HOME-ACCUEIL - ENGLISH - FRANCAIS - KINYARWANDA

So what exactly entails revisionism? And how is it quantifiable when a lot of facts on Rwanda happen to be hearsay.

I am a Rwandan and refuse to be fed by a fabricated truth–no matter how internationally acclaimed it is.

I explain why:

1. The RPF did not start the war to stop genocide. There is no evidence to support this view. Rwanda was relatively a peaceful country albeit a Hutu dictatorship.

2. Kagame did not end the genocide. He won the war. But the killings continued, in Rwanda and beyond. Evidence of RPF’s killings in Kibeho for instance, suggest that Kagame’s interest was always to replace Hutu power by Tutsi power.

3. The war in eastern Congo has largely targeted Hutu refugees and the Hutu Diaspora. Tutsi 1994 heroes like Laurent Nkunda and Bosco Ntaganda have turned out to be the Hitters of Africa.

4. The RPF is extremely PR savvy. It uses psychological tactics and always playing the victim card. For instance, the killings of millions of Congolese are blamed on the unwillingness of the then Zaire to hand over the alleged genocidaires.

5. It is very inaccurate that 1,000,000 Tutsi were killed during the Rwanda genocide. If the Tutsi comprised 10% of the population, it is not difficult to see how suspecting the data is.

6. President Paul Kagame might be a Tutsi liberator (this is arguable) yet, he is seen by many Hutu and Congolese as a mass murder. There is evidence to support these claims.

7. Like any conflict in Africa, there are western interests fueling the conflict. This has been obscured. Rather than blaming the colonialist, let’s focus on the French who funded the Ex-FAR and the Americans/Britons who supported the RPF.

8. The world did not abandon Rwanda. Neither did it fail to intervene. Foreign powers intervened the wrong way, resulting in unexpected calamity.

The people of Rwanda deserve the chance to define their own destiny. They deserve democracy and the world needs to STOP its support of an unpopular dictatorship.

by Mutesi – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/?userid=60566512&plckUserId=60566512.

Stephen Kinzer

In his article titled ‘The limits of free speech in Rwanda’, Stephen Kinzer, former New York Times, goes to great lengths to justify the limitations of Freedom of Speech in the post-genocide Rwanda led by Paul Kagame’s RPF ruling party. After all, why should Paul Kagame allow open debates on genocide and social problems in Rwanda? Stephen Kinzer argues that even in a country of free speech as the Us, it is not allowed to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.

Here is what he writes in the London Guardian (guardian.co.uk), on March 2, 2010:

The country’s president claims that laws against disseminating ‘genocide ideology’ are necessary to stop a return to violence

Sixteen years after genocide, Rwanda is facing a new test. President Paul Kagame, who is seeking re-election, is widely admired abroad. Among his fans are some of the world’s most famous do-gooders, from Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to Rev Rick Warren and Dr Paul Farmer. His enemies hope to use this election campaign to tarnish his image and show these admirers that he is no democrat.

Rwanda is more stable and prosperous than many would have predicted following the 1994 genocide. The reconciliation process has been at least partly successful. Yet beneath the surface, Rwandan society remains volatile. Hatreds are unexpressed, but no one believes they are gone.

Kagame’s government has passed laws against disseminating “genocide ideology”, meaning views that could inflame communal hatreds. People are supposed to describe themselves only as Rwandan, never as Hutu or Tutsi. Kagame claims these laws are necessary to keep Rwanda back from the abyss of violence. If he enforces them during the political campaign, though, critics will accuse him of suppressing free speech.

Last month, a Rwandan-born businesswoman who has spent more than a decade in the Netherlands, Victoire Ingabire, arrived in Rwanda and announced that she was a candidate for president. Her party is based abroad and not recognised in Rwanda. According to a UN report (in French), she is supported by leaders of the principal Hutu insurgent group, which is among factions terrorising the eastern Congo.

Ingabire’s first statements after landing in Rwanda were thinly veiled appeals for Hutu solidarity. “There is no shame in saying I am Hutu or am Tutsi; there’s nothing wrong with that,” she told one interviewer.

Appealing to ethic identity this way is illegal. The official press launched a sharp campaign against Ingabire, and her campaign group has been attacked at least once. She has been interrogated by police and warned that she will be arrested if she continues preaching “genocide ideology”. Amnesty International responded by accusing the government of “intimidation and harassment”.

Nonsense, replies President Kagame. He believes western human rights activists underestimate the prospects for a new outbreak of ethnic violence in Rwanda, as well as the danger of allowing ethnically charged speech. “We’ve lived this life,” he said angrily at a news conference. “We’ve lived the consequences. So we understand it better than anyone from anywhere else.”

Kagame won the last presidential election, in 2003, with a reported 95% of the vote. Critics complained that the campaign was unfair, but Kagame emerged relatively unscathed because few outsiders were paying attention.

Seven years later, Rwanda is in the midst of a promising transformation and Kagame is a darling of the global development community. His enemies know they cannot defeat him in this election; he is the strongman and will do whatever is necessary to win. Their strategy is to bait him into taking actions � like arresting a rival candidate � that would make him look bad abroad and thereby weaken his regime.

Many people in developed countries look suspiciously, as they should, on leaders who impose restrictions on free speech. Even in the US, though, it is illegal to cry “fire!” in a crowded theatre. That is what Rwandan leaders accuse the foreign-based opposition of doing � fanning hatreds that could explode into another genocide. The opposition, in reply, insists it is merely speaking truths Kagame does not wish to hear.

Kagame, who was called the “Napoleon of Africa” during his march to power in the early 1990s, is acknowledged to have great military skills. His political skills are less tested. Between now and the election on 9 August, he must navigate a delicate course that will assure him three things: re-election, national stability and minimum damage to his reputation. This is to be his last campaign, since the Rwandan constitution limits presidents to two seven-year terms. How he conducts it will shape both his legacy and Rwanda’s future.

Victoire Ingabire

On 24th February, Mr Andrew Mwenda (independent.co.ug) published an article titled �Will Ingabire be Rwanda�s saviour?�.
I do not share the view of Mr Andrew Mwenda on Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza. Mrs Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is a very responsible politician, keen to take the bull i.e. Rwandan tragic past, by its horns in order to forge a better future.

The line of argument developed by Andrew M Mwenda that Mrs Ingabire political stand is irresponsible, rests on questionable assumptions and wrong historical comparison, a false interpretation of the statements made by Victoire on her arrival in Rwanda and a limited understanding of the terms of the debate that Victoire presents as opposed to the political discourse imposed by the incumbent regime.

Questionable assumptions and comparisons.

The statement that it is irresponsible for Victoire to �say that those who ended genocide should stand with those who orchestrated it� and �that victims of genocide should be tried alongside its architects� is based on a misinterpretation of her statement and underlying denial of justice to all Rwandans irrespective of ethnic affiliation. As far as I heard and read Victoire stated that those who committed genocide against Tutsi should be brought to book according to the law and added that for genuine reconciliation to take place once each Rwandan�s pain need to be acknowledged and those who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity against Hutus be tried. I find this to be a normal demand to end impunity which is the root cause of the instability in the Great Lakes region. Denying justice to thousands of people who lost their loved ones is divisive, discriminatory and undermines reconciliation. Crime of genocide, however horrendous, should not give a blank cheque to commit other crimes with impunity especially when the crimes were committed in a coordinated, systematic and premeditated manner. It beats my imagination to equate the call for justice to thousands of Hutus to denying genocide against Tutsi.
What Victoire is saying is no different from what the public is asking, the international community and well wishers for stability in Rwanda have been advancing.
The UN Commission of Experts concluded in its preliminary and final reports (S/1994/1125 and S/1994/1405) on which the Security Council Resolution 955 that set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) point out that �during the war that followed the assassination of President Habyarimana

“Individuals from both sides to the armed conflict in Rwanda during the period from 6 April 1994 to 15 July 1994 perpetrated serious breaches of international humanitarian law, in particular of obligations set forth in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts of 8 June 1977 and that Individuals from both sides to the armed conflict perpetrated crimes against humanity;�.

A report by UNHCR Team headed by Robert Gersony estimated that from April to August 1994, the Rwandan Patriotic Front systematically killed between 25,000 and 45,000 Hutus as it made its way toward Kigali.
According to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International:

“The crimes committed by RPF soldiers were so systematic and widespread and took place over so long a period of time that commanding officers must have been aware of them.”
…
“RPF soldiers massacred unarmed civilians, many of them women and children, who had assembled for a meeting on their orders”

(Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-03.htm#P86_35545).

These killings are not just spontaneous anger because in doing so one would excuse the killings carried out by the presidential guard after learning that their President was killed by a Tutsi led rebel movement.

The RPF army is accused of having killed at least four thousand unarmed civilians in Kibeho camp for the internally displaced. See Witness to Genocide — A Personal Account of the 1995 Kibeho Massacre.

In addition, during its invasion of what was then called Zaire, it is estimated that the Rwandan soldiers killed more than 200,000 Hutu refugees. A report by a chillean Roberto Garreton who led investigation was diluted on orders of some powerful members of the Security Council, and forced to remove any suggestion that what happened was genocide, for fear that it would bring trouble to the RPF regime.

In a letter written to the Security Council on the 6th of June 2006, FILDH (F�d�ration Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l�Homme), Human Rights Watch, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and Rencontre Africaine pour la D�fense des Droits de l�Homme, drew the attention of the Security Council to the fact that in 1994, the RPA killed thousands of civilians, in the process committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes well documented, including by a U.N. Commission of Experts which concluded that the RPA had

�perpetrated serious breaches of international humanitarian law and crimes against humanity.� They warned that �only if the ICTR dispenses justice fully, impartially, and to all parties will it fulfil the purpose for which the Security Council established it, contributing to peace and reconciliation in the region�.

Calling statement made by Victoire Ingabire

Calling for the prosecution of elements of the RPF who committed crimes against humanity should not be construed as asking that �victims of genocide should be tried alongside its architects�. Victims of the genocide are different from criminals who killed Hutu in their thousands. RPF is a political military organisation with a political programme and those who committed crimes should answer them individually. Besides, though it was dominated by Tutsi elite it is not synonymous with Tutsi ethnic group, in the same way that the Hutu led government or the Hutu who killed Tutsi are not synonymous with Hutu ethnic group. Criminals are criminals independent of their ethnic affiliation and should face the law. The International Tribunal for former Yugoslavia has tried criminals from all sides. There is no reason why RPF should be an exception. Double standards based on ethnicity is unacceptable not whistle-blowing to end injustice.

The RPF does not deserve the moral high ground of having stopped genocide.

The UN report that set up ICTR pointed out that the shooting down of the plane that had on board the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and their suite triggered the genocide. Though nothing can justify the heinous crime of genocide, the person or persons who carried out that terrorist act are partly responsible for the genocide for they would have known the grave consequences of such a heinous act.

The former U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda, Robert Flatten, testified in June 2005 at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda that he personally warned Gen. Kagame and Pres. Habyarimana that if either resumed war by breaking the Arusha Accords cease fire, they would be responsible for thousands of civilian casualties from retaliatory killings that U.S. State Department documents predicted should the war resume…similar to killings that swept Burundi/Rwanda in 1988.

There is a strong suggestion that the RPF is responsible for it and therefore shared responsibility in the genocide. A French anti terrorist judge Jean-Louis Brugui�re has confirmed this and issued international arrest warrants against the culprits. A Spanish judge, Fernando Andreu, has come to the same conclusion.

Even when the catastrophe struck, the RPF deliberately blocked all attempts to intervene to stop the genocide.

The RPF rejected the invitation made by the military crisis committee, set up on the 7th April 94, for a meeting on the 8th April 1994 with committee, through the UN troops Commander General Dallaire, to discuss how to handle the new crisis. RPF responded by starting a full-scale war on all the fronts, 4 hours before the planned meeting.

The former Deputy UN troops commander in Rwanda Col. Marshall made it clear when testifying before the Criminal International Tribunal for Rwanda on 2/12/2006 that the RPF main preoccupation was military victory at any cost and not to save Tutsi in Rwanda:

�From my experience, my conclusion is that the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) had one goal, seizing power by force and keeping it to themselves�,
�For me, it is the Rwandan Patriotic Front which has perpetrated the attack (shooting the presidential aircraft). Not once, never have I sensed the desire to make concessions, to smooth rough edges, to reach a consensus�.

On the 8th April 19994, the RPF asked all foreign troops to quit within 48 hours declaring they would be considered as enemy combatant if they stayed longer. The Security Council under the pressure of the US, the UK and Belgium, decided to reduce dramatically the UN troops.

On the 12th of April 1994 the RPF rejected a truce offered by the governmental forces in order to fight those who were carrying out massacres of civilian population. Army communiqu� calling on RPA dialogue was signed by Ntiwiragabo, Muberuka, Kanyamanza, Murasampongo, Rwabalinda, Hakizimana, Rwamanywa, Kanyandekwe and Gatsinzi Marcel, now Minister of Defence in Rwanda.
On the contrary the RPF dispatched Dusaidi and Muligande to New York to prevent any foreign intervention.

On the 15th April, a meeting organised by Jacques Bobooh, UN representative, failed to broker a ceasefire because the RPF was deliberately putting forward impossible preconditions, one of which was to ask the army to denounce the interim government and to immediately prosecute those who had committed massacres.

According to Human Rights Watch, on the 30th of April the RPF made a statement opposing UN initiatives for a deployment of international forces in order to help curb the massacres of civilians. Human Rights Watch reveals

�When the Security Council discussed sending a larger peacekeeping force to Rwanda with a broader mandate to protect civilians, the RPF feared that the force might interfere with its goal of military victory. Its leaders may have been particularly concerned that the French might use the force to protect the interim government. Instead of welcoming the move and urging speedy implementation, the RPF spokesman in Brussels opposed it and asserted that there were no more Tutsi to be saved�.

But as HRW testifies thousands of Tutsi were still hiding or in churches calling for help (1999 annual report).

On May 5, 1994, The Washington Times wrote:

“The rebel Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) commander said yesterday a U.N. force cannot bring peace to his blood-soaked country and only a guerrilla victory will end the massacres”.

It took another two months for the RPF to take over the country.
Gen. Dallaire, commander of the UN forces in Rwandan (UNAMIR), testified under oath before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, that Gen. Paul Kagame told him that those civilian killings are “collateral damage” for his war plan.

On 12 November 2005 the RPF spokesman Mr Severian Sebasoni told BBC Great Lakes radio that RPF objectives was not to be like Red Cross saving people but to take the power.

The issue of ethnicity in Rwanda

Andrew M. Mwenda points out that �given the emotive power of ethnicity especially in Rwanda, it is easy to rally a political following by making ethnic claims, something that is �also extremely dangerous�. If a claim to justice for all is �extremely dangerous� in a society, then there must be something fundamentally wrong that must be addressed for such society to survive.

My view is that the Rwandan society must take the bull by its horns by accepting its past looking at it critically and accept each one�s responsibility. Throwing the bucket at each other for what went wrong in Rwanda does not help nor does the story line of the good and bad guys portraying Hutus as �Hutus extremist killers, while the Tutsis of the RPF are portrayed as avenging angels, who swooped in from their bases in Uganda to stop the genocide�

I believe that ethnicity is not a problem in itself; the problem is lack of the rule of law, democracy and equal opportunity. Once the three conditions are present, the importance of ethnicity will disappear.

It is an open secret that the RPF has used the slogan on national unity to prevent any criticism of its policies and to stifle dissenting voices. This cannot augur well for the future of the country. It can only push dissenting voices underground.

Here follows the letter addressed to The New Times in Kigali, about the diffamatory campaign orchestrated by its journalists after her visit to the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre at Gisozi.
She writes:

Chief Executive Officer
Editor-in-Chief
The New Times Publications SARL
Immeuble Aigle Blanc
P. O. Box 4953
Kigali – Rwanda

Subject:
Right of rectification and reply to libels published in Sunday Times on 17th January 2010 and The New Times of 18th January 2010:

o The Sunday Times of 17th January 2010 – Editorial � �FDU�s Ingabire desecrates memory with Double Genocide theory�

o The Sunday Times of 17th January 2010- Front page: News – Ingabire espouses Double Genocide Theory

o The New Times of 18th January 2010 – Editorial � �Genocide deniers: the law should take its course�

o The New Times 18th January 2010 – Front page: news � �Govt won't stand violation of the laws-interior Minister�

o The New Times 18th January 2010 – Front page: news � �Political Parties, CNLG slam Ingabire 'divisionist' politics

Dear Sir,

As the chairperson of FDU Inkingi, I have been subject of a deliberate and continuous heinous and/defamatory campaign in your newspapers accusing FDU Inkingi� public intervention at the Gisozi memorial site of Genocide denier, double Genocide Theory, desecrating memorial, divisionist� politics, inflammatory statements, and many other shameless insults. The worst was to maliciously spread serious accusations related to the genocide, the most severe crime against humanity historically

I would strongly like to set the record straight regarding the genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda. My position is still and has always been that the genocide against Tutsi took place in Rwanda and all criminals should be brought to book.

I am disappointed by the hatred propaganda, violent, offensive and injurious language towards my person and the FDU Inkingi I represent. It is unfortunate that my words were intentionally twisted. Readers of your papers are purposely made to believe in the content of those offending articles based on untrue facts.

On 16th January 2010, after my visit to the Kigali Genocide Memorial Center at Gisozi, I made the following announcement in Kinyarwanda, which was also recorded and is here translated in English, the language of your media:
�It is clear that achieving reconciliation has a long way to go; it is far away and this is understandable considered the number of people who were massacred in our country, because such tragedy is not something to move on from easily on the one hand. On the other, when you analyse the situation objectively, you don�t find any serious strategy intentionally developed and implemented to help Rwandans to achieve that reconciliation. For example, we are here honouring at this Memorial the Tutsi victims of the Genocide; there are also Hutu who were victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes, not remembered or honoured here. Hutus are also suffering. They are wondering when their time will come to remember their people.
In order for us to get to that desirable reconciliation, we must be fair and compassionate towards every Rwandan�s suffering. It is imperative that for Tutsi survivors, Hutu who killed their relatives understand the crimes they committed and accept the legal consequences.
It is also crucial that those who may have killed Hutus understand that they must be equally punished by the laws.
It is finally very important for all of us Rwandans with our different ethnic backgrounds to understand that we need to come together in unity and with mutual respect in order to develop our country peacefully.
The reason we came back is therefore to find ways collectively of starting off on that roadmap towards unity, working jointly to remove injustices from our country, addressing as one issues of getting Rwandans to live freely in their country.
Thank you.�

Based on my declarations, all those false accusations and the subsequent hate propaganda are baseless and ill-intentioned. It would�ve been better that the reporters contacted me to get my side of the story prior to publishing those inflammatory allegations. I would like also to draw your attention to similar stories aired by other independent media in this respect.

It’s hard to believe that Rwandan journalists write on tragic issues with so much bias and lack of objectivity. One of the FDU INKINGI policy principles is not to entertain any discrimination or injustice among the Rwandan living and the dead.

I shall be most grateful if you could find some space in your next editorials of your newspapers' and on front pages for the relevant clarifications.

Sincerely yours,

Victoire Umuhoza Ingabire
FDU Inkingi Chairperson

CC: – The Minister of Internal Affairs,
- Press house

Document attached: Press release on Gisozi Visit.

via Rwanda FDU-UDF : False allegations in the New Times.