter-insurgency terror and terrorist dictatorships, when it is not simply resorting to outright war.including the increasingly threatening world war between Western imperialisms and new imperialisms (China, Russia, etc.).

It was well before his last presidency that Trump began to say he wanted to respond to the American domestic situation with civil war…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5925

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5931

Is it all Trump's fault ?!!!

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4714

Trump, a symptom of the capitalist impasse but not its cause…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4254

Civil war threatens the United States, but not only because of the Democrats versus Trump duel…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7993

After Biden, Trump is primarily at war with workers in the United States, and not just migrants…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8215

With Trump and his ilk around the world, the ruling classes will go to extreme lengths and are prepared to commit any atrocity to retain their power despite the collapse of capitalism. Their only limit will be when we—workers, women, and young people—decide to take matters into our own hands, organize ourselves into councils, choose our representatives, and decide the future of society.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4342

American fascist billionaires violently hostile to the proletariat and communism

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7892

Trump's counter-revolution spells the end of America ! Now is the time for the revolutionary proletariat to put an end to imperialist domination of the world…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8493

The "great American democracy" is turning towards fascism

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6051

Another symptom that the system is rotten and corrupt : Epstein's gang is not just Trump but the entire capitalist class !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8537

More than ever in the phase of capitalist collapse, marked by fascism, dictatorship and war but above all by the fall of productive investments, the working class must intervene, in the form of self-organized direct action, on the basis of its own political and social program.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8124

Democrats refuse to actually fight Trump, except electorally to take his place.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8576

Why the dynamics of capitalism run up against their own limits : its very success is stifled by the constraints of private ownership of the means of production.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3250

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7478

The only answer can be given by the workers' soviets…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8277

Yes, power to the workers and communism are what's relevant right now !

Yes indeed ! Big capital still has every reason to be afraid... of communism !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7912

1926 : Revolution in China and General Strike in England - Two useful lessons for 2026

Alex — 2026-01-14T09:39:00Z

1926 : Revolution in China and General Strike in England - Two useful lessons for 2026

The Chinese Revolution

In China, from 1925 onwards, the revolutionary movement resumed. In Shanghai, cotton mill workers went on strike. On May 15, a Japanese foreman shot and killed worker Gu Zheng-hong, wounding others. The workers, joined by students, demonstrated in a crowd of over 10,000 in front of a police station in the concession (territories annexed by the imperialist powers), chanting "Down with imperialism !" On May 30, a British officer panicked and killed 13 of them ; this became known as the "Massacre of May 30."

"It was the afternoon of May 30th. The effect was swift and violent. Shanghai, the great foreign stronghold with its Western banks and factories, its concessions, was paralyzed by the general strike. Even the servants abandoned the homes of the foreigners. These foreigners, accustomed for decades to viewing the Chinese as dirty but necessary animals, were terrified to see this shapeless mass rise up and slap them across the face. The effect was not limited to Shanghai ; 135 strikes triggered by the shooting on May 30th involved 400,000 workers from Hong Kong and Canton to Beijing. On June 23rd, students, workers, and officer cadets marched through the streets of Canton. French and British machine guns opened fire, and 52 students were killed. A general strike and a boycott of British goods were immediately declared. Hong Kong, Great Britain's fortress in China, was completely paralyzed."

H. Isaacs, historian

A general strike, triggered by political and economic issues, and the question of imperialism. This May 30th movement provides a historical example of the boycott, popularized by the September 10th Movement (with solidarity and civil disobedience). This anti-imperialist movement involved various social classes, from students and military personnel to a segment of the Chinese bourgeoisie.

This is what is called the beginning of a revolution, and it has very little to do with a general strike for wages : it is the question of the power of the exploited that is being raised.

British machine guns opened fire ; what were British workers' organizations doing at the same time ? 1926 was the year of the biggest strike in England. These two seeds were therefore those of world revolution, one in an imperialist country, the other in a country dominated by imperialisms, a semi-colony.

The general strike in England

Leon Trotsky described the 1926 strike in England as analogous to future strikes that one might expect to see today in Europe :

"England is shaken by a formidable strike. The Conservative government is pursuing a policy of relentless offensive. It is doing everything to provoke civil war. Never has the contradiction between the factors of social forces and the lie of outdated parliamentarism manifested itself in England as clearly as it does today."

The English strike arises from the contradiction between the current situation of the British economy on the world market and the traditional relations of production and class within the country. Formally, the question is posed as follows : a reduction in miners' wages, an extension of their working day, and the transfer onto the shoulders of the working class of some of the sacrifices necessary for a genuine reorganization of the coal industry. Thus formulated, this question is insoluble. It is perfectly true that, without sacrifices, and even without serious sacrifices, on the part of the English proletariat, the coal industry, like the entire British economy in general, cannot be reorganized. But only a complete fool could believe that the English proletariat is prepared to make these sacrifices on the old basis of capitalist property. (...) The general strike is the most violent form of class struggle. Following it immediately comes armed insurrection. This is precisely why the general strike, more than any other form of class struggle, demands a clear, resolute, and energetic leadership—in other words, a revolutionary leadership. But the British proletariat shows no trace of such leadership in the present strike, and it cannot be expected to suddenly appear, ready-made, as if sprung from the ground. The General Council of Trade Unions began with its ridiculous declaration that the general strike did not constitute a political struggle and therefore did not signify an attack on the state power of the bankers, industrialists, and landowners, nor on the Holy British Parliament. But this declaration of war by the loyal subjects does not appear at all convincing to the government, which feels that the real instruments of force are slipping from its grasp under the effect of the strike.

The General Council of Trade Unions mentioned by Trotsky has its equivalent today in the leadership of the CGT and Sud-Soldiers in France. In short, a general strike is absolutely insufficient ; without revolutionary leadership, it becomes a defeat that demoralizes a generation.

The claim that the "revolutionaries" whose only criticism of our union leadership is that it doesn't call for a general strike is therefore fallacious. These leaderships are perfectly capable of doing so, using it as a method of demoralization. Trotsky continued :

“It is currently impossible to predict the duration of the struggle, its development, and, even more so, its outcome. Everything must be done, within the international framework, to support the combatants and facilitate the conditions for their victory. But it must be clearly understood that this victory is only possible to the extent that the British working class, in the course of the development and strengthening of the general strike, succeeds in changing its leaders. An American proverb aptly states that one should not change horses when crossing a torrent. But this practical wisdom is only true to a certain extent ; no one has ever succeeded in crossing a revolutionary torrent on the horse of reformism. And the class that went into battle under opportunist leadership was forced to change it under the fire of the enemy. This determines in advance the attitude of the truly revolutionary elements of the British proletariat, and above all, of the communists.” They will support by all means the unity of mass action, but they will allow no appearance of unity with the opportunist leaders of the Labour Party and the trade unions. The implacable struggle against any act or attempt at treason, and the merciless critique of reformist illusions, constitute the most important part of the work of the truly revolutionary elements participating in the general strike. By this means, they will contribute not only to the indispensable work of training the new revolutionary cadres without whom any victory of the British proletariat is impossible, but also to the success of the present strike, by deepening it, bringing out its revolutionary character, eliminating the opportunists, and strengthening the position of the revolutionary elements. The results of the strike, both immediate and long-term, will be all the more considerable the more energetically the revolutionary will of the masses removes the barriers and obstacles erected by the counter-revolutionary leadership.

Counter-revolutionary leadership , agents of the bourgeoisie within the workers' movement—this is what the propaganda of genuine revolutionaries must now popularize as terms to describe union leaders like Sophie Binet. The opportunistic far left (LO, NPAs, RP) has abandoned these labels, as well as that of " opportunists ," contenting itself with the technical terms "union bureaucracies" and "union leadership."

As expected, the union leaders betrayed the strike, which Trotsky assessed as follows :

“The revolutionary workers were disoriented, fell into apathy, and transferred their disappointment onto the Communist Party itself, even though the party had only been a passive element in this mechanism of betrayal. The minority movement almost completely disappeared : the Communist Party reverted to the state of a powerless sect. Thus, as a result of a false conception of the party, the greatest movement of the English proletariat, which triggered the general strike, not only failed to shake the apparatus of the reactionary bureaucracy, but on the contrary strengthened it and compromised communism in Great Britain for a long time.”

“My Life”, Trotsky

Yet it was not inevitable ; it was the Stalinist leadership of the USSR, opposed by Trotsky, that led the British working class to defeat, by not allowing the PC to do the real work of a PC, leaving the direction of the strike to the union leadership.

The American group WSWS describes the strike as follows :

"The general strike began on May 3, 1926, in response to a massive attack on the wages of Britain's 1.2 million coal miners, amidst widespread social unrest. The Trades Union Congress (TUC), terrified by its revolutionary potential, tried to end it and succeeded, on May 12, after only nine days, in inflicting a crushing defeat. (...)
'Action Councils' were formed, recognized by the Directorate of Intelligence as 'increasingly resembling soviets and, in some areas, drawing up plans to seize private property and means of transport.' The East Fife Action Council [in Scotland] created its own 700-member workers' defense militia. Reports of mutinies by the Welsh Guards and other regiments refusing to attack the miners triggered mass arrests." Of the 2,500 people arrested, 1,000 were members of the CPGB ; these also constituted a large proportion of the 1,000 people subsequently imprisoned.

The preceding years had seen the rise of what could be a direction of the revolution :

"The most significant political expression of this sustained leftward shift was the growth of the Communist Party of Great Britain's (CPGB) influence within the trade unions. With only 4,000 members in 1923, the CPGB played a decisive role in the formation of the National Minority Movement (NMM), which eventually boasted over a million members, a quarter of the total trade union membership, and spearheaded the campaign to elect A.J. Cook as General Secretary of the Mineworkers' Union in 1924."

Stalin's USSR pursued its policy of total support for trade union leadership through the Anglo-Russian Committee :

"It was created at a joint conference of Soviet and British trade unions in London, from 6 to 8 April 1925, with the stated objective of restoring the unity of the international trade union movement, ensuring mutual aid and support, opposing the war and promoting friendly relations between Great Britain and the USSR.

However, as Trotsky explains in Problems of the British Revolution, rather than viewing the committee as "an episodic bloc" to be broken "at the first serious test in order to compromise the General Council [TUC]", Stalin, Bukharin, Tomsky and Zinoviev saw it as : "an instrument for the systematic revolutionization of the English working masses, and if not the entry, at least an approach to the entry through which the revolution of the English proletariat would advance by leaps and bounds".

WSWS

But this policy of complete submission to union leadership is precisely that of the far left (LO, NPA-A and R, RP) in France today. The following lesson Trotsky drew from this therefore remains valid :

"The precondition for any agreement with the 'left' was that the Communist Party preserve its 'complete independence, even within the trade unions, act in its own name on all matters of principle, criticize its 'left' allies whenever necessary, and thus gain the trust of the masses, step by step.'"

Stalin and his associates, on the contrary, believed that in order to attract the "broad left-wing current" towards the Communist International, it was essential to avoid all criticism at all costs. Consequently, the British Communist Party practically disappeared as a visible political force, to be almost entirely replaced in the eyes of the workers by the minority National Movement, a purely syndicalist organization.

Trotsky, "My Life"

But, LO and the NPA-R, the most hypocritical of opportunists, will retort : we constantly proclaim the necessity of our organizations' independence, displaying it in every political election, from the last legislative elections to the upcoming municipal ones. Our meager results, close to 0%, are "proof" that we are not complicit with the union leadership.

But besides the party, trade unions and soviets are the two other forms of organization where a policy independent of the working class is necessary. It is within these two types of structure that a policy of a united workers' front is exercised, a fundamental tactic by which revolutionaries do not co-opt reformists, but rather expose them. The opportunistic far left in France does not build communist cells within the trade unions and stifles the creation of genuine soviets.

Conclusion

The first significant event of 2026 is the exfiltration by D. Trump of Venezuelan President N. Maduros. This act of piracy is certainly a reprehensible act of American imperialism, but what can be done ? How are the lessons of 1926 relevant ? Let's read the CGT's perspective :

"The CGT condemns the US aggression against Venezuela
Published on Jan 3, 2026
The US army has just carried out bombings in Venezuela and Trump claims responsibility for the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro.

The CGT condemns this military aggression against a sovereign state, an operation aimed at imposing regime change in order to seize control of oil resources. This imperialist aggression and the kidnapping of a head of state set a dangerous precedent.

France and the international community through the UN must react without delay to this scandalous aggression which aggravates an already tense international situation.

The CGT reaffirms its commitment to democracy, the right of peoples to self-determination, peace, and international regulation. It affirms its solidarity with the Venezuelan people.

Montreuil, January 3, 2026

Sophie Binet, a good agent of the bourgeoisie within the labor movement, addresses herself not to the workers, not to the international trade union organization to which she belongs, but to the representatives of French imperialism sitting at the UN. No foreign policy from the trade unions ! The left wing of the unions, the opportunistic far left, claims to distinguish itself from these "bureaucracies" through action . But LO manages unions, and can do nothing but repeat, on the same day, changing only a few commas, the CGT's press release :

"Down with imperialism in Venezuela !"
Published on 03/01/2026

After months of threats, piracy against ships that have already caused dozens of deaths, and the seizure of oil tankers, the United States finally struck Venezuela directly. Trump boasts that American troops have captured Maduro, the Venezuelan president.

For a long time, American imperialism has sought to subjugate one of the few Latin American countries that refuses to fall in line, and to seize its vast oil reserves.
Down with imperialism and its trail of plunder, war, and subjugation !

Internally, activists will be convinced they have "outmaneuvered" the CGT by using the term "imperialist." Instead of issuing a statement signed by its municipal candidates (including Venezuelans), supported by a joint press conference, denouncing the imperialists Trump and Macron, LO, which claims to run "revolutionary" electoral campaigns, settles for a message that will go unnoticed. General Mandon had invited war into the municipal elections ; LO is afraid to invite itself into that conflict, even as the whole world comments on this event.

The NPA-R, for its part, is calling for action, but it is unclear when and where, implicitly referring to future demonstrations called for by the union leadership.

"The NPA-Revolutionaries calls for all protest demonstrations that will take place to oppose this new imperialist aggression.

Down with imperialist aggression against Venezuela ! Down with imperialism !

Press release from the NPA-Revolutionaries, January 3, 2026

Why are these two organizations incapable of any action ? Because their spokespeople are submissive union bureaucrats, choosing to submit, to the social-chauvinist discipline that has dominated the unions since 1914.

Nearly three months ago, French imperialism committed the exact same type of act of piracy : Malagasy President Andry Rajoelina was exfiltrated by a French military plane on October 12, 2025 ! The trade unions and political organizations that did nothing to prevent or at least denounce this act have already lost all credibility in their denunciation of D. Trump.

The May 30th Movement, which ushered in the 1925-27 revolution in China, began with anti-imperialist demonstrations : labor unions and student organizations staged protests in front of sites embodying imperialism. Agitation, propaganda, and action all played their part, as in any self-respecting movement. In France, unions remain silent on foreign policy. In Paris, however, the US embassy could offer an objective perspective. Given its proximity to the Élysée Palace, such demonstrations could quickly transform into protests against both imperialisms : French and American. In the French West Indies, the Workers' Struggle (LO) branch leads a regional branch of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) ; it could promote anti-imperialist slogans from the Caribbean peoples, at a time when Trump is threatening Cuba.

Maduro is merely the representative of a bourgeois army, similar to that of Jiang Jie-shi, who, under an anti-imperialist, "revolutionary" guise in 1925, was the butcher of the Chinese proletariat in April 1927. Only the proletariat, with its party and its soviets, can wage a real struggle against imperialist plunder. Whether in 1926 in China or in 2026 anywhere, this lesson remains valid. Trump's actions are undoubtedly primarily aimed at Chinese imperialism, with the goal of cutting it off from Venezuela's oil resources. It was this vital need for raw materials that led Japan to invade China in 1931, triggering World War II.

These lessons from China in 1926 are vital for the proletariats of Latin America and Europe !

Humanity will rise again, capitalism never will !

Karob, Robert Paris — 2026-01-12T09:36:52Z

Humanity will rise again, capitalism never will !

Revolutionary workers, women, young people, small farmers, fishermen, artisans, traders and self-employed individuals, humanity, communism, all will rise up together, but capitalism will never rise again ! It has reached insurmountable limits, not only from the point of view of the exploited and oppressed but also from the point of view of its own system.

Yemen, Gaza, Sudan, Mali, Ukraine, Zaire, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Sahel, Burkina Faso, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank—nothing but massacres instigated, approved, organized, and armed by the major imperialist powers ! And it's not just wars and civil wars ! There are dictatorships and fascisms spreading everywhere ! Just as revolts and revolutions are spreading everywhere, in Asia, Africa, South America, Europe…

Most countries in the world have experienced revolts and revolutions since 2010, following the capitalist economic collapse of 2007-2008. The COVID-19 pandemic, yet another global horror caused by capitalism, partially stifled the revolt starting in 2019. And the supposedly anti-COVID dictatorial policies did the rest.

While the horrors perpetrated by capitalist states continue to worsen, revolts and revolutions demonstrate the courage, dedication, solidarity, spontaneity, and self-organization of young people, women, and workers in towns and the countryside, and show where the future of humanity will come from : from the revolutionary working people.

This global nature of revolutions and counter-revolutions demonstrates that it is indeed the foundations of the world that are being shaken, and not any particular regime (Mubarak or Ben Ali), region (the Arab world or Africa), government, specific situation (women, youth, the most vulnerable, etc.), erosion of power, or particular political or economic circumstances. This affects rich and poor countries alike, Western and Eastern nations, North and South, East and West, dictatorships and so-called democracies.

This global situation has a fundamentally economic cause (capital saturation relative to the limited capacity for productive investment), and it is the inevitable result of the historic, and also global, collapse of the capitalist system of domination (its mode of production), which has reached its limits and can no longer recover. Indeed, what caused the global collapse of capitalist markets in 2007, and what continues to undermine the capitalist economy, is neither a recession, nor inflation, nor Trump's deglobalization, nor currency collapses, nor stock market bubbles, nor energy problems, nor the bankruptcy of states and central banks—all of these are merely consequences.

We cannot predict what the future will hold (when, at what pace, for what occasional reason, this fall will occur, with what starting point, with what consequence), but we can be certain of one thing : the dying system threatens us all with death, barbarity, mass violence, regardless of our country, our region, our situations, our origins, etc.

What is also certain is that the main cause is not what we are told it is : climate crisis, migration crisis, ecological crisis, demographic crisis, pandemic crisis, crisis of state spending, energy crisis, generational crisis, interethnic crisis, interreligious crisis, intercivilizational crisis, East-West crisis, jihadist and terrorist crisis, Bitcoin crisis, AI crisis, war crisis, crisis of globalization or financialization, robotization crisis, etc. The cause is not even the misery of the poorest and the vast gap between rich and poor, nor is it popular revolt. The cause is economic, and yet it is not even a classic crisis of capitalism.

Capitalism could perfectly well recover from any of the crises we have just mentioned, and even from all of them, but not from the crucial and fundamental problem that has plagued it since the early 2000s : the complete saturation of capital accumulation. The global quantity of capital has increased dramatically over the last few decades, and one might think this is a great success for big capital. However, it is a success that exceeds its capacity… Where to invest all this capital ? A constantly decreasing share of the total available capital is invested in productive investments. Consequently, it becomes vital that states and central banks, as well as private capital holders, invent new and substantial amounts of unproductive investments. By leveraging speculation, public and private debt, Bitcoin, artificial intelligence, and other technologies, it is possible to continually create fictitious investments that actually generate profits. But all these artificial methods for generating profits for capital have a major flaw : they wildly increase the amount of capital that is not directed toward productive investment, and the share of this capital in total capital grows relentlessly, contributing to tightening the noose that is suffocating the capitalist system. For speculation allows a capitalist to become rich, but not the entire system. The wealth of capitalism has always fundamentally stemmed from the exploitation of human labor (surplus value increasing capital through its productive reinvestment), even though capitalists have always maintained the illusion that it is they, Capital and not Labor, who create wealth. Yet this system has never been able to survive without constantly increasing capital. Only brief drops in profits (capitalist crises) were tolerable, and the destruction of capital they caused was offset by the fact that these crises purged capitalism of its weakest elements, allowing it to rebound stronger than ever. In the current situation, such a crisis is no longer tolerable for capitalism because it deems it "systemic," meaning that a simple regulatory crisis would threaten the entire system with death !

We cannot prevent capitalism from collapsing, much to the chagrin of all the fans of reformist "solutions." We can only seize the situation and try to transform every weakness of the system into a weapon of the revolutionary proletariat.

In short, we have no reason to laugh or cry at the end of capitalism. Capitalism itself is the cause of this self-destruction and is announcing its death by tolling the bell with a multitude of increasingly atrocious symptoms. There is no reason to regret the old system of exploitation and oppression, but no reason to rejoice either, because nothing is settled and only the direct intervention of the revolutionary proletariat can allow us to turn the page on the history of humanity.

And the more the propertied classes convince themselves that their future is bleak, the more they manipulate racism, machismo, fascism, all hatreds, all fears, all divisions, all fantasies, all absurdities, all filthy, horrible appetites, all bloodthirsty, decorated brutes, all murderers, all terrorists from around the world. Barbarity does not die with capitalism ; it grows until the triumph of social revolution !

The revolts and revolutions acted in the diametrically opposed direction to this rise of barbarity in both actions and minds. Where people are most bitterly divided by ethnicity, clan, skin color, diverse origins, religion, region, between nationals and migrants, between men and women, between rich and poor, these mass movements have precisely brought to the fore all the oppressed and exploited, all united, often denying the oppressive weight of an entire old past (women at the forefront in Iran as in Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt or Sudan, ethnicities and clans swept away in Lebanon, for example).

But states, these powers of big capital, are more present than ever, say the skeptics regarding the death of capitalism. Yes, but the system cannot rely solely on state aid to survive. Its economic functioning is far more important. The more it relies on the support of states and central banks, the more its decline worsens, because the share of capital not originating from the productive sector grows accordingly, and surplus value is no longer the basis of profit. An individual capitalist doesn't care where the money comes from as long as it constantly fills the coffers, but the entire system cannot ! And capitalism accumulates capital without increasing real wealth. The chasm widens between fictitious wealth and real wealth. To such an extent that this abyss frightens the ruling classes themselves and pushes them down the insane path of marching towards world war, global fascism, dictatorship and massacres endangering all of humanity… All this is preferable in the eyes of the owning classes to the mortal risks of a social revolution that would definitively overthrow the economic and political power of the capitalist class !
For the working people, the socialist revolution will require great efforts, but it will cost us less than the suffering that the ruling classes are preparing for us !

The crisis of capitalism and the prospects for revolutionaries

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1135

Has the capitalist system already collapsed on its own, or can it only collapse through revolution ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5988

Is the current state of capitalism a classic crisis or something else ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1794

The economist François Chesnais's perspective on the end of capitalism

https://www.marxists.org/francais/chesnais/limites_infranchissables.pdf

A serious crisis, a systemic crisis, or the end of the world for capitalism ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article2431

Capitalism : From Construction to Destruction

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article5939

Humanity has been dealt a mortal blow, but it is big business that is receiving palliative care.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6106

How we will experience the collapse of capitalism

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6960

Theories of capitalist collapse : proponents and detractors

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7441

Capitalism in its death throes

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4518

Capitalism is dying from having... been too successful at accumulating capital

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7478

Acting against its own principles by self-destructing, no one imagines capitalism doing that, and yet…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7556

Crisis or death of capitalism ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1976

When those in power are reduced to direct violence alone, it means that the capitalist dynamic is dead.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article6174

What future for capitalism ? Or when the global bourgeoisie clenches its buttocks…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4084

Why the dynamics of capitalism run up against their own limits : its very success is stifled by the constraints of private ownership of the means of production.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3250

"Classic" crises are no longer possible for the system (too dangerous), yet they used to regulate it.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article3771

The Madoff-style financial Ponzi scheme : an illusory survival for a global capitalism on its last legs.

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4561

Capitalism : Chronicle of a Death Foretold

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article4686

Is capitalism dead or alive ? - On what criteria should we base this ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article1975

Decaying, subsidized capitalism, more antisocial and bloody than ever, is even more incompatible with women's freedom…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7743

What if humanity changed... its mode of production ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8434

Big capital is still afraid... of communism !

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7912

What future : mass barbarity…

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article7694

… or humanity in control of itself ?

https://www.matierevolution.fr/spip.php?article8073

The Autocrat in the White House (L. Boudin, 1917)

Alex — 2026-01-08T04:40:27Z

The Autocrat in the White House (L. Boudin, 1917)

version française : L'autocrate de la Maison Blanche

In view of President Wilson's reference in his war address before Congress to the menace to the peace and freedom of the world which “lies in the existence of autocratic governments,” we think it would be of considerable interest for the people of this country to find out how much or how little democracy there is about their own government. We shall not refer here to the autocratic power of the United States Supreme Court in all matters of the internal government of this country, which makes our government a “Government by Judiciary.” We shall limit ourselves for the present to foreign affairs and the Executive branch of our government. The enormous power of our President in our foreign relations, which means in the decision of the question of peace and war, has been frequently commented upon by writers on our system of government. We shall not tire our readers, however, by references to these learned discussions. Instead, we shall reproduce here a few pertinent remarks by our distinguished fellow-citizen and former close associate of President Wilson — Col. George Harvey, editor of the North American Review. We do so with particular pleasure, since it is but seldom that a radical has a chance to agree with that noted publicist. Says Mr. Harvey, in the February issue of the North American Review :

“There is no need to look abroad to the Kaiser or the Czar or to the sovereigns of the Balkan States for examples of autocracy. We have a very complete specimen in Washington in the person of the President of the United States. When we inveigh against ‘secret diplomacy' as one of the causes of the European war, let us remember that no diplomacy is so secret as our own. When we talk of the necessity of placing public opinion in control of foreign policy, let us quietly reflect that no where is that necessity more potent than in the United States, because nowhere is opinion less informed as to the problems of external relationships or less interested in them or less capable of influencing their solution. When we denounce a dispensation that puts it into the power of one man or a single class or group to hurl millions into war, we ought first to open our eyes and ascertain whether that is not precisely the system under which the international business of the United States is managed or mismanaged. . . .

“Our machinery for handling international crises are abysmally defective. And they are defective in exactly that characteristic which ought never to infect a democratic polity such as ours. They work in the dark, out of the public view, and to a great extent independent of popular volition ; and they throw upon one man not only a load of responsibility that must often of late have seemed unbearable, but a power of making in secret vast decisions, and of committing the nation without debate to momentous policies, that is good neither for him nor for us and that is altogether subversive of the cardinal principles of democracy. . . .

“Alone among the Governments of the world, our government publishes no collection of its diplomatic correspondence. Every other people can discover by reading Blue Books and White Papers or by cross-examining Ministers on the floor of the national legislature how their affairs are being managed and how questions in which they are interested are progressing. We cannot. Our function is merely to close our eyes, open our mouths, and take whatever the President deigns to send us. . . .

“The power which the President possesses of negotiating with foreign Governments behind the backs of his Cabinet and of Congress, his ability to commit the nation to new courses by a mere ipse dixit — just as Mr. Wilson has pledged the American people to support a world-league for the maintenance of peace ‘with every influence and resource at their command' — his fixity in office, the difficulty, almost the impossibility of reaching him as the Foreign Ministers of Europe, even of Russia and Germany, can always be reached, his immunity from effective checks — a President bent on war could easily force Congress to do his bidding — the general feeling that obtains among our people that foreign affairs are no concern of theirs and that the President is paid to look after them, and the almost grotesque incompetence which Congress, and especially the Senate, displays whenever it plunges into international problems — all these are elements in a situation full of possible danger to our Republic and singularly ill-adapted to stand the wear and tear of the next few crucial years.”

What was the reason for the Rwandan genocide ? For the Rwandan ruling classes ? And for French imperialism ?

Robert Paris — 2025-12-09T11:12:00Z

What was the reason for the Rwandan genocide ? For the Rwandan ruling classes ? And for French imperialism ?

A first point to note : this genocide affected one million people. It was planned for two years by the Rwandan armed forces, fascist special forces, Hutu Power (within the Rwandan state before Habyarimana's death and forming the new genocidal government after his death), and the French state. All the "democratic" states and the "international community" knew everything and did nothing about it. There must be compelling reasons to commit such a crime so coldly. And to allow it to happen knowingly. Even if it persists in denying its responsibility, the French state is one of the most obvious perpetrators of this mass crime. It prepared, organized, trained, financed, armed, protected, and then saved the genocidaires.

First comment : the genocide has affected a million people. It has been prepared for two years by Rwandan armed forces, fascist Special Forces, Hutu power (inside the Rwandan government of Habyarimana and forming the Rwandan government after the death of Habyarimana) and French State. All "democratic" states and the "international community" knew everything and have done nothing against the genocide. They needed strong reasons to practice and coldly such a crime. And to let him consciously be done. Even if it continues to deny its responsibility, the French state is one of the most visible players in this mass murder. He has prepared, organized, trained, financed, armed, protected and saved the genocide criminals.

List of concerned French personalities accused by the Rwandan commission of inquiry for their supposed political and military responsibility in the Rwandan genocide -

List of French figures implicated in the Rwandan indictment for alleged political and military responsibility in the Rwandan genocide :
François Mitterrand

Head of French State (1982-1995)
Édouard Balladur

French Prime Minister
Alain Juppé

Minister of Foreign Affairs (1993-1995)
François Léotard

Minister of Defence (1993-1995)
Dominique de Villepin

Office of Foreign Affairs - Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Hubert Védrine

Secretary-General to the Presidency
Bruno Delaye

Head of African Affairs at the
Presidency (successor to Jean-Christophe Mitterrand since 1992)
Marcel Debarge

Minister of Cooperation and Development (1992, 1993)
Jean-Christophe Mitterrand

Head of Africa Cell (1986-1992) - Head of the special African cell at the Élysée Palace for Rwanda
Paul Dijoud

Director of African and Malagasy Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Georges Martres

Ambassador of France to Rwanda (1989-1993) - Ambassador of France to Rwanda
Jean-Michel Marlaud

Ambassador of France to Rwanda (1993-1994) - Ambassador of France to Rwanda
Jean-Bernard Mérimée

French Permanent Representative to the UN Military - French Representative to the United Nations Armed Forces
Lanxade

Admiral and French Chief of Staff - Admiral and Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces
Christian Quesnot

General and Chief of Staff to the President of the Republic - General and Representative of the Armed Forces to the Presidency of the Republic
Jean-Pierre Huchon

General and Head of Military Cooperation at the Ministry of Cooperation
Germanos

General and Vice-Head of Military Missions May 1994 - Sept. 1995 - General and Deputy Commander of Military Missions
Jean-Jacques Maurin

Lieutenant-Colonel and Chief of Defence Operations 1992 – 1994 - Lieutenant-Colonel and Chief of Military Operations
Chollet

Colonel and Chief DAMI March 1991 – Feb. 1992 - Colonel and Chief of DAMI
Didier Tauzin /alias Thibault

Colonel and Military Advisor to the French government
Canova

Colonel and Advisor of Military - Colonel and military advisor
Bernard Cussac

Colonel and French military attaché and head of the French military assistance mission to Rwanda - Chief of Military Cooperation July 1991 – April 1994
Galinié

Colonel and French military attaché and head of the French military assistance mission to Rwanda - Chief Military Cooperation August 1988 – July 1991
Jacques Rosier

Colonel and Chief of the Special Operations Command during Operation Turquoise
Gregory of Saint Quentin

Commander and Technical Advisor, Military
Michel Robardey

Major and Technical Advisor, Gendarmerie
Denis Roux

Major and Technical Advisor, Presidential Guard
Etienne Joubert

Captain and Chief DAMI December 1992 – May 1993 - Captain and Chief of DAMI
Patrice Sartre

Colonel and Chief of Operation North Turquoise
Marin Gillier

Captain and Head of the Turquoise Detachment in Gishyita
Eric de Stabenrath

Lieutenant-Colonel and Commander of Operation Turquoise at Gikongoro
Jacques Hogard

Colonel and Chief of Group Turquoise - Colonel and Group Leader of Operation Turquoise
Jean-Claude Lafourcade

General and Commander of Operation Turquoise

At the initiative of Colonel Bagosora, the Hutu fascist militias received intensive military training in late 1993 and early 1994, notably at the military camps of Bugesera, Bigogwe, and Mutara. They also received weapons—R4 rifles, Kalashnikovs, grenades, and machetes—as part of the civil self-defense program launched in 1993.

At the very heart of the genocide, between May and July 1994, a gendarmerie brigade from Kigali was made available to them for supplying them with weapons and ammunition, just like the military.

Initially, recruitment focused primarily on unemployed youth, people from the poorest segments of the urban and rural population. With the escalation of hostilities against the RPF, they were joined by Burundian refugees, as well as former soldiers, ex-convicts…

"You have to cut open the bellies of these Tutsis you're killing so they sink and the satellites don't see them."
French soldiers in Rwanda during the genocide (quoted by Andrew Wallis)

"We deliver ammunition to the FAR via Goma. But of course we will deny it if you quote me in the press."

Philippe Jehanne (DGSE correspondent, to historian Gérard Prunier, during the Rwandan genocide, May 19, 1994)

"We were ordered not to move, not to do anything, especially not to move, not to do anything. (...) People told us about a valley, Bisesero, where there were Tutsis armed to the teeth. One day, we disobeyed (...) the orders of our own leader (...) Commander Marin Gillier. He had forbidden us to go there." By going to Bisesero, "we discovered the truth : it's a valley where 10,000 victims had been killed. 800 remained in a pitiful state. That's when we realized that it wasn't the Tutsis who were killing the Hutus, it was the Hutus who were killing the Tutsis, who were outright massacring them, every single day."

Adjutant Thierry Prungnaud (former GIGN gendarme, France Culture, April 22, 2005)

Habyarimana's brutal dictatorship, backed by France, was finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its grip on power. Since 1990, the country's impoverished population, from all ethnic groups, had been in revolt against the dictatorship and the poverty. In 1992, the regime was challenged by a genuine uprising in the capital, Kigali. It was also threatened by the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front), a predominantly Tutsi party supported by Uganda, with the US and the UK behind it. Forced to back down, Habyarimana agreed to share power with the leaders of the democratic mobilization. On April 6, 1994, the president's plane was shot down. This event served as a pretext for the new Rwandan Interim Government (RIG), formed in the French embassy under the ambassador's authority, to launch the long-planned genocide against the Tutsis. Radio Mille Collines urged Hutus to "eradicate the Tutsi cockroaches," while the army led by example, distributing machetes. Hutus who refused to participate in the massacre were murdered. More than a million Tutsis would be massacred in the following 100 days.

French imperialism, under the leadership of the "socialist" president François Mitterrand (as well as the special Elysée unit for Rwanda) and the right-wing Balladur-Léotard government, was not passive : it provided its full and complete support to Hutu extremists at several levels :

Military : before the genocide, by blocking the RPF's advance on Kigali and teaching the art of killing to future genocidal militias ; during the genocide, by supplying weapons and communication equipment and by assisting in the ethnic sorting of victims by issuing identity cards labeled "Hutu" and "Tutsi" and subsequently during identity checks. Let us not forget that, in the years preceding the genocide, the Chief of Staff of the Rwandan army was a French officer.

Diplomatic : by welcoming members of the GIR to Paris, in the midst of the genocide, and by dissuading the UN from voting for the embargo that would have made arms sales to Rwanda illegal…

financial : throughout the genocide by advancing funds that would be used to purchase weapons

media coverage : by portraying this genocide as just another "tribal war", thanks to the zealous collaboration of the French press (notably Le Monde)

This support continued after the genocide with Operation Turquoise, a real rescue operation for the perpetrators of the genocide, disguised as a humanitarian action.

For what ?

This horrific peak represents the culmination of a policy pursued by France in its former colonies since their independence.
To ensure the plundering of raw materials and the control of entire sectors of the local economy by major French corporations (such as Bolloré, Total, Bouygues, France Telecom…), the French state does not hesitate to support the worst dictatorships, as long as they are capable of guaranteeing the smooth running of business.

The extremist Hutu regime had previously demonstrated its loyalty to French interests by covering up the illegal sale of arms and nuclear equipment to South Africa, which was then under embargo. Rwanda was intended to become a solid and secure French platform in the heart of an unreliable or largely pro-American East Africa.

Rather than see this stronghold fall under "Anglo-Saxon" influence (the RPF being suspected of being financed by the CIA), French decision-makers chose to escalate the situation by supporting the total extermination of all opponents of the regime and the Tutsi minority likely to support the RPF in its march to power. This final maneuver, however, did not prevent the GIR from being expelled from Kigali…

This genocide was not a spontaneous eruption of "human madness" ; it was the result of a strategic choice made by "our" leaders : Mitterrand and Balladur, during a period of left-right cohabitation ! This crime is still acknowledged by French politicians who, by mutual agreement, signed the Quilès report (excerpts attached) according to which France made only limited errors but was not responsible for the genocide.

Rwanda : a genocide encouraged
and covered up by France

French public opinion is beginning to be informed, ten years late, about France's involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. But this information alone is far from shedding light on all responsibilities.

French responsibilities

We now know that it was indeed the Rwandan government of the time that orchestrated the massacre, using all the resources of the state, with the aid and blessing of the French Socialist President François Mitterrand, who had close ties to the family of the Rwandan dictator, Juvénal Habyarimana. But while Mitterrand, and the special unit at the Élysée Palace that he headed, did make the key decisions, it was with the agreement of the right-wing ministers and advisors in the Balladur government, including Juppé, Léotard, and Villepin. Rwanda was not a terrible affair that spiraled out of their control, but a carefully considered decision made by the French leaders of the time. Moreover, these leaders, both right and left, still refuse to acknowledge their involvement and use diplomacy and the media to maintain a smokescreen. Trials of political, diplomatic and military representatives involved in a genocide are good for Yugoslavs, or even Rwandans themselves, but not for those of French imperialism.

They believed that a defeat of dictator Habyarimana's regime would mean Rwanda, the gateway to wealthy Zaire, falling into the hands of the United States. To prevent this, they argued that massive French military and financial involvement was needed alongside the Rwandan government in the conflict against the armed forces of the opposition, the predominantly Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which had taken refuge in Uganda. Very quickly, the French government condoned and even encouraged the Rwandan government's tactic of using massacres of the Tutsi population to punish each RPF military advance. Thus, the RPF offensive of October 1990, repelled with the help of the French military (Operation Noroît), was followed by massacres of Tutsis in the north of the country, near Bigogwe, close to the French military camp at DAMI.

From 1990 onwards, French Lieutenant-Colonel Chollet was the de facto military leader of the Rwandan armed forces. In 1992, Paul Dijoud, the French government's Director of African Affairs, declared to Paul Kagame (then leader of the RPF and current head of state of Rwanda) : "If you seize the country, you will not find your wives and families, because they will all have been massacred." [1] A message on behalf of President Mitterrand was sent to one of the known perpetrators of the massacres, Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, leader of the CDR, who had just organized massacres in Kibuye. On February 28, 1993, the Minister of Cooperation, Marcel Debarge, officially called, on behalf of France, "for all Hutus to unite against the RPF." [2] Former Elysée Palace special agent Gérard Prunier acknowledges : "It's a call for racial war." A week later, "Hutu Power," a united front of genocidal parties and militias, was born. Jean-Paul Gouteux [3] writes : "The Hutu Power movement is not exotic. It is Western and modern. It is not the expression of a tribal atavism rooted in deep Africa. (...) French politicians, journalists, ministers, academics, and researchers have justified French policy in Rwanda using ethnic considerations." [4]

The mechanisms of genocide

The responsibility of the French leaders is indeed overwhelming. It remains to be understood why their protégés in the Rwandan ruling class wanted this genocide and how they found hundreds of thousands of perpetrators within the population.
Between 1988 and 1991, a wave of popular movements destabilized most African regimes and even overthrew several (for example, the military dictatorship of Moussa Traoré in Mali in 1991). Rwanda, plagued by the same economic and political problems, the burden of external debt, and the weight of dictatorship, was not spared. On January 8 and 15, 1990, more than 100,000 demonstrators marched through the streets of the capital, Kigali. “At the beginning of autumn 1990, Rwanda was going through a profound crisis that was gradually engulfing the entire country,” writes Gérard Prunier.
The burning issues that fueled this mobilization were not ethnic in nature, but rather social and political concerns : the crisis, poverty, regime corruption, and dictatorship. It was corruption within the education system that ignited the powder keg. A teacher, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, who would be the first person murdered at the start of the genocide, denounced the manipulation of baccalaureate results, which allowed the children of the ruling class to pass by removing the top students from the list of successful candidates. She suffered violent repression at the hands of the army, but the population rallied to her cause. The mobilization in her favor was impressive and made her one of the leaders of the democratic opposition, which aimed for the democratization of the country, including a multi-party system.

In fact, the popular uprising had an even stronger social base because the ruling class was utterly incapable of satisfying popular aspirations, struggling even to imagine how it would divide an ever-shrinking pie among competing factions from the bourgeoisie, the government, the RPF, and the opposition. Coffee and tea revenues, severely impacted by the fall in prices on world markets, experienced a worrying decline. As for the hopes raised by the development of tourism, they were abruptly dashed with the outbreak of war. In 1991, the budget deficit, which was supposed to be no more than 2.6 billion Rwandan francs, reached 10.5 billion. State spending skyrocketed : the army's personnel, due to the war, nearly tripled.

In the two years that followed, the popular movement against the regime steadily grew. It culminated in 1992 with massive demonstrations in Kigali and other major cities. In the capital, almost half the population took to the streets, denouncing the military.

The democratic leaders of the movement were then called upon to participate in the government alongside members of the ruling class linked to the military and the far right. The "realistic" democratic opponents agreed to govern with the assassins who had already repeatedly demonstrated their capacity for harm. The opposition movement against the dictatorship included both Hutus and Tutsis. But while the military regime had temporarily backed down, sidelined the single-party system, and appointed some opponents to lead the government, this was only a temporary reprieve. Caught between the RPF abroad and the popular uprising at home, the leaders embarked on a search for a fascist-style solution.

To regain a popular base, the ruling classes turned to the marginalized in the capital and the rural poor, relying on the prejudice so frequently employed in Africa : ethnicism. Media outlets that openly called for the genocide of the Tutsis, such as Radio Mille Collines, asserted that Tutsi was synonymous with pro-RPF and claimed that if the Hutus did not kill the Tutsis, they themselves would be killed.
To bind a segment of the population to their cause, they forced them to take sides. Those who had killed would then be unable to support the RPF, which would accuse them of crimes. Hence the first massacres, beginning in 1990 and then in 1993, in which Hutus were driven to kill Tutsis. Hence also the formation of militias of impoverished people, indoctrinated and trained to kill.

The massacres

This “strategy,” largely encouraged by French political and military leaders, was adopted once President Habyarimana was forced to sign the Arusha Accords under pressure from the US. These accords, which stipulated a power-sharing arrangement between the dictatorship, the internal opposition, and the RPF, were seen by both the Rwandan ruling class and the French leadership as the end of their domination of the country. The French embassy in Rwanda stated that “the Arusha Accords are neither good nor inevitable” [5]. This was support for the most radical faction, known as the “Akazu” or Zero Clan, which, centered around the president's wife, was preparing the genocide. The plan had been in place since 1992 (when ambassadors and UN personnel passed on the information to both Belgium and Canada), when the popular movement had become threatening. The assassination of Habyarimana, whoever committed it (Kagame is now accused of having plotted it, which may be true but does not change the infamy of those responsible for the genocide), signaled the start of the events on the evening of April 6.

The first act of the killing squads was to murder so-called "moderate" Hutus, that is, all those who, in one way or another, had opposed the dictatorship or had taken part in the revolt against poverty. The massacre then escalated into genocide within a few days, aiming for the extermination of all Tutsis as well as all Hutus who refused to participate.
In the midst of the genocide, Rwandan leaders—and not mere underlings—were officially received in Paris [6]. Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, head of the extremist Hutu party, the CDR, and of Radio Mille Collines, and Jérôme Bicamumpaka, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the genocidal, so-called interim, government, were received on April 27, 1994, at the Élysée Palace, Matignon, and the Quai d'Orsay. The massacre had been raging for 21 days. The French state continues to arm and finance them. It will maintain its support for them in the months and years to come.

It is hardly surprising, nor is it new, to see a government in a poor and underdeveloped African country resorting to the methods once used by European fascist regimes (one might even fear this could happen again in the future, in Ivory Coast for example, where the government sometimes seems to be looking in that direction). And it is no more surprising to see "democratic" France lending it its support. Once a brutal dictatorship throughout its colonial empire, France is now a supporter of dictators, often just as brutal, who in turn maintain the imperialist order.

[7] Quoted by Le Figaro on November 23, 1997 and by Patrick de Saint Exupéry in "L'inavouable"
[8] quoted by Jean-Paul Gouteux in "La nuit rwandaise"
[9] quoted by Gérard Prunier in "Rwanda, le génocide"
[10] Doctor of medical entomology, employed by the cooperation in Africa and who denounced the Rwandan genocide and French responsibility, notably in "Un génocide secret d'État" and "La nuit rwandaise"
[11] Mitterrand speaks of a "government representing in Kigali an ethnic group that is 80% majority."
[12] quoted by Jean-Paul Gouteux in "La nuit rwandaise"
[13] Quoted notably by Mehdi Ba in "Rwanda, un génocide français" and by Patrick de Saint Exupéry in "L'inavouable".

"Autopsy of a Planned Genocide"
"French Collusion in Rwanda"
by François-Xavier Verschave

"Lacking democratic authority, French policy in Africa - and in particular in Rwanda - features a plurality of actors : politicians, military, businessmen, acting for their own interests outside of any control.

For three years (1990-1993), the French army propped up the troops of a Rwandan regime—or rather, a clan—sinking into genocide, racism, and corruption. Engaged in the fight against the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) (1), the "enemy" demonized as "Black Khmer," France massively equipped the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) ; it trained them in camps where torture and the massacre of civilians were practiced (in Bigogwe, for example) ; it encouraged an "anti-subversive" strategy that involved the creation of militias intoxicated by hatred, and simply intoxicated. After the publication, in February 1993, of the report of an international commission denouncing - already - "acts of genocide", the watchword, coming directly from the Elysée, did not change : "Break the back of the RPF".

A whole section of the Franco-African system defined in La Baule would then sink into extremism : sabotage of the Arusha agreements ; (possible) involvement in the attack of April 6, 1994 against the plane of President Juvénal Habyarimana (close to accepting the application of these agreements), then hosting in the premises of the French embassy in Kigali a kind of extraordinary general assembly of "Hutu power", supporters of ethnic cleansing and the massacre of the Tutsis.

After the president's death, some of the architects of the "final solution to the Tutsi problem" were in Paris, while an "interim government" was formed under French auspices. This government continued to encourage calls for murder broadcast by Radio Libre des Mille Collines (see article on page 8). At the United Nations Security Council, France sided with this "government" and opposed the recognition of the genocide for five weeks. From April to June 1994, while the massacres continued and approximately 500,000 Tutsis were killed with machetes, a faction of the French army had only one obsession : to continue supplying and assisting the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR)—under whose protection the killers "operated." It lasted long enough to link up with Operation Turquoise : this show of force certainly protected some Tutsi survivors, but above all allowed those responsible for the genocide to find refuge in Zaire or elsewhere. Some of them, such as Mr. Jérôme Bicamumpaka, retain long-term visas that allow them to come to France regularly and maintain useful contacts there.

This brief overview shows that France's complicity and responsibility in one of the greatest collective crimes of the end of the century were not marginal (2). How did the Republic get to this point, what decision-making system and what lack of political control could have allowed such aberrations ?

(…)

France's presence among those responsible for the Rwandan genocide illustrates the chaotic arrangement of actors and motivations. On the decision-making side, François and Jean-Christophe Mitterrand played a major role, due to their very strong ties to the family of dictator Habyarimana. The President of the French Republic followed the evolving military situation in Rwanda with exceptional attention, even while traveling there ; during the period of cohabitation (1993-1995), he appointed his trusted advisor, General Jean-Pierre Huchon—the second-highest-ranking official in the Élysée Palace staff, deeply influenced by anti-Tutsi ideology—to head the Military Cooperation Mission on Rue Monsieur in Paris.

The government of Édouard Balladur did not thwart the tragic designs of the Élysée Palace : Franco-African policy benefits from a great deal of continuity that transcends partisan divides. Charles Pasqua shares the same approach to the problems as François Mitterrand (his son Pierre is one of the Interior Minister's "Africa advisors"). The former Minister of Cooperation, Michel Roussin, who moved from Jacques Chirac's service to Édouard Balladur's, got along perfectly with the Élysée. Under these circumstances, the Prime Minister, who has little interest in the African continent, chose to let things play out. Two members of the government distinguished themselves, however : the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alain Juppé, by attempting to introduce the rationality of the Quai d'Orsay (hence the shift in France's official attitude in mid-1993, in favor of the Arusha agreements - a shift subsequently compromised by other actors) ; and the Minister of Defense, Mr. François Léotard, by helping to confine Operation "Turquoise" to its stated objectives (far removed from the initial impulses).

President Mitterrand's determination to fight the RPF—those "Anglophone Ugandans," the "vanguard of Tutsiland" (4)—led to the deployment in Rwanda of the largest French combat force in Africa since the Chadian crisis. Since, officially, no war was being waged, the full range of covert missions (training, guidance, advice, intelligence gathering, providing the Rwandan regime with soldiers from the French West Indies or semi-public mercenaries, and manipulating political opponents) was employed. The account of the meeting in Paris on May 9, 1994 (one month after the start of the genocide and while the massacres continued), between French General Jean-Pierre Huchon and the Rwandan Armed Forces' emissary officer, Mr. Ephrem Rwabalinda, is revealing. Beyond the military supplies and support that France could provide, the question of the day was not how to stop the genocide, already half accomplished, but how to turn the media in favour of the side committing it (5) ?

France's involvement in Rwanda reveals the damage that political, military, business, and even mafia-like actors (notably a Franco-Rwandan drug trafficking network) can cause in Africa when they are no longer subject to democratic authority. Some are reviving the "Fashoda syndrome," a paranoia about "Anglo-Saxon machinations" that legitimizes alliances with the Zairian dictator Mobutu and the Islamist regime in Khartoum, against Uganda and present-day Rwanda (6). Paris does not hesitate to sacrifice populations (Tutsis, Nuba, Dinka, etc.) to the defense of an imaginary Maginot Line, sheltering French trade and the Francophonie (7). This Franco-African microcosm remains linked to its local counterparts by various forms of "solidarity" : the joint management of Swiss bank accounts, funded by the embezzlement of public aid or the misappropriation of goods ; the "brotherhood in arms" with former students of French military schools, integrated into a clan-based army or presidential guard, with officers who purchase French weapons or equipment, very largely on commission...

But the horror of history isn't made up solely of cynical decisions : it also feeds on pettiness and cowardice. Neither public opinion nor the media can truly be exonerated. They remained silent when François Mitterrand solemnly declared, "There is no 'Mr. Africa' at the Élysée Palace." That was on July 14, 1990. Four months later, responding to a phone call from dictator Juvnal Habyarimana, Jean-Christophe Mitterrand promised him the deployment of French paratroopers...

Notes :

(1) Composed mostly of Tutsi exiles.

(2) Cf. Colette Braeckman, Rwanda : histoire d'un génocide, Fayard, Paris, 1994 ; François-Xavier Verschave, Complicité de génocide ? La politique de la France au Rwanda, La Découverte, Paris, 1994 ; "Dossier" noir de la politique africaine de la France, par la Coalition pour rendra à la raison démocratique la politique africaine de la France, trois émissions déjà parle, c/o Survie, 57, avenue du Maine, 75014 Paris.

(3) According to Jean-François Médard. Read his speech during the "indictment" of France's African policy, on November 8 and 9, 1994 in Biarritz, reproduced in L'Afrique à Biarritz, Agir Ici et Survie, Karthala, Paris, 1995.

(4) Whose map, centered on Uganda, adorned the office of the Chief of the Defence Staff under this name. According to Antoine Glaser and Stephen Smith, L'Afrique sans Africains, Stock, Paris, 1994, pp. 184-185.

(5) During the Rwandan "flagrant offence", the French embassy paid much more attention to safeguarding its archives than to the massacre of Rwandan cooperation staff.

(6) Until the "complete transformation of our policy in Rwanda" announced by Minister Bernard Debré in Le Monde, December 29, 1994 : the old one was indefensible within the framework of the French presidency of the European Union.

(7) But, observes Colette Braeckman, "can we seriously imagine that the defense of the French language could coincide with the protection of a regime worthy of the Nazis ? No Toubon law will ever be able to repair such an outrage to the very spirit of the French language."

Chronology

1973 : Habyarimana seizes power in a bloody coup.
1990s : Social revolt against poverty and political revolt against the dictatorship, with massive demonstrations in Kigali (100,000 on January 8, 1990, and again on January 15).

April 1990 : Rwandan Head of State Mr. Juvenal Habyarimana completed an official visit to France on Friday, April 6, during which he met with Mr. Mitterrand.

June 20, 1990 : Mitterrand's speech in favor of multiparty politics at the Franco-African summit in La Baule.

Late 1990 : Lieutenant-Colonel Chollet, of the French army, organizes the Rwandan army and Paul Barril works for the Akazu, the presidential family clan.

October 1990 : On October 17, Zaire withdrew its troops from Rwanda, where they had been supporting the regime. On October 18, 1990, dictator Juvenal Habyarimana, visiting the Élysée Palace, received a promise of French military aid from President François Mitterrand in exchange for a promise of political openness to the opposition. Operation Noroit : French involvement in the war against the RPF under the pretext of assisting in the evacuation of French citizens. The French contingent halted the RPF offensive at the gates of Kigali for the first time, then helped the government arrest its opponents in the capital. The government accused the entire Tutsi community of complicity with the RPF armed forces, which were attacking the government from Uganda. 4,000 Rwandan Tutsis, labeled "suspects" of sympathizing with the RPF, were arrested without trial. "We must unmask the assailants who have infiltrated the population as quickly as possible," declared the president, explaining the nationwide denunciation campaign to which Rwandans are now being invited. This presents a golden opportunity for both authorities and private citizens to get rid of a neighbor, a coworker, or an opponent. A simple phone call is all it takes ; the military arrives minutes later, takes the suspect into custody, and postpones identity checks. A stadium had to be opened for several days to accommodate the overflow of detainees.
November 1990 : "We are ready to provide financial assistance to help you resolve the refugee problem," declared the French Minister of Cooperation, Jacques Pelletier, on Thursday, November 8, following a mission to the region.

December 1990 : In its December issue, the newly launched bi-monthly magazine Kangura (close to the Rwandan army leadership) laid out "the ten commandments" that the Hutus (the majority ethnic group, in power since 1959) were expected to follow. Any Hutu citizen "who allies himself with the Tutsis in his business dealings" would be considered a "traitor." Worse still : "Hutus must cease to have pity on the Tutsis" and, allying themselves with "their Bantu brothers," be "firm and vigilant against their common Tutsi enemy." This call to racial hatred does not seem to have moved President Habyarimana's government, nor the judicial institutions, which are usually quick to react whenever "suspects" of Tutsi origin are involved.

June 1991 : The introduction of a multi-party system led to the creation of a dozen official parties and some sixty private newspapers. In reality, parties, associations, and newspapers critical of the regime were constantly harassed and attacked, while the Hutu far-right press and organizations were favored by the government. However, the opposition members of the MDR, PL, and PSD cultivated realism and moderation, refusing to rely on popular revolt.
November 1991 : A massive demonstration against the dictatorship took place in Kigali on Sunday, November 24. The president was forced to concede to the multi-party system. On November 1, 1990, Belgian troops withdrew and were replaced by French troops.

January 1992 : "On January 8, 1992, demonstrations of unprecedented scale in Rwanda shook the country's main cities, notably Butare, Gitarama, and especially Kigali, where 50,000 people marched to protest against the new government. Another day of demonstrations was called for January 15, but the authorities banned it, and demonstrators who defied the ban were arrested." (Quilès report)

February 1992 : Pro-French journalist Simon Catherine writes : “The French military isn't fighting directly, but it's true that they provide added value to the Rwandan army.” Paradoxically, this French presence is both criticized by the opposition and praised as a kind of “guarantee” given to the democratization process. Even those who oppose it admitted, until recently, that it had helped prevent “major blunders on the humanitarian front.” The French media are adept at endorsing, in the name of humanitarianism, the atrocities supported by France in Rwanda.

March 1992 : Massacres orchestrated by the government in the southeast of the country, a rehearsal for what would become the genocide. In the Bugesera region, 13,000 inhabitants were forced to flee the massacres of Tutsis by Hutus, massacres organized almost openly by the government. Burned houses, rape, and serious injuries were also methods used in a mass terror that, for the moment, remained localized. The Hutu fascist movement thus attempted to provide an outlet for popular discontent. Alphonse Mobito of the Rwandan Association for Human Rights stated that hundreds of people "were burned or thrown into cesspools." A leaflet with violently tribalist overtones, read on March 3 on national radio, was "partly" responsible for the tragedy, Prime Minister Sylvestre Nsanzimana acknowledged on Monday, March 9, in an interview with Radio France Internationale (RFI). In addition to the radio, we must mention as an openly genocidal and pro-government media the newspaper "Kangura", which regularly calls for the "salvation of the Bantu people" and denounces, at length, the "crusade" of the Tutsis - these "venomous snakes", who have "sold their viper-daughters to the Americans, the Europeans, and even the Africans" - and which, despite its calls for the murder of the Tutsis, has never been bothered.

March 14, 1992 : The democratic opposition cancels the planned protest against the massacres due to its negotiations with the government, an agreement which stipulates that the Rwandan Prime Minister will be chosen by the opposition.

Early March 1992 : France sends new troops from the 2nd Marine Infantry Regiment.

April 16, 1992 : The government is forced to establish a government of political parties, including the democratic opposition, whose leader of the MDR, Nsengiyaremye, is appointed head of government.

July 1992 : According to Mr. Habyarimana, interviewed by Radio France Internationale, France is in Rwanda to protect its interests, without further details (RFI, July 19, 1992).

August 1992 : On August 26, 1992, an amendment to the French military assistance agreement with Rwanda was signed : Ambassador Georges Martres simply stated that he “had realized in 1992 that the military cooperation intended for the Rwandan army lacked a legal basis since the agreement in force at that time only mentioned cooperation with the Gendarmerie”.

September 1, 1992 : Official letter from President François Mitterrand thanking Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, fascist leader of the CDR who had just organized massacres in Kibuye to torpedo the agreements.

November 1992 : violence by the fascist Hutu Interahamwe gangs increases.

February 28, 1993 : The Minister of Cooperation, Marcel Debarge, visiting Kigali, calls on all Hutus to unite against the RPF. According to Gérard Prunier, a former Africa specialist at the Élysée Palace, this is "a call for racial war" (in Rwanda, the Genocide). A week later, the "Hutu Power" front is founded.

Aid to the Rwandan army officially amounted to 12 million francs worth of equipment in 1993, and the secondment of a few dozen instructors had never ceased, accompanying the "rise to power" of these troops : in five years, its numbers had increased from 15,000 to 40,000 men, while the guerrilla itself was strengthening (See Philippe Leymarie, "France and the maintenance of order in Africa", Le Monde diplomatique, June 1994).

July 17, 1993 : formation of a new government with Agathe Uwilingiyimana as prime minister.

August 4, 1993 : The Arusha Accords are signed by the Rwandan president and the RPF, with a view to sharing power and ending the war, accords signed under American pressure.

January 1994 : France participated in supplying weapons used in the massacres : the Human Rights Watch report of January 1994 highlights that mortars, armored vehicles, artillery pieces, and helicopters were delivered to Rwanda. Military advisors and up to 680 military personnel were present in Rwanda, officially to protect expatriates, but in reality to contain the advance of the Patriotic Front. Furthermore, a sale of Egyptian arms, worth $6 million, was guaranteed by Crédit Lyonnais.

Until April 1994 : French military operation "Amaryllis" which evacuated all the Whites and some bigwigs of the Hutu fascists.

From January 1993 to March 1994 : the regime purchased the bulk of the machetes used in the genocide ; 581 tons, or one machete for every three Hutu adults

April 6, 1994 : This marks the beginning of the genocide triggered by the news of the president's death, his plane having been shot down. The presidential guard (whose leadership was trained in France) began assassinating the political opposition and moderate Hutus. Then, the Interahamwe militia, affiliated with the MRND (the former single party and Christian Democratic International), set up roadblocks where Tutsis were systematically killed. The army and the militias then forced the Hutu population to kill Tutsis.

July 1994 : Operation Turquoise

Historical

The 1990-92 revolt

The pretext used by the ruling classes and French imperialism was to claim that the war was merely a defense against an external attack by a foreign-funded and supported army. It is unclear why an external military attack would justify a violent internal aggression against half the civilian population, who had in no way taken sides in this war. The fact that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), an organized and armed opposition based in Uganda, launched its first attack on October 1, 1990, was not a coincidence. 1990 was a pivotal year for all of Africa. Indeed, that year, due to the economic crisis of the capitalist system into which the world had been inexorably sinking for over twenty years, the entire African continent was caught in a turmoil of unprecedented social struggles. More than any other region in the world, Africa, more vulnerable because it had been exploited for centuries, was suffering the painful consequences of the crisis. Due to the fall in commodity prices on the world market, the living conditions of the masses had deteriorated profoundly, essentially because, on the one hand, with increasingly empty coffers, states no longer had the means to provide necessary public services and increase wages, and on the other hand, because, under pressure from the IMF and respecting its structural adjustment programs, these same states were freezing wages, reducing student grants and organizing mass layoffs, both in the public and private sectors, by enacting laws allowing employers to do as they pleased.

All these attacks by the global bourgeoisie, carried out through the policies of its local lackeys, eventually triggered the anger of various segments of the African population. This anger manifested itself in different ways : food riots following increases in the price of bread, as in Morocco and Tunisia, but above all, strikes and revolts. The entire African continent was shaken. In Abidjan, Douala, Lomé, Libreville, Bamako, Kinshasa, and many other African capitals, thousands of people—workers, students, women, and young people—rose up to say they would no longer accept living as before. They took to the streets to voice their anger against poverty. They protested against the IMF's structural adjustment programs, demanding an end to layoffs, higher wages, increased scholarships, and improved educational conditions. These strikes, riots, and revolts would shake the dictatorships, cause some to retreat or even bring down others, as in Mali, for example, in 1991.

This unprecedented surge of events, some of which, like the youth uprising in Algeria in 1988, had begun years before 1990, forced French imperialism to pressure its local lackeys to slightly alter the facade of their dictatorial regimes. Thus, many dictators who had previously sworn that they would never establish a multi-party system during their lifetimes would ultimately back down and accept the existence of parties other than their own. To complete the picture, it was during this same period that, under pressure from the imperialist powers, in South Africa, alarmed by the almost constant explosion of townships and ghettos, the white bourgeoisie decided to meet with the leadership of the ANC in Lusaka, Zambia, to discuss the prospect of a smooth transition away from apartheid through a negotiated solution with the black bourgeoisie. Here and there, the aim of all these operations was obviously to try to defuse the anger of the popular masses, to domesticate it, by diverting it towards formal changes in order to prevent it from leading to a contagious questioning of the social order.

Rwanda, too, had experienced the same problems as other African countries. The fall in commodity prices had created enormous difficulties for the country : between 1985 and 1988, the price of coffee had fallen by 30%, and that of tea by 40%. The price of tin had also plummeted to such an extent that, in 1985, Somirwa, a mining company whose tin operations provided the state with 25% of its foreign exchange earnings and which employed 8,000 people, went bankrupt. Consequently, the masses faced the same problems as elsewhere : precariousness, poverty, layoffs, followed by profound discontent.

From 1989 onward, the one-party regime faced increasing criticism, including from within. That same year, thirty-three intellectuals dared to publish an open letter demanding free elections. In 1990, under pressure from the public and French imperialism, like other dictators, Habyarimana agreed to establish a national commission to implement a multi-party system. But before the commission could submit its findings, several opposition political groups, independent trade unions, human rights organizations, and a diverse, independent press emerged.

Opposite the former single party, the MRND (National Revolutionary Movement for Development), which changed its name to the MRNDD (National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development), a whole series of bourgeois political parties emerged, ranging from moderate liberals to openly racist, anti-Tutsi parties. The most important of these was the MDR (Democratic Republican Movement). Led by Hutus rivals of Habyarimana, originating from the Central and Southern regions, this party presented itself as the heir to the Parmehutu of the former dictator Kayibanda.

Many of these parties, if not most, were offshoots of the MNRD, the dictatorship's party. Their primary ambition was to share power with the "Akazu" clique, the dictator's inner circle. Furthermore, although they generally defined themselves as Hutu or Tutsi, these parties were often organized around the personal ambitions of a few individuals and appeared to represent the interests of a particular region rather than a specific ethnic community. For example, the MDR, which emerged from the MNRD and was led by Hutus, claimed to defend the interests of the Hutus of the central and southern regions who had been excluded from governing since the Hutus of the north seized power. The same was true for all the other parties. Therefore, accusing the party of dictator Habyarimana of concentrating power exclusively in the hands of the Hutus of the North, the sole ambition of all these parties was to put pressure on the dictatorship in order to achieve a redistribution of power in the form of a rebalancing in favor of both sides.

In any case, Habyarimana's dictatorship was shaken by this situation. It was weakened by the growing protest movement in the country. Above all, it had lost the confidence of a segment of its petty-bourgeois base. And it was in this context that the RPF's first attack occurred.

The major powers aimed for a power-sharing agreement with the RPF.
Adding to the growing internal protest movement and the pressure from wealthy countries seeking political stability, this attack placed Habyarimana's dictatorship under triple pressure. The convergence of these three elements—street demonstrations, pressure from imperialist powers, and RPF raids—in a context marked by enormous economic difficulties due to falling commodity prices, weighed even more heavily on the regime, forcing it to compromise with the opposition and agree to negotiate. Thus, in March 1992 and June 1993, a transitional government was formed with the opposition parties. In August 1992, discussions and negotiations began between the Habyarimana dictatorship and the entire opposition, both political and military, which would last several months before resulting in a set of agreements called "the Arusha Accords", named after a Tanzanian city where they were concluded in August 1993.

On paper, these agreements stipulated that the head of state would no longer rule. Real power would lie in the hands of political parties, supported by a sovereign National Assembly, with a broad-based transitional government. Among other things, these agreements also included the end of the war, reconciliation, the establishment of the rule of law, the return of exiles scattered around the world, and the sharing of power between the former single party, opposition parties, and the RPF. The RPF would transform into a political party, and its members would be integrated into the army. Finally, presidential and legislative elections were to be held in 1995.

The imperialist powers and opposition parties alike believed they held the key to the Rwandan crisis in these agreements. They thought that simply putting a few generous ideas about peace, the rule of law, and so on down on paper would be enough to convince Habyarimana and his Akazu clan to accept everything, even relinquishing their privileges. But they hadn't reckoned with the dictatorship's dignitaries, who only pretended to accept the compromise. At a rally in 1992, Habyarimana dismissed the Arusha negotiations as "a mere scrap of paper." He and his cronies were using the negotiations primarily as a cover to better prepare for war. For them, the idea of a simple power-sharing agreement was unacceptable, a threat to their interests. In this time of crisis, when the spoils of power had shrunk due to the collapse of export revenues, the greed of the small minority close to the regime grew accordingly. The regime's dignitaries clung desperately to their positions, the primary source of their wealth, as did the businessmen who had prospered under the single-party system. The army chiefs and other military personnel feared competition from their rivals in the RPF and the prospect of demobilization that would lead to unemployment. Consequently, all these people, along with countless other profiteers of the Habyarimana system, wanted no compromise whatsoever with their opposition rivals. So, using the state apparatus, they would unite, forming a bloc to oppose the prospect of power-sharing by any means necessary and, to defend their privileges, opt for a methodically planned genocide.

The rise of fascism

Thus, from the very first RPF attack in October 1990, the regime's top officials reacted brutally. As in the darkest days of Habyarimana's dictatorship, they raised the specter of the "enemy within" and made no secret of their intention to retaliate : within hours, 10,000 people, mostly Tutsis but also moderate Hutus considered allies of the RPF, were arrested and herded into Kigali's stadium. In the provinces, authorities, mayors, prefects, and zone commanders incited Hutus to attack their Tutsi neighbors : in the prefecture of Gisenyi, for example, 300 Tutsis were killed, thousands more were wounded or forced to flee, their houses burned, and their property looted. Other massacres of this kind took place elsewhere. In 1991, following another RPF attack in Ruhengeri, Hutus, under the direction of the police, the army, and local high-ranking officials, massacred 300 people from a Tutsi pastoralist community. Prior to this massacre, a leaflet, signed by the prefect and the Minister of the Interior, had circulated, calling on farmers to destroy "the bushes and all the rebels hiding there. And above all, don't forget," the leaflet said, "that he who cuts a weed must also destroy its roots." In 1992, during a meeting held in Gisenyi, a certain Léon Mugeséra, vice-president of the MRND, the dictatorship's party, declared : "I urge all important figures in the MRND to collaborate. Whoever heads the Public Treasury, let him bring us the money... The businessman must touch his coffers and bring us money so that we can go and cut off the heads of these bastards. Remember that our movement has its roots in the cells and sectors. The president told you that a tree with branches and leaves only, but no roots, is a dead tree. Our cell leaders must get to work, even if they are not paid. Any element outside the cell must be noted. If it is an accomplice of the Inyenzis (Tutsis), he must perish without further ado... Our mistake in 1959 was that I was a child, that we... left to leave safe and sound... I repeat that we must quickly get to work... Know that the one whose head you have not cut off will be the one to cut off yours." In fact, from 1990 onwards, it was openly, in full view of everyone, that Rwandan dignitaries, using the totalitarian state framework, psychologically prepared the population for future massacres through propaganda based on the threat of the Tutsis.

For four years, this type of discourse, fueled by hatred of Tutsis in general, was disseminated not only by regime dignitaries but also disseminated and relayed by the media, notably first on national radio and then on the so-called free radio station Radio Mille Collines, and in the pages of a newspaper called Kangura. In 1990, for example, in an edition of Kangura where the entire front page featured a photo of Mitterrand with the caption "A true friend of Rwanda," an article entitled "The Ten Commandments of the Muhutu" was published. This text read : "Every Hutu must know that every Tutsi woman, wherever she may be, works for her Tutsi ethnic group. Therefore, any Hutu who marries a Tutsi, who makes a Tutsi his concubine, who makes a Tutsi his secretary or his protégée is a traitor. Every Hutu must know that every Tutsi is dishonest in business. He aims only for the supremacy of his ethnic group. Therefore, any Hutu who allies himself with Tutsis in business, who invests his own money or state money in a Tutsi-owned enterprise, is a traitor... Hutus must stop feeling sorry for Tutsis... Every Hutu must widely disseminate this ideology..."

The objective of all this anti-Tutsi propaganda was to rally the Hutu community around the Akazu clan in the name of Hutu nationalism, by making Hutus, especially the privileged members of this community—particularly businessmen and intellectuals who had joined the moderate Hutu opposition—believe that they risked losing everything by accepting any compromise with the RPF, presented as the armed wing of the Tutsis. Thus, within all the opposition parties, circles and groups led by intellectuals would form and rally to Habyarimana's dictatorship, creating what they called "Hutu Power," a kind of broad, top-down, fascist political framework designed to defend the interests of the privileged members of this community.

To rebuild their popular base, which had eroded since the country's impoverishment and the introduction of multiparty politics, those in power did not only exploit the specter of the Tutsi threat. They also used other means, such as corruption. It was through bribery that they won over certain leaders of opposing parties. This is how the main opposition party, the MDR, split in two : on one side, a faction determined to see the compromise with the RPF through to the end, and on the other, another that joined the Akazu camp in the name of defending Hutu interests. The Liberal Party, which was unique in having Tutsis among its members and even being led by a Tutsi president, also splintered into two factions, one Tutsi, the other Hutu and sympathetic to the ideas of Hutu Power.

And when corruption wasn't enough, assassinations were resorted to, and they multiplied : because he refused to align himself with Hutu power, Félicien Gatabazi, the Hutu leader of the Social Democratic Party, was assassinated in February 1994. To strengthen its base, the regime also encouraged the creation of several satellite parties, such as the People's Party, led by a wealthy woman, but especially the CDR, the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic, an organization formed to the right of the MRND. This latter group was made up of hardline Hutu activists from the central and southern regions, loyal to the former dictator Kayibanda. They considered themselves more extremist than the Akazu clique and refused any compromise with the RPF.

Thus, while participating in negotiations with the opposition parties and the RPF, Habyarimana and his supporters gathered around them a segment of the Hutu elite, thereby constituting a powerful force, a privileged social base, at whose service they placed all the expertise of the single party—its cadres, its youth, its networks, its cells—in the service of planned and systematic violence. And they armed themselves for this purpose. The Rwandan state, thanks to the guidance of the French army, considerably increased the size of its armed forces. From 7,000, these grew to 40,000 soldiers, also equipped by purchasing weapons from Egypt and South Africa, with financial guarantees from... Crédit Lyonnais. The transactions were conducted in the simplest way : Rwanda pledged its tea production as collateral, Crédit Lyonnais provided its bank guarantee, and that was that : $6 million worth of arms purchased from Egypt, $5.9 million from South Africa. Thanks to the political and economic guarantee of French imperialism, the Rwandan state thus acquired considerable equipment from Egypt and South Africa, not to mention the weapons supplied by France : mortars, light artillery, spare parts, dozens of Panhard light armored vehicles, troop carriers, and six Gazelle helicopters. And let's not forget the thousands of machetes ordered by the government. Coincidentally, this was done shortly before the 1994 massacres, and not for agricultural purposes.

In 1994, 30,000 Rwandan soldiers possessed a large quantity of small arms, grenade launchers, landmines, and medium- and long-range artillery. Some of these weapons were distributed to civilians, who formed "self-defense groups." These groups were methodically organized. Even the smallest administrative authority in the country had its own self-defense group, the core of which was called the "Nyumba Kumi." Each such core group, controlled by the authorities, could consist of two or three people and was equipped with a weapon. The "Nyumba Kumi" were grouped into tens, which in turn formed a cell.

These militias, created and organized by the MRND, were called "the Interahamwe," meaning "those who fight together." Their members were recruited from idle youth, the unemployed, and also from army and gendarmerie reservists. The regime's privileged class, their children, intellectuals, and merchants also contributed their contingents.

These so-called self-defense groups were formed and trained by French and Rwandan soldiers. They were directly under the authority of the Akazu clan, particularly Habyarimana himself, his wife, and their entourage. These were the militias that would later be unleashed against the Tutsis. But well before the genocide, they had been trained to massacre, as in the various RPF attacks, or to assault, kill, or make disappear political opponents and other human rights defenders.

By the end of 1993, under the direction of the state apparatus, all 146 communes of Rwanda were organized into militias. Each, depending on its size, had between 300 and 500 men armed with assault rifles, grenades, and machetes. In the city of Gitamara, there were 50,000 rifles for a population of 144,000.

These militias were not only equipped. They were also trained and seasoned. Galvanized by the dignitaries of power and especially by a radio station, Radio Mille Collines, which, day in and day out, criticized "imported democracy", called for "safeguarding the 1959 revolution" and pointed out the Tutsis as enemies to be eliminated, these men knew what they had been trained for, what work was expected of them, and even who they had to eliminate, because lists of names had been drawn up.

The spring of 1994 of the assassins

This is how, unlike the opposition parties who were so deluded about the negotiations, the Akazu clan, methodically and with the support of French imperialism, prepared itself by recruiting, arming, and developing a formidable killing machine to defend its power and privileges ! And it was also in this way—from above, relying on the State and its resources, and in an organized manner—that they would put their plans into action on April 6, 1994.

Under pressure from the imperialist powers, Habyarimana had finally accepted the Arusha Accords. He had gone to Arusha to sign them and was returning to Kigali that day to promulgate the list of the expanded transitional government that had been imposed upon him. But for the extremists of the Akazu, particularly the leaders of the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic, this was out of the question ! They took their logic to its extreme by shooting down his plane and triggering the massacres that quickly escalated into genocide.

Immediately after the plane crash, they established a military committee led by people like Bagosora, a retired colonel and member of the Hutu clan hostile to any compromise with other parties. While a government already existed in the country, they formed their own within the French Embassy. This government, entirely controlled by the Akazu extremists, was in reality a kind of leadership, a political headquarters from which all the large-scale massacres would be orchestrated.

The so-called "free radio of the Thousand Hills" blamed the Tutsis for the attack. Armed with lists of names and addresses, the death squads then carried out their meticulously planned actions. The first victims were moderate Hutus who had not joined the Hutu Power camp. Some were members of the national unity government or the opposition, which sought a compromise with the RPF ; others were human rights activists or ordinary citizens who, in the name of legality and the existence of a government in the country, refused to be subservient to the military of Akazu's clan. They were all murdered. The massacres began, in a sense, as a political genocide, with the assassination of some 10,000 Hutu opponents or moderates. Then it was the Tutsis' turn, particularly the most prominent, wealthiest, and therefore most well-known. Finally, there were the large-scale massacres.

In Kigali, the capital, following calls from Radio Mille Collines urging them to kill, militiamen set up roadblocks on streets, roads, and alleyways. They searched cars and filtered passersby. Tutsis were systematically eliminated with rifles, machine guns, and machetes. Other militiamen raided neighborhoods, searched houses, forced people to denounce or kill their neighbors, and left corpses in their wake. Any Hutus who hesitated or refused to participate in the massacres were killed in turn. No place was spared : offices, schools, and hospitals were transformed into death traps. At the University of Kigali, 87 professors denounced by their Hutu colleagues were murdered by militiamen, while at the hospital, 170 wounded and sick people were slaughtered in their beds, along with all the Tutsi medical staff.

In the towns and villages of the provinces, the militias also acted methodically and in an organized manner. They persecuted and massacred the Tutsis, including in churches. Everywhere, the operations were directed by mayors, town clerks, cell leaders, and priests. Each massacre was preceded by a meeting organized by the local authorities, where the most prestigious national leader spoke. A call was made to "clear the land." Then the local militia went out to "work." It is estimated that 32,000 officials at all levels of the state and administration participated in the massacres, and that the number of killers was between 80,000 and 100,000.

So, is all this ethnic hatred ? Of course not ! As we have just seen, what happened in Rwanda has nothing to do with what some have said or tried to make people believe, namely that the genocide was the consequence of a civil war between two ethnic groups : the Hutus, the majority, massacring the Tutsis, the minority. As horrific as they may have been, the massacres that took place in Rwanda were the result of a political will conceived, organized, and methodically implemented by Hutu dignitaries of the Akazu clan, using the state, its institutions, the army, the police, local authorities, the radio, and even the church. These massacres were prepared, organized, directed, and conscientiously executed by people mobilized and educated for this purpose, who knew what they were doing and why they were doing it.

As for the poor who were drawn into this massacre, including many young people from the lumpenproletariat, tens of thousands followed, but did so passively and, more often than not, under duress. They were isolated, without organization, without any means of resistance. They faced consciously organized and armed assassins. They were given machetes, but the military and the fascist leadership were heavily armed.

Moreover, their victims were not only Tutsis. Many Hutus were murdered by the dictatorship's armed gangs. Many Tutsis were also protected and hidden by Hutus who refused to participate in these massacres.

Appendices

Although it serves exclusively to justify the policies of French imperialism in this genocide, the report of the "Quilès Commission" is worth reading, as it also contains a number of truths. This report is available online. We quote only the most interesting excerpts here.

Excerpts from the Quilès Parliamentary Report
registered on December 15, 1998
(available online)

“We maintain friendly relations with the Government of Rwanda, which has drawn closer to France after observing Belgium's relative indifference towards its former colony.” Statement by the President of the Republic, Mr. François Mitterrand, to the Council of Ministers on October 17, 1990.

MILITARY COOPERATION AGREEMENTS

Article 1 of the agreement sets out the conditions under which French military personnel are made available to the Rwandan Government and specifies their mission : “The Government of the French Republic makes available to the Government of the Rwandan Republic the French military personnel whose assistance is necessary for the organization and training of the Rwandan Gendarmerie”.

“French military personnel placed at the disposal of the Government of the Republic of Rwanda are designated by the Government of the French Republic after agreement from the Government of the Republic of Rwanda,” and “they are placed under the authority of the most senior French officer of the highest rank placed at the disposal of the Republic of Rwanda.”
French personnel “serve in Rwandan uniform, with their existing rank or, where applicable, its equivalent within the Rwandan armed forces. Their status as military technical assistants is indicated by a specific “Military Cooperation” badge worn on the left sleeve of the uniform at shoulder level.”

The amendment of August 26, 1992, by replacing in articles 1 and 6 of the 1975 agreement “the Rwandan Gendarmerie” with “the Rwandan armed forces”, extends French military cooperation to all the missions of the armed forces of Rwanda.

THE REASONS FOR FRANCE'S PRESENCE IN RWANDA

In itself, this small, landlocked, overpopulated, and resource-poor African country hardly warranted such intense interest. As Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine emphasized during his hearing, this country “held no particular strategic interest for France… The independence of Zaire, Burundi, and Rwanda had not taken place under optimal conditions… These three countries turned to France because it was the only country that still maintained a policy expressing its interest in and friendship for a continent that seemed largely abandoned by other powers.” France's involvement in Rwanda thus stemmed from the circumstances under which the country gained independence. But it was also essential that Rwanda be French-speaking and a neighbor of Zaire. Geographically, Rwanda shares a border with eastern Zaire, a region immensely rich in mineral resources (uranium, cobalt, diamonds, etc.), and thus offers a privileged vantage point from which to observe developments in this area. Clearly, the beginnings of Franco-Zairian cooperation could not take shape without considering Rwanda and Burundi, which, geographically speaking, constitute a gateway to Zaire and the southern part of the continent for populations from Northeast Africa.

EVENTS IN RWANDA FROM 1990 TO 1994

First, there was a persistent rise in dissent. (…) Historian Gérard Prunier observes that “the political stability of the regime followed almost exactly the price curves of coffee and tin.” This was not a mere coincidence : the same author argues that subsistence farming, the basis of the Rwandan economy, offered little possibility of direct surplus, leaving “for the regime's elite, (...) only three sources of enrichment : tea and coffee exports,, for a short time, tin exports, and siphoning off international aid. Given that a good portion of the first two sources went to the functioning of the government, in 1988, the decline in revenue left only the third as a viable option.” Hence, competition for positions of responsibility intensified as resources dwindled. (…)

1990

The year 1990 represents a significant turning point in the contemporary political history of Rwanda. The weight of internal factors, both political and economic, should not be underestimated. (…) President Juvénal Habyarimana understood then that he could not escape a political evolution of his regime : thus, while in January 1989 he had emphasized that any political change could only be conceived within the single-party system, his speech of July 5, 1990, marked the acceptance of the principle of separation between the State and the MRND, the only authorized political party, and the recognition of the need for constitutional reforms, based on the establishment of a multi-party system. (…) The evolution of the regime was therefore generating increasing discontent, and this discontent was expressed all the more strongly as the country's educational level and literacy had improved. The Government, or those close to the regime, attempted to suppress the protests by force. In August 1989, Mr. Félécula Nyiramutarambirwa, a member of Parliament from Butare in the south of the country, was run over by a truck after accusing the government of corruption in road construction contracts. In November of the same year, Father Silvio Sindambiwe, a journalist who spoke freely, was also killed in a “traffic accident.” Journalists who attempted to report on these events were arrested. (…) It was in this context that the Franco-African summit in La Baule took place in April 1990. At the insistence of President Mitterrand, President Juvénal Habyarimana made a declaration in favor of a multi-party system on July 5, 1990. (…) Under these circumstances, the RPF attack on October 1, by demonstrating the President's regime's inability to ensure the country's security on its own, severely weakened his legitimacy. This crisis of legitimacy forced him to deal with his internal opposition and to request increased French military cooperation. (…) Instead of organizing resistance to the RPF in Kigali, a wave of mass arrests was carried out. On October 9, 1990, the Rwandan Ministry of Justice admitted to the arrest of approximately 3,000 people. In fact, the figures are estimated at 10,000. According to Mr. Gérard Prunier, “clearly, these arrests are not targeting RPF supporters (very few in number, and not all known to the police) ; they are striking indiscriminately at educated Tutsis and dissenting Hutus.” (…) The Minister of Defense, speaking on national radio, will ask the population to hunt down the infiltrators. This appeal will be immediately heeded. Some of the defeated RPF soldiers will take refuge in the Mutara region, in northwestern Rwanda. This region is a traditional area of Tutsi emigration to Uganda. However, 348 Tutsi civilians will be massacred there between October 11 and 13, 1990.And more than 500 houses were burned down in the single commune of Kibilira. While this massacre may be of relatively small scale, given the widespread nature of the exterminations observed in the region, its characteristics warrant closer examination. First, none of the victims were RPF fighters ; nor do they appear to have been known sympathizers of the movement : it would indeed have been extraordinarily risky to display such sympathies, and the Tutsis still remembered the persecutions of the period from 1959 to 1962. Second, the massacres were carried out by peasants under the direction of the civil authorities, according to the well-known rules of collective labor. When questioned about the alleged revolt that led peasants in the northwest to massacre Tutsis, President Juvénal Habyarimana calmly replied at a press conference : “This is not a revolt. Everyone is obeying orders.” Furthermore, the local leaders under whose authority the massacres were committed would not be held accountable by the central government. (…)

1991

With the redeployment of political life, a whole series of small parties also emerged between November 1991 and January 1992. Their support can never be measured. In fact, it seems that, for most of them, the aim was to exist as registered parties so they could claim the right to participate in a “national conference,” should one be convened. However, while some of these parties appear to be the product of independent initiatives, such as the Party for Islamic Democracy, the autonomy of many others seems quite questionable. Thus, according to Mr. Dismas Nsengiyaremye, the Rwandan Socialist Party (PSR) and the Democratic Union of the Rwandan People (UDSR) operated in the wake of the RPF. But most were outright instigated by the Rwandan government, anxious to create a sense of numbers and to give voice to similar sentiments around the MRND. (…) As of January 24, 1991, Lieutenant-Colonel Gilbert Canovas resumed his role as advisor to the Chief of Staff of the Royal Armed Forces (FAR), a position he held until June 1991, the President of the Republic having once again agreed to extend his mission. On March 21, 1991, the Military Assistance Mission was reinforced by the deployment of 30 soldiers from the DAMI Panda. French military cooperation thus changed scale. The official justification was the concern to prevent “the harmful consequences that the continuation of destabilizing military actions could have for peace in the region.” (…)

1992

On January 8, 1992, demonstrations of unprecedented scale in Rwanda shook the country's main cities, notably Butare, Gitarama, and especially Kigali, where 50,000 people marched to protest against the new government. Another day of demonstrations was called for January 15, but the authorities banned it, and demonstrators who defied the ban were arrested. However, faced with mounting pressure, President Juvénal Habyarimana eventually agreed to sign a compromise with the united opposition. Under the terms of this compromise, the Nsanzimana government would be replaced by a coalition government. This government, which would include MRND ministers, would nevertheless be headed by a member of the MDR. (…) On April 7, Prime Minister Dismas Nsengiyaremye was sworn in, and the new government was formed on April 16, thus crowning the success of the opposition's unity strategy. (…) The rise to power of the Nsengiyaremye government did not in any way signify a total victory for the opposition. Indeed, while General Juvénal Habyarimana, his entourage, and his party were, for the first time since 1973, forced to share power, they remained active in government. Juvénal Habyarimana remained President of the Republic and Chief of Staff of the army. (…) For many members of the MRND, the opposition's rise to power and the prospect of negotiations for a power-sharing agreement between the Rwandan Hutu state and the RPF were met with absolute rejection. Thus, in March 1992, a new party appeared on the political scene : the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (CDR). Unlike the smaller parties mentioned above, the CDR would play a significant and largely autonomous role in Rwandan life until the end of the regime. The CDR positions itself as a much more uncompromising movement than the MRND in its opposition to the RPF and the coalition led by the MDR. Its leaders—Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, its founder ; Jean Barahinyura, its Secretary General ; and Martin Bucyana—relentlessly criticize the regime and the MRND for their perceived leniency towards the RPF and those they call its accomplices (“ibyitso,” meaning the opposition parties). It is worth noting that these figures, and more generally those of the radical wing represented by the CDR, are not necessarily the least talented or brilliant figures in Rwandan politics. The Kinyarwanda newspaper “Kangura” (“Wake him up”), run by one of them, Mr. Hassan Ngeze, is remarkably effective politically thanks to its personal attacks against opposition leaders, as corruption and even criminality are not the sole domain of MRND leaders. It is also from among these sympathizers that the majority of journalists for the extremist “Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines” (RTLM) will later be recruited. For many MRND members,The opposition's rise to power and the prospect of negotiations for a power-sharing agreement between the Rwandan Hutu state and the RPF were met with absolute rejection. Thus, in March 1992, a new party emerged on the political scene : the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic (CDR). Unlike the smaller parties mentioned above, the CDR would play a significant and largely autonomous role in Rwandan life until the end of the regime. The CDR positioned itself as a much more uncompromising movement than the MRND in its opposition to the RPF and the coalition led by the MDR. Its leaders—Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, its founder ; Jean Barahinyura, its Secretary General ; and Martin Bucyana—harassed the regime and the MRND for their perceived leniency towards the RPF and those they called its accomplices (“ibyitso,” meaning the opposition parties). It is worth noting that these figures, and more generally those of the radical wing led by the CDR, are not necessarily the least talented or brilliant in Rwandan political life. The Kinyarwanda newspaper “Kangura” (“Wake him up”), edited by one of them, Mr. Hassan Ngeze, is remarkably effective politically thanks to personal attacks against opposition leaders, as corruption and even criminality are not the sole prerogative of the MRND leadership. It is also from among these sympathizers that the majority of journalists for the extremist “Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines” (RTLM) would later be recruited. (…) March 1992 saw the beginning of a series of terrorist attacks. On two occasions, grenades were thrown into the crowd at the Kigali bus station, killing five the first time and one person and injuring 34 the second. (…) March 1992 also marked the resumption of massacres of Tutsis in the provinces. (…) In the Bugesera region, (…) the massacres lasted from March 4 to 9, and resulted in the deaths of an estimated 300 people (the Rwandan administration at the time admitted 182). As in the case of the Mutara massacres (see above), they were carried out by peasants under the leadership of their mayor as part of an “umuganda”. (…) Mr. Filip Reyntjens, author of a report on behalf of the International Federation for Human Rights, writes that : “At the beginning of March, the presence of civilian members of the presidential guard, armed with daggers and pistols, was noted. Furthermore, members of the MRND's Interahamwe militia were brought into the region in vehicles belonging to the Directorate of Bridges and Roads of the Ministry of Public Works, a department headed by Mr. Ntirivamunda, the President's son-in-law ; the fuel for the operation was supplied by Séraphin Rwabukumba, the President's brother-in-law, and by former Minister Joseph Nzirorera, a close associate of the presidential family.” (…) As soon as the extent of the situation became known,The Bugesera massacres prompted an appeal by the ambassadors of OECD countries to President Juvénal Habyarimana. It was reported that the French Ambassador to Rwanda, Mr. Georges Martres, did not participate in this appeal. (…) According to former MRND Defense Minister James Gasana, in a document submitted to the Mission entitled "Political Violence in Rwanda from 1991 to 1993 : Testimony on the Role of Political Party Youth Organizations," it was the MRND that first created its own youth organization, called "Inkuba" (lightning), as early as June 1991, to organize unrest and demonstrations aimed at destabilizing the regime. The "Interahamwe" (those who fight together) were created by the MRND, and the "Impuzamugambi" (those who pursue the same goal) were created by the CDR from its inception. (…) “From mid-1992 onward, the Interahamwe's decentralization around wealthy political figures allied with Habyarimana's entourage intensified. Their mobility, coupled with the resurgence of the MRND, allowed them to operate at the national level, particularly for political rallies. Prefectural groups did not form because the prefects feared government disciplinary action. Although the groups created were generally communal, they were established by sector within the Kigali city prefecture and its surrounding areas. Struggles between youth organizations more frequently occurred at the neighborhood level in Kigali city. The proliferation of the Interahamwe around mid-1992 was primarily due to Habyarimana and the MRND's loss of control of the FAR within the context of the Ukubohoza or Liberation insurrection created by the FDC parties (59).” It is also due to the positioning of certain MRDN figures vis-à-vis their rivals from the same region, within the same party, in the run-up to the general elections. Finally, joining the Interahamwe was a way for criminals to find political protection against prosecution, and for unemployed youth a way to meet their basic needs under the protection of wealthy dignitaries. (…) The first official contacts between the new Rwandan government and the RPF took place just over a month after the inauguration. On May 24, Minister Ngulinzira met with the RPF in Kampala. A negotiation timetable was then established. As early as May 29, just five days after this first meeting, peace talks began in Brussels between the RPF and government representatives from the three parties MDR, PSD, and PL, whose coalition now took the name FDC (Democratic Forces for Change). On June 5, a ceasefire agreement was reached between the RPF and the governing FDC coalition, despite opposition from the MRND. (…) On August 1, the ceasefire came into effect, and on August 18,One month after the start of negotiations for the peace accords themselves, the first memorandum of understanding was signed (in Arusha). (…) The negotiations then entered a second, more concrete phase. This resulted in the signing of agreements on power-sharing within the framework of a “Broad-Based Transitional Government.” These agreements were signed in two stages : on October 30, 1992, for the most general provisions, and on January 9, 1993, for the most difficult parts, notably the specific allocation of ministerial posts and the number of representatives in the Transitional National Assembly. (…) Mr. Gérard Prunier, during his hearing by the Mission, made the following remarks on this point : “in 1992, President Juvénal Habyarimana asked the Minister of Defence James Gasana to get rid of a number of men in his entourage, whom he found unreliable, or even dangerous to him, by marginalizing them or eliminating them from their post (...) among these were Colonels Rwagafilita, Serubuga, Sagatwa, before he changed sides, and Bagosora”. He added that “while James Gasana had succeeded with Colonels Rwagafilita, Serubuga and Sagatwa, he had always failed in the case of Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, who represented the last point of resistance for Madame and her brothers. As long as he remained administrative secretary of the Ministry of Defense, they and their group retained access to that ministry, which they considered absolutely vital, not only for control of the army, but also because the situation was extremely volatile.” In this regard, he observed that “the tenfold increase, in three years, of the army's size, from 5,200 to 50,000 men, by considerably increasing the defense budget, had equally considerably opened up opportunities for embezzlement, first to finance militias—thus, militias like the Interahamwe or the Impuzamugambi were financed with money stolen from the Ministry of Defense—but also for personal or political enrichment.” (…) Aware of his supporters' concerns, President Juvénal Habyarimana then attempted to reassure them. That same day, in a radio address, he stated that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were not given complete freedom in the negotiations and that their initiatives were being monitored. “Our negotiators in Arusha have received instructions… the positions they are adopting are therefore not improvised… That is why I think the Rwandan people can be reassured : every precaution is being taken to ensure that individual actions do not lead our country into an adventure it does not want.” This statement was not enough to appease the anger of some radical Hutus. Following a now well-known pattern, massacres ensued. This time,The events took place in Kibuye Prefecture. According to Mr. Gérard Prunier, the toll was approximately 85 dead, 200 wounded, and over 5,000 displaced. The negotiation and subsequent conclusion of the two agreements of October 30, 1992, and January 9, 1993, were accompanied by growing tension. On October 2, 1992, Belgian professor Filip Reyntjens denounced the existence of a “zero network.” This expression, often interpreted as “zero Tutsi,” (…) The “zero network” was a kind of death squad composed of MRND militiamen and soldiers detached and equipped by the army under the control of those close to the Head of State—that is, the most prominent members of the Akazu. Professor Filip Reyntjens cites Mrs. Habyarimana's three brothers, the Director of Public Works and son-in-law of the President, Mr. Ntirivamunda, Colonel Elie Sagatwa, the President's personal secretary and his brother-in-law, the head of military intelligence, the commander of the Presidential Guard, and finally Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, Chief of Staff to the Minister of Defense. (…) In the testimony already cited, Mr. James Gasana states that “as early as September 1992, the alliance between the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi was stronger than the Inkuba. Together with the CDR, they formed the political base of the hardliners within the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR). They campaigned among the military for the overthrow of Dismas Nsengiyaremye's government.” Indeed, on October 18, the CDR organized a demonstration demanding the departure of the Prime Minister and his government, protesting against the government's shift in leadership, and thanking France for its presence. The demonstrators are also demanding that all registered parties participate in the government. Given what has been said about them, this is clearly an attempt to paralyze government action. (...) Tensions continue to rise. On November 22, 1992, Mr. Léon Mugesera, an influential member of the MRND, addressed activists in the town of Kabaya, in Gisenyi Prefecture, in these terms : “The opposition parties have conspired with the enemy to bring the Byumba Prefecture into the hands of the Inyenzi (...). They have conspired to undermine our armed forces (...). The law is very clear on this point : 'Anyone guilty of acts aimed at undermining the morale of the armed forces will be sentenced to death.'” “What are we waiting for ? (...) And what about these accomplices (Ibyitso) who send their children to the RPF ? What are we waiting for to get rid of these families ? We must take responsibility and eliminate these thugs. (...) We must act. We must liquidate them all !” (...) Mr. Michel Cuingnet, former head of the Cooperation Mission in Rwanda, stated that from the very first broadcasts of RTLM in April 1993, “they were announcing on the airwaves that we had to ‘finish the job and crush all the cockroaches.' After April 6, 1994,MSF reported that messages like this could be heard on RTLM : “There's still room in the graves. Who's going to do a good job and help us fill them completely ?” In fact, these media outlets, which have never been censored or banned, simply relay the statements of regime officials. Eric Gillet reminded the Mission that in a speech delivered in Ruhengeri in November 1992, “President Juvénal Habyarimana called on the Interahamwe militias he had created to support him in his actions and gave them carte blanche.”

1993

Mr. Gillet also quoted Colonel Bagosora, who declared upon returning from Arusha in January 1993 : “I am returning to prepare for the apocalypse.” This desire to eradicate the Tutsis permeated the army, composed entirely of Hutus. General Jean Varret reported to the Mission that “following several attacks, the Rwandan gendarmerie, with the support of the ambassador, had requested training for judicial police officers (OPJ) in order to effectively conduct internal investigations.” (…) Mr. Faustin Twagiramungu, however, offered a slightly dissenting voice, or more precisely, provided additional information. He clarified that “the CDR supporters who were seen publicly chanting, ‘We will exterminate,' had never said they were only going to exterminate the Tutsis, but that they were also targeting the opposition, which, while it included some Tutsis, was primarily composed of Hutus.” (…) The signing of the second power-sharing agreement on January 9, 1993, further radicalized the situation. First, in accordance with the fears of radical Hutus, the agreements established the allocation of seats in the Transitional Assembly to which the Government would answer. This Assembly would therefore not be elected but appointed. Members of the MRND and the CDR saw this as an intolerable concession to the RPF, which was thus ensuring a significant presence, whereas, given the small proportion of Tutsis in Rwanda, and the fact that many of them were close to the liberal party, elections held immediately would have given it only weak representation. Furthermore, regarding the government, the FDC and PDC parties retained all their ministerial posts. The five posts allocated to the RPF, apart from one newly created position intended to manage refugees, were all taken from the MRND's quota, which thus lost four of its seats to the RPF, including the Ministry of the Interior. Given the strategic importance of this ministry, the anger of the MRND government and its supporters erupted. On January 19, the MRND and the CDR organized violent demonstrations against the agreement. On January 21, the Secretary General of the MRND declared that his party rejected it outright. The presence of an international commission of inquiry into human rights violations in Rwanda, from January 7 to 21, 1993, had had a definite impact on slowing the violence. Its departure on January 21, at the very moment the MRND rejected the agreement, unleashed their anger. For six days, deadly violence carried out by extremist militias associated with local populations devastated northwestern Rwanda. Here is how Mr. Dismas Nsengiyaremye describes it : “with the support of the local authorities, the MRND organized violent demonstrations throughout the country from January 20 to 22, 1993 and proclaimed its intention to paralyze all activities.The opposition parties were not intimidated and organized counter-demonstrations that neutralized the activists of the MRND and its allies in the prefectures of Byumba, Kibungo, Kigali-city, Kigali rural, Gitarama, Butare, Gikongoro, Cyangugu, and Kibuye (except for Rutsiro commune). In the prefectures of Gisenyi, Ruhengeri, Kigali rural (Bumbogo and Buliza areas), Byumba (Tumba commune), and Kibuye (Rutsiro commune), these demonstrations quickly turned into riots, and the would-be protesters began killing Tutsis and members of the opposition parties. There were approximately 400 deaths and 20,000 displaced persons.” (…) The escalation of these massacres led the RPF to suspend contacts in Arusha. In fact, on February 8, 1993, it decided to break the ceasefire and launched an attack in the vicinity of Byumba and Ruhengeri. The offensive was successful. The RPF broke through the Rwandan lines, the announcement of peace having largely demoralized the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR). It seized most of their equipment, occupied the greater part of the prefectures of Ruhengeri—a city it conquered on February 8—and Byumba, and advanced as far as Rulindo, 30 km north of Kigali. However, on February 20, the RPF proclaimed a unilateral ceasefire. It seems that two factors may have stopped it. On the one hand, the announcement of the reinforcement of Operation Noroît placed it in a position of risking a direct confrontation with French forces. (…) At the same time, the Government's loss of control over public order became total. The growth of the militias became uncontrollable. Mr. James Gasana identifies this as one of the consequences of the Byumba offensive : “Despite the actions of the gendarmerie, the Interahamwe continue to grow stronger. The resumption of hostilities by the RPF has driven the population of Byumba towards Kigali, in particular. Thus, thousands of young people, displaced by the war, out of school, without other occupations, embittered, and driven to ethnic hatred by the war, abandonment, and poverty, are being recruited into the Interahamwe to survive. Added to this are also hundreds of soldiers who have deserted the front or who have been dismissed for insubordination.” One must examine the frustration and anger of the thousands of young war-displaced people, abandoned to their fate in the misery and anguish of the camps, to understand the power the Interahamwe will wield in Kigali. In their long ordeal, these young people have faced death in the camps. They have seen hundreds of bodies mutilated by RPF rebel bombs. The victims are either their friends or relatives. Having nothing to lose and desperately seeking a means of survival, they become a recruitment pool for the Interahamwe and are used, along with other young people, in clashes against those they consider allies of the party responsible for their misery, the RPF. The indiscriminate attacks resume.(…) A further and extremely serious step in the disintegration of the state occurred on June 14, 1993, marked by the spectacular and mass escape from Kigali prison of soldiers, Interahamwe members, and individuals involved in the events of December 1992 and January 1993. In his expert report, André Guichaoua notes that “this escape of individuals with very serious criminal records (murders, rapes, looting) could only have taken place with the complicity of the soldiers guarding the prison and the security forces around it.” (…) Links existed between Paul Barril's group “SECRETS” and the entourage of President Juvénal Habyarimana before the assassination attempt was carried out. These contacts were allegedly established more specifically by certain Rwandan officials to facilitate the proper execution of the arms sale contract signed on May 3, 1993, between the Rwandan Minister of Defense, Mr. James Gasana, and Mr. Dominique Lemonnier, manager of the company Dyl-Invest. Since the Rwandan government never received delivery of the weapons purchased under this contract, despite the payment of a $4 million advance transferred to Mr. Lemonnier's account, Colonel Elie Sagatwa reportedly tasked Mr. Paul Barril, in November 1993, with overseeing the proper execution of this contract.

1994

On May 20, 1994, Mr. Jérôme Bicamumpaka, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Hutu Interim Government, allegedly granted power of attorney to Mr. Paul Barril to take all necessary steps to recover the advance payment made in November 1993. Having failed to obtain satisfaction, Paul Barril initiated legal proceedings before the Annecy High Court against Dominique Lemonnier, with Mr. Sébastien Ntahobari intervening in these proceedings on behalf of the Rwandan government. Mr. Ntahobari benefited from the assistance of Ms. Hélène Clamagirand, lawyer for Paul Barril's group and also lawyer for Ms. Agathe Habyarimana following the assassination attempt. This demonstrates the relationships that may have existed between these various parties. All these elements were established by the Mission based on information provided by Mr. Patrick de Saint-Exupéry. (…) Everything points to the fact that the extermination of the Tutsis by the Hutus was prepared months in advance, both ideologically, through the manipulation of the population with the help of the media in particular, and in terms of the instruments of genocide, through the systematic distribution of weapons, the use of caches, and the formation of militias. These facts were essentially known at least since December 1993, as Mr. Eric Gillet recalled during his hearing before the Mission. Mr. Georges Martres considered that the genocide was foreseeable as early as October 1993, “although its scale and atrocity could not have been imagined.” He added that “genocide was a daily fear for the Tutsis.” (…) What struck witnesses at the time, it seems, most at the outbreak of the genocide was, as reported by Mr. Jean-Hervé Bradol, “that it was not a matter of massacres or any kind of popular fury following the death of a president, but rather an organized and systematic process. It was not an angry mob carrying out these killings, but militias acting with order and method.” (…) Ms. Alison Des Forges also believed that “the massacres were unleashed by a very small group that had decapitated the legitimate government in order to seize power.” This small group, composed of committed and organized individuals, “had collaborators in the northwest, in Gisenyi, in the southwest in Cyangugu, in the south-central region, in Gikongoro, and in the east, in Kibungo.” By first targeting individuals who might have opposed the massacres, and manipulating populations through radio messages designed to sow panic, this small group succeeded in controlling almost the entire administrative, military, and political system.“The proof of the centralized nature of this genocide,” according to Ms. Alison Des Forges, is provided by the systematic organization of deceptive staged events designed to prove the imminence of a Tutsi attack and intended to incite hatred among the population against the Tutsis. “The extraordinary efficiency of the genocide machine,” explained Mr. José Kagabo, “would therefore reflect the efficiency of the system of social control under the Habyarimana regime : in each prefecture, a prefect belonging to the party was tasked with organizing the grid system of municipalities, themselves divided into neighborhoods, each neighborhood being subdivided into blocks of ten houses placed under the authority and constant surveillance of a party official nicknamed ‘Mr. Ten Houses.'” Colonel Patrice Sartre and General Jacques Rosier informed the Mission of their impression that the administration, including both prefects and mayors, was seriously implicated in everything that had transpired. The largest and best-organized force, however, remained the Hutu militias “Interahamwe” (those who attack together), close to the MRND, and “Impuzamugambi” (those who share the same goal), close to the CDR, whose numbers were estimated at 50,000 men in April 1994. They were primarily equipped with bladed weapons (machetes, knives, spiked clubs, etc.), but also with firearms, although many French officials noted that their officers had avoided equipping them with such weapons. According to the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel Jacques Hogard before the Mission, the militias targeted the Tutsi civilian population, but also Hutus, provided they did not share their views. (…) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded on April 8 at 10 p.m. : “Given the risks presented by the situation in Rwanda, measures are being taken to proceed with the evacuation of our nationals.” Operation Amaryllis has just been launched unilaterally by France. This intervention, strictly limited in time—it will take place from April 8 to 14—aims to ensure the protection and evacuation of French and foreign nationals. (…) The unique aspect of Operation Amaryllis lies in the request for the “preliminary” evacuation of approximately sixty people, if circumstances permit. Thus, 43 French citizens and 12 members of President Juvénal Habyarimana's family, including his wife and three children, will depart on April 9 on the first flight, which will take off at 5:00 p.m. from Kigali airport. (…) France has been accused of having, on the one hand, carried out the exclusive evacuation of dignitaries of the Hutu regime without having concerned themselves with the fate of representatives of the moderate Hutu or Tutsi opposition, on the other hand, of having applied different treatment to French embassy staff and Rwandan staff.France did indeed evacuate President Juvénal Habyarimana's widow, along with two of his daughters, one of his sons, two of his grandchildren, and a few close members of his limited entourage—a group restricted to about ten people, as ordered. Members of the Habyarimana family's "second circle" were on the passenger list for evacuation on subsequent flights, but these individuals, as has been reported, traveled by road to Gisenyi. (...) The genocide began on the night of April 6, 1994, lasted four months, and claimed approximately 800,000 victims. It was covered up or orchestrated by members of the interim government established after Habyarimana's death, as well as by military officials and members of the CDR, the MRND, and their militias. A heavy responsibility rests on them, and in particular on Colonel Bagosora, director of services at the Ministry of Defense, Augustin Bizimungu, Minister of Defense, and numerous military and civilian officials who coordinated the genocide. (…) From what date did the international community acknowledge that a genocide was being committed in Rwanda ? The word “genocide” appears for the first time in Resolution 925 of June 8, 1994, which specifies the modalities for implementing Resolution 918. It was only on that day that the Security Council took “note with the deepest concern the reports that acts of genocide had been committed in Rwanda.” Previously, there had been only talk of “widespread violence” (Resolution 912 of April 21, 1994) or “numerous massacres of civilians” (Resolution 918 of May 17, 1994). Utter hypocrisy was reached in the statement by the President of the Security Council on April 30, 1994, in which the Council declared itself appalled to learn of “the massacre of innocent civilians in Kigali and other parts of Rwanda” and referred to “attacks against defenseless civilians.” The word “genocide” was carefully avoided, but its legal definition was nevertheless invoked, as the Council felt compelled to recall that “the elimination of members of an ethnic group with intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part, constitutes a crime under international law.” This is not merely a semantic quibble. The use of the term genocide would have entailed, under Article VIII of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, an obligation for the competent organs of the United Nations to take “appropriate measures for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide.” However, the international community, and more specifically the United States, was not prepared for this.Herman Cohen frankly admitted to the Mission that the Americans “long refused to recognize the genocide, in order to escape the legal consequences of such recognition.” It is wrong to believe that the United Nations did not know what was happening ; on the contrary, they knew it all too well, but did not want to acknowledge the reality, preferring to bury their heads in the sand. The UN Secretary-General used the word genocide for the first time on May 4, 1994, in an interview with an American television station, during which he stated, “Here you have a real genocide, in Kigali.” He used it again on May 25, 1994, in a press conference held at the United Nations in New York. But it was only on May 31 that he used it for the first time in writing in one of his reports : “Based on the testimonies gathered, there is little doubt that genocide has occurred, since communities and families belonging to a particular ethnic group have been victims of large-scale massacres.” (…) On June 22, 1994, Prime Minister Edouard Balladur announced to the National Assembly France's intention to organize a humanitarian operation. He then personally appeared before the Security Council on July 11, 1994, to present the results of the operation. When he addressed the National Assembly, he stated : “The United Nations Security Council will examine, in a few hours, the draft resolution authorizing France to intervene in Rwanda as part of a humanitarian operation to save threatened populations. Why this intervention ?” (…) Operation Amaryllis ended on April 14, Operation Turquoise began on June 22. (…) Operation Turquoise, which took place from June 22 to August 22, differed from previous military operations conducted by France in Rwanda, whether Noroît or Amaryllis. It concerned Rwandans themselves and no longer French or European nationals. It was not part of a State-to-State assistance agreement. Claimed by France, in the name of a moral imperative, it was defined from the outset as a humanitarian operation, placed under a UN mandate. and subject to certain conditions. It is authorized by Resolution 929, which provides for the possibility of using force. (…) Denounced by some as a smokescreen operation actually intended to allow the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and militias to exfiltrate armed into Zaire, with a view to a military reconquest, it has been criticized by others, such as Mr. Jean-Hervé Bradol, for having been by its very nature “a neutral force in a time of genocide”... whereas what was needed was “not a humanitarian operation, which seemed useless to him, but a French or international military intervention to oppose the killers,” since, according to him,The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide clearly applied in this circumstance. (…) Neither the militias nor the Royal Armed Forces (FAR) were systematically disarmed in the Special Security Zone (ZHS). A telegram dated July 10, 1994, states the following regarding this zone : “Unless we wish to provoke widespread reactions against Operation Turquoise, the disarmament of the militias cannot be systematic. It is currently carried out on an ad hoc basis in cases where militiamen threaten population groups.” (…) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded by issuing the following statement : “Given the confirmed presence of members of the Interim Government in the safe humanitarian zone, the French authorities reiterate that they will not tolerate any political or military activity in the safe zone, whose purpose is strictly humanitarian.” (…) However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 16 : “We are ready to assist the United Nations in any decisions it may make regarding these individuals (Interim Government), but our mandate does not authorize us to arrest them on our own authority. Such an action could lead us to compromise our neutrality, the best guarantee of our effectiveness.” (…) In an interview given on September 9, 1994, the President of the French Republic, when questioned about France's support for President Juvénal Habyarimana, replied : “His country was a member of the UN, and he represented an ethnic group that constituted 80% of the population in Kigali. He was recognized by everyone.” Why would there have been a ban ? On the contrary, it was France that facilitated the negotiation between the two ethnic groups.” (…) As Gérard Prunier pointed out during his hearing, “France (…) had indeed trained militiamen who participated in the genocide without having realized – through stupidity or naivety – what their action represented. “(...) In 1993, the recurring question remained whether or not the French army was aware of the formation of militias “derived” from the Rwandan armed forces : the “Interahamwe” militia (of the MRND) and the “Impuzamugambi” militia (of the CDR), formed in 1992, as well as the “zero network” and the “Amasasu” secret society created within the FAR by extremist officers. Colonel Jean-Jacques Maurin confirmed most categorically that during the staff meetings he attended, no mention had been made of equipping the militias in his presence.”It is currently practiced on an ad hoc basis in cases where militiamen threaten population groups.” (…) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds by publishing the following statement : “Given the presence of members of the Interim Government in the safe humanitarian zone, the French authorities reiterate that they will not tolerate any political or military activity in the safe zone, whose purpose is strictly humanitarian. “(...) However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 16 : “We are ready to assist the United Nations in any decisions it may make regarding these individuals (the Interim Government), but our mandate does not authorize us to arrest them on our own authority. Such a task could lead us to compromise our neutrality, the best guarantee of our effectiveness.” (...) In an interview given on September 9, 1994, the President of the French Republic, when questioned about France's support for President Juvénal Habyarimana, replied : “His country was at the UN, and he represented an ethnic group that constituted 80% of the population in Kigali. He was recognized by everyone. Why would there have been a ban ? On the contrary, it was France that facilitated negotiations between the two ethnic groups.” (…) As Gérard Prunier emphasized during his hearing, “France (…) had indeed trained militiamen who participated in the genocide without realizing—through stupidity or naivety—what its actions entailed.” (…) In 1993, the recurring question remained whether or not the French army was aware of the formation of militias “derived” from the Rwandan armed forces : the “Interahamwe” militias (of the MRND) and “Impuzamugambi” (of the CDR), formed in 1992, as well as the “zero network” and the “Amasasu” secret society created within the FAR by extremist officers. Colonel Jean-Jacques Maurin confirmed most categorically that during the staff meetings he attended, no mention had been made of equipping the militias in his presence.It is currently practiced on an ad hoc basis in cases where militiamen threaten population groups.” (…) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs responds by publishing the following statement : “Given the presence of members of the Interim Government in the safe humanitarian zone, the French authorities reiterate that they will not tolerate any political or military activity in the safe zone, whose purpose is strictly humanitarian. “(...) However, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated on July 16 : “We are ready to assist the United Nations in any decisions it may make regarding these individuals (the Interim Government), but our mandate does not authorize us to arrest them on our own authority. Such a task could lead us to compromise our neutrality, the best guarantee of our effectiveness.” (...) In an interview given on September 9, 1994, the President of the French Republic, when questioned about France's support for President Juvénal Habyarimana, replied : “His country was at the UN, and he represented an ethnic group that constituted 80% of the population in Kigali. He was recognized by everyone. Why would there have been a ban ? On the contrary, it was France that facilitated negotiations between the two ethnic groups.” (…) As Gérard Prunier emphasized during his hearing, “France (…) had indeed trained militiamen who participated in the genocide without realizing—through stupidity or naivety—what its actions entailed.” (…) In 1993, the recurring question remained whether or not the French army was aware of the formation of militias “derived” from the Rwandan armed forces : the “Interahamwe” militias (of the MRND) and “Impuzamugambi” (of the CDR), formed in 1992, as well as the “zero network” and the “Amasasu” secret society created within the FAR by extremist officers. Colonel Jean-Jacques Maurin confirmed most categorically that during the staff meetings he attended, no mention had been made of equipping the militias in his presence.the best guarantee of our effectiveness.” (…) In an interview given on September 9, 1994, the President of the French Republic, when questioned about France's support for President Juvénal Habyarimana, replied : “His country was a member of the UN, and he represented an ethnic group that was 80% the majority in Kigali. He was recognized by everyone. Why would there have been a ban ? On the contrary, it was France that facilitated negotiations between the two ethnic groups.” (…) As Gérard Prunier emphasized during his hearing, “France (…) had indeed trained militiamen who participated in the genocide without having grasped—through stupidity or naivety—the implications of their actions.” “(...) In 1993, the recurring question remained whether or not the French army was aware of the formation of militias “derived” from the Rwandan armed forces : the “Interahamwe” militia (of the MRND) and the “Impuzamugambi” militia (of the CDR), formed in 1992, as well as the “zero network” and the “Amasasu” secret society created within the FAR by extremist officers. Colonel Jean-Jacques Maurin confirmed most categorically that during the staff meetings he attended, no mention had been made of equipping the militias in his presence.”the best guarantee of our effectiveness.” (…) In an interview given on September 9, 1994, the President of the French Republic, when questioned about France's support for President Juvénal Habyarimana, replied : “His country was a member of the UN, and he represented an ethnic group that was 80% the majority in Kigali. He was recognized by everyone. Why would there have been a ban ? On the contrary, it was France that facilitated negotiations between the two ethnic groups.” (…) As Gérard Prunier emphasized during his hearing, “France (…) had indeed trained militiamen who participated in the genocide without having grasped—through stupidity or naivety—the implications of their actions.” “(...) In 1993, the recurring question remained whether or not the French army was aware of the formation of militias “derived” from the Rwandan armed forces : the “Interahamwe” militia (of the MRND) and the “Impuzamugambi” militia (of the CDR), formed in 1992, as well as the “zero network” and the “Amasasu” secret society created within the FAR by extremist officers. Colonel Jean-Jacques Maurin confirmed most categorically that during the staff meetings he attended, no mention had been made of equipping the militias in his presence.”