This year marks the 20th anniversary since the genocide in Rwanda when millions of people lost their lives, scores were maimed, thousands displaced while property was destroyed.

The genocide remains a dark stain not only in the Eastern African country, but also on the continent and the world. It is a historical occurrence that reminds us that such a thing should never be allowed to happen again.

The 1994 Rwanda genocide is the story of David Belton’s book, ‘When the Hills Ask for Your Blood’ (2014). Belton is a British journalist and the genocide was one of the assignments he covered while working with the BBC. The book is a collection of his experiences and Rwandans during and after the genocide.

It recalls the genocide through the stories of two people: Jean- Pierre, a young father who hid in a cesspit for about two months during the massacre and a Bosnian Catholic priest who sourced food from neighbouring countries to feed displaced families.

The man had no idea where his wife and two daughters were. He got food from a kind Zairean who risked his life to feed him. When he left the pit after the Rwandan Patriotic Front had driven away the ‘interahamwe’ (the Hutu militia) he found that his parents and seven of his siblings had been killed. The priest stayed in the country despite his colleagues fleeing for fear of their lives and vowed to help the suffering masses. After the genocide, he embarked on reconciling the warring communities but the ruling elite did not take this kindly and believed he was betraying the Tutsi by calling on them to forgive their attackers. He was murdered about two years later. Belton’s account raises issues that Rwanda and the region need to consider carefully even as the country prides itself in economic progress. For instance, how did the country get to the point of turning against her own brood?

Belton’s record demonstrates just how dangerous ethnic suspicions can be. He singles out the media and the education system for perpetuating tribal hatred and suspicion.

He cites a teacher who kept asking Tutsi children to raise their hands in class and the Hutu children would laugh at them and told the pupils about Tutsi kings who used to punish the Hutus. At the same time, Belton indicts the international community for looking away when Rwanda was burning. The church does not escape the chastising as some nuns and priests reportedly participated in, or supported the killings. Belton examines the reality of post-genocide Rwanda and how memories of the killings are treated by the state today.

By Jennifer Muchiri

The surviving prisoners didn’t know what to expect when British troops entered the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen in northwest Germany on April 15, 1945.

Nor did the soldiers – until the sight of the naked corpses piled high unfolded before their eyes.

Scenes of the living and the dead in the notorious camp, captured on tape by ordinary soldiers and newsreel cameramen at its liberation, are as relevant now as they were nearly 70 years ago, according to the director of a new documentary.

“The cameramen weren’t really there thinking about creating documentary film-making, they were there in a state of trauma and shock just filming what they saw,” director Andre Singer told the Thomson Reuters Foundation in an interview.

Sidney Bernstein, a British producer and later founder of Granada Television, was commissioned at the time to assemble the footage into a film that would be a record of the atrocities.

It was to serve both as evidence to show the Germans the extent of the industrialized slaughter, and as timeless testimony to ensure that such crimes against humanity could never be repeated.

More than six million people died during the Holocaust, the genocidal killing of Jews, gypsies and others during the Nazis’ rule over Germany and much of Europe.

Ultimately, the footage from Bergen-Belsen was consigned to the archives and the film project was shelved because of changes in the international situation after communist rule was imposed on eastern Europe.

In the documentary Night Will Fall, Singer tells for the first time the history of the planned film using archive footage and eyewitness testimony.

CHRONICLING ATROCITIES

A black and white frame shows human hair carefully sorted in dusted burlap sacks. Piles of spectacles with cracked lenses and mountains of clothes succeed it.

The remaining prisoners at Bergen-Belsen navigate a course between the corpses strewn around the camp, lying in different states of putrefaction.

A typhus epidemic killed nearly 14,000 of the 60,000 prisoners alive when the camp was liberated.

Scenes of battle were filmed from a distance during World War Two, so the close-ups captured by the soldiers at Bergen-Belsen were seen as different, even unique.

Visually explicit images such as those shown in the film become relevant in the broader context of how we document atrocities, Singer said.

Although using atrocity footage in film-making poses a different level of dilemma, it is the only way to have a new public understand what genocide means and why this was the worst genocide in history, he added.

“If you don’t (use) atrocity footage it becomes more of an intellectual exercise. You don’t shock people enough to take notice,” he said.

In April 1994, the world witnessed the death of 800,000 men, women and children in the Rwandan genocide. The United Nations estimated that the three months of genocidal killing was accompanied by the rape of 150,000 to 250,000 women.

“There will always be places and circumstances where mankind will lose any kind of moral compass and will cause more genocide, more trouble, more deaths,” Singer said.

“I think the hope is that at least by seeing documentaries like this, by putting them across, every generation will pause before moving onto something else.”

Singer also emphasized the need to put atrocity images into context and humanize a story, moving away from “just piles of corpses”.

The backbone of Night Will Fall is built on witness testimony that adds depth to the credibility of the archive footage.

“To me by far the most important feature in the film is the characters telling their stories. The documentary should be more than just a history lesson. It should be very much a story about the horror of genocide and mechanisms that we could put in place in the future to stop them,” he said.

By Laura Onita

One Tanzanian national and three Malawians are in police custody in Malawi’s northern border district of Karonga for aiding and abetting seven Rwandese (three women and four men), to enter the country without valid documents.

Karonga Station Officer Almakio Daka identified the suspects as Braham Mussa, (47) years of Mbeya village in Tanzania, Jackson Mweneloki (28) of Luhimbo village Traditional Authority Kyungu in Karonga, Pililani Mphande (27) of Matemanga village Traditional Authority Ntwalo in Mzimba and Beyan Munthali (25) of Kajiso village Traditional Authority Ntwalo in Mzimba.

According to Daka the four were caught at Lukulu road block in a minibus coming from Songwe boarder going to Mzuzu.

All the suspects were in a minibus Toyota Hiace registration number MZ9621 with two conductors which are Malawians and Malawian driver and a Tanzanian who was with the seven people in the back seat,” said Daka.

He said during interrogations the three Malawians told the police that they were hired by the Tanzanian nation to carry the people and were told everything will be well in the road blocks.

Daka said the illegal immigrants said that they were from Democratic of Congo (DRC).

“In the interview, the seven people explained that they are from the DRC and are seeking asylum  in Malawi but when we called United Nation High Commission of Refugees (UNHCR) representative here in Karonga to interview them if they really looking for refuge, they failed the interview hence they will answer charges of entering the country illegally,” said Daka.

Meanwhile the police also impounded the minibus they were travelling in.

By Tiwonge Kumwenda

Felin Gakwaya: Mwaramukanye amahoro abakunzi b’ikiganiro Imvo n’Imvano. Uyu munsi Imvo n’Imvano irabajyana mu kiyaga cya Rweru, gisangiwe n’ibihugu bibiri by’u Rwanda n’Uburundi, ahamaze iminsi havugwa imirambo y’abantu baza mu gice cy’Uburundi bava mu ruzi rw’Akagera rwo mu Rwanda. Kuva mu kwezi gushize kwa Munani, abarobyi bo mu kiyaga cya Rweru mu Ntara ya Muyinga mu Burundi bakomeje kubona imirambo y’abantu baboshye mu mifuka, baziritsweho n’amabuye. Abo baturage bavuga yuko bamaze kubona imirambo irenga 40 kandi yuko ikomeje kuza iva mu ruzi rw’Akagera rwo mu Rwanda, ikisuka mu kiyaga cya Rweru ku ruhande rw’Uburundi kuko icyo kiyaga gisangiwe n’Uburundi n’u Rwanda. Ku ruhande rw’Uburundi gikora ku Ntara ya Muyinga naho ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda gikora ku Karere ka Bugesera.

Ibyo bimaze kuvugwa amashyirahamwe arengera agateka ka muntu mu Burundi yahise asaba leta y’Uburundi gukora amaperereza ngo bamenye abo bantu abo ari bo n’ishyaka rya Green Party ryo mu Rwanda riheruka kubura umuyobozi waryo mu Karere ka Bugesera ryahise risaba yuko haba amaperereza kugira ngo bamenye abo bantu abo ari bo.

Ku itariki ya 25 z’ukwezi gushize kwa Munani, abayobozi n’Intara ya Muyinga n’abashizwe umutekano mu Rwanda bagiye kureba iyo mirambo, bumvikana yuko bagomba kuzakomeza gukorana kugira ngo hamenyekane neza abo bantu abo ari bo n’abakora ubwo bwicanyi abo ari bo.

Imvo n’Imvano rero yashatse kumenya neza aho abo bantu bava naho ubutegetsi bw’ibihugu byombi bugejeje amaperereza  kugira ngo hamenyekane abo bantu koko abo ari bo n’ababica abo ari bo. Byatumye twohereza Cyriaque Muhawenayo ku kiyaga cya Rweru ku ruhande rw’Uburundi na Phocas Ndayizera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda. Twanavuganye n’umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera mu Rwanda, Bwana Rwagaju Louis hamwe n’umushikirangaji w’Ubutegetsi bw’igihugu mu Burundi, Bwana Edouard Nduwimana. Iki kiganiro mwagiteguriwe kandi murakigezwaho na Felin Gakwaya.

Reka duhere mu Burundi aho imirambo iboneka kandi imwe ikaba imaze no gushyingurwa twumve uko Cyriaque Muhawenayo yasanze bimeze.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: aha rero turi mu Kiyaga Rweru aho baherutse gutora ibiziga by’abantu. Turi kumwe n’umwe mu barobyi bo ngaha, turagira turaganira abwira, abanze utubwire izina atubwire n’ingine byaba bayaragenze, witwa ngw’iki?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Njyewe banyita Nyandwi Sadiki, nkaba ndi umukuru w’abarobyi mu Ntara ya Muyinga, muri Komine Giteranyi.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Iki kiyaga Rweru nicyo baherutse gutoramo ibiziga by’abantu bitekeye mu mifuko, wadusigurira ingine byagenze?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Ibyo biziga byarabayeho, njyewe hari ku munsi wa mbere, kuwa kabiri niho babwiye ko babonye ibiziga mu mazi baje bizanana na Kagera, bimenera mu Rweru.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Aho hari mu kuhe kwezi?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Hari mu kwezi ku Munani, niho nanjye turi kumwe n’abamarine tujya kuraba kugira ngo tumenye ko inkuru ari yo, dusanga hari igunira rimwe ririmo abantu babiri basha! batekeyemo, uwundi ari umuntu umwe atari mu igunira. Niho twaca tuza tugatangira kucyibwira abayobozi ko hari ibintu biduteye amakenga. Niho batangiye kugikoreraho ku munsi wa mbere haciye haza komisiyo y’Uburundi n’u Rwanda, igipolisi c’u Rwanda n’ic’Uburundi bagiye kuraba ibintu uko bimeze. Niho bahashyika bararaba. Nta nyishyu baduhaye, batubwiye ko bagiye gukora itohoza. Bimaze kugenda uko, uko byagiye birakurikirana, haraheze iminsi ishika itatu, ibiri, baciye baza gupoma kubera abanyagihugu bariko bararwara igwara. Ku munsi wa gatanu, umunsi wo kubihamba naho n’ubundi baragarukanye muganga arabifoma, tuce tugenda turabyandura. Ibiziga bishyika bine barabihamba. Ibindi byo byari bimaze gusangukira mu mazi.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ibyo mwabonye abantu bari bameze gute?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Byari biteye ubwoba: abantu mu igunira inyuma bari baboshye n’imbere bari baboheye ndani. Ukuntu bari baboshye: barafataga ukuguru bakaguteranya n’ivi, ugaca usanga ni ibintu biteye ubwoba rwose kandi bari bambaye ubusa. Nta n’umwe wari wambaye n’ikariso n’imwe. Bwari ubwicanyi buteye ubwoba. Waca usanga bafite umugozi mu izosi, baramwambitse ikintu mu maso, bamushyira mu igunira.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Turiko turegereza hamwe mu bibanza mwari mwatoyemo abantu. Murashobora kutubwira neza ingine byagenze?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Aho twahashitse! Urumva baje bava mu Kagera, bahashitse urumva baciye baguma kuri urwo rufunzo.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Baja hehe?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Aho nyine, aho ubona.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Harya mwahatoye bangahe none?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Twahatoye umuntu umwe.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Hama abandi ko mwavuga ko ari bane bagiye he?

Nyandwi Sadiki: Abandi turamanuka hepfo, kata!

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Uko twazunguruka muri icyo kiyaga Rweru niko twagenda duhura n’abarovyi b’Abanyarwanda n’Abarundi bamwe bose bagenda batubwira icyo bazi kuri ibyo biziga bimaze iminsi bitorwa muri ico kiyaga.

Wowe usanzwe ukorera ngaha muri iki kiyaga?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Yego niho nkorera akazi kanje ka buri munsi.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ibintu by’ibiziga bavuga biguma biraza ngaha muri Rweru hari ibyo wigeze ubona?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Ibiziga narabibonye, vyaraje, bimwe twarabifuvye. Yego, n’ubundi bimwe biraza kubera amarebe agaca abizibira, abanyagihugu baguma babivuga.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Wowe ibyo uherutse kumva, uheruka kuvyumva ryari?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Muri iyi minsi iheze babwiye yuko nanjye nsazwe nkora aho nyine ku cyambu, ndi umukomite, baranterefonye babwira ngo haje umukobwa ngo ufunze umusatsi inyuma.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Aho ni nyuma y’igihe bahambiye ba bandi?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Yee nyuma y’aho, ikiziga kimwe. Nca ndaza rero mu gitondo, umuyaga ngo wagitembesheje, ngo ahantu bita ku isafi. Ahantu tugabanira n’Abanyarwanda. Siniriwe ndagikurikirana rero.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ariko wari waje kuraba?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Nari naje kuraba ndakibura. Nca nsanga cyatebye ngo umuyaga wagitembesheje.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Hari ababikubwire uretse kunoza inkuru?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Abarobyi? Abarobyi nibo babimbariye

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: None mu busazwe ibyo biziga biva he?

Umurobyi w’umurundi:: Ibiziga biva mu Rwanda. Urumva bimanukana Akagera kose kubera ko Akagera gasatura mu Rwanda hagati bigaca rero kubera ko Akagera kihaye inzira mu Rweru gaca kamena mu Rweru gaca kamena mu Rweru hagati bigaca bishikira aha ngaha ku Mubari. Ni cyo gituma duhita tubibona bivuye i Rwanda.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mubajije bagenzi banyu b’abarobyi bo mu Rwanda bababwira ngw’iki?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Batubwira ngo nabo ntibazi aho bituruka ariko twe mugabo iyo turabye tubona umenga bituruka mu Rwanda kuko urabona u Rwanda nta kindi gihugu kirwinjiramo nyine, ni cyo nyine Akagera gacamo hagati na hagati, twe tubona tuvuga ko bituruka mu Rwanda.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Amahoro Mutama! Urakomeye?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ndakomeye!

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Uri umunyarwanda?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ndi umunyarwanda.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Murabona ko baherutse gutora ibiziga ngaha by’abantu bapfuye. Ibyo waravyumvise?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Yee, narabyumvise ibyo ngibyo.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Kandi waranabibonye?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Narabibonye nyine. Baje no kubifuba hano, nari mpari.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: None ibyo biziga biva he?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ibiziga? Bituruka iyi ngiyi mu Kagera, biza gutyo, uruhagi dore ruri hano, noneho rukaza mu ruhande rwa rw’Uburundi hano, bikaza rero  byikubita muri Rweru.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ariko ikizwi ntibiza muri Rweru?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Oya. Biva mu kagera

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Murakoze!

Nawe warabibonye, igire hino, igira imbere! Uri umunyarwanda?

Umurobyi wa kabiri w’umunyarwanda: Njyewe ndi umunyarwanda

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ibintu bivugwa by’ibiziga wowe ubiziho iki?

Umurobyi wa kabiri w’umunyarwanda: Ibyo biziga icyo mbiziho nuko bimanuka mu Kagera, bikaza binyuze mu ruhagi rwameneye hano ku mwega w’Uburundi, ibyo biziga bikamanuka, bigata inzira y’Akagera bigakata biza muri urwo ruhagi, bigahita bihunguka hano mu Rweru. Ni ukuvuga ngo bimanuka mu Kagera byamara kugera hafi y’uru ruhagi rumenera hano rukata ruza hano mu Rweru.
Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mu Burundi?

Umurobyi wa kabiri w’umunyarwanda: Yeee bikaba ariho bikatira biza mu Rweru ku ruhande rw’Uburundi, niho bikatira bimanuka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mwatanguye kubabona ryari?

Umurobyi wa kabiri w’umunyarwanda: Abo bantu, natangiye kuza mbabona izo ndwi ebyiri maze hano, nazimaze ariko n’abo bantu barajemo hano mbabona, bari mu mifuka, bari bapakiye mu mifuka nibwo buryo nababonyemo.Umwe we yari hano hepfo, niho yari ari ndibaza ko ariho bamukuye, ibindi biziga bigera kuri bitatu byavuye hano ruguru, niho babitoye bajya kubishyingura.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Nawe mutama ntabyo wigeze ubona muri Kagera bibandanya, uretse ibiri ngaha?

Umurobyi wa mbere w’umunyarwanda: Hariya mu Kagera ntabwo tuhanyura gusa ababimenya ni ababa batuye hariya ku Kagera cyangwa bahinga hariya ku nkuka. Twe rero ntabwo twabimenya urabona tubona ibintu byagenze gute? Biri hano mu Rweru ariko bije gutya.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Reka dushike mu Kagera tubibarize ntacyo!

Umurobyi wa mbere w’umunyarwanda: Iiii, ahubwo nibyo byiza. Mujye mu Kagera, mugende mubabaze uko bimeze!

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Murakoze!

Abo banyarwandabashoboye kuyaga  bavuga yuko ibyo biziga byavuye muri Kagera none ako Kagera kisuha he? Kavuye he? Kisuka hehe?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Akagera kavuye mu kaerega nyine kisukama mu Rweru. Urabona ko kaciye inzira.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ni hehe?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Ni irya nyine ubona, karayiciye kisuka mu Rweru, karamanyura amazi, Urweru urabona ko yagiye ubu harimo amazi y’Akagera gusa. Aha rero ni hamwe dushitse hamwe bya biziga babitora bitatu. Urahabona, Akagera urabona ko kazana aha ngaha urabona ukuntu hatemba byaciye biza byegamira harya. Umufuko umwe warimo abantu babiri, uwundi urimo umuntu umwe. Ukuntu bari baboshye: inyuma bari badaze. Imbere ndani naho byari ibintu biteye ubwoba: wasanga aboheye imbere, aboshye inyuma no mu ijosi harimo umugozi, harimo n’ikintu bamwambitse,

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Bamwambitse hehe?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Bamwambitse mu maso. Baramukuye impuzu zoseee, nta n’umwe yari yambaye impuzu mu bantu bahambwe, mu ijoshi naho hari umugozi umunize, amabuye nayo yarimo ndani kugira ngo ntibazuke. Ababikoze babikoranye ubuhinga bukomeye: harimo amabuye aho twagiye duterura hose, twasaga harimo amabuye, ibuye rinini no kuzuka habaye imbaraga z’Akagera yaba mu Rweru hagati ntibari kuzuka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Urumva rero aho niyo nzira iyo?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Yeee! Aho inzira ni iyo. Ubu naho tugiye kukwereka aho rwamanyuriye kugira ubone ukuntu rwinjiye mu kiyaga Rweru.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Tuve mu kiyaga Rweru, ubu turiko turerekeza mu ruzi Kagera kugira abasazwe barangura imirimo yabo muri urwo ruzi no mu micungararo yarwo baduhe inkuru y’imvaho nimba koko bahora babona ibyo biziga birengana imbere y’uko byisuka mu kiyaga Rweru.

Bite? Turiko turaganira n’abanyagihugu ku byerekeye ibiziga bimaze iminsi bica ngaha! Mwarabibonye?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda wa gatatu: Twarabibonye bimanuka kabisa.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Aho hari ryari?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda wa gatatu: Nko guhera mu itariki ya 30/08/2014 byagumaga bimanuka, nkabona imirambo itemba mu mifuka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mwebwe musazwe muba aha Akagera gatembera, muramaze kubona byinshi bibacaho birengana?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda wa gatatu: No mu ijoro hari igihe bacaho n’uko umuntu aba batababora ariko no mu ijoro bacaho, hari igihe umuntu aduga, avuye nka hariya hepfo, ugaca uhuye na bibari batembye mugabo muri iki gihe ndumva aho byasakurije nta bantu bagitemba tukibona.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ndavuga imbere y’aho, imbere y’aho mugereranyije, mwabonye nk’abangana iki?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda wa gatatu: Abaciye mu Kagera bari nka 30 cyangwa barenga.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mubabona barengana?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda wa gatatu: Yeee, kabisa baratembe, bamanuka barenga 30.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Reka tuganire n’uyu mutama! Mutama, nawe umaze iminsi ngaha, nk’ibiziga waba warabonye bitemba birengana, bica mu Kagera bingana iki?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Numva ari nka 30 pee.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Nsigurira wowe inyine wabibonye!

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Twebwe twakora hariya ruguru dutema, tumaze iminsi nk’ingahe? Nk’icyumweru.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Aho hari ryari?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Mu kwezi kwa Karindwi. Tugiye kubona tubona abantu mu mifuka bari gutemba. Tukabaza tuti “biriya bintu ni ibiki?”. Icya tubwiye ko ari abantu twabonye umuntu umwe mbese adapfutse, mbese arambuye atya, tuti “ibintu ntabwo byoroshye!” Nuko tukajya tubona imirambo itemba.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Reka tuganire n’uyu mugabo nawe nkeka ko hari icyo abiziho! Hari ikintu uzi kuri ibyo biziga, hari abo wigeze abona batemba, babandanya muri Kagera?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Abantu gutemba ho baratemba, twarababonye. Twarababonye bashobora kuba barenga nka 30. Abo ariko ni abo tubona ku manywa naho nk’abagenmda mu ijoro bo ni benshi.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ariko batemba bava he?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Batemba baturuka ruguru bamanuka

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mu ruhe ruzi?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Muri uru ruzi rw’Akagera. Batemba bamanuka  nyine.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ubwo rero bava muri Kagera ntabwo bava muri Rweru?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ubu ngubu noneho Akagera gasigaye kamena muri Rweru, ubu ngubu basigaye banyura muri Rweru ubu ngubu, bagaseruka aha ngaha.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ariko we nk’ibyo wabonye, byo wiboneye n’amaso yawe byagenze gute?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ibyo nabonye n’amaso yanjye, nabonye nyine batemba mu mifuka nyine abantu barenze nka 30. Twebwe tukibaza aho abo bantu bakomoka twebwe bikatuyobera. Batemba bari mu Kagera, bamanuka za Rusumo.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Abo ni abo mwiboneye n’amaso yanyu?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Abo ni abo n’amaso yacu twiboneye. N’ubu ngubu mu kanya gato wabona banyuzeho bamanuka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Mupfaso, nawe uba ngaha?

Umudamu utavuzwe izina: Yego

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ibyo bintu bariko kuvuga warabibonye?

Umudamu utavuzwe izina: Twarabibonye kabisa. Twabonaga abantu, ubwa mbere twabonye umuntu yambaye ubusa, tugeze ubwa kabiri tubona abantu bari gucaho mu tudeyi nyine, turumirwa n’amazi twari twarafunze kunywa, tukagura ayo mwa teke, tukagura n’abana. Icya bikoze cy’ihebuzo ni abo bari barimo gutemba ejobundi. Ntiturongera kubona abandi bantu bamanuka.

Undi munyarwanda: Twebwe kugira ngo tumenye ko iyo mifuka arimo abantu, hari abantu bamwe bakinishije bazi ngo ni imari, bahambura umufuka nibwo basangaga harimo umuntu, twabonaga imifuka bitemba ati “biriya ni ibi baba batekeyemo” tutazi ko ari abantu, bawuhambuye nibwo twamenye ko ari umuntu. Ubwo abantu bagumye batemba bamanuka nyine. Ni ukuvuga ngo n’abatemba bambaye ubusa ntiwasha kuvuga ngo ndafata umuntu ngo muzirike aha ngaha, ntazi nyirawe, ari nk’ibintu byaciye ku itangazo, umuntu akavuga ati “nabuze umuntu wanjye, yaguye mu Kagera”, burya nta muntu yaca aha ngaha, twahita tumufata, tukamuboha, nyirawe akaza, akamutora, akajya kumushyingura, ariko tubonye umuntu atembye, nta muntu uba afite uburenganzira bwo kumukoraho n’umwe. Niyo ugerageje kuba wamukoraho, hari benshi bakubwira ko ugiye kumushinyagurira, ugiye kumwambura ibyo ufite [aha ashobora kuba yashakaga kuvuga kumwambura ibyo afite], ugasanga nabyo byakugiraho ingaruka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ariko se aho mubiboneye mwarabimenyesheje abategetsi b’iwanyu mu Rwanda?

Undi munyarwanda: Erega ibyo ngibyo na twebwe mu Rwanda byaduciye, byadukozeho! Ufite kumufata nk’uko nguko, mu Rwanda twaburanye izi manza nyinshi cyane, wamufata gutyo ngo “ni wowe wamwishye”. Ugasanga rero ibyo ngibyo tukakwirirwa twongera kubigira ngo turongera kubafata, ngo tugire gute, usanga rero ibyo ngibyo umuntu atabijyamo kuko ibyinshi byadukozeho ibyo ngibyo. Impamvu batakinyuraho ubu ngubu, bikaba byaranyuze nko kuri radio ababikoraga buriya bafite ukundi kuntu basigaye barahinduye, niyo mpamvu tumaze iminsi tutabona wenda abanyuraho.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Nuko mukomeze mwihangane rero, tuzosubira!

Abaturage: Yego yego. Nawe urakoze kandi kudutemberera. Ababishizwe mujye mubikurikirana nyine naho ubundi abanyagihugu barahatikiriye, biragoye.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ibiziga bine bitekeye mu mifuko byari byagaragaye mu minsi iheze byarashyinguwe n’abategetsi b’Intara ya Muyinga ku nkengera y’ikiyaga Rweru. Aha turi ku cyambu Dagaza, ku Mutumba Cyagakori, muri zone Masaka niho rero hahambwe abo bantu bane batowe mu kiyaga cya Rweru. Niho turiko turagana. Reka atwereke aho ariho!

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Turahashyitse. Ni aho, urabona hari imva zitatu, mugabo zirimo abantu bane, imwe irimo babiri kuko yari  yangiritse nta kuntu twari kubateranura kuko bari mu igunira, bari barimo nk’abasanguka.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Igihe babashyingura nta majambo yavuzwe?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Amajambo yavuzwe menshi y’agahinda kuko twaravuze tuti “dushyinguye umuntu tutazi aho baturuka, tutazi amazina yabo, tutazi amadini barimo ni cyo gituma ubona ntawuriko umusaraba, nta na kimwe kiriko kuko tutazi ko yari umusilamu cyangwa yari umupatecote cyangwa yari umugatolika nicyo gituma nta n’ikimenyetso bashyizeho kuko ntabari gushyira ikimenyetso ku muntu batazi imvo n’imvano. Ni cyo gituma ijambo bashyikirije bagize bati “aba duhambye ni abagenzi, ntitwomenya iyo baturuka”, urabona baje bazananye Akagera, kava mu Rwanda gashyika mu Rweru, gashyitse mu Rweru rero, uramva bavuga ngo bakorere amatohoza dusanga Abanyagihugu irwara zari zibarembeje kuko bari batangiye gusanguka kuko si aba abandi batanguye gushyika mu Rweru barasangutse. Bamaze kuraba icyo, icyo bahise bafata, bafashe ingingo yo kubanza kubahamba, batubwira ko bashobora gukora itohoza. Mugabo, twebwe abanyagihugu turindiranye igishyika cyinshi turebe icyo ryagerako kuko ubu byicanyi  burarenze kamere.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Kandi mubari bahari nta n’umwe wigeze umenyamo?

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Umuntu umuravye mu maso waramubonye, iyo aba nka nyinewe yari kumenya ati “uyu muntu ni uwo ngaha” kuko uwo twaciye twitegereza mu igunira neza yari umuntu ukiboneka mu maso kandi aboneka ko akeye, umuntu nyine ubona ko umenga yari umutegetsi n’inzara zariko neza, umurabye wabona ko ari umuntu asazwe yaranarima.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Urugendo rwanjye nari nzi ko rurangiye ariko ubwo nyine haciye haza umurobyi Sinabajije Nduwimana Leonidas atubwira ko yaraye abonye ikindi kiziga gitekeye mu mufuko.

Undi murobyi w’umurundi witwa Sinabajije Nduwimana Leonidas: Ni ukuvuga njyewe rero naritoye ngiye mu mazi nko mu masaa sita, ubugingo ni uko mpuye n’Akagera kirimo karasohora nk’uko mu mareba, niho nagize nk’uko rero mbona imbwa ya mbere irimo iratemba nk’uku tugeze haruguru gatoya nca mbona rero umuntu bashyize no mu ishashi hanyuma baca baraboha ino inyuma, Mugabo hano bari batoboye hano mu mbavu, amara mu nda y’iwe niyo yaciye avamo, aca araduga hejuru.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Aho ubiboneye wakoze iki?

Undi murobyi w’umurundiwitwa Sinabajije Nduwimana Leonidas: Njyewe aho naboneye bino narabwiye Abanyarwanda ti “None mwebwe murashobora kuvoma amazi ngaha mpande y’iyi ntumbi muyabona ntimutangaze ngo bazokuraba uko bokuraho uyu muntu hanyuma ngo bajye kumushyingura? Ngo eke twebwe ibyo bintu turabimenyereye, ngo bivanye ngo nyine mbona buri munsi ngo bama basohotse ngo n’imbwa zose zirasoka ngaha, ngo ntibidutesha umutwe, ngo twama twanyoye amazi ngaha, ngo buri munsi  ngo ntaco tuba, ngo nta gwara turonka, none mwebwe kuva aho bahambiye bariya none ntimwabonye ko hari abadushyigikiye kugira ngo ngaha mu mazi ntihagire ibyononekara? Bati “reka twebwe musabye yuko muturusha akantu, mwoduhamagaririra bariya bategetsi  bakaza akaba aribo babidufasha naho ubundi natwe ino mu Rwanda baraduhiga cyane rwose

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: None iki kiziga cyaba ariko kikiri?

Undi murobyi w’umurundiwitwa Sinabajije Nduwimana Leonidas: N’ubu niho kiri, n’ubu kiracyari mu marebe na kare twagiciyeko, n’ejo twaragiciyeko tugenda na kare mu gitondo twaragiciyeko tuza mbe n’imbwa zibiri ziri impande yacyo.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Twaciye dufatana urugendo n’uwo wabwiye ko yabonye ikiziga, turiko turegereza aho yoba yarakibonye, turi nko ku metero zitatu, reka utubwire!

Undi murobyi w’umurundiwitwa Sinabajije Nduwimana Leonidas: N’amara, n’amara riri hejuru.

Undi: Iyo ni ishashi bamushizemo!

Undi: Ni ishashi bamushyizeho, gusa yaratobotse, yaratobotse hejuru.

Abarobyi b’abarundi: Oya, ntushyire hejuru! Ntushyire hejuru. Reka, reka, yakirabye!

Undi: Gifotore harya nyine, aho uko! Mureke muriko muragitabura! Caramanyutse!

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ca hirya!

Undi: Muse nkabagisubiza i gasozi; urarebe, ntugwemo! Uca wandura umwanda!

Undi: Gisunike gise nkikiraba hariya!

Undi: Reka, ntukoreko!

Undi: Ni umuntu kweli, fotora, fotara!

Undi: Mu ndabire kweli, aba bantu kweli, Mana yanjye!

Undi: Rekura, sawa, tugende!

Undi: Cyaraje rero cyarasangutse, cyarabaye nabi niho twakibonye tugiye kuroba amafi twebwe abarobyi turi abahungu batanu niho rero twaciye tuvuga rero ni ukubibwira abantu badukuriye hariya ku cyambu kugira ngo barabeko babidufashemo bagikure muri uru ruzi.

Cyriaque Muhawenayo: Ikibazo cy’ibyo biziga biza biva mu ruzi Akagera ni kayoberabahinga. Haba mu gihugu c’u Rwanda cyanke c’u Burundi bose baguma bavuga ko atabantu babuze.

Felin Gakwaya: Tumaze kumva uko mu Burundi bimeze twagiye no ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda maze Phocas Ndayizera abanza ku kirwa Mazane kiri mu murenge wa Rweru.

Phocas Ndayizera: Mu masaha y’igitondo mpagera abarombyi batunganya incundura zabo bitegura akazi k’ijoro ko kuroba. Abarobyi babwiye ko ibimaze iminsi bivugwa ku mirambo yamanutse mu Kagera ikaza ku ruhande rw’u Burundi mu kiyaga Rweru itigeze ihagarika ibikorwa byabo kuko ngo ntaho uruhande baherereyemo ruhuriyemo nahabonetse iyo mirambo. Uyu musaza umaze imyaka 62 aroba mu kiyaga Rweru we n’abangenzi be bavuga ko bwari ubwa mbere bumvise abantu bangana batyo kandi ntawe uzi aho baturutse.

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Natangiye mfite imyaka 13 ndoba muri iki kiyaga kugeza na n’uyu munsi.

Phocas Ndayizera: Ntiwigeze wumva umuntu amanuka mu Kagera ngo aze aho hantu?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Nta na rimwe, yewe n’abasogokuru n’abandi nasanzemo, nta na rimwe birabaho. Ntubona? Ahantu ubona na none hameze nka kuriya na none ari ikigina, ahantu uri kuhabona? Hariya ni i Burundi. Ni ukuvuga ngo bababonye kuva nka hariya bamanuka kuri uru ruhande nko muri kilometero wenda nk’eshanu.

Phocas Ndayizera: Ku ruhe ruhande?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Mu ruhande rw’Uburundi.

Phocas Ndayizera: Baturutse he?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Bitewe n’abavandimwe b’iburundi turobana hano baje babitubwira ko bamanutse Akegera ariko ko batazi aho bavuye noneho Akagera kabakubita kabazana mu Rweru. Nabo ari Abarundi batubwira ko batazi abo ari bo, natwe tukavuga tuti “ntitubazi”. Inaha mu kiyaga cyacu nta bantu twatakaje. Ntabo.

Phocas Ndayizera: Mwarashakishije guhera uwo munsi?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Rwose! Marine, njyewe icya mbere nk’ubu nshunga ikiyaga, mfatanya na Marine, twarazengurutse iminsi  iyi; itatu, tubaza ko hari umunyarwanda waba yaguye mu mazi: nta n’umwe n’Abarundi twegeranye kuri izi mbibi nyine ubona nabo bakavuga bati “nta murundi wacu twatakaje!” Baje batemba mu Kagera gusa, nta n’ubwo tuzi n’ibyo ari byo. Abenshi nta n’ubwo tubazi. Imirambo twebwe twabashije kuhava tuhabonye yari ine.

Phocas Ndayizera: Abavugaga se ko yageraga no muri 40, abandi 15?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Njye ndakubwiza ukuri. Sinavuga ibintu ntabonye. Twari kumwe n’Abarundi. Iri mu gifuka. Buri murambo wari mu gifuka. Ashobora kuba ari umuntu yaba yarahemukiye abo bantu cyangwa abantu runaka, urumva abantu bane, ntabwo umuntu umwe yabica ahubwo nene ikibazo natwe twagize ni uko Abarundi nabo bavugaga bati “aba bantu tuzababaza ikihe gihugu”? Natwe tugira ikibazo: ese aba bantu tuzababa ikihe gihugu? Noneho u Rwanda rwo rukavuga ruti “ese nta Banyarwanda bacu batakaye kandi na none abo bantu bari iwanyu, iwanyu i Burundi, nonese murabona bahambwa n’u Rwanda? Turebye dusanga abantu bagomba kujya mu ruhamde rw’iburundi bitewe niho abantu bari bari, Abarundi baratwemerera bati “tugiye kuzabashyingura”. Hari abayobozi bwite. Abarundi bajya inama ku bwabo, twebwe turasezerana, turataha.

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Umuntu ashobora kugwa mu mazi aya masaha nk’ubu turi kumwe tuvugana ndabona ni saa sita n’iminota 17, ukazongera kumubona ejo saa sita n’iminota 17.

Phocas Ndayizera: Ari hejuru?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Aribwo agiye hejuru.

Phocas Ndayizera: Ha handi yaguye…

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Aba akiraho ariko mu Kagera ho aragenda kuko Akagera gatemba.

Phocas Ndayizera: Niyo mpamvu wemeza ko batebye?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Niyo mpamvu rero Akagera ko, ni ukuvuga ngo ntiwavuga ngo bakomotse aha kuko Akagera acyigwamo aragenda byanga bikunda ariko nkaha mu kiyaga cy’u Rweru ntiyagenda kuko ikiyaga ntigitemba.

Phocas Ndayizera: Icyo kuvuga ko baje bakabajugunya aho cyo namwe mubona atari cyo?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ntabwo ari cyo pe! Ni bande ko nta vedettes twumva mu Kagera ziza nijoro? Ko nta mato tubona, ko ntanaho banyura cyane ko n’abantu barahinga inkuka, barihinga imibande n’iki, bigendera batembera bareba uko imibande imeze. Ni ahantu bantu ni urujya n’uruza ndetse cyane Akgera kadenga kanyura aho abaturage batuye ku nkombe. Ntabwo abo bantu babura kubabona.

Phocas Ndayizera: Tugarutse inyuma gato, hari umuyaga wa wundi twavuze uhuha ugana aha n’aha ashobora nano ne kugenda mu cyerekezo umuyaga ujyanama amazi?

Undi murobyi w’umunyarwanda: Hari icyerekeza umuyaga ujyamo ariko twabivuze ku kiyaga cy’u Rweru ntwabwo twabivuze ku Kagera. Ni ukuvuga ngo ni itandukaniro. Urweru aguyemo umuyaga wamutwara ukamushyira i Burundi cyangwa ukamuzana mu Rwanda ariko noneho ibindi ni Akagera, Akagera rero ko ni ukuvuga ngo ko ntikanayaga, ni ugutemba gusa. Nanakubwiye ko abo bantu impamvu baje guseruka mu Rweru bakaza bakaza kuboneka i Burundi hariya ni uko ari n’iyo nzira iba y’ayo mazi yameneye i Burundi, banaje bajya i Burundi noneho ni ukuvuga ko kubera ko Abanyarwanda n’Abarundi duhurira mu kiyaga byabaye ngombwa ko ubuyobozi bw’u Rwanda bumenya ibyo bintu n’u Burundi bukamenya ibyo bintu kugira ngo barebe uko ibyo bintu babigenza.

Phocas Ndayizera: Hari n’ibitemba bivuye mu Kagera bikagana kuri uru ruhande?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Yego, bikagana hano kuri runo ruhande kuko biragenda byagera hariya hakurya, hariya ubina hameza nka hiriya mu cyambu cyo mu Burundi, umuyaga umuhengeri ukabikubita biza hano mu mazi yo mu Rwanda.

Phocas Ndayizera: Wenda ku muntu umenyereye gukoresha amazi nkawe, kuki iyo mirambo yatembe igana i Burundi ntitembe igana kuri uru ruhande?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Ni ukuvuga kuba yaratembe igana i Burundi, n’ubundi Akagera uwo mutembo wako ukokombeka mu Burundi, n’ubundi uwo mutembo uba mu Burundi. Ni ukuvuga ngo kugira ngo bizagere inaha byaba bigoranye kuko biragarenda  bigahita bisagama ahantu no mu rutoki, mu kabande iwabo kuko ikiyaga niho kigera.

Phocas Ndayizera: Mu myaka wenda wabayeho hano mu mazi nta yindi mirambo yaba yaramanutse mu Kagera ngo igane ku gice cy’u Rwanda cyangwa cy’u Burundi bigaragare ko n’ubundi icyo kintu gisazwe kiba?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Njyewe mfite imyaka 36 ariko kuva menye ubwenge, narangije ishuri ntangira kuroba. Nta muntu uratemba avuye mu Kagera ngo aze mu kiyaga cya Rweru. Ikiyaga cya Rweru impamvu ndikubikubwira n’i Burundi gikoraho, hose ni kimwe ariko ntabwo twari tumenyereye imirambo iva mu Kagera iza mu Rweru.

Phocas Ndayizera: Yahitaga ikomezanya n’Akagera?

Umurobyi w’umunyarwanda: Yahitaga ikomezanyaga n’Akagera bigakomeza bikamanuka. Natwe ni ukuvuga ngo ni ibintu byadutunguye.

Phocas Ndayizera: Mu bakora umurimo w’uburobyi ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda harimo n’umurundi twaganiriye, avuga ko yashoboye kugera aho iyo mirambo yari iri itaragabanuka. We akaba yemeza ko yabonye 15 mu gihe abandi bo bavuga ko babonye ine gusa.

Umurobyi w’umurundi ukorera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda: Abo nibonye njye ku giti c’iwange ni abantu 15. Nibo nabonye. Urabona nk’uku hatekereje umuyaga nk’uku bakaguma hano ariko nk’umuyaga uvuze, ukagenda nk’uku, bamwe baza bagaca bagenda twaciye tubimenyesha ib’iwacu kubera aba b’ino ntibogenda hariya, baciye bagenda; abashyitse bababoba, bababohera ahantu ku gihunzo nk’uku, bakaguma aho.

Phocas Ndayizera: Niba wararebye, wabonaga abo bantu ari Abanyarwanda, wabonaga ari Abarundi?

Umurobyi w’umurundi ukorera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda: Isura y’Umunyarwanda? None umunyarwanda n’umurundi barasa  gusa.

Phocas Ndayizera: N’ubusazwe nta bantu bajya batemba mu Kagera, bakaza bakahahagama?

Umurobyi w’umurundi ukorera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda: Oya. Sha nta bantu twari twabona mu Rweru n’abo banyarwanda babo harashobora guhera nk’umwaka uwundi ukarenga, ata muntu uguyemo. Nk’ab’iwanyu baca bihuta kuza kuguhiga. Twagiye kumenya ko ari n’abantu bitebye. Hari n’abantu babiri bagiye biterurira ibigunira, bibaza ngo ni amasaka, ngo bitoraguriye imari, bapfunduye basanga ni bantu barimo. Baraperereza mu Rweru bumve ko atamuntu amaze kuroheramiramo, bumva ntawe. Ubwo aba mbere nibwo bahise batangiye kubahambisha, basanga ni ibisazwe. Ubwo rero ahagira kabiri haciye haza rero binyuranyije ari benshi ari benshi kugira abo bantu 40 bababona n’abantu bari hehe? Bari baganditse ku rya mwotsi bo batigira bahava, ha hantu ariko Akagera kagira iki? Kazana ya nkukumba y’ibintu byose kababibacisha impande bigenda.

Phocas Ndayizera: Ukorera mu Rwanda, ukaba unatuye kuruhande rw’i Burundi, nta bantu wigeze wumva baho hafi bashobora kuba baraguye mu mazi?

Umurobyi w’umurundi ukorera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda: Oya, nta n’umwe. Nta n’uherutse kugwa mu Rwuru

Phocas Ndayizera: Nta n’umuryango wavuze ko wabuze umuntu?

Umurobyi w’umurundi ukorera ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda: Oya, ino ngaha nirirwa aha. Nta muntu ndumva yabuze hano, nta n’uwo ndigera numva wabuze mu Burundi harya.

Phocas Ndayizera: Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera, Rwagaju Louis avuga ko bamaze kumenya neza ko nta muturage w’aho hafi waburiwe irengero ndetse no ku ruhande rw’Uburundi bitari ngombwa kwirirwa bakora iperereza ngo kuko bitegeze bihungabanya na gato umubano w’abaturiye icyo kiyaga ku mpande zombi.

Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera: Akarere kacu ka Bugesera gakora ku kiyaga cya Rweru  ndetse kakaba ari Akarere kazungurutswe n’umugezi w’Akagera. Amazi yaba ari amazi y’uruzi rw’Akagera, yaba ari amazi y’ikiyaga cya Rweru ni amazi akoreshwa cyane n’abaturage b’Akarere bacu ka Bugesera mu bikorwa by’ubuhinzi, mu biorwa by’uburobyi no mu buzima bwabo bwa buri munsi. Nta kibazo dufite muri ayo mazi,  nta n’icyo twigeze tubona, twumvise ibyavuzwe ku bitangazamakuru bitandukanye ariko natwe twabshije gukurikirana mu midugudu cyane cyane ikikije urwo ruzi yaba ari urtuzi rw’Akagera yaba ari imidugudu ikikije ikiyaga cya Rweru. Nta muntu n’umwe mu bakoresha ayo amazi twaba twarumvise waba waragize ikibazo wenda ngo aburerwe irengero cyangwa baba bakeka ko ari we waguye mu mazi. Nta kibazo kindi kirekire twigeze twumva gihari, nta n’uwo twigeze twumva avuga ko yabuze umuntu we. Ku ruhande rwacu rero nta kibazo yaba ari icyo gukoresha ayo mazi, ari imirambo bavuga yabonetse mu mazi ku ruhande rwacu ntayo twabonye, ari abaturage bakoresha ikiyaga cya Rweru mu burobyi, ari abakora imirimo yo guhinga mu nkengero z’Akagera ntawaba yaratubwiye ko yaba yarabonye umuntu ucaho, umurambo uca mu mazi. So, ku ruhande rwacu rero nta mpamvu yo kwirirwa dukora iperereza kuko nta kibazo twigeze tubona muri ayo mazi.

Phocas Ndayizera: Wenda nk’uko rimwe na rimwe abahuriye ku mupaka bajya bajya inama, bakungurana ibitekerezo bagafashaya, ntago mwigeze munakurikirana wenda ngo mubafashe kumenya ukuri kw’ibyo bintu kw’aho iyo mirambo yaba yaraturukaga?

Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera: Inzego zikikije umupaka ndetse n’umupaka umwe ubundi turi abaturanyi baturanye ubundi tugira inama ziduhuza, haba hari ibibazo runaka abantu bagahura bakaganira ariko nta Murundi uvuga ko afitanye ikibazo n’Umunyarwanda ku mupaka, nta Munyarwanda uvuga ko afitanye ikibazo n’Umurundi ku mupaka. Twumva aho duhuriye ku mipaka yari ari ku gace kacu ka Bugesera kagabana no hakurya mu Ntara ya Kirundo muri Komine tugabana nta bibazo dufitanye bituma yenda dutuza by’ihutirwa cyangwa se dutumirana mu nama zidasazwe, turaganira nabo, aho tugabana batubwiye ko nta kibazo bafite, nabo nta bantu babuze. Nkumva rero umubano wacu uburyo dufatanya umunsi ku munsi yaba ari mu baturage b’umurenge wa Rweru baturanye n’ikiyaga cya Rweru nta kibazo bafitanye n’abaturanye babo bo hakurya. Tukaba twumva umubano ni usanzwe, ubufatanye ni ubusanzwe. Nta kibazo na kimwe twebwe tubonamo.

Phocas Ndayizera: Abaturage baturiye ikiyaga cya Rweru hari amabwiriza yihariye mwaba mwarabahaye yo gukoresha amazi? Ese yaba yaranduye?

Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera: Nta kibazo dufite cy’amazi yanduye. Yenda iby’imibiri yagaragaye mu kiyaga cya Rweru nk’uko nanjye nabyumvise biri mu gice cya ruguru nyine kigana mu Ntara ya Muyinga cyane cyane muri Komini za ruguru. Ntabwo ari igice cyegereye iwacu ariko nta mabwiriza yihariye abayobozi b’Akarere ka Bugesera twahaye abaturage bakikije ikiyaga cy’uburyo bwo kuyakoresha gusa nabo mu gihe baba baramutse babonye hari umuntu waguye mu mazi bafite inshingano yo kumuvanamo. Icyo gihe haramutse hari ubonetse birumvikana ko  twakurikirana tukamenya icyo yazize, aho yavuye, byaba na ngombwa  ndetse hakaba hanafatwa n’ababigizemo uruhare, uruwaramutse aguye mu mazi yenda hari abandi babigizimo uruhare kugira ngo dukurikirane ibyo bibazo ariko kugeza kuri uyu munota tuvugana, ku mazi yegereye Bugesera, mu murenge wa Rweru kuko nawe wahigereye, ngira ngo waganiriye n’abaturage batandukanye, n’abakoresha amazi mu buryo butandukanye, nta kibazo kidasazwe gihari ariko na none amazi y’ikiyaga ndetse n’ay’imigezi akenshi birumvikana ko akoreshwa mu bikorwa by’ubuhinzi aho abaturage bayavomeresha imyaka itandukanye, agakoreshwa mu bikorwa by’uburobyi, aho abaturage bakoramo imirimo y’uburobyi itandukanye ndetse hari n’abayakoresha mu bijyanye n’imirimo yo mu rugo: guteka, kunywa ariko icyo gihe nk’ibisazwe bakoreshwa imiti yo kuyasukura ndetse abandi bakayateka ku buryo butuma bitabangiriza ubuzima.

Phocas Ndayizera: Mukurikije imiterere y’Akagera kamanuka kakajya gakora ku ruhande rw’Uburundi n’u Rwanda. Ku ruhande rw’Uburundi bakomeje kuvuga yuko iyo mirambo yaba yaraturutse ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda, ni iki mubivugaho mwebwe?

Umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera: Icyo kibazo ntago nabashije kugikurikirana, ngo menye ngo abantu bavuye ha ngaha no kugira birebire nkivugaho kwaba ari ukurengera cyangwa se kuvuga ibintu gusa by’ibitekerezo by’umuntu ariko nkurikije abaturage baturiye uruzi rw’Akagera, nkurikije yuko urwo ruzi rw’Akagera rufite abaturage barukoraho ibikorwa byinshi by’ubuhinzi mu mirenge itandukanye, yaba ari umurenge wa Rweru uturiye ku kiyaga, yaba umurenge wa Gashora uturiye ku ruzi rw’Akagera, yaba ari umurenge wa Juru cyangwa hafi imirenge myinshi yacu wava i Ntarama, wava Mwogo, Juru, Gashora, Ririma bose bakora ku ruzi rw’Akagera. Ubusanzwe iyo hari mu mazi, mu mazi bantu bakoresha amazi hari igihe haba impanuka zo mu mazi bibaho, ubwato bukaba bwakwibarandura abantu bakagwamo, yenda umuntu akaba yajya kuroba muri ayo mazi akaba yafatirwamo n’inyamaswa runaka, habamo ingona, habamo imvubu, habamo inyamaswa z’inkazi zitandukanye zishobora gutuma haba abantu babura ubuzima bwabo muri ayo mazi ariko ubusazwe bitewe n’uko hari abantu benshi bakikije ayo mazi ku ruhande rw’Akarere kacu bayakoresha iyo haramutse hagize abantu bagiriramo impanuka, baburiramo ubuzima bwabo akenshi na kenshi ba bandi bakoresha amazi barababona, bakabavanamo, tukabasubiza gaciro kabo, tukabashyingura mu cyubahiro nk’uko umuco wacu ubiteganya. Muri iyi minsi rero nta raporo twigeze tubona y’abantu bavuga ko babonye abantu babonye imirambo mu mazi, ko hari umuntu waguye mu mazi, niyo mpamvu ntigeze mfata umwanya wanjye wo kujya gukurikirana icyo kibazo. Iyo tuba haba hari amaraporo tubona ko hari abantu baguye mu mazi wenda tuba twaratanze n’amatangazo; iyo twabuze ba nyirabo akenshi dutanga amatangazo kuri radio, tugasaba uwo ari wese wabuze umuntu ko yakora iperereza, yaza kureba imibiri twabonye ko ari iyabo ariko twe ntayo twigeze tubona mu karere kacu niyo twimvise yabonetse i Burundi, biragoye kuba nakubwiba ngo yavuye aha, nakwemeza hao yavuye kandi ntarayibonye, ntarigeze nkora n’ubushakashatsi cyangwa n’iperereza kuri iyo mibiri ariko turizera ko wenda aho imibiri yaba yarabonetse bazakomeza gukora iperereza n’ubushakashatsi kugira ngo bamenye aho abo bantu baba baravuye, ndumva aricyo navuga. Ku ruhande rwacu rw’Akarere kugeza ubu ngubu nta kibazo dufite.

Phocas Ndayizera: Uwo yari Rwagaju Louis, umuyobozi w’Akarere ka Bugesera ariko nk’uko yari abivuze, nagerageje gushaka kujya mu kiyaga Rweru kureba aho u Rwanda n’u Burundi bigabanira ariko ntibyanshobokera kubera ko ntabiherewe uruhushya n’abasirikare b’abamarine aribo bashyizwe kurinda amzi y’icyo kiyaga. Iki kiganiro nagiteguriye ku nkombe z’ikiyaga Rweru ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda.

Felin Gakwaya: Ishyaka Green Party ryo mu Rwanda riheruka kubura umuyobozi waryo mu karere ka Bugesera, Bwana Jean Damascene Munyeshyaka wabuze kuva ku itariki ya 27 z’ukwezi kwa Gatandatu muri uyu mwaka, iryo shyaka rero rikaba ryarasabye leta zombi z’u Rwanda n’Uburundi gukora amaperereza yimbitse kugira ngo bamenye neza abo bantu abo ari bo. Navuganye n’umuyobozi wa Green Party, Frank Habineza, mbanza kumubaza niba hari icyo babasubije.

Frank Habineza: Kugeza na n’ubu turacyakomeje iyo gahunda yo gusaba yuko byakorwa, ndumva icyo tutarakora ni ukubisaba mu rwego officiellement, ni ukuvuga kubyandika tubisaba inzego zibishizwe ariko kubera ko mu rwego rwa politiki twabivuze turumva ko ababishyizwe babyumvise kandi ko bagomba kubikora. Twumva yuko ibyiza ari uko nka leta yacu kubera ko bafite ibyuma bya kabuhariwe bafite ubu, bishobora gukora amaperereza ndetse n’abatekinisiye babyigiye ko bagerageza bagakora iryo perereza noneho hakavaho icyo kintu cy’urujijo, tukamenya neza uko bimeze.

Felin Gakwaya: Murasaba iperereza ariko nawe wari uvuze ngo ntabwo mwari mwagerageza kubisaba mu buryo bugaragara, ni ukuvuga mu buryo buri officiel, ni iki kibabuza kubisaba mu buryo buri officiel na cyane cyane ko ibyo murimo muravuga biraba ku butaka bw’Uburundi, ni abategetsi b’Uburundi, ntabwo ari abategetsi b’u Rwanda mubisaba; ni iki kibabuza kuba mwajya kubaza abategetsi b’Uburundi yuko izo mpungege namwe muzifite kugira ngo ari bo bakora iryo perereza?

Frank Habineza: Mbere twasabaga ko iperereza rikorwa iriya mirambo itarashyingura noneho tuza kugira ikibazo yuko iyo mirambo yashyinguwe noneho dutangira kubaza abavoka bacu icyo twakora kubera ko iyo mirambo yashyinguwe noneho turibaza ukuntu iryo pererza ryakorwa. So twari tutarabona neza igisubizo cy’abavoka, uko twabigenza niba twazabitwara i Burundi ariko ubwo turumva ko mu minsii tari iya kure tuba tumaze kubona umwanzuro w’abavoka bacu.

Felin Gakwaya: Kugeza na n’ubu ngubu umuntu wanyu ntabwo murabona?

Frank Habineza: Kugeza na n’ubu ngubu umuntu wacu turacyamushakisha, ntabwo turamubona, ubwo turumva polisi y’igihugu, iracyabirimo iracyamushakisha ndetse natwe turashyiramo imbaraga zitandukanye tumushakisha ubwo twese turimo gufatanya ngo tumushakishe.

Felin Gakwaya: Igihe twavuganaga ubushyize wari wavuze yuko hari abantu banyu bari bashatse kureba iyo mirambo uko imeze, niba bashoboraga kumubona, hari icyo bagezeho?

Frank Habineza: Ntacyo bashoboye kugeraho, urumva ko bumvise ibyo bintu byabaye, abantu bashakaga kugerayo ariko kubera ko batashoboye kubona iyo mirambo face a face ntabwo bashoboye kumenya neza ibyo bintu ibyo ari byo ariko ni ukubera ko nabo bagize ubwoba, ntabwo turacika intege kumva ko yazimiye burundu, turumva ko ashobora kuba kuko ashobora kuba akiri muzima niyo mpamvu tugishakisha.

Felin Gakwaya: Na n’ubu tukivugana, ejo umunyamakuru wacu yari yagiye mu Ntara ya Muyinga kongera kwirebera, agera hariya muri kiriya kiyaga cya Rweru asanga baraye babonye uwundi murambo, ni ukuvuga imirambo iracyaza, n’ubu ngubu mushobora kohereza abantu bakajya i Burundi bakagenda bakajya kureba iyo mirambo iyo ari yo?

Frank Habineza: Twebwe urumva dufite abantu dukorana nabo muri Burundi, dufiteyo mouvement, bita ‘Mouvements de Vert Burundais’, Burundi Green mouvement, turumva tuzaganira nabo mu minsi itari iya kure kandi twashyizeho ikintu cyitwa East Green Federation cyangwa se Federation des Verts au niveau Est africaine. So turumva cyo twarimo gutekereza cyane ko ari cyo cyadufasha kubera ko urumva  ko birenze imbibi z’u Rwanda kandi twebwe ubushobozi dufite ni ugukorera politiki mu Rwanda, ntabwo tubufite mu Burundi ariko kubera ko dufite abagenzi mu Burundi ndetse tukaba dufite n’urwo rwego rwa East Africa, twarushyizeho umwaka ushize, turumva ko izo nzego ebyiri bashobora kuba badufasha mu gukurikirana icyo kibazo natwe tukaba tubirimo ariko hakaba hari izindi nzego, ati twebwe direct kubera ko birenze ubushobozi bwacu.

Felin Gakwaya: Hanyuma ku ruhande rw’u Rwanda rwo ni iki mwifuza ko cyakorwa na cyane cyane ko muvuga ko umuntu wanyu ataraboneka kandi mukavuga yuko u Rwanda rufite ibyuma kabuhariwe, bo bo murabasaba iki?

Frank Habineza: Urumva iyo mirambo twari twavuze ko basuzuma yarashyinguwe, ubu haracyarimo ikibazo ku cyo twavuga ko cyakorwa ubu ariko haramutse hari ubundi buryo ibyo bita forensic, bashobora kuba hari ikintu bakora, ndumva babifitiye ubushobozi kuko na forensic bayikora n’iyo abantu baba barashyinguwe ariko bafite ubushobozi bashobora kuba babikora, ndumva babikora cyane cyane ko twumvise ko abo bantu bashyinguwe na autopsie ikozwe.

Felin Gakwaya: Ariko n’ubwo abo bashyinguwe hari abandi bakiza?

Frank Habineza: Ayo makuru y’abandi bakiza ntabwo turabibona neza twebwe niba hari n’ayahari nabyo ni ibindi bintu twakongera tugahagurukira cyane cyane noneho haramutse hari n’ibindi bibonetse ndumva icyo gihe igihu cyacu cyakagombe kubigiramo uruhare, bikamenyekana neza aho iyo mirambo iri kuva.

Felin Gakwaya: Arakoze Frank Habineza, umuyobozi wa Green Party mu Rwanda. Twanashatse kumenya icyo abashyizwe umutekano mu Rwanda babivugaho maze umuvugizi w’igipolisi  atubwira yuko ntacyo bafite babivugaho ngo kuko ngo imirambo iri mu Burundi, ngo tugomba kubaza abayobozi bo mu Burundi. Mbere yo kuja ku bayobozi b’u Burundi, nabanje kujya mu ishyirahamwe rirengera agateka ka kiremwa muntyu mu biyaga bigari LDGL, ishami ryo mu Burundi, ryasabye leta y’Uburundi gukora amaperereza maze mvugana n’umuyobozi waryo Maitre Cyriaque Ndayisenga, abanza kubwira yuko bagifite impungege.

Maitre Cyriaque Ndayisenga: Gushyika na n’ubu impungege twashyikirije ntizirabonerwa umuti kuko twari twasabye yuko hobaho amatohoza yigenga, ayo matohoza akaba ariyo nk’uko amategeko abitegekanya, ashobora kwerekana ukuri, abantu bakamenya icyagandaguye barya bantu, bakamenya ko bari Abanyarwanda cyanke yuko bari Abarundi cyanke yuko bari Abatanzaniya cyanke yuko bari abandi, hakamenyekana yuko bishwe kumbure barashwe cyanke basogoswe imbugita cyanke babakubise amahiri kuko ubuzima ni katihabwa nk’uko amategeko y’agateka ka zina muntu abivuga ariko gushyika n’ubu twebwe na bene abantu, amakungu, ntiharamenyekana ukuri kuri buriya bwicanyi.

Felin Gakwaya: None uretse kubivuga kw’iradio hari ibyo mwari mwashyikiriza ubutegetsi?

Maitre Cyriaque Ndayisenga: Twebwe twarabitangaje ku maradio ni byo, tugasaba ubutegetsi yuko bwogira ayo matohoza, tukaba twasabye yuko ubutegetsi bwa leta y’Ubundi na leta y’u Rwanda byokorana kubera yuko icyo kiyaga cya Rweru kiri hagati y’ibyo bihugu bibiri ariko ubutegetsi bwarabyumvise ndetse twaje kuva n’ikiganiro umuvugizi wa leta y’Uburundi, Philippe Nzobonariba none arashikiriza ijambo ku radio avuga yuko amatohoza nawe nyine ari ngombwa urumva twabivuga kumwe nk’uko bavuga ngo “abagabo barara ukubiri, bakarota kumwe” urumva yuko akamo kacu leta yakumvise; mugabo byohagarariye ngaho. Gushika ubu ntituramenya ikindi kintu leta yakoze, leta ntiratangaza icyavuye muri ayo matohoza, ntiratangaza ndetse nuko ayo matohoza yatanguye, ngo abantu bizere bati “turindirinye ukwizigira ko matohoza yatanguye, turindiranye ukwizigira, tuzomenya icyagandaguye abo bantu”. Urumva leta yari yumvise akamo twayiteye, ibyo byari bihagihe, byari byotunezereye, byadushimishije; mugabo, urumva ko bidahagije.

Felin Gakwaya: Hanyuma, uretse ko leta niba mwateye akamo leta ikabyumva mukabona se yuko ntabyo arimo gukora, mwebwe ubwanyu ntabwo mwakora amaperereza ngo mugende kuko na n’ubu turacyumva imirambo igikomeza kuza, umunyamakuru wacu twamwohereyejeyo ejobundi yari ariyo, agerayo abona ibindi biziga birimo biraza, mwembwe ntabwo mwatera intambwe ngo mukore amaperereza yanyu?

Maitre Cyriaque Ndayisenga: Twebwe ibyo turiko turabitegura kuko ntibyoguma gutyo, turiko turahura n’ayandi mashyirahamwe mpuzamakungu, kumbure si ngombwa ngo tubivuge ubu nyine ku mararadiyo kugira ngo natwe turonke ibyegeranyo byacu nk’amashyiramwe mpuzamakungu yita ku kiremwa muntu, turiko turabitegura ariko byari vyiza yuko leta kuko ariyo ifise itegeko ihabwa n’amategeko guhera ku mategeko nshinga, ibwiriza nshingiro, amaleta niyo afise itegeko ryo gutumbera umutekano w’abenegihugu bayo hamwe no kumenyesha icyo cyose cyohungabanya ubuzima cyanke agateka ka zima muntu ku mwene gihugu w’igihugu icyo ari cyo cyose biba ari ngombwa kuri leta ngo ikurikize amategeko yo nyine yiyemeje.

Felin Gakwaya: Maze kumva ibyo Maitre Cyriaque Ndayisenga avuga n’ibyo Frank Habineza wo muri Green Party avuga ndetse n’ibyo abo baturage basaba, nagiye ku Mushikirangaji w’Ubutegetsi bw’igihugu mu Burundi, Bwana Edward Nduwimana, mbanza kumubuza icyo ubutegetsi bw’Uburundi bumaze gukora kuri iki kibazo

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ni vyo nk’uko mubizuze haraheze iminsi havugwa ndetse si ukuvugwa gusa haranabonetse ibibiga, ibiziga by’abantu batekeye bapfuye mu magunira bamwe ndetse baciwe n’amaguru. Ibyo biziga rero bikaza biva mu Kagera bikisuka mu Rweru, ibyo byatanguye kuboneka hagati mu kwezi ku Munani nko mu itariki 11 gushika hagati y’itariki 11 n’itariki 17 ariko ku itariki 15, 16 niho abarobyi baba Abarundi baba abarobyi bo mu Rwanda batanguye kuva bati “nyabuna turabona ibyo biziga biza biva mu Kagera byisuka mu kiyaga Rweru. Aho rero aho tumvumviye abajejwe intwaro, abajejwe umutekano haba mu bice by’Uburundi no mu Rwanda bahavuye bashika aho hantu maze bamaze kuhashika barabona ko koko yuko hariho ibiziga hafi bitatu ndetse biboneye amaso mu yandi bitekeye mu magunira, ubwo rero aho bamariye kubibona bwa mbere na mbere twababwira yuko baba Abarundi baba Abanyarwanda ibyo bintu biba bibabaje kandi biteye n’ubwoba bigatera n’isoni. Byumvikana rero igikuru atari ukubanza kuraba ati “mbega ni ibiziga by’Abanyarwanda? Ni ibiziga by’Abarundi batanako umwikomo”. Icyo bakoze kwabaye ukubanza kuraba ingine vyo heza bigashyingurwa, bikavanwa muri ayo mazi. Ikindi nacyo ni uko kubera imigenderanire myiza bahavuye bavuga bati “reka turabe ingine twojya hamwe kugira ngo dushobore kugira amatohoza: tumenye ibyo biziga iyo biza biva, tumenye ingene abo bantu bishwe, tumenye n’icyabitumye. Ikigaragara twebwe tuvuga nuko ku muce w’Uburundi turemeza  neza yuko ata Barundi bapfuye muri ubwo buryo, ata Barundi barigera bavuga bati ‘twarabuze abantu’ kandi ikigaragara nuko bigaragara ko baza bava mu Kagera bagaheza bakisuka mu Rweru.

Felin Gakwaya: Muvuze ko mwemeza mudashuidikanya yuko atari Abarundi kandi utubwiye yuko mwari kumwe n’Abanyarwanda mujya kureba ibyo biziga uko ari bitatu, ese n’Abanyarwanda nabo baremeye yuko abo bantu barimo barava mu Rwanda atari Abarundi?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ego, barabyemeye nabo kuko biranaboneka kuko murabizi ingine amazi atemba, byaboneka ko baza bava mu Kagera, Akagera naho urabye iyo kaza kava kaza kava mu Rwanda hanyuma bagaheza bakisuka mu Rweru, ahantu hitwa ku Idagaza. Ahitwa ku Idagaza niho Urweru ruhurira n’Akagera, niho rero ibyo biziga vyoheza bikaboneka. Biraboneka rero yuko atari ibiza biva kuri cote y’Uburundi ariko ko biza biza mu mice y’Akagera y’u Rwanda ariko kuba rero biva muri uwo muce w’Akagera ntibisigura yuko ari Abanyrwanda nicyo gituma haheza haba amatohoza kugira ngo duheze tumenya yuko abitabye Imana ari Abanyarwanda cyanke yuko ari Abarundi cyanke abandi bo mu kandi kabira, mu kindi gihugu kuko nabyo birashoboka, igikuru rero muri mwene ibyo ni uko iyo abantu bitabye Imana, ikiremwamuntu murazi ko ari ibintu bibabaje kandi biteye ubwoba, igikuru ni uko haheza haakaba amatohoza bahageza hakamenyekana abo bantu abo ari byo n’ingine vyoba vyaragenze.

Felin Gakwaya: None mbere y’uko tujya ku kibazo cy’amatohoza, umuntu yabanza akabaza ati “ese ku kibazo cy’imibare cy’abantu imaze kuza aho ngaho, mwavuga ko ubu ngubu bamaze kungana bate?”

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Aho inzego z’umutekano z’Uburundi n’u Rwanda bashikiyeyo abo bashoboye kubona bari batatu ariko amakuru tubwirwa n’abarobyi baba abo mu Rwanda cyanke abo mu gice cy’Uburundi baremeza yuko ibyo biziga bishobora kuba birenga 40 kira noneho n’uyu munsi hariho ibindi bibiri byabonetse umengo guhera ejo, byabonetse biza bimaze no kumera nabi, hariho ndetse n’icyahavuye kimenyekana yuko umwe muri ibyo biziga hariho umwe yoba yaaratwawe n’uruzi, ava mu Rweru byemejwe n’ishyirahamwe ry’abarobyi babyemeje kuko aribo bashoboye kumumenya byumvikana rero ko bisaka ko haba amatohoza, ukuri kukamenyekana ariko umubare twobabwira ni uko gushika uno munsi ibyo biziga bishobora kuba birenga 40.

Felin Gakwaya: Hanyuma ku matohoza muvuze, ubu ngubu umuntu yavuga ngo ayo matohoza ageze he?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ayo matohoza urazi ingine amatohoza murabizi ingine amatohoza agenda, amatohoza afatira ku bintu bitandukanye: ubwa mbere na mbere ni uko haba abantu bavuze bati “twarabuze abacu” kugira ngo abajejwe amatohoza  baheze bagire aho bahereye. Ikindi nacyo ni uko hoheza hokaba umuntu ushobora gutanga uruyambu rw’ingine ibyo bintu biba byagenze, ni ukuvuga yuko uko amatohoza aba ababijejwe bariko barabikora bafatiye nkumbure ku makuru bagenda bararonka hirya no hino igikuru ni uko dusaba Abarundi gukomeza babumbariranye, babumbatiye amahoro n’umutekano cyo kimwe n’Abanyarwanda kandi yuko imigenderanire hagati y’ibihugu byacu yobandanya itsimbatara, itera imbere kuko ifatiye ku bintu vyinshi cyane, ahanini rero twibaza yuko abajejwe gutohoza icyo gikorwa bariko baragikora, nihagera bazotubwira ingine ibintu biriko biragenda. Gushika ubu nababwira yuko haba ku muco w’u Rwanda haba ku muco w’Uburundi igikorwa kiriko kirakorwa ngira ngo ni uguheza bokarindira uwo wese ukeneye ukuri kuzoteba kumenyekana.

Felin Gakwaya: Mbere yuko nkomeza ikibazo cyanjye, reka mbanze nkumvishe uyu murundi mugenzi wanjye yagiyeyo, reka wumve uko yamubwiye amaze kugerayo!

Umurobyi w’umurundi: Ni cyo gituma ijambo bashyikirije bagize bati “aba duhambye ni abagenzi, ntitwomenya iyo baturuka”, urabona baje bazananye Akagera, kava mu Rwanda gashyika mu Rweru, gashyitse mu Rweru rero, uramva bavuga ngo bakorere amatohoza dusanga Abanyagihugu irwara zari zibarembeje kuko bari batangiye gusanguka kuko si aba abandi batanguye gushyika mu Rweru barasangutse. Bamaze kuraba icyo, icyo bahise bafata, bafashe ingingo yo kubanza kubahamba, batubwira ko bashobora gukora itohoza. Mugabo, twebwe abanyagihugu turindiranye igishyika ryinshi turebe icyo ryagerako kuko ubu byicanyi  burarenze kamere.

Umuntu umurabye mu maso waramubonye, iyo aba nka nyinewe yari kumenya ati “uyu muntu ni uwangaha” kuko uwo twaciye twitegereza mu igunira neza yari umuntu ukiboneka mu maso kandi aboneka ko akeye, umuntu nyine ubona ko umenga yari umutegetsi n’inzara zariko neza, umurabye wabona ko ari umuntu asazwe yaranarima.

Felin Gakwaya: Murumva uwo nguwo yarabyiboneye, yagiye no kureba ahantu aho ngaho wari utubwiye nyine Idagaza, ahantu babahambye, bafite ikibazo abaturage: kuki mwihutiye kubahamba mutari mwakora iperereza? Ni iki cyatumye mudashobora kubanza gukora iperereza mbere yuko mujya guhamba aba bantu?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ngira ngo ubwa mbere na mbere ho nuko n’uko mwimvise n’uwo mwenegihugu ingine abivuze aremeza ko batashoboye kumenya abo bantu abo ari bo. Ni ukuvuga yuko nabo baravuga yuko twarabonye ko ari ibiziga mugabo ariko tugerageje kuraba ntitwashobora kumeya abo ari bo. Byumvikane ko nk’Umurundi ari ko arabivuga aribivuga ngo ntitwashoboye kubamenya. Ikindi nacyo twashoboye kubona nuko nk’uwo bavuga babonye twe twarabonye yuko ari umuntu ashobora kuba ari umuntu w’umusirimu, umuntu utari nyarucari. Byumvikana rero yuko umuntu nk’uyu arinze yitaba Imana ngaha mu gihugu cyacu cy’Uburundi ndetse mu Ntara zose, mu makomine yose, ku mitumba yose ntashobora kwitaba Imana ngo bireke kumenyekana kira noneho abo baba ngaha murumva yuko bo nyine bari kumenya ko ari Umurundi. Gushika uno munsi rero ni ukuvuga yuko amatohoza ategerezwa kubandanya kugira ngo tumenye abo bantu iyo baje bava, abo ari bo n’icyatumye ibyo bintu biba. Ikigira kabiri nacyo nuko ntitwari kurindira yuko amatohoza abanza kurangiza, murazi yuko yo umuntu yitanbye Imana ni ngombwa ko ahambanwa iteka, agafubwa; uretse ko ari uburenganzira bwiwe nk’ikiremwa muntu nuko bishobora no kononera amagara y’abandi kuko nk’uko mubyumva aho mu kiyaga Rweru hari hatanguye kuba ingorane bishobora no gutera ikibazo cy’umutekano ku bijyanye n’amagara y’abenegihugu. Ni cyo gituma rero twahise tuvuga tuti “byiza ni uko bafubwa”. Nagira ngo mbabwire yuko ibijyanye n’amatohoza naho umuntu yaba yapfuye bashobora gupima igufwa bakamenya aho yaje ava; hariho abantu bafite ubuhinga buhamabaye ku bijyanye no gukora amatohoza murabizi ababinonosoye cyane ku bijyanye n’ama equetes, ku bijyanye n’ibyigwa bize, umuntu naho aba yapfuye, bamufubye, bamuhambye urashobora kumuzura, ugapima igufwa ryiwe, ukamenya ingine byagenze. Ubu rero nibaza yuko igikuru ni uko aho bahambwe ari ahantu hazwi, ari ahantu abahinga bashobora gushika. Uwokwifuza wese kugira iryo tohoza yashobora kuhashika agakoresha ubuhinga tuzi yuko bushobora kandi bwizwe n’abahinga haba mu bihugu by’iwacu no mu bindi bihugu.

Felin Gakwaya: Wenda  reka mbaze iki kibazo tya: mu Burundi nta bushobozi mufite bwo gukora ibizami mbere yo guhamba umuntu kugira ngo mumenye ngo uyu muntu yari kanaka, yishwe n’iki ngiki, bimwe bita ‘autopsie’?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ibyo nta bushobozi nibaza yuko icyo bagira nuko imbere yo guhamba umuntu yapfuye mu buryo mwene ubwo haraba abajejwe kugira amatohoza icyo bita ‘constant de l’OPJ’ aba ahari, hakaba na ‘expertise’ ya muganga. Aha rero nibaza yuko ibyo nabyo birashoboka ariko nagira ndababwire ngo ku bijyanye n’amatohoza ntacyo biba byishwe naho byaba bitakozwe, uwobyifuza birashobora gukorwa ariko ndagira ndababwire ko mwene ibyo cyane cyane biheze bigakorwa  mu gihe amatohoza nyir’izina amaze gushika mu mfuruka yayo hamwe habye ugira ati “Nyubuna ntabariza, ndabira umuntu yari uwanjye menye yuko yishwe n’iki n’iki”. Aha nibaza yuko ibyo byabirekera abajejwe amatohoza nkumbure tugafatira no ku makuru agenda araboneka buke buke bizoheza bikorwe nibaza yuko atari Abarundi gusa n’amakungu akeneye kumenya ukuri kuri ibyo byabaye.

Felin Gakwaya: Impamvu nari mbibajije nuko hari amakenga menshi arimo arabanzwa haba mu Rwanda haba naho ngaho mu Burundi, nk’uko nawe wari ubivuze: uravuga yuko ntawamenya niba ari Abanyarwanda cyangwa niba ari Abarundi cyangwa se niba ari abandi, umuntu akavuga ati na cyane cyane ko hariho nkabo bagiye bagasangangana nk’amakarita ya mitiweli yo ku Gisenyi mu Rwanda, hari abari bambaye udupira twanditseho Ikinyarwanda, ibimenyetso nk’ibyo ngibyo ko byabonetse, kuki byo byo mutabifata kugira ngo mubihereho mutangire gukora amaperereza na cyane cyane yuko noneho hari abandi bakiza kugira ngo mutajya gukora amaperereza nyuma kandi mushobora gukora amaperereza mu bihe bitangira, bigifatika, hari ibintu bishobora gutuma mumenya abantu abo ari bo?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Bariya bari bambaye udupira tw’Ikinyarwanda kandi n’amakarata ya mitiweli yo mu Gisenyi murumva rero yuko atari Abarundi bojya kugira amatohoza kuko twebwe ku byerekeye Uburundi uretse ko bahambye ku butaka bwacu kubera batowe ku butaka bw’Uburundi murumva ko amatohoza ategerezwa gukorwa n’Abarundi [aha shobora kuba yaribeshe, yarashakaga kuvaha ko amatohoza yakorwa n’Abanyarwanda] na cyane cyane nibaza yuko abo bantu bemeza ko muri ibyo biziga bari bafite mituelle z’Ikinyarwanda, bakaba bafise n’udupira tw’i Gisenyi murumva yuko amakuru atanguye kuboneka, ubwo mwoheza mukabaza ngira ngo mu Rwanda bariko barakora amatohoza kugira ngo bamenye yuko haba mu Gisenyi, haba mu yindi micungararo yabo ata mwenegihugu waba waritabye Imana. Murumva rero yuko icyo kibazo atari abarundi bocyishyura kuko buretse yuko bahambwe mu Burundi ni hamwe mu Kirundi tuvuga ko “ko nta si idahamba”. Aho umuntu aguye hose barashobora kuhamuhamba.

Felin Gakwaya: None ko wari watubwiye ko bigitangira mwakoranaga n’Abanyarwanda mujya kureba ibyo biziga, mubona ibyo ari byo, mwemeranya n’aho bituruka, ntabwo mwashyizeho umurwi hamwe wo gukora iperereza ngo murikorere hamwe?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Icyo nobabwira cyo ni uko Uburundi n’u Rwanda dusazwe dufise ingine dukorana ku bijyanye n’ibibazo by’umutekano nk’ibihugu duhana imbibe n’Intara zihana imbibe zirafise ingine zikorana ku bijyanye n’amahoro n’umutekano. Aho rero nibaza yuko mu gihe byoba ngombwa Abanyarwanda ko wumva hari bimwe bimwe byemeza ko hari bafatanwe ibyangombwa by’u Rwanda mu gihe bodusaba yuko twofashanya gukorana icyo gikorwa twogikorana ariko nibaza yuko gushika ubu icyo dushyima ni uko imigenderanire ari myiza haba ku bijyanye no kubungabunga amahoro n’umutekano ku Ntara duhana imbibe ata ngorane zirimo, njye nibaza ko n’icyo gikorwa tuzoheza tukagikorera hamwe kandi ukuri kukajya ahababona.

Felin Gakwaya: Amashyirahamwe arengera agateka ka kiremwa muntu aho ngaho mu Burundi aravuga yuko afite impungege z’uko leta itababwira aho iperereza rigeze kugira ngo bashire amakenga cyangwa se bahumurizwe, leta ibabwire aho icyo kibazo ikigejeje, mwababwira iki ubu ngubu?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Leta ntiha raporo ayo mashyirahamwe. Ayo mashyirahamwe kuko arafise ingine akora, n’ingine agira amatohoza nayo. Leta iyo hageze ko iha raporo abenegihugu ibicisha mu nama nshingamateka bakayibaza ingine ibyo bintu biriko biragenda. Ayo mashyirahamwe rero izo  mpungege zayo ni ukuyumva kuko niko kazi kabo ka minsi yose ariko Aburundi bakeneye kumenya ukuri barazi ko babicisha mubo batoye: Inama nshinga mateka na nkenguza mateka haba mu bibazo babaza Umushikiranganji kanana cyanke ibibazo bashobora kubaza Icyegera cy’Umukuru w’igihugu.

Felin Gakwaya: Umuntu yavuga yuko muri aya maperereza murimo murakora azarangira ryari?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Nobabwira yuko twebwe amaperereza erega nk’uko nabibabwiye murumva ko hari ibimaze kugaragaza yuko abo bitabye Imana atari Abarundi biciye kuri ibyo byangombwa bafatanwe, ku mpuzu bari bambaye, murumva rero yuko na mwebwe nka bamenyesha makuru murazi yuko koko abo bantu batari Abarundi. Byumvikana yuko twebwe ku bijyanye n’amatohoza ata kihuta kirimo kuko nta Murundi witabye Imana. Ni ukuvuga rero yuko ata matohoza turiko twirihutira kuko nta murundi twabuze, twibaza yuko icyo kibazo mwoheza mukakibaza ahandi.

Felin Gakwaya: Ntago mubyihurisha kuko biri ku butaka bwanyu, abantu murimo murabahamba, ntabwo mwafata iki kibazo mu buryo bukomeye kugira ngo mutubwire muti “wenda amaperereza turimo turakora turabona azarangira igihe iki n’iki”?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Ku bijyanye n’Uburundi twe twibaza yuko kubona bahambwa ku butaka bw’Uburundi ni uko nkumbure ibyo biziga biba byatowe ku butaka bw’Uburundi kandi bitaba byamenyekanye bene byo ngo tubibashikiriza bashobore kubihambana iteka, nabibwiye rero mu Ikirundi baravuga yuko “ata si idahamba” ndetse ngira ngo nowagira tradution mu rurimi rw’Igifaransa wene uwo mugani urabaho: aho umuntu aguye hose baraheza bakamufuba kuko ni uburenganzira bwa kiremwa muntu bwo guhambwa iyo yitabye Imana.

Felin Gakwaya: N’ubu ibi ngibi birimo birakomeza kuza ubu nabyo murahita mubihamba?

Minisitiri Edward Nduwimana: Yego cyane. Nabyo ni byaba ngombwa turaheza tubifube kuko nk’uko nabibabwiye ni uburenganzira bwa kiremwa muntu yuko iyo cyitabye Imana baheza bakagifura. Ni ibintu byumvikana cyane bijyanye no kubahiriza agateka ka zina muntu nibaza yuko ata kundi biri bugende nabyone turaheza tubifube.

Felin Gakwaya: Arakoze Edward Nduwimana, nshimire n’abangenzi banjye Cyriaque Muhawenayo na Phocas Ndayizera bamfashije gutegura kino kiganiro n’abandi bose twashoboye kuvugana muri kino kiganiro namwe mwese mwaduteze amatwi. Aha niho turangirije Imvo n’Imvano y’uyu munsi. Mwari kumwe na FelinGakwara. Ni akagaruka!

**N.B Twandukuye biganisha mu kinyarwanda kurusha ikirundi. Abo bibangamiye batubabarire

Challenging accepted paradigms and questioning widely-held beliefs is a long-standing and very worthy strand of research and academic writing.  Similarly, polemical writing may prompt us to re-examine our beliefs and accepted truths. One only need to look at the polemical style adopted by Nick Davies in Flat Earth News, in which he questions key aspects of modern journalism to see how polemic can give us fresh ideas.  This is what Barrie Collins sets out to do in his new work on the Rwandan genocide.

The book is written with the premise that (in Collins’ words):  “the Rwandan genocide is highly problematic, to say the least. It is centred upon a totally false claim: that the Hutu-extremist Akazu planned and then implemented a genocide.” He contends that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) of Paul Kagame shot down President Habyarimana’s plane, had the Rwandan army on the back foot and so the mass killings of Tutsis “erupted without prior organisation or planning.”

He later makes the unsupportable claim that of the 800,000-1,000,000 Rwandans killed, the majority were probably Hutu and so could have been killed by the RPF.  This assertion is based solely on the use of spatial mapping software by two researchers who make a very rough estimate of how many Tutsis there may or may not have been living in Rwanda in 1994. They subsequently extrapolated how many might have been killed during the genocide and so make up the discrepancy between their estimate of total deaths by presuming a higher Hutu death toll.

Collins’s challenge to the broadly accepted narrative of the genocide does not work.  It is not a paradigm shift or a polemic based on convincing research or argument, it is the trotting out of the rather familiar genocide denial stream that Collins has previously constructed as part of the Living Marxism/LM and Spiked-online stable of polemicists – something conspicuously absent from the brief biographical details given in the book.

The book attempts to demolish the concept of the organization of a conspiracy by Hutu extremists desperate to cling on to political and economic power by any means.  Collins uses as part of his method a distortion of the arguments of those he wishes to criticise for building up what he says is an incorrect account that serves the interest of the US and the Kagame government in Rwanda.  He posits the idea of the genocide being planned and executed by Akazu as the central plank of the existing genocide narrative, though surprisingly, it is not until 131 pages into the book that he tells us, somewhat vaguely, what Akazu means.

His definition is that it was a “network of individuals well connected with Habyarimana and the old ruling elite. They are said to be members of Habyarimana’s Hutu clan.”  That is all well and good but not very precise – Akazu or ‘little house’ was the name of a network linked to Habyarimana’s wife rather than directly to the president himself. It was made up of her, her brothers, half-brothers and close clan and political allies. It had close links to Habyarimana and influence over him, but he was not part of it and as he moved unwillingly under African and international pressure to implement the peace accords with the RPF in 1993 and 1994, the Akazu and other Hutu militant groups became increasingly suspicious of him and his motives, fearing that to save his political position he would sell out dominance by those Hutus committed to Hutu superiority.

The discourse of writers like Prunier, Des Forges, Mamadani, Melvern, Gourevitch and others who have researched and written exhaustively since 1994 on the nature and causes of the genocide, has been that the Akazu was part, but not the entire aggregation of Hutu supremacists that became collectively known as ‘Hutu Power.’ This included leaders and members of the Interahamwe militia (formed as the militia of Habyarimana’s own MRND party but more extreme in its hatred of the Tutsi than Habyarimana), of extreme Hutu supremacy parties like the CDR, senior members of the armed forces, police and the highly organised hierarchy of local administration officials.

No credible writer has claimed that the Akazu acted alone or was solely responsible for the genocide. The idea of the ‘Akazu conspiracy’ is something of a straw man – comparatively easy to knock down. But Collins fails to provide a credible alternative to the role of the wider Hutu Power network in planning and carrying out the attempted genocide in order to prevent the loss of Hutu control and to prevent the restoration of full Tutsi political and civil rights. He also fails to destroy basis of this narrative and almost completely ignores the growing tension and antagonism between Hutu Power proponents and Habyarimana over democratisation, the role of Hutu moderate parties and the content and implementation of the Arusha Peace Accord between the Rwandan government and the RPF.  He incorrectly blames the RPF, on the basis of supposition rather than evidence, of the killing of Hutu politicians, which actually resulted from power struggles within the Hutu political community.

The work is extensively but selectively researched and at times imprecise.  We are told on the second page that the “aerial assassination” of Habyarimana and the president of Burundi took place with the international media focused on the inauguration of Mandela as South African president. The inauguration took place over a month after the shooting down of the plane and well after the genocide started. I was editor of the BBC World Service programme NewsHour on the night of 6 April 1994 when the plane was downed. I then ran the World Service programme team covering the South African elections – but I didn’t go out until two weeks later.

Certainly coverage of South Africa meant that there was little coverage of the genocide in Rwanda, but the elections started several weeks after the assassination and the inauguration later still. This imprecision is typical of the book.  There were journalists in Rwanda reporting the start of the killings and some, like Lindsey Hilsum of the Observer and a stringer for the BBC, was there throughout. Other journalists, like Richard Dowden, left South Africa at the end of April to investigate the Rwandan story. He saw the bodies of Tutsis being carried downstream in the Kagera River, bodies Collins claims were Hutus and were “macabre evidence of the RPF’s work.”  There is no evidence of this claim and it flies in the face of all that is known and of the eye-witness reports of journalists like Dowden and Hilary Andersson of the BBC, who witnessed the bodies flowing into neighbouring countries having been dumped in rivers and lakes by their Hutu killers.

Throughout the book, evidence that goes against the denial thesis is rejected or ignored and journalists like Philip Gourevitch traduced as hagiographers of Kagame.  One particularly glaring episode is the account of the investigations into the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane. Collins firmly believes that the RPF shot down the plane – he quotes substantially from the report by the French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière which put the blame on Kagame and the RPF and uses as evidence the testimony of fiercely anti-Kagame former members of the RPF. The author all but ignores the later and more detailed ballistic and forensic evidence in the judgement by Judge Marc Trevidic that the missile that downed the plane could only have been fired from an area of Kigali under the control of the Rwandan Presidential Guard, a unit that then took a major role in killing leading Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Mention of this report, which damages if not destroys his thesis of denial, is confined to a footnote and is not indexed.  The report was released in January 2012, allowing plenty of time for it to be included in this examination, but its inclusion would have damaged Collins’ thesis that the RPF killed Habyarimana as part of a plan to derail the Arusha accords.

A similar approach, dismissing or ignoring evidence which is not convenient, is used in dealing with the Tutsi-hatred discourse that was part of the Hutu supremacist ideology and was sharpest and most brutal in its manifestation as the core belief of the Hutu Power alliance. Collins says that in the Media Trial at the ICTR the defendants originally found guilty of inciting genocide in the newspaper Kangura and on Radio Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM) were acquitted on appeal of all genocide charges.  This is not correct. They were still found guilty on appeal of having aided and encouraged genocide.  Similarly, Théoneste Bagosora, believed to have been one of the prime movers in the genocide, was cleared of conspiracy to commit genocide but, and Collins omits this, was found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity.

The author tries to deny the extreme anti-Tutsi hate broadcasting of  RTLM and seems to believe, or would have us believe, it did not, except on a very few occasions, call for the killing of Tutsis or carry out a campaign of agenda-setting hate against them.

Ultimately, Collins writes off those who wrote or argued for a discourse of genocide by Hutus as taken in by US and other Western accounts or as apologists for the RPF.  In his view, the RPF has to take responsibility for much of the killing and the killings carried out – methodically, effectively and with a higher daily rate than the Nazi Holocaust – by Hutus.  He contends that the killings were not planned by Hutu extremists but were redolent of “war-conditioned scapegoating” and “fear of the consequences of an RPF victory to generate a frenzied vigilantism.” Such an account is not only unbelievable when the speed and scale of killings is taken into account, but goes against testimony of eye-witnesses, of those who took part, and the research of academics, human rights activists and journalists. There is nothing in this book to suggest they were wrong.  It fails to bust any myths and adds nothing to our understanding of a hideous episode in human history.

By: Keith Somerville, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London; teaches at the Centre of Journalism, University of Kent; and is the author of Radio Propaganda and the Broadcasting of Hatred: Historical Development and Definitions, which had as one of its case studies media incitement of hatred in Rwanda.

Living in Kigali is like living in any big city.

There are bustling people, traffic, lots of shopping, good food and touristy sites to see.

It’s like any other big city, except when it’s not.

Every city has its own flavor, its own vibe. If Kigali, Rwanda, was a food, I would characterize it as passion fruit with a few potatoes and maybe some rice. And beans.

But maybe its because that’s practically all I eat here.

In the United States, passion fruit is that flavor in a lollipop or Capri Sun, but the one you’ve never actually had in its natural form.

Here, I can attest that passion fruit is indeed of a vine species, not just a synthetic factory-produced 
flavor.

And it’s good. I can eat several in one sitting.

Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, is different from other parts of the country and probably different from your average, stereotypical image of Africa.

The streets are cleaner than any American city I’ve seen, with barely a scrap of trash in sight, even in the busiest areas.

Interestingly, though, I have yet to see a public trashcan or really any trash can at all. It’s unusual to have wastebaskets in homes as well.

Which leads me to wonder: are Rwandans magical people who don’t accumulate trash? Or are they merely very good at hiding it?

The main roads are good, well-paved and flanked with hedges and plants.

Palm trees line the roads. Flowers bloom nearly year round, too, which is an extra plus that comes with warm, but mild, weather.

The average maximum temperature while I’m here is about 82 degrees.

As a result, everything is green and lush. Neat hedges are common but so are a variety of other plants.

Although the practical construction of roads and modern buildings in cities usually sacrifices color, Kigali still blooms.

If you’re not paying attention when riding around the city in a car, bus or moto, it’s easy to just stare straight ahead at the pavement in front of you.

Looking out the window is one of the best ways to experience the city.

Rwanda is known as the “land of one thousand hills,” and I’m starting to think that’s an underestimation.

In the gap between buildings and small shops, the many hills of Kigali peek through. No matter where you go, there’s always a view.

The side of the road drops off into a sea of hills, each one rolling onto the next until they turn into misty figures hidden in the distance.

The hills are dotted with tin roofs, greenery, churches and schools, signs of life.

Every Sunday, I can hear singing and children playing outside from miles all around me.

It’s difficult to feel isolated in Kigali. There’s noise and color and excitement all around.

When the sun sets, it throws a dim orange light over the city, which only sleeps for a minute.

Now that I think of it, if Kigali were a food, it would be a passion fruit.

It’s exotic and tart, with a little bit of crunch, and is unlike anything you will find in the U.S.

By Caroline Allert

BERLIN — With anti-Semitism on the march, Germany’s politicians and opinion makers are grappling with what went wrong with the country’s seven-decade-long struggle to come to terms with its past, or as they call it, Vergangenheitsbewältigung.

Since the Holocaust, Germany has measured its progress by how the country treats Jews. For example, the government provided generous funding to rebuild Jewish communities and allowed Jews from the former Soviet Union to relocate to Germany. But with a rising tide of anti-Semitism in recent months, there are now questions about how significant the culture of Holocaust remembrance has been in preventing hatred of Jews.

The wave of modern anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence inundating Germany in recent months jolted Chancellor Angela Merkel and religious and political leaders to participate in a “Stand-Up: Jew-Hatred-Never Again!” rally organized on Sept. 14 by the Central Council of Jews in Germany in the heart of Berlin’s government district, not far the country’s national Holocaust memorial.

The list of anti-Semitic incidents between July and early September is long. Protests against Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza led seamlessly to Molotov cocktails tossed at a synagogue in Wuppertal, a city in western Germany, on July 29 — the first torching of a Wuppertal synagogue was during the Hitler era in 1938. Anti-Israel protesters attacked Jews for wearing kippot on the streets of Berlin in a couple of incidents in July. And that’s just a taste.

 184 anti-Semitic incidents recorded in June and July.

German authorities recorded 184 anti-Semitic incidents in June and July. According to a study by German human rights NGO Amadeu Antonio Foundation, there were 25 anti-Semitic incidents in August.

“These are the worst times since the Nazi era. On the streets, you hear things like ‘The Jews should be gassed,’ ‘The Jews should be burned,'” Dieter Graumann, the president of Germany’s Central Council of Jews, lamented to theGuardian in August.

Merkel, whom Jewish organizations have honored with many awards for her work over the years to cultivate German-Jewish life and foster a robust relationship with Israel, delivered a tough speech at the rally. “It is our national and civic duty to fight anti-Semitism,” the chancellor declared in front of the Brandenburg Gate — a symbol of German unification and democracy.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, Germany has had a complicated relationship German Jews — and with Israel. While it was scarcely reported, Merkel did reference the Jewish state at the rally, saying, “I do not accept any kind of anti-Semitic message or attacks at all, not least the ones that were recently seen at the pro-Palestinian demonstrations, disguised as alleged criticism of the policy of the state of Israel.”

But, so far, Merkel has done little to combat anti-Semitism in Germany beyond giving a speech. She has offered no policy prescriptions. And yet the chancellor’s anger at her fellow citizens who abuse Jews has long been viewed as sincere. Julius Schoeps, a prominent German Jewish professor and a descendant of the 18th-century philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, told me after Merkel’s speech, “I can count on her.” He added, however, that he could not rely on the other people, like Protestant and Catholic church leaders, who also spoke against anti-Semitism at the rally.

Organizations affiliated with the Protestant and Catholic churches have hosted events, along with German politicians, over the years that have strained relations between Jews and Germans.

In 2010, the Evangelical Academy, an educational center that seeks “to build bridges between people,” invited Bassem Naim, a Hamas minister, to a conference on “Partner for Peace: Talking with Hamas and Fatah.” Naim has argued for “resistance” against Israel, and stated that there is “exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists to justify their crimes and harness international acceptance of the campaign of ethnic cleansing and subjection they have been waging against us.” Naim’s visa to travel to Germany was ultimately denied due to the EU’s designation of Hamas as a terrorist entity.

Two years later, in 2012, Albrecht Schröter — the Social Democratic mayor of Jena, a town in eastern Germany — signed a petition called “Occupation Tastes Bitter,” organized by the German Catholic peace organization Pax Christi, which urged a boycott of Israeli products. Germany’s Catholic Church did not explicitly disavow the Pax Christi grassroots action; for some critics, the campaign recalled the Nazi-era slogan “Don’t buy from Jews.”

This year, Israel’s ambassador to Germany, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, and a Jerusalem-based watchdog organization, NGO Monitor, sharply criticized German groups for funding anti-Israel activity. NGO Monitor issued an exhaustive report on German government funds funneled to “organizations that contribute to the growing demonization of Israel and BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] campaigns, in direct contradiction to German foreign policy.” (Merkel opposes boycotts of Israel for its settlement policies.) In a joint letter, think tanks affiliated with all of the major German political parties — including Merkel’s — rejected NGO Monitor’s criticisms.

High-ranking diplomats from the Israeli embassy in Berlin say that Merkel is the most pro-Israel chancellor in German history. Next year, Israel and the Germany will mark 50 years of diplomatic relations. Grand celebrations are planned. And the chancellor has long matched her strong rhetorical support for Israel with concrete military assistance for the defense of the Jewish state. In a 2008 address to Israel’s Knesset, Merkel declared that Israel’s security is “non-negotiable” for her administration. Germany has provided Israel with four advanced second-strike Dolphin submarines since Merkel began her tenure as chancellor, and a fifth will arrive in six months; these provide a significant nuclear-armed deterrent. In addition, Germany’s intelligence agency BND frequently cooperates with the Mossad.

But even as Berlin has delivered vital military assistance to Israel, civil society and others in German political life have done little to curtail the outbreak of anti-Jewish sentiment.

“There is a startling indifference in the German public to the current display of anti-Semitism,” said Samuel Salzborn, a leading expert on anti-Semitism at the University of Göttingen in Lower Saxony, in early August. Merkel’s rally on Sept. 14 produced a mere 5,000 people, according to police. The Jewish community, which organized the event, said 8,000 people came. Given that the Central Council of Jews chartered buses from communities across the country, the turnout was lackluster at best.

In comparison, after a firebombing of a synagogue in Düsseldorf in 2000, then-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called for a nationwide protest against racism and anti-Semitism. Some 200,000 people marched in a procession through Berlin, and tens of thousands protested in other cities across Germany.

The apathy of today has many people wondering what’s gone wrong. In a commentary for Deutschlandfunk radio, Kirsten Serup-Bilfeldt, a journalist and author who writes about German-Christian relations, went as far as to argue that the “confrontation with Germany’s National Socialist past has failed.” In a country that takes pride in its ability to confront the Nazis’ crimes, Serup-Bilfeldt issued a death certificate to illusions that remembrance of the Holocaust will alone be enough to stop anti-Semitism. German Jewish leaders have mirrored Serup-Bilfeldt’s lament that Germany’s version of the average Joe, “Otto Normalverbraucher,” made no, or little, objection to the attacks on Jews.

The Sept. 14 rally showed that the German government, rather than taking action to organize Germans against anti-Semitism, has outsourced the fight to the Central Council and its more than 100,000 members. Jews in Germany consist merely of 0.1 percent of Germany’s more than 80 million citizens. Most Germans have never met a Jew, a fact exemplified by an exhibit in Berlin’s Jewish Museum last year titled “The Jew in the Box,” to foster more understanding among the public about Judaism and anti-Semitism. In what some critics viewed as a bizarre spectacle, a Jew would sit in an open glass box taking questions from visitors about Jewish life and Israel.

Some say that Germany’s memorial culture has soothed guilty consciences without leading to action against current existential threats to Jews, such as Iran’s threats to “wipe Israel off the map.” Henryk M. Broder, a leading expert on German anti-Semitism and columnist for the large daily Die Welt, said in an interview, “The remembrance of Auschwitz has deteriorated into a trite ritual, which is about saving the dead Jews. And this ritual of saving the dead Jews is used as a moral alibi. The remembrance of the Holocaust is an excuse to not have to deal with a potential second Holocaust in the Middle East.”

He has long criticized many German intellectuals and politicians for playing down or ignoring the Iranian threat and its hard-core anti-Semitism. In 2009, Iran’s current speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, made a statement about “different perspectives on the Holocaust” at the Munich Security Conference. And in 2008, Larjani’s brother denied the Holocaust and called for the elimination of Israel at a German Foreign Ministry event near the Holocaust memorial. Neither Iranian faced prosecution, though Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.

While prior to Israel’s Operation Protective Edge there was a fine line between anti-Semitism and anti-Israel criticism, the barrier collapsed during the wave of protests. Critics argue that “Israel criticism,” as it is called in Germany, has become a national pastime. There are no similar debates about, for example, Russia criticism. Merkel is the first German chancellor to identify the use of rabidly anti-Israel rhetoric as a cover for anti-Semitism.

There were countervailing currents to outbreaks of anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel during Operation Protective Edge among sections of the media and German elites. The country’s largest daily — the mass-circulation Bild — recruited prominent celebrities, dignitaries, and politicians to explain why Germans should raise their voices against anti-Semitism “in a strong sign of solidarity with Israel and our fellow Jewish citizens.” Bild highlighted the July attacks with a front-page headline:“Never Again Jew-hatred.”

There has been growing opprobrium against classical anti-Semitism, but contemporary anti-Semitism, largely defined as hostility, continues. As Léon Poliakov, the French historian of anti-Semitism wrote, Israel has become “the Jew among nations.” Anti-hate laws in Germany bar incitement against Jews, but the line between Jews and Israel is thin. Studies over the last decade of German views toward the Jewish state reveal that nearly half (at times more than 50 percent) consider Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians to be the equivalent of the Nazi extermination of European Jewry.

Germany’s confrontation with its past has entered a new stage. Shrinking the gap between combating contemporary forms of anti-Semitism and societal indifference to those manifestations remains a tall order. Take the example of Hezbollah in Germany. For Jews in Germany, the group represents a sincere threat. Since 1996, Hezbollah has staged a yearly al-Quds Day march in Berlin calling for the destruction of Israel. This year’s march saw chants of “gas Israel” and calls of “Sieg Heil” — an outlawed Nazi slogan.

For Jews to feel comfortable in 21st-century Germany, rising anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiments will need to be blunted. Merkel’s appearance earlier this month at the rally shows that she understands this. “Young Jewish parents are asking if it safe to raise their children here,” she said to the small crowd in attendance. The pressing question is whether Merkel will match her characteristically tough speech against anti-Semitism with policy prescriptions — and whether Germans are listening.

By Benjamin Weinthal

Na: Tom Ndahiro

Ndi mu bantu bakunda umuhanzi w’umunyekongo witwa Koffi Olomide. Agira umuhogo uvamo ijwi rishyira umuntu igorora. Soma ibyabanje aha

Si ijwi gusa ariko n’amagambo aririmba, amenshi aba aremereye. Koffi Olomide namukundiye aho atandukanya inzira ukuri n’ikinyoma binyura.

Uwo muhanzi avuga ko ibinyoma bikunda kunyura mu nzira yihuta, ukuri kukagenda buhoro ariko amaherezo kukagera aho kujya.

Ngo: Lokuta eyaka na ascenseur (ibinyoma bizamuka muli asanseri/lift) kasi vérité eyei na escalier mpe ekomi (ukuri kukazamukira muri za esikariye amaherezo kukagerayo).

Ibinyoma byinshi mu mpuha

Ikibazo cy’imirambo y’abantu bagaragaye mu kiyaga cya Rweru mu mpera za Kanama 2014 kiragaragaza byinshi bitari kuzamenyekane.

Nyuma y’aho igihugu cya Leta Zunze Ubumwe za Amerika (USA) gitangarije ko zisaba leta y’u Burundi n’u Rwanda gufatanya gukora iperereza ryimbitse byaba na ngombwa ngo bakiyambaza impuguke muri ibyo.

Nyuma y’ubwo, kimwe na mbere y’aho amagambo atarimo ukuri aracicikana muri za asanseri.

Imirambo yarobwe ikanahambwa ni ine. Aho yahambwe twarahageze ndetse tuhagerana n’abari bahari ihambwa.

Ku itariki 19 Nzeri 2014 ndi mubasubiyeyo kujya kureba ibyari byongeye kuhavugwa ko hari indi mirambo babonye nkuko byari byavuzwe n’Imvo n’Imvano ya BBC yo ku wa 13 Nzeri.

Tuhageze umuyobozi w’abarobyi mu ntara ya Muyinga, Nyandwi Sadiki atugeza aho avuga ko iyo mirambo yakabiri bayibonye, ariko avuga ko batigeze bayihamba ngo kuko yari yarashengutse.

Nabajije uwo Nyandwi impamvu batayihamye, kandi ari iy’abantu nibura nk’uburyo bwo kubaha icyubahiro. Aha nibukaga ko uretse n’iyashengutse mu Rwanda duhamba n’amagufwa.

Nta gisubizo yigeze ampa, kuko yarengejeho akivugira ibindi. Nibutse ko imirambo ine barobye bakayihamba, bavuga ko babitewe n’uko yabandurizaga amazi. Iyi yo se? Ni ikibazo!

Kuri uwo munsi, (19 Nzeri) umunyamakuru w’umurundi, Esdras Ndikumana,ukorera ibiro ntara makuru by’ubufaransa AFP, yanditse inkuru nasomye ye mu rurimi rw’icyongereza ifite umutwe “Gruesome bound and bagged body mystery on Burundi-Rwanda Lake.” 

Mu nteruro ya mbere y’i nyandiko ya Ndikumana avuga ko abarobyi bamubwiye ko hashize amezi abiri batangiye kubona imirambo. “Fishermen say the corpses started coming some two months ago.”

Twe bakaba baratubwiye ko byari nyuma y’itariki 20 Kanama. Ukwezi kumwe gusa. Hari icyo kinyuranyo. Icyo batubwiye cyari kimaze amezi abiri, kandi cy’ikinyoma, ni icyo bita “Akagera kuyobera mu Rweru”.

AFP iti: “Officially, just four bodies were found …Fishermen report seeing as many as 10 times that number…”

AFP yo ivuga ko iperereza ritazakorwa kuko ngo u burundi budashaka kwiteranya n’u Rwanda. Ayo magambo bakavuga ko yavuzwe n’umwe mu bategetsi b’abarundi.

Ibyo kwanga kwiteranya n’u Rwanda bita umuturanyi w’igihangange AFP ivuga ko yabibwiwe n’umutegetsi utarashatse kwivuga izina.

Babivuze muri aya magambo mu rurimi rw’icyongereza:

Local residents say the bodies started coming in mid-July. But after discovering them, they pushed them back into the water, for fear of bringing trouble on themselves. Local official Manirabarusha also insisted the bodies come “down the Kagera River.” But asked if that means the bodies come from Rwanda, the governor declined to comment. “I do not know where exactly the Kagera is… I forget, ask geographers who have studied this,” she said, visibly embarrassed. A senior Burundi official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the case may never be brought to light because “Burundi will sacrifice the truth on the altar of its relations with Kigali.” “It is crucial, because Burundi cannot afford to antagonise its powerful neighbour,” he said.

Ngo umubare w’imirambo yabonetse ubutegetsi buvuga ni 4 ngo ariko abarobyi bakavuga ko wikubye inshuro 10. Ufite ukuri ni nde? Ufite inyungu mu guhisha iyo mirambo ni nde?

Ku mbuga z’abashyigikira FDLR nka Jambo news, hari amashusho berekana y’imirambo itatu ihambiriye. Yo ntiyambaye ubusa nk’uko twabibwiwe n’abarobyi b’abarundi bo ku Rweru.

Aho yari iri n’abo ari bo bizwi n’abo babishyizeho bwa mbere. Iperereza rizakorwa bazabaze abatamgaje ayo mafoto bwa mbere. N’abo bakeneye kumenyekana. Uwafashe ayo mafoto n’aho yayafatiye hakamenyekana.

Ubushake bwo guhisha?

Ku wa 19 Nzeri, tujya ku Rweru bwa kabiri byari nka senema. Tugeze ku kiyaga ku cyambu cya Nzove twahasanze abasirikare b’abarundi benshi kurusha cyane abo twabonye mbere.

Twamaze hafi isaha tutarambuka kuko n’ubundi nibo bari kutwambutsa. Hari n’umusirikare ufite ipete rya Koloneri na Majoro bari baje aho. Mu bwato twagiyemo twajyanye na Koloneri.

Tubaza ibyo gutinda twabwiwe ko ngo hari haraye habaye ikintu kidasanzwe cyatumaga haba kwishisha abahaje.

Ngo hari haje umunyarwanda w’umugabo ari kumwe n’umukobwa w’umurundikazi bavanye mu Kirundo.

Ngo bageze aho ku cyambu cya Nzove bahafashe ubwato bubatembereza mu kiyaga cya Rweru.

Ntitwabwiwe  niba ari ubw’abasirikare ba marini cyangwa ubw’abarobyi, gusa ngo bwabanyujije ku cyambu cy’ahitwa Dagaza uwo munyarwanda ngo avamo ajya gufotora ahahambwe ya mirambo 4.

Ngo ntibagarukiye aho kuko umunyarwanda ngo yashatse kumenya aho Akagera kinjirira mu Rweru. Ngo ahageze yavuye mu bwato, yambukira mu Rwanda ho yasanze abasirikare bambaye imyenda y’akazi bamuterera isaruti arikomereza.

Uwo mukobwa bari kumwe ngo niwe wavuze ibyabaye byose. Uko byavuzwe wumva ko uwo mukobwa utazwi ari we wari utwaye ubwato.

Iyo nkuru twarayumvise tuyisuzugura nk’izindi mpuha zose. Tutazi ko ari integuza y’ibindi byabaye tuhavuye.

Iyo nkuru ntabwo abasirikare b’Abarundi bayifashe mu buryo bukomeye cyane, cyakora mbere y’uko baza aho i Nzove, tukajyana mu kiyaga, twamenye ko bari bavuye i Dagaza ku cyambu.

Ku wa 22 Nzeri, ibyo twasuzuguye tubibona nk’impuha, kandi ni zo koko, BBC-Gahuzamiryango yabibonyemo inkuru bise “Ni nde uwushaka ibiziga vyatowe mu Rweru?”

Ni inkuru yanditswe ku rubuga rw’iyo radiyo inatangazwa kuri radiyo yabo.

BBC-Gahuzamiryango ivuga ibyitwa ko byabaye mu ijoro ryo ku wa 21 Nzeri, yanavuze ko iby’umuntu witwa umusirikare w’u Rwanda bidakomoka ku basirikare b’Abarundi ahubwo ari abarobyi.

Ngo “…abarovyi bakorera aho ku kiyaga Rweru bemeza ko baheruka kubona umuntu yaje aturuka mu Kirundo, yafashe amafoto y’aho ivyo biziga vyahambwe, n’aho ibirindiro vy’abasirikare b’ i Burundi biri. Uwo muntu mu nyuma ngo yaciye afata ubwato bwamujabukanye hakurya mu Rwanda, nk’uko abamutwaye bavyiganiye umunyamakuru wa BBC, Cyriaque Muhawenayo.”

Ukurikije ibyavuzwe bikanandikwa na  BBC, umunyamakuru Cyriaque Muhawenayo azi neza isoko y’ibyo twafashe nk’impuha na n’ubu tugifata nkazo.

Ikigaragara ni uko iby’iswe umukobwa wo ku Kirundo ari ikinyoma kuko inkomoko y’ibyo byose atari abasirikare cyangwa icyiswe umukobwa ahubwo ari abandi bantu barimo n’abarobyi.

Iby’abajura b’imirambo, isoko y’inkuru nayo ni BBC-Gahuzamiryango itangira ngo:

“Umunyezamu akorera ku cambu ca Dagaza, hafi y’ahahambwe ibiziga bine vyagaragaye mu kiyaga Rweru mu kwezi guheze, yabwiye BBC ko yabonye abantu baje n’ubwato bubiri bufise imoteri. Ngo yagerageje guhamagara abari muri ubwo bwato ntibamwishura, niko kuca arya akara umukuru w’icambu, hari nk’isaha indwi z’ijoro. Uwo munyezamu avuga ko abo bantu babonye abasirikare b’Uburundi barwanira mu mazi b’Inzove, berekeje iyo bari, baca bafata ubwato bajemwo basubira inyuma. Muri ico kibanza kirimwo imva bahataye ibikoresho birimwo, ishitingi, umuringoti n’umuhini. Abo bantu ngo bageze ahitwa ku Mwugo aho uruzi Akagera rumenera kuri Rweru, baca batsa imoteri, nayo abasirikare bo muri “Marines” Inzove bakomeza kubakurikira.

Mu byavuzwe kuri radiyo, bitari ibyo kuri uru rubuga uwo wavuganye na BBC-Gahuzamiryango yavuze ko abo yabonye bari “Inkotanyi”.

Iyo radiyo yatangaje ngo “abashaka ivyo biziga, ntibiramenyekana” kuko nta perereza rirakorwa. Cyakora ngo hakaba hari ibyemezo byafashwe birimo kuhashyira “ikirindiro c’igisirikare i Dagaza, ahari imva zashinguwemwo ibiziga bine vyatowe aho mu Rweru.”

Hemezwa kandi ko “ata muntu n’umwe asubira kwinjira mu mazi inyuma y’isaha 12 z’umugoroba.”

Ikindi ni uko muri ako gace hari hiriwe guverineri w’Intara ya Muyinga umukuru w’igipolisi w’intara, n’umukuru w’akarere ka kane gisirikare. Amakuru y’abarobyi!!??

Bukeye, 23 Nzeri, inkuru yarakomeje bavuga ko noneho abaturage babwe bahiye ubwoba, ngo bagatangira guhunga kubera gutinya abanyarwanda bazaza kwiba imirambo.

Umutwe wayo wari: “Ubwoba muri bamwe mu banyagihugu ba Dagaza”

“Umukuru wa Zone ya  Masaka, Celestin Ngendakumana, avuga ko abo banyagihugu baciye bahumurizwa, basabwa gusubira muhira kugirango ntibahave basahurwa n’abokwikinga mu kiza.” Kubera ngo “avuga ko ata nkuru y’imvaho afise ku vyerekeye ubwo bwato bwavurwa bwatumye abo abanyagihugu bahunga.”

Iyo umuyobozi w’ahantu nkaho avuga ko nta nkuru y’imvaho afite, ibisigaye bindi wabyita ute? Ni impuha! Uretse ko atari impuha zisanzwe.

Birenze ayo ku kiyaga

Twabajije umukuru w’abarobyi Nyandwi Sadiki ibijyanye n’uwaba yarabonye ikarita ya mituelle twabwiwe, ngo abitubwire by’imvaho.

Sadiki yariye iminwa atangira kutubwira ko hari umukonseye wabibwiwe n’umuturage. Konseye si umuturage usanzwe ni umuyobozi. Twabajije uwo mukonseye ari we n’aho abarizwa, biba nko kugana ikirere n’amaguru.

Twanabajije uko babonye ibyanditswe ku dupira twambawe n’imirambo yambaye ubusa, Sadiki avuga ko yabibwiwe n’ababonye imirambo itemba.

Akagera ntikikatishije

Tujya ku Rweru bwa mbere, kuwa 5 Nzeri, nibazaga uko Akagera kinjiye mu kiyaga kandi bitarabagaho.

Nyandwi Sadiki wadutembereje inshuro zombi, yatubwiye ko nta na rimwe Akagera kigeze kamena ngo ariko bikaza kuba muri Nyakanga, mu gihe amazi aba yaramanutse cyane.

Nabyibajijeho cyane, kuko amazi y’imigezi yishakira inzira mu gihe yabaye menshi akagira imbaraga.

Icyo gihe Nyandwi ntiyahatunyujije ngo tuharebe. Yahisemo kutunyuza aho Rweru imena mu Kagera.

Dusubiyeyo twagiye ahavugwa ko Akagera kamennye. Kuva mu kiyaga uganayo byararuhanyije kuko hari aho igitaka cyabaga cyinshi hagasigara ahangana na metero imwe n’igice ho kunyura harehare.

Tugana ku Kagera, umuvumba w’amazi wariyongereye. Nka metero 40 imbere twageze ahantu tubona ibitaka n’ibumba ryinshi birunze iburyo n’ibumoso.

Narabifotoye ngo nze kubyitegereza neza kuko byanteye amakenga. Tunasubira mu kiyaga ndabyitegereza nsanga harabaye gucukura igitaka ngo kibise umugezi.

Tugeze ku cyambu cya Nzove negereye Nyandwi ndamubaza nti ese biriya birundo by’ibitaka n’icyondo ni nde wabicukuye aho Akagera kameneye. Ikibazo ntiyari acyiteze, andeba mu maso abura icyo ambwira yivugisha ibindi nk’aho ibyo namubajije atabyumvise.

Nashatse kwongera gusubiramo ikibazo, sanga guceceka kwe ari igisubizo. Akagera ntikikatishije, hari abakayoboye aho bashaka.

Mu kiganiro yahaye abanyamakuru yasubiragamo ngo “aha niho hari inkuru” ku buryo umunyamakuru umwe yaje kumbwira ati uzi ko yabaye ‘realisateur’/producer.

Icyo gitaka n’ibumba ntabwo byikoze ni amaboko n’ubwenge bw’umuntu bwabikoze.  Ni nde wabikoze? Ku zihe nyungu?

Ikinyoma cyarihuse, ariko amaherezo ukuri kuzahagera aka wa mugani wa Koffi Olomide

Biracyaza…

Leaked rumors have established that FDLR is using the delay tactics to prepare a third attempt at invasion of Rwanda after those foiled in September 2013 and April-May 2014, IGIHE has learned from an Italian News site which published earlier this year a story about FDLR’s Gen. Gaston Iyamuremye  Trips in Rome.

A detailed Information on Lindro News site describes that “Push for a military solution have contributed to the alarming intelligence news that FDLR is infiltrating neighboring Burundi in an attempt to seek a port of entry for alternative invasion of Rwanda different from those hitherto used by the North and South Kivu, since the borders with Congo is heavily patrolled by units of the Rwandan army.”

It is reportedly said this information would be confirmed by the Secret Service and European diplomatic sources in Kinshasa, pushing the General Staff of the Rwandan army also to militarize the border with the twin country: Burundi.

On 22 September, the heads of government of 12 countries in the Great Lakes region, East Africa and Southern Africa met in New York to reaffirm the unconditional surrender of the FDLR militia whose members are responsible for the genocide in Rwanda, and twenty years of destabilization of Rwanda with continued terrorist attacks and attempts at invasion launched from their secure bases in the east of Congo.

The meeting was chaired by the Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-Moon and the President of the African Union Commission, Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma.

The presence of the authorities of the two international institutions underlines the importance of the meeting.

The objective of the meeting was to review the ultimatum of six months granted to the FDLR rebels in July 2014 for the voluntary surrender and otherwise the start of military operations to destroy the group.

Lindro basing on the rumors leaked, the African heads of state have decided to opt for a military solution before expiration of the ultimatum given that in these two months, the FDLR have demonstrated their delay tactic to prepare a third attempt at invasion of Rwanda after those foiled in September 2013 and April-May 2014.

These reports have found an unexpected silence from both the Government of Burundi and Rwanda but that they are connected to the strange discovery of bodies floating down into Lake Rweru located between the border of Burundi and Rwanda.

The strange discovery of these bodies is hiding something really worrying as the mixed commission of inquiry set up to investigate the incident has been added to the official request of the United States addressed to the governments of Bujumbura and Kigali Friday, September 26 2014.

“We launched an urgent request to the governments of Burundi and Rwanda in order to perform in a very short time a most careful and impartial investigation on the corpses floating in the waters.” Lindro quoted a spokesman for the Department of State Jennifer Psaki showing willingness of Washington to send urgent FBI experts on the spot where their African authorities deem it necessary to speed up the investigation.

American diplomatic sources say in a private that Jennifer Psaki would set a time limit for the investigation of 15 days and requested that the results are not disclosed to the media before that the White House will have read and express an opinion.

Hypothesis of FDLR presence in the area

The first hypothesis converges on the presence of FDLR terrorists in the area and indicates an attempt by terrorists to cross the border into Rwanda with the complicity of the armed forces of Burundi.

Something terrible has happened in the area as stated by the governor of Muyinga Province in Burundi. He has banned night fishing. Now the waters are patrolled by Burundi navy Officers.

Lindro reported that the shocking events of these past few weeks (by the presence of FDLR militias in Burundi to the mysterious discovery of corpses in the boundary waters) have prompted the UN Security Council and the Security Council of the African Union to request the advance of ’military intervention programmed to next February in case of proven unwillingness to disarm the FDLR.

The Request was strengthened by the statements of the Special Envoy for the U.S. Great Lakes region Russ Feingold who reiterated what he said on September 11 during his official visit to Goma, capital of North Kivu province on the border with Rwanda.

According to Feingold it is necessary to break with the delay before the non-cooperation of the FDLR and to more quickly eliminate this terrorist group.

International pressure forced the UN contingent MONUSCO to declare available to launch a military offensive against the FDLR earlier than expected.

According to statements made by a British diplomat on website ’All Africa’ departments of African Intervention Brigade of MONUSCO would be in a state of high alert and ready to take the offensive on the whole territory of eastern Congo to annihilate the dangerous militia responsible for the genocide in Rwanda.”

The United Nation also maintains its Intervention Brigade consists of units sent from Malawi, South Africa and Tanzania who fought the defeated Congolese Tutsi rebellion of M23 between November and December 2013.

The FIB was given the order to retreat on the borders of Uganda in order to avoid the reorganization of the rebels for a possible resumption of the conflict in the east of Congo.

Absolute silence comes from the Kinshasa government should order this army to actively participate in the destruction of the FDLR terrorists.

A silence explained due to the heavy charges of a United Nations report issued last August in which they are exposed evidence of mafia traffic between the Congolese army and the FDLR amounted to $ 71 million per year.

The evidence suggests that high-ranking officers of the Congolese army (FARDC) provide coverage to FDLR and smuggled goods including gold to ivory, from coltan to diamonds, from coal to the illegal collection of taxes in the territories controlled by the FDLR.

The Newspaper reported that even this terrorist group would set up a sort of central bank for the collection of taxes in the town of Kasugho, about 70 km from Lubero district.

The FDLR have entrusted the coordination of the various illicit and coordination with the Congolese army to three senior officers: Colonel Bonheur (Happiness Colonel) for the area of Mwenga; Lieutenant Colonel Maurice for the area of Mulenge and Uvira and Captain Kidumu for the area of Bunia, Butembo and Beni.

“The profits of the trafficking are split equally between the FDLR, FARDC and some Congolese militias allied with Kinshasa called Mai,” says the UN report.

Breaking and illegal trafficking had been reported last April by the Director of Congolese Environmental Protection Emmanuel de Merode.

After the complaint Merode has suffered an assassination attempt carried out by the FDLR and he was seriously injured, and this site has learned from Lindro that Congolese authorities have immediately closed the case so as not to reveal the link with the FDLR.

The FDLR and Congolese general would control vast fields of marijuana in the town of Ikobo, Lusamambo, Bukumbirwa, Buleusa, Miriki and Mirangi in North Kivu producing monthly over 60 tons of grass destined for the regional market.

As for the gold FDLR actively collaborate with the powerful Chamber of Commerce in Butembo.

The UN report, for obvious political expediency, however, avoids mentioning the complicity of UN peacekeepers in the traffic of coal that is destroying the Virunga National Park and Gold which passes through Kampala and resold to various western buyers including some prominent personalities of high finance of Roman Jewish origin.

Given the recent shipment of gold from Uganda decreed by the European Union, the precious metal passes for the refineries in Dubai to be later sold in Europe.

The plot mafia business that binds the government in Kinshasa and the FDLR is the main obstacle to a credible and effective military campaign against this terrorist group commissioned by the UN and the United States and promised by the peacekeepers of MONUSCO.

This represents a serious threat to regional peace as the Rwandese government is openly saying that patience is at a breaking point.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs Louise Mushikiwabo in a recent Twitter said that Rwanda is not going to wait another twenty years to solve the problem of the FDLR.

Source: Igihe.com

The largest remaining illegal foreign-armed group operating in the Democratic Republic of Congo faces military action unless it demobilizes within three months, the U.S. ambassador to the country said.

The Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, known by its French acronym FDLR, is required by the Central African nation’s government to meet a disarmament and repatriation deadline by Jan. 2, 2015. A previous deadline of June 9 was extended by President Joseph Kabila’s administration after only a few hundred fighters complied.

“Our view is that there has been no voluntary demobilization since June,” James Swan said in an interview in the capital, Kinshasa, on Sept. 26. If the FDLR doesn’t meet the requirements set by the Congolese government, it “will face military consequences” by United Nations-backed Congolese forces, he said.

The FDLR, a mainly ethnic-Hutu group that opposes the government in neighboring Rwanda, currently has about 1,800 combatants in Congo. Some of the group’s leaders have outstanding arrest warrants stemming from their alleged involvement in the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left at least 800,000 people dead. During the 1990s, the FDLR had as many as 13,000 combatants in Congo, according to the United Nations.

“There’s not just one FDLR, there are now three factions,” said General Carlos Alberto Dos Santos Cruz, the head of the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo, known as Monusco. Two of those factions “are not participating in the disarmament process,” he said in an interview in Goma, capital of North Kivu province in eastern Congo.

Peacekeeping Force

About 17,000 peacekeepers have helped Kabila’s government repel and contain various rebel movements since 2010. In March 2013, the UN Security Council authorized the deployment of 3,000 UN forces to operate in an offensive capacity in Congo. The Force Intervention Brigade comprises 1,000 soldiers each from Tanzania, Malawi and South Africa.

Monusco has operations planned in coordination with the government army, known as FARDC, as well as troops on the ground to act if the FDLR doesn’t comply, Dos Santos Cruz said.

“The military posture will follow the political posture,” he said. “At this moment, it’s impossible to predict an early strike.”

About 24 rebel groups operate in eastern Congo, according to the UN. The region is rich in tin ore, gold and coltan, an ore used in smartphones and laptops. In December, Congolese forces, supported by the intervention brigade, defeated a 20-month rebellion by M23. Congo’s government accused Rwanda of backing the group, who, like Rwanda’s government, were mainly led by ethnic Tutsis. Rwanda’s government denied the allegation.

Intelligence Gathering

Last year, the UN proposed using drones to gather intelligence on rebel groups in Congo, a plan that Rwandan officials initially denounced as “belligerent.” Rwandan President Paul Kagame later issued a statement saying the use of drones should be allowed.

There are currently three drones operating in eastern Congo under UN oversight.

African nations involved in the FDLR disarmament process will make the final decision regarding military action against the group, after an October meeting with regional officials involved in the Congolese peace-building process.

“All operations will be coordinated with the FARDC and under their leadership,” said Ray Torres, Monusco’s head of office in North Kivu. “If the FDLR decides to engage, we will support with all our capacity. Moreover if the FDLR carries out any offensive operation, we will respond.”

By Malcolm Beith of Bloomberg.com

Ku itariki ya 27 Nzeri 1959, nibwo Joseph Habyarimana Gitera yatangaje bwa mbere icyiswe amategeko icumi (10) y’Abahutu. Amategeko arimo umuzi w’ingengabitekerezo ya jenoside yakorewe Abatutsi. Ku munsi wuzuza imyaka 55 izo nyigisho z’urwango zishyizwe ahagaragara i Ngoma ho mu karere ka Huye k’ubu, Radio BBC-Gahuzamiryango, yagejeje ku bantu bayumva ikiganiro Imvo n’Imvano gifitanye isano  n’ingengabitekerezo yashenye u Rwanda. Ni ikiganiro cyari kigizwe ahanini n’abantu bamamaza umutwe wa FDLR, ukaba ari umutwe ugendera ku bitekerezo byatangijwe n’abarimo Gitera.  Kanda aha ubisome

Ikiganiro ni uku cyagenze:

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Mwaramukanye amahoro bakunzi b’ikiganiro Imvo n’Imvano. Muri uku kwezi imitwe ya politiki nyarwanda hamwe n’imiryango nyarwanda itegamiye kuri leta irenga 30 kandi hafi ya yose ikorera mu mahanga yandikiye Akanama k’umuryango w’abibumbye gashyizwe umutekano, Umuryango w’ibihugu bw’uburayi n’umuryango w’ubuhahirane w’ibihugu byo mu Majyepfo y’Afurika SADC inyandiko ndende yise “Imibereho y’impunzi z’Abanyarwanda muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Kongo n’umutwe wa FDLR”. Iyo mitwe iravuga ko iyo nyandiko yari igamije kugaragaza ukuri ku bibazo byo mu Rwanda n’inzira yagarura amahoro arambye mu karere k’ibiyaga bigari muri rusange no ku mwihariko muri Repubulika Iharanira Demokarasi ya Kongo.

Muri iyo nyandiko y’impapuro icumi, iyo mitwe iravuga ko yifuza ko Uburasirazuba bwa Kongo butengamara, ikifuza ko impunzi zitahuka ku bushake ariko ikabona ko mu Rwanda hakiri imbogamizi zo gutahuka ku bushake. Iyo mitwe kandi iravuga ko FDLR ari umutwe w’abarwanyi bivanze n’abaturage ba Kongo ngo bityo ikabona ko gukemura ikibazo cya FDLR hakoreshejwe intwaro nk’uko bivugwa na bamwe mu bayobozi bizamena amaraso y’inzirakarengane. Iravuga ko gutahura izo mpunzi zirimo na FDLR ku ngufu bizaba ari ikosa rikomeye no guhohotera uburenghanzira bw’ikiremwamuntu.

Ni yo mpamvu ivuga ko ishyigikiye igitekerezo cy’umuryango wa SADC na Perezida wa Tanzaniya, Jakaya Kikwete; bifuza ko ibiganiro n’abatavuzaga rumwe na leta byaba hagati ya leta y’u Rwanda n’abatavuga rumwe n’u Rwanda bari hanze n’abari mu gihugu.

Iyo mitwe kandi iravuga ko ishyigikiye umugambi wa FDLR wo gutahuka mu mahoro ariko bataretse umugambi wabo wo gutahukana ishema. Ngo ibiganiro by’amahoro niyo nzira yonyine yo gukemura burundu ibibazo byo mu Rwanda.

Ibitekerezo bikubiye muri iyo nyandiko bitandukanye cyane n’ibyo u Rwanda ruvuga. U Rwanda rwakunze kuvuga ko FDLR ari umutwe w’iterabwoba, wasize ukoze jenoside mu Rwanda ariko u Rwanda nanone rukemera ko rwakwakira cyangwa rwakira abarwanyi ba FDLR bashyize intwaro hasi bakemera gutahuka. Kubera izo mpamvu, u Rwanda ruravuga ko rudashobora kujya mu biganiro n’uwo mutwe. None amaherezo ni ayahe? Abatumire bacu ni Gervais Condo, umwe mu bayobozi b’Ihuriro Nyarwanda RNC ari muri Amerika, ari kumwe na Pascal Kalinganire uri muri New Hampshire, muri Amerika, akaba ari mu muryango OPGER uharanira uburenganzira bw’ikiremwamuntu bombi bari mu mitwe cyangwa imiryango yashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko. Turi kumwe kandi na Sayinzoga Jean, umukuru wa komisiyo y’igihugu ishizwe gusezerera no gusubiza mu buzima busazwe abari mu gisirikare, we akaba ari kumwe na Gashugi Faustin Kunde wahoze ari muri FDLR akaba yaratahutse. Ikiganiro mwagiteguriwe na Ally Yusuf Mugenzi.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Kalinganire, ni wowe washyize umukono kuri iyi nyandiko, iriho amazina y’amashyiramwe cyangwa imiryango irenga 30 ariko isinya iriho kuri urwo rwandiko mwatanze ni iyawe gusa, byagenze gute ngo abandi ntibashyireho umukono?

Pascal Kalinganire: Eee, reka mbanze mbashimire Bwana Ally Yusuf Mugenzi kandi nsuhuze bagenzi banjye mbereye ku bari mu Rwanda: Bwana Sayinzoga na Gashugi na Condo uri hano muri Etats Unis turi kumwe. Mukomere! Ndabasuhuje! Mugenzi, umaze gusobanura neza ibikubiye muri iyo nyandiko yacu. Iyi miryango ubona kuri iyo lisite y’amashyirahamwe ya politiki n’amashyirahamwe aharanira imibereho myiza y’abaturage (societes civiles) ni imiryango y’Abanyarwanda yari muri Diaspora, twatangiranye ku kibazo cy’impunzi, ibyo bise ngo clause de cessation. Donc gucura impunzi z’Abanyarwanda zibarirwa kuva muri 1959 kugeza muri 1998. Twatangiye gukorera hamwe kuva mu mwaka w’2011 kugeza na n’ubu tugikomeza gukora kuri iki kibazo cyo gushaka gucura izo mpunzi.

Gusa rero kuvuga ngo ko hariho signature y’umuntu umwe, urabona imiryango irenga 30 kugira ngo buri muntu asinye ku ibaruwa, asinya ku ibaruwa ikugarukire, aho twahisemo kugira ngo umuntu umwe asinye, aba ari we unatanga na addresse de reponse bazasubizaho cyangwa se contacts. Ni uko twabigenje.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Mugenzi wanjye dukorana hano arambaza ati “uzi neza ko aba bantu koko iyi nyandiko bateguye bayigejeje kubo yari igenewe?”

Pascal Kalinganire: Dukoresha uburyo nibura butatu: kohereza mu iposa, kohereza dukoresheje email noneho aho dufite abantu bakazijyanira mu ntoki. Ni uko twabigenje.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Kuri mugenzi wawe Bwana Condo muri kumwe, RNC iri mu mitwe yashyize umukono kuri iyo nyandiko ariko uretse kuyishyiraho umukono wowe wabwiye ko wagize n’uruhare rwo kuyitegura, murashaka kugera kuki Bwana Condo?

Gervais Condo: N’ubwo mfite Ihuririro mbarizwamo, iyi komite yateguye iyi nyandiko nayijyiyemo ngira ngo kubera ubunararibonye cyangwa se kuba ndi impuguke mu byerekeye “humanitarian Action” ari byo navuga gutabariza impabe n’indushyi cyangwa se no kuzirengera, iyo nama yari amaze kuvuga Kalinganire yabereye i Buruseli mu mwaka ushize mu kwezi kwa Kane ku itariki ya 19 kugeza ku ya 20. Ikaba yari ifite ikipe y’abayiteguye kugira ngo nanone bagaragarize isi ko ibintu byo gushyira mu bikorwa icyiswe ‘cessation clause’ cyangwa ‘clause de cessation’ byaba ari ukwihuta cyane cyane ko leta y’u Rwanda yari yarabishyizemo ingufu ivuga iti “nyamuneka nimukore ibishoboka tuvuge ko ikibazo cy’impunzi kirangiye”.

Inama imaze guteranira i Buruseli, umwe mu myanzuro yafashe, yasabye abo bari bateguye iyo nama, nari ndimo, ko noneho ako gakipe kayiteguye, kakurikiranira hafi ibibazo by’impunzi cyane cyane mu gushyira mu bikorwa ibyo bya “cessation clause”, tukareba niba koko nta mpunzi zizahutazwa. Twabikurikiranye rero kuva icyo gihe umunsi ku munsi: tukamenya ibihugu byose birimo impunzi uko byifashe, tukamenya ahari imbogamizi, biza kugera kuri ibi ngibi bibaye muri Kongo ari aka kanama kabikurikira. Ni ako kateguye iyo nyandiko mu izina ry’iyo miryango ya politiki n’idaharanira inyungu yari yagashyizeho ngo kajye gakora mu izina ryayo.Ni gutyo najamo.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Nari nkubajije rero icyo mugamije kugeraho nyuma y’iyi nyandiko mwasohoye muri uku kwezi, mugamije kugera kuki?

Gervais Condo: Icya mbere ngira ngo Kalinganire yari yabivuze mu magambo make. Nawe wari wabivuze: tugamije gutabariza ziriya mpunzi ziri muri Kongo. Ziriya mpunzi ziri muri Kongo zihabaye imyaka ijya kugera kuri 20 abantu barazirengagije kuva zatangira kugeza mugingo aya ndetse n’uwo muryango wa HCR wazitereranye kuva zatangira guhunga muri ariya mashyamba ya Kongo ukaba wari umaze iminsi uvuga ko impunzi z’Abanyarwanda zikwiriya ku isi ari hafi ibihumbi 100. Hagati aho baza gukora ibarura bafatanyije na leta ya Kongo basanga ababashije gusohoka mu ngo zabo no gupfunuka mu mashyamba ngo baze kwiyandikisha bageze ku bihumbi za 245. Urumva harenzeho inshuro 150% y’impunzi muri Kongo ugereranyije n’imibare bajyaga batanga.

Nk’uko nanone wabivuze ugitangira, bamaze kuvuga ibyo kujya kurasa ku mutwe wa FDLR nawo ukomoka muri izo mpunzi, tukavuga tuti “nanone ishyano rirabaye” kuko ntakubeshye iteka iyo bavuze kongera kumena amaraso y’Abanyarwanda haba mu Rwanda haba muri Kongo, ndi mu bantu basuherwa. Bariya bantu bavangavanze n’impunzi kandi muri abo bategetsi bavuga ibyo byo kujya kuzirasaho, bakavuga ko n’ubundi nta gatege bafite ka gisirikare kuko bagaragaza ko izo ngabo za FDLR zigomba kuba zigeze ku 1.500, ubwo babivugaga batari bashyiramo abagera kuri 200 batanze intwaro ku bwende bwabo, bivuge ko hasigayemo nk’1300 ukurikije iyo mibare uwo muryango mpuzamahanga utanga. Noneho wafata 1,300 cy’abasirikare ba FDR ukakigereranya n’ibihumbi 245 by’ababashije kuva mu mashyamba, ndavuga ababashyije kuva mu mashyamba bajya kwiyandikisha kuko dutekereza ko uwo mubare urarenze cyane. Tukavuga tuti “baravangavanze, nibajya kuvuga ngo bararasa kuri bariya bantu bo muri FDLR nanone bararikoze” Mbese izo mpunzi ugereranyije na FDLR ni umusirikare umwe ku bantu 200. Urumva rero uvuze uti “nshire mu bikorwa icyemezo cyo kujya kurasa FDLR aho ivangavanze aho ngaho n’abaturage ndavuga ab’impunzi, zivangavanze n’Abanyekongo: kazaba kabaye. Ishyano rizaba riguye. Abantu nanone bashyira. Turasaba rero uwo muryango w’Abibumbye, mu byo dusaba n’icyo tugamije: ni ukubabwira tuti “Nyamuneka mwari musazwe barashyizeho gahunda yo kugira ngo barambike imbunda kugeza ubu ngubu nta maraso yongeye kumeneka gahunda itangiye, kuki abantu aho kugira ngo bakoreshe ingufu za gisirikare batakwitabira inzira y’amahoro, itamena andi maraso ahubwo ndetse nk’uko uwo muryango mpuzamahanga wakomeje kugira isoni zo kuba ntacyo wakoze kugira ngo jenoside yabaye mu Rwanda muri 1994 yo kubaho cyangwa se banayihagarike vuba na bwangu, iyo bayivuze iteka bagira ipfunwe, bigatuma batanga inkunga igaragara kuri leta y’u Rwanda, kuki batagira isoni zo kuba barirengagije abo bantu kugeza magingo aya kandi batari babiyobewe, nta gihe batavuze ko hari impunzi zitabarika, uhereye n’igihe nk’umugore witwa Emma Bonino yigera kujyayo mu ntangiriro ya za 1997 akaza asohoka avuga ati “Ndasa n’uvuye mu muriro utazima. Hariya hantu mpasanze impunzi zirenga ibihumbi 200”. Dore none babone ibihumbi 200 hafi na 50.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Condo wari uvuze ko izi mpunzi zavuye mu mashyamba, zari zihishe mu mashyamba, ntabwo zari zizwi, ntabwo wavuga ko umuryango w’Abibumbye wirengaje izo mpunzi, kuki wakwita ku zindi mpunzi ntiwite ku mpunzi zo muri Kongo?

Gervais Condo: Babigize ku bintu by’ubushake

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ubushake?

Gervais Condo: Yee, byakozwe ku bushake, ari strategie bashyizeho d’abord y’uwo muryango w’Abibumbye ufatanyije na leta y’u Rwanda yakomeje kubotsa igitutu, bavuga bati “nimuhagarike imfashanyo y’abo bantu, niyo ibashuka. Nimuhagarika imfashanyo mukayizana mu Rwanda ni nko kuzabakurura bazasohoka, baze bajya gushaka ibiryo mu Rwanda.”

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato: icyo kintu kirakomeye, turakibaza Sayinzoga. Leta y’u Rwanda yagambanye n’amahanga kugira ngo bahagarike imfashanyo kuri izo mpunzi? Nibyo uvuga?

Gervais Condo: Ni byo mvuze cyane, ndaza mbisubiremo mbabwire ko kugeza n’ubu ngubu ziriya mpunzi urumva umubare bari barawugabanyije bavuga ngo “impunzi zose z’Abanyarwanda zigeze ku bihumbi 100” bakirengagiza ko hari ibyo bihumbi birenze 245. Nta mfashanyo abana b’izo mpunzi mvumva ngo bari kumwe na FDLR iyo birukanka iyo ngiyo: nta kaye, nta karamu, nta mwambaro, nta biryo. Nta kwirengagizwe rero kurenze aho ngaho kandi bitavuga yuko batabimenye.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko si ugushinyagura: ntacyo zibaye! Niba zarabayeho iyo myaka 20 zikaba zikiriho, zidafashijwe, ntabwo ari ugushinyagura, ntacyo zibaye!

Gervais Condo: Zirakibaye Bwana Mugenzi, zibayeho nabi, zifite kugenda zibundabunda, niho nkwubwira ko ahubwo si n’impunzi gusa: ni imponoke z’amasasu y’ingabo z’u Rwanda, ni imponoke z’abantu baturutse za Kibeho, bahonotse aho za Shabunda, za Kisangani, za Mbandaka, za Tingi Tingi, zahonotse amasasu za Umoja wetu, zahonotse amasasu ya za Kimya, zahonotse amasasu ya Amani Leo zihora zibundabanda zihishe muri ibyo bihuru rimwe na rimwe nyine zirinzwe n’abo bantu bakubwiraga bo muri FDLR.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Bwana Condo, uri kumwe na Sayinzoga. Sayinzoga ari kumwe n’umuntu wari muri FDLR, Bwana Sayinzoga uteze amatwi abo bagabo babiri icyo bashaka n’ukuntu basobanura ikibazo cy’impunzi n’impamvu banditse iyi nyandiko. Nawe nayiguhaye mbere y’ikiganiro, urabivugaho iki Bwana Sayinzoga?

Sayinzoga Jean: Ahubwo warakoze kuyimpa, ndagushimira kandi yose narayisomye. Ibyo gutaha kw’Abanyarwanda: turabyifuza ni ukuri. Nta n’ubwo twifuza ko Abanyarwanda baza badafite ishema n’inabyo turwanira kugira ngo batahuke bafite ishema. Iby’imibare byo biriya bihumbi 200, namubwira ko iriya mibare ari Abanyekongo ubwabo bayiduhaye, iyo nama nari nyirimo ya tripartite. Yabaye hagati y’abahagarariye guverinoma ya Kongo, HCR natwe. Iyo nama nari nyirimo. Ubundi muri Kongo bajyaga baduha imibare ko impunzi z’Abanyarwanda ziri muri Kongo ari ibihumbi 80, ejobundi batubwira ko ari ibihumbi 245 ahubwo bavugaga ibihumbi 250. Aho byavaga ni aha ngaha: Ubwa mbere kwari ugukekeranya. Bakavuga bati “turakeka ko impunzi z’Abanyarwanda ziri muri Kongo, tumaze kubona abatahutse, abasigaye ari ibihumbi 80.” Kugira ngo bihinduke ni uko ubuyobozi bwa Kongo ubwabwo bwaratubwiye buti “twakoze ibintu bya gihanga noneho, twaturutse hasi tubwira za localites na za groupements buri muntu wese akatubwira Abanyarwanda batuye ahantu ategeka. Ati “hanyuma tugenda duteranya, ibihumbi 250 niyo twagezeho ubu ngubu”. Urumva ko iyo mibare yavuye muri Kongo. Ntabwoa ri ahandi yavuze. Ntabwo bayihimbye ariko ibyo ari byo byose niyo byaba ari ibihumbi 500 twebwe u Rwanda twiteguye kubakira. Dufite ibyangombwa bihagije. Twiteguye bihagije, ntabwo bashobora kubura aho bajya. Imitahire noneho rero: ndakubwiza ukuri Bwana Mugenzi, nanjye nagiye gusura inkambi z’impunzi z’Abanyarwanda: nagiye Kitele, nagiye Maheba muri Zimbabwe. Ingendo za nyuma zajyanaga n’iyo ‘clause de cessation’, tukababwira tuti “ubu ngubu kuba dufite impunzi kuva muri ’59, ku isi yose ubu ngubu impunzi zimaze imyaka myinshi hanze hari Abapalestiens bahunze kuva muri 1947 cyangwa 1948, abakurikiraho ni Abanyarwanda, ko Abapalestiens bafite ikibazo cyabo cyihariye, nk’Abanyarwanda twebwe umuntu akomeza kuba impunzi bigenze bite? Ko dushishikariza abantu bose gutaha? Iby’uwo mugabo avuga ko ngo “bashushubikanya abantu, bakabahatira gutaha” nabyo ntabwo ari byo kuko iyo ‘clause de cessation’ ntabwo ari u Rwanda rugenda rukabwira igihugu ngo “nimwirukane Abanyarwanda”: oya. Rurababwira ruti “mwebwe nimufasha Abanyarwanda bacu kubona uko babaho. Niba uwo munyarwanda ari mu gihugu cyanyu, akaba afite ibintu akora bibafitiye akamaro nawe bimufitiye akamaro, mukaba mwiteguye kumuha ubwenegihugu, nimubumuhe! Niba uwo munyarwanda ashaka gutaha mu gihugu turamuha rwa rwandiko rw’inzira: passport, ajye ajyenderaho noneho ajya aza akore ibikorwa bye, ajye aza no mu Rwanda akomeze ubwenegihugu bwe bw’ubunyarwanda. Ushaka gutaha ubu ngubu, akaza mu Rwanda agasubira mu Rwanda rwe, akajya ashobora gusohoka igihe ashakiye, nabyo birashoboka. Buri gihugu noneho kikajya kitubwira kiti “twebwe nimwihangane, tube tubanza twitegure!” Kongo Demokaratike niko yatubwiye, ngira ngo basabye umwaka. Kango Brazzaville nayo yari yasabye igihe, Zambiya yasabye igihe. Ibyo bihugu byose twagiye tuvugana byose niko byagiye bigenda. Nta munyarwanda rero u Rwanda rwifuza gushushubikanya ngo atahe igitaraganya, shishi itabona, agomba gutaha ameze neza, yiteguye, akaza agasubira mu gihugu cye.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Uku kugambana Condo avuze mwagambaniye impunzi kugira ngo zitabona imfashanyo, zibone ko zibabara, mugambana n’amahanga, ni ikirego gikomeye?

Sayinzoga Jean: Ntabwo bishoboka kuko ntabwo dutegeka HCR. Ni umuryango wigenga, ufite amahame yawo, sinzi ko banabyemera ubwabo ko hari igihugu cyabashyiraho igitugu. ntabwo bishoboka. Ntaza no kubyibagirwa mbe Bwana Mugenzi, ntaza kubyibarwa, ndakubwira koibyo bihugu byose mbijyamo, ikintu kimbabaza ni ukubona umunyarwanda atakaza agaciro kuko ari impunzi ku buryo rero ntabwo u Rwanda rwakwifuza ko Umunyarwanda ajya gusonzera mu mahanga, abamuhaga imfashanyo bazihagaritse, ntabwo bishoboka. Twifuza ko yabaho neza nawe akazagira igihe azatahira.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Kalinganire, wumvise ibivugwa na Sayinzoga; we aravuga ko barashishikariza impunzi gutaha ku bushake, bagashishikariza ibihugu bishoboye kubakira bakabakira ariko aravuga ko imiryango irafunguye kandi bakoze ibishoboka byose ngo impunzi zitahuke. Ibyo avuga bitandukanye n’ibiri mu nyandiko yanyu kuko mwebwe muravuga ko hakiri imbogamizi z’impunzi gutahuka ku bushake, Kalinganire!

Pascal Kalinganire: Ni byo koko ibyo tuvuga ko hari imbogamizi ariko reka mbanze mvuge ku byerekeye iryo jambo bavugaga ryo kugambanira impunzi ngo zitahuke ku ngufu, ibyo bintu ni ibintu byatangiye kera kuva muri mu mwaka w’2005, guverinoma y’u Rwanda yotsa igitutu HCR, ko izo mpunzi zagomye gutahuka birazamuka kugeza igihe HCR nayo yavuze iti “koko wa mugani ko dufite n’impunzi nyinshi z’Abanyarwanda, kuki zitatahuka?” Batangira noneho kumva, batangira no gushyira mu bikorwa ibyo bintu, ariho havuye “clause de cessation” mu mwaka w’2011.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Cumi na rimwe, tubwire 2005 wavugaga yuko aribwo byatangiye kugambana, byagenze bite?

Pascal Kalinganire: Byonyine mu madisikuru y’igihugu mwagiye mwumva na Perezida ubwe avuga ati “izo mpunzi nizitahe, zive hanze ntacyo zishakayo”. Ubwo rero byakomeje babwira HCR ko izo mpunzi zigomba gutahuka kandi koko ni mu gihe mutekereje namwe igihugu gifite impunzi zingana kuriya hanze kugira ngo kivuge ngo ‘gifite amahoro’ murabyumva. Ni uko za references ubu ntazifite nshatse naziboherereza ariko rero ni ibintu byatangiye mu mwaka w’2005.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: None ikibazo nari nkubajije rero!

Pascal Kalinganire: Bon, kuri icyo kibazo, twe turavuga ko ibyangombwa bituzuye mu gihugu kugira ngo impunzi zitahuke. Nk’uko mwabibonye muri iriya memerandum; d’abord reka duhere ku kibazo cy’umutekano; ntagiye kure reka tubanze duhere ejobundi ibintu byabaye mu kwezi kwa Karindwi mu gihugu: Minisitiri ubwe w’umutekano ngira ngo donc wa administration locale yatangaje ko abantu bagera ku bihumbi 16 mu karere ka Ngororero babuze, ibyo birapasa gutya inapercu, nta muntu rwose uvuze ati “abantu twababonye aha ngaha, aba bantu babuze batya”.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato! Ba uretse gato Kalinganire! Sayinzoga ufite ikaramu…

Pascal Kalinganire: Ntabwo ndangije. Hari abandi ibihumbi 30 noneho…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato, ba uretse, icyo nshaka kuvuga: Sayinzoga ufite ikaramu uze gusubiza kuri uwo mubare Kalinganire avuze w’ibihumbi 16. Ngaho komeza Kalinganire!

Pascal Kalinganire: Donc, nanone inzego zishyizwe za gereza zitangaza ko nanone ibihumbi 30 by’imfungwa z’Abanyarwanda nazo babuze ejobundi rwose mu kwezi kwa Karindwi n’ukwa Munani ndimo ndavuga. Ntabwo nagiye mu bya kera. Ibya kera byo ni agahomamunwa! Bon! Uwo niwo mutekano rero ubwo baravuga ko uhari mu Rwanda. Ejobundi mwimvise imirambo igera kuri 40 Abarundi barobye mu kiyaga cya Rweru, iyo mirambo yaturukagaga mu Kanyaruru, mu mugezi uturuka mu Rwanda.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko naho naguca mu ijambo, ntabwo baremeza ko iyo mirambo yaturutse mu Rwanda, iperereza ntabwo rirakorwa, gutunda gatoki, ukemeza ko ari u Rwanda nabyo waba uhubutse, Kalinganire!

Pascal Kalinganire: None se ibihumbi 30 byabuze maze kuvuga mu mwanya mwigeze mubona raporo cyangwa se ngo hari ubushakashatsi bwemeje ko bavuye mu Rwanda? Ibihumbi 16, hari raporo yigeze ivuga ko abo bantu barigise gutya, hari ubushakashatsi mwigeze mwumva buvugwa kuri abo bantu. Ntabwo iki ngiki ari ubwa mbere. Ntamutse ntanze izindi preuves zanjye: ni uko muri 2009 uriya mugezi wa Kanyaru nanone Abanyarwanda barerembaga hejuru y’amazi, ibyo byatangajwe n’Abarundi, byavuzwe ku maradiyo. Impunzi zari zimaze kwirukanwa mu Burundi, zigeze mu Rwanda nyuma y’ibyumweru bibiri, bagaruka biruka na none abantu bagera kuri 300, bavuga bati “twebwe baraza bakaturobamo abantu nijoro, bakabajyana bakabica” kandi koko imirambo noneho ikaba yaratangajwe n’ubutegetsi bw’i Burundi, bavuga bati “imirambo twarayibonye.” Ubwo ni mu myaka itanu ishize. Ejobundi habonetse indi mirambo 40, iyo ngiyo niba batarayikuyemo iperereza, iyo ngiyo noneho byaragaragaye ko yari Abanyarwanda. Mu by’ukuri, umutekano ushaka kuvuga ni uwuhe?

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko ibyo ni ibyo uvuga, ni ibyo uvuga, Kalinganire na polisi muri iki cyumweru yarabihakanye, iravuga ko bakeneye iperereza, polisi y’u Rwanda?

Pascal Kalinganire: Icyo nshaka kuvuga ni uko iryo perereza ritazabaho. None se ibihumbi 16 birabura kandi bitangajwe noneho n’u Rwanda, ntihagire ukubwira irengero ryayo. Ibihumbi 30 bikabura, ntahagire ukubwira irengero ryayo, ubwo se urumva iyo mirambo 40 yo ni nde uzakubwira irengero ryayo? Hari ibijyendana rero noneho n’ubwisanzure mu gihugu: itangazamakuru mu gihugu, ntarihari. Abanyamakuru birirwa bafungwa murabizi. Ibyerekeye politiki: nta bwisanzure bwa politiki. Opposition hariya ntabwo navuga ngo irakora. Mwabonye ibyabaye kuri Ingabire, mwabonye ibyabaye kuri ba Mushayidi, bariya bapoliticiens baba muri opposition bose. Amagambo y’abapoliticuiens ubwayo nayo noneho n’abategetsi b’igihugu agenda yereka impunzi ko zitagombye no gutaha. Ijambo rya Perezida ubwe wa Repubulika yavugiye i Bwisige, iryo yavugiye ejobundi muri Nyabihu.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Yavuze iki? Yavuze iki?

Pascal Kalinganire: Iryo muri Nyabihu cyangwa?

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Aho ushaka, tanga urugero, ni wowe ubihisemo!

Pascal Kalinganire: Nk’iby’ejobundi muri Nyabihu aho yavugaga ati “abantu badutera tuzabarasa ku manywa y’ihangu, izuba riva kandi …..

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Abo ni abatera ntabwo ari impunzi?

Pascal Kalinganire: nyuma y’aho gatoya nibwo dutangiye kubona abantu ba badisparus ibihumbi 16 birabuze, ibihumbi 30 birabuze ku buryo twebwe dushobora no kuyakonegita no kuri ayo magambo yavuzwe ku mugaragaro kandi mwese mwiyumviye.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Sayinzoga, nari nkwubwiye nti ‘fata ikaramu’ ibi bihumbi 16, ibi bihumbi 30 n’aya magambo, bo ntabwo bemera ko ibi uvuga byo gushishikariza impunzi gutahuka ku busahake, baravuga ko hakiri imbogamizi, urabyumvise Sayinzoga!

Sayinzoga Jean: Ntabwo dukeneye Abanyarwanda bo kwica n’igihano cyo kwica cyavuyeho uretse nabo kuvuga ko hari abo bahohotera. Iyi mibare yavugaga ngo y’umutekano ngo mu 2014  bavuze yuko ngo hari ibihumbi 16 ngo byaburiye muri Ngororero, none se ubwo haba hasigaye abaturage bangahe hagiye ibihumbi 16? Iyi mibare yo nta n’ubwo nyizi. Naho ibihumbi 30 byo ni inzego z’imfungwa n’abagororwa kandi iyi ni imibare kuva TIG yajyaho n’abandi kandi ikibitera nabyo ni ukubera ko iyo aba ngaba bakora TIG, basaba impushya bakajya iwabo, iyo atagarutse nta n’ubwo bavuga ngo aba yaragiye hanze, haba n’ubwo yimuka akajya ahandi cyangwa ari aho ngaho bakora indi mirimo. Umuntu ntabwo aba yarapfuye, aba ahari kuko bigera naho ngaho bakamugarura. Ibi ngibi urabona ni imibare y’igihe kirekire, ntabwo ari iby’ejobundi, ni ukuva igihe TIG igiriyeho.

Ubagiriye neza kuko wavuze biriya bya Rweru: Rweru haracyari iperereza ni ejobundi. Abayobozi b’u Rwanda bavuga bati “biri i Burundi, i Burundi nibakenera ko dukorana tuzakora ukuri kugaragare” ariko ubu nta cyemezo kirafatwa.

Naho ibi ngibi by’imirambo y’Akanyaru ya 2009, icyo gihe hari hakiri ibihuha byinshi, umuntu wese yaravugaga ngo bamwishe. Byamaze igihe kinini, ibihuha ntaho bitaba, nk’abantu bari mu buroko n’abantu bari mu nkambi z’impunzi barakubwira bati “tudashyizeho ibihuha, ntabwo twabaho!” Naho iperereza avuga ngo ntabwo rizabaho: rizabaho. Nta gihe iperereza ritabaho. Ubwisanzure mu gihugu rero, Mungu wanjye! Ese yasomye ko n’ejobundi hari ibyo abanyamakuru bavuze ku munsi w’itangazamakuru, akareba ibyo Abanyarwanda bavuga. Wenda icyo ashaka ni itangazamakuru ritukana, iryo nta gihugu kiryemera.

Naho iby’abayobozi, ibya opposition bya Ingabire na Mushayidi: ngira ngo babisobanuye bihagihegije, ibyinshi ntabwo ndi umucamanza. Ibyo ngibyo azabaze abacamanza, muzamusobanurira impamvu kandi barabivuze. Ibyo mbigiyemo rwose byaba ari ukwivanga. Nanjye naba ntambikiriye.

Naho ibyerekeye  rero ibyo avuga Perezida yavuze, ibya Bwisige cyangwa ibya Nyabihu. Ibya Nyabihu reka musobanurire: yewe n’ejobundi Perezida Obama yavugaga yuko ibintu byerekeye umutekano Abanyamerika batabyihanganira. Sarkozy ejo muri campagne yakoze mu Majyarugu y’Ubufaransa yarabwiraga ati “ikintu cyerekeye umutekano w’Ubufaransa, Abafaransa twese tugomba gushyira hamwe tukabungabunga umutekano wacu”. Natwe, urumva izo ni ingero nguhaye zo hanze, mu gihugu kuki twakwemera ko abantu baza bakica Abanyarwanda babatera za gerenade cyangwa banabarasa cyangwa banabaniga, tugaceceka ngo batazagira icyo bavuga? Perezida yabivuze kubera yuko byari bikabije, abo bantu nyine bazaga gutera za gerenade aha ngaha abenshi barafashwe, barerekanwe, baracyari mu butabera. None se bakora ibyo tukabihorera kugira ngo ushaka gutaha atabona ko hari umuntu wafunzwe? Igihugu kidafunga abakoze ibyaha, wakibona hehe? Nashaka ndi kumwe na Bwanda Kunde nushaka ko anyongerera kuri ibi ngibi, hari byinshi…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Oya. Ndamuhamagara mu kanya, ndamuhamagara mu kanya maze kubaza Condo, niba urangije. Kunde, ihangane gato! Reka mbanze mvugane na Condo kuko icyo ndibukubaze gifitanye isano n’ibyo Condo agiye kuvuga. Bwana Condo, muravuga ko FDLR ari umutwe uvanze n’impunzi, ukavuga ko uvanze n’Abanyekongo, gukoresha ingufu za gisirikare bizamena amaraso y’inzirakarengane ariko mukongeraho ko mushyigikiye ko FDLR itaha nk’uko yakunze kubivuga, itahana ishema. Iyo muvuga ishema, mushaka kuvuga iki?

Gervais Condo: Ariko unyemereye nari nasabye ijambo kugira ngo nkore reactions ebyiri kuri biriya bintu, iriya mibare bamaze kuvuga. Icya mbere, hariho uriya mubare w’ibihumbi 16 watangajwe na Minisitiri w’Umutekano, avuga abanyururu bamaze kubura.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Abo ni abanyururu bo muri TIG, sibyo?

Gervais Condo: Abanyururu bonyine ubwabo, noneho hakaza na biriya bihumbi …

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ntabwo ari muri TIG? Ba uretse gato!

Gervais Condo: 30 nibo ba TIG, 16 ni abanyururu

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato Condo! Twumvikane gato! Ndaguha ijambo. Sayinzoga, urabyumva 16 ibyo ngibyo!

Sayinzoga Jean: Ibihumbi 30 ni abari muri TIG batorotse, ntabwo ari abanyururu.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Cumi na bitandatu?

Gervais Condo: Abanyururu.

Sayinzoga Jean: Cumi na bitandatu ni imibare yabashyizeho itari nayo.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ni ibihimbano?

Sayinzoga Jean: Ntabwo wabashyira hamwe. None se abantu batorotse ari ibihumbi 16 bava mu karere ka Ngororero, urumva bishoboka wowe?

Gervais Condo: Reka nsubiremo: ibyo ni ibyo Minisitiri w’Umutekano yatangaje ari i Ngororero ku itariki ya 02/06/2013. Ntabwo ariho baturutse honyine. Ndavuga imibare y’abanyururu babuze.

Sayinzoga Jean: Ariko umubare niyo waba ari uwo nguwo, hashyize imyaka myinshi yaragiye ateranya, nabyo nta gitangaza kirimo. Ni ukuvuga yuko ubuyobozi bwacu ntabwo bufunga umunyarwanda ngo birirwe bamuziritseho amapingu ku maguru no ku maboko. Barasohoka bajya gukora hanze, barasohoka bakajya hanze, aho yatangiriye n’aho yasoreje iyo myaka ntabwo nyifite mu mutwe ariko umenye ko niba ari Abanyarwanda bahunze bakaba abari mu gihugu cyangwa baragiye hanze, ikibi ni uko wavuze ngo “twarabishe ibyo bihumbi 16 bose twagiye tubavana mu munyururu tukibica” naho gutoroka byo birasazwe naho gutoroka byo birasazwe, aho badatoroka, no mu bihubu byose ntuzi n’ahantu hakomeye, ntuzi ko bajya batoroka?

Gervais Condo: Abivuze neza rwose Sayinzoga, iyo mibare niyo. Njyewe nabonye ibihumbi 45 ni abaturage ba zimwe mu makomine zari zituwe cyane mu Rwanda ndavuga muri iyo myaka ya za ’90 na ’95. Iyo baburiye rimwe rero haba hari ikibazo nk’uko Kalinganire yabivugaga abantu bagombye gukora enquete, ibyo ntibyabayeho. Nkagaruka ku kintu na none yari yavuze Sayinzoga kijyanye na bairiya byo gushyira mu bikorwa “clause de cessation”, ni byo koko ‘clause de cessation’ yateganyaga options zigeze nko kuri eshanu: hari ugutahuka bushake, hari ibintu byo kuba basonerwa bakagumana ubuhungiro, hari ibintu byo kuba bakwemera gutura muri icyo gihugu bakagira uburenganzira bwo kuba bakomeza kuba Abanyarwanda bakagira izo za passport, hari ibintu byo kuba babona ubwenegihugu aho ngaho bari cyangwa se no kuba babimurira mu kindi gihugu. Kuri ibyo bintu byo kugira ngo bashake za passport, igihugu cyari très avancé mu gushyira mu bikorwa iyo ‘clause de cessation’ ni igihugu cya Zambia, HCR yari yarafasheho icyitegererezo, muri uko kuyifataho icyitegererezo, i Kigali baravuze bati, sinzi wenda na Sayinzoga wenda yari ariyo muri abo bayobozi kuko ntabwo nigeze menya amazina y’abo bayobozi bagiye gushishikariza izo mpunzi gutaha, ngo babahe na za passport ubanza ndetse baragiye bazitwaje ariko ibibazo babahaye bikabatera kwibaza, babazaga bene wabo bari mu Rwanda, abantu barakenga kandi ni mu gihe n’iwacu baravuga bati “inyamaswa idakenga yishwe n’umututizi”.

Ikindi rero mu bintu twari twabonye muri iyo nama Kalinganire yabivuze mu magambo make, sindibuze kuzisubiramo: izo nzitizi, izo mbogamizi zituma abantu badataha, ntabwo zigeze zivaho. Mwari muvuze abo bantu bo mu mashyamba ya Kongo, mwari muvuze amagambo y’abayobozi barimo n’ijambo rya Perezida wa Repebulika, akajya imbere y’abaturage akababwira ati “[impunzi z’abantu bari muri Kongo] abagomba gupfa twaragiye turabarasa, abagomba gutaha turabacyura”. Uwo muntu uri hariya usigaye ari impunzi yibaza ko ari mu bahe?

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko niba yaratashye ntabwo azaraswa?

Gervais Condo: Reka da! Umva da!

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Kandi yaratashye?

Gervais Condo: Yuuuu! Dufite abantu bigeze guterura hariya muri Gabon, indege igenda imenayo inshuro zingahe, ntawigeze amenya n’irengero ryabo. Ntabwo byongeye kuvugwa. Noneho rero uwo muntu uri aho ngaho aravuga ati “ndataha” amaze kumva amagambo nkayo n’ariya baraye bavuze ririya jambo ry’ejobundi ryo ku itariki ya 05 Perezida yavugiraga i Nyabihu, asubiza inyandiko yari yaturutse muri Minisiteri y’Ububanyi n’amahanga ya Leta zunze ubumwe z’Amerika hano. Noneho akavuga ati “ahubwo tugiye kujya tubarasa izuba riva”. Sayinzoga arabivuze ati “igihano cy’urupfu cyavuyeho” Nta nubwo ubajyanye mu rukiko ariko umuntu akababwira ati “ndi umukuru w’igihugu, ndababwiye nti “nzabarasa izuba riva’”. Abo bantu ntibagira icyo bibaza?

Ikindi bakavuga bati “ni ikibazo cy’umutekano”: icyo kibazo cy’umutekeno iyo hari ugomba kujya kugira ibyo azira bamurega ko ari kumwe na FDLR cyangwa se bakavuga ko ari kumwe na RNC. Ni byo. Baba bafite abamushyinja bakajya kubavana muri FDLR, icyo rero ni indi mpamvu igaragaza inzitizi. Noneho rero maze kuvuga iryo jambo, mwari muvuze abantu bafashwe, mwari muvuze abafashwe muri Ruhengeri na Gisenyi, abantu bajya kubaza inzego z’umutekano bati “abantu bacu ko babuze?” Bati “reka da!” Ntabwo rero ibyo bintu nk’ibyo bishishikariza impunzi gutaha. Ikibabaza rero ni uko iyo abantu bamaze gusesengura berekana imbogamizi, leta y’u Rwanda nanone irongera igahaguruka, ikambera nka wa mukobwa ubyukana ubutuna, akabyukana ingonera, akajya imbere y’indorerwamo ye, akayibwira ati “ndorerwamo yanjye, ndorerwamo yanjye nziza itagira uko isa, bwira ko ndi mwiza!” Indorerwamo itabimwereka akayimena. Agiye agakaraba akavanaho ubwo butuna, akavanaho izo ngonera yajyamo agasanga ntako asa n’izo mpunzi ntabwo tuvuga izo muri Kongo zonyine n’ahandi zinyanyagiye, zasibana zitaha. Nta muntu wifuza kuba impunzi yashoboraga kuba yaba mu gihugu cye.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ikibazo nari nkubajije ariko ntabwo uragisubiza: nakubajije ibi muvuga byo gutaha kwa FDLR, gutahana ishema?

Gervais Condo: Iyi nyandiko bakoze irareba cyane cyane impunzi. Iki kintu cya FDLR nayo ivuga ngo yari yarafashe imbunda, ikaba yarazirambitse igihe bari bagiye mu masezerano ya Sant’Egidio ku bushake bwayo, nta bantu bongeye kuvuga ngo “irimo irakoresha imbunda”, uretse rimwe na rimwe ari uko zarashweho. Nibyo nibuka ariko ba bakavuga bati natwe “turarambiwe, turashaka kugira ngo dutahe mu nzira y’amahoro. Turashaka ko abantu bashyikirana.”

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko muravuga ko bagomba gutaha with ‘dignity’, mwakoresheje ijambo ‘dignity’ in English mu cyongereza?

Gervais Condo: Ni byo rwose kimwe n’izindi mpunzi bagataha mu cyubahiro, bakagira iyo mishyikirano hagati ya leta n’abandi bose batavuga rumwe nayo, atari FDLR yonyine noneho abandi ahubwo bakavuga bati “reka nimukomereze aho ngaho tubabohere amaboko inyuma n’abo bandi tubone uko tubakubita ariko niyo bagenda gutyo ukavugha yuko utazaba urangije ikibazo mu mahoro, nujya kurasa FDLR, ujye kurasa kuri abo baturage kuko nayo ubwayo au depart nabo ni impunzi. Hashobora kuba harimo abakoze ibyaha.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Impunzi zifite intwaro?

Gervais Condo: Yego, yego zifite intwaro, uzabaze burya FPR, bariya batashye ari bantu bafite intwaro. Ntabwo batashye imbokoboko kandi bari barahoze ari impunzi nabo.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Namwe niko mushaka se?

Gervais Condo: Ntabwo dushaka ibyo bintu byo kujya kumena amaraso. Imbunda niziceceke. Abantu bapfuye barahagiye. Abantu bavaneho ziriya mbogamizi zituma abantu badataha. Izo mbagamizi zizavanwaho n’imishyikirano. Nta sasu na rimwe rirekuwe, nta maraso amenetse.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Reka twumve Gashugi Faustin Kunde ari kumwe na Sayinzoga. Gashugi, ibivugwa n’aba bagabo babiri bari muri Amerika: baravugira impunzi. Wowe wari impunzi niko bambwiye, uratahuka, mbere na mbere, tubwire: bagenze gute ngo utahake?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Ndabanza gusubiza cyakora icyo bavuga ngo “gutaha mu cyubahiro”, ubundi gutahuka mu cyubahiro, umuntu akakirwa mu cyubahiro…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko iyo ubanza ubwire, ndacyikubaza icyo ngicyo, ndashaka kukubaza: watahutse ute?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Njyewe tumaze gutsindwa, nabaye muri Kongo [Kinshasa] jya no muri Kongo Brazzaville, igihe cyarageze intambara ya Kabila ibaye yo guhiga Abanyarwanda atwifashisha tuva i Brazzaville kugira ngo tuze kumufasha, nagarutse Kongo Kinshasa, turarwana. Bavuga ko turwanira demokarasi, ubutabera byose byose. Nakundaga rero gukurikira amakuru yo mu Rwanda, nkurikije amaradio cyangwa se n’ibinyamakuru. Igihe cyaje kugera rero mbona ahubwo ya demokarasi tuvuga ko turwanirira aho turi u Rwanda rurayirushya aho turi muri ibyo bihugu byose twabagamo. Nahisemo gutaha. Nagira ngo nkubutse ko natashye ndi mu bavuye i Kamina igihe ingabo za Kongo zaduteraga aho twari turi, turi mu kimeze nk’icinamico…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ubwo hari ryari?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Hari mu mwaka w’2002.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: 2002, kuva 2002 uri mu Rwanda kugeza ubu ngubu?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Ndi mu Rwanda n’abana banjye n’umugore.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Mubayeho mute?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Njyewe ndikorera ku giti cyanjye. Ndi umutechnicien mu by’ubwubatsi, ngakora n’ubuhinzi n’ubworozi.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Iyo wumva iyi miryango iri hanze cyangwa amashyirahamwe ari hanze bavuga ko FDLR yataha ariko igatahana ‘dignity’; iyi ‘dignity’ nabisobanuye mu cyongereza ni ishema; wowe, iryo shema urarifite?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Keretse niba yenda ishema ashaka kuvuga ari ishema ritari iryo ku isi, ari iryo mu ijuru kuko ishema ashaka kuvuga keretse niba ashaka ko uwajya ataha yajya yakirwa akajya kuri tapis rouge, akaririmbirwa hymne national, ubuntu wakiranwa ishema:  iyo uvuye muri mission y’igihugu yenda wagiye guserukira nk’igihugu muri athletisme cyangwa nk’abariya baba bagiye muri mission: Centrafrika, muri biriya bihugu birimo intambara. Iyo aje arakirwa, akakirwa na delegation y’igihugu…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko icyo ni icyubahiro, ni icyubahiro?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Icyo ni cyo cyubahiro…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ariko aba baravuga ‘dignity’?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Iyo utashye bakwakira nk’uko bakira undi muntu wese w’impunzi cyane cyane by’umwihariko mu Rwanda ho nk’abari abasirikare cyangwa bari abarwanyi ishema rya mbere ni uko bakirwa, bakajya mu kigo cy’amahugurwa cya Mutobo, bagahabwa amahugurwa na leta y’u Rwanda. Ayo mahugurwa iyo utakoresheje neza akugirira akamaro bikagera ku rwego ngezeho ubu ngubu.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Urwego ugezeho ruragushimishije?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Rurashimishije cyane kuko ayo mahirwe nakuye i Mutobo narayakoresheje ku buryo aho ntuye ubu Mugenzi, muri abo ngabo niyo wazabaza umwe akansura: ndi umwe mu bahinzi ntangarugero b’urutoke, maze kwiyubakira amazu yanjye yo kubaho, abana banjye biga mu bigo byiza by’amashuri. Ntekereza ko abo bavuga ibyo ngibyo abana babo ikibazo ni uko, abasinye no kuri iyi memerandum, abana babo bari muri za universites zikomeye zo muri Canada nahe hose. Izo mpunzi baba bavugira bashaka kugira nka pion umuntu akoresha muri dam, nta n’urafata icyemezo ngo ave aho muri Canada cyangwa muri Amerika aze azisure. Niyo bashatse kuboherereza, babashukisha amashapule kugira ngo bagumize babe aho gusa ngo barasenga, ngo bazacurwa na Bikira Mariya n’iki? Yee, nibyo birashoboka ariko ese bateye intambwe ko tuboherereza amafoto, tukavuga mu binyamakuru; abatashye bose kuva ku muntu wa mbere watashye turi i Kamina tugakurikiraho kugeza ku watashye ejobundi, hari uwo bari bumva wari wagira ikibazo? Yenda mu cyubahiro tuvuga: bazi bamwe mu mpunzi zatashye, twabaganaga aho muri Kongo bari abayobozi n’uyu munsi bakaba ari abayobozi hano mu gihugu cy’u Rwanda. Ni irihe shema riruta iryo Bwana Mugenzi?

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Icyo kibazo ngira ngo sinjyewe wagisubiza. Ni Kalinganire wegisubiza!

Pascal Kalinganire: D’abord uwo mugabo uvuze ko yatashye mu mwaka w’2002, ubu turi mu mwaka w’2014. Imyaka imaze kuba 12 irenga. Ngo twandika cyangwa tugafata abo bantu en otage, ntitujye no kubareba ahubwo tukabashukisha amashapule: mu by’ukuri izo mpunzi tuvuga zo muri Kongo ziraswaho buri munsi. Zarashweho kuva muri ’96. Ziriya ni izarokotse. Mumvise abantu bagera hafi ku bihumbi 250 ko bapfiriye muri ubwo bwicanyi kandi baraswaho na FPR ubwayo. Ubutegetsi buri mu Rwanda. Ubwo butegetsi bwabarasagaho icyo gihe na n’ubu nibwo bugihari. Nta n’umwe wigeze wumvikana ngo yahanwe nuko yagiye kwica impunzi. Ejobundi raporo yasohotse ivuga ko ibyaye hariya biramutse bigeze mu butegetsi, mu bucamanza byakwemezwa rwose ko ari jonoside yababayeho. Biramutse byemejwe n’urukiko kuko abakoze raporo nta bubasha babifitiye ariko rero abo bantu barapfuye. Ibyo birazwi. Raporo iri hariya. Noneho ikinababaje ahubwo ni uko ari communaute internationale, ari na guverinoma y’u Rwanda nta n’umwe wavuze ati “reka dukore noneho enquete, duhane abakoze ibyaha”. Abo bantu rero barokotse ubwo bwicanyi nibo ubu ngubu baravuga ngo nibatahe, nibo baravuga nanone kandi ngo bakubiteho amasasu, ayo masasu Condo yavugaga, ngo bazajya kurasa FDLR, FDLR kandi yivanze mu bantu b’impunzi bagera ku bihumbi 245 nk’uko na Sayinzoga yabivuze.

Kuvuga ko ngo tubabuza gutaha, ibyo ngibyo ni byo byonyine bibabuza gutaha: amasasu abahora hejuru. Ntabwo tubabuza gutaha kandi no mu nyandiko zacu. Turavuga tuti “ubishatse, ubushatse natahe rwose ajye mu gihugu nk’uko uyu mugabo Gashugi abivuga: yaratashye. Ntacyo yabaye ariko rero ufite ubwoba noneho nawe nibamuhe ibimugenewe nk’impunzi y’umunyarwanda. Ni impunzi y’umunyarwanda nayo nimenyekane, ifashwe aho kugira ngo bayikorere umugambi ahubwo wo kujya kuyirasaho kandi nanone yaracitse amasasu n’ubwicanyi bwamubayeho mbere. Njye ndumva ari icyo nabivugaho rwose.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Condo? Ba uretse!

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Bwana Mugenzi, nagira ngo mubwire yuko imbaraga bakoresha bagumisha abantu iyo ngiyo bazikoreresheje bavuga ko ahubwo mu Rwanda ari amahoro, ko abantu bagombye gutaha, nagira ngo nkuhe urugero: nk’impunzi zahunze nko muri ’94 bazifashe akaboko, uyu munsi nibo bari gukoresha hariya mu ishyamba…

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato! Ba uretse! Uravuga zahunze muri ’94 bazifashe akaboko?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Ari abana bato cyane bahunganye n’ababyeyi babo.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Yego, ok.

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Ubu ngubu urumva imyaka bamaze kugira nibo bagiye bashyira mu gisirikare, bakaba ari abacaporaux n’abasergents n’abasu lieutenants. Iyo umubwiye uti “mu Rwanda, iwanyu hari hehe? Nk’iyo muhuriye i Mutobo wagiyeyo gutangayo ikiganiro. Arakubwira ati “babwira ko hari i Nyaruguru.”

-Hehe? Ntakubwira umurenge.

-Ese jenoside urayizi? Ati “numva bayivuga”

-Ese…? Ati “babwira!” Njyewe ntekereza ko abo bagabo baramutse bakoze ahubwo uburyo basansibiliza izo mpunzi kugira ngo zitahuke, imbaraga bakoresha bandika ibi bitabo bakazikoresha bazibwira ko zitahuka zigafatanya natwe kubaka igihugu rwose nta mpunzi mu mezi abiri zaba zashyize mu mashyamba ya Kongo.

Pascal Kalinganire: Arakoze cyane kuba atubwiye ko abo bantu bagize FDLR ari abana bagiye bakuruye akaboko kandi noneho icyo bazira bavuga ngo umutekano uri hariya “nibo bawubujije” ni uko bavuga ngo ni interahamwe. Ngo ni abantu basize bakoze jonoside. Uwo mwana bari bafashe akaboko iyo jenoside yo mu Rwanda ni iyihe? Yari azi gufata imbunda? Uwagendaga akuruwe na nyina? Bon, reka noneho nkomeze!

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Ba uretse gato! Ngaho Faustin!

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Nagira ngo mubwire ko ibyo ari ukubeshya. Ibyo ari byo byose abo bana ntabwo bakwitwa interahamwe kuko ntibanazizi ariko bitavuze ko nazo zidahari: nazo zirahari. Hari izihari zikiri muri ariya mashyamba kandi nawe arabizi ubwe ubwo tuvugana nawe arabizi. Igihe nikigera nashaka azabwire nzamubwire amazina.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Nabazaga Condo, baravuga ko mufite uruhare mu kubuza izo mpunzi gutahuka Condo?

Gervais Condo: Ni byo nakubwiraga mu kanya mfata ijambo nkubwira ibya wa mugore w’ubutuna n’ingonera: yakwireba akabwira indorerwamo ngo nimubwire ko ari mwiza, itabivuga akayimena. Ni ibyo ngibyo. Ntabwo dufite uruhare na rutoya rwo kuba twabuza abantu gutaha Kalinganire yabivuze: uzumva umutekano we utagaramiwe, turamubwira tuti “rwose gerageza  ujye muri kiriya gihugu” kandi nta n’ukuntu umuntu yakabigenjeje. Tufiteyo miliyoni z’ababyeyi n’abavandimwe n’abantu b’inshuti bandi bari hariya. Niba hari uwumva umutekano we ntacyo umutwaye, ntacyo umutwaye, wambubwira uti “ngaho uzagende ujyeyo” ariko ukubwiye ati “nanjye mfite ibyo mpunga. Ndacyafite ubwoba. Ndacyafite impungege. Dore kandi ikizintera ni iki ngiki, ukavuga utu “nawe ndamvumva.” ahubwo reka noneho tumumare ubwoba za mpungege yitwazaga cyangwa se zimubuza gutaha ne kuvuga ngo ni urwitwazo, leta ni ikore ibishoboka ziveho kuko leta niyo ifite uruhare runini: gutanga za assurances ko abaturage babo bazabona umutekano, bazabona bwa bwisanzure twahoze tuvuga, bazabona ubutabera, bazabona ibimenyetso bifatika, bigaragara yuko uwo muntu nta kibi kizababaho. Ntabwo rero tujya tubabwira ngo “nibareke gutaha!”. Turavuga tuti “ni byiza nimutahe” ariko ntimuze kubeshya ngo nitwe tubabuza, mumenye ko ikibuza abo bantu nabo bafite amakuru y’abantu bari sur place bababwira bati “tugize Imana natwe twasohoka”.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Reka kujye kuri iyi ngingo y’imishyikirano muvuga ko mushyigikiye ibyo SADC ivuga n’ibyo Perezida wa Tanzaniya avuga, ikaba ariyo ngingo ya nyuma tugiye kuvuga muri iki kiganiro. Bwana Sayinzoga, ibi biganiro biramutse bibaye, iyi ‘dialogue’ bavuga bagahura bakiga ikibazo cy’u Rwanda uko twumvise bo bavuga ko bigihari; hari icyo bitwaye bahuye bakaganira kugira ngo bacoke maze ibintu bigende neza?

Sayinzoga Jean: Impamvu mbona iyo mishyikirano atari ngombwa; impamvu ya mbere: ni uko imiryango y’u Rwanda ifunguye. Ntabwo rero hakenewe kujya kugira inama zindi iruhande kandi ibyo tuvugana tubivugana igihe cyose, duhamagarira Abanyarwanda bose kuvuga igihe bashakiye, bakavuga ibyo bashatse. Ibibazo bafite tukabisubiza. Ntagushakisha izindi mpamvu zo kugira ngo bagire imishyikirano y’indi. Iya kabiri: ni uko abantu bafite ubushobozi bwo kuza mu Rwanda bakareba ibihari mu Rwanda, twohereza n’Abanyarwanda bakajya hanze; Abanyarwanda batahutse bakajya kubwira abo basize hanze uko u Rwanda rumeze, bagatanga ubuhamya, bakabaha amakuru, uyashaka bakayamuha. Icya gatatu: nabatahuka ubu ngubu ari abahoze ari abasirikare ari n’impunzi z’Abanyarwanda abo bantu tubaha telefoni, tukabaha amafaranga yo guterefonesha bakavugana n’abandi, abashaka bagataha. Icya kane nacyo: ni uko abahunze bose impamvu ntabwo ari imwe. Ni byo koko hari abahunze muri ’94 mbere y’aho ngaho sinzi ko hari n’abahunze muri ’59 bakibivuga, ntabwo bahari ariko abahunze nyuma ya ’94, hari abahunze ni byo koko igihe hari imirwano mu Rwanda, hari n’abahunze bafite ubwoba kubera ko abandi babatera ubwoba. Ibyo ngibyo na Kunde yaguha ubuhamya: hari bantu baza kubera imitungo bakabamerera nabi ariko hari nabagiye bahunga ibyaha bagiye bakora ku giti cyabo, uwo se nawe arasaba imishyikirano? Urumva uwo nguwo we ni ukugira ngo agende muri icyo kigare, bavuge ngo “babariye abantu bose”, nawe arimo. Icyo twifuza ni uko umunyarwanda wese yataha mu Rwanda. Ni cyo twifuza rwose. Kuvuga rero ngo nibagire imishyikirano yindi, sinzi ubwoko iyo mishyikirano ubwoko bashaka ubwo ari bwo. N’ibyo Kunde yakubwiraga ko batashye muri 2002, kuva icyo gihe hari gahunda ibwira impunzi ngo “nimuze mu Rwanda murebe, musubireyo mubwire abandi ibyo mwabonye”, ya yindi ngo “go and see, come and tell”. Bukeye turavuga tuti “noneho reka noneho tuboherereze n’abana bari mu Rwanda, basazwe mu Rwanda bahageze mbere; bagende bajye mu nkambi z’impunzi bababwire uko imryango yabo imeze, babahe amakuru, babahe n’amazina y’imiryango yabo. Noneho bazaze nibagaruka mu Rwanda –abo ni bari mu Rwanda- nibagaruka mu Rwanda bakomeze bavugane nabo, baboherereze n’amafoto kugira ngo barebe ko abo bantu bakiriho n’uko bameze. Iyo gahunda twarayikoze.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Reka twumve na Gashugi Faustin Kunde, iyi ‘dialogue’, ibi biganiro; wowe urabyumva gute?

Gashugi Faustin Kunde: Iyo ‘dialogue’  basaba, ubundi wazisaba hari ubwo hari conditions bashyiraho kugira ngo batahe. Ntabwo rero habaho ‘dialogue’ nta kintu na gito, icyo basaba impunzi iri hanze yose ni ugutaha sans conditions. Agataha mu gihugu cye, agafatanya n’abandi kubaka igihugu. Urugero naguha: hari bamwe mubo twatahanye b’abasirikare, bageze hano mu gihugu bagifite imbaraga, abana bamwe barize barangije basubira mu gisirikare. Nagira ngo narangire nk’impunzi ziri muri Centrafurika cyangwa muri Kongo Brazzaville zizajye muri Centrafurika zirebe mu basirikare bahari hari bamwe bari mu mpunzi aho ngaho bahagarutse bari mu ngabo z’igihugu. None se icyubahiro kiruta ko waza ugahabwa uburenganzira nk’ubw’abandi, ni ikihe Nyakubahwa Mugenzi? Ikindi nongeraho, twebwe u Rwanda dufite umwihariko: abatashye nakubwiye ko bahabwa chances zo kwiga imyuga ndetse abibumbiye no mu mashyirahamwe bagahabwa n’amafaranga yo kuba batangira kugira ngo bakore, ni hehe waba warabyumvise handi ku isi uretse mu Rwanda Mugenzi?

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Jye kuri Condo, kuki mushaka imishyikirano?

Gervais Condo: Urabona umuntu wicaye hariya nka Sayinzoga uko arimo gusobanura biriya bintu ni cya kinyoma duhora tuvuga leta yagize ukuri kwayo. Iyo tuvuga tuti “turashaka iyo mishyikirano izatanga garantie ku munyarwanda wese kugira ngo yumve ari mu gihugu cye, icyo kibazo cy’ubuhunzi bicike bicitse ni ukugira ngo abantu bavuge izo mbogamizi zose mu mizi yazo. Twagiye tubivuga mu magambo ya rusange. Twabonye ibintu byitwa ubutabera muri kiriya gihugu: bwaba ubwa gacaca, bwaba n’ubwa hehe, aho ibintu byitwa ‘gutekinika’ byasimbuye gushaka umucamanza, ndashaka gushaka umushinjacyaha ngo ashake icyaha cya nyacyo, akigenze. Ibyo bintu ni byiza ko haba ubwigenge bw’ubutabera, umuntu ntaze ngo bamushakire abashinjabinyoma, bavuge bati “agomba kumanikwa, tugomba kumubonera ibyaha absolument”. Icyo ni ikintu gikomeye cyane kandi leta itazemera yuko gikorwa. Twavuze ibyo bintu by’abavuga bashaka uburenganzira bw’ikirenwamuntu kuko itangazamakuru ryigenga n’amashyaka akora mu bwisanzure bituma bakebura na guverinoma ntiyirare. Ikibazo rero kiriho kuri ubu ngubu kuri leta y’u Rwanda ni uko uvuze ko bibeshye, ko uburyo babona ibintu ntakigenda, aba abaye umwanzi w’igihugu. Ibyo dushashaka ko abantu bakabiganiriyeho.

Ikindi ni ikintu cyitwa inzego z’umutekano: inzego z’umutekano zikwiye kuba kuri buri muntu wese. Umuntu akabona izo nzego z’umutekano agomba kugenda azisanga, azitabaza aho kugira ngo agenda azihisha, arizo bakoresha kugira ngo zimucecekeshe. Ibyo bintu bikenewe kuganirwaho.

Ikindi, iyo abantu bavuga demokarasi n’imiyoborere myiza ukabigereanya n’ibyo bari kutubwira hariya birahabanye, hari ibyanditse mu bitabo ariko bajya kubishyira mu bikorwa ugasanga ntaho bihuriye n’ibyo barimo kuvuga. Mwatanze ingero z’iyo miyoborere myiza, iyo umunsi umwe babyuka bakavuga bati “utaje kurahira” muri ba bana uriya Gashugi yahoze ahakana tuvuge bariya bana bagiye mu mashyamba nk’iriya gahunda ya Ndi umunyarwanda, bati “abana b’abahutu nibaze basabe imbabazi, abatazisabye nabo biragaraga ko ari interahamwe. Atubwiye mu kanya yuko hariya muri  ariya mashyamba yagenda akabonayo interahamwe: iri si ishyano! Ashobora kubwira ko yabona umuntu wahoze ari interahamwe, ashobora kubwira ko yabonayo umuntu wahoze mu gisirikare cya ex-FAR. Ntabwo yavuga ngo ni FAR. Nawe ni ex ni ukuvuga uwahoze. Ashobora kubona n’uwahoze ari interahamwe ariko byagera aho ngaho iyo bashaka kugira ngo basige umuntu ibara, agomba kugumana icyo cyasha cy’uko ari interahamwe nubwo uwo mutwe ntawukibaho. Ni byo rero. Ibibazo bikomeye abantu bagomba kuganiraho,.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Reka twumve niba Kalinganire hari icyo wongera impamvu mushaka iyo ‘dialogue’ ibyo biganiro. Muri make kuko turarangiza!

Pascal Kalinganire: Condo ibyo avuze ni byo. Ndongeraho ikintu kimwe ko mu Rwanda kuva na kera cyane rwose ntabwo ubutegetsi bwigeze bubera Abanyarwanda bose cyane cyane abahutu, abatutsi, abatwa. Wagiye usanga ubutegetsi bwifatiwe n’agace kamwe; ubwoko bumwe, ubundi bukaba buragiye. Igihugu cyagiye kiyoborwa tuvuge duhereye nko muri ’59 kikayoborwa n’ubwoko bumwe ubundi bukava mu gihugu cyangwa se bikaba urujya n’uruza rwo kurwana. Ibyo byose nabyo byagombye kwiyongera kuri ibyo Condo avuze. Tukavuga tuti “kuki aya mahane ahora hagati y’amoko y’igihugu, ayobora igihugu? Kuki hatajyaho demokarasi ibereye umuhutu, ibereye umutwa, ibereye umututsi? Ahasigaye Abanyarwanda bakagira securite ibereye Abanyarwanda bose, atari irengera imwe ngo ireke undi. Donc, ibibazo byo kuganiraho birahari byatuma Abanyarwanda bishyira bakizana, bakavuga bati “reka tubane mu mudendezo, twese turi abana b’Abanyarwanda”. Ndi umuhutu, ndi umututsi, ndi umutwa; narize, ndi umunyenduga, ndi umukiga; ahasigaye tukareba ukuntu systeme ya kiriya gihugu, yayobora kiriya gihugu yashyira Abanyarwanda mu gatebo kamwe. Bakabana bose bagasangira ibyiza by’u Rwanda n’ubutegetsi n’imibereho.

Ally Yusuf Mugenzi: Reka turangirize aho: “kuvuga menshi siko kuyamara”. Reka mbashimire rero mwese Bwana Sayinzoga Jean, Bwana Gashugi Faustin Kunde, Bwana Pascal Kalinganire na Bwana Gervais Condo ku bitekerezo mutanze muri iki kiganiro cy’Imvo n’Imvano. Bakunzi b’ikiganiro Imvo n’Imvano ni aha turangirije Imvo n’Imvano y’uyu munsi. Mwari kumwe na Ally Yusuf Mugenzi. Ni ah’ubutaha!

Un pays peut être frappé par une malchance historique. Un pays si riche, si beau, si viveur, peut-il connaître les pires des souffrances des autres peuples. Oh pays de Lumumba, pays des royaumes de Lunda, de Luba etc…, comment peux-tu meurtrir ton peuple! Oh pays qui a raté ses dirigeants depuis la mort de Lumumba! Oh pays qui est devenu le terrain de récréation de ses voisins! Oh pays dont sa richesse est justement l’origine de sa souffrance. Oh pays qui meurt! Oh pays qui donne l’image d’une mouche qui peut tuer un lion aux abois!

Les Congolais tués par les Imbonerakure sur le sol congolais

Pierre Claver Mbonimpa, l’infatigable combattant des droits de l’homme au Burundi et qui le paie par un emprisonnement sans fondement, avait dénoncé la présence des miliciens imbonerakure au Congo. Votre site Burundinews l’a plusieurs fois révélé. Des imbonerakure se trouvent au Congo avec des militaires burundais. Nous avons même décrit les positions des imbonerakure. Un officiel burundais avait confirmé sous le sceau de l’anonymat que les imbonerakure sont habillés, ravitaillés et armés par l’armée burundaise.

Sur le sol congolais, les imbonerakure bénéficient du soutien du groupe ethnique des bafurero. Ces derniers sont opposés au royaume des Barundi du Congo. Cela signifie que les imbonerakure participent aussi à des troubles ethniques au Congo. Certains jeunes bafurero participent aux entraînements avec les imbonerakure et sont aussi payés comme les imbonerakure pour leur partenariat.

Ces derniers jours, quelques imbonerakure se sont rebellés parce qu’il leur manquait les salaires. Eh bien le Burundi connaît des problèmes de budgets et l’assiette est de plus en plus vide. Les chefs se servent d’abord avant de payer les salaires des imbonerakure et des bafurero. Ce sont les bafurero qui ont été à la tête du mouvement. Ils ont refusé les missions et surtout la collaboration. La décision des services de renseignements burundais est tombée. Il fallait les éliminer. Ils ont été désarmés et tués.

47 ont été tués dont 37 bafurero et 10 burundais. 4 ont pu s’échapper mais ils ont été rattrapés. Ces quatre ont été ramenés au Burundi en prison.

Pourquoi dans le lac Rweru?

La question du lieu à mettre les 47 cadavres s’est posée. Difficile de creuser une fosse commune. Difficile de les jeter dans le lac Tanganyika ou la Ruzizi sans éveiller les soupçons des Congolais qui auraient perdu de vue les membres de leurs familles. Il a été décidé de les transporter jusqu’au lac Rweru. Le Burundi voulait impliquer le pouvoir rwandais notamment en habillant des cadavres avec des tee shirts avec des inscriptions du Rwanda. Les recherches dans les provinces de Kirundo et de Muyinga  devaient innocenter le Burundi et le Rwanda restait dans le collimateur. Les Rwandais ont refusé d’enterrer les cadavres chez eux en disant aux Burundais d’assumer.

Tous les cadavres ne sont pas encore trouvés. Pourtant, la vérité est là. Quand est-ce que le pouvoir burundais dira la vérité aux Congolais et aux Burundais? Est-ce que la donne changera entre le Congo et le Burundi? La RDC sacrifiera les siens au nom de la géopolitique de la sous région.

Par Gratien Rukindikiza

Recently, BBC Two (in the UK) televised a special documentary,Rwanda’s Untold Story, which seeks to challenge some of the norms and facts about the 1994 Rwandan Genocide (also known as the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda).

It was the hope of its creators to start a discussion about the events that led to the horrific genocide that claimed more than one million lives.

However, instead of posing some interesting questions and really forcing viewers to challenge what they know about Rwanda, they unfortunately reverted their documentary to simple allegations that have been disproved.

Specifically, that Rwandan President (at that time Commander of the Tutsi-dominated rebel group the Rwanda Patriotic Front –RPF-) Paul Kagame ordered the shooting down of the plane of Rwanda’s Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana.

The allegation, which was started by the Hutu genocidal leaders, is that Kagame ordered the shooting down of Habyarimana’s plane in order to justify the continuation reignite the Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994) that had just ended with the Arusha Accord signings in the previous fall of 1993.

The shooting down of the presidential plane was what ignited the genocide after decades of Hutu-extremist propaganda against what they called an ethnic invasion by the RPF. Academic Rene Lemarchand writes in his book, The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, that the RPF knew that once they had committed this act of terror, genocide would take place, which would provide justification for the continuation of the civil war.

Thus, the genocide is the fault of the RPF and Kagame rather than the genocide government that organized, condoned and participated in the massacres.

This theory has been disproved in courtrooms, scholarly debate and through the testimony of genocide perpetrators, the RPF and leader of the United Nations peacekeepers, Romeo Dallaire.

Dallaire is important in debunking this theory, because he was responsible for physically separating the RPF troops stationed in Kigali (the capital city of Rwanda) from the Habyarimana government using his UN forces. (I will describe this more in detail in the next paragraph) Not once has he hinted that the RPF could have been responsible for the attack; instead he blames the leaders of the genocide.

But if we humor the revisionists and allow that the possibility of Kagame ordering Habyarimana’s plane to be shot down is true, we encounter several facts that make it increasingly difficult to uphold this belief.

The first has to do with Dallaire and the UN’s role in Kigali. By the time of the genocide, Kigali was divided into three sections.

The smallest of the sections was Parliament, which had a delegation of RPF political leaders who were slated to participate in the new transitional government agreed upon in the Arusha Accord agreement.

Now, these representatives were supported by 600 highly trained RPF troops. However, the UN made it nearly impossible for those troops to leave the Parliament compound.

The second area was the neighborhood of Kisimenti, which housed the UN headquarters and most of its troops. The rest of Kigali was under Habyarimana’s and later on the genocide government’s control.

The presidential plane was shot down in government territory in the neighborhood of Kanombe. (It is estimated by international researchers that the plane was shot down in Kanombe at the government’s military barracks that was only around 200 meters from the presidential palace.)

This is not only ten kilometers from Parliament, but the UN territory was in-between. It would be extremely difficult for the RPF to have sneaked around the UN, and go through government territory with the equipment necessary to shoot down a plane.

It is worth noting that within an hour or so after the attack, genocide perpetrators known as the Interahamwe were seen setting up roadblocks preparing to begin the slaughter.

Another major problem with the revisionist theory is the rationale for the attack. Why would the RPF shoot down Habyarimana’s plane?

It could not have been for political gains, because the RPF received nearly all their political wishes from the Habyarimana government during the Arusha peace talks.

The RPF wanted to be a legal political party in Rwanda, which they received. They wanted 40% of the Rwandan military to be composed of their soldiers, which was agreed upon.

They wanted the ability to form political coalitions, which could challenge the political establishment and possible gain the Presidency; this too was granted.

Some of the RPF diplomats who participated in the peace talks have quietly mentioned to me that they thought the agreement was too good to be true at the time.

Now, with hindsight, they believe that they were granted so much because the government had no intention of honoring the agreement, and that it was in fact preparing to conduct the final anti-Tutsi pogrom in the form of genocide, and thus wipe out all support for the RPF within the country.

Having secured an influential seat at the national political table in Rwanda through the Arusha Accords – and here let’s discard the lessons learned in hindsight regarding the murderous intent of the Hutu government – why would the RPF assassinate Habyarimana?

For full and complete political control? If that is true, the RPF would have also arrested or killed the moderate (and predominantly Hutu) parties at the same time.

In fact, it was the genocide government that arrested and killed Hutu moderates. Those who stood to lose most from the Arusha Accords were the Hutu extremists who were in political positions granted to them because of their relationship to the Habyarimana family.

Many would lose their position, lifestyle and ideology under the agreement and in a new system promoting ethnic equality. These reasons and more are why this conspiracy just cannot provide credible.

So, why is the flawed and revisionist BBC Two program important for those studying the Holocaust?

Consider the conspiracy to shift blame for the genocide from the real perpetrators to the victims, and ultimately to those who put an end to the genocide.

This is not too far removed in essence from the belief held by Holocaust deniers that Adolf Hitler was Jewish.

After the end of the Holocaust in 1945 and the worldwide knowledge that Nazi Germany had butchered more than six million Jews, former Nazis and their sympathizers created the lie of Hitler’s Jewish Grandmother.

The intention was to justify the genocide of the Jews and shift responsibility away from the Nazi perpetrators and onto their victims.

Author Brigitte Hamann has performed extensive research and published her findings in the book, Hitler’s Vienna: A Dictator’s Apprenticeship, which completely disproves him having any Jewish family members.

Even though the truth gives the lie to genocide denial, such denial still exists and thrives in anti-semitic parts of the world.

Ultimately, forms of genocide denial like Hitler’s Jewish family and Kagame ordering Habyarimana’s plane to be shot down are unsubstantiated hearsay, anecdotal, and speculative to the wildest degree.

The true reasons that people believe such myths and continually try to make them credible can only be guessed at.

It ranges from personal interest in advancing a specific narrative of the story, to the inability to accept that sometimes it really is as simply as the fact that some people can and want to commit genocide against their fellow human beings.

So genocide deniers need to come up with a conspiracy that removes blame from the perpetrators, whose inhumanity they basically cannot cope with.

The saddest and most irresponsible thing about genocide denial is not only how it degrades the memory of victims and the experiences of survivors, but that it puts more hardship on the people who are committed to remembering, understanding and preventing future genocides.

Simply put, the people who spoke on the BBC Two program have disgraced the one million who died, the survivors, and the RPF’s role in ultimately ending the genocide.

The program may have wanted to show the complexities of the genocide, but instead it fell into the trap of simplifying it and blaming the liberators for what happened twenty years ago.

Survivors and scholars of both Jewish and Rwandan genocides need to unite to disprove these conspiracies of genocide denial and teach people what really happened.

Everyone knows the old saying that if we do not learn from history it is doomed to repeat itself. Well, if we remember incorrect history, real history will repeat itself.

Source: By Jonathan R. Beloff for Times of Israel

LOS ANGELES (JTA) — This month marks nine years since Holocaust denier David Irving lost his libel suit against historian and scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who chronicled her battle against him in the book, “History On Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving” (Harper Collins, 2005).  Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, has just unveiled onwww.hdot.org the translations of the popular “Myths & Facts” sheets, which help refute deniers with historical evidence, in Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Russian.

On this Holocaust Remembrance Day  — 70 years since the start of World War II — Lipstadt discusses the changing face of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, how the next generation of Jews relate to the Holocaust and the role it should play in forging Jewish identity, and why Hollywood loves her story.

JTA: What has happened to you and the field of Holocaust denial since the end of the trial and when your book came out?

LIPSTADT: After the lawsuit I didn’t change in any way, what I have to say didn’t change in any way, but people give me more credence and listen more carefully to what I have to say. I went head-to-head with the world’s leading Holocaust denier, and thanks to terrific lawyers and a terrific research team and the support of lots of people, we were able to expose the lies and distortions in which he engages — and by extension all Holocaust deniers — either makes up the lies or repeats the lies.

Have we solved the problems of Holocaust denial? Of course not. We did provide precise explanations by following their footnotes. By tracking their sources we proved that what they said are lies and inventions. We didn’t prove what happened, we proved that what they say happened did not happen.

JTA: What’s the difference?

LIPSTADT: There’s a difference. I wasn’t proving how many people were murdered at Auschwitz. But when they say only 68,000 people were killed — it didn’t happen. We weren’t proving how many people were killed — we were showing that their contentions are based on lies, distortions and inventions and there’s nothing to what they say.

JTA: Is that how you advise people to deal with Holocaust deniers?

LIPSTADT: The first way is to see if the facts prove the case — but you might have to be more of a specialist to do this: If they say “At this meeting Hitler said X, Y and Z,” you can go and check if they changed the date or a fact — and suddenly their point is not a point. The second way is by citing the facts: If they say, “How do we know there were gas chambers?” you can say, “Let me show you the German plans for gas chambers.” The third way is deductive reasoning or logic. Deniers will say that the very fact that there are so many survivors proves that the Holocaust never happened, because the Germans were so powerful and so efficient that if they wanted to kill the Jews, they would have killed the Jews. How do you counter that? [You say], “The Germans wanted to win the war, the Germans wanted to defeat Moscow” but they didn’t — this claim that the Germans were so all-powerful, we know this is not true, it makes no sense. But I don’t bother to answer deniers. Just the people who might be influenced by them.

JTA: Why you don’t fight deniers?

LIPSTADT: It’s like trying to convince a committed anti-Semite that not all Jews are rich or conniving. It all starts from an illogical premise. Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism — which anti-Semitism is — is prejudice. Think about the etymology: pre-judge. Don’t confuse me with the facts, I’ve made up my mind. So if you try to argue with a person who is committed to a completely illogical premise, then you’re lost to begin with — you’re already sucked into their world of fantasy.

JTA: How has Holocaust denial changed since your trial and book?

LIPSTADT: I see the evolution of Holocaust denial — there is what I call “soft-core denial.” Hard-core denial is David Irving or Bishop [Richard] Williamson. Soft-core is more slippery. It’s “Why do we have to hear so much about the Holocaust?” or saying “the genocide of the Palestinians.” Soft-core denial is not denying the facts, but either inverting it so the victims become the perpetrators  — “Why did the Germans hate the Jews? Because they Jews were rich and conniving,” — as if to say they deserved it. It’s justifying it. Soft-core denial is also making a false comparison, and that dilutes what the Holocaust was. It’s a much more slippery kind of manifestation, but it’s very much there.

JTA: How do you fight it?

LIPSTADT: It’s much harder. You have to go back and zero in on what it is — you can say, “Look, you might disagree with Israel’s policy vis a vis the Palestinians or that they should not have gone into Gaza, but to call this a genocide is to deny what a genocide is.” They are not denying the Holocaust but they are making a false comparison which elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did. And that’s not to defend everything Israel does, but you can’t call it a Holocaust  unless you want to distort what the Holocaust is. When you begin to use the Nazi term and you begin to compare Israeli soldiers — who are not angels and sometimes do awful things for which they should be criticized and punished — that’s different than genocide. The Holocaust was state-sponsored. It came from Berlin and Berlin worked to make sure that every Jew on which it could lay its hands would be killed. In no way can you compare what’s going on in the Middle East to that. Even if you have the extreme belief that there should be no state of Israel, to make the argument that Israel is committing a genocide is a complete fabrication and a worm of soft-core denial.

JTA: Is Holocaust denial on the rise?

LIPSTADT: Holocaust denial is rising. I’m not going to yell “The sky is falling.” It is increasing. In part because of the rise of anto-Semitism and anti-Israel [feelings], like you’ve seen “Sharon =Nazi,” “Bush=Nazi.” And because of anti-globalization forces, and because Israel is so close to America. Accusing of Jews of atrocities is a very convenient way of engaging in anti-Semitism. It becomes a vehicle for anti-Semitism.

JTA: Is anti-Semitism rising too?

LIPSTADT: I just gave a seminar to the executive staff of the Holocaust museum on this subject. In the last few years, since Durban [the 2001 U.N. conference against racism], it has escalated, although it began long before that. There is a level of attacks that hasn’t been seen before. I am more concerned now than I have been in a long time, but I am not yelling “gevalt” or yelling “head for the barricades” or “they sky is falling.”

JTA: Why have you decided to translate “Myths & Facts” into Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Russian?

LIPSTADT: After my trial, Emory University felt there should be a digitized Internet access archive of the trial — it had the judgment, the appeal and everything. Over the course of time, we felt it was being used by a lot of lawyers, students, international agencies bringing cases against Holocaust deniers — but it was not easily accessible to a person on the street who has to respond to a Holocaust denier. It’s putting content in the hands of people who don’t know how to respond to Holocaust denier material — particularly sophisticated material. And then we realized in places like Arabic-speaking countries like Iran, Russia and Turkey, there was an absence of a narrative to counter the charges. In America, there are a thousand sources you can use to answer a denier. But if you hear it in Egypt, that’s what you think is the truth because there’s no basic books on the Holocaust in the Arab- and Russian-speaking world. Eventually, we want to publish in Spanish — there’s a lot of denial in South America and Latin America.

JTA: How has the Internet changed the conversation about the Holocaust?

LIPSTADT: What the Internet has done is put a lot of unfiltered information out there, and by so doing it makes it harder for people to differentiate what is legitimate information and what is not; what is fact and what is fiction. The Internet is a wonderful thing — it allows us to spread information in a way we never did before. But it puts out a lot of lies and it’s easy access for people. Someone wrote to me that his son Googled “Jews, Soap and the Holocaust” and the first four sites were Holocaust denial sites. This is a myth. Jews were not made into soap. It never happened — there might have been experiments. Deniers say, “This is another lie that Jews made up.” That’s why I’m such a stickler and I get so upset and worried when you have people making up Holocaust memoirs like “Angel at the Fence.” It’s fodder for the deniers. The deniers then say, “Here’s another example of a Jew being a denier. How can you believe ‘Night’ [by Elie Wiesel] or ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ — it’s all lies.”

JTA: Do Jews of younger generations view the Holocaust differently from older generations?

LIPSTADT: We grew up knowing survivors. We took it for granted. But they’re getting older and they may have passed away. Those who were in the camps are few and far between. When I first started teaching my course on the Holocaust, I could choose between the survivors. Now it’s getting harder and harder.

JTA: Does the younger generation relate to the Holocaust differently?

LIPSTADT: When I hear someone say, “I studied the Holocaust in the 4th grade,” I get nervous. It’s too young to understand! That’s a mistake. The Holocaust is much more de rigeuer today. When we were growing up, no one studied it. There’s a Hebrew phrase [that means] “You tried to grab too much, you didn’t grab anything at all.” We make too easy reference and too easy comparison to the Holocaust. I get very disturbed when people say, “Isn’t what’s going on right now like 1939 in Europe?” and I say no, that’s ridiculous. But people often will make that statement. What’s going on now is bad. But it’s not a Holocaust, it’s not not 1939. Jews in most places are living quite securely, but there are enough developments on the scene that there’s a cause for concern. I’m not saying things are good, but let’s think strategically instead of overreacting and not thinking smart.

JTA: How does the Holocaust and anti-Semitism play a part in Jewish identity?

LIPSTADT: I think we have to be very careful not to build Jewish identity on oys but on joys. We can’t build Jewish identity by saying, “Everyone hates the Jews” — that’s a lousy reason to motivate Jewish identity. That’s why when you say to people, “Israel is under attack so you should support it,” it’s a very negative way to build a connection to Judaism. Support Israel because it’s a Jewish homeland, because it’s an amazing country. And it needs your support because it’s under attack.

JTA: So how should younger Jews be educated about the Holocaust?

LIPSTADT: I would teach about the Holocaust. I would never say, “Be strong in your Jewish identity because of the Holocaust,” that’s a terrible message to teach a younger person. Be strong in your culture because of the amazing things that Jewish culture and heritage and tradition represent. And because it’s yours — not because everyone wanted to destroy us. Because it has given so much to the world, it has so much to teach, it has so much value to it. That’s why you should identify — not because of, but despite. I remember many years ago someone once said to me, “It’s so important that we have a Holocaust museum just to show deniers.” Wrong. It’s important to have a Holocaust museum not because of the Holocaust deniers, but to teach about the event.

JTA: Your book about the trial with David Irving has been optioned as a film?

LIPSTADT: Producers at Sony Pictures were taken by the story of this trial. They think it’s important historically and [telling] the story of standing up against what they see it as a struggle against an effort to twist history and spread hatred.

JTA:  What’s next for you?

LIPSTADT: I’m writing a series for Nextbook on the impact of the Eichmann trial 50 years later [1961] and I’m also doing another book on Holocaust denial in the 21st century. In my first book [“Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,” (Plume, 1994)] there was no Internet to address, we didn’t have the rise of Holocaust denial in the Arab-Muslim world. We didn’t have all these Holocaust denier trials. We didn’t have soft-core denial. If you had told me way back when I wrote my first book that I would have been writing a second book, I would have said, “These people are like flat-earthers.” I would have said, “they’re not important.” I’ve come to see that they’re not important, but they can do significant damage.

A deeply flawed BBC documentary on Rwanda’s genocide raises serious questions over the corporation’s ethics and standards.

“There is no reasonable basis for anyone to dispute that, during 1994, there was a campaign of mass killing intended to destroy, in whole or at least in very large part, Rwanda’s Tutsi population… That campaign was, to a terrible degree, successful; although exact numbers may never be known, the great majority of Tutsis were murdered, and many others were raped or otherwise harmed.” [International Criminal Court for Rwanda, 16 June 2006]

It is not often a documentary comes along that totally reattributes the historical reality of a genocide in a mere one hour. Indeed the BBC programme Rwanda: the Untold Story, broadcast at prime-time on 1 October 2014, managed this in a record ten-minute section of its airtime. Twenty years of scholarly research by academics such as Gérard Prunier, Linda Melvern, Mahmood Mamdani, Howard Adelman,Jean-François Dupaquier, Jean-Pierre Chrétien and Allan Thompson (to name just a few) was pushed aside.

Thousands of witness interviews for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), archived documents and judgements were made equally redundant. So were many official reports by the United Nations Security Council in 1994 and 1999; the African Union; and human-rights groups – especially the landmark work by Alison des Forges at Human Rights Watch and Rakiya Omar at African Rights.

Instead, the BBC entrusted the exposure of the “true” story of the genocide to two American academics, Allan Stam and Christian Davenport, who had travelled to Rwanda in 1998 and found everyone they spoke to telling the same story about the genocide. This, they decided, was not because people were recounting what had actually happened but because they had been brainwashed or frightened into a massive cover-up.

Standing in front of a scientific-looking multi-coloured “results” map of Rwanda, they flashed up impressively scientific-looking statistics of troop movements across Rwanda in 1994 to prove their point. In essence, they alleged that instead of 800,000 Tutsi deaths there were only around 200,000. Even more incredibly, they proposed at least 800,000 Hutus had been killed at the hands of the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF), as they pushed the genocidal Rwandan army and Hutu militias from the country. The accepted death-toll figures by researchers such as Gérard Prunier, Alison des Forges and Marijke Verpooten’s forensic examination in 2005 are simply dismissed. As indeed are all legal judgments from the ICTR where hundreds of investigators, scholars and acute legal minds have worked for two decades.

Edward Herman and David Peterson were to use the “results” in their book The Politics of Genocide, published in 2010. It was swiftly discredited by scholars who ridiculed both the methodology of the research and its suspected underlying motivation. For example, Gerry Caplan, author of the African Union report Rwanda: the preventable genocide, criticised Herman and Peterson as being part of an ideologically driven core of genocide-deniers, genocide-revisers and opponents of the current Rwandan government. The main aim of this small group, Caplan argued, was to shift the blame for the tragedy to their bête noir Paul Kagame, the current Rwandan leader, who has become for them (and some western media) a figure of intense, almost pathological, dislike. The BBC film certainly reflects this view.

The constant thread throughout the hour-long film was the desire to denigrate Kagame, through a cast-list of eight long-time enemies of the Rwandan leader. There was no balancing view, no attempt to analyse in depth or understand the history that brought Rwanda to the events of 1994. Instead viewers were treated to crushing tabloid accusations, pithy soundbites from the selected group of carefully chosen interviewees, sly insinuations and slo-mo shots of the Rwandan leader looking suitably diabolical. There was no new “untold” evidence to back up claims. Here was a chance for the highly complex, emotionally-charged Rwandan story to be considered on prime-time television. Instead it was reduced to a good vs evil parody that left anyone with knowledge of the country and its history, who surely included many genocide survivors in Europe, with a feeling of frank disbelief and anger.

What’s untold

The event many see as the trigger for the genocide is the shooting down of the plane of President Juvenal Habyarimana on 6 April 1994. The film’s cursory “explanation” for what happened was based on the claim by a single RPF defector, now in France, that he heard Kagame order the destruction of the plane. The programme also cited the report by French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière, published in 2006. This report has long since been derided for relying on half a dozen Rwandan defectors, many of whom swiftly went public to say that their statements had been corrupted to meet Bruguière’s requirements, and that they had been promised French visas should they comply with his wishes. Wikileaks subsequently showed Bruguière’s none-too-subtle political agenda. The judge is currently under investigation for perjury, withholding evidence and obstruction of justice in other cases he handled.

Unsurprisingly, there is no mention of the more recent independent and meticulous report in 2012 by the investigating judge Marc Trévidic that showed clearly the missiles were fired from an area controlled by extremist Hutu units of the presidential guard; nor of research in 2008 by the UK’s Cranfield University that came to the same conclusion. Instead another academic is extensively cited: the Belgian professor and vociferous opponent of Kagame, Filip Reyntjens. Again, no mention of the fact that he was a long-term advisor to Habyarimana and has not been in Rwanda for twenty years. All this is a mockery of supposed investigative journalism.

The two main beneficiaries of the film are high-profile RPF defectors: Theogene Rudasingwa and General Kayumba Nyamwasa. Their views are unchallenged and taken, in effect, as gospel. No attempt is made to explore their own backgrounds and current political ambitions. Nyamwasa was head of Rwanda’s army after the genocide, and was accused both of trying to build a separate power-base within the military and of involvement in a series of corruption scams and illegal land-grabs while in office. Rudasingwa was said to be implicated in a lucrative financial scam while employed in the office of the president. Rwanda’s zero tolerance of corruption, as witnessed by Transparency International, makes it unsurprising that both fled the country rather than face the charges against them. The two men, along with two other defectors (Patrick Karegeya and Gerald Gahima), founded an opposition party in exile, the Rwanda National Congress [RNC], in 2010 aimed at unseating Kagame.

Nyamwasa’s RNC is alleged to be allied to the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda [FDLR] in the borderlands of eastern DRC and Rwanda. The FDLR is made up of many genocidaire who fled to the region after the RPF pushed them from Rwanda, and has become synonymous with terrorising the local population over the past fifteen years, including the mass rape and murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. Its leader Sylvestre Mudacumura is wanted at the ICC for gross human-rights violations. FDLR atrocities inside Rwanda in recent years have left scores dead and injured from grenade attacks, with the RNC implicated in assisting funding and supply of arms to the group. Both Nyamwasa and Rudasingwa were sentenced in their absence by Rwandan courts – in Nyamwasa’s case not to life imprisonment (as the film affirms) but to twenty-four years for corruption, misuse of office, and threatening state security. Rudasingwa was given the same sentence in absentia.

The film features numerous such factual inaccuracies, misleading generalisations and omissions. There is no mention of the genocidal pogroms that caused hundred of thousands of Tutsis to flee between 1959 and 1972-73; nor of the fact that the RPF chose a military path back into Rwanda in 1990 precisely because Habyarimana had consistently blocked the peaceful return of the refugees to their homeland; nor of the genocidal massacres of thousands of Tutsis in 1990-93 by Habyarimana’s army and militia. The two terrible Congolese wars (1996-97, 1998-2003) are explained in a few short sentences though the motivation of the belligerents involved the highly complex interplay of six countries and dozens of militias, and originated in the border camps that were filled with genocidaire as well as innocent Hutu refugees. Both United Nations and Amnesty International reports have testified that these camps had become a launchpad for a planned re-invasion by the genocidal interim government and its forces.

What next?

The ethics of the BBC programme makers are extremely questionable. There was no evident attempt to talk to Tutsi survivors or survivor groups. The Rwandan organiser who assisted the film crew in practical arrangements was told it was purely a film about the twentieth commemoration; months afterwards he was called suddenly by the BBC producer, told the film was highly controversial, his life could be in danger, and that he should flee. The very serious implication is that the documentary makers were prepared to put his life, and that of his wife and children, in danger, without ever mentioning this to him until too late.

The site director of the genocide memorial at Murambi, Gaspard Mukwiye – who tends the place and the memories of its 50,000 Tutsi victims, and is himself a Tutsi survivor – was also persuaded into taking part in a film that effectively denied his acute suffering and personal loss, still vividly etched on his face. It should be noted the “repressive” regime the film portrayed gave the BBC complete open access to its media archives and to film wherever and whatever it wanted.

The BBC has since 2006 many times reaffirmed its editorial guidelines, including that “we should do all we can to ensure that controversial subjects are treated with due accuracy and impartiality in all relevant output.” Viewers can make up their own minds how accurate and impartial this programme is and wonder if other genocides are next on the BBC revisionist menu, subsumed under its current obsession to “break news” and controversies. That is the best-case interpretation. It can only be hoped the corporation is not home to senior executives who actively hold malevolent views of genocide denial which they are misusing public money and privilege to promote.

By Andrew Wallis

Jean-Paul Gouteux était un ami et un compagnon de route avec qui j’ai collaboré dans la lutte contre le négationnisme et l’impunité des génocidaires en France. Il était horrifié par l’immense implication de son pays, la France, dans ce Crime des crimes.

Ses recherches et publications sur ce sujet en ont éclairé plus d’un. En mars 2005, je l’avais rencontré à Yaoundé, très bien portant, sans m’imaginer un seul instant qu’il allait nous quitter si tôt. Quelques années auparavant, c’était un autre ami commun, Gilles Durou, de Bordeaux, qui disparaissait après avoir mené un long combat judiciaire contre le Dr Sosthène Munyemana, impliqué dans le génocide à Butare.

Jean-Paul Gouteux et Gilles Durou partageaient le même engagement pour la justice etla mémoire du génocide. Le rôle de l’Église dans le génocide était l’un des thèmes majeurs de la recherche que menait Jean-Paul Gouteux sur le Rwanda, et c’est assez significatif que son dernier ouvrage soit justementconsacré aux errements de l’Église catholique dans le génocide des Tutsi1.

C’est en l’honneur de sa mémoire, dans la continuité de ses recherches, que j’ai volontiers accepté la proposition des rédacteurs de ce deuxième numéro de La Nuit Rwandaise de rédiger ce modeste article en signe d’hommage à ce grand homme, d’heureuse mémoire, un ami de toujours.

1. AU COMMENCEMENT DE L’IDÉOLOGIE GÉNOCIDAIRE AU RWANDA, L’ÉGLISE EST IMPLIQUÉE

C’est en 1957 que fut rédigé le célèbre « Manifeste des Bahutu » considéré de nos jours comme le texte fondateur de l’idéologie génocidaire au Rwanda dans la mesure où il inaugura une politique raciste basée sur l’exclusion de la minorité ethnique. Ce texte est l’œuvre de deux missionnaires, le Chanoine Ernotte et le Père Arthur Dejemeppe, sous la supervision de Mgr Perraudin. D’autres missionnaires se montrèrent très actifs dans sa vulgarisation, via les mouvements d’action catholique implantés dans toutes les paroisses du Rwanda. Citons les Pères Massion (fondateur de la revue Dialogue), Noti, Jules Gijssens, De Cannière, Walter Alvoet, ainsi que des prêtres rwandais formés par ces missionnaires, tel l’Abbé Jean-Marie Vianney Rusingizandekwe. Le SECA (Secrétariat de l’enseignement catholique) fondé par le Père Naveau, s’activa quant à lui dans la diffusion de ce « Manifeste » auprès de la jeunesse estudiantine des écoles secondaires.

À la suite de ce texte, un parti politique dénommé Parmehutu (parti pour l’émancipation du peuple hutu) fut créé avec un large soutien des Missionnaires. Comme son nom l’indique, ce parti consacre la suprématie du groupe ethnique majoritaire comme symbole de la démocratie. En 1959, Mgr Perraudin publia une lettre pastorale peu avant la période de carême dans le but de fustiger les injustices sociales en cours, mais le ton et les termes utilisés constituèrent plutôt une incitation et un encouragement des Hutu à débuter les premiers massacres visant les Tutsi. En 1963, le Parmehutu organisa des massacres identiques dans la préfecture de Gikongoro. C’est ce qui fut appelé le « petit génocide » dans lequel 20.000 personnes d’ethnie tutsi trouvèrent la mort2. À Cyanika, ma région natale, le Père De Vincke, surnommé Rufigi, se plaça dans la cour de l’église, devant une foule de tueurs, et tira en l’air en déclarant : « Tuer un Tutsi n’est pas un péché ! » en guise d’incitation aux massacres ethniques.

En 1973, un « Comité de salut public » composé d’étudiants hutu fut créé sur instigation de l’Abbé Naveau, professeur au Collège du Christ Roi de Nyanza. Il fera des ravages dans plusieurs écoles secondaires du pays, sommant les étudiants tutsi de déguerpir et les contraindra de s’exiler. Plusieurs étudiants membres de ce Comité criminel, formés au Collège Christ Roi, se distingueront plus tard dans la propagation de l’idéologie génocidaire, tel Léon Mugesera et le colonel Pierre-Célestin Rwagafilita. La même année, desFrères Joséphites tutsi furent massacrés à Kabgayi et l’Église ne prononça aucun mot de condamnation de ces assassinats de Religieux. De 1973 à 1994, le président Habyarimana mit en place une politique dite d’équilibre ethnique et régional, excluant les Tutsi de leurs droits civils, économiques et politiques. L’Église approuva aveuglément cette politique et la défendit avec acharnement. Durant ces années, l’Église et l’État firent cause commune dansla conduite des affaires publiques, transformant le pays en un État pratiquement catholique. À titre d’exemple, aucune nomination d’évêque ou de supérieur d’une congrégation religieuse ne pouvait se faire sans le consentementdes hautes autorités politiques de l’État. Le cercle restreint du pouvoir, animé par l’épouse du président de la République et par le colonel Sagatwa (secrétaire particulier du Président), téléguidait ces nominations3.

En septembre 1990, le pape Jean-Paul II visita le Rwanda. En préparation de cette visite, cinq prêtres rwandais du diocèse de Nyundo eurent le courage de rédiger une lettre aux évêques en réagissant à une lettre pastorale du 28 février 1990 dans laquelle les évêques avaient soutenu la politique d’équilibre ethnique et régional pratiqué par le régime et qui excluait les Tutsi de la jouissance des droits fondamentaux les plus élémentaires4. Ces prêtres interpellaient leurs évêques sur la nécessité pour l’Eglise de ne pas se laisser « inféoder par le pouvoir séculier » et posaient clairement la question des réfugiés rwandais comme une priorité à exposer au Pape. Mgr Vincent Nsengiyumva, archevêque de Kigali et ami intime du Président Habyarimana, achemina la lettre aux services rwandais de renseignements et cette dénonciation valut la prison à l’un des signataires, l’Abbé Ntagara, soupçonné d’en être l’instigateur. Ce prêtre irréprochable sera tué pendant le génocide à Nyundo, dans des conditions atroces5, le 7 avril 1994.

2. LORS DU CONFLIT ARMÉ, L’ÉGLISE SE POSITIONNE CONTRE LE FPR ET DEVIENT COMPLICE DU RÉGIME

Le 1er octobre 1990, le FPR prit les armes pour combattre la politique d’exclusion pratiquée par le régime rwandais depuis une trentaine d’années.L’Église fournit beaucoup d’énergies pour la défense de cette République ethniste. Les Pères blancs furent actifs dans cette campagne. Le Père Guy Theunis, avec le soutien de son supérieur Jef Vleugels, rédigea un document de soutien au régime qu’il fera signer par une centaine d’expatriés pour être publié le 16 octobre 1990. La quasi-totalité des signataires de ce document sont des missionnaires œuvrant au Rwanda, lesquels n’hésitèrent pas à identifier les Tutsi comme des ennemis du pays ou des complices, souvent en utilisant un langage partisan identique à celui d’un belligérant. Ils proclamèrent ensuite la mobilisation internationale en faveur du régime du président Habyarimana : « Se mobiliser pour apporter le maximum d’aide à ce régime ne sera en aucune manière une intrusion dans un conflit intérieur, mais un soutien à un État de droit, malheureusement appuyé par la population et aujourd’hui agressé de l’extérieur », écrirent-ils dans ledit document.

Dans la suite, Guy Theunis et Jef Vleugels entamèrent la publication d’une série de documents périodiques sur le conflit et les envoyèrent au monde entier sous forme de télécopies6. Ils affichèrent dans chaque parution une haine farouche du FPR et se montrèrent comme les porte-parole du régime rwandais et de son armée : « Nous cherchons une explication logique à ces attaques des Inkotanyi…Militairement sans issue pour eux, elles ne font qu’attiser le feu de l’opposition ethnique à l’intérieur du pays »7. Dans d’autres Fax, le FPR est qualifié d’ennemi par ces missionnaires ou plus poliment d’assaillants : « L’ennemi ne dispose comme armes lourdes que des mortiers de 60 mm et de quelques roquettes »8 ; « les dernières semaines, les opérations ennemies se limitaient à quelques incursions ou pillages »9 ; « Un grand nombre d’assaillants auraient trouvé la mort, mais leurs cadavres furent, comme d’habitude, ramenés d’Ouganda par des survivants »10. Parlant d’une attaque du FPR à Ruhengeri, Jef Vleugels loua la bravoure des soldats de Habyarimana tel un inconditionnel du régime : « L’école des catéchistes est libérée par des commandos de l’armée rwandaise avec calme et méthode. Ce sont de vrais soldats »11 !

Dans un autre Fax daté du 19 mars 1992, le même missionnaire écrit : « l’agression dont le Rwanda a été victime a été présentée à travers les médias occidentaux comme une tentative des réfugiés pour revenir dans leur pays d’origine. […] Mais nous savons que sous ce prétexte il y a eu principalement l’ambition d’un groupe féodo-monarchiste de renverser le pouvoir actuel et de restaurer un régime rejeté par la très grande majorité de la population ». Les Fax des 10 et 23 mars 1992 évoquent les massacres du Bugesera, mais minimisent leur ampleur, et surtout les justifient au motif que les Hutu auraient tué les Tutsi pour prévenir les assassinats que ces derniers s’apprêtaient à commettre sur les premiers. C’est exactement le même langage que tenaient les inconditionnels du régime. Bref, les Missionnaires, essentiellement les Pères blancs du Rwanda adoptèrent tout au long du conflit rwandais une ligne de conduite pro-gouvernementale, feignant d’ignorer le problème des réfugiés à l’origine de la guerre.

Jean-Paul Gouteux écrira fort justement à propos de ces télécopies des Pères blancs : « Cette masse de dépêches mensongères dispatchées dans les Agences, servait à alimenter la presse. Les deux compères dissimulaient la réalité des massacres des civils tutsi qui se déroulaient à l’intérieur du pays, loin de la ligne de front. Ils se contentaient de criminaliser le FPR alors qu’en réalité les exactions et crimes de guerre étaient moins le fait du FPR que de l’armée rwandaise et de son allié zaïrois. Le FPR, qualifié “d’agresseur” avait surtout le tort de remettre en question l’ordre racial de la République hutu, en professant le panafricanisme, le refus de l’ethnisme et de ses discriminations »12. Effectivement, de 1991 à 1993, des Tutsi du groupe appelé « Bagogwe » furent régulièrement massacrés dans les préfectures de Ruhengeri et de Gisenyi, sous l’instigation des autorités administratives et militaires. Souvent, des prêtres étaient de connivence avec ces autorités et participaient aux tueries, comme à la paroisse de Janja où les Abbés Jean-Baptiste Rwamayanja et Wenceslas Karuta incitèrent et encouragèrent la population hutu à commettre des assassinats sur les Tutsi. Les évêques catholiques ne seront pas plus modérés et épousèrent la même analyse ethniste que celle des Missionnaires. Ils écrirent sans hésitation que : « l’agression dont le Rwanda a été victime a été présentée à travers les médias occidentaux comme une tentative des réfugiés pour revenir dans leur pays d’origine et y instaurer un nouveau régime. Cette raison a pu jouer dans le déclenchement de l’attaque perpétrée contre le Rwanda, mais nous savons que sous ce prétexte il y a eu principalement l’ambition d’un groupe féodo-monarchiste de renverser le pouvoir actuel et de restaurer un régime rejeté par la très grande majorité de la population »13.

Lorsque des accords de paix sont signés à Arusha dans l’espoir de mettre fin au conflit armé et d’instaurer la démocratie au Rwanda, l’Église sera profondément divisée à l’instar des partis politiques, une partie du clergé rwandais et missionnaire soutenant ouvertement la tendance hutu power. L’abbé Gabriel Maindron réclamera l’intégration de la Coalition pour la Défense de la République (CDR) dans le gouvernement de transition à base élargie, ce qui constituait une légitimation pure et simple d’un parti raciste14. Ce prêtre français, très proche des extrémistes de la CDR, s’impliquera très activement aux côtés du bourgmestre de Rutsiro, M. Benimana Raphaël, qui menait les massacres dans cette commune. Ce dernier fut suspendu le 9 février 1993 par le conseil du gouvernement sur pression des organisations de défense des droits de l’homme et l’Abbé Maindron soutiendra sa cause jusqu’à faire signer une pétition en sa faveur aux adhérents de la CDR de la commune Rutsiro15 . En réaction, 210 personnes représentant la population de Rutsiro adressèrent une lettre au ministre de l’intérieur et du développement communal le 19 février 1993 pour appuyer la révocation du bourgmestre.

Pendant les années 1992-1993, des enquêtes d’organisations des droits de l’homme, de l’ONU et la presse internationale révélaient la nature criminelle du régime et l’implication des plus hautes autorités dans la perpétration des massacres à caractère ethnique, des assassinats d’opposants politiques et des actes de génocide, mais les Missionnaires, continuèrent à proclamer l’innocence de ce régime jusqu’à se considérer eux-mêmes comme des agressés du FPR. Dans un document publié par seize Pères blancs du doyenné du Mutara (nord-est du Rwanda) le 10 février 1992, ils écrivirent que : « Ne pas faire connaître au Rwanda et au monde entier ce qui s’abat sur le pays fait le jeu de nos agresseurs, eux, qui manipulent sans vergogne la désinformation. (…) Malheureusement la victoire d’octobre 1990 et les succès de ces derniers jours n’ont pas mis un terme à l’agression »16 !

3. PENDANT LE GÉNOCIDE, L’ÉGLISE NE SE DÉMARQUE PAS DES TUERIES

Immédiatement après le crash de l’avion de Habyarimana, des prêtres tutsi figurent parmi les premiers à être tués au Centre Christus de Kigali. Ce cas de figure souvent oublié servit de signal aux tueurs pour institutionnaliser l’irrespect d’aucun lieu sacré au cas où les Tutsi y trouveraient refuge. Dans la plupart de paroisses et de couvents du Rwanda, des prêtres et des religieuses participèrent individuellement au génocide de manière active en tuant ou enfaisant tuer leurs confrères et consœurs. À Nyange (Kibuye), l’Abbé Athanase Seromba donna l’ordre de tuer des Tutsi regroupés dans l’église17. Ce prêtre officiait à Florence, en Italie, de 1997 à 2002, sous un faux nom18 avant d’être inculpé par le TPIR. Il avait été exfiltré de Bukavu par l’entremise des Pères Xavériens, des Frères maristes et de la Caritas italienne. À Nyanza (Butare), l’Abbé Hormisdas Nsengimana ordonna l’assassinat de quatre de ses confrères, les Abbés Callixte Uwitonze, Innocent Nyangezi, Jean-Bosco Yilirwahandi et Matthieu Ngirumpatse19 . À Muganza (Gikongoro), l’Abbé Joseph Sagahutu s’activa aux côtés du sous-préfet Damien Biniga dans les massacres commis dans cette paroisse ainsi qu’à Kibeho. Il vit en Belgique.À Gatagara (Gitarama), le Frère Jean-Baptiste Rutihunza des Frères de la Charité organisa le massacre d’enfants handicapés et de membres tutsi du personnel du Centre qu’il dirigeait.

Au couvent des sœurs bénédictines de Sovu (Butare), les Sœurs Consolata Mukangango (Gertrude) et Julienne Mukabutera (Kizito) livrèrent des bidons d’essence aux génocidaires qui incendièrent ensuite le lieu de refuge des 7000 Tutsi qui espéraient trouver asile au monastère20. À Kabgayi (Gitarama), l’Abbé Emmanuel Rukundo21 (aumônier militaire) livra des Tutsi aux miliciens. Parmi les victimes qu’il fit tuer figurait son confrèrel’Abbé Alphonse Mbuguje. À Butare, les Abbés Etienne Kabera et Thaddée Rusingizandekwe seront à la tête des massacreurs qui livrèrent des attaques meurtrières aux Tutsi réfugiés à la Procure et au Groupe scolaire officiel. Thaddée Rusingizandekwe quitta Butare et participa, le 14 avril 1994, à un massacre d’extermination des Tutsi à la paroisse de Kibeho. Toujours à Butare, l’Abbé Martin Kabalira (actuellement en exil doré à Luchon près deToulouse en France) fit tuer des militaires tutsi et leurs épouses à l’École des sous-officiers. Il était aumônier militaire. Il livra une chasse acharnée à son confrère l’Abbé Modeste Mungwarareba qu’il ne réussit pas, fort heureusement, à dénicher de sa cachette au couvent des Petites sœurs de Jésus près dela procure de Butare. À Kaduha (Gikongoro), l’Abbé Nyandwi Athanase-Robert, de nationalité burundaise, participa activement aux tueries de Tutsi réfugiés à la paroisse, à l’école d’infirmières et à l’école agri-vétérinaire et commettra des viols sur des filles tutsi. La liste de ces prêtres-bourreaux est longue22.

Pendant les mois fatidiques du génocide où aucun doute ne subsistait surl’identité des personnes visées par les tueries, l’Église rwandaise, locale et missionnaire, persista dans la non-reconnaissance du génocide en ne parlant que de conflit. Les documents rédigés tant par des évêques que par des supérieurs des congrégations missionnaires ne parlaient que « des actes de violences commis par ceux qui agissent sous le coup de la colère »23 et attribuaient une responsabilité identique aux FAR et au FPR comme si le FPR commettait le génocide. Cette stratégie d’équilibrer les crimes apparaît clairement dans un document du 13 mai 1994 rédigé par quatre évêques catholiques et quelques responsables protestants. Ce document appelait les deux parties à « cesser les massacres » et se contentait de ne condamner que la profanation, la destruction « des lieux sacrés » et le meurtre de « collaborateurs apostoliques », pour terminer en demandant aux chrétiens de cesser les « actes de pillage et de vandalisme ». Rien sur le génocide en cours, encore moins sur l’identité des tueurs et des victimes.

Les Pères blancs s’illustreront par une attitude de camouflage du génocide en niant la vraie nature des tueries. Gérard Prunier l’exprime de manière exacte en notant : « Tout au long de la crise, les Pères Blancs Vleugels et Theunis informent à plusieurs reprises leur hiérarchie par télécopie de la situation au Rwanda. Le ton général des informations transmises est plus que révélateur : ils dressent des listes précises de prêtres tués mais passent sous silence les massacres où périssent leurs paroissiens. A les voir uniquement préoccupés du bien-être de leurs proches, on croirait presque lire une liste établie par une corporation ou par le corps diplomatique. Les violences “ont lieu” mais jamais leurs auteurs ne sont nommés. On a l’impression surréaliste que les meurtres sont commis par des armées de fantômes aux visages à jamais flous. Les seuls noms mentionnés concernent des crimes particuliers que les Pères peuvent faire endosser au FPR, avec force détails et descriptions »24 . Pour mieux démontrer l’occultation du génocide opérée par Theunis et Vleugels, Gérard Prunier prend comme illustration un Fax du 19 mai 1994 et le commente en ces termes : « Même la demande du FPR aux Pères de quitter une zone “pour leur sécurité” va être formulée de manière à sousentendre que le Front veut se cacher pour commettre des choses indicibles »25.

Ce chercheur a parfaitement raison, les Pères Theunis et Vleugels ont utilisé leur pouvoir d’information pour masquer le génocide des Tutsi. Ils ont détourné les yeux de l’opinion internationale en indiquant que le problème n’était pas le massacre des Tutsi, mais la poursuite de la guerre par le FPR. Ils ont soutenu les auteurs du génocide en notant dès le début des tueries que les autorités politiques assuraient la sécurité de la population26 alors qu’en réalité ces autorités organisaient le génocide. Dans le Fax n°7 également publié en avril 1994, les deux missionnaires vont pousser à l’extrême leur mépris des victimes en reprenant à leur compte des euphémismes criminels tels que « nettoyage » ou « travail » pour décrire le sanglant massacre de Tutsi à la paroisse de Gikondo.

4. APRÈS LE GÉNOCIDE, L’ÉGLISE EMPRUNTE LA VOIE DU NÉGATIONNISME

Le génocide a pris fin en juillet 1994 avec la victoire militaire du FPR sur les ex-forces armées rwandaises et le régime qu’elles servaient. Une partie du clergé local lié au régime déchu et une bonne partie des missionnaires se livrèrent alors à des actions de déstabilisation du nouveau Rwanda. Cette option s’illustra à travers un négationnisme caractérisé notamment par la justification du génocide, la minimisation de son ampleur, la déresponsabilisation de ses auteurs et à bien d’autres actions de soutien aux génocidaires.

 4.1 LA JUSTIFICATION DU GÉNOCIDE

Très tôt après la fin du génocide consécutive à la victoire militaire du FPR, les Pères blancs furent les tout premiers à justifier l’extermination des Tutsi. Ainsi, le Père blanc Wolfgang Schonecke publia en septembre 1994 un texte repris dans plusieurs revues catholiques où il affirmait ceci : « On ne comprendra jamais la rage meurtrière des Hutu si on oublie la honte et les humiliations qu’ils ont endurées pendant si longtemps sous le pouvoir de la minorité tutsi qui se considérait comme la race des seigneurs et qui les méprisaient ». D’autres missionnaires diront que les Hutu ont tué leurs concitoyens tutsi parce qu’ils ne pouvaient pas accepter qu’une « minorité domine la majorité »27. Certains d’entre eux s’ingénieront à défendre que le seul responsable du génocide est le Front patriotique rwandais. Ainsi aux yeux du Père blanc Serge Desouter : « Le FPR est à l’origine des massacres d’avril 1994. C’est un acte suicidaire que le FPR a commis vis-à-vis de ses congénères »28. Ailleurs, ce missionnaire dira cyniquement à propos du million de Tutsi tués : « On parle d’un million de Tutsi morts … Il n’y a jamais eu autant de Tutsi au Rwanda »29. Après le génocide, Desouter ajoutera : « On ne peut se défaire de l’impression que le FPR veut vider des régions de Hutu, pour les remplacer par de nouveaux arrivés tutsi »30. Plus récemment, ce Père blanc écrira de manière catégorique : « S’il y a eu une planification et une orchestration d’un génocide, il faut les chercher au sein du FPR qui en est l’ultime responsable »31. Comment un tel prêtre épris d’une haine aussi farouche contre un groupe humain peut-il encore parler de Dieu aux hommes ? Mais il n’est pas le seul.

L’ex-évêque de Ruhengeri, Phocas Nikwigize, se révéla aussi des plus extrémistes dans la légitimation du génocide. Répondant à une interview de la journaliste belge Els De Temmerman, il utilisa des termes imbus d’une haine anti-tutsi jamais égalée : « Ce qui s’est passé en 1994 au Rwanda, était quelque chose de très humain : quand quelqu’un t’attaque, il faut que tu te défendes. (…) C’est la faute des rebelles. Les Tutsi voulaient restaurer leur pouvoir et réduire les Hutu en esclavage (…) En vue d’atteindre cet objectif, ils disposaient de deux sortes d’armes : leurs fusils venus d’Europe et leurs femmes. Ils donnent leurs femmes aux Européens et restent ainsi en alliance durable avec eux. Tellement ils sont mauvais. Un Hutu est simple et droit, mais un Tutsi est rusé et hypocrite. Un Tutsi est foncièrement mauvais, pas par l’éducation mais par sa nature »32 !

L’ancien supérieur des Pères blancs du Rwanda, Jef Vleugels, recoura également aux clichés racistes pour affirmer que la responsabilité dans le génocide est partagée parce que, pense-t-il :« Ni Tutsi ni Hutu ne sont innocents. Et tous doivent pénétrer jusqu’au fond de leur nature humaine, dans laquelle racisme et violence sont pour ainsi dire incrustés »33. Son confrère Arnould De Schaetzen ajoutera que l’on ne doit pas parler de génocide des Tutsi par souci de ne pas incriminer une seule ethnie face à une autre et que personne au Rwanda ne serait ni innocent ni victime : « Parler de génocide comporte le risque d’impliquer l’ethnie opposante dans son ensemble comme fauteur de trouble et de simplifier la solution du problème. Qui est innocent dans ce drame ? Qui peut dire avoir les mains propres ? C’est facile de trouver les coupables et de justifier ainsi les choses »34. Dans leur sillage, le père Theunis notera dans le journal La Croix, en automne 1997, que lors du génocide, il y a eu « pratiquement autant d’assassinats de civils dans la zone gouvernementale (environ 600) que dans la zone contrôlée par le FPR et pourtant fort réduite (792) » ! C’est bien sûr faux.

Lors d’une interview croisée qu’il donna en juin 1997 avec Filip Reyntjens et Colette Braeckmann, Theunis récidiva en tenant les propos suivants : « C’est une constante. Les Hutus sont généralement pacifiques. Ils voulaient une évolution non violente. La violence vient toujours du même côté. D’un seul côté. (…) Du côté des Tutsis. Ce sont toujours les Tutsis qui provoquent, qui d’une manière ou d’une autre gâtent les choses »35. Sans commentaires ! Dans un autre article, Guy Theunis qualifia les Tutsi d’étrangers et mit sur le même pied d’égalité le FPR qui a arrêté le génocide et ceux qui l’ont commis en prônant un rapprochement et des négociations directes entre le gouvernement génocidaire déchu et le nouveau régime :« Une dictature est remplacée par une autre dictature plus intelligente (…) il faut un dialogue entre le pouvoir en place et les représentants des réfugiés (car) l’injustice criante actuelle est celle d’un pays conquis par un peuple d’étrangers alors que les habitants premiers croupissent dans la misère soit comme réfugiés à l’étranger, soit comme déplacés à l’intérieur »36.

Quant aux Pères Jésuites, d’habitude plus lucides dans leur analyse, ils se montreront également divisés sur la question du génocide, certains allant jusqu’à nier la citoyenneté rwandaise des Tutsi, voire à justifier le soutien de l’Eglise à un groupe ethnique, les Hutu. Leur supérieur général, le Père Peter Hans Kolvenbach, déclarera en 2004, dix ans après le génocide : « Les Tutsis, qui ont longtemps été le groupe dominant, sont venus de l’extérieur et ne dépassent pas 10 ou 15% de la population au Rwanda. Les Hutus, qui sont plutôt les gens du terrain, sont la grande majorité. L’Eglise a pris la défense des Hutus, ce qui était un peu dans les mœurs catholiques d’intervenir pour les gens qui souffrent et qui sont dominés par d’autres. Et, à un moment donné, les Hutus se sont vengés des Tutsis »37 .

 4.2 LE DOUBLE-GÉNOCIDE

La théorie du double-génocide est très chère à un grand nombre de Pères blancs. On la trouve bien exprimée dans les propos du Père Hans Zoller, de nationalité suisse tenus en octobre 1999 : « Le génocide de 1994 contre les Tutsi et des opposants Hutu menacés a été précédé d’un génocide contre plusieurs centaines de milliers de Hutu dans le nord et l’est du pays, concrètement dans les Préfectures de Byumba et de Kibungo. Ce premier génocide a été perpétré dans le silence des médias, qui avaient défense de pénétrer dans ces zones, et même avec la complicité des représentants de l’ONU qui étaient sur place à ce moment-là et ne voulaient pas une enquête dans les territoires occupés par le FPR. (…) Le génocide contre les Hutu s’est prolongé dans les forêts de l’ex-Zaïre après la prise de pouvoir du FPR (…) Au total, on doit dire qu’environ un million de Hutu ont été massacrés soit avant, soit après la prise de pouvoir du FPR ; et la politique d’extermination des Hutu se poursuit, par le recrutement des jeunes qu’on envoie au front pour qu’ils soient tués. (…) Ce deuxième génocide est au moins aussi meurtrier sinon davantage que le premier »38 .

L’hebdomadaire de la Cité du Vatican L’Osservatore Romano défendit la même thèse en soulignant qu’au Rwanda il y a eu un double génocide : « Celui contre les Tutsis (et certains Hutus modérés), perpétré après le 6 avril 1994, qui a provoqué plus de 500.000 victimes, et celui envers les Hutus, à partir d’octobre 1990 jusqu’à la prise de pouvoir par le Front patriotique rwandais (FPR) tutsi en juillet 1994. Ce génocide des Hutus s’est poursuivi ensuite dans la forêt zaïroise, où les fugitifs hutus ont été massacrés pendant des mois, sans même bénéficier de la protection de la Communauté internationale. Le nombre des victimes hutues s’élève à environ un million. Les deux génocides ont été horribles et doivent être tous deux rappelés, sous peine de risquer une propagande unilatérale »39.

C’est scandaleux, ce type de mensonges.

 4.3 LA DÉFENSE DES PRÊTRES ET DES RELIGIEUSES IMPLIQUÉS DANS LE GÉNOCIDE

Outre la fréquence et la répercussion des thèses négationnistes, des missionnaires se montrent très actifs dans la protection de personnes impliquées dans le génocide. Nombre de génocidaires, prêtres et laïcs, qui rejoignent l’Europe et le Canada sont en effet appuyés par des missionnaires. Ce sont eux qui les aident notamment dans l’obtention des visas, dans leur hébergement et dans leur insertion dans les paroisses et communautés religieuses. Pire, lorsque des plaintes visent ces prêtres-bourreaux, les missionnaires poussent les églises européennes à les soutenir et celles-ci le font dans la plupart des cas de manière aveugle. Le cas des Pères blancs de France dans le soutien de l’Abbé Wenceslas Munyeshyaka est à ce sujet éclairant. Celui-ci est arrivé en France grâce au soutien du Père Theunis qui a dans la suite diffusé un document dans toutes les communautés des Pères blancs de France et auprès de leurs supérieurs à Rome pour prêcher l’innocence de ce clerc.

Dans ce document, le Père Theunis prétendait que « Munyeshyaka n’a tué personne au Rwanda, qu’il n’y a eu aucun mort à l’église Sainte Famille » et qu’en fin de comptes,« accuser ce prêtre de génocide est chose inacceptable ». Le Père Theunis reprendra les mêmes arguments dans un article qu’il publia dans La Croix, en octobre 1997, où il s’attaquait à un excellent rapport qu’avait publié Michel Rocard sur la situation positive qui prévalait au Rwanda en matière de droits de l’homme. Theunis en profita pour plaider l’innocence de Munyeshyaka en écrivant qu’« on n’a jamais tué dans l’église de Sainte Famille à Kigali »avant de se dire tout de même qu’il y a eu « trois seuls morts à l’intérieur de l’église », mais qu’ils « l’ont été lors du bombardement de l’église par le FPR » ! Autrement dit, si l’on en croit Theunis, les Interahamwe et les ex-FAR n’ont pas tué délibérément, si ce n’est pour riposter à la provocation du FPR !

Dans une lettre qu’il m’adressa en 1996, le Père Theunis m’avouera ne pas connaître de manière certaine les agissements de l’Abbé Munyeshyaka pendant le génocide, mais qu’il le défendra toujours pour le seul motif qu’ils sont amis : « Je ne suis pas sûr à 100% de ce que j’affirme », mais « étant un ami de l’Abbé Wenceslas avec qui j’ai collaboré à Kigali, je tiens à le défendre ». Le supérieur des Pères blancs de France, François Richard, suivra le Père Theunis dans sa campagne et enverra un courrier à tous les Pères blancs du monde dans lequel il explique qu’ils sont venus en aide à ce prêtre-bourreau « pour le protéger d’abord contre des tueurs qui le poursuivaient puis du matraquage indigne infligé par certains médias ».

Le Père Richard soutiendra que les Pères blancs croient fermement que Munyeshyaka « n’est pas de ceux qui ont planifié le génocide » et commettra finalement un mensonge flagrant en écrivant à ses confrères que personne n’accuse Munyeshyaka de génocide et qu’il se serait même comporté de manière héroïque : « Nous savons que personne ne l’accuse d’avoir tué. Nous savons que des milliers de gens lui doivent la vie. Et nous savons qu’une campagne de faux témoignages a été organisée contre lui »40. Eh bien ! Pour couronner le tout, le Père Richard confia le dossier de défense de l’Abbé Munyeshyaka au Père Michel Tremblais, avec notamment pour mission la collecte de témoignages à décharge, la recherche des meilleurs avocats capables de l’assister et le paiement d’honoraires relatifs à l’assistance judiciaire. Le Père Theunis réunira ainsi plus de 500 pages de témoignages payés par les Pères blancs pour disculper Munyeshyaka. Entretemps, aucun Père blanc présent au Rwanda ne se souciait des victimes déshonorées par l’Abbé Munyeshyaka !

En 1995, alors que les témoignages accusant les sœurs Gertrude et Kizito de participation au génocide deviennent de plus en plus nombreux et que leur traduction en justice s’avère inévitable, le Père André Comblin (Père blanc belge qui a vécu plusieurs années au Rwanda), fut dépêché par sa congrégation à Sovu pour solliciter la rétractation des religieuses rwandaises qui témoignaient contre elles. La nouvelle fut connue parce que la police rwandaise intercepta des documents dans la voiture du Père Comblin qui révélèrent sa vraie mission.

 4.4. LE SOUTIEN À DES REVUES NÉGATIONNISTES

De nos jours, l’une des revues rwandaises affichant un négationnisme à peine voilé s’appelle Dialogue. Considérée comme une revue de référence et d’expression des membres du clergé et d’intellectuels fidèles à l’ancien régime rwandais, sa publication a été relancée après le génocide en Belgique par les Pères blancs à la tête desquels se trouvait Guy Theunis. Ces derniers collectaient des fonds via les procures européennes et les provinces des Pères blancs pour financer son édition et sa diffusion. Depuis sa relance à Bruxelles jusqu’à l’heure actuelle, cette revue se caractérise par des écrits ethnistes et négationnistes d’une ampleur sans précédent. Elle fait la publicité des ouvrages d’une telle nature et désavoue ceux qui décrivent correctement les tenants et lesaboutissants du génocide. À titre d’exemple, qu’il suffise de citer un extrait de la note de lecture qu’a faite Shingiro Mbonyumutwa à propos du livre de Jean-Paul Gouteux, La Nuit Rwandaise : « Jean-Paul Gouteux, écrit Mbonyumutwa, se sent aussi un bourreau de par ses frères de race, les Français… » ! Écœuré par cette insulte, Jean-Paul envoya une note à Dialogue en guise de droit de réponse, mais Dialogue ne la publia jamais.

 4.5 LA COLLABORATION AVEC DES GROUPUSCULES ET DES JUGES ACCUSANT LE FPR DE GÉNOCIDE

De nos jours, un lobby négationniste de plus en plus actif s’est constituéen occident pour mener des actions de déstabilisation de l’État rwandais. Il est essentiellement animé par des anciens dignitaires du régime Habyarimana et leurs acolytes étrangers qui avaient noué des liens avec eux au moment où ils étaient au pouvoir. Depuis juillet 1994, ce lobby a utilisé plusieurs méthodes, notamment l’organisation des colloques et conférences négationnistes, la tenue des manifestations publiques, la publication d’ouvrages, … chacune de ces méthodes s’est avérée inefficace pour contrer la politique de paix et de réconciliation nationale menée par le gouvernement rwandais et par le FPR. Ce lobby a alors changé de stratégie et s’emploie depuis quelques années à utiliser des « juges-vedettes » pour promouvoir des thèses négationnistes en recourant aux poursuites judiciaires de certaines hautes autorités de l’État rwandais. C’est dans ce cadre que de prétendues enquêtes furent entamées par les juges Bruguière en France et Andreu Fernando en Espagne, conclues par la mise en accusation d’un bon nombre de cadres politiques et militaires rwandais.

L’un des réseaux d’appui et de fournisseurs de ces lobbys en informations est constitué par des missionnaires ayant œuvré au Rwanda ou ceux qui sont encore présents dans le pays ou dans les États voisins. De manière particulière, les Pères blancs mènent une campagne discrète, mais très active pour les poursuites contre des assassins présumés du père Joaquim Vallmajo prétendument tué par le FPR à Byumba en mai 1994. Certes, ils n’apparaissent pas sur la liste des parties civiles, mais il ne fait aucun doute qu’un certain nombre d’éléments d’informations utilisés par les juges français et espagnols émanent d’instituts missionnaires, à la tête desquels se trouvent les Pères blancs. Curieusement, ces derniers ne font rien pour que la justice soit rendue en faveur du Père André Caloone tué par un militaire des FAR, à Ruhuha, le 7 avril 1994. Fidélité à l’ancien régime oblige !

En République Démocratique du Congo, des Pères Xavériens et Comboniens, notamment le Père Luigi Lo Stocco de Bukavu, font partie des acteurs les plus virulents dans les accusations lancées contre les autorités rwandaises. En 1996-1997, le Père blanc Laurent Balas avait été à l’origine d’une campagne de diabolisation du Rwanda lors des conflits armés qui se déroulaient à cette époque sur le territoire de la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC). Le Père Balas est un Français de Toulouse ayant des parents d’origine espagnole. Se trouvant à Goma au moment de la première guerre du Congo, il rentra en France et sillonna toutes les institutions politiques et religieuses tant françaises qu’européennes pour accuser l’armée rwandaise d’être l’unique responsable de ce qu’il qualifia de génocide des Hutu. Le contenu de son témoignage apparaît aujourd’hui dans les actes d’accusation lancés par les juges Bruguière et Fernando. Dans sa campagne, le Père Balas fut aidé par des milieux religieux français et par certains fanatiques anti-FPR comme le journaliste Stephen Smith qui publia de très longs extraits de son témoignage dans le journal Libération. J’ai eu de nombreuses correspondances avec le Père Balas pour tenter de comprendre ses errements, et dans chacune de ses lettres, il affichait une haine anti-tutsi et du FPR qui n’a rien à envier à celle des leaders de la CDR et de ses partisans.

Dans plusieurs grandes villes, évêchés et paroisses de France, des réunions, colloques et séminaires négationnistes sont organisés dans des locaux paroissiaux avec le soutien des évêques et des prêtres français. Ainsi à Toulouse, une religieuse ayant vécu trente ans au Rwanda, jusqu’en 1997, à Butare et à Gikongoro, Madeleine Raffin, et qui a été expulsée à cause de son activisme ethniste et divisionniste, mène-t-elle des actions politiques contrele FPR et l’État rwandais, notamment en soutenant des génocidaires réfugiés en France, tel Dominique Ntawukuriryayo et le colonel Marcel Bivugabagabo, poursuivis pour leur rôle dans le génocide41. Madeleine Raffin est, comme son frère prêtre Pierre Raffin, membre d’une association négationniste dénommée « Les Amis du Rwanda », très active à Toulouse et dans toute la France dans la conduite des actions de diabolisation de l’actuel pouvoir rwandais. Elle est aussi la vice-présidente de l’association France-Turquoise créée par des officiers français dans le but de défendre l’honneur de l’armée française en réaction aux plaintes déposées contre des militaires français ayant commis des infractions sur des civils au Rwanda entre juin et août 1994. Lors du procès Misago, il fut révélé lors des audiences que Madeleine Raffin a affamé volontairement les réfugiés Tutsi de Gikongoro et a fait tuer deux employés Tutsi de l’évêché en les livrant à des miliciens sur une barrière42. En automne dernier, lorsque le ministre français des Affaires étrangères, Bernard Kouchner, dénonça vigoureusement le génocide des Tutsi sur la radio Europe 1, Madeleine Raffin prit la plume en colère et écrira à l’adresse de Kouchner un texte négationniste très virulent où elle affirme : « Pour vous, il n’y a qu’un seul génocide, parce que vous refusez de voir l’autre »43.

On l’aura compris, l’Église catholique rwandaise, locale et missionnaire, s’est largement compromise avec le régime qui planifia et exécuta le génocide. Elle est restée fidèle à ce régime et à sa politique jusqu’à cautionner, soutenir et justifier des pratiques criminelles commises par l’État rwandais avant et pendant le génocide. Cette fidélité a atteint des sommets hors pair caractérisés, après la consommation du crime, par un négationnisme institutionnalisé, propagé en toute tranquillité par des hommes d’Église. De son vivant, Jean-Paul Gouteux avait vigoureusement dénoncé cet état de fait. Son rêve le plus cher, me disait-il avant qu’il ne s’éteigne, était de voir des officiers et des politiciens français impliqués dans le génocide au Rwanda, être traduitsen justice. Il rêvait également de voir l’Église revenir à la raison pour tirer les leçons sur le comportement inacceptable de plusieurs de ses prêtres et de ses fidèles pendant le génocide.

Je lui laisse le mot de la fin : « Le rôle de l’Église dans ce génocide nous apporte un enseignement précieux. C’est en tant qu’organisation sociale néocoloniale ayant une part importante du pouvoir que l’Église du Rwanda s’est montrée abominable. C’est parce qu’elle est, dans ce pays, une institution dont la puissance est au moins égale, sinon supérieure à celle de l’État,qu’elle a pu atteindre ce degré de nuisance. En 2005, l’Église nie farouchement toute compromission, toute responsabilité, toute implication, n’ayant que l’incroyable impudeur de résumer un tel drame dans une formule cynique et déculpabilisante : “le sang des martyrs est semence des chrétiens44” »45.

Cette dérive est toujours d’actualité en 2008 !

Jusqu’à quand ?

Kigali, le 8 Mars 2008

Notes

1 Apologie du blasphème, en danger de croire, Editions Syllepse, juin 2006.

2 Pour plus d’informations sur ce sujet voir la revue Au Cœur de l’Afrique, n°2-3/1995.

3 Lire à ce sujet, M.A., prêtre rwandais, « Les divisions de l’Eglise rwandaise », Les Temps Modernes, juillet-août 1994, pp. 91-101. D’autres travaux menés sur le sujet peuvent être consultés avec intérêt, voir notamment : Paul Rutayisire : « Silences et compromissions de la hiérarchie de l’Eglise catholique du Rwanda », Revue Au Cœur de l’Afrique, n°2-3/1995 ; Mudaheranwa, « L’Eglise catholique du Rwanda ne s’est pas encore remise de sa gangrène », Umusemburo n° 3 octobre 1995 ; Golias-Magazine n°48/49, printemps-été 1996 sous le titre Rwanda : l’honneur perdu de l’Eglise.

4 Les prêtres signataires sont : Augustin Ntagara, Callixte Kalisa, Jean-Baptiste Hategeka, Fabien Rwakareke et Aloys Nzaramba.

5 Selon les témoins, l’Abbé Ntagara fut sauvagement tabassé, puis enterré vivant.

6 Ces documents sont de nos jours brandis par les juges Bruguière et Fernando Andreu comme des preuves étayant des faits qu’ils imputent abusivement à certaines hautes autorités rwandaises, politiques et militaires. Ces mêmes documents servent aujourd’hui comme preuves à conviction aux négationnistes dans la promotion de leur idéologie.

7 Fax du 15 janvier 1991.

8 Fax du 31 janvier 1991.

9 Fax du 31 janvier 1991.

10 Fax du 31 décembre 1991.

11 Fax du 31 juillet 1991.

12 Jean-Paul Gouteux, « L’implication idéologique et politique dans le génocide du père Guy Theunis de 1990 à 1994 », polycopié (pdf).

13 Cfr Lettre des Evêques catholiques du Rwanda aux Evêques français, décembre 1990.

14 Revue Dialogue, septembre 1994, n° 177.

15 ISIBO n° 87 du 24/2 au 3/3/1993, p. 10.

16 Les signataires de ce document sont les pères Jean-Marie Luca, Michel Broiselle, Stefaan Minaert, Alphonse Calozet (paroisse de Nyagahanga) ; Giancarlos Bucchianeri, Silvio Righi, Giorgio Simonetti (Paroisse de Nyarurema) ; Karel Winters, Bernard Paganelli, Joseph Mattedi, Michael Hans Hurter (Paroisse Rukomo) ; Walter Gherri, Jean Deschildre, Robert Guillaume, Joaquim Vallmajo (Paroisse Rushaki), Robert Defalque (ce dernier était un missionnaire correct, il a dû signer ce document par solidarité avec ses confrères).

17 L’Abbé Seromba a été condamné à 15 ans de prison par le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda (TPIR).

18 Don Anastasio Sumba Bura.

19 En jugement au TPIR.

20 Ces deux religieuses ont été jugées et condamnées par la cour d’assises de Bruxelles en 2001.

21 En jugement au TPIR.

22 Pour aller plus loin voir African Rights, Lettre ouverte à sa Sainteté le Pape Jean-Paul II, 13 mai 1998.

23 Communiqué du Conseil épiscopal du 10 avril 1994.

24 G. Prunier, Rwanda : le génocide, Dagorno, 1997, p. 300.

25 Ibidem.

26 Par exemple le Fax n° 3 du 7 avril 1994 affirme que dans la région de Rusumo, le bourgmestre parcourait sa commune pour la pacifier. Or, il est notoirement connu que ce même bourgmestre a plutôt fait assassiner tous les Tutsi de sa commune, notamment ceux réfugiés à la paroisse de Nyarubuye. Ce bourgmestre, Sylvestre Gacumbitsi, a été condamné par le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda à trente sept ans d’emprisonnement. Le Fax n° 7 abonde dans la même dérive quand il occulte la vraie image du gouvernement de Théodore Sindikubwabo qui a mis en exécution le génocide et les assassinats politiques de 1994.

27 Propos tenus par Mgr Blaise Forissier dans la revue « Actualités religieuses dans le monde », juillet-août 1994.

28 Interview à La Gazette de Lausanne, 21 mai 1994.

29 Interview donnée au journal Le Vif/L’Express du 1er octobre 1994.

30 Document conjoint signé avec Filip Reytjens intitulé « Rwanda : Les violations des droits de l’homme par le FPR/APR. Plaidoyer pour une enquête approfondie », Anvers, juin 1995.

31 Serge Desouter, Rwanda : le procès du FPR. Mise au point historique, L’Harmattan, 2007, p.196.

32 De Volkskrant, 26/06/1995.

33 Voir Dialogue, n° 182, p.51.

34 Dialogue n° 185, septembre 1995, pp. 49-50.

35 ANB/BIA, Bulletin des Missionnaires d’Afrique, n° 326, 15 Juin 1997, p. 15.

36 Voir Revue catholique de l’Église de France, Incroyance et foi, n° 72, novembre 1994, p.59, cité par Jean Ndorimana, Rwanda, l’Église catholique dans le malaise, Edizioni Vivere in, Roma, 2001, p. 113. Lire aussi Christian Terras et Mehdi Ba cyitwa, Rwanda : l’honneur perdu de l’Église, Editions Golias, 1999,p. 226.

37 P. H. Kolvenbach, S.J., Entretien avec Jean-Luc Pouthier, Extraits de Faubourg du Saint-Esprit, Bayard, 2004.

38 Document polycopié, distribué dans la province des Pères blancs de Suisse et envoyé aux Amis des Pères blancs.

39 Osservatore romano n° 21 du 25 mai 1999.

40 Le Lien, Revue des Pères Blancs de France, n° 200, novembre 1995.

41 Courrier du 15 janvier 2008 envoyé au premier ministre français François Fillon, Toulouse, 15 janvier 2008. Pour comprendre la gravité militantisme négationniste de Madeleine Raffin, voir son blog : http://madraffin.centerblog.net/.

42 ARI/RNA, 30 novembre 1999.

43 Madeleine Raffin, « France/Rwanda : les fausses colères de Bernard Kouchner », 8 octobre 2007.

44 Cardinal Etchegaray devant les charniers rwandais, La Croix, 4 août 1994.

45 Jean-Paul Gouteux, Apologie du blasphème, En danger de croire, Syllepse, juin 2006, p.183.

Par: Jean Damascène Bizimana (2008)

En mémoire de Jean-Népomucène NKURIKIYIMFURA, historien rwandais, mon ancien étudiant et collègue, et à sa femme et à ses enfants, assassinés chez eux, à Butare, en 1994 pour le seul fait d’être nés tutsi.

Le « négationnisme » désigne depuis la fin des années 1980 les dénégations de la réalité de la Shoah qui se présentaient sous le jour apparemment scientifique d’un « révisionnisme ». Ce type de manipulation est consubstantiel à tous les génocides, un travail simultané de négation et de justification. Relisons Les Assassins de la mémoire du regretté Pierre Vidal-Naquet : le négationnisme ne consiste pas à nier qu’il y ait eu des morts dans une crise majeure, mais d’abord à relativiser ou minimiser leur nombre et à diluer la perpétration de ce crime de masse dans un jeu de circonstances successives et aléatoires, et même à en attribuer la responsabilité aux victimes elles-mêmes ainsi qu’aux rescapés, coupables, selon une vision téléologique de l’histoire, d’avoir échappé à la mort pour mieux profiter des tueries qu’ils auraient eux-mêmes déclenchées (sur le thème, par exemple, de la responsabilité conjointe des Juifs et des Britanniques dans l’éclatement de la Seconde guerre mondiale et dans la disqualification calculée du nazisme engendré par le sionisme !).

Dans le cas rwandais, la première négation fut celle de l’opinion internationale refusant de voir la réalité de ce qui se passait au Rwanda à partir du 7 avril 1994, après avoir déjà fermé les yeux sur les pogromes des années précédentes et sur la propagande raciste qui les accompagnait notoirement. Il fallut attendre la mi-mai 1994 pour que le mot génocide soit employé sur le plan international.

Très vite en fait, les massacres de Tutsi ont été présentés comme un des éléments d’une guerre civile et une balance a été établie entre les victimes de deux « camps » ethniques. Le fait que le Rwanda se situe en Afrique n’est pas un hasard dans le succès de ce relativisme. Nombre d’observateurs partagent plus ou moins confusément la conviction que les tueries sont dans l’ordre des choses sur ce continent et que la barbarie est à fleur de peau chez ses populations. Alfred Grosser pouvait écrire dès 1989 dans Le crime et la mémoire : « Non il n’est pas vrai qu’un massacre d’Africains soit ressenti de la même manière qu’un massacre d’Européens ».

Dès le 5 juillet 1994, dans un éditorial de Libération, Jacques Amalric pouvait s’inquiéter: « Peut-on rester neutre en face d’un génocide ? Or c’est ce qu’on prétend faire au Rwanda entre FPR et l’administration et les milices du régime rwandais, c’est-à-dire les instigateurs et les auteurs du génocide… Va-t-on demain tenter d’accréditer les élucubrations du capitaine Barril, rendant les Tutsis responsables de leur extermination… On peut le craindre en entendant déjà certains discours tenus en privé, sous la forme de fausses confidences sur le thème: “les choses sont moins simples que vous ne croyez. Il n’y a pas que des innocents d’un côté et des coupables de l’autre.” » Et le 16 novembre suivant, commentant les exactions du nouveau pouvoir, il notait: « Est-ce une raison pour banaliser le génocide rwandais et renvoyer dos à dos bourreaux et victimes? C’est pourtant le langage qu’on entend à Paris où on feint de s’étonner que la démocratie ne règne pas encore au Rwanda et où on met pratiquement sur le même plan le génocide du printemps et les représailles dont ont sans doute été victimes des Hutus ». En 1996 Colette Braeckman observait avec lucidité dans Terreurs africaines : « Tôt ou tard de nouvelles violences, nées des frustrations du présent, ou suscitées par des agressions extérieures, viendront à nouveau brouiller les pistes et les esprits. A ce moment, les tenants de la théorie du “double génocide” l’auront emporté, les violences du présent oblitérant celles d’hier, les coupables et les complices s’évanouissant dans la nature à la faveur d’un épais brouillard et l’ethnisme étant à nouveau considéré comme une fatalité ».

C’est ce que les courants négationnistes actuels s’emploient à cautionner.

Un « conflit interethnique » et une « colère » légitime

Le Rwanda faisait depuis des décennies l’objet d’une vulgate raciale spécifique, devenue officielle sur place et médiatisée sans fin à l’étranger, qui « expliquait » d’avance les issues les plus extrêmes. Il s’agissait de l’idéologie hamitique définissant les Hutu comme les véritables autochtones, de culture « bantoue », et les Tutsi comme des envahisseurs étrangers, d’origine « nilotique » ou « hamitique », les premiers étant décrits globalement comme de simples « paysans » et les seconds comme de fourbes « féodaux ».

C’est ce « béton mental » (selon une formule de Claudine Vidal) mortifère que les négationnistes s’acharnent à éluder pour masquer la nature de la tragédie au moment même où elle se déroule et pour tenter de la justifier par la suite. Ils s’emploient simultanément à relativiser, normaliser et légitimer les tueries. Trois types d’arguments sont tour à tour employés:
Le contexte de la guerre civile opposant les Forces armées rwandaises du régime Habyarimana et la rébellion du Front patriotique rwandais (entre octobre 1990 et août 1993, puis de nouveau à partir du 7 avril 1994), justifierait ces meurtres de masse au titre d’une pure tactique « d’autodéfense », d’un simple « ordre de conduite » pour reprendre un jargon militaire français. L’entreprise d’extermination des Tutsi devient le dégât collatéral d’un conflit politico-militaire, dont les deux belligérants partageraient la responsabilité.
L’existence d’un antagonisme ancestral entre les Hutu et les Tutsi fournirait une explication quasi scientifique. La rhétorique des atavismes « ethniques », récurrente dans la littérature coloniale et omniprésente dans les médias étrangers, préparait les observateurs étrangers à cette logique. Elle est reprise benoîtement sous la forme d’appels au « dialogue entre les ethnies » comme si tous les Hutu avaient tué les Tutsi. On serait en présence d’un affrontement à somme nulle.
Une « colère populaire » meurtrière aurait éclaté spontanément au lendemain de l’attentat du 6 avril contre l’avion présidentiel. Cette thèse ne fait que reprendre le discours officiel tenu par les représentants du gouvernement génocidaire rwandais jusque devant le Conseil de Sécurité d’avril à juin 1994. Elle reflète un mépris inouï pour le peuple rwandais, traité comme un agrégat de fauves naturellement prêts aux pires horreurs.

En fait cet argumentaire de « la colère normale en temps de guerre » permettait de masquer le rôle de la propagande extrémiste, d’entretenir la bonne conscience des tueurs potentiels et de marginaliser les Hutu opposants à ce projet totalitaire. Ce corpus de justifications était présent de façon lancinante sur les ondes de la radio RTLM en 1994, il sera repris par les encadreurs des camps de réfugiés du Kivu entre 1994 et 1996. Il reste vivace aujourd’hui dans divers milieux, jusqu’en Europe et en Amérique du nord, avec le souci non dissimulé de nier toute intention et toute organisation dans les massacres systématiques des familles tutsi du Rwanda d’avril à juillet 1994. Cette théorie globalisante permet de transformer insidieusement toute la population hutu en véritable bouclier humain moral. Tout le monde serait coupable, c’est-à-dire en fin de compte innocent. On comprend que ce discours disqualifie a priori tout effort de justice et ait souvent été repris devant le Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda ou devant d’autres juridictions pour la défense des cadres civils ou militaires accusés d’implication dans le génocide.

Un « double génocide »

Cette thèse, chère depuis 1994 aux dirigeants politiques ou militaires français qui avaient à l’époque pensé et présenté leur intervention en termes « d’interposition » entre « belligérants », a été reprise par des nostalgiques de l’ancien régime rwandais.

Ce renvoi dos à dos de deux camps « ethniques » représente une amnésie étonnante par rapport aux enquêtes journalistiques, scientifiques ou judiciaires, qui ont mis en lumière l’encadrement méthodique des tueries, le ciblage des victimes, la mise en condition de l’opinion par une propagande raciste répétitive. Il masque à la fois la complexité de la société rwandaise et l’option politique que constituait le génocide. Celui-ci visait globalement les Tutsi (tous âges, sexes et conditions confondus), traités en boucs émissaires, mais aussi les Hutu mal pensants, présentés comme des « complices » (ibyitso) de « l’ennemi ». Le ressort en était une idéologie raciste bien connue. De fait, tous les Hutu n’adhéraient pas à ce programme : en fonction de relations familiales (les mariages mixtes étaient innombrables) ou amicales ou tout simplement par humanité, nombreux ont été ceux qui ont sauvé des Tutsi ou, ensuite, qui ont témoigné de la réalité du génocide. La logique de celui-ci était aussi de briser cette dissidence au sein du « peuple majoritaire » en forgeant une complicité apparemment unanime, profitable au « Hutu power ».

La reconnaissance d’un « double génocide » présentée parfois comme un gage de « réconciliation » est donc un cliché trompeur, lié à une volonté de diluer le génocide des Tutsi dans des massacres indifférenciés et d’éluder la question de la responsabilité du courant politique qui en a été le promoteur. On sait, mutatis mutandis, que la réconciliation entre les Juifs et les Allemands s’est effectuée avec un pays qui ne trichait pas sur la réalité de la Shoah et qui avait rejeté clairement la logique nazi, et que la réconciliation attendue entre Arméniens et Turcs progresse sur la base de la reconnaissance du génocide de 1915.

La quête spécieuse d’un « équilibre » repose notamment sur une dispute de chiffres. D’une part on cherche à mettre en doute et à minorer le nombre des victimes du génocide : les recensements effectués sont contestés, l’appartenance des corps est discutée au nom d’une anthropométrie raciale d’un autre temps, les innombrables témoignages recueillis depuis le lendemain des tueries auprès de rescapés, d’observateurs et de repentis sont présentés comme le produit d’une fourberie congénitale des Tutsi, conduisant des veuves et des orphelins à monter de toutes pièces des « délations ». D’autre part le nombre des victimes du FPR (Front patriotique rwandais) est maximisé en additionnant les crimes de guerre commis au Rwanda lors des représailles de l’année 1994 et lors de la répression de la rébellion au nord-ouest du pays en 1998, avec les victimes de la guerre du Congo de 1996-1997 (incluant toutes les formes de mortalité induite par le conflit dans le chaos sanitaire de ce pays). L’objectif de cette opération est de contrebalancer le million de victimes du génocide par les « millions de victimes » de la guerre en Afrique centrale.

Mise en scène pénible d’une « concurrence » des victimes » ! Toutes méritent attention et requièrent les enquêtes nécessaires pour identifier les crimes contre l’humanité perpétrés dans le cadre de ces conflits. Mais faut-il rappeler qu’un génocide se caractérise par un processus d’extermination systématique à l’encontre d’un groupe défini par sa naissance ? L’horreur intrinsèque d’un tel projet tétanise les esprits il est vrai, mais ce n’est pas en le niant qu’on contribue à un travail de vérité sur les autres victimes. Les centaines de milliers de civils innocents morts dans les bombardements alliés au phosphore sur les villes allemandes en 1943-1945 ont attendu 2002 pour qu’un débat s’ouvre à leur propos avec l’ouvrage Der Brand (« L’incendie ») publié par l’historien Jörg Friedrich, mais sans que cela remette en cause la spécificité d’Auschwitz.

Le montage du « double génocide » ne tient nullement compte du noeud spatio-temporel qui distingue le génocide de 1994 de celui des Arméniens ou de la Shoah : réalisé en trois mois avec une efficacité terrifiante, presque à huis clos (contrairement à ce que suggère le slogan mensonger sur un génocide devant les caméras), dans l’espace réduit d’un pays pas plus grand que la Belgique, il déchire cruellement et intimement une société qui est invitée dès le lendemain à se « réconcilier », à « pardonner », à « juger sereinement », et enfin à bâtir un « équilibre » entre des composantes dites « ethniques », invoquées pour continuer à « expliquer » la logique d’extermination de la veille. Les représailles commises par les forces du FPR, lors de leurs opérations contre le pouvoir génocidaire mis en place le 8 avril 1994, sont intervenues presque immédiatement, comme si dans ce cas, avons-nous déjà écrit ailleurs, Auschwitz et Sabra-et-Chatila s’étaient succédés en continu sur le même territoire. Nous signifions par là que si le génocide des Juifs perpétré en Europe dans les années 1940 et un crime de guerre commis au Liban quatre décennies plus tard avec l’implication de l’Etat d’Israël – deux réalités profondément différentes – s’étaient inscrits dans un espace-temps rétréci semblable à celui vécu au Rwanda, on peut imaginer combien cela se serait prêté aux confusions et aux manipulations entretenues par les négationnistes. On sait déjà, de ce point de vue, que « l’épuration » qui a suivi l’occupation nazi en France en 1944 a été vite exploitée par des milieux d’extrême droite pour proposer un prétendu « équilibre », celui d’une nuit où tous les chats sont gris. Or tous les Rwandais sont amenés bon gré mal gré à cohabiter dans ce qui est leur pays commun, avec les confrontations et les brouillages de mémoire qu’on peut imaginer. Il est trop facile chez nous, loin des charniers, des traumatismes des rescapés et des peurs ou des haines incontournables, de développer un confortable équilibrisme, banalisant le génocide et allant jusqu’à transformer les bourreaux en victimes et réciproquement.

Un « génocide rwandais » planifié par une « internationale tutsi »

Depuis 2005, une thèse plus radicale, déjà soutenue par les pires extrémistes dix ans plus tôt (encore reprise par le colonel Bagosora devant le TPIR), a été réactivée, y compris en France. Tous les Rwandais auraient été victimes d’un génocide, le « génocide rwandais », dont la cible primordiale aurait été les Hutu et dont les planificateurs auraient été les exilés tutsi organisés dans le FPR, alliés du président ougandais Museveni et appuyés par les « puissances anglo-saxonnes » et par Israël. Les responsabilités sont dés lors inversées selon le principe bien connu de la « propagande en miroir ». Dans ce schéma, le FPR aurait programmé une extermination des Hutu, mais aussi le sacrifice des Tutsi de l’intérieur dans le but cynique de disqualifier les autorités hutu de 1994 : les génocidaires ne seraient que les pions d’une stratégie tutsi de conquête du pouvoir à Kigali et de constitution d’un « empire nilotique » en Afrique centrale. Le génocide n’aurait été qu’une « autodéfense » provoquée. C’est ainsi, expliquait déjà la RTLM en mai 1994, que les Tutsi « se sont suicidés ».

Cette thèse, qui fonctionne en boucle sur des sites du net imprégnés de conspirationnisme et qui relaie un prétendu « Plan de colonisation tutsi » diffusé par des extrémistes hutu rwandais depuis les années 1960, est digne des “Protocoles des Sages de Sion” dans son contenu et dans son fonctionnement. Elle suscite hélas, à droite comme à gauche, des délires où tantôt un « souverainisme » français, tantôt un « altermondialisme » anti-Wall Street, se trouvent dévoyés.

Deux éléments ont été exploités en ce sens : la controverse sur l’attentat du 6 avril contre l’avion de Habyarimana et le fonctionnement du régime actuel de Kigali.

L’attentat qui marque le signal du début du génocide a été attribué au FPR, notamment par l’ordonnance du juge Bruguière de fin 2006. Les « révélations » de repentis présentés comme tels constituent, malgré plusieurs rétractations, l’essentiel d’un dossier qui s’appuie très peu sur des preuves factuelles, sans parler du fantasme longtemps entretenu sur les secrets d’une « boite noire », trouvée de façon rocambolesque dans un placard de l’Onu, pour finalement être identifiée, semble-t-il, comme provenant d’un Concorde ! Les victimes de cet attentat méritaient sans doute mieux. Mais surtout l’attribution mécanique du génocide à cet attentat (et dans cette logique à un complot du FPR) représente une étrange amnésie à l’égard de l’histoire politique rwandaise des années 1990-1994 qui montrait clairement la montée d’un courant raciste à l’encontre des Tutsi. Tout se passe comme si cette propagande extrémiste et les mobilisations et préparatifs qui l’avaient accompagnée étaient autant de détails sans importance. Même des commentateurs sévères à l’encontre du FPR ont déploré cette relecture caricaturale de l’histoire. En outre d’autres sources aussi fiables continuent à pointer du doigt des extrémistes du Hutu power dans l’affaire de l’attentat..

D’autre part la dérive sécuritaire et policière inquiétante du régime qui a pris en charge le pays après le génocide est décrite, selon une vision téléologique, comme le produit d’un mystérieux complot international. Au lieu d’argumenter sur l’enchaînement complexe des faits dans leur succession chronologique, les négationnistes récusent les travaux existants en les rangeant au rayon d’une « thèse officielle » et traitent a priori leurs auteurs d’affidés du FPR. Cette rhétorique fallacieuse est celle de tous les « révisionnismes » : amnésique ou hypercritique sur tout ce qui a été attesté, fascinée au contraire par des « révélations » sur les « secrets » d’un complot international. Cette ambiance nous ramène 15 ans en arrière et même bien plus loin, si on pense aux réactions délirantes suscitées par les autres génocides du XXe siècle

Cette vision réduit la multiplicité des débats à une opposition simpliste entre deux « camps », « pro-FPR » ou « anti-FPR » et suggère que le monde entier devrait être pro-tutsi ou pro-hutu ! Sans doute comme le monde entier devrait être « pro-juif » ou « pro-palestinien », et ainsi de suite ! Cette vision binaire permet ensuite de développer un discours trompeur sur la nécessité d’un « dialogue » entre les « ethnies », en niant la réalité spécifique du génocide. Or, par exemple, ni la FIDH, ni Human Righgts Watch ne sont suspectés de négationnisme pour avoir dénoncé les crimes et les atteintes aux Droits de l’homme dont a été responsable le FPR depuis plus de quinze ans, ni l’association Survie sous prétexte qu’elle dénonce les compromissions politiques et économiques recelées par l’actuel rapprochement entre Paris et Kigali. Tout simplement parce que leur travail critique n’est pas utilisé de façon perverse pour nier, banaliser ou « relire » rétrospectivement la nature du génocide des Tutsi rwandais. Ces associations ne sont pas non plus pro-FPR sous prétexte qu’elles se sont mobilisées contre le génocide perpétré par le pouvoir extrémiste hutu en 1994.

Cette fois encore, le négationnisme crée un climat de mensonge et de haine qui vise à intimider les esprits et qui conduit au final à meurtrir et désespérer une nouvelle fois les rescapés du génocide.

Le négationnisme contre l’avenir du Rwanda

Ce courant fonctionne en réseau en Europe et en Amérique du nord. En France, il s’est manifesté surtout après les travaux de la Mission parlementaire de 1998, qui avaient ouvert la voie à une critique lucide de la politique française des années 1990 et 1994 et notamment à partir du 10e anniversaire du génocide, comme pour en brouiller l’image, en réaction aussi à la progression des travaux du Tribunal pénal international pour le Rwanda qui condamne le colonel Bagosora en décembre 2008. Il s’agit donc manifestement d’une mobilisation contre les différentes formes d’un travail de vérité.

Les années passant, des nostalgiques du Rwanda de Habyarimana ou des anciens partenaires de ce régime, estiment possible, en France même, de raviver l’état d’esprit qui avait, en son temps, contribué à l’aveuglement international sur le génocide. Cela s’exprime notamment sur des sites spécialisés du net qui se donnent la main et dans des réunions tenues ici et là sur le territoire par quelques conférenciers travaillant en alternance. Néanmoins l’opinion publique a pris conscience de la gravité des responsabilités prises à l’époque sur le terrain rwandais. Aussi les tenants d’une « relecture » du « génocide rwandais » essaient de couvrir leur thèse d’un habillage respectable, en intervenant dans des lieux publics à l’apparence la plus officielle possible ou en exploitant l’indifférence, la négligence ou la naïveté de certains responsables pour s’infiltrer dans des manifestations scientifiques, culturelles ou associatives, voire religieuses, qui leur permettent de couvrir leur message d’un masque de paix, de vérité, de justice et de piété ! Si on prenait vraiment au sérieux les réalités africaines, on verrait aussitôt que ces dérives représentent une atteinte intolérable à l’héritage culturel de notre pays, celui de Molière (l’auteur de Tartuffe) et de Georges Bernanos (l’auteur des Grands cimetières sous la lune).

Le fonctionnement de la justice internationale a aussi sa part de responsabilité. Les lenteurs du TPIR dans les enquêtes et le déroulement des procès ont affaibli l’effet moral d’exemplarité qui avait inspiré la création de cette instance. Son rôle premier était d’identifier publiquement le génocide et d’en condamner les promoteurs les plus éminents. Il aura fallu attendre dix ans pour que les responsables politiques et militaires les plus importants soient jugés. A Nuremberg il n’avait fallu qu’un an. Il est évident que si le travail du TPIR avait été animé par la détermination nécessaire, il aurait été en mesure de traiter l’ensemble de la crise et de juger aussi, comme on lui en fait grief, de ne pas l’avoir fait, des crimes de guerre du FPR. Paradoxalement il est reproché au tribunal d’Arusha d’avoir exercé une « justice des vainqueurs », comme cela avait été dit aussi pour Nuremberg. Certes, si les forces qui ont organisé le génocide, non contentes d’avoir réussi à le perpétrer, avaient en plus gagné le pouvoir qu’ils recherchaient à cette occasion, on peut être sûr qu’il n’y aurait eu aucune justice, quand on voit la bonne conscience toujours affichée par ses tenants. En tout cas la « justice des vainqueurs » attribuée au TPIR ne brille pas par le côté expéditif associé à cette notion. Mais il est symptomatique que, depuis que cette instance est entrée dans le vif du sujet, le négationnisme s’est déchaîné. Il faut rappeler ici que le 16 juin 2006, la Chambre d’Appel du TPIR a dressé le constat judiciaire du fait notoire que « entre le 6 avril 1994 et le 17 juillet 1994, un génocide a été perpétré au Rwanda contre le groupe ethnique tutsi ».

Enfin et surtout, ce piétinement d’une partie des élites rwandaises dans le refus de reconnaître la déchirure radicale qu’a représenté l’option du génocide empêche la société rwandaise de se retrouver, débarrassée des démons du racisme interne qui l’a piégée durant des décennies. Il est trop clair, – et c’est devenu un cliché convenu sous la plume de nombreux commentateurs -, que le régime en place à Kigali fonde sa légitimité sur son action contre les génocidaires en 1994 et contre les tentatives de revanche des années suivantes. En fonction de cela, il campe sur une ligne politique dure, dominée par une option sécuritaire. Toute controverse y est perçue a priori comme négative et tout problème est ramené au génocide, comme si ce devait être l’élément originel du développement futur du pays, alors que tous les Rwandais se placent dans un espace-temps pluriséculaire, à l’image d’autres vieux « peuples-nations », pour reprendre l’expression du regretté Emmanuel Ntezimana, historien et militant des droits de l’homme disparu en 1995. Ce blocage de la liberté d’expression empêche le travail de mémoire, profondément lié à un travail de réflexion historique (comme dans le cas des autres génocides), de se déployer normalement. Bien plus, le laxisme dans les accusations de complicité avec l’idéologie du génocide contribue à y dévaloriser le poids des mots face aux réelles dérives en ce sens.

Mais, face au régime de Kigali, le discours qui s’affiche trop souvent comme représentatif de l’opinion des exilés, et qui a été largement forgé dans les camps du Kivu au lendemain du génocide, tend à développer une surenchère dans le sens des plus extrémistes. Tout se passe alors comme si, pour dénoncer les crimes du FPR ou les abus du régime en place, il fallait disculper les responsabilités antérieures, ressasser une justification à peine voilée des violences génocidaires ou banaliser celles-ci, selon les argumentaires que nous avons vus, et enfin reprendre une version aseptisés des thèses du « peuple majoritaire » en guise de projet démocratique. En fait l’avenir du Rwanda y est pensé dans les termes du passé, c’est-à-dire en mettant au coeur de la réflexion le binôme hutu-tutsi, déjà décrit comme incontournable et comme prioritaire dans les médias racistes des années 1990 et avancé aujourd’hui comme la clef d’une « réconciliation ». La solution serait la « reconnaissance des ethnies » et le « dialogue entre les ethnies », c’est-à-dire la fixation sur le curseur qui débouché sur la catastrophe.

Les Rwandais de la diaspora, dans leur diversité d’intérêts, d’expériences et de convictions, se retrouvent ainsi piégés également par une fixation sur le passé. Si, dans l’ambiance de Kigali tout doit partir du génocide, dans certains cercles d’exilés rien ne peut commencer sans qu’on remette en cause le génocide. En fait les deux logiques se donnent la main inconsciemment et l’autoritarisme du régime en place se nourrit du style adopté par son opposition la plus bruyante. L’impasse apparaît ainsi quasi-totale. Le génocide aurait-il réussi, c’est-à-dire réussi à déchirer durablement le peuple rwandais ? Or l’histoire de ce dernier est extraordinairement complexe, comme le montrent les nombreuses recherches publiées depuis un demi-siècle : les identifications sociales sont multiples et elles s’enchevêtrent d’une manière telle qu’il ne peut y avoir aucune définition claire des fameuses identités tutsi ou hutu, sinon dans des regards de peur ou de haine et en vertu d’une conception raciale dépassée que des observateurs étrangers croient de bon aloi de cautionner.

La fétichisation de ces pseudo-ethnies a fait obstacle à toutes les occasions de changement, elle a sidéré les imaginations et elle a été le terreau d’un génocide tout à fait « moderne ». Le nier, c’est contribuer à en reproduire la logique. Puissent les Banyarwanda se désenchanter de ce piège mortel !

Jean-Pierre Chrétien, historien (CNRS-Paris 1)

_______________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

CHRETIEN, Jean-Pierre, Le défi de l’ethnisme. Rwanda et Burundi : 1990-1996, Paris, Karthala, 1997, 400p.
 “ , « Dix ans après le génocide des Tutsis au Rwanda. Un malaise français ? », Le Temps des Médias. Revue d’histoire, n° 5, automne 2005, pp. 59-75.
 “ , « France et Rwanda : le cercle vicieux », Politique africaine, n° 113, mars 2009, pp. 121-137.
“ , « Les aventures de la conscience historique au Rwanda », Esprit, mai 2010, pp. 103-121
 “ , L’invention de l’Afrique des Grands Lacs. Une histoire du XXe siècle, Paris, Karthala, 2010, 414p.
CHRETIEN, Jean-Pierre, DUPAQUIER, Jean-François, KABANDA, Marcel et NGARAMBE, Joseph, Rwanda. Le médias du génocide, Paris, Karthala, 1995, 403p.
COQUIO, Catherine, Rwanda. Le réel et les récits, Paris, Belin, 2004, 217p.
DES FORGES, Alison (dir.), Aucun témoin ne doit survivre. Le génocide au Rwanda, Paris, Karthala (avec Human Rights Watch et FIDH), 1999, 928p.
DE VULPIAN, Laure, Rwanda. Un génocide oublié ? Un procès pour mémoire, Bruxelles, Ed. Complexe, 2004, 301p.
DUMAS, Hélène, « Banalisation, révision et négation : la « réécriture » de l’histoire du génocides Tutsi », Esprit, mai 2010, pp. 85-102.
HATZFELD, Jean, Une saison de machettes, Paris, Le Seuil, 2003, 318p.
KOKSAL, Mehmet, « Rwanda. Un négationnisme presque parfait », La Revue Nouvelle, avril 2009, n°4, pp. 56-92.
LEFEBVRE, Barbara et FERHADJIAN, S. (éds.), Comprendre les génocides du XXe siècle. Comparer-Enseigner, Paris, Bréal, 2007, 319p.
MUJAWAYO, Esther et BELHADDAD Souâd, SurVivantes, La Tour d’Aigue, L’Aube, 2004, 304p.
SEHENE, Benjamin, Le piège ethnique, Paris, Dagorno, 1999, 222p.
TERNON, Yves, « La problématique du négationnisme », L’Arche, mai 2003 (également sur le sitewww.imprescriptible.fr).
TERNON, Yves, MUGIRANEZA, Assumpta et BENSOUSSAN, Georges (éds.), « Rwanda, quinze ans après. Penser et écrire l’histoire du génocide des Tutsi », Revue d’Histoire de la Shoah, n° 190, janvier-juin 2009, 512p.
VIDAL-NAQUET, Pierre, Les assassins de la mémoire, Paris, La Découverte, 1991, 232p.

Notes

[1] Cet article a été mis en ligne le 25 juillet 2010 ; il a subi subi de petites corrections les 27 et 29 juillet, puis le 3 août 2010.

A few days ago, a so-called ‘midterm review’ on the FDLR demobilisation imbroglio was due. In his latest report on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon underlined that ever since the two waves of voluntary surrender in late May/early June 2014 no more serious action was observed on the side of the Rwandan rebel group.

The FDLR is a late successor of the genocidal interahamwe and Hutu Power brigades that unleashed Genocide and the concomitant horrors over a period of 100 days 1994 in Rwanda.

Afterwards, they were chased by invading Rwandan Patriotic Front (that established the current Rwandan government after having stopped the Genocide), mainly into then Zaire were they subsequently formed RDR, ALiR I, ALiR II and finally FDLR and its armed wing FOCA (with main splinter groups RUD and Soki).

Throughout meanwhile two decades, FDLR and its predecessors spread horror across eastern Congo and became part and parcel of subsequent civil wars provoking local militias to emerge and larger armed groups such as RCD, CNDP, or M23 to set up with support from Rwanda (at this point it is futile to debate on whether this includes official government or not – the key point is that numerous communities live across the border and maintain obvious kinship ties, reason for which there is a historical trajectory of both peaceful and conflictive interaction).

Despite various military operations (both Rwando-Congolese ones and FARDC/MONUSCO joint operations) that weakened FDLR considerably over the past five years, the group still persists.

Upon its inception, MONUSCO’s Force Intervention Brigade (FIB) was explicitly tasked to push FDLR to demobilisation – either by diplomatic or military means, and accompanied by the ongoing DDRRR process.

As of now to no avail, but why? The situation is highly complex (and this analysis is not going to provide silver bullets or exhaustive explanation).

A couple of reasons have prevented military action against FDLR, and will probably continue to do so in the near future even if US and other diplomats sharpen their warnings against the Rwandan militia.

MONUSCO’s FIB, first of all is little prepared to wage a counterinsurgency war against FDLR.

The latter have all too often proven they have become veritable experts in not losing wars by simply not partaking but retreating under eastern Congo’s vast forest panoplies. The FIB would be required to become the ‘highly mobile and versatile’ force its mandate foresaw but lacking the logistics to actually do so.

Secondly, FIB sources have confirmed a relative lack of willingness among Tanzanian and South African contingents to fight FDLR – relating to diplomatic quibble between these countries and Rwanda – leaving only the Malawian troops highly motivated in this regard.

Further on, MONUSCO will – for two key reasons – not militarily engage an armed group in the region without FARDC. It seeks the consent of DRC’s government around President Kabila both for sovereignty concerns and contingency planning (MONUSCO itself lacks the capacities to alone fill security voids pursuant to military offensives).

In Kinshasa, silence reigns on the FDLR matter but there is a few grand tendencies in DRC politics.

One faction is all in for attacking and disarming FDLR, while a second faction believes Rwanda needs to deal with ‘their rebels’ as DRC deals with its own. A third faction acknowledges the FDLR’s past help in fighting groups like RCD or CNDP and does want FARDC to attack them at all.

Within the army, these tendencies also broadly exist. While general FARDC cohabitation or collaboration with FDLR is strongly exaggerated, low-level and ad-hoc collaboration remains vibrant.

The FDLR on their side, continue to push for political negotiation.

After having handed over a total of about 200 combatants (plus dependents and arms, though mostly rotten and old rifles) in North and South Kivu a few months ago, FDLR leaders confirm to have other groups of combatants ready but claim they will not move until guarantees are given.

Obviously, the Rwandan government refuses political dialogue with the remnants of the génocidaires.

Even if today any FDLR combatant under 30 is mathematically not a génocidaire (and the latter gradually decreasing), the senior leadership still includes various individuals accused of genocide crimes and of transporting the concomitant ideology into the ranks of new recruits.

Coming back to the mid-term review on the FDLR demobilisation ultimatum, there has been a lot of political activism over the past week but this does not necessarily mean action will follow.

Ever since he deadline began, no significant advances have been made and little is known about how FDLR prepares itself to escape any type of meaningful military action.

While virulent at a certain stage, the political momentum stimulated by strong ICGLR and SADC involvement may already have passed, leaving other stakeholders in a weaker position. In case of no major shift, it becomes less likely that before mid-January there will be significant developments on the ground.

By Ethuin

By: Tom Ndahiro

Introduction

Between April and July 1994, the world tried to ignore the annihilation of Tutsi in Rwanda. Today, it is impossible for anyone to forget the genocide. In particular, for survivors – those I call “living victims” – the genocide is a daily reality: it stole their friends and relatives, their plans and aspirations, and continues to haunt them. Raphael Lemkin argued that genocide is coordinated plans to destroy the essential foundations of the life of a group so that it withers and dies like a plant that has suffered blight. Genocide is a crime against all of humankind; against all notions of human civilisation. But it is also a deeply personal crime committed against individuals who re-live the memories of the genocide like a vicious, recurring nightmare. Survivors remain victims of the perpetrators, many of whose ongoing preoccupation is to alter or erase the world’s memory of the genocide. The perpetrators and orchestrators of the genocide may realise the weight of their crimes, but this has not stopped many of them publicly denying the nature and hideous significance of their actions. Perpetrators, international bystanders and their numerous supporters cannot feel safe and happy if both the living victims and other members of the international community keep the memory of genocide alive. It is always in the interest of the culpable to suppress or kill this memory, deploying all means possible. Such suppression or denial of the past is the last stage of genocide: as the killing spree sought to erase all Tutsi from the earth, so denial of the genocide seeks to erase all memory of the Tutsi who were slaughtered. Consequently, there should be justice and accountability for those who deny genocide, as well as for those who perpetrate it.

Many people have heard of money laundering, the objective of which is to generate a profit for certain individuals or groups by dispersing criminal proceeds through seemingly legitimate enterprises to disguise their illegal origins. This enables criminals to benefit without endangering the sources of their profits. Studies have shown that money launderers operate comfortably in countries and financial systems with weak or ineffective counter-measures. Many génocidaires and their allies have succeeded in doing the same regarding the most abominable crime: in propagating a revisionist view of the genocide that has gained great currency around the world, they have successfully distanced themselves from their involvement in the genocide. Their profit is not money, but impunity. For more than ten years, genocide-laundering movements have been extremely active, constructing influential and ultimately divisive reinterpretations of the past and allowing many génocidaires to distance themselves from their crimes. Efforts to counter genocide denial, highlighting how individuals and organisations around the world have been duped by the launderers, require determination and international solidarity, including efforts to prosecute the deniers.

The list of those who have laundered the 1994 genocide of Tutsi is long. Many of these individuals and organisations have gained great credence in the international community. As early as April 1994, various state governments and the United Nations were comfortable sitting with the orchestrators of the genocide, for example, members of the genocidal government who, by a quirk of history, at that time held a place on the UN Security Council (UNSC) and many of whom, as I contend below, have become prominent genocide launderers. The UNSC listened to their interpretations of the violence occurring in Rwanda and invited them to negotiate peace agreements. The international media, particularly French news agencies, aided the denial of the genocide as it was unfolding, by characterising the violence as simply the spontaneous flaring of ancient, tribal hatred. The genocidaires gained greater assistance when, in July 1994, the world that had turned away when innocent people were being butchered came to the rescue of the killers.

The UN endorsed the French government’s humanitarian mission, Opération Turquoise, though its impact was decidedly inhuman, creating a security cordon through which tens of thousands of Hutu, including many orchestrators of the genocide, fled to Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]). Similarly, Kenyan and Zairean authorities afforded the genocidaires free movement and permitted the publication and circulation of hate literature, including the extremist newsletters Kangura and Amizero, which had originally been used to incite the genocide.

The responsibility for countering the spread of hate propaganda and new waves of genocidal ideology fell to the living victims and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which had defeated the genocidal armed forces and halted the murder of Tutsi and their sympathisers. As the world focused on the plight of Hutu refugees in the camps in Zaire and Tanzania, and unwittingly helped feed, clothe and re-arm them through humanitarian aid, the RPF and genocide survivors were left to rebuild Rwanda and to safeguard it against the re-emergence of genocidal ideology. As this chapter will show, many prominent génocidaires fled to countries like Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Switzerland, where they established bases for genocide denial and plotted the exiled criminals’ return to power. In these countries, the best-organised and most influential organisation involved in genocide laundering, the Rassemblement Républicain pour la Démocratie au Rwanda (RDR), or the Republican Rally for Democracy in Rwanda, was born and has grown with alarming speed. This paper analyses the RDR’s propagandist strategy for spreading genocide revisionism and denial, and the role of the international media in affording the RDR and other revisionist groups a global platform for their campaigns. In particular, this chapter focuses on official RDR propaganda as drawn from its public statements and from rare documents, including confidential Forces Armées Rwandaises (FAR) and RDR memoranda, which I have gathered from refugee camps in eastern DRC.

History of the RDR

It is necessary to understand what the RDR is, how it was created and what it intends to hide or protect. The RDR is the first Rwandan criminal organisation to acquire international recognition through genocide laundering. It was officially launched on 3 April 1995, with headquarters in France and later also in Belgium, the Netherlands and Canada, where it has operated since. On 4 April 1995, the RDR declared its support for the FAR,[1] the Hutu genocidal army overrun by the RPF in July 1994. On 29 April 1995, the high Command of the FAR issued a statement in Bukavu, Zaire, divorcing itself from the Hutu “government in exile,” the group of Hutu extremists that had been its partner in the genocide.

The FAR believed that the exiled government had become ineffective in serving the interests of refugees in Zaire and Hutu everywhere and instead declared its unswerving support for the RDR. The FAR statement read:

Since its creation on April 9, 1994, with the assistance of the Rwandan Armed Forces, the Government has been subjected to media and diplomatic embargo, and the Government reshuffle of November 1994 did not improve the situation. The absence of Government action for the refugees in the camps due to lack of adequate and efficient structures is remarkable…In the search of intermediate solutions to get out of the impasse, with the refugees’ initiative, the “RDR” was recently created to address the concerns of the refugees and of the oppressed Rwandans inside the country. After examining the goal and the objectives of “RDR,” the Rwandan Armed Forces saluted this good initiative setting up an organisation that can ensure efficient supervision of the population in exile, guarantee maximum cohesion and having a media and diplomatic influence, which are preliminary conditions to the refugees’ return to their country. This is the reason why the Rwandan Armed Forces signed a declaration of support to the “RDR” on April 4, 1995….Conscious of their responsibilities and …their strong willingness to work directly with and for the people… [t]he FAR believe that the Government must be aware of its responsibilities before history, the Rwandan people in general and the refugees in particular, by supporting the refugees’ good initiative, and by resigning to let the “RDR” represent and defend their interests. Therefore, the Government must hand in all documents it has been keeping on behalf of the people in exile. The relations between the FAR and the Government are stopped as of April 29, 1995.[2]

This statement reveals the true intentions behind the creation of RDR. The leadership of the FAR and the “government in exile” had taken refuge in neighbouring countries; many of them fugitives from justice. The RDR admitted in 1998 that it was established to bypass or circumvent the embargo imposed on the government in exile in Zaire. An RDR document published on 17 November 1998 and signed by Charles Ndereyehe revealed that it took the “refugees two months of serious thinking about setting up an organisation, which would be capable of breaking the media and diplomatic embargo affecting them.” The document reads:

The idea of a large organisation was born during the meeting held in Bukavu in October 1994. To circumvent the embargo which had struck the government in exile during the 2-3 months while the refugees lived in exile, several series of refugee initiatives were launched in different places, particularly in the former Zaire and Tanzania, where more than 2 million Rwandans who fled en masse in July and August 1994 were living.

But these initiatives lacked coordination. Mr. Nzabahimana François was among the organisers of this meeting, at which the refugees from Europe and the Americas were unfortunately under-represented. After two days of debates, the refugees were given 2 months for reflection before establishing an organisation which was able to break the media and diplomatic embargo under which the refugees were struggling. At the end of the first gathering of the organisation, the refugees published a charter for the rapid and peaceful return of refugees who fulfilled its requirements.[3]

With the assistance of priests from the “missionaries of Africa,” a Belgian branch of the Internationale Démocrate-Chrétienne (IDC) and Belgian Senator Rika De Backer, working with exiled Hutu, including known Hutu demagogues and génocidaires, the RDR was born. From 1995 until it changed its name in 2003, the RDR was the Rassemblement pour le Retour et la Démocratie au Rwanda or “Rally for the Return [of Refugees] and Democracy in Rwanda.” Its members, particularly the hierarchy, were drawn from among the génocidaires. Some of them were former ministers[4], influential diplomats and senior civil servants. All of them were genocide ideologues[5] and many were highly active in the refugee camps in the ex-Zaire. The world was aware of this, as evidenced by Richard McCall, Chief of Staff of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In a public statement in June 1996, McCall said, “Just as the international community failed to act to prevent the Rwandan genocide, the international community stands silent as the genocidal forces continue to work their will both inside Rwanda and in neighbouring Zaire. …The seeds for this genocide were planted decades ago. The roots remain firmly embedded in an ideology that continues to be the principle guiding the ex-government and the RDR.”[6]

McCall’s claims are corroborated by the testimony given by Jean Kambanda, former Prime minister of Rwanda, to the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Kambanda told ICTR investigators that the RDR was formed by individuals close to the Mouvement Républicain National pour la Démocratie et le Développement (MRND), the ruling party that planned, and incited the population to carry out, the genocide, with full support by the FAR. In the camps, refugees were coerced to join this organisation. Kambanda explained:

It was impossible to belong to any other organization except the RDR. They were saying it openly, so it wasn’t something that was said in hiding or in a concealed manner. You had to be in the RDR and nowhere else … People were attacked since they didn’t want to join or if they said they were not joining the RDR. They were physically attacked. … I saw people who were beaten or insulted because they didn’t want to join the RDR or because they said they were not going to join the RDR.[7]

Kambanda was asked by the investigators to identify the individuals who exercised these physical and moral constraints. Kambanda answered, “It was mostly by the soldiers but also by the RDR officials in the region,” adding that there were soldiers who did not remain in the camp but stayed with the civilians to convince them “to join the party.”[8]

One conversation between Kambanda and the ICTR investigators regarding the RDR went as follows:

Q: When did you notice that the soldiers came to exert pressure? Was it when there was a negative report, or what?

A: From the very beginning, the entire RDR service was overseen by the army. From the very beginning. Be it at the higher levels of the party or at the levels of the camps.

Q: Okay. So it was an association to which a refugee had to belong as a matter of obligation?

A: he was obliged to join.

Q: They advocated to return to Rwanda using force, by launching attacks against Rwanda?

A: Yes.

Q: And the refugees were required to pay contributions?

A: yes, each housing unit had to pay a dollar monthly.[9]

During the interview, Kambanda admitted, “my own family had to pay contributions. They sought my opinion and I told them that for their security it was in their interest to pay. I even gave my own money to pay.” Kambanda described military incursions into Rwanda by ex-génocidaires from the camps, which targeted genocide survivors and witnesses.[10]

FAR military leaders, including Col. Théoneste Bagosora, orchestrated the creation of the RDR and, from the outset, sought to control it. Kambanda spoke to ICTR investigators at length about how military officials held several meetings in preparation for launching the RDR and how officers such as Bagosora and Maj. Gen. Augustin Bizimungu announced the formation of the

RDR even before it was officially established. Bagosora, according to Kambanda, “went to the camp to organize meetings and announce the good news that ‘a new political organization’ was going to be created, and that the military were henceforth taking charge.” Kambanda claimed that the meetings to form the RDR were convened by the FAR, and RDR leaders were appointed by the army.[11]

RDR and Genocide Denial

On the surface, the concepts and language used in the RDR’s press releases may seem relatively innocuous. A careful analysis of the use of specific words, and their connotations in the Rwandan cultural context, however, exposes their nefarious intentions and insinuations. What follows here is an analysis of RDR press releases and other key documents, to display the organisation’s attempts to describe Tutsi in racist or ethnically divisive ways and to deny that Hutu perpetrated the genocide in 1994 or that a genocide even took place. In the

RDR’s discourse, one easily uncovers claims and depictions of the genocide as a “civil war,” “tragedy” or “crisis.” It is also common to find claims that the RPF rather than the genocidal government was responsible for crimes in 1994. Such claims revolve around two forms of responsibility: the RPF as responsible for inciting the government’s “response”; and the RPF guilty of attacks on, even genocide of, innocent Hutu civilians.

As demonstrated above, the FAR played a crucial role in the establishment, growth, ideology and propaganda strategy of the RDR. In early April and May 1995, the FAR’s department of military intelligence and two lawyers afforded the task of writing an account of Rwandan history, Charles Nkurunziza and Alberto Basomingera, published their first materials. In doing so, Nkurunziza and Basomingera attempted to provide a legal backing to the denial of Tutsi genocide, particularly by legally justifying the crime. Initially, both men acted as legal advisors to Dr. Theodore Sindikubwabo, the leader of the government that orchestrated the genocide. Their documents later greatly influenced the RDR’s press releases and public statements, especially in their attempts to deny the genocide.

A text published in Bukavu in May 1995 by the “Charles Nkurunziza Group” includes the following statement that has become central to RDR ideology and propaganda: “It is not the Hutu who were the authors of the genocide; rather, it is the Tutsi who wanted to exterminate the Hutu, so that they will never have to share power. This is the truth that any person of good will and who loves justice should know to contribute to the restoration of the Rwandan people’s rights….”[12]

In a report published in April 1995, Albert Basomingera, formerly the Dean of the Faculty of law at the National university of Rwanda in Butare and a consultant to the World Bank, argues that there was no plan to commit genocide in Rwanda. He contends that “it was the discovery of the RPF’s brigades and arms caches that partly explains the violence and the intensity of the reaction of the populace and not the premeditation of genocide…[S]uch reaction is rather that of self-defence.”[13] Linking the death of Hutu President Juvénal Habyarimana to the genocide, Basomingera argues that “it should be recalled that even some large-scale attacks by the RPF had already provoked popular ‘punitive’ reaction against true or suspected RPF’s accomplices in the regions where the President enjoyed popularity…What was then expected in the event of the assassination of that same head of State?”[14]

Basomingera furthermore defends Dr. Leon Mugesera who, in a famous speech in November 1992 when he was MRND vice-chairman for Gisenyi prefecture, incited people to exterminate Tutsi. Basomingera supports the incendiary discourse of Radio Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM), arguing, “It is tendentious to claim that the incriminated radio only called to the extermination of the Tutsi.”[15]

Reinforcing racist stereotypes used to dehumanise Tutsi, Basomingera defends RTLM depictions: “With regard to the term ‘serpents’, it was used to designate the Tutsi even before independence, referring partly to their cunning, malicious and spiteful nature and partly the dishonesty they are said to have been imbued with.”[16]

Basomingera and Nkurunziza continue to propagate the views expressed in these original documents, which have served as a touchstone for RDR ideology. In May 2002, as a defence witness at the ICTR for Andre Ntagerura, former Transport minister before and during the genocide, Nkurunziza told the Tribunal that he did not observe any massacres between April and July 1994 but alleged that mass killings by RPF soldiers led to “revenge by the government.”[17]

Nkurunziza, who was Rwanda’s Justice Minister from 1977 to 1984 and Deputy Minister of Transport during the genocide, argued that the government set up roadblocks simply to bring calm and security because the justice system in the country had broken down.[18] Underlying the importance of genocide denial for his discourse, Nkurunziza argued, “The massacres that bloodied the countryside were done by the RPF,”[19] claiming that he had never heard of the FAR nor the Interahamwe militias killing Tutsi.[20]

RDR’s Relativisation of the Genocide

The RDR’s first four press releases, signed by its executive secretary, Dr. Innocent Butare, do not employ the word “genocide.” In Press Release No. 6, the RDR refers to the genocide as the time “when, last year, misguided elements of the National Army were implicated in inter-ethnic massacres.”[21] In the RDR political platform, the start of the genocide is referred to as “the resumption of hostilities on 6 April 1994.”[22]

Thereafter, the RDR argues, “the territory controlled by the government fell into the hands of renegade adventurers, looters and killers who launched a campaign of ruthless slaughter against defenceless civilians.”[23] In an attempt to minimise the scale and terrible nature of the genocide, the RDR uses numerous dismissive phrases and metaphors to characterise the violence, such as “the unfortunate April 1994 massacres,”[24] “crimes committed in the ethnic conflict”[25] and “inter-ethnic massacres.”[26]

The RDR also accuses the RPF and Tutsi generally of “sensationalising” the genocide and using their version of the facts as political capital, in an attempt to win international sympathy and donor aid, “using, for political benefits, the tragedy which has plunged into mourning the Rwandan people.”[27]

Elsewhere, the RDR argues, “Diplomacy under the RPF regime, like all its policies, rests upon a shameful exploitation of the 1994 genocide used as a business asset… The RPF believes that it is entitled to anything…and plays thoroughly on the chords of commiseration and culpability” and that “victims of these massacres are found in all ethnic groups, just like their perpetrators. It is therefore sadistic, shameful and immoral for the Kigali regime to use these massacres as a political alibi…”[28]

Such views buttress the RDR’s claim that the genocide is in fact a useful invention exploited by an unpopular, Tutsi-led government. In this view, while “the tragedy” covers the whole period from 1990—when the RPF invaded Rwanda from Uganda, sparking the civil war that preceded the genocide—the attempted annihilation of Tutsi itself is little more than a product of RPF political spin-doctoring.

Not only are such descriptions obscenely dismissive of the genocide, they also deny any notion of the massacres as a deliberate policy of the government in power in 1994. According to the denial accounts, nothing about the genocide was premeditated: it was unforeseeable and therefore unpreventable. The killings were not supported by government policy and the government was not in any way involved in the genocide. This historical account removes from the authorities of the day all blame for the massacres and denies that they had ever propagated a genocidal ideology and systematically planned the extermination of Tutsi. It also illustrates the RDR’s approach to history, contrasting its descriptions of the genocide as “misguided,” “unfortunate” or acts of “banditry” with its portrayal of the RPF’s actions during and after the genocide (“the RPF decided to attack and systematically massacre Hutu refugees”[29]; “the Kigali dictatorial regime is still going on with its deliberate extermination plans of large segments of the population”[30]) as part of a carefully orchestrated strategy of Tutsi domination.

The RDR describes the genocide as “the aggression, assassination, tortures and massacres imposed on the Rwandese population since October 01 1990” or “the war launched by the RPF on October 1 1990 and its ensuing extreme violence that culminated in genocides,” accusing the RPF of inciting and perpetrating crimes.[31]

The RDR refuses to identify the genocide as a distinct and heavily orchestrated event, describing instead the entire period from late 1990 to the present day as a time of general “violence” and “tragedy.”[32]

This historical account interprets the RPF invasion of Rwanda as the cause of all “violence” in Rwanda, deflecting blame for the genocide from the Habyarimana regime and its extremist ideologues. Instead, the RPF—and the entire Tutsi community—become the perpetrators of all violence in Rwanda since 1990, including the genocide of hutu. “The RDR strongly condemns the Tutsi genocide,” one statement reads. “The RDR renews its vigorous condemnation of the genocide… perpetrated against Hutu.”[33]

To not only deny that the genocide of Tutsi occurred but to accuse the RPF and all Tutsi of committing genocide against Hutu is the ultimate insult to living victims of the genocide of Tutsi and to their loved ones butchered in 1994. The RDR’s use of statistics and historical details to support such claims is particularly misleading. Press Release No. 32 of 25 October 1995 argues that one million Hutu were massacred by the RPF[34] during what the RDR argues were acts of genocide,[35] and elsewhere implies that this figure may be even higher.[36]

According to the RDR political platform, “hundreds of thousands of Hutu” were “thrown into prison,” after being accused of genocide crimes,[37]when most commentators estimate that approximately 120,000 suspects were rounded up and imprisoned after the genocide. Meanwhile, the RDR refuses throughout its public statements to cite a concrete number of Tutsi victims before or during the genocide.

The RDR’s discussion of “national reconciliation” also belies the RDR’s denial and revisionist agenda. The following passage is particularly illustrative of this:

A lasting solution to the Rwandan crisis requires a frank and sincere dialogue between authentic representatives of political opposition and the Kigali regime. It also requires reconciliation between the different components of the Rwandan people. To make this happen, all truth about all aspects of the war must be told so that all political and social main actors, whether nationals or foreigners, acknowledge their failures and responsibilities in creating the atmosphere and the conditions that led to the disintegration of Rwandan society, to the promotion of violence, to confrontation, and to the tragedy.

While on first reading this may appear to be a reasonable statement, calling for different parties in Rwanda to come to the negotiating table to formulate strategies for rebuilding the country, the intentions behind it are highly divisive. Not only does the RDR employ dismissive and morally neutral terms like “cri-sis” and “tragedy” that undermine the severity of the genocide, it also seeks to apportion all blame for past violence to the RPF, while abdicating the responsibility of the RDR membership—characterised as “authentic representatives of the political opposition”—for the genocide.

Ethnic Stereotypes in RDR’s Discourse

The RDR regularly paints a one-sided view of Rwandan history and uses divisive stereotypes of Tutsi. From the outset, in its Political Platform, it claims that historically “political power [in Rwanda] was characterized by absolutism and exclusion” and “the current territory of Rwanda grew out of bloody wars waged by Tutsi kings against Hutu kingdoms.” Consequently, “a repressive regime against the Hutu was initiated” and “this ethnic evil has left an indelible mark on the socio-political evolution of Rwanda from the feudal-monarchic regime through the colonial and republican regimes up to the current RPF regime.”[38]

Absolutism, exclusion and bloody wars are all attributed to Tutsi since the beginning of Rwandan history. “Tutsi kings against Hutu kingdoms” implies that there were always distinct and opposed ethnic groups and that Tutsi have always been expansionist and imperialist.

The only repression mentioned in this instance is that of Tutsi against Hutu, with no suggestion that Tutsi have ever suffered from oppression or discrimination. The “ethnic evil” that marks Rwanda is attributed to the Tutsi. This false and divisive account makes no attempt to convey any of the complexity and problems of Rwandan history. In the Political Platform, the RDR states, “furthermore, upon [the RPF’s] victory in July 1994, more than 2.5 million people chose to flee the country rather than be subjected to a regime imposed on them by military force.”[39]

There is no mention of the genocide—particularly many individuals’ desire to flee accountability for their actions—as the main factor in the exodus of refugees, with the RPF presented as the sole aggressor in 1994.

According to the RDR’s negative stereotyping, Tutsi are characterised by their cunning, manipulation, lying and underhandedness. Several RDR documents contain explicit references to Tutsis’ lying, for instance when Press Release No. 97 of 22 October 1996 accuses the RPF of “alleging fictitious infiltrations of Interahamwe [into its own ranks].”[40]

Elsewhere, the RDR asserts, “The RPF has so much benefited from its policy of lying that it has institutionalised it…The RPF has developed in a refined manner the art of lying.”[41] As the RDR attempts to reinforce the claim that the RPF is dominated by liars, it argues that the international community has come “to consider the aggressed as aggressor and the aggressor as the aggressed; the main killers who in fact launched the war in October 1990 are today considered as victims of a genocide.”[42]

Other references are more opaque but continually reinforce the image of Tutsi as cunning, deceitful and manipulative. Mention is made of an RPF “trap,” whereby refugees in the Zaire camps were forced over the border into Rwanda and massacred by the army; acts characterised as typically “underhanded” Tutsi behaviour.[43]

“During [the Habyarimana] regime,” the Political Platform states, “recruitment of Tutsi into the army, security services and the local administration was very limited. To circumvent their political exclusion, Tutsi invested their energies in business, industries and the church with great success thanks to connections they created with some high-ranking dignitaries within the regime and, as a result, they wield real influence in Rwandan society, economics and politics.”[44]

This account makes no mention of the systematic repression and exclusion of Tutsi after Hutu came to power in Rwanda in 1959. Rather, it suggests that Tutsi “infiltrated” Rwandan society, enjoyed secretive power and influence, favoured ethnic over national identity and harboured expansionist intentions. Such an implication adds to the stereotype of Tutsis’ being conspiratorial and naturally subversive, the same characterisation employed by the architects of the genocide to incite the Hutu population to murder Tutsi in 1994.

The RDR consistently portrays the RPF and, by extension, all Tutsi as outsiders and usurpers. Such distortion and reversal of historical reality, which belittles the significance of the genocide, is common throughout the RDR’s documents. The RDR refers regularly to Hutu refugees as “Rwandan and Burundian”[45] refugees, while Tutsi refugees are referred to simply as Tutsi.

The implication here is that Tutsi belong to their ethnic group, rather than to their nation, and that Hutu are the rightful heirs to power in Rwanda and Burundi. The governments in Rwanda and Burundi are described as “Tutsi-led”[46] or “minority”[47]regimes, implying a lack of popular credibility or an inherent injustice in anything but majority—that is, Hutu—rule. Maintaining the argument that the RPF and all Tutsi are outsiders, Press Release No. 11 of 1 July 1995 states that the RPF’s high command “is exclusively made up of former members of a foreign army” and refers to “the so- called national assembly,”[48] while another statement refers to “the so–called national parliament”[49] in Rwanda, reinforcing the notion of the illegitimacy of RPF rule in Rwanda. Generally speaking, in the RDR’s press releases, the terms “RPF” and “Tutsi” are used interchangeably and contrasted with descriptions of Hutu as “true Rwandans,” “the Rwandan people” and “the population.”[50]

The RDR continually attempts to distance the RPF from the “Rwandan people,” implying that the RPF is not truly Rwandan and instead a self-imposed and discredited government; “a clique of individuals, who are desperately trying to cling to power against the verdict of the people.”[51]

Such statements echo the claim in the RDR’s Political Platform that the RPF government “has no political or social base; it is not representative of the population. It is a government that took power through military force by an ethnocentric oligarchy, which so far has not been able to win the hearts of the people over which it rules.”[52]

The RPF is portrayed as an occupying force; an administration of non-Rwandans subjecting true Rwandans—Hutu—to repressive, minority rule.

The myth of Tutsi being “foreigners” or “outsiders” is not new in Rwanda. After 1959, successive governments maintained that the Tutsi were foreigners who needed to be eradicated. Killing Tutsi by throwing them in the Nyabarongo River was considered part of sending them back to their purported origin—Ethiopia, via the River Nile. In a more modern version of this argument, the RDR’s Press Release No. 67 of 17 April 1996 describes economic migrants and foreigners who have been given legal rights to property in which they had been “squatting” since the genocide, allegedly as part of an attempt by the RPF to “enhance its political constituency.”[53]

Such a policy, the RDR argues, is “rewarding those aliens for their contribution towards the RPF war.”[54] This implies that the RPF is not a party for Rwandans; that to maintain power it must buy support from outside of the country and can only govern with the help of foreigners. An RDR statement on 4 June 1996 accuses the RPF of needing to “pay a moral debt to Tutsi in Zaire who financed the RPF war,” alleging that the RPF relies on foreigners, especially members of the Tutsi diaspora, to stay in power.[55]

The RDR often claims that it desires to create a Rwanda free of ethnocentric politics, but its language frequently belies this. In its Press Release No. 6, the RDR argues that the ICTR was established to “judge Hutu suspected of having committed the crime of genocide.”[56]

Such a statement is unnecessarily divisive: why not speak of “suspected génocidaires” rather than “Hutu”? The RDR’s implication here is that Hutu are unfairly singled out and subjected to ethnic discrimination by their accusers. Despite purporting to want to banish divisive ethnic considerations from politics and from the national conscience, the RDR makes explicit comparisons between ethnic groups. For instance, in the aforementioned communiqué, the RDR asks, “what would the commission [tasked with investigating deaths in the Kibeho refugee camp] have said if, during the regime of the late President Habyarimana, Tutsi who had taken refuge in Kiziguro parish… had been forced out by firearms?”[57]

In April 1994, thousands were killed in the Church of Kiziguro. The reference to Kiziguro is intended to show that a commission by, or for the government, must be considered for the Tutsi only. Such language reinforces the idea of different treatment for Hutu and Tutsi, and is intended to create resentment among the former. In the RDR’s discourse, the idea predominates of irreconcilable differences among Rwandans.

Further allusions to ethnic victimisation appear in a statement published on 4 June 1996, wherein the RDR describes the government’s attempts to “demonise Hutu refugees with a view to exacerbating animosity against them,” reduce international humanitarian assistance to the refugees, and create insecurity in eastern DRC so as to cut food and other supplies to Hutu refugees.[58]

This statement, claiming that the RPF, being “Tutsi-led,” must therefore want revenge on all Hutu, propagates the idea that Rwandan politics must be ethno-centric and that members of an ethnic group with power must automatically want to wield it against the other group.

RDR and False Depictions of the RPF

The RDR takes great care to sound reasonable and even-handed in all of its public pronouncements. However, beneath this veneer lies a litany of threats and warnings of future violence to restore Hutu rule in Rwanda. In Press Release No. 97, the RDR warns the international community about its policies toward the Rwandan and Burundian governments, cautioning, “It should be recalled that such an appeasement policy towards Hitler’s expansionism led to the Sec ond World War.”[59]

Comparisons between the RPF and Hitler were common in the openly anti-Tutsi Kangura newspaper before the genocide and spread beyond Rwanda’s borders in an attempt to mobilise its neighbours to support the génocidaires. The “RDR Basic Principles” contains the passage: “the Kigali dictatorial regime is still…going on with its deliberate extermination plans of large segments of the population. Therefore, it is quite legitimate to think of another way of stopping those crimes and of protecting the population.”[60]

The reference to “another way of stopping those crimes and of protecting the population”—meaning protecting Hutu—frighteningly implies the possibility of using what the RDR, in later documents, euphemistically refers to as “non-political” action or violence to return Rwanda to Hutu rule, overcoming “the expansionist policies of the Tutsi-led governments in Rwanda and Burundi,” which the RDR compares to “Hitler’s expansionist policy.”[61]

In the Zairean refugee camps, the RDR and the FAR planned to attack Rwanda, including to eliminate genocide survivors. Some of the minutes of FAR and RDR meetings, which I have gathered, show their macabre plans. For example, in one military operations meeting, chaired by Brig. Gen. Gratien Kabiligi (currently on trial at the ICTR) and attended by some FAR commanders and officers, it was concluded that:

The adopted method is to cleanse the countryside to be able to live. That consists of the physical elimination of any supporters of the RPF cause (acolytes, sponsors, supporters…)—those who escape will find refuge in urban centres or in parishes. They planned operations to lay landmines and traps; destroy roads and public buildings. The war must be mobile: attack in urban centres and hide in the countryside. The principle of cleansing the countryside by eliminating RPF sympathizers and especially the best-known survivors has been approved. That will allow our men to settle easily into rural areas and to take action in small urban centres and against other specific positions.[62]

RDR misrepresentations are meant to dupe people who may otherwise be unaware of who is responsible for the genocide, to legitimise the genocide planners’ evil actions, and to obscure the RDR’s dark past and current membership. The conspiracy theory of Tutsi expansionism was one of the first hate discourses employed by the genocidal ideologues.

As early as November 1990, Kangura published an editorial alleging the existence of a “plan” by the Tutsi to conquer all of central Africa in what it titled, “The Tutsi plan to colonise Kivu and the African Central region.”[63]

Léon Mugesera asserted the myth of a Tutsi empire in early 1991, when he co-authored a pamphlet with the Association des Femmes Parlementaires pour la Défense des Droits de la Mère et de l’Enfant (AFAPADEM), in which he claimed that Tutsi intended to “[e]stablish in the Bantu region of the Great lakes (Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, Tanzania, Uganda) a vast kingdom of the Hima-Tutsi, an ethnic group that considers itself superior, on the model of the Aryan race, and which uses Hitler’s Swastika as its emblem.”[64]

In February 1993, the génocidaires again spoke of the Tutsi Empire. A press release of the CDR warned that the RPF were planning genocide of Hutu throughout the country in their pursuit of a Hima–Tutsi empire. The CDR demanded that the government provide the people with the necessary means to defend themselves.[65]

This coincided with the government’s training and arming the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi militias.[66]To paint a negative picture of the RPF and to deflect attention from crimes committed under pre-1994 hutu regimes, the RDR often accuses the RPF of carrying out offences known to have been committed against Tutsi. In Press Release No. 3 of 27 April 1995, the RDR alleges that “in order to finish off Hutus, the RPF has decided to collectively label all of them ‘interahamwe’.”[67]

This is an exact inversion of the ideology that preceded the genocide, when all Tutsi were seen as legitimate targets because they were all “accomplices” of the “Inkotanyi” or “inyenzi,” the Tutsi “enemy” whose only dream was to exterminate Hutu. The statement by the RDR goes on to allege that “all Hutu or any other person who do not subscribe to the ideology of the RPF must therefore be eliminated at any cost”—again, an exact description, in reverse, of the thinking that drove the genocide. During the preparations of the genocide, the message sent by the planners was to brand as a “traitor” any Hutu who did not subscribe to their heinous plan.[68]

International Media’s Response to Genocide: Neutrality or Complicity?

The RDR has received significant assistance from the international media in propagating its agenda of genocide denial and revisionism. Foreign journalists have often played a destructive role in the Rwandan genocide and its aftermath. Their failure to adequately identify and report the crimes in 1994 as genocide was a critical factor in the international community’s failure to intervene to halt the violence. The global media were also a major factor in generating world-wide humanitarian relief for the refugees who fled Rwanda after the genocide, including thousands of génocidaires.

In 1996 the Steering Committee for Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda published a report which included an important observation on the failure of the international media during the genocide:

By and large, the international media chose not to report (nor to publish if news reports were filed) evidence of plans and organising for large-scale massacres. This contributed to the failure by the international community to perceive the genocide for what it was and to insist on an adequate response. This failure occurred in spite of local media, which became dominated in the early 1990s by a radio station and newspaper whose vitriolic propaganda incited hatred and violence. Inadequate and inaccurate reporting by the media on the genocide itself contributed to international indifference and inaction.[69]

During the genocide, the international media was at first obsessed with the violence as drama. Most journalists showed little interest in the details of the ensuing events, focusing instead on the headline-grabbing news that “tribes” were killing “tribes,” neighbours killing neighbours. The emphasis on the closeness of the people killing and being killed was meant to show the abnormality of the “combatants.”

For many news consumers around the world, the inhabitants of Rwanda, and Africa generally, were not humans but ferocious, two-legged beasts. Much of the global audience will still remember one international magazine’s sub-heading: “There are no more devils in hell, they are all in Rwanda.”

Throughout the genocide, the international media failed to investigate the political and organisational structures established to facilitate the extermination of all Tutsi. The genocide was consistently described as a spontaneous flaring of ancient tribal animosity, a violent flow of lava-like anger and hatred, unleashed by the sudden deaths of Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira after their plane was shot down over Kigali on the night of 6 April 1994. A typical report claimed, “The president of Rwanda was assassinated and the Hutu who are on the side of the government turned against the Tutsi who are considered to be closer to the rebels of the Rwandan Patriotic Front.”[70]

Almost a month after the beginning of the genocide, Agence France Press still reported that “mainly Tutsi rebel guerrillas were besieging Hutu-led government forces” and clashes spreading in the “corpse-littered and blood-splattered capital,” much as it described “inter-ethnic bloodletting” a month earlier.[71]

Such descriptions implied that what the world was observing was a civil war, between the hutu government and the Tutsi rebel movement. Prof. Richard Robbins argues, “If we examine cases of purported ethnic conflict we generally find that it involves more than ancient hatred; even the ‘hatreds’ we find are relatively recent, and constructed by those ethnic entrepreneurs taking advantage of situations rooted deep in colonial domination and fed by neo-colonial exploitation.”[72]

Robbins observes that “there is no better case than Rwanda of state killing in which colonial history and global economic integration combined to produce genocide. It is also a case where the causes of the killing were carefully obscured by Western governmental and journalistic sources, blamed instead on the victims and ancient tribal hatreds.”[73]

The press can make a vital contribution to the strengthening of peace and international understanding and to countering racism and incitement to violence. The aforementioned examples of simplistic and irresponsible reporting include instances of racism, portraying Africans as savages. Journalists like Fergal keane, who methodically explored the causes of events in Rwanda in 1994, spoke out against simplistic or racist reporting and misrepresentation of the genocide as a tribal mêlée:

We must not report on countries like Rwanda as if they were demented theme parks, peopled by savages doomed to slaughter each other in perpetuity… Too much of the reporting of Africa has been conditioned by a view of its people as an eternally miserable smudge of blackness stretching across the decades…In the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide, there was far too much reliance on tired clichés about ancient tribal hatreds.

The fact that this was an act of systematically planned mass murder, a final solution of monstrous proportions, was too often lost in the rush to blame the catastrophe on the old bogey of tribalism.[74]

Neutrality and impartiality are necessary principles in the art of journalism. However, some forms of so-called neutrality and impartiality when reporting on crucial moral issues such as genocide are misplaced and highly damaging.

The fundamental issue here is the journalist’s furtherance of neutrality in the face of genocide. Is it possible for a reporter to maintain the idea of neutrality when confronting such a crime? Is it possible to be neutral between a Tutsi victim of genocide and an Interahamwe militiaman committing genocide; between a Jew who was killed in an Auschwitz concentration camp and a Nazi who killed him or her; between a black Sudanese who is killed by the Janjaweed militia on their horsebacks? Such crimes must be identified and denounced. In the face of such atrocities, there is no place for the kind of “neutral” descriptions that appeared in many international media outlets during the Rwandan genocide, seeking to describe a “balanced” view of the role of “both sides” in the conflict.

To fail to describe genocide as genocide—to characterise it simply as a civil war or the result of spontaneous violence resulting from long-harboured tribal animosity—is anything but neutral. It insults the victims of such egregious crimes and paves the way for the kinds of genocide revisionism and denial we have seen in the analysis of RDR propaganda above.

International Media Aiding Spread of Genocide Revisionism and Denial

Many of the sins of omission and commission of the international press during the genocide have aided the cause of genocide deniers and revisionists such as the RDR. Furthermore, the international media must be vigilant that it does not inadvertently create an environment in which the RDR can propagate its views or actively help the RDR spread its racist and genocidal ideology.

In Jean Kambanda’s testimony to the ICTR investigators, as quoted above, he also stated that the RDR had managed to bypass the media and diplomatic embargo that all génocidaires deserve and blamed the international community for playing a crucial role in giving undue credibility to the RDR. “As soon as this organization was formed, everything was done for people to believe and hope that the return was imminent. And I think the international community played an important role by giving exaggerated attention to this organization.

They received so much attention from the international radio stations that the population in the camps couldn’t help having confidence in them although in reality it was just hot air.”[75]

From available documents, the RDR and the FAR pursued what they called “Redynamisation de la campagne médiatique” or “reinvigoration of the media landscape.” In a confidential communication, from Chris Nzabandora who was RDR’s commissioner for information, based in Nairobi, to the FAR’s commander, Gen. Bizimungu, whose code name at that time was “Kamanda Yves,” it was recommended that they target the BBC Swahili service and the English and Kinyarwanda services of the BBC and Voice of America (VOA), , suggesting direct contact with BBC and VOA producers of their choice.[76]

The document, which was edited by the FAR’s chief of intelligence, Lt. Col. Bahufite (code named Maneno Sother)[77], established the RDR’s policy on media:

“In light of the step already taken and our experience so far, the new components of the media policy should aim for the following objectives: To maintain the media offensive to prevent the extension of the embargo into the media sector; To change the image of the génocidaire who continues to move among the hutu refugees; To train the refugees politically by disseminating the appropriate information; To make known the truth about the Rwandan drama; To make the population in the interior adhere to our cause; To counter RPF propaganda; To guide the international community toward supporting our cause.”[78]

In light of Kambanda’s comments and the unearthing of the RDR’s media policy, international press agencies must be on high alert to avoid giving the RDR and other genocide deniers a platform from which to propagate their abhorrent views.

Accountability for Genocide Launderers.

If we are serious about preventing genocide recurring in Rwanda and elsewhere through universal solidarity, preserving the memory of the genocide and fighting genocide denial, we must confront some crucial issues. Paramount among post-genocide concerns is to bring to account organisations of genocide launderers like the RDR. Banning such organisations, and punishing their members who propagate heinous genocide ideology, is vital to making calls for “Never Again” a reality. Direct action to deal with organisations like the RDR requires the political will of host countries such as Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada. Without these countries’ willingness to counter genocide denial and revisionism within their own territories, such crimes will continue to afflict all of humanity.

In 2004, four Dutch organisations, CORDAID, ICCO, KERKINACTIE and NOVIB, published a report, in which they advocate for an “inter-Rwandan dialogue” between the Government of Rwanda and what they call “a coalition of most important Rwandan political groups in exile.”[79]

An umbrella body of the majority of these groups is Concertation Permanente de l’Opposition Democratique Rwandaise (or the Permanent Consultation of Rwandan Democratic Opposition [CPODR]).[80]

The report vehemently criticises the Rwandan government for refusing this dialogue and donor countries for not pressuring the government to speak to the exiled groups. In the report, the authors acknowledge that some of the so-called Rwandan “opposition groups” currently based in the DRC have “génocidaires in their midst with whom some political exile groups might have links.”[81]

The grand wish of these monitoring organisations is to produce from groups such as the RDR “born-again” génocidaires, whose eligibility for inclusion in the dialogue with the government is their co-operation with the ICTR and condemnation of the “genocide and its ideology.”[82]

Conclusion

Violent words can injure as much as, often more than, physical assault. Genocide scholar Israel Charny highlights this when he argues:

Denials of known events of genocide must be treated as acts of bitter and malevolent psychological aggression, certainly against the victims, but really against all of human society, for such denials literally celebrate genocidal violence and in the process suggestively call for renewed massacres—of the same people or of others. …Such denials also madden, insult and humiliate the survivors, the relatives of the dead, and the entire people who are the surviving victims, and are, without doubt, continuing manifestations of the kinds of dehumanisation and disentitlement that we know are the basic psychological substrates that make genocide possible to begin with. The deniers also are attacking the fundamental foundations of civilization, namely the standards of evidence, fairness and justice, by flagrantly altering the historical record. Indeed, the deniers always engage in a totalitarian overpowering of the knowledge process, fully intending to subjugate the integrity of human history, memory, scholarships, and communication to their demagogy and tyranny.[83]

Much of Europe is acutely aware of the dangers of genocide denial and alert to the need to ensure that what happened to their continent during Hitler’s Third Reich is never repeated. As a result, it is illegal to form a Nazi party in Germany. Denying the holocaust is a punishable crime in both France and Germany. The same is not true in the case of Rwandan deniers of the Tutsi genocide such as members of the RDR, who are not punished but, instead, often treated in the international media and elsewhere as legitimate political voices.

As the current situation in Darfur shows, genocide in Africa is still occurring. The evil of Rwanda in 1994 is repeating because genocide, its nature and causes, are still not yet fully understood and are obscured by the continuing denial of past atrocities. Genocide denial is simply a continuation of the original crime. Roger Smith correctly observes that “denial of genocide is the universal strategy of perpetrators. Those who initiate or otherwise participate in genocide typically deny the events took place, that they bear any responsibility for the destruction, or that the term ‘genocide’ is applicable to what occurred. Denial, unchecked, turns politically imposed death into a ‘non-event’:

In the place of words of recognition, indignation, and compassion, there is, with time, only silence.”[84] We should expect, therefore, that génocidaires will find ever-creative ways to deny their crimes. We must formulate determined and systematic counters to this denial, lest it encourage future perpetrators to commit similar crimes. On 3 December 2003, the ICTR sentenced three defendants, including Dr. Ferdinand Nahimana, a famous Rwandan historian, in what has become known as “the media Trial,” the first time anywhere in the world that journalists have been tried for genocide. In the early 1990s, Nahimana was the Director of Rwanda’s National Office of Information (ORINFOR) and later the director of RTLM. In her judgement read in public, the South African judge,

Navanethem Pillay, said:Fully aware of the power of words, [Nahimana] used the radio — the medium of communication with the widest public reach — to disseminate hatred and violence. … motivated by his sense of patriotism and the need he perceived for equity for the Hutu population. But instead of following legitimate avenues of recourse, he chose a path of genocide. In doing so, he betrayed the trust placed in him as an intellectual and a leader. Without a firearm, machete or any physical weapon, he caused the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians.[85]

Words can heal but also kill. Mass media has an immeasurable ability to shape public opinion. Bolstering peace in the Great lakes region means involving the media in countering genocide denial and revisionism. A more ethical use of the media can counterbalance the negative effects and help respond to the damage caused by hate messages, used initially by the orchestrators of the genocide and since by groups like the RDR. Genocide launderers—and those who support them—must be held accountable for their assault on historical truth, which perpetuates the heinous crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994.

If we fail to counter genocide denial and damaging revisionism, such as those spread by the RDR, we stand by and watch while the seeds of future genocides are planted.

[1] The “Declaration of Support to the ‘RDR’ by the Rwandan Armed Forces.”

[2] Cited in the Declaration of the High Command of the Rwandan Armed Forces after its meeting of 28 to 29 April 1995, Bukavu. The document is in author’s archives.

[3] The document carries the title: «SUR LES TRACES DU RASSEMBLEMENT POUR LE RETOUR DES RÉFUGIÉS ET LA DÉMOCRATIE AU RWANDA» on www.rdrwanda.org/english/historical_background/

[4] The first president of the RDR was Francois Nzabahimana, minister of Commerce in Habyarimana’s government from 1991 to 1992.

[5] Ndereyehe Charles Ntahontuye, who was the founding member of the RDR, and at one time its President, was the head of an extremist think-tank, Cercle des Républicains Progressistes (CRP). From CRP minutes in the author’s possession, it is clear that the CRP was instrumental in the creation of the Coalition for the Defence of the Republic (CDR).

[6] USAID, Rwanda Roundtable Conference – June 20-21, 1996 Geneva.

[7] Ibid. Kambanda’s testimony

[8] Ibid

[9] ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid

[12] The report prepared and published in Bukavu-Zaire, by ‘Charles Nkuruziza Group’ has a title “Les aspects essentiels du problème rwandais” (Essential Aspects of the Rwandan Problem) for the so-called ministry of Justice of the Rwandan Government in Exile.

[13] Groupe Albert Basomingera, “A propos du rapport final de la commission des experts du conseil de sécurité des Nations unies pour le Rwanda: Conclusions au génocide au prix d’une mise à l’écart de certains faits, d’altération d’autres et d’interprétation tendancieuse,” also for the so-called ministry of Justice of the Rwandan Government in Exile, Bukavu-Zaire, April 1995.

[14] Ibid

[15] Ibid

[16] ibid

[17] See “Cyangugu Trial: Prosecutor Challenges Former minister’s Credibility” (Internews, 29 May 2002.)

[18] Ibid

[19] See “Cyangugu Trial Adjourned to July” (Fondation hirondelle, News Agency 29 May, 2002)

[20] Ibid

[21]RDR Press Release No. 6 of May 24, 1995 See:http://www.rdrwanda.org/english/press_releases/RDR/24_may_1995.html

[22] “RDR Political Platform” published in Paris, on August 23, 1998 is available on www.rdrwanda.org

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

[26] Ibid

[27] RDR political platform.

[28] RDR, “memorandum to the heads of State, heads of Delegations and mediators participating in a Regional Conference on the Great lakes Region”, [location?]: RDR, November 21, 1995. The document is also available onhttp://www.rdrwanda.org/english/documents/RDR/Document_21_November_1995.htm

[29] Ibid.; RDR Political Platform.

[30] RDR Document, Rwandese crisis: The other side of the story -July 1996http://www.rdrwanda.org/english/documents/RDR/RWACRISIS071996.html

[31] Ibid

[32] This is found in most publications of the RDR. For example, in their memorandum to President Blaise Compaore‚ President of the Republic of Burkina Faso as the “Current Chairman of the OAU” and copied to heads of State and Government of OAU member states. On their “Appeal to the OAU to restore peace and security in Rwanda” the word “tragedy” is used several times to cover-up genocide. (Published in Brussels May 21, 1998)

[33] RDR Basic Principles

[34] RDR Press Release No. 32

[35] Ibid

[36] Ibid

[37] RDR Political Platform

[38] The document, simply titled “RDR Political Platform” published in Paris, on August 23, 1998 is available onwww.rdrwanda.org

[39] Ibid

[40] Press Release nº 97 has the title “Tutsi internationalism throwing the great lakes region into an unprecedented chaos,” 22 October 1996

[41] Press Release No 6. Also see Rwandese Crisis: The Other Side of the Story (July 1996)

[42] Ibid

[43] Ibid

[44] RDR Political platform

[45] RDR Press Release No.6, 24 May 1995

[46] Ibid

[47] Ibid

[48] RDR Press Release No. 11, 1 July 1995

[49] Ibid

[50] Ibid

[51] Ibid

[52] RDR Political Platform

[53] RDR Press Release No. 67, 17 April 1996

[54] Ibid

[55] Ibid

[56] Press Release No. 6

[57] Ibid

[58] Ibid

[59] Press Release Nº 97

[60] The document was published on 17 August 1997

[61] Press Release Nº 97.

[62] Compte-rendu de la réunion Operations du 25 Avril 96 (Bukavu-Zaire) Participants: Gen Bde kabiligi Gratien Comd 2^nd FAR ; Lt. Col Ruhorahoza J. Bosco (G3 1 Div); Capt. Ntirugiribambe J. C. (Offr G2 1 Div); Maj. Majyambere Léopold (Offr G3 1 Div); Lt. malizamunda Juvénal (Offr G3 1 Div & Sec. to the meeting) ; Maj. Rwabukwisi Alexis (Comd 13 Bde) ; Capt. Nsanzabera Elie  (Comd 136 Bn);  Lt. Baziruwiha Frédéric (Comd 134 Bn)  ; Lt. Turatsinze Victor (Comd Bn kagoma); Lt. Maniraguha Damien (Comd Bn Vautour) ; Capt. harelimana Gérase (Comd 132 Bn); Lt. Habyarimana Joseph (Comd 133 Bn); Lt. Ndangamira (S3 13 Bde) (In the Author’s Archive). [Author’s translation]

[63] The editorial of Kangura No 4 p. 2 It was published in Kigali in November 1990 (no date)

[64] “Toute la vérité sur la guerre d’Octobre 1990 au Rwanda”, pg 5.

[65] Interahamwe belonged to MRND, while Impuzamugambi belonged to CDR. Both groups had the same ideological goal of committing genocide against Tutsi.

[66] CDR’s Party Press Release of 25 February 1993 (Author’s archive)The press release has a title: “RPF unveils Its True Colour.”

[67] The press release has a title: “RPF unveils Its True Colour.”

[68] One good example is a threat issued in the extremist paper, Kangura, in the Ten Hutu Commandments. The tenth Commandment read in part “…the Hutu Ideology must be taught to every muhutu at every level. Every Hutu must spread this ideology widely. Any muhutu who persecutes his brother muhutu for having read, spread and taught this ideology is a traitor.” See Kangura No 6 pg. 8, of December 1990.

[69] The International Response to Conflict and Genocide: Lessons from the Rwanda Experience. Published by the Danish Foreign Ministry, March 1996

[70]‘UN spokesman reports fighting in Kigali and Ruhengeri.’ AFP News Agency, Paris, May 6,

1994.

[71] French troops warned not to interfere in RPF advance on kigali. AFP News Agency, Paris,

9 April 1994

[72] Richard H. Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism, (Allyn and Bacon,

1999, 2002), p. 269

[73] Ibid. 269

[74] Guardian, 27 October 1995

[75] Ibid.; Kambanda’s testimony.

[76] In French Nzabandora and Bizimungu agree: «  Le service Swahili de BBC, les services anglais de BBC et VOA, ainsi que le service Kinyarwanda de VOA et BBC doivent être exploités et des contacts directs avec les producteurs sont recommandés.  » Document available in the author’s archives.

[77] For example, the military chief of intelligence in his memo of October 3, 1996, proposes Page 4 en haut, le point 7 a été oublié et c’est “Amener la Communauté Internationale à soutenir notre cause”. Page 5 en bas, les points c) à g) ont été sautées: c) Inventaire des potentialités existantes; d) Exploitation intensive de l’E-mail; e) maintenir et améliorer les relations avec les agences; f) mener une offensive aggressive envers le FPR et ses sponsors; g) mener par priorité une offensive médiatique envers l’opinion tanzanienne”.

[78] bid. [author’s translation]

[79] Rwanda monitoring Project Report March 2004

[80] RDR is the member of this organisation (CPODR). The suggestion by these NGOs that these organisations were important members of opposition, was not their original idea, but from a network of deniers, based in Spain. See for example where RDR is referred to as “the world’s foremost organisation of Rwandan exiles” in “The reasons for an acceptance” Juan Carrero Foundation S’Olivar Estellencs (mallorca) 08 march 1999; also “Action for peace and human rights at the Africa of the Great lakes” Palma, July 1, 1999available on http://www.pangea.org/olivar; also in messages and letters of Support to the Candidature of Juan Carrero Saralegui for the Nobel Peace Prize of the year 2000 by Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize 2000 for Juan Carrero Saralegui-mallorca (Spain) July 2000. For more information visit the website of the RDR or one of their links “Inshuti”with their genocide laundering websitehttp://www2.minorisa.es/inshuti/

[81] Rwanda monitoring Project Report.

[82] Ibid

[83] The Psychological Satisfaction of Denials of the holocaust or Other Genocides by Non-Extremists or Bigots, and Even by known Scholars, a paper Presented to a Conference in New york, April 1995, on “Genocide and holocaust: Armenian and Jewish Perspectives.” It is available on www.ideajournal.org

[84] R. Smith, “The Armenian Genocide: memory, Politics and the Future.”(1992) In the Armenian Genocide: Memory, Politics, Ethics, edited by Richard G. Hovanissian, New York: St. martin’s Press, 8

[85] Read in the summary of Judgement and Sentence of “The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza Hassan Ngeze” Case No. ICTR-99-52-T

View Source

**Originally published in Phil Clark & Zachary Kaufman, eds., After Genocide: Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond, Oxford-Hurst 2008; (pp 125-144)

Plus d’un million et demi de morts, plus de deux millions de réfugiés, des centaines de milliers de malades et de blessés – sur une population estimée à 7,5 millions de personnes. La guerre, la guerre civile, les massacres racistes, la famine, les épidémies,…

On n’ose imaginer les conséquences du drame rwandais, à court et à long terme, pour les individus et pour la société, pour le pays et pour l’Afrique. L’analyse “rationnelle” des événements n’est pas facile. Mais elle est nécessaire. Car derrière ce chaos indescriptible et cette misère absolue se cachent des responsabilités politiques et des intérêts matériels.

Ce drame est complètement incompréhensible, disent certains collaborateurs d’ONG qui connaissent le Rwanda depuis de longues années. D’autres commentateurs, plein d’assurance, épinglent les causes “naturelles” : la cruauté congénitale de l’être humain, ou les rivalités ethniques ancestrales. La mentalité coloniale affleure souvent dans les réflexions : on évoque l’arriération des noirs, leur évangélisation trop superficielle [1] Mais le plus grave est que, comme le dit Alain Destexhe, secrétaire-général de MSF, le génocide est nié, la responsabilité internationale est occultée et la culpabilité des auteurs se dilue dans le malheur général [2].

Un génocide

Personne ne peut échapper à cette conclusion : le Rwanda a été le théâtre du génocide planifié de la communauté tutsi : 500.000 morts en six semaines selon la Croix-Rouge, plus d’un million après trois mois selon le coordinateur-adjoint du Bureau de l’ONU au Rwanda [3]. Ces gens ont été massacrés systématiquement (à 90% en dehors des villes) sur base de leur appartenance ethnique. Leurs biens ont été volés. Leurs maisons ont été pillées et incendiées, n s’agissait de citoyens et citoyennes désarmés : il n’y a pas eu d’affrontement, de guerre ou de guerre civile. Enfants, femmes et femmes enceintes ont été particulièrement visés.

Aucun lieu ne servait de refuge, certainement pas les hôpitaux et les églises. Les assassins voulaient une solution finale. La comparaison avec le génocide des juifs par Hitler est pleinement valable. Il n’y a que deux différences : le nombre absolu de victimes (les nazis ont exterminé 6 millions de juifs) et le fait que les nazis usèrent ; de l’infrastructure d’un pays industrialisé moderne.

Le clan Habyarimana, lui, a dû se contenter de moyens de destruction artisanaux et d’armes de petit calibre. Mais le but, comme dans l’Allemagne nazie, était bien la solution finale, un génocide, c’est-à -dire la destruction planifiée d’une collectivité entière par le meurtre de masse ayant pour but d’en empêcher la reproduction biologique et sociale. [4]

Aucune comparaison n’est possible avec les exactions que des membres du FPR ont commises et commettront peut-être encore à l’avenir. Ces exactions contre des Hutus sont évidemment répréhensibles, mais il s’agit d’actes de vengeance.

Le génocide des Tutsis n’est ni un hasard, ni une explosion de violence spontanée. On ne peut pas parler non plus de violence de guerre – même si une guerre était en cours au moment des faits et si le génocide en fait partie (comme le massacre des juifs par les nazis). On peut encore moins parler de retour vers le moyen-âge. Le génocide des Tutsis ne relève pas de l’atavisme : c’est un phénomène moderne, un indice de la barbarie qui monte au fur et à mesure que le marché libre se généralise et que la crise sociale s’approfondit.

Assassinats politiques et génocide Le 6 avril, d’une façon très professionnelle, un avion est abattu dans le ciel de Kigali : les présidents du Rwanda et du Burundi meurent dans l’attentat. Dans l’heure qui suit, la garde présidentielle – noyau dur de l’armée rwandaise – prend la capitale en main. La troupe, accompagnée des escadrons de la mort, entre dans certaines maisons. Des gens bien sélectionnés sont abattus, sur base de listes préétablies.

En quelques heures des barrages sont dressés sur les routes. Tout Rwandais qui passe est contrôlé et on lui demande de présenter sa carte d’identité (qui mentionne l’appartenance ethnique). Les cadavres s’amoncellent sur les bords des chemins. Un carnage massif est déclenché dans tout le pays, en quelques heures.

De façon délibérée et planifiée

Au cours des premières heures, on tue autant de Hutus que de Tutsis. Ne s’agirait-il donc pas de violence ethnique ? Si, mais les motivations des assassins sont évidemment politiques : ils veulent empêcher l’application des accords d’Arusha. Parce que ces accords signifient le démantèlement du pouvoir et des privilèges du clan Habyarimana. Le génocide commence donc par une série d’assassinats politiques au sein de la communauté hutue. Il s’agit d’éliminer les dirigeants hutus disposés à former un gouvernement de réconciliation nationale avec les Tutsis. Sont ainsi massacrés le Premier ministre du gouvernement de transition, Agathé Uwilingiyiamana, cinq autres ministres, le président de la cour constitutionnelle, les présidents hutus de divers partis d’opposition, des hommes d’affaires oppositionnels. De la sorte, toute alternative à la clique Habyarimana est quasiment éliminée. Et le choix politique devient un choix “purement ethnique” : gouvernement hutu ou gouvernement tutsi. Le génocide a reçu sa perspective politique.

Les assassins, à ce stade, doivent encore surmonter deux obstacles importants : – le mélange entre ethnies sur les plans social, professionnel et familial doit être éliminé ; – le refus naturel de tuer en masse ses frères et ses soeurs humains doit être brisé. Ces obstacles se retrouvent dans tous les cas de génocide. C’est pourquoi tout génocide s’accompagne (presque) toujours de massacres visant la partie du peuple qui refuse de collaborer. Pour cela, un climat de terreur est indispensable. Il faut créer une situation dans laquelle les adversaires du génocide au sein même de la communauté (du “propre peuple”, dirait le Vlaams Blok) sont confrontés en permanence, quotidiennement, à une insécurité mortelle : tuer avec les autres ou être tué soi-même doit devenir le choix. Avec le risque d’être tué par les deux camps : par l’ethnie rivale ou par les bandes de sa propre ethnie. Seule cette insécurité terrible et – étape suivante- la collaboration passive ou active (sous la contrainte) à un carnage ethnique permettent de créer les conditions extrêmes au sein desquelles l’humain est détruit en l’être humain. Le récit du massacre à l’hôpital de Butare est un bon exemple : le personnel hutu fut forcé par la soldatesque hutue de participer à l’élimination des collègues tutsis, pour prouver qu ’ils étaient de vrais hutus.

A ce moment-là , l’ethnie devient le seul havre de solidarité “primaire”. Ainsi, le courant pro-génocide extrémiste peut l’emporter au sein de son propre peuple. Et l’organisation systématique du génocide peut commencer.

Imposer la loyauté et la purification ethniques comme moyen d’une cohésion sociale soudée dans le sang du génocide signifie une gigantesque régression sociale qui a des conséquences à long terme dans les relations sociales, dans la mémoire collective et dans la mentalité individuelle. Ainsi la shoa a-t-elle eu de grandes conséquences sur le peuple juif et dans le monde, sur les relations des juifs avec les autres peuples, notamment avec le peuple palestinien. Ainsi aussi la “question de la culpabilité” refait-elle constamment surface en Allemagne, cinquante après les camps d’extermination nazis.

Guerre et génocide

La négociation et la signature des accords d’Arusha en août 1993 ont convaincu le clan Habyarimana que le génocide était le seul moyen de se maintenir au pouvoir. Le génocide ne tombe pas du ciel. Il intervient dans le cadre d’une profonde crise qui développe des aspects sociaux, ethniques et économiques. Le régime vacille écrit la Gazet van Antwerpen le 3/10/1989, le pays connaît une crise sans précédent renchérit Le Soir, le 10/3/1990, il y règne une ambiance de fin de régime, selon La Libre Belgique du 03/10/1989.

En septembre 1990, déjà , une série d’organisations de défense des droits de
l’homme sont constituées pour dénoncer le nombre croissant de disparitions, d’arrestations arbitraires, d’agressions individuelles et de massacres collectifs.

L’offensive du Front Patriotique (FPR), qui perce très rapidement jusqu’aux portes de Kigali, n’est pas la cause de cette crise. Mais elle met en lumière le caractère chancelant du régime. Celui-ci va réagir en se durcissant et en se cramponnant au pouvoir, par la répression et le racisme. La base sociale du régime s’est réduite à sa plus simple expression. L’affairisme des années fastes de la décennie ’70 et de la première moitié des années ’80 est monopolisée par le clan Habyarimana, originaire du Nord-Ouest : Gysenyi, Ruhengeri a réussi à accumuler un bas de laine de quelque deux milliards de nos francs…

Les hommes d’affaires hutus du reste du Rwanda (souvent des régions plus pauvres) ne sont pas invités au partage du gâteau. C’est ce qui explique le succès rapide des partis hutus d’opposition. De plus, le clan Habyarimana, après son coup d’Etat réussi de 1973 (la soi-disant révolution morale, censée prolonger la soi-disant révolution sociale de 1959), a éliminé politiquement et physiquement l’autre aile de l’élite hutue au pouvoir, autour de Grégoire Kayibanda [5]
.

A noter : une conférence de la diaspora tutsie se tient à New York à l’été 1990. Elle demande de négocier un retour pacifique des réfugiés de 1959. La demande reste sans réponse…

Habyarimana survit à la crise de la fin de l’année 1990 uniquement grâce à l’aide française (avec un appui belge qui sera de courte durée). A partir de ce moment-là , la situation est dominée par la préparation de la guerre contre le FPR. L’armée passe de 5.000 à 34.000 hommes et est équipée jusqu’aux dents d’aimés modernes. La France prend le pays en mains.

Le plan du génocide

Les contradictions sociales et politiques sont extrêmement vives (on compte déjà , à l’époque, un million de réfugiés). Pour les tenir sous contrôle, Habyarimana décide d’aviver les contradictions ethniques : des quotas sont introduits à tous les niveaux, les contrôles de l’appartenance ethnique (inscrite sur le passeport) se multiplient, une propagande raciste se développe.

Ce scénario a été mis en oeuvre délibérément [6]. A partir de la deuxième moitié de 1992, le quotidien Kangura commence une campagne de propagande visant à diaboliser, à déshumaniser l’ethnie tutsie : exaltation de la pureté raciale hutue, dénonciation de la rapacité des Tutsis qui veulent tout accaparer, droit des hutus de s’armer pour assurer leur auto-défense.

Le pilier idéologique du génocide est ainsi mis en place. Mais cette campagne fascitoïde se couvre du manteau de la respectabilité : on publie de grandes photos du président Habyarimana serrant la main de François Mitterrand ; c’est au nom de la démocratie occidentale que l’exclusion des Tutsis et la domination exclusive de la majorité hutue sont “justifiés”.

C’est à la même époque (1992) que sont fondées les fameuses bandes armées Interhamwe (“ceux qui combattent ensemble “) et Inpuzamugambi (“ceux qui ont le même but”). A partir de 1993, on instaure des quotas : une milice par préfecture, composée chacune de 200 citoyens armés. Le projet d’auto-défense du peuple, que le gouvernement prépare depuis août-septembre 1991, entre dans la phase de la réalisation pratique [7]. Des listes noires sont dressées et circulent, qui mentionnent, dans l’ordre, les noms des personnalités qui doivent être assassinées. Les escadrons de la mort multiplient les pogroms : début 1993, on compte déjà plus de 2.000 personnes massacrées [8]
La création de la radio libre des Mille Collines est la touche finale de cette préparation de la solution finale. La radio multiplie en effet les appels au meurtre : Allez, sortez, il faut se réchauffer, plus clair encore : La tombe n’est qu ’à moitié pleine. Qui nous aidera à la remplir ?. Radio Mille Collines diffuse aussi des consignes pratiques : comment envahir une maison, comment rassembler ses habitants… [9]. En janvier 1993, la Fédération rwandaise des Droits de l’Homme publie un rapport qui dit explicitement : Les prémisses du génocide existent [10].

La direction du génocide

Qui tire les ficelles ? Comme dans un régime fasciste classique (on suit le “modèle occidental” !), le génocide repose sur une double structure : une structure légale institutionnalisée et une structure clandestine illégale. La première est la couverture et la légitimation de la seconde. La centralisation des deux structures est réalisée, au Rwanda, dans la famille Habyarimana (Akazu, la petite maison !) ; Habyarimana est le président ; sa femme et son beau-frère dirigent le Réseau Zéro ; lui-même dirige l’appareil d’Etat, civil et militaire.

La garde présidentielle, qui lui est “personnellement” fidèle, est le noyau dur de l’armée. L’administration civile forme un réseau bien fourni qui encadre la population : gouverneurs, préfets et bourgmestres [11]. Très important : quand le génocide entre dans sa phase finale (après le 6 avril), c’est cet appareil d’Etat officiel qui joue le rôle majeur : les bourgmestres arment la population, ont les listes noires, vont de maison en maison avec les autorités militaires locales et les bandes armées “illégales”, pour exécuter leur sinistre besogne. Ce sont eux également qui, face à l’avance du FPR, organisent la politique de la terre brûlée et forcent la population à les suivre vers la frontière zaïroise et les camps de réfugiés. Et ce sont ces institutions étatiques officielles, déplacées (avec y compris la caisse de l’Etat !) qui, dans les camps, continuent d’encadrer la population et, par la terreur et la contrainte, empêchent le retour vers le Rwanda.

La structure illégale, qui a l’initiative avant le 6 avril 1994, est dirigée à partir de la synagogue, comme on appelle la villa du beau-frère du président. Le frère d’Agathe Habyarimana, Protais Zigiranyirazo, surnommé Monsieur Z, avait déjà été condamné au Canada pour des violences contre des étudiants rwandais. De sa villa, il planifie, avec son staff, les pogroms, les massacres, les assassinats individuels, les achats et les transports d’armes clandestins. C’est de la synagogue aussi qu’est dirigée la campagne de haine de Radio Mille Collines. Dans celle-ci, un rôle important est joué par Ferdinand Nahimana, chef de la propagande du régime [12]. Un Belge, “Monsieur George”, tient le micro. Mais le beau-frère du président est le principal actionnaire [13].

Le tournant vers le génocide

Le vrai tournant vers le génocide se produit en décembre 1993. Les derniers soldats français “officiels” quittent le pays (“officiels” parce que l’encadrement informel de l’armée rwandaise et des escadrons de la mort continue). Un premier volet des accords d’Arusha est appliqué : entre Noël et le Nouvel An, le FPR peut caserner 600 hommes à Kigali (car, comme le fait remarquer le professeur Reyntjens, les Tutsis rwandais, contrairement aux Tutsis burundais, n’ont aucun moyen de se défendre contre les violences de l’Etat hutu) [14]. L’application des accords est sabotée et ralentie ; mais la pression augmente de toutes parts. C’est alors que, le dos au mur, le régime décide de lancer le génocide.

En premier lieu, on élimine le centre politique. Tous les partis hutus d’opposition sont brutalement scissionnés, sous pression de la campagne d’ethnicisation du régime (“pour ou contre le FPR”). Une partie cherche un rapprochement avec le FPR sur base des accords d’Arusha. Au mois de décembre 1993, l’entourage du président, dit Colette Braeckman, distribue ouvertement des armes à la population [15].

Les massacres “incontrôlés” se multiplient

Les milliers de jeunes déracinés qui sont le produit de la crise sociale forment les troupes de choc, les S.A. locales… Une nouvelle étape est franchie en février 1994 quand, après une nouveau massacre qui fait plus de quarante victimes, les casques bleus de l’ONU reçoivent l’interdiction d’intervenir. Cette interdiction lève un obstacle psychologique et politique important chez les assassins, selon le témoignage d’un coopérant [16].

En mars, la garde présidentielle commence à encercler Kigali. Les négociations ont repris à Arusha. Les accords sont confirmés une nouvelle fois. L’attentat contre le Fantom 50 présidentiel est-il la réponse de la clique au pouvoir ? En tout cas, la mort d’Habyarimana fournit le prétexte idéal.

Un comité de crise de l’armée rwandaise (ou d’une partie de celle-ci ?) prend le pouvoir. C’est un coup d’Etat militaire, gouvernement intérimaire est formé. H comporte uniquement des Hutus durs. C’est le gouvernement du génocide ! En font partie une série de personnalités qui ont dirigé la révolution de 1959 et qui ont été écartées en 1972. Ceci éclaire les conflits internes et la nervosité récente au sommet de l’armée et au sein de la garde présidentielle. D semble qu’une nouvelle alliance se soit formée entre les durs du régime Habyarimana et les dirigeants hutus radicaux de 1959, alliance par rapport à laquelle Habyarimana aurait pu constituer un obstacle, selon un militant hutu des droits de l’homme, Gasana Ndoba [17]. Ceci éclaire aussi la question paradoxale entre toutes : pourquoi Habyarimana a-t-il, selon toute probabilité, été assassiné par sa propre garde présidentielle ?

Le génocide n’a rencontré aucune résistance

La fameuse “communauté internationale” est restée absente. Personne n’est intervenu au moment où il était encore temps de le faire. Certainement pas la France : elle est depuis 1990 aux cotés des assassins, par l’entremise notamment du lieutenant-colonel Chollet, détaché au Rwanda [18]. Les soldats belges ne sont pas intervenus non plus, même pas quand le Premier ministre Agathe Uwilingiyamana et les paras belges qui la protégeaient ont été abattus. Pourquoi ?

Personne n’est prêt à dire ce que les gouvernements (grâce à leurs services de renseignement) et l’ONU (grâce à ses rapports officiels) savaient : le génocide était planifié depuis des mois. Tous avaient intérêt à se taire !

François Vercammen, La Gauche n°16, 14 septembre 1994.