Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Breaking neuws: A Must See : RWANDA'S UNTOLD STORY that Leads Necessary to RETHINKING RWANDA





[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]




Stephen Sackur talks to Rwanda's president, Paul Kagame, The Rwandan Genocide mastermind


Kagame Hard Talk Video par Paul899


The killing Fields - Part 1


The killing Fields - Part1- Meilleur résolusion par xiao_wuu


The killing Fields - Part 2



The killing Fields - Part 3


The Killing Flields - Part 3 par xiao_wuu


 Prof . Allan Stam: Understanding the Rwanda Genocide - Full version



Documentary: RWANDA'S UNTOLD STORY


Rwanda's Untold Story Documentary from RDI-Rwanda Rwiza on Vimeo.

Rethinking Rwanda - Prof. Davenport


Peter Erlinder comments on the BBC documentary "Rwanda's Untold Story

 Isaiah 42-46: “Hear, you deaf.  Look, you blind, and see!
The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Rwanda : Pour le régime de P. Kagame, le documentaire de la BBC est une « affaire d’Etat » Pourquoi ?








[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]


Le 01 octobre2014, la chaîne britannique de télévision publique BBC Two a diffusé pour la première fois un documentaire intitulé « Rwanda’s Untold Story ».
Aussitôt, dans les cercles du pouvoir à Kigali, ce fut un tollé. Les réactions le plus souvent épidermiques et dictées par les services de propagande officiels ont éclaté dans tous les sens. A Kigali même, des jeunes « Intore », la milice du parti-Etat qu’est le FPR, a été jetée dans les rues pour scander des slogans hostiles à la BBC tout en chantant les louanges du président Kagame.  Les femmes aussi furent mises à contribution : des centaines parmi elles ont convergé vers le bureau local de la BBC dans un quartier de Kigali, mais certaines d’entre elles croyaient encore être là pour dénoncer «  l’Allemagne qui avait arrêté leur Rose Kabuye » !
A Londres, toutes les représentations du régime en Europe reçurent ordre d’acheminer des manifestants devant le siège de la BBC. Sur le plan des mesures gouvernementales, les émissions de la BBC en langue Kinyarwanda furent suspendues au Rwanda sans que l’on sache pourquoi étant donné que le documentaire est en anglais et qu’il est diffusé sur la seule chaîne TV accessible à quelques rares privilégiés rwandais. Mais, ce n’était pas fini car l’inénarrable ministre des Affaires étrangères et porte-parole du gouvernement Louise Mushikiwabo déclara entre-temps que son gouvernement étudiait encore la réponse à réserver à la BBC suite à cet « affront » fait au « Rwanda » et à son cher président Paul Kagame. Il semble que la fameuse réponse ne va pas tarder à venir puisque Kigali vient de mettre en place une Commission dite « Des experts pour analyser le documentaire de la BBC, Rwanda : Untold Storry ».
Avant de réfléchir sur la nécessité, de voir la mission et la composition pour le moins bizarre de cette Commission, il y a lieu de se poser la question de savoir pourquoi ce simple documentaire de quelques minutes a fait sortir de ses gonds un des régimes les plus prétentieux du monde. A défaut d’apporter une réponse absolue, force est de constater ce qui suit :
- Le petit documentaire s’attaque et fait écrouler les mythes fondateurs du régime du FPR-Inkotanyi, mythes dont il tire une légitimité à laquelle il ne pourrait jamais prétendre. En effet, jusqu’ici, la conquête du pouvoir par une armée étrangère était présentée comme une mission humanitaire « pour arrêter un génocide ».
Dans ce cadre, les mensonges du régime même les plus grossiers étaient tolérés sinon occultés par la même communauté internationale pour ne pas embarrasser leur protégé. C’est ainsi que les statistiques fantaisistes ont été admises comme fiables dès lors qu’elles allaient dans le sens de la propagande du FPR. Pour la première fois, le documentaire de la BBC a osé sortir de ce carcan, sans polémique,  mais par un raisonnement et des calculs élémentaires. 

- Paul Kagame étant l’auteur de l’élément déclencheur du génocide à savoir l’assassinat du président Habyarimana le 6 avril 1994, au lieu de se glorifier de cet « acte de guerre » comme il commençait à le clamer tout haut après le forfait, avait été sommé par ses complices et maîtres de tout nier et avait reçu toutes les assurances pour l’aider à en être disculpé. Le documentaire de la BBC lui ouvre les yeux et lui montre que ces grandes puissances qui l’ont poussé dans sa conquête du pouvoir savent tout ce qui s’est passé et sont à mesure de le révéler au monde quand bon leur semble.
- Avec les témoignages de personnalités comme Carla Del Ponte qui fut Procureur du Tribunal Pénal International pour le Rwanda (TPIR) et qui démontrent que Kagame et son FPR ont bénéficié d’une impunité voulue et exigée par les puissances qui pourtant étaient au courant des crimes que son armée commettait, n’augurent rien quant à l’avenir du dictateur et de son régime le moment où les mêmes puissances n’auront plus besoin de lui.
- Enfin, sur le plan interne, le documentaire détruit en quelques minutes la propagande du régime tutsi dans son entreprise de lavage des cerveaux et de chosification de la majorité hutu qui se caractérise par des campagnes et décisions controversées comme : le bannissement de la langue française dans l’enseignement sans transition ; la diabolisation des régimes d’avant 1994 et la réécriture de l’histoire du pays selon l’idéologie de l’UNAR ancêtre du FPR actuel parti-état ou la chasse aux opposants avec l’accusation vague et passe-partout de « véhiculer l’idéologie du génocide ».
Ce constat peut amener n’importe quel dictateur même le plus téméraire et inconscient à s’alarmer. Voilà pourquoi le documentaire de la BBC dérange au plus haut niveau le pouvoir dictatorial de Paul Kagame.

Une « Commission BBC » 

Comme on l’a vu, le régime vient de mettre en place une commission nationale chargée de se pencher sur le documentaire de la BBC. Sans autre précision sur sa mission, on peut supposer qu’elle doit rassembler les éléments pouvant amener le gouvernement rwandais à porter plainte contre la BBC et demander des dommages et intérêts et même plus loin servir de base à ce que des lois internationales  sanctionnent ce genre de publications, à savoir celle qui critiquerait le régime en place au Rwanda. Cependant en considérant la composition même de cette commission, nous pensons que le chemin est encore long et que ce n’est pas celle-ci qui contribuera à faire admettre au Monde que la propagande du FPR véhiculée depuis son invasion du Rwanda venant d’Ouganda en 1990 doit être prise comme «  la vérité absolue sur ce qui s’est passé au Rwanda ».
Composition de la « Commission BBC »

La commission est composée de cinq personnalités. Mais trois d’entre elles ont d’emblée attiré notre attention car leur profil permet de se faire une idée sur la qualité du rapport final qu’ils vont produire et la crédibilité à lui accorder.

Martin Ngoga

Ce tutsi qui est né et grandi en Tanzanie a été, après la prise du pouvoir du FPR, le représentant du Rwanda auprès du TPIR à Arusha. Il s’est alors distingué dans la chasse aux collaborateurs des avocats de la défense, à l’intimidation des témoins à décharge et à la mise en place d’un véritable « syndicat de délateurs » appelés abusivement témoins à charge. Il reçut alors une promotion spectaculaire et devint « Procureur général du Rwanda ».  A ce poste prestigieux, il se distingua dans la fabrication et la publication des listes sauvages de ceux qu’il appelait les « génocidaires » en alertant toutes les polices du monde notamment Interpol qui exécutait sans broncher ses injonctions. Il s’est avéré que sur ses listes figuraient même des personnes décédées bien avant 1990 mais dont les nouveaux maîtres du pays voulaient faire condamner pour s’emparer de leurs propriétés ou dissuader leurs proches de revenir au Rwanda tout en les déstabilisant dans les pays d’exil.
C’est sûrement lui qui va rédiger l’Acte d’Accusation dans des termes qui lui sont familiers quand il s’agit d’accuser les « génocidaires »  ou les « négationnistes ». Quelle crédibilité auront les conclusions du « Commissaire » Martin Ngoga ?

Mfizi Christophe

Ce hutu originaire de Gisenyi comme l’ancien président Habyarimana fut pendant plus de 15 ans le tout puissant directeur de l’Office Rwandais d’Information (ORINFOR), le service étatique qui gérait les médias notamment la Radio Rwanda ainsi que la presse écrite du régime. Il fit sensation quand à la faveur du multipartisme, il changea son fusil d’épaule pour rejoindre l’opposition naissante qui flirtait avec la rébellion du FPR qui avait attaqué le pays à partir d’Ouganda en octobre 1990. Christophe Mfizi, pour ses talents littéraires, fut alors mis à profit pour diaboliser le président Habyarimana qui, malgré tout, restait populaire dans la population. L’on se souviendra de son fameux pamphlet « Ikiguri-Nunga » ou « Le Réseau Zéro » dans lequel il « révélait » ou inventait l’existence d’une organisation criminelle évoluant dans le cercle restreint du président Habyarimana. Une dizaine d’années plus tard, le même Christophe Mfizi était confondu devant le TPIR et il fut incapable d’établir formellement l’existence de son fameux « Réseau Zéro » dont l’un des membres présumé alors jugé parle le TPIR était principalement accusé d’appartenir. Il fut si confus que le Procureur du TPIR n’osa pas présenter  son rapport d’expertise comme pièce à conviction, malgré que Christophe Mfizi  avait perçu une somme de 10.000 dollars pour élaborer ce document fantaisiste intitulé « Le Réseau zéro B ». L’accusé, dont au passage le nom avait servi à Mfizi de donner le titre à son pamphlet de 1991, fut acquitté de tous les chefs d’accusations. Auparavant Christophe Mfizi aura acquis le titre « à vie » d’Ambassadeur, puisqu’en 1994, en guise de remerciement, le FPR après sa prise du pouvoir, le nomma Ambassadeur du Rwanda à Paris. Arrivé à son poste, il se rendit à l’évidence : il n’était qu’un faire-valoir. En effet il était constamment humilié par ses «  subordonnés formels » mais en réalités ses patrons car ils étaient des tutsi venus d’Ouganda. On raconte même qu’il lui arrivait d’être giflé par son chauffer ! De guerre lasse, il démissionna et demanda l’asile politique en France. Hélas !, confronté aux aléas de la vie de réfugié auxquels s’ajoutaient les problèmes d’ordre privé, C.Mfizi se résolut à refaire allégeance à Paul Kagame qui, dans son « indulgence proverbiale », le reprit parmi les Hutu de service.
Voici l’homme qui est ajourd'hui appelé à juger le documentaire de la BBC et à faire des recommandations au gouvernement de Kagame. Quelle crédibilité sera-t-elle accordé aux recommandations du vieux Mfizi vus son parcours et surtout sa situation actuelle ?

Evode Uwizeyimana

Alors là, avec Evode Uwizeyimana, le FPR a touché le fond du ridicule. Voici un garçon qui, il y a encore quelques mois, d’abord comme un « jeune  juriste vivant au Canada », ne tarissait pas de reproches envers le régime du FPR surtout sur les antennes de la …BBC ; voici un mec qui, il y a à peine quelques mois, était membre du parti d’opposition RDI Rwanda Rwiza, mis en place par l’ancien Premier ministre Faustin Twagiramungu, n’a cessé de pourfendre le régime pour ses crimes et diverses violations des droits de l’homme ; voici un homme qui, après un problème familiale qu’il eut au Canada, a négocié et obtenu son retour au Rwanda où il fut nommé « Conseiller » au ministère de la Justice et qui, dans sa première interview à Kigali, n’a pas nié ses prises de positions antérieures hostiles au régime  et a évoqué la prescription et le classement sans suite...  Et c’est ce même homme qui doit juger, en tant que « spécialiste du droit », le documentaire de la BBC ! Quelle crédibilité accorder aux considérations de « Maître » Evode Uwizeyimana ?

En conclusion

Le régime Kagame a certes été touché et ébranlé dans  ses fondements par le documentaire de la BBC « Rwanda's Untold Story ». Mais ses réactions sont ridicules, disproportionnées et non productives. Il en va de même de cette « Commission » composée de personnalités qui peuvent se revendiquer de tout comme  l’arbitraire (Martin Ngoga), la mesquinerie ( Christophe Mfizi) et l’opportunisme primaire (Evode Uwizeyimana) ; mais surtout pas de commissaires indépendants. On croyait qu’après 20 ans de pouvoir et 24 ans de propagande mensongère, le FPR pouvait nous réserver mieux dans sa lutte pour sa survie. Hélas !, c’est raté.

Jane Mugeni

05/11/2014

The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Sunday, November 2, 2014

African survivors survives on donations














The blog of African Survivors International is like a library or a public park where we can all go to think, learn and get the trustful information about the Truth on Rwanda.
African survivors survives on donations averaging about €10.

Now is the time we ask. If everyone reading this right now gave €2, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.
The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Monday, October 27, 2014

Geachte heer Teeven, waarom wordt deze man van genocide beticht?










Rwandan political prisoner Victoire Ingabire has filed an appeal to the African Court of Human and People's Rights in Arusha, Tanzania.



Lin Muyizere (49) uit Rwanda dreigt zijn Nederlandse paspoort te verliezen vanwege beschuldigingen van betrokkenheid bij genocide. De bewijzen zijn flinterdun en in Rwanda loopt hij groot gevaar. Deel 1 van een tweeluik over actuele asieldrama’s.

Geachte heer Teeven, waarom wordt deze man van genocide beticht?


Excellentie,
Meneer de staatssecretaris,
Geachte heer Teeven,

Twee weken geleden heb ik in de buurt van Rotterdam CS een colaatje gedronken met een genocidepleger. Althans, dat vinden uw diensten. Lin Muyizere, een Rwandese vader van 49 die al twintig jaar in Nederland woont en Nederlands staatsburger is, zuchtte en schoof mij het dossier van de IND toe. Hij had het enkele dagen daarvoor per aangetekende post ontvangen.


‘De unit 1F van de IND heeft onderzoek ingesteld naar uw mogelijke betrokkenheid bij de genocide in Rwanda,’ stond er. ‘Genoemde unit 1F heeft een beoordeling uitgebracht en geconcludeerd dat er ernstige redenen zijn om te veronderstellen dat u zich schuldig heeft gemaakt, dan wel verantwoordelijk bent te houden voor één of meerdere gedragingen als genoemd in artikel 1F van het Vluchtelingenverdrag. […] Gezien het bovenstaande ben ik van oordeel dat u op onjuiste gronden het Nederlanderschap is verleend.’

Lin Muyizere keek mij doodmoe aan. ‘Ik heb zes weken tijd om te reageren. Ik heb drie kinderen, de jongste is twaalf. Als ze mijn nationaliteit afpakken, kan ik teruggestuurd worden naar Rwanda. Dan vlieg ik onmiddellijk de gevangenis in. Of word ik vermoord.'

The lady in pink


<

Verstaat u mij niet verkeerd, meneer de staatssecretaris. Ik ben niet het type dat moord en brand schreeuwt zodra een asielaanvraag geweigerd wordt. Ik begrijp dat anno 2014 asiel en migratie buitengewoon complexe materies zijn waarin de overheid heldere keuzes dient te maken tussen nationale belangen en individuele noden. Tussen schrijnende verhalen en verzonnen miserie.

Maar Lin Muyizere, meneer de staatssecretaris! Weet u wel wie hij is? Laat mij het u vertellen: hij is de echtgenoot van de beroemdste dissidente in Rwanda, Victoire Ingabire, de lady in pink.Roze is de kleur van het gevangenisplunje in Rwanda. Deze bevlogen, strijdlustige vrouw keerde na zeventien jaar ballingschap in Nederland in 2010 vrijwillig terug om deel te nemen aan de presidentsverkiezingen.
Zover kwam het niet. Haar medestanders werden op alle mogelijke manieren geboycot, gesaboteerd en gemolesteerd; zijzelf werd gearresteerd en veroordeeld tot vijftien jaar onvoorwaardelijke hechtenis in een proces dat met haken en ogen aaneen hing. Ze zit nu vier jaar in de gevangenis. En nu wilt u haar man de Nederlandse nationaliteit afnemen, terwijl het Rwandese regime bekendstaat om het intimideren van familieleden van dissidenten?




The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Sunday, October 26, 2014

What Really Happened in the Ugly, Bloody Chaos of Rwanda?








[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International]


What Really Happened in the Ugly, Bloody Chaos of Rwanda?



For approximately 14 years, GenoDynamics has been attempting to understand exactly who did what to whom in Rwanda during 1994 with an emphasis on evidenced-based research.  What we know is that there was a significant amount of violence.  What we do not know as well is exactly who was engaged in what activity at what time and at what place.
Professor Allan Stam, University of Michigan
To shed some light on these issues, our research consulted numerous sources both inside as well as outside Rwanda.  Some sources directly interviewed/surveyed victims and survivors in Rwanda or refugee camps outside of it, asking them exactly what they lived through.  Other sources interviewed/surveyed bystanders, asking them what they saw as well as who was lost and how.  Still other sources interviewed perpetrators, asking them what they did and why.  Some of the data collection was conducted by ourselves (e.g., focus groups of civilians, interviews with civilians as well as genocidaires and a survey in Butare).  Some of the data was compiled by others: e.g., the Rwandan government, the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), Human Rights Watch, African Rights and Ibuka.  

Our research was funded by the National Science Foundation and undertaken with partners at the University of Maryland (the Center for International Development and Conflict Management as well as Government and Politics), Dartmouth College, the National University of Rwanda at Butare (The Centre for Conflict Management), The University of Notre Dame, the University of Michigan, the Office of the Prosecutor as well as the Office of the Defense at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.  

On this webpage, we provide a summary of our work thus far, the sources employed, the methodology used to combine them, the data that emerged from our efforts as well as responses to the project that we received.  In addition to this, you will find animations of diverse phenomenon relevant to the topic, links to other data that is generally not made available to the public as well as photographs of Rwanda that we took while in the field.   

GenoDynamics makes all of this information available in order to facilitate the systematic and transparent examination of what took place during 1994.  One of the difficulties with comprehending what occurred is that very few have had access to the information necesary to make an informed opinion.  Only by making all raw materials available are we able to overcome this problem.  We encourage all of those studying and interested in the Rwandan case to do the same.  There are still many data sources that have not been released (we will start listing them at the beginning of 2015 on our new blog regarding Rwandan political violence [forthcoming]).  This lack of disclosure and transparency has hindered analysis, discussion as well as truth.

Sincerely

    Christian Davenport - Political Science & Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan

    Allan Stam - Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia


What's New on the webpage that merits a relaunch?  A great deal actually.
  • Our commune level data is now available
  • We provide some background as well as the resonance of our recent feature in the BBC documentary
  • We eliminated dead links
  • We provide our original materials employed in our analyses (a few more need to be digitized)
  • We provide our earlier efforts to document, understand and map violence
  • We provide additional animations regarding troop movements and different ways of viewing the violence (e.g., under 100 deaths per day, under 500, under 1000, over 1000, over 5000 and over 10000, dichotomized and categorical)
  • We provide numerous presentation slides from different presentations offered
  • We provide new data: the Rwandan census from 2002, migration data, ICTR case evaluations as well as extradition lists
  • We also provide new resources: an annotated bibliography of 300+ articles (more are on the way)
  • We have initiated a blog to provide updates about what has changed
<

Project Summary

While there are many issues we seek to understand, thus far we have concluded several things about the violence that took place in Rwanda during 1994: 1) there were several forms of political violence being enacted at once (genocide - mass killing of an ethnic group, politicide - mass killing of a political group [moderate Hutus], civil war [between the invading Rwandan Patriotic Front and Rwandan government], random violence and vendetta/reprisal killings), 2) the extremist Hutu government as well as the Rwandan Patriotic Front engaged in violent activity against Rwandan citizens (i.e., civilian targetting)  and 3) the majority of victims were likely Hutu and not Tutsi.  

These findings have implications for public policy, advocacy, humanitarian intervention as well as post-conflict reconstruction as they fundamentally shift our understandings regarding the “lessons” of Rwanda 1994.  A more detailed discussion of our three points developed several years ago are found here.

At present, we are writing up our research findings in two formats: 1) an academic article for submission to a peer reviewed article and 2) a more popular book which discusses our now 14/15 year effort to understand what took place in 1994.  As these are completed, drafts will be placed on this site and our respective webpages.


Why has it taken us so long to finish?  Fourteen years is a long time.  There are several reasons for this.  First, we believe that despite the fact that we are not always producing scholarship at the pace of popular and political debates, it is better to take time and be as close to accurate as one can be.  This is the best way to honor those that have passed.  Collecting source material, interviewing individuals, comparing information and then rechecking it all takes time.  In addition to this, new source material has become available over time and sometimes this prompts us to modify something. Some times it does not.  Second, we began our research with an effort to understand what took placed in Rwanda during 1994 and we were naive in believing that that was the interest of all that we came across as well as most that engaged in similar work. This assumption has not been uniformly accurate and the growing pains with this realization took some time to deal with.  Third, we have not been disengaged or uninformative. Specifically, we feel that making our research and research process as transparent as possible (by posting information as it is being compiled) and taking advantage of the technology available to us (e.g., the internet and webpages) has allowed us communicate to an audience in a way that more traditional models of scholarship do not facilitate.  Rather than simply work on a project for ten years in silence and then publish our work in the often inaccessible prose of academia while real-world discussions about Rwandan political violence are underway, we chose to provide some insights and data as we were completing our more traditional effort. 

In addition to completing the work identified above, Davenport has begun an investigation into what has been taking place both in the ICTR as well as around the world with regard to the identification of alleged perpetrators.  This has involved not only a review of what has taken place in the ICTR but also an evaluation of who has been accused, who is looking for them, who has been found and what happened to them after detection.  This will result in a few academic articles.  The relevant data generated thus far are posted on this webpage.


The Twentieth Anniversary of Rwandan Violence in 1994 (2014)

At the 20th anniversary of the political violence in Rwanda during 1994 many things had stayed the same since the 15th anniversary.  On the one hand, the world came together to mourn one of the most horrific events in human history: the genocide of ethnic Tutsi that took place in 1994.  On the other hand, barely anyone came forward to discuss the other violence that occurred during the same year.  Part of the reason for this neglect was clear.  The current Rwandan government has outlawed the discussion of any other form of violence - especially if the number of casualties begins to approach the number of ethnic Tutsi killed in the genocide.  Accordingly, 

     Under the Rwandan constitution, "revisionism, negationism and trivialisation of genocide" are criminal offences.[275]    
     Hundreds of people have been tried and convicted for "genocide ideology", "revisionism", and other laws ostensibly 
     related to the genocide. Of the 489 individuals convicted of "genocide revisionism and other related crimes" in 2009, 
     five were sentenced to life imprisonment, a further five were sentenced to more than 20 years in jail, 99 were 
     sentenced to 10–20 years in jail, 211 received a custodial sentence of 5–10 years, and the remaining 169 received 
     jail terms of less than five years.[276] Amnesty International has criticized the Rwandan government for using these 
     laws to "criminalize legitimate dissent and criticism of the government."[277] In 2010, even an American law 
     professor and attorney, Peter Erlinder, was arrested in Kigali and charged with genocide denial while defending 
     presidential candidate Victoire Ingabire against charges of genocide.[278] - Wikipedia entry for Rwandan Genocide 
     (October 8, 2014)

Despite such laws as well as behavior relevant to sanctioning those who are believed to violate it, discussion has begun to emerge.  In part this has been due to the post-genocidal violent activities of the existing Rwandan government in the Congo (under the leadership of Paul Kagame).  While under the framework of finding those who engaged in genocidal activities in 1994, it is not always clear that violent activities undertaken in this region can be linked to genocidal violence.  Restrictions on political and civil liberties within Rwanda (indexed by Freedom House or the Cingranelli and Richards Human Rights Measure) have not returned at a pace that many deem reasonable. And, political opponents to the Kagame regime often end up being treated in a somewhat violent or coercive manner.  Many will speak of the requirements of bringing political and economic development as this is believed to involve some political violence.  What is interesting however is the discussion of exactly how much violence is accepted along the way as one attempts to build their society?  How many individuals are allowed to be killed both domestically and internationally in order to build a nation state?  These conversations are only just beginning.

Not only should one look after 1994 to frame their discussions.  There is also the issue that there was essentially little political violence being directed against anyone in Rwanda prior to the invasion - neither Tutsi or Hutu.  Consulting the Political Terror Scale database which documents personal integrity violations within countries from 1976 to the present, it is clear that it is not until 1990 that human rights violations in Rwanda become relatively violent.  The scale itself is described here.  This prompt some interesting questions.  For example, if there was no political violence before the international invasion, then how should we frame what takes place after 1989?  Were the Tutsi in the country somehow communicating that life for them was unlivable and the RPF were simply responding to this call?  If this is the case, where is that information?  This is another discussion that we are beginning to have.  Granted the issues now being raised are a bit more complicated than the ones that we have been having in the communities examining Rwandan violence in particular and those that have been examining violence as well as governance more broadly conceived.  At the twentieth anniversary, however, we believe that these are the discussions that we need to start having. This is one of the reasons why we participated in the new BBC documentary "Rwanda's Untold Story" (which we imagine will be available on and then removed from the internet for quite some time until it comes to the US - if it comes).  

Statements/Reflections regarding 15th and 10th anniversaries of the violence



The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine

Saturday, October 18, 2014

MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY





[Since 1994, the world witnesses the horrifying Tutsi minority (14%) ethnic domination, the Tutsi minority ethnic rule with an iron hand, tyranny and corruption in Rwanda. The current government has been characterized by the total impunity of RPF criminals, the Tutsi economic monopoly, the Tutsi militaristic domination, and the brutal suppression of the rights of the majority of the Rwandan people (85% are Hutus)and mass arrests of Hutus by the RPF criminal organization =>AS International




Have you read Dr. Charles Kambanda's analysis of Linda Malvern's letter to BBC? It will undoubtedly send chills down Linda's spine.
___________
Sneak peek:
___________
"Ms. Melvern and her group miss on some important facts about the militia, including the Interahamwe, some of who committed the horrible massacres.
(i) It is wrong to think that all interahamwe were Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. Referring to all interahamwe as Hutu militia is a misstatement of fact. The interahamwe boss in charge of recruitment and politics - Robert Kajuga – was Tutis and so were a significant number of the interahamwe
(ii) When Rwanda embraced multiparty politics in 1991, each political party had its own “Youth Wing to animate party meetings, organize and mobilize for the party. MRND (the then ruling party’s Youth Wing was called Interahamwe. PSD (another political party) had Abakombozi as its Youth Wing. MDR’s Youth Wing was called Inkuba. PL’s Youth Wing was called Jeunes liberaux. As the war and party politics progressed, each Rwandan community -including political parties and their youth wings – developed “radical groups”.
(iii) There is overwhelming evidence that some members of each political youth wing/militia participated in the 1994 massacres and that each political party militia was hostile against others. Reducing these militia groups to “Hutu militia” is distortion of facts.
(iv) There is proof of, and the type of war RPA/F was engaged in against the then government dictate that, RPA/F cadres infiltrated all political parties’ militia as early as 1991. Probably, some of these RPA/F infiltrators engaged in the 1994 massacres.
(v) There is sufficient evidence that by the time of the 1994 massacres, all political parties of that time, including RPF, had some ‘radicalized’ members and militia. Therefore, simplifying the phenomenon of who killed who during such circumstance, like Ms. Melvern appears to suggest, is inconsistent with qualitative research approach."
-
"Ms. Melvern and her group should inquire, from the government of Rwanda, about the 2004/2005 household-to-household nationwide survey of the Tutsi who died during the massacres. Why did the government of Rwanda and donors invest so much money in a survey whose findings were never made public? Who had interest in not publishing that survey? Wouldn’t have made a good argument for Kagame, who has paraded human skulls for tourists throughout the country, to show a breakdown of village by village Tutsi who died during the massacres? Interestingly, every apart of Rwanda has skulls of the 1994 massacres victims. However, by April 1994 when the massacres started, RPF had significant territory under their control. How did the “Hutu” penetrate RPA/F held territory to massacre the “Tutsi”? Why there isn’t any District in Rwanda without the 1994 massacres victim skulls yet a significant chunk of Rwandan territory was under RPF control? Inquiring into these and other critical questions is what Ms. Melvern calls “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern’s world. Ridiculous"
-
"Inconsistent statistics argument: Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that the entire post-independence Rwandan population census reports indicated the ethnic and religious affiliation of each Rwandan. The last population census before the 1994 massacres took place in 1991. The 1991 Rwanda population census indicate that the total population was 6.2 million people; 14% Tutsi, 84% Hutu and 1% Twa and others. No post-independence Rwandan population census report had bigger figures than the 1991 population census report. However, after the 1994 massacres, the total number of the people butchered is put at 1.3 million people – in any case, well above 1 million people were brutality butchered. The number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres stood at around 350,000 people. The proper equation, for purposes of determining the number of the Tutsi who died during the1994 massacres should be: 14% of the total population – (minus) the total number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres."
______________
Full text below:
______________
MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY
To : Mr. Tony Hall,
Director of BBC Board Casting House
Portland Place, London W1A 1AA
UK
FROM: Charles KM Kambanda, PhD.
Attorney and Counsel-at-law, New York, US
October, 15th, 2014
RE: MY ANALYSIS OF Ms. MELVERN, THE THIRTY-EIGHT RESEARCHERS AND JOUNALISTS’ REBUTTAL OF RWANDA’S UNTOLD STORY BBC DOCUMENTARY:

Introduction:
I am writing to you as a Rwandan researcher, human rights defender and an Officer of Court in New York State; I am bound by the Constitutional Oath of Office. I taught at the National University and other institutions of higher learning in Rwanda for over a decade after the 1994 massacres. I am writing from my firsthand and lived experience of the unfortunate Hutu/Tutsi conflict. I am a Rwandan who was born to a Rwandan refugee family in Uganda. I supported RPF before, during and after the 1990 war. Like many other Rwandans, I lost countless family relations to the massacres in Rwanda. I am a Rwandan scholar – based in the United States of America – who is interested in sustainable peace and co-existence between and/or among the diverse people of Rwanda. I belong to no Rwandan political party. It is my submission that no side to the insane Tutsi vs. Hutu conflict is exclusively for victims or perpetrators of the senseless crimes that have characterized these two, generally, hostile groups. Both sides to the armed conflict committed horrible massacres before, during and after the 1994 massacres.
Accept my heartfelt gratitude and respect for the BBC team that prepared the famous Rwanda’s Untold Story documentary. The BBC team that worked on this documentary did a tremendous job documenting the background and the intricate web of the crimes both sides allegedly committed during, before and after the 1994 horrific massacres. What your team did is investigative journalism; Descartes (the great French philosopher) called it the Methodical doubt. In the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ says “the Truth will set us free”. The producer of the documentary dug deep into the truth which different parties to the Rwandan conflict do not want the world to know because that truth will set people free. The BBC, as an institution, deserves credit for the great film. It is my submission that Ms. Melvern and her group’s “rebuttal” of the BBC documentary should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
A. Inquiry into the causes, manner, perpetrators and victims of the long and bloody Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict in Burundi and Rwanda before, during and after the 1994 massacres in Rwanda is not a closed chapter as Ms. Melvern’s missive appears to suggest.
The 1994 massacres occurred within the context of a bloody ethnic civil war between the Hutu (a Hutu dominated government) and Tutsi (Tutsi dominated rebels). There are well documented ethnic based massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi before and after the 1994 massacres. The well documented Tutsi/Hutu massacres include:
(i) The 1993 Burundian massacres where the Tutsi butchered the Hutu.
(ii) The Gersony, UNCHR sponsored report which detailed the insane massacred RPF /A perpetrated against the Hutu under the then Tutsi rebels held territory.
(iii) RPF/A (predominantly Tutsi) slaughter of internally displaced Hutu refugees camp.
(iv) Some Tutsi and some Hutu militia on-slaughter of the Tutsi and the Hutu during the 1994 massacres.
(v) RPF/A slaughter of the Hutu in Congo (both native DRC Hutu and Rwandan Hutu refugees as documented by the UN Mapping Report).
Investigating the similarities and differences between these reoccurring insane massacres between the Hutu and Tutsi without favor is, in my opinion, not only necessary but also a noble cause. The documentary does exactly that. Apparently, any objective inquiry into these crimes is what Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers call “[using] current events to either negate or to diminish the genocide… to promote genocide denial”. All the above well documented crimes, committed by the same people against the same people in different places and time, create an unequivocal need for social research. Social research is a continuum. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest that their research finding on these complex social political phenomena in the Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict is conclusive.
B. Ms. Melvern and her team resort to name calling instead of addressing the substantive issues the interviewees, individually, and the entire documentary raised. In most instances, Ms. Melvern and her group do not substantiate their generalized attacks on the individual interviewees, the BBC and the documentary producers
Ms. Melvern and her group characterize the BBC documentary as “old claims […] similar material using similar language [that is] part of an on-going Hutu power campaign of genocide denial”. This is an absurd approach especially for social science researchers and journalists for various reasons:
(i) The BBC documentary, as the title of the documentary suggests, was intended to interview different people with rarely mentioned personal experience of what happened in Rwanda during, before and after the 1994 massacres. Such statements must be as old as the events the statements describe if those statements are proper representation of what happened. Therefore, whether those statements are “old claims” is a tautology. How would statements explaining what happened 20 or so years ago be “brand-new” statements for every BBC viewer of the program?
(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group deliberately apply “Hutu power”, term with no known definition to confuse their readers. What’s Hutu power? What is the composition of Hutu power? Where is Hutu power? Research methodology and formal logic prohibit use of unknown and undefined terms for any purpose, especially while addressing critical social problems.
Ms. Melvern and her group of journalists and researchers claim that “the parts of the film which concern the 1994 genocide, far from providing BBC viewers with an ‘Untold Story’ as the title promises, are old claims”. This is a serious allegation against the BBC “on behalf of BBC viewers”. This allegation implies that Ms. Melvern and her group met “BBC viewers” and Ms. Melvern and her group are authorized agents of the “BBC viewers” to complain to the BBC on behalf of what Ms. Melvern calls the BBC viewers. Is Ms. Melvern or any individual signatory to their letter the “BBC viewers” and so the signatory are complaining to the BBC for having viewed “old claims”? Are these researchers who signed the letter presenting their perception of the BBC documentary as “old claims”? Is Ms. Melvern presenting “some” or “all” BBC viewers’ perception of documentary? Did Ms. Melvern and the researchers who signed the letter purposively fail to distribute their term “BBC viewers” properly? Is Ms. Melvern unfamiliar with the rules on distribution of terms? Why didn’t they distribute their term “BBC viewers” so that the readers know, with substantial certainty, the scope of the “BBC viewers” these researchers are referring to?
Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “at the heart of this [Hutu power] campaign are convicted génocidaires, some of their defen[s]e lawyers from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and their supporters and collaborators … like the programme … The BBC programme Rwanda’s Untold Story recycles their arguments and provides them with another platform to create doubt and confusion about what really happened”. This is absurd ad hominem because:
(i) A reasonable person would not confuse the person, ideas and research, of defense counsel with the client’s real or alleged crimes. Ms. Melvern and her fellow researchers appear to impute the ICTR “convicted genocidaire” some ICTR defense counsels.
(ii) Carl Del Ponte, the former ICTR prosecutor, Michael Hourigan who was an investigator and prosecutor at ICTR, among others scholars wrote widely about the ICTR’s cover up of the RPA/F crimes during the 1994 massacres.
(iii) Ms. Melvern and her group know or they should know for sure, that the BBC documentary producer did not interview any ICTR convict. How do the distinguished researchers, who signed the letter, relate the BBC documentary interviewees’ testimony with ICTR “convicted genocidaires”?
(iv) Courtesy and common sense requires Ms. Melvern and her group to explain how the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” exercised undue influence and pressure over the documentary interviewees. Is it rational that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires”, as Ms. Melvern and the group put it, would influence a significant number of society as to form what Ms. Melvern appears to call a global campaign of supporters and collaborators to create doubts and confusion about what happened?
(v) The documentary producer interviewed Rwandans and other nationals. Some of the interviewees are Tutsi and former RPF/A members. How did the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” recruit these Tutsi 1990/1994 war opponents into supporters and collaborators? Aren’t Ms. Melvern and her group oversimplifying very complex issues under cover over of their deliberate ad hominem?
(vi) The documentary features prominent non-Rwandan scholars and legal practitioners. Ms. Melvern and her group conveniently dismiss all these prominent professionals’ views under a terribly sweeping statement “all of those professionals are supporters and collaborators of the ICTR convicted genocidaire”. Ordinarily, social researchers and journalists avoid sweeping statements. How do the “convicted genocidaire” influence a cross section of people – including prominent professionals like lawyers and academics the documentary producers interviewed?
C. What Ms. Melvern and her group calls the three lies of the documentary are real controversies among Rwandans and social science researchers. These contentious issues are proper subject matter for social research and investigative journalism.
Ms. Melvern and her group cite what they call lies in the BBC Documentary as “[…] lie about the true nature of the Hutu Power militia […] an attempt to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered in the genocide, […] an effort to place the blame for shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994 on the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF)”. Each of the three accusations, which Ms. Melvern and her group call “BBC Documentary lies”, deserves thorough analysis for validity and truth.
1. On the true nature of the Hutu power militia
Ms. Melvern and her groups argue that “the BBC documentary allows a witness to claim that ‘only ten percent of the Interahamwe (militia) were killers. In fact, the majority of Hutu Power militia forces – estimated to have been 30,000 strong – were trained specifically to kill Tutsi at speed, and indoctrinated in a racist ideology, part of genocide planning. There is eyewitness testimony by several militia leaders who cooperated with the ICTR”.
First, it is absurd to discredit the entire documentary or issue therein because “one of the interviewees made a mistake in [his] quantitative estimation” of the internahamwe who allegedly perpetrated the massacres. Interestingly, Ms Melvern protests the BBC interviewee’s estimation of the number of the Interahamwe by introducing her own estimation about the number of the internahamwe. Why does Ms. Melvern want her readers to believe her estimates, not the BBC interviewee’s estimations of the interahamwe numbers? Second, Ms. Melvern and her group miss on some important facts about the militia, including the internahame, some of who committed the horrible massacres.
(i) It is wrong to think that all interahamwe were Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. Referring to all interahamwe as Hutu militia is a misstatement of fact. The interahamwe boss in charge of recruitment and politics - Robert Kajuga – was Tutis and so were a significant number of the interahamwe
(ii) When Rwanda embraced multiparty politics in 1991, each political party had its own “Youth Wing to animate party meetings, organize and mobilize for the party. MRND (the then ruling party’s Youth Wing was called Interahamwe. PSD (another political party) had Abakombozi as its Youth Wing. MDR’s Youth Wing was called Inkuba. PL’s Youth Wing was called Jeunes liberaux. As the war and party politics progressed, each Rwandan community -including political parties and their youth wings – developed “radical groups”.
(iii) There is overwhelming evidence that some members of each political youth wing/militia participated in the 1994 massacres and that each political party militia was hostile against others. Reducing these militia groups to “Hutu militia” is distortion of facts.
(iv) There is proof of, and the type of war RPA/F was engaged in against the then government dictate that, RPA/F cadres infiltrated all political parties’ militia as early as 1991. Probably, some of these RPA/F infiltrators engaged in the 1994 massacres.
(v) There is sufficient evidence that by the time of the 1994 massacres, all political parties of that time, including RPF, had some ‘radicalized’ members and militia. Therefore, simplifying the phenomenon of who killed who during such circumstance, like Ms. Melvern appears to suggest, is inconsistent with qualitative research approach.


2. Ms. Melvern and her group’s argument on Rwanda’s population statistics before the 1994 massacres is false and invalid. Ms. Melvern and her group use inadmissible evidence to support their argument
Ms. Melvern and her group argue that “the programme [the BBC documentary] attempts to minimize the number of Tutsi murdered, a typical tactic of genocide deniers. The false figures cited are provided by two US academics who worked for a team of lawyers defending the génocidaires at the ICTR. They even claim that in 1994 more Hutu than Tutsi were murdered – an absurd suggestion and contrary to all the widely available research [reports]”.
Inconsistent statistics argument:
Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that the entire post-independence Rwandan population census reports indicated the ethnic and religious affiliation of each Rwandan. The last population census before the 1994 massacres took place in 1991. The 1991 Rwanda population census indicate that the total population was 6.2 million people; 14% Tutsi, 84% Hutu and 1% Twa and others. No post-independence Rwandan population census report had bigger figures than the 1991 population census report. However, after the 1994 massacres, the total number of the people butchered is put at 1.3 million people – in any case, well above 1 million people were brutality butchered. The number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres stood at around 350,000 people. The proper equation, for purposes of determining the number of the Tutsi who died during the1994 massacres should be: 14% of the total population – (minus) the total number of Tutsi survivors of the massacres.
For unknown reasons, Ms. Melvern wants her audience to rely on reports and/or stories, made/told after the 1994 massacres, to ascertain the country’s population’s statistics before 1994. The only proper authority when in issue is the population statistic of a country, is that country’s population census. How does the world end up with over one million Tutsi dead and about 350,000 Tutsi survivors yet the Tutsi were only 14% of a population of 6.2 million people? Even if all the 14% Tutsi had been killed, it was impossible to have the over 1 million human skulls “Tutsi victims” that are paraded in genocide memorial centers. Is it possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but they ended up killing themselves more than they killed their “target”, the Tutsi? Seeking for answers to such clear statistical inconsistences is called “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern and his fellow researchers’ world. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to push all these inconsistences down their readers’ throat because “some reports say so”. This, in my considered view, is undermining human intelligibility.
Ms. Melvern and her group should inquire, from the government of Rwanda, about the 2004/2005 household-to-household nationwide survey of the Tutsi who died during the massacres. Why did the government of Rwanda and donors invest so much money in a survey whose findings were never made public? Who had interest in not publishing that survey? Wouldn’t have made a good argument for Kagame, who has paraded human skulls for tourists throughout the country, to show a breakdown of village by village Tutsi who died during the massacres? Interestingly, every apart of Rwanda has skulls of the 1994 massacres victims. However, by April 1994 when the massacres started, RPF had significant territory under their control. How did the “Hutu” penetrate RPA/F held territory to massacre the “Tutsi”? Why there isn’t any District in Rwanda without the 1994 massacres victim skulls yet a significant chunk of Rwandan territory was under RPF control? Inquiring into these and other critical questions is what Ms. Melvern calls “genocide denial” in Ms. Melvern’s world. Ridiculous
3. Ms. Melvern and her group twist facts about shooting down the plane of the then Hutu president, which is widely believed to have triggered the 1994 massacres
Ms. Melvern and her group claim that the BBC film “argues that the shooting down of the plane on April 6, 1994 was perpetrated by the RPF. This same story was promoted by Hutu Power extremists within a few hours of the president’s assassination and promoted ever since by génocidaires and a few ICTR defense lawyers. The film pays no heed to a detailed expert report published in January 2012 by a French magistrate Judge Marc Trévidic. This contains evidence from French experts, including crash investigators, who proved scientifically that the missiles that shot down the plane came from the confines of the government-run barracks in Kanombe on the airport’s perimeter – one of the most fortified places in the country, and where it would have been impossible for the RPF, armed with a missile, to penetrate”. This argument is a deliberate set of twisted facts and lies that the journalists and researchers cannot have appended their signature to naked lies if their motive had been justice, fairness and good faith rebuttal of the BBC documentary. The following are the nasty twisted facts and lies in Ms. Melvern’s argument “shooting down the president’s plane”:
(i) Ms. Melvern and her group know or should know that shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane is the legal and proximate cause of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda. Shooting down of the plane has been investigated by two distinct and separate courts; the French and Spanish courts. Both courts indicted and issued arrest warrants for Kagame and his top RPF commanders for their alleged criminal responsibility for shooting down the plane. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern appears to argue that the ICTR “convicted genocidaires” and some of the ICTR defense attorneys “influenced” both the French and Spanish court to indict and issue arrest warrants for Kagame and his former bush war top commanders. Really!
(ii) Ms. Melvern and her group do not inform their readers that the ICTR former prosecutor carried out thorough investigations into Kagame and his then rebel leaders’ role in the massacres. The ICTR prosecutor was ready to prosecute Kagame and his fighters who allegedly committed crimes under the ICTR jurisdiction; war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Shooting down the plane was part of the charges against Kagame and his then rebel fighters. Instead of accepting to face justice at the ICTR, Kagame rushed to President Bush for “rescue”. President Bush ordered the then ICTR prosecutor – Carl Del Ponte – to desist prosecuting Kagame and his former rebel fighters because Kagame is a USA ‘ally’. The prosecutor chose to resign than compromising our professional ethnics because selective justice is not justice. These facts are well documented.
(iii) The French court indicted, and/or issued arrest warrants for, Kagame and his top rebel commanders for the shooting down of the plane. Ms. Melvern and her friends know or should know that a court decision is not overturned by a mere report of experts. A court decision is overturned by another superior court’s decision in form of an appeal or the same court’s review of its decision. Ms. Melvern knows or should know that the French Court indictments and/or arrest warrants for Kagame and his alleged partners-in-crime are on file. It is absurd that Ms. Melvern and her group seek to abuse the purpose and character of expert reports the way they use Judge Marc Trévidic report in their argument. In any case, the French Court has not pronounced itself on the experts’ report Ms. Melvern and her group uses for their argument. This is academic dishonesty of the highest order.
(iv) Ms. Melvern and her group appear to ignore the fact that the BBC documentary features some of Kagame’s former top rebel commanders who testify that Kagame ordered the shooting of the plane. These former top rebel commanders’ testimony is admissible evidence in courts of law; it is an “admission”. Some of the former RPA/F top leaders who testified in the documentary are Tutsi and they incriminate themselves. Linda and her fellow researchers should have analyzed these central facts before dismissing the BBC Documentary as “lies”. It is true these former rebels’ testimony may be subject to impeachment for bias. However, since we are not in court yet – and it is court’s exclusive powers to conclude on whether or not a witness is biased against the accused – Ms. Melvern and her group cannot sweep these former RPA/F top leaders’ testimony under the carpet. In any case, Melvern and a significant number of the signatories to the letter can also be impeached for bias in favor of Kagame because of their constant, sometimes bordering with insanity, defense for Kagame at all costs, including telling lies for that purpose. Whatever the case, the BBC is not reasonably expected to go into the intricate law of evidence on impeachment of witnesses’ rules before selecting their interviewees.
D. Ms. Melvern and her group are determined to present evidence of “planning genocide” to BBC yet; the ICTR prosecutor needed, but failed to get, sufficient evidence to prove “planning” the 1994 massacres with intent to destroy the Tutsi in whole or part.

Ms. Melvern and her group give an impression that they have, and are presenting, evidence of “ genocide planning” yet in the famous Military 1 and Military 11 which prosecuted all the top military and national security officials found that all that evidence did not prove “ planning” genocide. The ICTR indictments of all the accused in Military 1 and Military 11 alleged that the accused had pre-made lists of the Tutsi to be killed, the accused had a well laid strategy to exterminate the Tutsi and that the accused had trained and distributed militia to perpetrate the Tutsi genocide. There was no evidence at the ICTR to prove these allegations and court acquitted all the accused on genocide account. Unfortunately, Ms. Melvern recycles these allegations, which the ICTR examined and found baseless, for her argument to attack the BBC documentary. If Ms. Melvern had the evidence she claims to prove that the Hutu “planned” the genocide, why didn’t Ms. Melvern take her evidence to the ICTR in the Military 1 and Military 11 which examined ‘planning’ the genocide allegation?
Ms. Melvern and her team, fallaciously, argue that “Jane Corbin, who presented the programme, even tries to raise doubts about whether or not the RPF stopped the genocide. The authority on this subject is Lt.-General Roméo Dallaire … Dallaire is categorical. ‘The genocide was stopped because the RPF won and stopped it’”. Ms. Melvern and her group ignore that the then very powerful and one of the top RPA/F commander, General Nyamwasa Kayumba said that “Kagame’s concern was not to stop the genocide. Kagame’s intention was to take power”. Without efforts to reconcile these critical and diverse positions by different actors, Ms. Melvern makes very disturbing conclusion, “RPF stopped genocide because Gen. Romeo Dakkaire said it”. Is that academic honesty as she claims she is?
Ms. Melvern and her group agree that the BBC documentary lasted for less than an hour. The film features some scholars and people with firsthand information about what happened. What Ms. Melvern and the group blames the BBC documentary for is that the BBC documentary producer did not feature the group’s favorite scholars, practitioners including Dallaire, Philippe Gaillard and Dr. James Orbinski. In my considered view, Ms. Melvern and her group are probably mistaken about how investigative journalism and social research operates. The purpose of the film was to bring to light the “Untold story” about the massacres in Rwanda. It follows that the “popular account of events” was not the subject matter of the documentary. What value would the BBC add to its diverse viewers if the BBC was to avoid controversial social issues for “popular” views? It is impossible to interview everybody for one single research project.
E. The 1994 massacres cannot be detached from Rwanda’s social political culture. A researcher that seeks to close investigations and/or research into the culture that gave birth to the 1994 horrible massacres is probably naive
The 1994 Rwandan massacres were a logical sequence of a complex unresolved social and political dynamics. At the core of this insane conflict is each side’s failure to perceive the other side as a legitimate group with equal rights. In this conflict, the “other group” has no legitimate history, story and existence. Each group’s heroes are the other group’s evil men. Vengeance, dehumanizing the ‘other group’ and exterminating “our” enemy is spontaneous characteristic of an ordinary Hutu or Tutsi. “Secrets and lies” in “our” group against the “other” group are the major features of the Hutu vs Tutsi troubled co-existence. Settling for one group or side’s narrative, without critical thinking and reexamination of these two groups’ co-existence history and crimes, is settling on a appallingly slippery cliff.
Unfortunately, the current government of Rwanda and its complex network of lobbyists consider any critical reflection on RPA/F role in the horrific crimes “genocide denial”. This undesirable Government of Rwanda position is clear in its draconic laws, including “genocide revisionism laws”. Kigali government, its lobbyists and, surprisingly, some academics are inclined to refer to the BBC documentary – a very critical inquiry into the different events during, before and after the 1994 massacres – as “genocide denial”.
Conclusion
What happened during, before and after the 1994 massacres is extremely complex that any social researcher who claims to have perfect and conclusive knowledge of the 1994 Rwandan massacres, like Ms. Melvern and fellow researchers claim, must be treated with the contempt they deserve. “Genocide denial” should not become a social-political tool to suppress critical thinking, human intelligibility and human freedoms.
The BBC has a choice to make. Remain critical and investigative or become a morale booster for those who hold power and lose the trust and confidence of the ordinary people who are yarning for justice and fairness. The Hutu/Tutsi conflict has caused way too many horrible massacres in Burundi, Rwanda and DRC. The victor vs. Vanquished narrative, like Ms. Melvern and her group appear to suggest, should be discarded. For BBC’s credibility and very long history of service, a critical approach to the Hutu/Tutsi conflict is the only sustainable and value adding way to go.
I would be happy to take on Ms. Melvern and her group in an open debate over all the issues they raised in their letter.
Dr Charles Kambanda



The Truth can be buried and stomped into the ground where none can see, yet eventually it will, like a seed, break through the surface once again far more potent than ever, and Nothing can stop it. Truth can be suppressed for a "time", yet It cannot be destroyed. ==> Wolverine