© As International - Community for SurViVors

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

Rwanda and the Criminalisation of International Justice: Anatomy of War Crimes Trials

Interview891 – Christopher Black Destroys the Myth of the Rwandan “Genocide”

Dr Kambanda Makes His Genocide Statement Clear : Anonymous Readers to Revise the Law.

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

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.

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

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Rwanda – Génocide : Il faudra réécrire l’histoire du génocide rwandais

Docteur Théogène Rudasingwa, ancien chef de cabinet de Paul Kagame
et ancien ambassadeur du Rwanda aux Etats-Unis

L’histoire du génocide rwandais, telle qu’elle est présentée par Paul Kagame, est sûrement au point de s’effondrer. Pour la première fois depuis 20 ans, un grand média, la BBC, a diffusé un documentaire qui remet profondément en cause la version officielle de la tragédie rwandaise. Tout au long du documentaire, il est rappelé que toute personne qui ose contester l’histoire du génocide rwandais, telle qu’elle est présentée par Kagame et les médias dominants, fait l’objet de menace, de chantage ; est trainé dans la boue, traité de négationniste, de révisionniste, voire d’antisémite et de génocidaire, comme cela est rappelé dans un autre documentaire, de julien Teil intitulé « Rwanda, 20 ans après l'histoire truquée ». Un climat malsain, entretenu depuis deux décennies, et qui a fini par rendre impossible tout débat contradictoire sur cette affaire et la possibilité d’examiner sereinement des preuves, des témoignages et des faits qui, dès le début, contredisaient la version officielle.

Dans le documentaire de Jane Corbin, « Rwanda’s Untold Story »[1], la journaliste britannique prend la précaution de tendre le micro à plusieurs personnalités qu’on ne saurait soupçonner de sympathie avec des « Hutus génocidaires ». La magistrate suisse Carla del Ponte, ancienne Procureure du Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda et pour l’ex-Yougoslavie ; le général tutsi en exil Faustin Kayumba Nyamwasa, ancien compagnon d’armes de Kagame et ancien chef d’Etat-major de l’armée rwandaise ; le docteur Théogène Rudasingwa, ancien chef de cabinet de Paul Kagame et ancien ambassadeur du Rwanda aux Etats-Unis ; l’éminent professeur belge Filip Reyntjens. La journaliste britannique assure que le président Paul Kagame et son parrain Tony Blair, ancien Premier ministre britannique, ont été sollicités mais qu’ils ont décliné la demande de participer au documentaire.

Trois vérités au moins:

Au moins trois vérités capitales se dégagent des deux documentaires. Première vérité : Paul Kagame est l’homme qui a commandité l’attentat du 6 avril 1994 contre l’avion du président Juvénal Habyarimana. Deuxième vérité : il y a eu, dans le conflit rwandais, plus de Hutus massacrés par les hommes de Kagame que de Tutsis massacrés par les Interahamwe. Troisième vérité : la guerre du Rwanda n’avait pas pour enjeu le Rwanda. L’enjeu de la guerre du Rwanda c’était le Zaïre de Mobutu et ses immenses gisements miniers. Américains et Britanniques devaient s’emparer militairement des régions minières du Zaïre (l’actuelle République Démocratique du Congo), en se dissimulant derrière l’armée tutsie de Kagame. Une mission qui devait passer par la diabolisation des Français et l’éjection de la France de cette région que convoitaient les puissances anglo-saxonnes opérant sous couvert de Kagame.

Sur l’attentat du 6 avril, les témoignages de Faustin Kayumba et de Théogène Rudasingwa, deux anciens proches de Kagame et, aujourd’hui, deux grandes figures de l’opposition rwandaise, devraient suffire à enlever les derniers doutes de nos esprits pour au moins deux raisons. La première est que personne au monde n’a jamais été plus proche de Kagame, en ces moments décisifs de l’histoire du Rwanda que Kayumba et Rudasingwa. C’étaient ses confidents. Pour pouvoir contester leurs accusations contre Kagame, il faut avoir été beaucoup plus proche qu’ils ne l’étaient. Impossible. La deuxième raison est que ces deux leaders tutsis, étant des figures de l’opposition rwandaise[2], ils incarnent ce que sera la vérité officielle du Rwanda après le règne de Kagame, qui n’est pas éternel. Il est donc tout à fait responsable de commencer à anticiper ce que sera l’histoire officielle du Rwanda de demain, à savoir que c’est Paul Kagame qui avait commandité l’attentat du 6 avril 1994, acte considéré par l’ONU comme le facteur déclenchant du génocide.

Le responsable du génocide

Ce qui, mécaniquement, amène à la question de savoir qui est le responsable du génocide rwandais. Carla del Ponte avait prévenu après sa nomination en tant que Procureure du Tribunal d’Arusha[3] que s’il s’avérait un jour que ce sont les rebelles tutsis qui ont abattu l’avion du président Habyarimana, toute l’histoire du génocide rwandais devra être réécrite. Nous y sommes. En d’autres termes, à la responsabilité des Interahamwe, qui avaient usé de machettes, il faudra ajouter la responsabilité de celui qui ordonna de lancer les missiles. Faustin Kayumba résume l’histoire à venir du Rwanda par cette sagesse, parlant de Kagame, de l’attentat et des massacres : « Si nous sommes en pleine saison sèche et que vous jetez une allumette dans l’herbe, vous viendra-t-il à l’idée de penser que l’herbe ne brûlera pas ? »

Il faut rappeler dans quel climat explosif était le Rwanda en avril 1994. Le documentaire en fait mention et Bernard Desgagné en donne un résumé exhaustif. « La guerre et l’occupation du territoire par les tueurs de Kagame, à partir de septembre 1990, avaient donné lieu à des massacres de masse de la population civile hutue. Un million de réfugiés essentiellement hutus, chassés de leurs terres, s’étaient agglutinés autour de Kigali, dans des camps de la mort d’où l’on sortait une centaine de cadavres par jour, à cause des maladies et de la faim. De plus, un grand nombre de réfugiés en provenance du Burundi avaient afflué au Rwanda en 1993 pour fuir les massacres dont étaient victimes les Hutus dans ce pays, aux mains de l’armée et de civils tutsis. Voir leurs frères burundais ainsi persécutés ne fit rien pour rassurer les Hutus du Rwanda »[4] devant l’armée tutsie de Kagame.

« Lorsque l’avion transportant les deux présidents hutus fut abattu, les Hutus, déjà martyrisés, en vinrent à la conclusion que le FPR et ses partisans ne voudraient jamais de la démocratie »[5], ce que confirment d’ailleurs le documentaire de la BBC ainsi que de nombreux témoignages et des faits avérés. « Pour Kagame, le pouvoir a toujours été au bout du fusil, et non dans les urnes. Certains Hutus, désespérés et fous de rage, prirent des machettes et décidèrent de tuer ceux qu’ils percevaient comme les responsables de leurs souffrances. Qu’on le qualifie de génocide ou non, le massacre des Tutsis, en avril 1994, n’était pas le résultat d’un plan diabolique du pouvoir hutu. (…) Il a duré quelques jours seulement et était essentiellement terminé à la fin d’avril. Par comparaison, les massacres de Hutus et d’opposants politiques, eux, sont systématiques et bien organisés par le FPR. Ils se sont étirés sur 24 ans, jusqu’à aujourd’hui »[6]. Dans un précédent article[7] au sujet des corps flottants récemment découverts sur le lac Rweru, nous avons fait remarquer que, vingt ans après le génocide, les populations hutues continuaient d’être massacrées au Rwanda, sous nos yeux indifférents et avec la complicité des grandes démocraties européennes et américaines, qui financent et parrainent Paul Kagame tout au long de ses interminables massacres.

Les victimes invisibles

La deuxième vérité du génocide rwandais est que la majorité des victimes furent des Hutus et non des Tutsis. Dans le documentaire, les chercheurs Christian Davenport et Allan Stam posent une question arithmétique et mettent les chiffres sur la table. Il vivait au Rwanda environ 500.000 Tutsis avant le génocide. Selon l’association Ibuka, proche de Kagame, 300.000 Tutsis ont survécu au génocide, ce qui revient à dire que 200.000 Tutsis ont péri dans le génocide. Or le génocide rwandais avait coûté la vie à 800.000 personnes, selon l’ONU, 1.000.000 selon le régime de Kagame. D’où cette question : qui étaient les 600.000 à 800.000 autres victimes ? Une question embarrassante. Les deux chercheurs américains y répondent par cette formule simple : « entre ce que l’opinion a été amenée à croire et la réalité des faits, il y a une énorme différence ». Dans un remarquable ouvrage du Canadien Robin Philpot, intitulé « Ca ne s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali », et qui lui a attiré les foudres des médias occidentaux pro-Kagame, dont Radio Canada, l’auteur, dès 2005, remettait déjà en questions les chiffres officiels et le discours convenu des médias dominants sur le drame rwandais. Il ne sera pas le seul à être réhabilité lorsque la version actuelle du génocide rwandais sera définitivement battue en brèche[8].

Enfin, la troisième vérité : les vrais enjeux de la guerre du Rwanda. On ne comprend pas comment Kagame a réussi à mettre dans sa poche nos grands médias, nos dirigeants politiques, nos grands universitaires, voire nos universités qui continuent d’enseigner l’histoire mensongère du génocide rwandais ; nos associations, nos ONG, voire de respectables institutions internationales comme l’Union européenne, toujours docile devant ce dictateur africain. On ne comprend pas comment le monde entier s’est mis à suivre de façon moutonnière un quelconque maquisard africain, à peine instruit, et à la tête d’un tout petit pays enclavé au cœur de l’Afrique, pauvre et dépourvu d’enjeux stratégiques. On ne comprend pas comment Kagame et ses parrains ont réussi à berner le monde entier si on ne regarde pas la frontière ouest du Rwanda où s’étend l’ancien Zaïre de Mobutu avec ses immenses gisements miniers.

Taisez-vous et Kagame vous rendra riche !

Nous sommes au début des années 1990. Les gens ne le savent pas encore, mais il va y avoir des centaines de milliards de dollars à gagner dans un secteur dont le marché n’est que balbutiant. En Europe, on utilise encore des cabines téléphoniques pour appeler nos proches, le minitel pour traiter les données et des gros téléviseurs cathodiques qui pèsent comme des parpaings. Mais l’humanité va effectuer un grand bond dans le temps, et à moins cher. Les nouvelles technologies de l’information ! Les Américains, les Britanniques, les Israéliens et les Canadiens ont repéré un pays en Afrique, le Zaïre de Mobutu. Dans son sous-sol gisent les plus importantes réserves mondiales d’au moins quatre minerais indispensables à la fabrication d’une foule d’appareils qu’on appellera téléphones portables, écrans plats, consoles de jeux, smartphone, tablettes[9],… Le colombo-tantalite, aussi connu sous le nom de coltan. C’est le minerai dont est extrait le tantale, indispensable à la fabrication des condensateurs, ce qui permettra de miniaturiser les appareils électroniques tout en améliorant leur performance. Mais aussi la cassitérite[10] ; le wolframite[11], le cobalt, l’or, le diamant, l’uranium, le chrome,…

Internet, dont personne ne sait vraiment ce que ça veut dire en 1990, va transformer la vie des milliards de gens sur la planète. Mais pour contrôler ce marché extrêmement juteux, il faut contrôler les gisements miniers, et surtout ne rien révéler aux populations locales et ne rien payer à l’Etat zaïrois.

Tout comme George Bush entreprendra de renverser Saddam Hussein pour s’emparer du pétrole irakien, Bill Clinton entreprit de renverser Mobutu pour prendre possession des gisements miniers du Zaïre. Mais Clinton s’y prend autrement. Il ne doit surtout pas utiliser directement la brutalité de l’armée américaine contre des populations africaines, les Congolais. Il se servira d’un Africain pour massacrer d’autres Africains. L’opération sera menée par Paul Kagame et son ami ougandais Yoweri Museveni. Kagame obtiendra tout ce qu’aucun dictateur africain n’a jamais eu : une complaisante couverture médiatique en Europe et en Amérique, des instructeurs militaires américains, canadiens, israéliens et britanniques, des renseignements, des armes,… et, plus important : la totale impunité, quel que soit le nombre des gens qu’il voudra tuer. La Cour pénale internationale devra se taire comme une tombe. Les chantres de la démocratie et des droits de l’homme en Europe et en Amérique, devront faire semblant de ne pas voir les crimes de Kagame. L’appel pour la création d’un Tribunal pénal international pour le Congo devra rester lettre morte, malgré des millions de morts. Les journalistes occidentaux devront se montrer complaisants avec le plus effrayant massacreur de la planète devenu, par magie, « le chouchou des grandes démocraties ». Marché conclu !

Le problème, pour la crédibilité de nos démocraties, et même pour la conscience de ceux qui profitent du confort des appareils électroniques, grâce à l’occupation brutale et le pillage du Congo par les hommes de Kagame, c’est que l’homme n’arrive pas à se fixer des limites. Kagame continuera à tuer au-delà de « sa mission », et sans compter. Le rapport Mapping de 2010 ouvre juste une lorgnette sur les crimes du dictateur rwandais. A force de tuer sans compter, il a fini par créer la panique et l’effroi jusque dans les rangs de ses proches. Faustin Kayumba le décrit comme « un homme qui aime tuer ». La journaliste belge Colette Braeckman le décrit à peu près dans les mêmes termes[12]. Filip Reyntjens qui intervient dans le film de Jane Corbin le décrit comme le plus grand criminel du monde encore en fonction. Bref, une sorte de massacreur pathologique, devenu un problème pour tout le monde à la fois.

La mainmise de Kagame sur le Congo, qui se poursuit, sera responsable de la mort de plus de six millions de Congolais et des centaines de milliers de femmes violées. On n’oublie surtout pas que plus de 300.000 réfugiés hutus rwandais furent massacrés dès les premier mois de l’occupation du Congo par les hommes de Kagame avec l’appui des Etats-Unis, du Canada et du Royaume-Uni. Le massacre s’est poursuivi au Congo et au Rwanda. Même des rescapés du génocide préfèrent s’exiler et fuir le Rwanda, leur propre pays qu’ils avaient cru devenir un havre de paix après les atrocités qu’ils avaient subi. Exil où le dictateur sait aussi atteindre ses victimes. Dernière victime en date, Patrick Karegeya, son ancien compagnon d’armes et ancien chef des renseignements rwandais, assassiné en Afrique du Sud le 1er janvier 2014.

Où sont passées nos valeurs ?

Nous en sommes donc là avec l’histoire de ce petit pays dont la paisible population n’avait rien demandé à personne mais que nos grandes démocraties décidèrent un jour d’utiliser pour gagner de l’argent. Mais aussi pour se discréditer et se ridiculiser pour longtemps aux yeux des Africains. Pour s’emparer des gisements miniers, toutes les valeurs de la civilisation occidentale furent enterrées dans les collines du Rwanda et les zones minières de l’Est du Congo. Les experts de l’ONU ont publié plusieurs rapports dans lesquels apparaissent nos multinationales impliquées dans le pillage, en marge des aventures militaires de Paul Kagame au Congo. Patrick Mbeko a établi la liste de ces multinationales et leurs ramifications. Elles sont liées à une foule de décideurs politiques américains, canadiens, britanniques, israéliens et européens de premier plan. Mais aussi aux patrons des grands médias occidentaux et aux personnalités qui façonnent notre manière de penser[13]. Une véritable maffia au cœur de nos démocraties. Kagamé devait être solidement protégé, jusque dans les coulisses des médias. D’où la loi du silence dans les grands médias sur la plus grande campagne d’extermination des populations depuis la Seconde guerre mondiale. Une boucherie financée à 100% par les contribuables européens et américains[14].

Il faut espérer que, dans un proche avenir, de courageux journalistes emboîteront le pas à leur consœur Jane Corbin pour éclairer l’opinion internationale sur ce qui s’est passé au Rwanda et au Congo ces vingt dernières années. Une démarche qui contribuera énormément à aider les Rwandais à se réconcilier. Le peuple rwandais ne méritait pas ce que l’Occident lui a fait subir. Surtout pas pour des enjeux miniers dont son sous-sol est dépourvu. Si les Congolais savent pourquoi ils sont massacrés, les Rwandais, eux, ont été massacrés pour rien !

Boniface MUSAVULI

A Candle For Remembering

Rwanda: Cartographie des crimes

Let us remember Our People

You can't stop thinking

Welcome to Home Truths

Everybody Hurts

KAGAME - GENOCIDAIRE

Paul Kagame admits ordering...

Why did Kagame this to me?

RPF committed the unspeakable

Inzira ndende

Search

Hutu Children & their Mums

Rwanda-rebranding

Ways To Get Rid of Kagame

Almighty God :Justice for US

Killing Hutus on daily basis

RPF Trade Mark: Akandoya

The Torture in Rwanda flourishes

Fighting For Our Freedom?

KAGAME VS JUSTICE

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

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

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

Rwanda and the Criminalisation of International Justice: Anatomy of War Crimes Trials Interview891 – Christopher Black Destroys the Myth of the Rwandan “Genocide” Dr Kambanda Makes His Genocide Statement Clear : Anonymous Readers to Revise the Law.

Rwanda – Génocide : Il faudra réécrire l’histoire du génocide rwandais

AS International

Profile

Genocide masterminded by RPF

Human and Civil Rights

Rwanda: A mapping of crimes

KIBEHO: Rwandan Auschwitz

Mass murderers C. Sankara

Stephen Sackur’s Hard Talk.

Prof. Allan C. Stam

Prof. Christian Davenport

The killing Fields - Part 1

The killing Fields - Part II

Daily bread for Rwandans

The killing Fields - Part III

Time has come: Regime change

Drame rwandais- justice impartiale

Sheltering 2,5 million refugees

Latest videos

Rwanda's Untold Story

Rwanda, un génocide en questions

Nombre de Visiteurs

Pages

Popular Posts - Last 7 days

Archives

Everything happens for a reason

Hutus didn't plan Tutsi Genocide

Your comment if you LIKE IT. All for Human rights

Rwanda and the Criminalisation of International Justice: Anatomy of War Crimes Trials

Interview891 – Christopher Black Destroys the Myth of the Rwandan “Genocide”

Dr Kambanda Makes His Genocide Statement Clear : Anonymous Readers to Revise the Law.