Why the UN Mapping Report on the DRC Was Buried:

Why the UN Mapping Report on the DRC Was Buried:

Western Complicity, UN Cowardice, African Silence, and the Devaluation of African Lives

Introduction: A Crime Covered Up

The 2010 UN Mapping Report should have changed everything. It didn't.

Covering the period from 1993 to 2003, this damning investigation documented 617 serious crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)—mass killings, systematic sexual violence, torture, forced displacement, and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Most explosively, it concluded that atrocities committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) against Rwandan Hutu refugees and Congolese Hutu populations could constitute acts of genocide if proven before a competent court.

Yet the report was buried. Deliberately. Systematically. Shamelessly.

No tribunal was established. No perpetrators were prosecuted. No justice was delivered. The recommendations for accountability mechanisms and truth-seeking processes were quietly shelved.

This was not diplomatic inertia. This was calculated suppression.

The forces that conspired to bury the Mapping Report include: the strategic interests of the United States and United Kingdom in protecting their allies Rwanda and Uganda; the institutional cowardice of the United Nations; the paralysis of the African Union; the negligence of the DRC government itself; and the brutal truth that African lives—no matter how many, no matter how horrifically ended—simply do not matter enough to Western powers.

Had these crimes occurred in Europe, the response would have been immediate, overwhelming, and unrelenting. Sanctions. Tribunals. Military intervention. Media saturation. Diplomatic mobilisation.

But these were African victims. So the world looked away.

The result is one of the greatest unpunished crimes in modern history—a crime that continues to fuel instability, violence, and impunity across the Great Lakes region today.

1. The Massacres Nobody Cared About: How Hutu Civilians Were Dehumanised and Erased

The Narrative That Killed Them

One of the most chilling reasons the massacres of Hutu refugees were ignored is devastatingly simple: the international community decided that all Hutus were guilty.

After the 1994 Rwandan genocide, the world constructed a morally convenient binary: Tutsis as victims, Hutus as perpetrators. This crude framework became the dominant lens through which Western governments, media organisations, and humanitarian agencies interpreted everything that followed.

Entire populations of Hutu civilians—women carrying babies, elderly people unable to walk, children, families fleeing in terror—were collectively stigmatised. They were automatically labelled "interahamwe" or "genocide perpetrators," regardless of age, gender, or individual history. The overwhelming majority had never participated in any crime. Many had fled Rwanda in 1994 fearing chaos or reprisals. Thousands were forcibly displaced by retreating government forces.

But nuance was inconvenient. So they were all marked as guilty.

The Hunting Grounds

When these civilians were hunted down and massacred in the forests of Zaire—Tingi-Tingi, Shabunda, Walikale, Mbandaka, and countless unmarked killing sites—their deaths provoked almost no international sympathy.

The Rwandan Patriotic Army pursued refugees across hundreds of kilometres. They bombed camps. They blocked humanitarian access. They conducted systematic executions.

And the world watched in silence.

Humanitarian agencies, Western diplomats, and major media outlets rarely portrayed the victims as innocent. The prevailing attitude was clear: their fate was not a priority. If they were killed, it was not a moral emergency. If they were hunted, it was not treated as a crime. If they disappeared into mass graves, it did not shake the global conscience.

Even NGOs and UN agencies—normally vocal champions of civilian protection—adopted cautious, ambiguous language. Reports acknowledged killings but hesitated to use the word "massacre." Many humanitarian workers later admitted they operated in a climate where questioning the RPF's narrative could jeopardise access, funding, or professional reputation.

The Silent Catastrophe

The result was a catastrophe conducted in near-silence: hundreds of thousands of unarmed Hutu civilians—women with babies on their backs, elderly men unable to walk, newborn infants, disabled people, entire families—were exterminated, deliberately starved, chased through forests, or drowned in rivers.

And because they were Hutu, and because the global narrative had already branded "Hutu" as synonymous with "genocide perpetrator," their suffering generated no international outrage.

This racialised and politicised indifference is one of the darkest chapters in the international response to the Great Lakes crisis. It explains why the Mapping Report's findings on possible genocide were treated as an inconvenience rather than a moral imperative.

The Double Standard Exposed

The victims were people the world had already dehumanised. People whose lives had been stripped of innocence in the global imagination. People for whom there was no political cost in letting them die.

If these killings had happened to European civilians—women, children, and elderly people fleeing war—the response would have been instant and overwhelming. Tribunals. Sanctions. Military intervention. Media campaigns. Humanitarian mobilisation.

But because the victims were African Hutus, already marked with collective guilt, the world allowed their suffering to be erased.

The genocide and massacres carried out against Hutu refugees in Zaire remain one of the greatest unacknowledged crimes of the late twentieth century. The silence surrounding their deaths exposes a profound moral failure: the refusal to recognise the full humanity of all victims, regardless of ethnicity, geography, or political convenience.

2. Western Complicity: How the US and UK Protected Their Allies

Rwanda and Uganda: The Indispensable Clients

For nearly three decades, Rwanda and Uganda have been amongst the most valuable African allies of the United States and the United Kingdom. After 1994, Rwanda was rebranded as a symbol of post-conflict reconstruction and development efficiency. Washington and London invested heavily in building the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) as a regional partner.

Both countries served critical Western strategic purposes:

• Counterweights to French influence in Central Africa
• Reliable partners in counter-terrorism and peacekeeping operations
• Aligned with Western economic and security priorities
• Led by English-speaking elites marketed as modernisers

This carefully constructed political architecture stood in direct contradiction to the Mapping Report's findings. The report accused Rwandan and Ugandan forces of mass atrocities, unlawful killings, and deliberate targeting of civilian populations.

Implementing the report would have required the US and UK to confront governments they had heavily funded, armed, and politically championed. It would have exposed glaring contradictions in their foreign policies. It could have opened the door to allegations of indirect complicity in atrocities.

So they buried it.

Diplomatic Obstruction Behind Closed Doors

During the drafting of the Mapping Report, Rwanda mounted an aggressive campaign to discredit it. Kigali threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping troops from UN missions—a threat the UN took seriously, given Rwanda's participation in Darfur and elsewhere.

The US and UK did not publicly oppose Rwanda's pressure. Instead, their diplomats intervened repeatedly behind the scenes to soften the political impact. They discouraged Security Council debates. They undermined efforts to create a tribunal. They advised the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to "manage" the fallout quietly.

The report was published without a follow-up mechanism, without a budget for implementation, and without an assigned institutional home.

This was not negligence. This was deliberate sabotage.

Protecting the Narrative

The Mapping Report contradicted the dominant narrative that portrayed Rwanda as a post-genocide success story and Paul Kagame as a disciplined reformer. Acknowledging that Rwanda's army committed large-scale atrocities in the DRC—possibly even genocide—would have shattered years of Western political messaging.

Such an admission would have undermined decades of diplomatic alignment and foreign-aid strategy. Western governments prioritised the preservation of their narrative over justice for victims.

They chose geopolitics over morality. Strategy over accountability. Alliance over truth.

3. The UN's Institutional Cowardice

Hostage to Troop Contributors

The United Nations relies heavily on troop-contributing countries for peacekeeping operations, and Rwanda is one of the largest contributors. When confronted with Kigali's threats to withdraw troops, UN leadership panicked. The possibility of destabilising missions in Darfur and elsewhere became a powerful incentive to avoid provoking Rwanda.

As a result, the UN Secretariat adopted a defensive, paralysed posture. It refused to push the Security Council for action. It avoided strong public statements. It failed to create a follow-up team.

The UN chose institutional convenience over its moral mandate.

Bureaucratic Abandonment

Once the Mapping Report was published, the UN's internal machinery effectively froze. No unit was designated to handle implementation. No resources were assigned. No timetable was established. The report became an orphan within the system—a document without an owner.

Senior UN officials admitted privately that without support from the US or UK, there was "no point" pushing for implementation.

Translation: If Western powers don't care, neither do we.

Selective Morality

The UN's failure reflects a broader, uglier pattern: global institutions respond more urgently to crises in regions perceived as strategically valuable or politically sensitive. African crises—no matter how deadly—rarely trigger the same urgency.

The silence surrounding the Mapping Report demonstrates an uncomfortable truth: African lives are not treated with equal value in the global hierarchy of suffering. Crimes that would provoke international outrage in Europe, the Middle East, or East Asia are tolerated or ignored when they occur in Africa.

4. The African Union's Betrayal

Diplomatic Paralysis

The African Union failed spectacularly. It did not endorse the Mapping Report. It did not discuss it in any serious way. It did not even acknowledge it publicly.

This silence is partly explained by the significant influence Rwanda and Uganda wield within the organisation. Both countries are active in AU peacekeeping missions, mediation initiatives, and continental diplomacy.

Confronting the Mapping Report would have required the AU to criticise two of its most strategically active members.

So it said nothing.

Fear of Precedent

The AU is composed largely of governments with their own unresolved histories of conflict and human-rights abuses. Supporting an independent tribunal for crimes in the DRC could open the door to similar demands for investigations into Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, and others.

Many African leaders prefer silence over a mechanism that could one day be used against them.

Self-preservation trumped justice.

Abandoning Congolese Victims

The AU has issued numerous statements on international justice when Western countries are involved. Yet it remained completely silent on atrocities documented in the DRC—crimes committed by African armies against African civilians on African soil.

This silence represents a betrayal. It reflects a deeper problem: pan-African institutions often lack the political courage to confront powerful member states.

5. The DRC Government's Negligence

Kinshasa's Paralysis

Perhaps the most tragic element in the Mapping Report's burial is the role of the Congolese government itself. Despite being the victim state, the DRC never seriously fought for implementation.

Successive governments—from Laurent-Désiré Kabila to Joseph Kabila to Félix Tshisekedi—failed to mobilise regional diplomacy, push the Security Council, or lobby the African Union.

Political survival, internal divisions, and fear of regional retaliation paralysed action.

Co-optation and Corruption

Some Congolese politicians and business elites have economic ties with Rwanda and Uganda. Others rely on regional militias for security or political influence. For years, Congo's state institutions have been too weak, too corrupt, or too fragmented to pursue coherent justice.

This fragmentation made it easy for foreign powers to shape the narrative and undermine accountability.

Missed Opportunities

The DRC could have:

• Established a special national tribunal
• Referred the case to the International Criminal Court
• Requested a hybrid court with foreign judges
• Initiated diplomatic mobilisation across Africa
• Funded documentation and legal investigations

None of this happened.

The country with the most to gain from the Mapping Report simply abandoned it.

6. The Brutal Truth: African Lives Don't Matter Enough

The Central Reason

A central reason the Mapping Report was ignored is painfully, brutally simple:

The victims were African, and the crimes occurred in Africa.

Had the same crimes occurred in Europe—Ukraine, for instance—the reaction would have been immediate, forceful, and sustained. Emergency Security Council meetings. Ad hoc tribunals. Sanctions. Daily media coverage. Massive financial and military mobilisation.

But when millions die in Africa, the world responds with silence.

The Racialised Hierarchy of Suffering

Western governments and international institutions have historically shown greater willingness to act when crises occur in regions perceived as culturally or strategically closer to the West. Ukraine, with its geopolitical importance and European identity, triggered unprecedented international mobilisation.

African crises rarely elicit such responses.

This reveals a moral hierarchy that places African lives at the bottom.

NGOs and Selective Visibility

Major international NGOs—often based in Europe and North America—produce reports on the DRC. But the scale of advocacy campaigns, media pressure, and political lobbying for African victims is far smaller compared to crises in Europe or the Middle East.

The Mapping Report required a sustained global advocacy movement. It never materialised. Media coverage faded quickly. NGOs issued statements, but they were not backed by campaigns capable of influencing the Security Council.

"African Noise Fatigue"

Global audiences are desensitised to African crises due to decades of negative portrayals. This creates a perception that violence in Africa is normal, inevitable, even expected.

Such narratives reduce the political cost of ignoring mass atrocities.

This structural indifference is one of the fundamental reasons the Mapping Report failed.

7. The Consequences of Impunity

Emboldening Perpetrators

By failing to act, the UN and the international community sent a clear message:

"Crimes committed in the DRC will not be punished."

This emboldened Rwanda-backed groups like M23, which re-emerged multiple times over the past decade.

Perpetuating the Wars

Unpunished atrocities are a recipe for further violence. The DRC continues to experience insecurity, displacement, and proxy warfare. Millions remain at risk because the original crimes were never addressed.

Destroying Trust

For Congolese communities, the Mapping Report's burial symbolises the failure of the international system to protect African lives. It undermines trust in the UN, the ICC, and the African Union.

Strengthening Authoritarianism

Shielding Rwanda and Uganda from accountability strengthened authoritarianism in both countries. It normalised the use of proxy militias and cross-border aggression.

Conclusion: A Collective Crime

The failure to implement the UN Mapping Report was not an accident. It was not bureaucratic inertia. It was not diplomatic complexity.

It was a deliberate, collective failure.

The strategic interests of the US and UK. The political manipulation of the UN system. The paralysis of the African Union. The weakness and negligence of the DRC government. And a global hierarchy of suffering that places African lives at the bottom.

Millions of victims—Rwandan Hutu refugees, Congolese civilians, women, children, elders—continue to wait for justice. Their suffering was recorded, documented, and acknowledged.

And then deliberately ignored.

The Mapping Report remains a powerful, damning reminder: justice is not determined by the scale of human suffering, but by the geopolitical value of the victims.

Until this changes, the Great Lakes region will remain trapped in cycles of violence and impunity.

And the world will continue to look away.

References

African Union (2010). Communiqués and Statements on Peace and Security. Addis Ababa: AU Commission.

Autesserre, S. (2010). The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. Cambridge University Press.

BBC News Africa (2010). 'UN Report Alleges Rwanda Crimes in DR Congo', 1 October.

Clark, P. (2018). The Rwanda Experiment: Between Justice and Politics. Polity Press.

Human Rights Watch (1997). Unwelcome Guests: Rwanda's Violent Repression of Hutu Refugees in Zaire.

Human Rights Watch (2009). You Will Be Punished: Attacks on Civilians in Eastern Congo.

International Crisis Group (2006–2020). Reports on the Great Lakes Region. Brussels: ICG.

Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton University Press.

Mbembe, A. (2003). 'Necropolitics', Public Culture, 15(1).

Prunier, G. (2009). Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford University Press.

Reyntjens, F. (2009). The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996–2006. Cambridge University Press.

Stearns, J. (2011). Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. PublicAffairs.

United Nations OHCHR (2010). Democratic Republic of the Congo, 1993–2003: Report of the Mapping Exercise. Geneva: OHCHR.

Pourquoi le Rapport Mapping des Nations Unies sur la RDC a été enterré

Pourquoi le Rapport Mapping des Nations Unies sur la RDC a été enterré :

Obstruction des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni, défaillances de l'ONU, silence de l'Union africaine et marginalisation des victimes africaines**

Introduction

Publié en 2010, le Rapport Mapping du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme fut l'une des enquêtes les plus vastes jamais réalisées sur les crimes commis en Afrique centrale. Couvrant la période de 1993 à 2003, il documente 617 incidents de violations graves des droits humains : massacres, violences sexuelles, exécutions sommaires, tortures, déplacements forcés et attaques systématiques contre des civils. Le rapport avance même que certaines attaques contre les réfugiés hutus rwandais et les populations hutues congolaises pourraient constituer des actes de génocide si un tribunal compétent en apportait la preuve.

Pourtant, malgré sa gravité, le rapport a été discrètement enterré. Ses recommandations – création de mécanismes judiciaires, commissions vérité, poursuites des responsables – n'ont jamais été mises en œuvre. Cette inaction ne s'explique pas seulement par la lenteur bureaucratique. Elle est le résultat d'un enchevêtrement d'intérêts géopolitiques, de pressions diplomatiques, de calculs régionaux, d'inerties institutionnelles et d'un profond désintérêt du monde lorsque les victimes sont africaines.

Ce texte analyse les raisons pour lesquelles ce rapport a été étouffé : le rôle déterminant des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni dans la protection de leurs alliés rwandais et ougandais ; l'incapacité du gouvernement congolais à exiger justice ; la négligence de l'Union africaine ; l'auto-censure des Nations Unies ; et enfin un facteur essentiel souvent ignoré : quand les victimes sont africaines, la mobilisation internationale est faible, voire inexistante. Si les mêmes crimes s'étaient produits en Europe – comme en Ukraine – la réaction mondiale aurait été immédiate et massive.

Le résultat est tragique : un des pires massacres de la fin du XXᵉ siècle demeure impuni, et son ombre continue d'alimenter l'instabilité dans toute la région des Grands Lacs.

 

1. Pourquoi le rapport représentait une menace géopolitique pour les puissances occidentales

1.1 Le Rwanda et l'Ouganda : deux alliés clés de Washington et Londres

Depuis la fin du génocide de 1994, le Rwanda est devenu l'un des partenaires africains les plus proches des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni. Présenté comme un modèle de reconstruction et de gouvernance efficace, le régime du Front patriotique rwandais (FPR) a été largement soutenu par l'aide financière, militaire et diplomatique occidentale.

Le Rwanda et l'Ouganda servaient aussi de contrepoids à l'influence française en Afrique centrale et de partenaires essentiels dans la lutte antiterroriste et les missions de maintien de la paix. Les élites anglophones au pouvoir à Kigali et Kampala correspondaient parfaitement aux priorités géostratégiques des puissances anglo-saxonnes.

Le Rapport Mapping, en documentant de graves crimes commis par ces deux armées sur le sol congolais, constituait une menace directe pour ces alliances et remettait en cause des années de discours diplomatique.

1.2 Pressions diplomatiques pour étouffer le rapport

Avant sa publication, le Rwanda a exercé de fortes pressions pour modifier ou retarder le rapport, allant jusqu'à menacer de retirer toutes ses troupes des opérations de maintien de la paix de l'ONU. Les États-Unis et le Royaume-Uni ont discrètement soutenu Kigali en coulisse. Ils ont œuvré pour empêcher des débats au Conseil de sécurité, bloquer la création d'un tribunal et affaiblir le suivi institutionnel du rapport.

Résultat : le Rapport Mapping fut publié sans mécanisme de mise en œuvre, sans budget, sans mandat et sans propriétaire institutionnel. Il était condamné dès le départ.

1.3 Protéger le récit politique dominant

Pour Washington et Londres, reconnaître que le Rwanda – présenté comme un « success story » africain – avait commis de possibles crimes contre l'humanité ou crimes de guerre en RDC était politiquement explosif. Le rapport menaçait la crédibilité de leur politique étrangère et risquait de mettre en cause leur propre complicité indirecte.

Mieux valait donc le laisser mourir dans le silence.

2. L'échec institutionnel des Nations Unies

2.1 Peur de provoquer le Rwanda et de perdre des Casques bleus

Le Rwanda est un contributeur majeur de troupes au sein des opérations de l'ONU. Lorsque Kigali a menacé de se retirer, la direction de l'ONU a paniqué. Cette dépendance logistique a paralysé toute volonté d'affronter les conclusions du rapport.

2.2 Paralysie bureaucratique

Aucun service n'a été chargé d'assurer le suivi du rapport. Aucun financement n'a été prévu. Rien n'a été fait pour transformer ses recommandations en actions. Le rapport est devenu un document orphelin, volontairement mis de côté.

2.3 Hypocrisie morale de la communauté internationale

La réaction de l'ONU illustre une réalité : la protection des civils n'est pas une valeur universelle appliquée de manière cohérente, mais une question de priorités géopolitiques. Les crises africaines, même lorsqu'elles font des millions de victimes, n'obtiennent presque jamais le niveau de mobilisation accordé aux crises européennes ou moyen-orientales.

3. Le silence de l'Union africaine

3.1 Influence diplomatique du Rwanda et de l'Ouganda

L'Union africaine n'a jamais discuté sérieusement du Rapport Mapping. Le poids diplomatique du Rwanda et de l'Ouganda au sein de l'organisation a suffi à étouffer tout débat. Le principe de « non-ingérence » est souvent invoqué pour éviter de critiquer des États membres influents.

3.2 Peur de créer un précédent

Soutenir la création d'un tribunal pour les crimes commis en RDC aurait ouvert la porte à des enquêtes sur les crimes commis dans d'autres pays africains (Éthiopie, Soudan, Érythrée, Nigeria, etc.). De nombreux dirigeants africains ont donc préféré garder le silence.

3.3 Abandon moral des victimes congolaises et rwandaises hutues

L'Union africaine, censée défendre les peuples du continent, a manqué à son devoir le plus fondamental : exiger justice pour les victimes africaines. Son silence est l'un des échecs les plus graves de son histoire.

 

4. Les responsabilités du gouvernement congolais

4.1 Faiblesse et absence de volonté politique

Pendant vingt ans, les gouvernements congolais successifs n'ont jamais réclamé de manière ferme l'application du rapport. Peur de représailles régionales, division interne, élites compromises : l'État congolais n'a pas été capable de défendre sa population.

4.2 Aucune mobilisation diplomatique

La RDC aurait pu saisir le Conseil de sécurité, mobiliser l'Union africaine, demander la création d'un tribunal international ou d'une cour hybride. Elle ne l'a pas fait.

4.3 Abandon de ses propres citoyens

Le Congo n'a jamais mis en place de mécanisme judiciaire national, jamais financé d'enquêtes, jamais demandé l'extradition de responsables. Cela équivaut à un abandon total des victimes.

5. La stigmatisation des réfugiés hutus et l'indifférence internationale

Un facteur majeur explique aussi le silence autour des massacres : la déshumanisation des réfugiés hutus.

Après 1994, les acteurs internationaux ont adopté une vision simpliste : « Tutsis = victimes » ; « Hutus = génocidaires ». Cette caricature a conduit à percevoir les réfugiés hutus – même les femmes, les enfants, les personnes âgées – comme des bourreaux potentiels. Leur mort n'a pas suscité d'empathie. Leur souffrance n'a pas ému.

À Tingi-Tingi, Shabunda, Walikale, Mbandaka et dans d'innombrables forêts du Zaïre, des centaines de milliers de réfugiés hutus ont été massacrés, pourchassés, affamés, noyés ou exécutés. Pourtant, la communauté internationale n'a presque rien dit. Beaucoup estimaient implicitement que « ce n'était pas un problème s'ils étaient tués ».

Cette stigmatisation a permis de justifier, par le silence, l'une des pires catastrophes humanitaires d'Afrique contemporaine.

6. Les vies africaines considérées comme moins prioritaires

6.1 Hiérarchie racialisée de la souffrance

Lorsque la guerre éclate en Europe, la mobilisation internationale est immédiate : sanctions, aide militaire, tribunaux, médias. Lorsqu'un génocide silencieux se déroule en Afrique, la réaction est minimaliste ou inexistante.

6.2 Absence de pression médiatique et non-priorité diplomatique

La tragédie congolaise n'est pas devenue une priorité pour les ONG internationales, les chaînes de télévision ou les capitales occidentales. La couverture médiatique a été sporadique, l'indignation faible.

6.3 Fatigue humanitaire sélective

Le public occidental est habitué à voir l'Afrique associée à la violence. Cela crée une sorte de fatalisme qui réduit l'attention portée aux victimes.

7. Les conséquences de l'enterrement du Rapport Mapping

L'impunité perdure :
• Les groupes armés reviennent régulièrement (M23, ADF, FDLR, milices locales).
• Les crimes se répètent dans les mêmes régions.
• Les populations congolaises continuent de vivre dans l'insécurité.
• Les régimes autoritaires dans la région se renforcent.

Enterrer le rapport, c'est condamner l'Afrique des Grands Lacs à un cycle sans fin de violence et de souffrance.

Conclusion

Le Rapport Mapping n'a pas été enterré par hasard. Il a été étouffé par :
• les intérêts géopolitiques des États-Unis et du Royaume-Uni,
• la peur et la faiblesse des Nations Unies,
• la complicité silencieuse de l'Union africaine,
• l'incapacité du gouvernement congolais à exiger justice,
• et un racisme structurel mondial qui considère que les vies africaines valent moins.

Les victimes – réfugiés hutus, civils congolais, femmes violées, enfants tués – ont été ignorées parce que leur souffrance ne représentait pas un enjeu stratégique.

Tant que la communauté internationale continuera de hiérarchiser les vies humaines en fonction de leur utilité politique, la région des Grands Lacs restera prisonnière de l'impunité.

Références

African Union (2010). Communiqués et déclarations sur la paix et la sécurité. Addis-Abeba : Commission de l'Union Africaine.

Autesserre, S. (2010). The Trouble with the Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of International Peacebuilding. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

BBC News Africa (2010). « UN report alleges Rwanda crimes in DR Congo ». BBC News, 1 October.

Braeckman, C. (2003). Les Nouveaux Prédateurs : Politique africaine de la Belgique de Mobutu à Bemba. Paris : Fayard.

Clark, P. (2018). The Rwanda Experiment: Between Justice and Politics. Cambridge : Polity Press.

Doyle, C. (2014). The Great Lakes of Africa: Two Thousand Years of History. New York : Zone Books.

Human Rights Watch (1997). Unwelcome Guests: Rwanda's Violent Repression of Hutu Refugees in Zaire. New York : Human Rights Watch.

Human Rights Watch (2009). You Will Be Punished: Attacks on Civilians in Eastern Congo. New York : Human Rights Watch.

International Crisis Group (2006–2020). Rapports sur la Région des Grands Lacs. Bruxelles : ICG.

Kabemba, C. (2013). The Democratic Republic of Congo's Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Challenges and Opportunities. Johannesburg : Southern Africa Resource Watch.

Mamdani, M. (2001). When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton : Princeton University Press.

Mbembe, A. (2003). « Necropolitics ». Public Culture, 15(1), pp. 11–40.

Melvern, L. (2004). Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide. London : Verso.

Prunier, G. (2009). Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. New York : Oxford University Press.

Reyntjens, F. (2009). The Great African War: Congo and Regional Geopolitics, 1996–2006. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Reyntjens, F. (2013). Political Governance in Post-Genocide Rwanda. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Stearns, J. (2011). Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa. New York : PublicAffairs.

United Nations OHCHR (2010). Rapport du Projet Mapping concernant les violations les plus graves des droits de l'homme et du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de la République démocratique du Congo entre mars 1993 et juin 2003. Genève : ONU–HCDH.

Vlassenroot, K. & Raeymaekers, T. (2004). Conflict and Social Transformation in Eastern DR Congo. Ghent University : Conflict Research Group.

Waldorf, L. (2011). « 'Instrumentalising Genocide': The RPF's Campaign Against UN Mapping Report ». Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 5(3), pp. 255–273.