To the dead we owe justice, not propaganda. The victims of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda deserve justice.

All the armed groups in Rwanda, including Kagame's RPA/F, butchered people in what Kagame's partners-in-crime and propagandists now force down the throat as Tutsi genocide.

The 1994 Rwandan massacres official narrative is a pack of lies that the world should redress with an objective international inquiry. The RPF Tutsi genocide narrative is pretty much the proverbial tale of the hunter!!!

The shameful stage-managed Arusha ICTR trials were " victor's justice". Like Galileo stood for the principle he knew to be true, I stand for what I know to be true; RPF/A/Kagame's then rebels, like other armed groups that existed in Rwanda, perpetrated the 1994 massacres.

The current Tutsi genocide hoax was constructed and " promoted" to cover up Kagame and his then rebels' horrific crimes. I hope and pray that, like time vindicated Galileo, I SHALL be vindicated when political interests change and there is an objective /neutral group to investigate what really happened in Rwanda that time. In the meantime, I SHALL never buy into the 1994 genocide propaganda.



____
Charles Kambanda

Continue Reading..

OLD STRATEGIES IN THE CONTEMPORARY COLD WAR: Vladimir Putin, Bashar-al-Assad, Tayyip Erdogan vs. NATO/USA

Rwandan American lawyer and former National University of Rwanda professor Dr. Charles Kambanda

Whether one calls it "another round of the cold war" or "a continuum of the cold war", the NATO/US vs China/Russia axis relationship bears all the chilly characteristics the cold war. The most bloody cold war front line so far is Syria, not to ignore Burundi.

December 2015, Turkey conspired with its NATO allies to down Russia's fighter jet. It's not in dispute now that Turkey downed the Russian fighter jet from Syria as Russia was fighting to " liberate" Syria from NATO and their proxy Syrian " rebels". President Vladimir Putin responded to Turkey's act of downing the Russian fighter jet by (a) imposing punitive economic sanctions against Turkey and (b) promising that Turkey and its European allies would pay the price for downing the Russian fighter jet. That was then!

Today, Turkey's President Tayyip Erdogan met his counterpart, President Vladimir Putin, in what many analysts rightly call a diplomatic reset. The two leaders met to " talk business" after Erdogan apologized to Putin for the NATO/US wrong advice that led Turkey to down Russia's fighter jet. Putin accepted the apology "for the good of the two nations"; Turkey and Russia.

Erdogan believes that while he was working with NATO/US for regime change in Syria, NATO/US were planning his own downfall through a Coup which Erdogan claims to have defeated.
Turkey is strategic for NATO/US cold warfare. Analysts argue that without Turkey's full cooperation, given Germany's cold feet in the current cold war, NATO cannot do much. The war in Syria stands in a balance for NATO and the US. If Turkey joins Russia, Syria could as well fall to Russia. Whether Russia can keep both Bashar-al-Assad ( Syria) and Tayyip Erdogab ( Turkey) in power against NATO/US interests is another complex issue which dwells mostly on strategies and tactics the major cold war protagonists contemplate.

If Russia consolidated power in Turkey and Syria, thereby defeating NATO /US in Syria, would NATO /US concede defeats in Syria and talk peace with Assad? If NATO/US talked peace with Assad, what would be the fate for NATO/US sponsored rebels in Syrian? Would sending the NATO/US sponsored rebels to the International Criminal Court be one of the possibilities if NATO/US struck a deal with Assad? If NATO/US chose to fight on, would NATO/US consider supporting " rebels" in Turkey thereby opening another cold war front line; taking on Putin and Erdogan even before NATO/US are done with Putin and Assad in Syria? Will Turkey pull out of NATO? What's the future of NATO as a cold war mentality " union"?

On June 7th, 2016, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the world by surprise when he " commended" President Putin's efforts to bring peace in Syria. Netanyahu's shocking comments came shortly before he visited President Putin for a third time in less that a year. Will Israel be a spectator in this crazy regional " re-positioning" game? Would Israel strike an independent deal with Putin, Erdogan and Assad ? Where would such a deal leave Israel/NATO/US relationship?

Will the cold war battle in Africa - Burundi - intensify or the superpowers will abandon the Burundi front line for future complex cold war tactics and strategies? Do the ordinary people who perish and/or bear the inhumane effects of these senseless wars between superpowers matter ?

Continue Reading..

Is the UN Security Council Resolution number 2303 - on deployment of a UN Police Force to Burundi - of July 29th, 2016 legally binding or Resolution 2303 is subject to the Government of Burundi's discretion ?

Rwandan American lawyer and former National University of Rwanda professor Dr. Charles Kambanda

France sponsored the UNC Resolution 2303. The Draft came to the UNSC under Chapter 6 Article 36 of the UN Charter.The Resolution passed with 11 countries voting in favor of sending 286 police officers to Burundi. Four ( 4) countries abstained; China, Angola, Venezuela and Egypt. Russia voted for Resolution 2303 after the UNSC agreed to include an explicit phrase; "... in cooperation with the government of Burundi". The government of Burundi is categorical; they will not allow more than 50 unarmed UN police officers.

Resolution 2303 has caused a lot of excitement among regime change campaign quarters. The thinking among Burundi regime change campaign quarters is that the UNSC sanctioned Police Force will probably "cooperate" in bringing down President Nkurunziza's government. The EU and the US, the major Burundi regime change campaign supporters, are expected to pick the bill for the UNS proposed police force. With Resolution 2303 on the table, the question is whather or not the government of Burundi is under legal obligation to let in the 286 UNSC police officers. I answer in the negative.

There is a big difference between UN Charter Chapters 6 and 7. Both UN Charter Chapters touch and concern Dispute Resolution. However, while Chapter 7 Resolutions are legally binding, Chapter 6 UNSC Resolutions are advisory and/or voluntary. Chapter 7 resolutions authorize forceful methods such as economic sanctions and humanitarian intervention ( military attacks) while Chapter 6 resolutions are UNSC proposals. Chapter 6 UN Resolutions/proposals are necessarily subject to the concerned government's consent. There is what is famously known as Chapter 6 and half resolutions. Chapter 6 and half UNSC Resolution cannot go beyond authorizing a UN Peacekeeping force, again subject to the concerned country's explicit consent.

The International Court of Justice ( ICJ), in Namibia case, made it clear that the only legally binding UNSC Resolutions are those taken under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. There is good policy reason for the ICJ's legal reasoning; the UNSC does not replace the Sovereign and, the UN or any organ thereof is not a Sovereign.

France sponsored Resolution 2303 under Chapter 6 Article 36 of the UN Charter. Because Resolution 2303 came to the UNSC under Chapter 6, Resolution 2303, Resolution 2303 explicit language notwithstanding, Burundi government consent to deployment of the 286 UN Police contingent is imperative. The government of Burundi is at liberty to accept the UN force with modification or object the entire UNSC Resolution Police Force deployment proposal.

Continue Reading..