T is ten years ago today that the genocide began in Rwanda with the Hutus attempting to annihilate the Tutsi tribe. You might ask why am I so interested in this? I will try to explain why I was so concerned when the horrible cruelty began some ten years ago.

On April 6, 1994 the head of the Rwanda government was returning from a visit to a neighbouring country when his plane was shot down, killing everyone on board. He was a Hutu and it has never been established whether it was done by Tutsis or an assassination by his own people.

Rwanda has a history of severe tribal hatred between the two ethnic groups and a lot of it originated with the Tutsis, although the minority, establishing itself as the ruling class and the more successful of the tribes.

However, in 1994 it was the Hutus who had become the Government and the whole atmosphere became one of revenge against the Tutsis. The environment was a reminder of the hatred of the Nazis against the Jews in the mid-1930s.

The radio station controlled by the Hutu government preached hatred on a daily basis saying that the 'cockroaches', that is what they called the Tutsis, had to be eliminated. They also had Hutus in every village make lists of all the Tutsis. They supplied arms and machetes to the Hutus in every village.

The shooting down of the plane on April 6 appeared to be the signal for all Hutus to begin to carry out the planned extermination. It was only a few days before the news got out into the international press of the senseless, horrific, indiscriminate and brutal slaying of men, women and children of the Tutsi tribe.

The propaganda by the Hutu government was so complete with its hatred that it mesmerised the Hutus to turn friendly neighbours to murder the family next door only because they were Tutsis! The Hutus carried out the murders in a frenzy, hacking Tutsis to death with their machetes. The aftermath showing the mutilated bodies was filmed by international journalists.

I remember at the time expecting the United Nations and the international governments to intervene. Nothing happened!

The killing went on for 100 days and still the international community and the United Nations did nothing! It is estimated that between 800,000 and one million Tutsis were slaughtered!

I think it was about the second or third week of this dastardly and cowardly episode that our Premier of Bermuda received a request from the United Nations for it to send their committee on Decolonisation to Bermuda. The discussion was to determine whether Bermuda would give them permission to come.

I remember my reaction very well. This was for a bunch of UN personnel to come on a pleasant jaunt to beautiful Bermuda. Go to the beach and have a lovely holiday and write a report to UN to say that Bermuda should become Independent! This would be an obvious result because the UN had always promoted Independence, even though some members of the Security Council at that time, e.g. Russia had a number of satellites or colonies.

I remember objecting vociferously in a very emotional outburst, stating that I thought it absolutely ridiculous that the UN should be so absorbed in promoting this jaunt when thousands were being slaughtered in Rwanda. And they were doing nothing about it.

I have recently learned that the UN had a small peace-keeping force in Rwanda preceding April 6, 1994 under the command of a Canadian general. This commanding officer had intelligence of the preparations of the Hutu government and specifically of the four sites where they had stashed their weaponry and ammunition.

He had his second in command plan a raid to confiscate all four caches and thereby try to prevent what was about to happen. He naturally informed the United Nations of his plan and the rationale behind it.

In charge of this department at that time, to whom he had to report, was none other than the present Director General, Mr. Kofi Annan. The commander got an immediate reply instructing him not to proceed with his plan and telling him that such interference was not in his remit!

A few days later the general was so disturbed by what was about to take place that he sent another urgent message to the UN and got an immediate reply directly from Kofi Annan to immediately curb his activities.

The general asked for additional forces and this was also denied. (All of this was stated by the retired Canadian General on television last week. He still has nightmares about it.)

Last week Kofi Annan publicly apologised for his mistakes when he ignored the cry for help in Rwanda. One is left with the obvious question: Why did it take you ten years?

Yes, I do remember my emotional outburst very well. I had looked around at my colleagues. I was met with stony faces and no obvious support. I can only imagine that they wondered why I should be so upset about what was happening so far away. It was none of our business! And I really thought the United Nations would be in the forefront as our brothers' keeper.

MANY Bermudians continue to be baffled by the links the Progressive Labour Party Government is continuing to forge between the island and the Communist dictatorship in Cuba. They are right to be confused.

The PLP's decision to embrace Fidel Castro and his totalitarian regime are certainly not motivated by any sense of altruism for the oppressed people of Cuba. It strikes me that the private business interests of some PLP politicians are driving Bermuda's outreach to Castro, not the public interest. Be that as it may, in public the PLP Government, like politicians in other parts of the world, is parroting the stock argument that it is no longer realistic to think of Cuba as a major threat. In fact, this is a view shared by some Americans ? conservative included.

The argument runs that Castro, now a septuagenarian and not in the best of health, will not be around for too much longer. When he departs the scene, so claim the optimists, Cuba will evolve into a free market democracy.

But in a recent analysis entitled "Cuba The Morning After: Confronting Castro's Legacy", Cuba expert Mark Falcoff argues that the wreckage of Cuban society after more than 40 years of Castro's rule is so profound that the country, like Haiti, may never recover ? and that even lifting the US embargo will be of negligible benefit to the country.

Moreover, Falcoff argues, an economically unviable and otherwise dysfunctional Cuba with all the restraints removed could be a bigger threat to the Western Hemisphere than the island posed in its Communist heyday ? especially in the struggles against terrorism.

So why is Bermuda deciding to embrace this volatile, potential powder-keg of a country at this juncture?

Over the last few years we have read of widespread corruption (real or perceived) in Bermuda's Government, the gross mismanagement of taxpayers' money and rampant cronyism. And now this special PLP relationship with Cuba, one that has confused the Bermudian people, enraged the United States and further endangered the Bermudian economy when it has already emerged as a campaign issue during an American Presidential race.

The real mystery is not that the PLP has lived up to its advance billing as an inept and disorganised political entity (the late John Stubbs argued persuasively that the PLP, if elected, would not be able to organise a cattle crossing for even a single cow; based on the last five years of PLP rule of error, it would seem that Dr. Stubbs' skills as a prophet have been borne out by events).

No, the real mystery is that there are not more critics of a Government that runs roughshod over logic to such a degree. It is repulsive to see the Opposition, business organisations, churches (after all, Communists are ? by definition ? militantly atheistic), etc. sitting quietly by as the PLP continues to disrupt and destabilise Bermuda, especially now that we appear to be marching down the path to Independence. It is clear that many Bermudians have an imperfect knowledge of the consequences for tiny, remote islands in the middle of enormous oceans going it alone.

I could list numerous reasons why Bermuda should retain the admittedly imperfect rather than go to Independence under the current administration. But that falls outside the scope of this letter. Suffice it to say that change is not always progress ? as five years of PLP rule in Bermuda have made abundantly clear.

The Premier's belief that Independence should be decided at a General Election is a non-starter. What if both political parties support Independence?

The voter is then left with a Hobson's choice of deciding which partytake the island to sovereignty ? not determining whether or not the island be going Independent at all. No, the only way to resolve the question is to have a thoughtful, vigorous debate followed by a referendum. This is a decision that needs to be made by the people, not the politicians.