A Candle For Remembering
May this memorial candle lights up the historical past of our beloved Country: Rwanda, We love U so much. If Tears could build a stairway. And memories were a lane. I would walk right up to heaven. To bring you home again. No farewell words were spoken. No time to say goodbye. You were gone before I knew it And. Only Paul Kagame knows why. My heart still aches with sadness. And secret tears still flow. What It meant to lose you. No one will ever know.
Why did Kagame this to me?
Can't forget. He murdered my mother. What should be my reaction? FYI: the number of orphans in Rwanda has skyrocketed since the 1990's Kagame's invasion. Much higher numbers of orphans had and have no other option but joining FDLR fighters who are identified as children that have Lost their Parents in Kagame's Wars inside and outside of Rwanda.If someone killed your child/spouse/parent(s) would you seek justice or revenge? Deep insight: What would you do to the person who snuffed the life of someone I love beyond reason? Forgiving would bring me no solace. If you take what really matters to me, I will show you what really matters. NITUTIRWANAHO TUZASHIRA. IGIHE KIRAGEZE.If democracy is to sell one's motherland(Africa), for some zionits support, then I prefer the person who is ready to give all his live for his motherland. Viva President Putin!!!
RPF committed the unspeakable
The perverted RPF committed the UNSPEAKABLE.Two orphans, both against the Nazi world. Point is the fact that their parents' murder Kagame & his RPF held no shock in the Western world. Up to now, the Rwandan Hitler Kagame and his death squads still enjoy impunity inside and outside of Rwanda. What goes through someone's mind as they know RPF murdered their parents? A delayed punishment is actually an encouragement to crime, In Praise of the ongoing Bloodshed in Rwanda. “I always think I am a pro-peace person but if someone harmed someone near and dear to me, I don't think I could be so peaceful. I would like to believe that to seek justice could save millions of people living the African Great Lakes Region - I would devote myself to bringing the 'perp' along to a non-happy ending but would that be enough? You'd have to be in the situation I suppose before you could actually know how you would feel or what you would do”. Jean-Christophe Nizeyimana, Libre Penseur
Hutu Children & their Mums
Look at them ! How they are scared to death. Many Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi, Foreign human rights advocates, jounalists and and lawyers are now on Death Row Waiting to be murdered by Kagame and his RPF death squads. Be the last to know.
Almighty God :Justice for US
Hutu children's daily bread: Intimidation, Slavery, Sex abuses led by RPF criminals and Kagame, DMI: Every single day, there are more assassinations, imprisonment, brainwashing & disappearances. Do they have any chance to end this awful life?
Killing Hutus on daily basis
RPF targeted killings, very often in public areas. Killing Hutus on daily basis by Kagame's murderers and the RPF infamous death squads known as the "UNKNOWN WRONGDOERS"
RPF Trade Mark: Akandoya
Rape, torture and assassination and unslaving of hutu women. Genderside: Rape has always been used by kagame's RPF as a Weapon of War, the killings of Hutu women with the help of Local Defense Forces, DMI and the RPF military
The Torture in Rwanda flourishes
How torture flourishes across Rwanda despite extensive global monitoring
Fighting For Our Freedom?
We need Freedom, Liberation of our fatherland, Human rights respect, Mutual respect between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority
Monday, October 27, 2014
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?
Sunday, October 26, 2014
[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 |
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
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:
___________
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:
______________
-
"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
Subscribe to:
Posts
(Atom)
AS International
SurViVors SPEAK OUT - Rights of Victims Seeking Justice and Compensation for the RPF Genocide. This is an Exciting Collaborative Project launched by The AS International Founder Jean-Christophe Nizeyimana, Economist and Human Rights Activist. Join US and Be the First to know about the Mastermind of the Rwandan Genocide Still At large and enjoing Impunity.