Regional
The forms of denial of Genocide against Tutsi and its mutation
Denial
of Genocide against Tutsi has increased in recent years with prominent
intellectuals and journalists finding a growing voice in the mainstream media
and academic institutions.
Many
of these forms of denial are intended to sow doubt about the veracity of the
history of the genocide without openly denying that it happened, so you often
hear phrases like we do not deny that there was a genocide however the
intention here is to distort, mislead and to deceive and it is crucial that we
remain vigilant and capable of recognising and responding to genocide denial in
whatever form it appears.
In
the last 28 years, the denial of the Genocide against Tutsi has had many forms
and changed according to the different events. For example, the denial
narrative before the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda is different from the denial narrative after main perpetrators,
including Prime Minister Jean Kambanda who pleaded guilty, have been
tried.
The
first form of the denial narrative is to deny that the genocide happened. They
deny the facts about genocide and its plan.
On
June 16, 1994, a security meeting that was convened in Rusiza Sector in the
former Mutura Commune currently in Rubavu District. We can read from the
minutes of the meeting which were signed by all attendees’ and distributed by
authorities: "There is a commission which will investigate the killings of
Tutsi, so we need to tell them that they moved to Zaire (Current DR of
Congo)". The meeting urged the population to erase all existing
signs of the homes of Tutsi such as fences and building foundations because
houses were destroyed before.
The
commission they were referring to was the visit of the UN Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights, Degni-Segui, and his delegation who was in
Rwanda and the region from 9-20 June 1994 to conduct his first field mission to
investigate violations of human rights particularly crimes against humanity and
genocide.
Note
that in the former Mutura Commune, the genocide lasted less than five days and
the militias were deployed for support in killings in former Gitarama and
Kibuye Communes. Those who were killed in Mutura are survivors of Bagogwe
massacres especially women and children because men were killed between
1990-1993.
The
information given during the security meeting of Rusiza Sector was shared in
the rest of the country. That was the directive of the genocidal government;
denial of the existence of Tutsi in their neighbourhood. This was the first
form of denial of the genocide against Tutsi which the genocidal government
spread especially to international organisations in the refugee camps.
The
second denial narrative is that killings are acknowledged but are recast as
something other than genocide. The killings were justified as self-defence,
part of civil war, or ethnic self-determination of the ‘majority’
population. The popularity of digital platforms such as Twitter
contributes to this form of genocide denial where the descendants of genocide
perpetrators, the dignitaries of Habyarimana’s regime are very active on this
platform. Engaging with this digital space demand huge amounts of energy and
genocide deniers are very committed.
By
interpreting a genocide as self-defence, or part of civil war and ethnic
self-determination by the ‘majority’ population, this denial narrative
conveniently amends the facts of genocide as something else.
The
third form of denial acknowledges that genocide took place, but involves
explicit counter-accusations to blame the Tutsi. This form of denial revives
conspiracy theories that preceded the genocide between 1991 and 1993 that the
Tutsi intended to wipe out the Hutu majority. In February 1991, Leon Mugesera
in collaboration with and some women parliamentarians published a pamphlet
claiming that the RPF planned “a genocide, the extermination of the Hutu
majority in the article titled “Toute la Verité sur la Guerre d’Octobre 1990 au
Rwanda”
This
fear-mongering was intended to justify the creation of so-called self-defence
militias, really death squads, like the notorious interahamwe, who in 1994 were
deployed to kill Tutsis in their homes, at roadblocks, even in schools,
hospitals, and places of worship.
Extreme deniers combine the second and third narrative forms of denial. Recently, one notorious genocide convict Capt Innocent Sagahutu who was recently released by International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT) brought a new form of denial where he distanced Interahamwe Militia to MRND and attributed them to the victims of the genocide carried out by those Interahamwe militia.
The denial of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda before, during and after the genocide itself was collective and highly organized. The greater the crime, the more elaborate and organized the denial. As President Kagame said; “If deniers have no shame, why should I have fear?” We should know that fighting genocide denial in all its forms is a full-time job.
Source: www.newtimes.co.rw