You
can download this paper in PDF format by clicking here
The Travesty of Human Rights Watch on Rwanda
Richard
Johnson
March
19, 2013
Copyright © Richard Johnson 2013
Table
of Contents
I. Introduction
II. ‘Let the Genocidal Parties Back In’1. The RDR in 2010
2. The FDLR since 1994
3. The MDR in 2003
III. ‘Do Not Ban their Ideology’
IV. ‘Don’t Hold More Than a Few Perpetrators
Accountable, Forget Their Foreign Accomplices’
1.
Minimizing the relevance and scale of the genocide
2.
Reducing the importance of post-genocide accountability3. Don’t hold more than a few perpetrators accountable: condemning gacaca
4. Fighting transfers and extradition to Rwanda
5. Ignoring the impunity of fugitive genocide suspects
6. Forget about foreign accomplices: France, the Catholic Church
V. ‘Admit You Are No Better Than They’
1.
Accusations in a mirror and moral equivalency
2.
Small brush strokes to damn the RPF3. Embracing the Gersony Report, pressing the ICTR to try RPF leaders
4. Endorsing the Bruguière and Merelles indictments
5. Touting the UN Mapping Report
6. Holding Kagame responsible for any renewed genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi
VI. Conclusion
VII. Footnotes
What Human Rights Watch
(HRW) does on Rwanda is not human rights advocacy. It is political advocacy which has become
profoundly unscrupulous in both its means and its ends. HRW’s Board of Directors should hold
Executive Director Kenneth Roth and the HRW personnel who cover Rwandan issues
accountable for this travesty, which has dangerous implications for Western
policy toward Rwanda and for the overall credibility of Western human rights
advocacy. Donors to HRW should think seriously
about what causes their money might serve.
Western governments should be careful about following HRW advice, and
courageous enough to challenge them publicly when need be.
HRW’s discourse on
Rwanda over the past twenty years has been viscerally hostile to the Rwandan
Patriotic Front (RPF) which defeated the genocidal Hutu Power regime in 1994,
and systematically biased in favor of letting unrepentant Hutu Power political
forces back into Rwandan political life.
I’m a retired American
diplomat. My professional experience
includes the genocide in Bosnia, and my personal experience includes living in
Rwanda in 2008-2010 as the spouse of another U.S. diplomat. My purpose here is not to defend the Rwandan
government, which is accountable first and foremost to its own people as well
as to a variety of outside institutions.
My purpose is to expose and perhaps alter the conduct of HRW. With substantial funding and a mission
statement whose nobility matches that of any established religion, HRW has enormous
influence on Western media and foreign policy makers, particularly with regard
to countries like Rwanda which are outside the core areas of Western interest
and familiarity. But HRW’s
decision-making process is not transparent, the aura of sanctity around its
professed mission deters public scrutiny of its policies and practices, and the
degree of accountability of HRW to anyone is quite unclear. This situation of unchecked power is one
where things can go seriously wrong.
With regard to Rwanda, they have.
HRW’s discourse on
Rwanda is a threat to that country and to peace and stability in Central
Africa. It discourages Western
governments from doing what they should to support Rwanda’s recovery from the
1994 genocide. It perpetuates impunity
for important genocide perpetrators. It pains
many Rwandans and particularly the genocide survivors. It crowds out the
potential for a more constructive dialogue between the West and Rwanda, and
raises the risks of cynicism and a bunker mentality in Kigali. Above all, it encourages the leaders of the still
extant “Hutu Power” movement -- most visible as a small stratum of upper class
extremists among the Rwandan diaspora who are unrepentant about and often
implicated in the 1994 genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi -- to keep blowing on
the embers of that genocide in the hope of restoring Hutu Power governance in
Rwanda.
The survival of the
Hutu Power movement since 1994 seems strange but is not in fact surprising.
Germany’s good faith
reckoning with the Holocaust is an exceptional case, and came after complete
defeat by the Allies, rapid symbolic justice at the Nuremburg trials, significant
“denazification” programs, the quasi-universal condemnation of Nazi ideology and
Holocaust denial, the banning of Nazi or successor party activities and
propaganda, the Marshall Plan, and decades of German soul-searching with regard
to criminal, political, and moral responsibility.(1)
In contrast, while the Rwandan
genocide leaders and followers have suffered major military defeats, first
throughout Rwanda in summer 1994 and then in eastern Congo and northwest Rwanda
in 1996-98, these defeats were not complete.
In Rwanda, several hundred thousand persons implicated in the genocide have since been tried and convicted, served their sentences, and been reintegrated
into Rwandan society. But thousands of
other perpetrators and supporters have benefitted from what amounts to a
peculiar life-support system outside Rwanda: de facto safe havens in many parts
of Africa, Europe and North America, and extensive (whether witting or
unwitting, voluntary or involuntary) material, political and moral support from
a range of UN agencies and Western officials, churches, NGOs, and intellectuals. Crypto-racist or politically expedient denial
and trivialization of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi has been a pervasive
phenomenon in the West for the past 18 years, particularly but not only among
the French political elite, Christian Democratic and Catholic Church circles,
and a range of Belgian and Dutch NGOs.(2)
In this context, those
Rwandan Hutu who continue to draw a permanent fault line between purported Hutu
and Tutsi communities, to hold that this alleged fault line must define Rwandan
politics, and to hope to return to power, have done none of the soul searching
done by post-Holocaust Germans.
HRW’s discourse has
been an important part of their life-support system, particularly over the past
twelve years. This discourse -- what is
said and left unsaid, what is highlighted and what is downplayed, what is
averred and what is implied -- can best be understood as four commands
addressed to the post-genocide Rwandan government:
-
Let the genocidal parties back in.
-
Do not outlaw their ideology.
-
Don’t hold more than a few perpetrators
accountable, and forget about their foreign accomplices.
-
Admit that you are no better than they.
HRW has used a variety
of strategies to press Western governments and international bodies to back up these
commands, including forceful advocacy for economic sanctions and the arrest of senior
Rwandan officials. If successfully
imposed, they could certainly restore Hutu/Tutsi identity politics (a vestige
of the racist fantasies imposed by European officers and Catholic missionaries
in the colonial era) as the basis of Rwandan governance. Judging from the track record of such
politics from the 1920s to 1994 and the nature of the groups who aspire to such
politics today, this would likely reignite violence and reverse the rapid
progress Rwanda has made on human development since 1994. This might ensure the livelihoods of a whole
new generation of Western “humanitarians,” but it would be a catastrophe for
Rwanda and its region.
How HRW has expressed these
four commands over the past twenty years is detailed below, to dispel any
illusion that HRW can be trusted in its treatment of Rwandan issues.
II.
‘Let the Genocidal Parties Back In’
(1)
The RDR in 2010
The most flagrant
instance of this command came during Rwanda’s Presidential election in 2010,
when HRW campaigned hard for an émigré Rwanda political coalition called the
FDU (“United Democratic Forces”) led by one Victoire Ingabire to be allowed to
register as a political party in Rwanda and compete in the election.
In all their statements
on the issue,(3) HRW presented Ingabire
as a credible and legitimate “opposition leader” whose exclusion from the
election would confirm HRW’s longstanding portrayal of the RPF-led Rwandan
government as anti-democratic. This
narrative was picked up in countless Western media reports and some Western
government statements, and by dint of repetition became the most publicized
Western assessment: President Kagame may have been reelected in August 2010,
with a 97% turnout and 93% of the vote against three candidates from three
other parties, in secret balloting unmarked by significant irregularities,
after a campaign which featured massive and enthusiastic crowds at his appearances around
the country -- but the election was flawed, because the FDU was not allowed to
run and Ingabire was charged and later arrested for divisionism, genocide denial,
and collusion with a terrorist group called the FDLR (see below). In short, the familiar story of an African
dictator repressing his people to hold on to power.
Meanwhile, absent from
the HRW narrative was any consideration of the history and nature of the FDU. This omission is astonishing. It testifies to a profound disrespect for the
Rwandan people, and a high degree of confidence that Western decision makers
and opinion leaders who are unfamiliar with Rwanda can be led by the nose.
The FDU is a coalition
of three Rwandan émigré political factions.
Its central component, also presided over by Ingabire since 2000, is a
party called the RDR. And, it so happens,
the RDR is the direct political heir of the Hutu Power regime that perpetrated
the genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi in 1994.(4)
The RDR (Rally for the
Return of Refugees and Democracy in Rwanda) was created in eastern Congo (then
called Zaire) in early 1995 by leading perpetrators of the genocide, who had
fled there (together with their genocidal regime, army and Interahamwe militia,
and a mass of over a million Rwandans including civilian participants in the
killing, and many bystanders) after being militarily defeated by the RPF in
Rwanda in summer 1994.
Housed in so-called
“refugee camps” along the border with Rwanda, fed and in effect financed by the
international community via the UNHCR and a host of Western NGOs, rearmed by Congo’s
Mobutu and France’s Mitterrand, and advised by European friends from among
French officialdom and the Christian Democratic International, “White Father”
missionaries and various European NGOs, the genocidal Hutu Power movement began
to regroup from its military defeat in Rwanda.
Creating the RDR was a critical step forward. The military leaders of the genocide continued
to lead the way: key roles in creating the RDR were played by military men like
Colonel Théoneste Bagosora (often described as the “mastermind” of the
genocide) and General and Chief of Staff Augustin Bizimungu, both later
arrested and convicted of genocide by the ICTR.
The Hutu Power leaders
meant the RDR to:
- replace the “Interim
Rwandan Government” which had just carried out the genocide with a governing
body less obviously tainted, but still committed to the same goals; thus, the
RDR’s first titular President was a former minister who had not been in Rwanda
during the genocide, but the secret minutes of the RDR’s founding meeting show
that General Bizimungu and other military men would be in charge within a
behind-the-scenes “Umbrella Committee”;(5)
- replace the several
and in some ways rival Hutu Power political parties which had led the genocide with
a single party in which membership was obligatory for everyone in the “refugee
camps;”
- control the camp
population and the resources made available to the camps by the UNHCR;
- integrate,
reorganize, enlarge, rearm, indoctrinate, and train Hutu Power armed forces (i.e.
the former Armed Forces of Rwanda, the National Police, the Interahamwe and
other militias, and new conscripts from the camp population);
- lead the propaganda
campaign to deny the genocide, with help from the Rwandan intellectuals, clergy
and “civil society” activists in the camps, and reach out for foreign political
and material support;
- and plan and
implement the return of the genocidal Hutu
Power movement to rule in Rwanda, by force or by negotiation.
As the Hutu Power
movement’s government, military leadership, single party and administration in
the camps, the RDR made considerable progress on all these fronts in 1995-96, as
well as on collusion with Congo’s Mobutu regime to kill or drive out the
eastern Congo’s local Tutsi population.
By fall 1996 the movement was stronger and more capable then when it
arrived in summer 1994. However, in fall
1996, the post-genocide Rwandan RPF-led government -- after several explicit warnings
that it would have to act if the international community did nothing about this
threat -- intervened militarily, with Congolese rebel allies, to break up the
camps, repatriate the large majority of the camp population, scatter the RDR
and its armed forces, and indeed overthrow Mobutu.
This was Hutu Power’s
second military defeat, but again the defeat was not total. Remnants of its armed forces were able to
regroup in eastern Congo (under the name Rwanda Liberation Army or ALIR in the
late 1990s, until ALIR was listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S.
Government, and then Democratic Front for the Liberation of Rwanda or FDLR
since 2000), first to launch a murderous insurgency war in northwest Rwanda which
was largely defeated by mid-1998 (the last large-scale incursion was routed in
2001), and then to remain as a root cause of mayhem in eastern Congo until
today. While several key RDR leaders (Théoneste
Bagosora, Tharcisse Renzaho, Ferdinand Nahimana, Hassan Ngeze, Augustin
Bizimungu, to name a few) were finally arrested for trial and eventual
conviction by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), others were able to reach de facto safe haven
in Europe and North America. The Hutu
Power movement was much diminished, and rendered more nebulous with the
emergence of rival armed groups in eastern Congo (e.g. RUD/Urunana) and a
kaleidoscope of rival and generally tiny political groupings in Europe and
North America.(6)
By 1998, the RDR had evolved
from a quasi-government with extensive territory in eastern Congo into a small
(the RDR does not publish membership data, but a good guess would be a few
dozen leaders and activists and several hundred active members) émigré
political party based largely in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and
France. In 2002, it shortened its name
to “Republican Rally for Democracy in Rwanda.”
From 1995 until today, the RDR has survived as the political center of
gravity of the Hutu Power movement, with ties to its military center of gravity
in eastern Congo.
There is no evidence
that the purpose or the core ideology of the RDR has changed since 1995. While the “big fish” genocide perpetrators
who led the RDR in its halcyon 1995-96 days are more or less out of the picture,
leadership continuity has been provided by several key lesser figures such as Denys
Ntirugirimbahazi (Governor of the Rwandan National Bank in 1991-94, an RDR
founder in 1995 and its first Treasurer, subject of an Interpol Red Notice on
charges of active participation in the 1994 genocide, but nonetheless quietly
resident in the Netherlands); Joseph Bukuye (named as the RDR’s Chairman for
Information and Documentation in April 1995, a member of the FDU’s
‘coordinating committee” announced in February 2011, resident in Belgium); and
most notably, Charles Ndereyehe Ntahontuye, a participant in the RDR’s founding
meeting in April 1995 and a figure with sinister Hutu Power credentials.
In Rwanda in the early
1990s Ndereyehe was the President of the “Circle of Progressive Republicans” (CPR)
a group of some 200 extremist intellectuals established in 1991, and a member
of the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic (CDR), the most overtly
genocidal party in Rwanda in 1992-94 and the organizer of a militia that made
an important contribution to the killing.
The CPR, which appears to have been a precursor of the CDR, included some
of the more notorious names of that era, like Ferdinand Nahimana, initiator of
the infamous RTLM radio, convicted of genocide by the ICTR; Jean Bosco
Barayagwiza, RTLM’s chief executive and a founder and leader of the CDR, also
convicted of genocide by the ICTR; and Leon Mugasera, finally extradited from
Canada to Rwanda in 2011 and now on trial for incitement to genocide during a bloodthirsty
1992 speech in northwest Rwanda.(7) Circa 1992, Ndereyehe became director of an
agricultural research institute near Butare in southern Rwanda. In a major study of the genocide in Butare,
he appears as a vocal and active CDR activist during the run-up to the genocide;
he also appears twice in the appointment diary of Jean Kambanda, Prime Minister
in the “Interim Government” which oversaw the genocide, who met with him in October
1994 in eastern Congo and in December 1994 in Nairobi.(8) Ndereyehe’s
agricultural research institute was an important killing site during the genocide,
and Ndereyehe’s deputy there, Venant Rutunga, has been convicted in absentia of
genocide in Rwanda; he is presently living in the Netherlands. After the genocide, Ndereyehe spent time in
both Kenya and eastern Congo before moving to the Netherlands in 1998.
Ndereyehe was the RDR’s
Political Commissioner from 1995 and the RDR’s President in 1998-2000. He handed off that role to Victoire Ingabire
in 2000, but continues today as an active member of the FDU/RDR leadership,
listed on the FDU website as the “strategist” for the coalition. In May 2006, Ndereyehe was placed on the Rwandan
Government’s list of 93 most wanted genocide suspects, for participation in the
genocide in the Butare region, and on Interpol’s Red Notice List of Rwanda
genocide suspects.
The discourse of the
RDR has evolved in a tactical sense since 1995-96. It was no longer expedient to simply deny that
the 1994 genocide occurred, or to highlight earlier RDR statements authored by
leaders then in Africa who were later convicted of genocide by the ICTR.(9) In
Europe, genocide denial and hate speech can lead to prison sentences. The message needs to be expressed in more
coded language, and to be all the more camouflaged in the rhetoric of virtue. As a leading expert puts it, “Never have the
words ‘truth,’ ‘history,’ and ‘justice’ been employed more prolifically than in
the texts denying the reality of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.” (10)
But the strategic
direction of the rhetoric has remained the same: “the Hutu” (it is standard
practice in this rhetoric to shield the concept of perpetrator behind the
concept of the identity group, as if any accusation of the former constituted
an attack against the latter) are the victims and not the victimizers; an
alleged but unsubstantiated “double genocide” against the Hutu is the important
issue, not the UN-recognized genocide against the Tutsi; Tutsi and the RPF are
at the root of everything bad that has happened in Rwanda and the Great Lakes
region (together with insufficient unity among the Hutu); the ICTR and Rwanda’s
special genocide courts (the “gacaca” courts) are evil persecutions of innocent
persons; Rwanda’s governance must once again be organized along Hutu/Tutsi
lines, with Hutus in charge; and the use of force against the current Rwandan
government is legitimate.
The several hundreds of
pages of RDR public statements, party programs and speeches since 1995
(downloaded from the RDR.org website in 2011) also demonstrate a complete
absence of any genuine reflection about the ideology and ethics of those who
led and carried out the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, and who sought to
implicate as many Rwandan Hutus as possible in the process.
No member of the RDR
has ever testified for the prosecution at the ICTR or in Rwanda’s gacaca
courts, or applauded the achievements of these justice mechanisms, or even
recognized the challenges they have faced in trying those responsible for the
genocide. There is no instance of RDR
action against well-known genocide suspects in the party’s ranks and supporting
milieu. Instead, Ndereyehe and a
fellow-member of the CPR from the early 1990s named Eugene Rwamucyo, both
themselves on the Interpol Red Notice list of Rwandan genocide suspects, have
participated in the conferences organized by ICTR defense attorneys in order to
defend their clients’ cause outside the courtroom.(11) Ingabire initially
defended, then sought to distance herself from, but never condemned her deputy Joseph
Ntawangundi, who accompanied her to Rwanda in early 2010, where he was later arrested
and then confessed to his participation in the 1994 genocide. (12)
This is the party at
the core of the FDU coalition which Victoire Ingabire wanted to have registered
for participation in the Rwandan Presidential election when she returned to
Rwanda in early 2010 (she had left shortly before the 1994 genocide). Her brief political campaign was clearly
designed to revive Hutu Power ideology and politics in Rwanda. (13) Her arrest for trial in 2010 and subsequent
conviction in October 2012 were abundantly justified, and represent a victory
for human rights.
HRW reacted to
Ingabire’s conviction with a five-page statement clearly aimed at perpetuating
HRW’s mendacious portrayal of Ingabire as an innocent victim of
oppression. Thus, the statement
continues HRW’s cover-up of the history and nature of the RDR/FDU, chooses not
to address the substance and merits of Ingabire’s conviction for genocide
denial, and seeks to discredit her conviction for collusion with the FLDR by
questioning the reliability of “some” of the evidence presented --- while
ignoring other evidence less subject to tendentious interpretation, e.g. the
documentary evidence of Ingabire’s collusion with the FDLR which was seized by
Dutch police at her residence there.(14)
HRW’s advocacy for
Western action against the genocide in 1994 and its history of the genocide published
in 1999 (15) are a significant part of HRW’s reputation. It is sadly ironic as well as morally
reprehensible that since 2010 HRW has put its prestige and influence behind the
efforts of the direct political heir of the genocidal regime of 1994 to reenter
Rwanda politics. That HRW does so
without divulging the history of the RDR to its Western audience compounds the
villainy.
(2)
The FDLR Since 1994
Whereas the RDR is the
direct political descendent of the Hutu Power regime that carried out the
genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi in 1994, the FDLR is the direct military
descendent of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR) and Interahamwe militia that
spearheaded the killing. Sylvestre Mudacumura, the senior FDLR leader in
eastern Congo, was a senior officer in the FAR’s Presidential Guard which kick-started
the genocide in April 1994. Ignace Murwanashyaka, the FDLR President now on
trial in Germany, was previously the president of the RDR’s Germany
branch. Callixte Mbarushimana, the FDLR
Secretary General resident in Paris and targeted for prosecution by the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for FDLR crimes, is also wanted in Rwanda (and
has been indicted in France) for genocide crimes committed in 1994.(16)
HRW’s stance on the
FDLR is nearly as unscrupulous as its stance on the RDR. It can be summed up as follows: blame the
post-genocide Rwandan government for the continued existence of the FDLR, and
demand that Rwandan “political space” be expanded to make it more attractive to
the FDLR; seek to disassociate the FDLR from the 1994 genocide and from any
threat of renewed genocide in Rwanda; do not advocate forceful action against
the FDLR, and when it occurs, demand that it be stopped; and treat the FDLR as
a secondary issue compared to Tutsi-based armed groups in Congo.
How HRW gets to this
stance is more complex than its trick of simply not mentioning the RDR’s
history and ideology.
First, it should be
noted that in May 1995, HRW called for steps by the international community
that, if taken, would have likely preempted or certainly reduced the problem of
the FDLR: enforce the arms embargo on the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in eastern
Congo, separate these forces from the wider population in the “refugee camps,”
and arrest the leading genocide perpetrators for trial by the ICTR.(17) Here,
HRW was on strong ground. Unfortunately,
the international community did not act.
Also unfortunately, this was among the very few times – and was the very
last time – in the past 18 years that HRW saw fit to treat the surviving Hutu
Power movement as a serious problem for Rwanda, or to call for specific
coercive measures against Hutu Power armed forces in Congo.(18)
Second, HRW recognizes
that the FDLR is a destructive group, and has reported on several occasions on
its crimes against humanity in Congo.(19) However, while most observers have seen
the arrival of Hutu Power armed forces in eastern Congo in 1994 as the root
cause of the catastrophes this region has suffered since then, HRW has devoted
less energy and space to calling for action against the FDLR than to reporting and
calling for action against similar crimes by the Congolese Tutsi-based CDNP and
its predecessors, or alleged crimes by Rwandan intervention forces. In 2006, HRW called for the arrest of CNDP
leader Laurent Nkunda. It was not until December
2009 that HRW called for any of the leaders of the FDLR to be “investigated” –-
and this was several weeks after German authorities, after years of false
starts and delays, had finally arrested the FDLR President and his deputy in
Germany.(20) Here, HRW is on weak ground.
Third, which brings us well
into the realm of the bizarre, HRW insists that the solution to the FDLR in
Congo lies -- not, for example, in arresting its worst leaders and screening,
arresting or demobilizing and reintegrating its other leaders and foot soldiers
-- but in changing Rwanda.
Here is a June 2011 HRW
written statement on the FDLR:
“With its record of
extreme violence against civilians, the FDLR too remains a major source of
instability and conflict. While some
FDLR members have been through a demobilization programme and have been
repatriated to Rwanda, many others continue their operations in eastern DRC and
show no sign of returning to their country… the FDLR retains the capacity to
inflict huge suffering on the Congolese population.
Donor strategies aimed
at restoring peace and stability in the Great Lakes should consider the
creation of conditions in which FDLR members might contemplate disarming and
returning to Rwanda. HRW does not
advocate a political role for the FDLR, but believes that the absence of
political space in Rwanda, the repressive nature of the Rwandan state and the
lack of an independent justice system in Rwanda are genuine deterrents to the
return of some FDLR members…”(21)
Now to parse the
untruths:
Whereas HRW says, in June
2011, that “some” FDLR members have returned to Rwanda but “many” have not, the
truth is the reverse. Tens of thousands
of officers and soldiers from the FDLR and its predecessors have returned from
Congo and been reintegrated into Rwandan society since 1994. This includes 27,000 ex-FAR soldiers
reintegrated into Rwandan society between 1994 and 2002 (of which 15,000 were
brought into the new Rwandan army), and some 8500 Rwandan combatants (the vast
majority from the FDLR) from early 2002 through 2009.(22) In January 2009, the
UN estimated that there were 6130 FDLR combatants in Congo. After a major joint Congolese-Rwandan
military operation in early 2009 which scattered the FDLR, the arrest of key
FDLR leaders in Germany in November 2009 which demoralized the rank and file, and
a resulting surge in the demobilization and repatriation of FDLR combatants
(over 3000 in 2009-2012), FDLR strength had fallen to around 1500 men by
mid-2011. This was HRW’s “many,” while its “some” referred to tens of
thousands.(23)
Whereas HRW says that Rwandan
“lack of political space” is the disincentive to FDLR return, people who work
on FDLR demobilization and repatriation point elsewhere: there has been a hard
core of FDLR leaders who do not want to return because they were genocide
perpetrators in 1994 and do not want to face justice and because they are doing
well for themselves as warlords, while many rank and file FDLR soldiers have
been afraid of being killed by their leadership if they try to go back, or have
put down roots in Congo.(24)
When HRW speaks of
repression and lack of political space in Rwanda, its main issue is with
Rwanda’s laws against divisionism (e.g. political parties based on the Hutu or
Tutsi identity groups), genocide denial and genocide ideology and their
application to parties like the RDR – see above and part III below on the
legitimacy of these laws.
HRW’s comment here
about “the lack of an independent justice system in Rwanda” came just five days
before the ICTR, over HRW objections, expressed confidence in the independence
and impartiality of the Rwandan judicial system, by approving the first
transfer of an ICTR indictee to Rwanda for trial – see part IV below.
In a fall 2010 news interview,
HRW Senior Africa researcher Anneke Van Woudenberg had said something similar
to the written HRW statement cited above.
In words that were less stilted and probably more honest as to the core
HRW vision for Rwanda, she put it this way: “As long as the political space in
Rwanda is not opened up to the Hutu, the problem of the FDLR will continue.”(25)
There are several
claims implicit in Van Woudenberg’s statement: that “the Hutu” constitute a
distinct, homogeneous and primordial political category in Rwanda and that
Rwandan politics must be along Hutu/Tutsi lines; that the post-genocide Rwandan
government has a policy of repression, discrimination, or political exclusion directed
against “the Hutu;” that the views of FDLR leaders (if not the organization itself)
are a legitimate part of the “Hutu” political spectrum; and that the FDLR in
Congo are there because they are “Hutu” and not because they exhibit a
particular and evil political ideology and behavior. HRW has never offered substantiation for such implied
claims.
Fourth, HRW has not
only avoided advocating the use of force against the FDLR; it has also opposed
the use of force against the FDLR when this does occur, on the grounds that
Congolese forces commit abuses during such operations, that the FDLR retaliates
with mass murder and rape against civilians, and that the UN peacekeeping force
in eastern Congo is ineffective in preventing either of these phenomena. These criticisms have some validity. But there is more validity to the recognition,
expressed at the time by the UN Special Representative in the Congo, that the
use of force is necessary to deal with the FDLR, that a clean application of
such force is unlikely in the foreseeable future, and that delay just prolongs
the already very long agony of the population of eastern Congo.(26)
Fifth, even as HRW has
been reporting on the FDLR’s mass murder and mass rape in eastern Congo over
the last decade, it has sought to downplay the FDLR’s role as the armed wing of
the wider and still active genocidal Hutu Power movement. HRW has highlighted the point that with
attrition and the passage of time, many of the officers and soldiers of the
FDLR are no longer individuals who were personally implicated in the 1994 genocide,
as if this meant that genocidal Hutu Power leadership and indoctrination were
no longer critical to understanding the problem of the FDLR as an armed force.(27)
HRW’s line here is at variance with the assessment of repatriation professionals,
who find that within the FDLR leadership the salience of leaders implicated in
the 1994 genocide (the people who have most to lose by surrender) has risen in
recent years.(28) HRW has also sought to downplay the importance of genocide
ideology as a driving force in FDLR activities, by conceding to take statements
of some FDLR members at face value or by emphasizing the role of Christian
themes in FDLR members’ thinking.(29) Although in 1994-95 HRW did recognize,
briefly, that leading genocide perpetrators were regrouping in eastern Congo
with the goal of “finishing the work,” HRW has never examined the role and
strategic objectives of the RDR itself in launching what became the FDLR. Indeed, HRW has never even mentioned the RDR
in any of its reports since 1995 – a feat understandable only in the context of
willful blindness and a tunnel-vision focus on alleged sins of the
post-genocide Rwandan government.
Further, HRW has
recognized (but only after it was made clear in a December 2009 report by the
UN Group of Experts) that “The FDLR has received significant support from
diaspora cells and satellites in European, north American, and African
countries which have facilitated money transfers, coordinated arms deliveries
or facilitated recruitment for the group.”(30)
But HRW has never cited the RDR as the important player it is among
these cells, or examined the propaganda assistance of these groups to the FDLR,
or called for them to be investigated or prosecuted as supporters of what the
UN Security Council treats as a terrorist organization.
3.
The MDR in 2003
One reason why HRW
could fall so low on the RDR in 2010 is that it had already fallen a good way there
in 2003, when it campaigned hard against Rwandan government moves to ban another
Rwanda political party called the Rwandan Democratic Movement or MDR.
The 2002-2003 period
was a critical time in Rwanda’s post-genocide transition: preparing the new
Constitution and the law on political parties, and preparing for the first
post-genocide Presidential and Parliamentary elections. In a May 2003 report,(31) HRW condemned the
Rwandan Government’s soon-to-be implemented ban and dissolution of the MDR
political party, as anti-democratic and worthy of Western sanctions. HRW reached this judgment through the
following steps:
- Dismissing the
legitimacy of Rwanda’s post-genocide laws against particularist political
parties (“divisionism”) and genocide ideology. (See part III below.)
- Minimizing the evils
of the “historic” MDR created by Grégoire Kayibanda in 1959, which became
Rwanda’s de facto single party during Kayibanda’s racist and proto-genocidal 1962-1973
regime. To illustrate: in the weeks after
it routed an armed incursion by Rwandan Tutsi refugees outside Kigali in
December 1963, Kayibanda’s regime orchestrated the mass murder of tens of
thousands of Rwandan Tutsis; in March 1964 Kayibanda himself threatened to
exterminate the Tutsis “as a race” in the event of any new incursion that took
Kigali.(32)
- Minimizing the evils
of the reconstituted MDR in its 1991-94 phase, when the party split into a
minority “moderate” faction which supported the Arusha Accords between the
Habyarimana regime and the RPF, and a majority MDR-Power faction which allied
itself with the genocidal side of the Habyarimana regime and played a major
part in the 1994 genocide.(33)
- Minimizing the
evidence from 1994 to 2003 that the post-genocide MDR was incapable of freeing
itself from its racist past.(34)
- Asserting that if the
MDR ran in the 2003 election it could conceivably win thanks to support from
Rwanda’s majority Hutu identity group, on the basis of its “perceived” link to the
original MDR founded in 1959, and recognizing that the MDR in 2002-2003 still
contained both “Hutu Power” and “moderate” wings.
- But concluding
nevertheless that the MDR was innocent of representing any threat of
divisionism or genocide ideology, on the basis of the white-washing of MDR’s
past cited above, and three further arguments -- of which two are non sequiturs
and the third a misrepresentation of reality:
- HRW argued that by
demonstrating dissensions within the MDR, the RPF-led Rwandan Government
undercut its argument that the MDR was perpetuating “the same pro-Hutu ideology
developed by the MDR-Parmehutu party in 1959.”
This does not follow. On the
contrary, the fact that the MDR in 2003 was still unable to rid itself of Hutu
Power elements supports the argument that the MDR represented a divisionist
threat.
- HRW argued that the
fact that the RPF had sought to work with the “moderate” wing of the MDR from
1991 to 2003 “is in itself sufficient to discredit the claim that the MDR was
committed to a genocidal ideology throughout that period.” This also does not follow. One can more reasonably conclude that the RPF
showed remarkable patience and goodwill in trying to wean the minority
“moderate” wing of the MDR away from the party’s exclusivist, genocidal
heritage.
- HRW stated that
“while the (RPF) argument is that the MDR must be ended because of its pro-Hutu
genocidal ideology, authorities also sought to suppress two earlier dissident
groups that were multiethnic in nature, suggesting that it is the fact of
dissent rather than any supposed ethnic nature of the dissent which is
targeted.” This is a misrepresentation
of reality: both of the “groups” in question can easily be characterized as
divisionist. The first “group” refers to
Joseph Sebarenzi, the Speaker in the (appointed, not elected) Transitional
National Assembly. Sebarenzi held that
the Hutu and Tutsi identity groups must be represented in politics, and apparently
dabbled with appealing to Tutsi survivors and (virtually non-existent)
monarchist sentiments among some Tutsi, whereas any movement toward restoring
the pre-independence monarchy would be perceived by many as anti-Hutu in
intent. The other group, which attempted
to form a new political party called PDR-Ubuyanja, was led by former President
Bizimungu, whose rhetoric and actions were clearly aimed at playing the Hutu
ethnic card.(35)
Implicit in HRW’s
presentation was the thesis that the Rwandan Government must allow the MDR to
compete in the 2003 election, even if with its continuing Hutu Power and
“moderate” wings it could win enough votes from Rwandan Hutus to return to
power – just nine years after the genocide the historic MDR and the MDR-Power
party of 1992-94 did so much to prepare and execute, and which the post-1994
MDR was unable to deal with honestly.
HRW has bolstered its
campaign to make Hutu Power parties look good and thus worthy of renewed
participation in Rwanda politics by also trying to make the Rwandan laws that
keep them out look bad. Thus its desired
picture is complete: Rwanda uses aberrant laws to persecute legitimate
opposition parties. This has achieved the status of a “meme” in Western
discourse about Rwanda.
Rwanda’s post-genocide
constitution and laws restrict the freedoms of speech and association by
banning genocide ideology, genocide denial, discrimination, sectarianism and
divisionism (i.e., ethnicist politics, or political parties based on the Hutu
or Tutsi identity groups). This is not
surprising given the role that extremist ideology and politics played in
generating massive participation in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, and is
comparable to the course Germany took after its experience with Nazism.
Nonetheless, HRW has
never recognized that the 1994 genocide gives Rwanda legitimate grounds to
interpret international legal norms on freedom of speech and association differently
than does the United States.
HRW has used two
remarkable sleights of hand to discredit the relevant Rwanda laws as
illegitimate, both discernible in its report “Law and Reality: Progress in
Judicial Reform in Rwanda,” whose issuance in 2008 was timed to coincide with
the start of a large international conference in Kigali to take stock of
Rwanda’s performance in this domain.
The first sleight of
hand is to describe Rwanda’s social and political landscape as if the genocidal
tidal wave of 1994 had totally receded and left not a trace of genocidal
ideology, emotion, or activism in its wake.
Thus, the authors of this 109 page report (which looks back as far as 1994)
do not cite a single instance where post-genocide Rwandan authorities had
reasonable cause to apply the bans in question.
One way to paint this imaginary landscape is for HRW to ignore the
substance of four voluminous reports on such dangers by the Rwandan Parliament (the
reports were in fact alarming, but HRW can count on very few people outside
Rwanda reading them – see footnote 34) after condemning the reports on
procedural grounds (e.g. because they describe named persons as guilty without
judicial process). Another is to focus
uniquely on a small sample of cases of alleged official abuse of the laws to
silence dissent.
Participation in the
1994 extermination of Tutsi was furious, intimate and massive. Hundreds of thousands of participants in the
genocide have since been actively involved in post-genocide Rwandan society, in
many walks of life and in facing justice and possible punishment, including
long prison terms for the worst offenders.
Nevertheless, HRW would have its readers believe that the post-genocide
Rwandan authorities have had no need to take legal action against manifestations
of genocidal ideology or behavior. (We will return to the phenomenon of
disappearing genocidaires in Section
IV below.)
The second sleight of
hand is to pretend that HRW’s very American interpretation of what constitutes
legitimate restriction of the freedoms of speech and association represents the
international legal norm, while Rwanda’s restrictions make it a peculiar
outlier. In reality, both the United
States and Rwanda are outliers on this issue, with the U.S. at the permissive
end of the spectrum and Rwanda at the restrictive end. Indeed, a strong case can be made that Rwanda
is within the international consensus on these issues while the U.S. is not,
since the U.S. is unique in rejecting any restriction on freedom of speech
based on the evil of the content or viewpoint expressed.(36)
Here, for example, is
what HRW says about Rwanda’s 2008 law against genocide ideology:
“While it has been
defended by Rwandan authorities as similar to laws banning Holocaust denial, in
fact it is written in far broader terms than even laws banning incitement to
racial hatred, and can cover a very wide range of speech that is unquestionably
protected by international convention. International human rights law prohibits hate
speech that amounts to incitement of violence, discrimination or hostility
against a protected group. Such
restrictions, however, must be consistent with what is “necessary” in a
democracy. It is inconsistent with
freedom of expression to criminalize hate speech without the requirement that
the speaker be proven to have intended that his words incite, and that
incitement was the foreseeable and imminent result of those words…Human Rights
Watch also maintains that the crime of genocide denial is only consistent with
freedom of expression (sic) where genocide denial amounts to hate speech, that
is, intentional incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination.”(37)
It is telling to
compare the back of the hand HRW gives to Rwanda’s approach with HRW’s courteous
criticism of Germany’s laws banning hate speech, Holocaust denial, and
extremist right wing groups, wherein HRW recognizes the historical problems
Germany has faced and makes it clear that HRW’s criticism is based on HRW
policy convictions rather than international law.
For Germany, HRW
“acknowledges that the tragedy of the Holocaust is the historical context in
which such laws were adopted… recognize(s) that, by more rigorously enforcing
these laws, the German government has underscored the seriousness with which it
views the danger posed by right-wing extremists…(and is) mindful of the fact
that international human rights law provides different and conflicting
standards in this area...but we base our policy on our conviction that the
protected rights of speech, association and assembly are fundamental rights
that should be guaranteed.”(38)
One would not suspect,
from reading HRW’s condemnation of Rwanda’s laws with its avoidance of any
comparative perspective, that reservations expressed on ratification have put the
American approach to freedom of speech in dubious compliance with the 1966
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1965 International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, nor that
“the vast majority of non-American laws prohibiting the incitement to racial
hatred would be unconstitutional in the United States…(and that) American
doctrines and understandings about freedom of expression have typically been
rejected as extreme, unbalanced and hardly worthy of emulation.”(39)
Nor would one suspect
that for all its permissiveness, even U.S. law is not fully consistent with
HRW’s approach to freedom of speech. In its 2003 ruling on Virginia v. Black,
the Supreme Court found that under the First Amendment Virginia could indeed ban
Klu Klux Klan-style cross burning carried out with an intent to intimidate
(i.e. regardless of whether there was intent to incite unlawful action, or to
carry through on the threat). This
particular Supreme Court ruling is not particularly consistent with the overall
thrust of U.S. jurisprudence on freedom of speech, but is understandable in
light of the historical legacy of racist persecution in the U.S. It also suggests that for all its
“exceptionalism,” the U.S. approach to freedom of speech would be quite
different today if America had suffered a genocide of Rwandan proportions in
the recent past.
The pros and cons of
criminalizing genocide denial (which is illegal in a number of Western
countries regardless of intent to incite) are the subject of extensive, honest
debate in Europe and North America.(40) Deborah Lipstadt is a U.S. scholar
firmly committed to the American version of freedom of speech but also appalled
by Holocaust denial. She resolves her
dilemma by calling for American civil society to informally ostracize Holocaust
deniers. This is a plausible strategy in
America, but is much less so in post-genocide Rwanda. And Lipstadt recognizes that criminalizing
denial is a legitimate option in countries which have recent experience of
genocide.(41)
Oddly enough, HRW does
not specifically address the legitimacy of Rwanda’s restriction of freedom of
association whereby the ban on divisionism bars political parties based on the
Hutu and Tutsi identity groups. Here
too, the kind of international comparison which HRW chooses to avoid would show
that bans on particularist (for example, “ethnicist”) parties are now the norm
across Africa, and not uncommon in Europe as well (see footnote 36). In addition, the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR) has made two noteworthy rulings over the past decade with regard
to restricting freedom of association which by analogy lend legitimacy to Rwanda’s
laws and their application. In 2003, the
ECHR upheld Turkey’s ban on the theocratic Islamic Rafeh party as contrary to
the (then) Turkish principle of secularism, and in 2009 the ECHR upheld Spain’s
ban on the Basque nationalist party Batasuna (a party with sympathy for and
ties to the terrorist ETA) as engaging in conduct incompatible with democracy
and prejudicial to constitutional values, democracy and human rights.(42)
For HRW to criticize
the legitimacy of Rwanda’s ban on particularist parties would require HRW to
explicitly support the legitimacy of political parties based on Hutu/Tutsi
lines. HRW appears to find it more
expedient to take the “stealth” approach of pressing for entry of the FDU/RDR,
without divulging its Hutu Power basis or its links to the FDLR, or the
specious approach of claiming that the crux of the problem of the FDLR in Congo
is an alleged “lack of political space” in Rwanda.(43)
IV.
‘Don’t Hold More Than a Few Perpetrators Accountable, Forget About Their
Foreign Accomplices’
Before showing how this
command is expressed in HRW discourse on Rwanda, it is useful to look at how HRW
minimizes the genocide and scales down the importance and the scope of
accountability.
(1)
Minimizing the relevance and the scale of the genocide
There are many ways to
minimize a genocide. HRW uses several on
the Rwandan case. The simplest is to
relegate it to an irrelevant past. This
is what HRW has done ever since it published Leave None To Tell the Story in 1999, as if HRW’s ‘closing the book’
on the subject meant that Rwanda could, and in fact should, do the same. Since then, HRW has generally treated the
genocide, not as a catastrophe whose consequences remain a serious social and
political issue for Rwanda, but as something the Rwandan government exploits to
repress opponents (e.g. the MDR and RDR, see above) or to ward off criticism
from Western governments supposedly guilt-ridden about their inaction in 1994.(44)
This assertion echoes
the well-known charge that Israel “plays the Holocaust card” to win Western
acquiescence in its policies, but without any Rwandan equivalent to a “powerful
Jewish lobby” to influence Western policy-makers’ decisions. Absent such a transmission belt, the
assertion rests on dubious psychology. One can as easily argue that guilt makes
people dislike and find fault with those they have wronged, to lessen their status
as victim. “Blaming the victim” was in
fact a common aspect of Western behavior toward the genocides of the 1990s in
both Bosnia and Rwanda.(45)
If guilt made Western
policy-makers go easy on the post-genocide Rwandan government, one would expect
the West to try to expiate its guilt in other ways as well. However, while Western aid levels are
important for Rwanda, they are not particularly generous compared to what other
countries get. The West has never
considered offering reparations to Rwandan genocide survivors; it has performed
abysmally on denying safe haven to Rwandan fugitives implicated in the genocide
(see below); it has never held to account those Western officials, most notably
in France, who were most complicit in the genocide, nor supported the efforts
of French civil society groups to have them tried; and it has never spoken out
against the most salient Western attempt to “blame the victim,” i.e. France’s
fraudulent 2006 indictment which accused Rwandan President Kagame of shooting
down President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994 and thereby “causing” the
genocide (see below). In short, the West
does not fit the profile of an actor seeking to expiate guilt.
As for the charge that
the Rwandan government “exploits the genocide” to deflect outside criticism, it
is not clear how HRW could really substantiate such a charge, or how the
Rwandan government could disprove it.
However, Rwanda’s progress on recovery and development since 1994 does
not fit the profile of a polity based on exploiting human suffering, and it is
odd to speak in terms of an issue being exploited when the societal impact of
that issue, if translated to the American context of 1994, would mean over 10
million Americans mobilized by a genocidal elite to exterminate over 20 million
Americans, up close and personally.
Another time-honored
tactic to minimize a genocide is to minimize the number of victims and perpetrators.
In the “Numbers”
Section of its 1999 Leave None
report, HRW used “preliminary data” to estimate that some 507,000 Tutsi were
killed in the genocide. This number was
based on HRW’s estimate that there were some 150,000 Tutsi survivors, out of a
pre-genocide estimated total of some 657,000 Tutsi inhabitants. The latter figure, which constitutes a supposed
ceiling for the number of potential Tutsi victims, is an extrapolation from a 1991
Habyarimana regime census, which claimed that the Tutsi were only 8.4 percent
of the population. However, few outside
the Habyarimana regime have ever given this census credence. The regime had a strong incentive to set the
Tutsi share of the population as low as possible, since this was the benchmark
for its quota system restricting Tutsi access to secondary and higher education
and government jobs; at the same time, persecuted Tutsi had a strong incentive
to try to pass as Hutu. The more commonly used figures for the Tutsi
share of the population before the genocide range from 12 to 15 percent, and
imply that the ceiling for the number of potential Tutsi victims in 1994 was
somewhere between 1.0 and 1.3 million persons.
HRW has largely kept to
its 1999 estimate to this day, and its “over 500,000” anchor number for the
victims’ column is widely used in Western literature and media about Rwanda. Occasionally, HRW uses the 800,000 figure
advanced by the UN. It is remarkable
that HRW has never reconsidered its use of the 1991 Habyarimana regime census
to frame the issue of the number of genocide victims, despite subsequent scholarship
demonstrating its unreliability.(46) It
is even more remarkable that HRW has never acknowledged the figures put forward
by Rwandan authorities in 2002, on the basis of a from-the-bottom-up count by
the Ministry for Local Government, which arrived at a total of 1,074,017
persons murdered during the genocide, of whom 934,218 could be identified by
name and of whom 94 percent were killed because they were identified as Tutsi.(47)
This is almost twice HRW’s “anchor number.”
For the perpetrators
column, HRW recognizes that participation in the genocide was high among
Rwandan Hutu, but notes that this was often coerced, or enabled by the
legitimacy Western governments gave the Rwandan regime during the genocide, or only
indirect (for example, identifying a Tutsi hiding place to “the authorities”
rather than using a machete oneself).
After highlighting these implicitly extenuating circumstances, HRW estimated
nonetheless in 1999 that there were “tens of thousands” of killers.(48)
This is an extremely
low estimate. HRW has stuck with it to
the present day. This takes some
stubbornness, given more recent estimates by Western scholars ranging from
around 200,000 to over 400,000 perpetrators,(49) and especially, the work of
Rwanda’s 2002-2012 special “gacaca” genocide courts (see below). HRW has never addressed the evidence that its
“tens of thousands” is a fraction of the real number of Rwandan genocide
perpetrators.
Another HRW minimizing
tactic is to veil the issue of massive participation in the genocide by
speaking only of “the accused,” as in HRW’s 2008 report “Law and Reality.” Here, HRW approaches the issue of
post-genocide justice almost exclusively in terms of due process for “the
accused,” rather than in terms of “how many of the perpetrators are being held
to account.” Although one sentence in
the report notes that the organizers of the genocide mobilized “hundreds of
thousands of persons” to various levels of involvement,(50) the report consistently
ignores the reality of a massive number of real and very guilty
perpetrators. The same report, 109 pages
long, uses the word “victim” only once.
The agony of the victims and survivors, the burden of guilt borne by the
perpetrators, and the daily challenges of their living side by side are all
rendered virtually invisible.
HRW’s discourse thus
functions, apparently deliberately, not to “deny” the genocide per se, but certainly
to reduce its scale and relevance to suit HRW’s vision of and policy
prescriptions for post-genocide Rwanda.
(2)
Reducing the importance of post-genocide accountability
From 1999 to 2011, the
level of importance HRW ascribes to justice and punishment for the genocide
declined from a “must” to merely “important but not a panacea” to…some unstated
level.
In 1999, in the
concluding “Justice and Responsibility” section of Leave None, HRW averred that retributive justice was absolutely
essential in response to the 1994 genocide, though it gave this a peculiar HRW twist:
“There must be justice
for the genocide, political murders, and other violations of human rights in
Rwanda in 1994. The guilty must be
punished and prevented from inflicting further harm. The innocent must be freed from unjust
assumptions about their culpability…Without justice, there can be no peace in
Rwanda, nor in the surrounding region.
This truth, widely acknowledged in 1994, has become even clearer in the
four years since: insurgents, including some responsible for the 1994 genocide,
and RPA soldiers are killing and will keep on killing civilians until they
become convinced that such a course is futile and costly…Establishing the
responsibility of individual Hutu is
also the only way to diminish the ascription of collective guilt to all Hutu.”(51)
There are of course two
other ways in which justice is essential, which HRW neglects to mention: as a
gesture of respect for the victims of the genocide, and as a measure of solace for
the survivors.
In this same section of
Leave None, the survivors make two
cameo appearances. In the first, to
highlight the importance of not ascribing collective guilt to Hutu and to illustrate
that “remarkably enough, some Rwandans who have suffered enormously recognize
the need for fairness and honesty in judging alleged perpetrators” (note the
backhanded insinuation that most survivors do not), HRW quotes a survivor who
was also a rape victim as saying “Not all the Hutu had wild hearts…I cannot say
that all the Hutus have killed. There is
a difference between Hutu and assassin.”
In the second, the survivors appear as cheaters: “some survivors have
learned to exploit the system to their advantage and request damages from
defendants who never harmed them.”(52)
Had it wanted to, HRW
could have found abundant evidence, and poignant anecdotes, to underscore the
points that justice, even if seeking it was a risky and traumatic process, was
a crucial measure of solace for the survivors; and that the number of genocide
survivors who have received “damages” in restitution is infinitesimal.(53)
Of note here too is
that HRW finds it equally important to render justice for lesser crimes as it
is for genocide, and ascribes moral equivalence to killings of civilians by
“insurgents, including some responsible for the 1994 genocide” and by the RPA
(the RPF-led government’s army) that was fighting the insurgency. We will return to these issues in part V
below.
In 2002, HRW’s senior
Rwanda players at the time (Kenneth Roth and Alison Des Forges) published a
short essay called “Justice or Therapy” which also used strong language on the
importance of justice and punishment: “…it is precisely at a time of
atrocities…that a policy of trials and punishment is essential.” To rebut a proposal by Helena Cobban to limit
retributive justice in favor of reconciliation and therapy with regard to the
perpetrators of the 1994 genocide, Roth and Des Forges argue that “the killers
are not the latest hapless victims of the genocidal flu. They are deliberate, immoral actors. Treating them as no more culpable than
children who refuse to wear coats and catch cold is both wrong and
dangerous. Wrong because it does a deep
disservice to the victims…Dangerous because it signals to other would-be mass
murderers that they risk not punishment but, at most, communal therapy
sessions.”(54)
What is surprising is
that these words came, not to support Rwanda’s effort at the time to create a
hybrid justice mechanism (the gacaca courts, see below) which would hold
genocide perpetrators to account in a way that would both end impunity and
promote reconciliation, but to rebut a straw-man therapy alternative (Cobban’s
proposal was in fact more nuanced) which was not a real-world option. It’s also remarkable that this rebuttal was
the last time HRW described trials and punishment for the 1994 genocidaires as essential.
By 2004, in an essay by
HRW’s Des Forges and former HRW staffer Timothy Longman,(55) the importance of
justice had declined. Here,
accountability is merely “an important step in the social (note the omission of
the word ‘political’) reconstruction of Rwanda…But trials are not a panacea…”
-- particularly, in their view, because the Rwanda government elected in 2003
lacked legitimacy because the MDR had been banned, and because the gacaca court
system was one-sided in focusing on the genocide and not also on lesser RPF
crimes.
In two subsequent and
lengthy reports on Rwandan justice issues in 2008 and 2011,(56) HRW does not
ascribe any particular level of importance, whether absolute or qualified or something
even less, to the issue of post-genocide justice. Some light is shed on the evolution of HRW
thinking on this issue by comments made by Alison Des Forges to Sanford Unger
in February 2009, when Unger, President of Goucher College, was trying to
figure out whether a Rwandan émigré he had hired (Leopold Munyakazi) was a bone
fide refugee or a genocide fugitive.
Unger reports the conversation as follows:
“’I don’t think you
have a problem here,’ she reassured me.
But then she paused, and almost seemed to reverse herself: ’We may never
really know for sure about guilt or innocence,’ she told me. ‘During the
Rwandan genocide, there were people who went without sleep for so many days in
a row that they became psychotic. They
killed some of their neighbors on one day, and saved others on the next. ‘Many
Rwandans,’ she said, ‘might never be sure themselves of exactly what they had
done during that time of madness. They
did what they had to do to survive.’”(57)
The points made above
are helpful to understanding how HRW gets to its real answer on the question of
accountability for the genocide, which is that it should have been quite
limited for the Rwandan perpetrators, and is not needed at all for their
foreign supporters. Naturally, HRW does
not make this argument explicitly.
However, it is the inescapable inference of most of what HRW does say
explicitly, and from the priorities evident in its advocacy activity.
(3)
Don’t hold more than a few perpetrators accountable: condemning gacaca
HRW has expressed this
command by derisively condemning the gacaca courts which Rwanda created to
handle justice for the genocide, as a “tool of repression” and a “forum for
settling personal vendettas or silencing dissident voices.”(58) HRW has fallen far short of substantiating
its condemnation of gacaca, and has never put forward a realistic alternative
that could try the massive numbers of Rwandans implicated in the genocide. One can only conclude that HRW would have
preferred impunity for the large majority of perpetrators.(59)
Under the gacaca system
in place from 2002 to 2012, 170,000 “persons of integrity” were elected by
local communities to serve as judges in 12,000 community courts, in whose work
nearly every adult Rwandan participated as a defendant, accuser, or witness. These gacaca courts tried just over one
million individual suspects who accounted for almost two million criminal cases
(divided into three categories) stemming from the genocide. Of these, 1.3 million cases (Category 3)
involved pillaging the property of the victims.
The remaining 638,080 cases involved murders, rapes and assaults, of
which 60,552 cases were in Category 1 (ringleaders and rapists) and 577,528
cases were in Category 2 (low level killers and assaulters). Conviction rates were highest for the
Category 3 pillaging cases (1.27 million convictions or 96%), where the legal
but generally unenforced penalty is restitution; then for the Category 1
ringleaders cases (53,426 convictions or 88%); and then for the Category 2
cases involving low level killers (361,590 convictions or 63%).(60)
The gacaca trials for one million suspects over ten years cost Rwanda and several foreign donors about $50 million or an average of $50 per suspect, in dramatic contrast to the ICTR, whose trials of 70 persons over 17 years have cost something in the range of $2 billion or an average of over $20 million per suspect.
The gacaca trials for one million suspects over ten years cost Rwanda and several foreign donors about $50 million or an average of $50 per suspect, in dramatic contrast to the ICTR, whose trials of 70 persons over 17 years have cost something in the range of $2 billion or an average of over $20 million per suspect.
The Rwandan government
has not yet released data that would show how many individuals (as opposed to
how many cases) were tried and convicted in each of the three criminal
categories. However, the 415,016 cases
which resulted in convictions in the murderous categories 1 and 2 indicate that
the number of genocide perpetrators convicted by the gacaca courts is very
likely over 200,000. Rwanda’s regular
courts have convicted several thousand more, while tens of thousands of other
perpetrators escaped trial by death or fleeing the country.
The bottom line, when
the gacaca system was closed down in mid-2012, 18 years after the genocide, was
that some 40,000 genocide convicts were still serving time in Rwandan prisons,
while another 20,000 or so were working off their sentences in community
service labor camps (“TIG”) around the country.(61) Sentences were very light
compared to the gravity of the crimes committed, especially for those who
confessed. Impunity was avoided to a
significant degree, but reconciliation and reintegration were clearly dominant
over retribution. With the guilty individually
held accountable, the remaining Rwandan population was free of any implied
burden of criminal liability.
Rwanda’s gacaca courts
represent the first comprehensive effort at post-genocide justice in world
history. HRW contributed little to the
extensive foreign reporting about gacaca while it was in operation. It signaled in passing fashion its hostile
skepticism, in works that dealt with the Rwandan justice system in 2004 and
2008.(62)
Senior Rwanda
specialist Des Forges was harshly critical in a November 2007 speech, where she
reportedly said that “It is difficult to say that gacaca, as a judicial
mechanism, is credible today and will be perceived as such…It is like a bar
that closes at midnight, where people are pressing to get a last drink: the
accusations rain down, persons who have been acquitted are accused again…it’s
worrisome. It’s a train that is speeding
down hill with no one at the controls…”(63)
HRW Executive Director
Kenneth Roth was even more derisive, in an April 2009 statement timed (is this
not cruel?) to coincide with Rwanda’s annual week of mourning for the genocide:(64)
“…ironically, it is the genocide that has
provided the government with a cover for repression…One tool of repression has
been the gacaca courts. The original
impetus was understandable: Rwandan prisons were overpopulated with tens of
thousands of alleged genocidaires and
no prospect of the country’s regular courts trying them within any reasonable
time. The gacaca courts provided a
quick, if informal, way to resolve these cases.
In theory, members of the community would know who had or had not been
involved in the genocide, but in reality the lack of involvement by legal
professionals has left the proceedings open to manipulation. Today, 15 years after the genocide, people
are still coming forward and accusing their neighbors of complicity in it,
suggesting that gacaca has morphed into a forum for settling personal vendettas
or silencing dissident voices.”
HRW’s first substantial
assessment of gacaca, entitled “Justice Compromised,”(65) came only in May
2011. It can be understood as an attempt to back up Roth’s slurs and to preempt
a positive international opinion as gacaca drew to a close; it cannot be
understood as a fair and balanced assessment of what Rwanda had achieved. Here are some of the reasons why.
HRW sticks to its figure
of “tens of thousands” of perpetrators, blithely failing to address the fact
that the gacaca courts had reached guilty verdicts in hundreds of thousands of
perpetrator cases.
HRW makes a specious
claim to analytical rigor by touting in a “methodology” section the “more than
350” cases it followed over 2000 days of trial observation in all four of
Rwanda’s regions –- whereas this is a minute sample of the one million persons
tried in two million cases, and HRW divulges nothing about how it chose to
focus on them.(66)
Whether HRW tells the
whole story for the cases it selects to criticize -- they are too few to be
representative, but too many to individually dissect here -- is questionable. The highly symbolic case of Belgian “White
Father” missionary Guy Theunis (the only European to have appeared as a
defendant before a gacaca court) is one which HRW has been especially eager to
defend: HRW highlighted it in two reports, portraying Theunis as an innocent
priest, human rights activist, and journalist victimized by Rwandan authorities
on venal or political grounds. But HRW suppresses
an enormous amount of evidence that Theunis was personally and ideologically intimate
with many Rwandans who played leading roles in the genocide, and quite active
in support of their cause before, during and after the genocide.(67)
Almost all of the 20
“recommendations” HRW makes to Rwandan authorities in this report are in favor
of those accused of genocide. Only one
(more help for rape victims) is in favor of the victims. This would make sense only if the gacaca
process had been corruptly retributive overall, which HRW’s highly selective
sample fails to demonstrate, and which is implausible from the outset if one
compares the scale of the highly participatory 1994 genocide and the scale of
the punishment which gacaca meted out, with less than 60,000 convicts still in
jail or community service 18 years after the event.
HRW chooses to minimize
the issue of “ceceka,” i.e. the conspiracy of silence among perpetrators and
their families and friends (who far outnumber genocide survivors in the hills
of Rwanda), while more balanced assessments of gacaca see it as a major
problem.(68)
HRW gives only cursory
attention to the issue of restitution and damages for the survivors of the
genocide, and indeed devotes more attention to survivors seeking unrightful
“personal gain” (pages 109-110) than it does to the issue of the survivors’
frustrated rights (page 80). Nor does it
address the issue of UN assistance for the survivors, which has been minimal
since 1994.(69)
Even though gacaca’s
comprehensive trials of individuals were the only way to escape the ascription
of collective guilt to “the Hutu” -- a high priority for HRW (see above) -- HRW
chooses in this 2011 report to insinuate that gacaca instead reinforced the
idea of collective guilt. HRW argues
here that because “only Tutsi can be victims in gacaca and generally only Hutu
can be perpetrators,” gacaca has reinforced the association between the labels “Hutu”
and “perpetrator.”(70) This argument stands logic on its head, given that it
was the genocide itself which created an issue of collective guilt which only
individual trials could resolve.
Neither the text of
this 144 page report nor its 624 footnotes make a single reference to the many
Rwandan studies and opinion polls assessing the gacaca process, its impact, and
the views of the Rwandans involved – whose overall import is far more positive
than the anecdotal comments of HRW’s chosen interlocutors.(71)
HRW presented its
“Justice Compromised” report in an “off the record” briefing in Kigali. In a rare case of a diplomat standing up
publicly to HRW, the Dutch Ambassador rose to express his disappointment at the
tendentiousness of the report.(72)
(4)
Fighting transfers and extraditions to Rwanda
Where does HRW stand on
the rest of the world’s efforts to hold Rwandan genocide perpetrators
accountable, in a situation where hundreds of notorious genocide leaders were
able to flee the scene of the crime, most of whom have since 1994 enjoyed de facto
safe haven around Africa, Europe and North America?
HRW’s advocacy effort
concerning the international community’s treatment of Rwandan genocide suspects
outside Rwanda has been consistent with HRW’s radically negative view of
Rwandan governance and justice. But it
has not been consistent with any real commitment to seeing more than a few
Rwandan genocide suspects held to account.
HRW has been very
active, via its 2008 “Law and Reality” report and amicus curiae briefs to the ICTR and a UK court, in supporting the
efforts of Rwandan genocide suspects to avoid transfer or extradition to Rwanda
by the ICTR or by national courts, on the grounds that they would not get a
fair trial there.(73)
These efforts were initially
successful. In late 2008, the ICTR rejected
the ICTR Prosecutor’s first request for the transfer to Rwanda of several
suspects indicted by the ICTR. In early
2009, the UK court, following the ICTR’s lead, overturned a lower court’s
approval of a Rwandan request for extradition of four genocide suspects who are
allegedly implicated in thousands of killings in the four districts they
governed. HRW suggested they be tried in the UK on lesser charges of murder or
torture, or for genocide if the UK would amend its laws to make this
possible. Not surprisingly, neither has
happened and the four continue to enjoy safe haven in the UK.(74)
HRW’s advocacy against
transfer or extradition to Rwanda was a factor in these decisions. However, it is important to note that the
ICTR in fact rejected the heavier charges against the Rwandan judicial system
in HRW’s amicus curiae brief -- for
example, that Rwandan courts were not independent and impartial and did not
respect the presumption of innocence, and that there was a risk of torture or
inhumane detention conditions. The ICTR
denied the request for transfers on much narrower grounds. One was that there was ambiguity between two
Rwandan statutes as to whether a genocide subject could be sentenced to life
imprisonment with solitary confinement, which the ICTR considers a cruel and
unusual punishment. The other was that
there were potential problems in securing the testimony of defense witnesses leery
of being arrested in Rwanda on charges of genocide, genocide denial, or
genocide ideology, or of losing refugee status outside Rwanda if they travelled
there.(75)
Since mid-2011, the
tide has turned. In June 2011, in
response to Rwandan measures to address the two concerns expressed by the ICTR
in 2008, the ICTR began approving transfers to Rwanda. Following this ICTR “blessing” of the Rwandan
judicial system, several national courts in Canada and Europe as well as the
European Court of Human Rights have approved extraditions of genocide suspects
to Rwanda. The ICTR’s 2011 ruling, which
was a victory for human rights, came despite renewed and still extensive objections
from HRW.(76)
(5)
Ignoring the problem of impunity for fugitive genocide suspects
HRW appears to consider
the creation of the ICTR in November 1994 as an adequate fulfillment of the
international community’s obligation to punish the 1994 genocide, even though
the ICTR was designed to try only a very small number of leading perpetrators (the
ICTR has indicted some 90 persons, not all of them “big fish,” and will try
some 70 persons before closing down). Given
HRW’s view that the ICTR should keep the lead on holding to account the Rwandan
genocide suspects it has indicted, it would be logical for HRW to work to
ensure that the ICTR can actually get its hands on these suspects.
However, HRW has done
nothing since 1995 to press recalcitrant countries to fulfill their legal obligation
to track down and seize Rwandan genocide suspects indicted by the ICTR, of whom
ten are still at large (for example, alleged genocide financier Félicien
Kabuga, believed to be hiding thanks to political protection in Kenya, and Presidential
Guard commander Protais Mpiranya, believed to be doing the same in Zimbabwe).(77)
Nor has HRW done
anything to press France to follow through on its February 2008 commitment to
the ICTR to try the two indictees whom the ICTR had assigned to French
jurisdiction (Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka and former Governor of Gikongoro Province
Laurent Bucyiburata, indicted by the ICTR in 2007, resident in France since
1994, and in and out of French arrest since 1995 and 2000, respectively – but
never tried, despite France’s obligation to the ICTR and censure of French
slowness on Munyeshyaka from the European Court of Human Rights).(78)
Nor has HRW gone out of
it way to applaud the instances where countries have made arrests for the ICTR.
Meanwhile, ICTR
indictees are a very small portion of the total number of Rwandan genocide suspects
who remain outside Rwanda. These include
many well-known figures accused of playing important roles in the genocide,
whose addresses are known to the authorities, particularly in France, Belgium,
and the Netherlands, and many of whom are the subjects of Interpol arrest
notices.(79) HRW has made it clear that
it does not want these suspects extradited to Rwanda. But does HRW want their host countries to
meet their obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention by arresting and trying
the suspects themselves? HRW applauded
and assisted in the trial and conviction of four genocide fugitives in Belgium
in 2001. Since then, HRW has neither exerted
pressure for prosecutions in national courts, nor applauded the few instances
where such prosecution has taken place.
Nor has HRW, despite its relatively lavish resources, joined other
smaller organizations in tracking and alerting national authorities to the
presence of the many genocide suspects living in its own backyard in the U.S., or
in the countries in which HRW has offices.
(6)
Forget about foreign accomplices: France, the Catholic Church
In 1999, HRW had this
to say about the responsibility of foreign officials relating to the genocide:
“…foreign leaders whose
inaction contributed to the scale and duration of the catastrophe will likely
face the judgment only of history and public opinion.”
“With the exception of
the complaints against former Ministers Delcroix and Claes in Belgium, no
effort has been made to hold policymakers personally and legally responsible
for refusing to halt the slaughter.
Researchers must continue trying to go beyond the relatively painless,
generalized confessions of political leaders to analyze the decisions taken by
individuals, so that these persons can be obliged to acknowledge their
responsibility at least in the public domain, if not in a court of law. Only in this way can we hope to influence
decision makers in the future to never again abandon a people to genocidal
slaughter.”(80)
Several comments about this
1999 statement and HRW’s subsequent behavior are in order.
First, HRW threw in the
towel very easily on the question of foreign officials’ legal accountability
for failures to protect the victims of the genocide.(81)
Second, HRW failed to
mention and thus let off the hook those foreign officials, most notably among
the French, who face much graver allegations of active complicity in the
genocide.
Third, HRW failed to
mention that a significant cohort of French researchers had been working hard
since 1994 to expose French officials’ complicity in the genocide, i.e. to
achieve exactly what HRW says is “the only way” to make progress on not
abandoning the victims of genocide. This
cohort of French researchers has grown over the past 18 years and is still at
it today.(82) HRW has never mentioned, much less supported, their campaign.
Fourth, in 2007 and
2011 two ad hoc Rwandan investigative commissions produced two lengthy and extensively
documented reports, the first on France’s role in the genocide and the second
on the role of those who would go on to lead the genocide in shooting down
President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6, 1994.(83) These reports are essential
reading for an understanding of responsibility and justice for the genocide. HRW has never acknowledged the substance and
the implications of these reports, for example the need for further investigation
and charges against the French and Rwandan persons implicated.
The role of French
officials and soldiers in the 1994 genocide ranks among the gravest moral and
political challenge to the principle of accountability in 20th century French
history. They are accused of assisting
in the preparation of the genocide, covering up and perhaps assisting in the
perpetrators’ initial step in the genocide (the shooting down of Habyarimana’s
plane), participating in some of the killing, arming the perpetrators before,
during and after the genocide, helping the perpetrators form their “interim
government” at the beginning of the genocide, giving the perpetrators political
cover during the genocide, helping the perpetrators escape and regroup in
eastern Congo, assisting the Hutu Power movement’s post-genocide propaganda
campaign, and providing safe haven to many notorious genocide fugitives. The substance of these accusations represents
an enormous amount of damage to human rights in Rwanda. Since 1995, HRW has exerted zero pressure on
French authorities to address these issues of complicity, whether politically
or judicially.
The work of many
foreign and Rwandan researchers (84) also demonstrates that the 1994 genocide
raises grave issues of accountability for the Vatican and the Catholic Church
more generally, including participation of Catholic clergy in the genocide,
providing escape routes and safe haven to fugitive genocide suspects, and
supporting the Hutu Power movement’s propaganda campaign. HRW has never exerted any pressure on the Vatican
or any part of the Catholic Church to address their issues of accountability on
Rwanda.
V.
‘Admit You Are No Better Than They’
1. Accusations in a mirror and moral equivalency
“Accusations in a
mirror” (accusing the other side of what you plan to do, are doing, or have
done) have been the core strategy of Hutu Power propaganda in the preparatory,
implementation, and denial phases of the 1994 genocide. HRW seemed to recognize this when it examined
Hutu Power propaganda during the genocide in its 1999 Leave None,(85) but appears to have forgotten it thereafter.
As a human rights
reporting and advocacy group, HRW seeks to identify and ensure accountability
for violations of humanitarian law by all parties in a conflict. This is obviously a legitimate endeavor with
value from a human rights perspective.
But setting out to
focus even-handedly on the violations of all parties -- and all parties
everywhere always commit some -- also involves analytical risks: missing the
forest for the trees, obscuring the driving force of a conflict, and implying
moral equivalence where none exists (or creating an “immoral equivalency,” as Deborah
Lipstadt has put it, the usual instance cited being the efforts of right-wing
German extremists to equate the Allied firebombing of Dresden and the Nazi
extermination of Jews at Auschwitz).(86) It is a short trip between “both sides
committed violations” to “both sides are bad,” and bystanders’ political
expediency can make it even shorter. I
remember vividly how in spring 1993, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, on
the eve of Congressional testimony where he would resist pressure to recognize
that genocide was underway against Bosnian Muslims, pressed his staff for data
on war crimes by the victims.(87)
The challenge of
avoiding the wrongful ascription of moral equivalency is particularly difficult
when one posits, as HRW does, that all victims have equal status: ”States have
a duty to recognize genocide and similar mass crimes but should not recognize
mass crimes selectively, favoring some victims and ignoring others…”(88) Were
it applied retroactively, HRW’s stance would mean that not only German and
Japanese officials but also Truman, Churchill and a host of Allied commanders would
have faced war crimes trials after World War II. They could have faced a range of charges including
the indiscriminate slaughter of hundreds of thousands of civilians in “terror
bombing” campaigns, the unnecessary use of nuclear weapons, holding and using
POWs for forced labor long after the end of the war, or complicity in the
brutal and often deadly forced displacement of millions of ethnic German
civilians from around Eastern Europe to Germany after the war. Perhaps a hypothetical case could be made for
this, if some higher power had been available to hold the trials, but it probably
would not have been helpful in getting Germany and Japan to recognize their
responsibilities in World War II. In any
case, in the world as it is, HRW’s Olympian vision is one that does not apply
to major Western powers, but only to actors in weaker countries, which raises
another set of double standards issues.
It is debatable whether
an “even-handed” approach can really be politically neutral; it is certain that
it should be done very carefully in a situation where the genocidal side is
intent on shifting blame to the other side.
In the real-world case
of Rwanda, the analytical risks of the “even-handed” approach seem to have
damaged HRW’s reporting and advocacy from the start, at a time when HRW joined other
human rights groups in an “International Commission on Human Rights Abuses in
Rwanda” which visited Rwanda in January 1993 and published a 102 page report in
March 1993. Several participants in this
Commission recognized that Rwanda was in an early stage of genocide. HRW rejected that prescient assessment,
worked to keep the word genocide out of the report issued in March, and protested
(via
a Kenneth Roth phone call to William Schabas) behind the scenes when other participants put out a press release
which used the word genocide.(89)
Since the genocide, HRW
has been eager rather than appropriately cautious about making or embracing
unsubstantiated or weakly substantiated allegations which reinforce key
elements of the Hutu Power “accusations in a mirror” strategy: for example, that
the RPF is co-responsible for the genocide against the Tutsi, and that it has
been RPF policy to systematically massacre Hutu, or to even to commit genocide
against them.
2. Small brush strokes to damn the RPF
Sometimes HRW does this
with small brush strokes that add up to a damning portrait, as in the examples
below.
HRW has not gone as far
as Hutu Power propagandists and some other virulent critics of the RPF who condemn
the armed return to Rwanda in 1990 of Rwandan refugees led by the RPF as
illegitimate or even criminal. HRW has,
however, insinuated that it was illegitimate, by calling it an “invasion” and
stating that it was “supposedly” to win the right of return for Rwandan Tutsi
refugees.(90)
HRW has not gone as far
as Hutu Power propagandists who condemn the 1993 Arusha Accords (whose
implementation the April 1994 Hutu Power coup d’état and genocide were designed
to prevent, since the Accords laid the basis for a democratic and civic as
opposed to single-party and racially based Rwanda). However, in 1993-94 HRW refrained from
praising the Accords or pressing for their implementation; in its 1999 Leave None HRW had nothing to say about
the degree to which the Accords reflected the democratic and peaceful
aspirations of many Rwandans in addition to meeting the political goals of the
RPF.(91)
At the same time, HRW
has held the RPF to be co-responsible for the destruction of the Arusha
Accords, without offering any substantiation for this claim. HRW has also held that the only “good guys”
in Rwanda in 1994 were those who were unarmed, without explaining why it was
lumping together the genocide perpetrators and the RPF as the “bad guys.”(92)
HRW has also held, apparently
based on its own military expertise, that the RPF’s military strategy in
April-July 1994 was aimed at achieving military victory rather than saving the
lives of Rwandan Tutsis.(93) This echoes
Hutu Power rhetoric to the effect that Kagame sacrificed the Tutsi in order to
win power.
Sometimes HRW’s brush
strokes are more broad.
3.
Embracing the Gersony Report, pressing the ICTR to try RPF leaders
In September 1994 an
American consultant to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR)
named Robert Gersony presented to UNHCR, other UN and Western officials in
Kigali, and to the post-genocide Rwandan authorities, orally and in the form of
draft notes for a report (based on his interviews during a five-week tour of
parts of Rwanda and of UN camps for displaced persons in eastern Congo and
Tanzania), his contention that RPF forces had over the past few months committed
systematic massacres of 25,000 to 45,000 Rwandan Hutus. Gersony’s contention was rejected by Rwandan
authorities, who agreed to cooperate in checking it out; it met with strong
skepticism among UN and Western officials in Rwanda who suspected Gersony had
been duped in interviews guided by local Hutu Power leaders. Instead of a thorough and definitive effort
to validate or invalidate Gersony’s contention, what ensued was a partial
reinvestigation by UN and Western officials, with the cooperation of Rwandan
officials, which found no evidence to corroborate Gersony’s claims; the leaking
of his contention to Western media; and a UNHCR decision to treat the contention
as valid by temporarily suspending repatriations from the camps -– but also to cancel
the finalization of Gersony’s report.
Thus an “urban legend” is born.(94)
In its 1999 Leave None, HRW stated that “Although
our research indicates considerable killing of civilians by RPF forces during
this period, including massacres and executions, we have too little data to
confirm or revise (Gersony’s) estimates.(95) (Note the use of the vague word
“indicates”.)
Over subsequent years, HRW
transformed Gersony’s contested estimates into something with a much more
authoritative ring, as in: “The UN High Commission for Refugees estimated the
number of victims to be between 25,000 and 45,000 from April to August 1994.”(96)
In several reports, HRW
has sought to buttress Gersony’s contention by citing the charge made in June
1998 by a Rwandan émigré in Nairobi named Seth Sendashonga that the RPF had
killed some 60,000 persons between April 1994 and August 1995. HRW identified Sendashonga as formerly an RPF
member and Interior Minister in the post-genocide Rwandan government in 1994-95,
i.e. an authoritative inside source. HRW
neglected to mention factors that undermined Sendashonga’s credibility, e.g.,
the fact that he had contested Gersony’s allegations in September-October 1994,
that a precipitating factor in Sendashonga’s split from the RPF and flight to
Nairobi was, allegedly, his failed attempt to shield his brother from arrest on
genocide charges, or the fact that Sendashonga was, in 1998, organizing an
effort to wage war against the Rwandan government.(97)
Never, in its use of
the “Gersony Report,” has HRW acknowledged the degree to which knowledgeable
foreign observers in Rwanda at the time contested his findings. Nor has HRW mentioned the controversial
nature of Gersony’s previous work on similar issues in Mozambique, which other
foreign researchers have criticized as “missing any critical methodology” and
“transparently biased and politically motivated.”(98)
From 2002 on, based on
Gersony’s contention and its own professed research, HRW repeatedly pressed the
ICTR to prosecute alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity by RPF forces
in Rwanda in 1994. HRW’s longstanding
contention was that these alleged crimes must have been known and at least
tolerated at a very senior level of the RPF – i.e. that “big fish” were
implicated, including Kagame.(99)
Nevertheless, the ICTR
Prosecutor, who is accountable to the UN Security Council, chose not to
prosecute these alleged crimes, and instead to transfer some cases of RPF
crimes to Rwandan jurisdiction. For all
its pressure on the ICTR to prosecute the RPF, there is no evidence that HRW (or
anyone else) has ever presented the ICTR with concrete, compelling and
actionable evidence of RPF crimes that would warrant ICTR prosecution.(100)
4. Endorsing the Bruguière and Merelles
indictments
In 2008, HRW gave its
seal of approval to two foreign indictments which charged Rwandan President
Kagame and several of his senior colleagues with extremely grave crimes. One, issued in November 2006 (after several
years of preliminary leaks) by French judge Jean Louis Bruguière, accused Kagame and nine senior RPA
officers of shooting down President Habyarimana’s plane on April 6 and thus
‘causing’ the genocide. The other,
issued in February 2008 by Spanish judge Fernando Andréu Merelles, accused
Kagame and 40 senior RPA officers of a wide range of offenses, from killing
specific Spanish missionaries to genocide against the Hutu.(101)
HRW stated that “Parts
of the French and Spanish orders appear to be based on serious investigations
and to have merit. Other parts of each
are not fully substantiated by the information presented. Some information in the Spanish order, such
as the figure of some 40,000 civilians killed by RPA soldiers in February 1993,
seems to be inaccurate. Judges in both
cases are continuing their inquiries and must evaluate further information in
the most systematic and critical way possible.”(102)
HRW strengthened this endorsement
by calling on governments around the world to show their commitment to the rule
of law and their respect for their obligations under the Interpol or European
Arrest Warrant systems by executing arrest warrants stemming from the two
indictments. (This is something HRW has
never done concerning Interpol arrest notices based on Rwandan indictments.)
Instead of touting the Bruguière
and Merelles indictments as “based on serious investigations,” it would have
been far less fanciful on the part of HRW had it condemned them as flagrantly incompetent
and fraudulent judicial acts for which the two judges should be held accountable. The Merelles indictment, which is a
cut-and-paste compilation from Hutu Power propaganda documents from the
Habyarimana regime and the post-genocide émigré diaspora complemented by wildly
implausible hearsay testimony, is still in place; it festers on but is largely
ignored by the international community.
The Bruguière indictment is based on the allegations of ICTR genocide
convicts and on subsequently disowned or discredited testimony from a variety
of witnesses, of which the most important, Abdul Joshua Ruzibiza, turned out to
be a serial liar. The Bruguière
indictment has been in a process of gradual collapse since it was issued; the coup de grace came in early 2012 when Bruguière’s
successor, Marc Trévidic, issued a forensic report (Bruguière had never had one
done) which determined conclusively that the missiles which downed
Habyarimana’s plane were fired from an area under the complete control of
Habyarimana’s own Presidential Guard.(103)
What remains is for Trévidic
to formally quash the Bruguière indictment (its arrest warrants had been withdrawn
even before the forensic report) -- and perhaps to apologize to the Rwandan
government for the boost it gave to Hutu Power propaganda and the damage it did
to Rwanda’s reputation for over a decade, as well as issue new indictments
against any suspects that can be identified for the shooting down of the plane
(some French researchers speculate that persons within Habyarimana’s military
may have had help from official or semi-official French agents), and against
the French officials and researchers who put together the Bruguière indictment.
The falsity of the Bruguière
and Merelles indictments was arguably quite obvious from the start to anyone
who read them with an open mind and had a minimum of expertise about Rwanda in
the 1990s. The Bruguière indictment,
which echoed accusations made since 1994 by the military leaders of the
genocide, was the biggest coup for Hutu Power propaganda since the genocide. HRW has yet to comment on its collapse, much
less support the French human rights activists who are pressing French
authorities to come clean on this issue.
5. Touting the UN Mapping Report
After the “Gersony
Report” and the Bruguière and Merelles indictments, the most recent non-Rwandan
document to suggest a moral equivalence between the perpetrators of the 1994
genocide against the Tutsi and the RPF is the “UN Mapping Report” dated August
2010.(104) Prepared by an anonymous team
of researchers,(105) the Mapping Report
purports to document 617 incidents of mass atrocities by a number of military
forces in the DRC in 1993-2003, on the basis of two sources per incident, of
which one a written source by a local or foreign entity and the other a local
oral source. The report does not specify
whether the local sources claim to be direct or hearsay witnesses of the
incident in question. The written
sources are identified by the name of the responsible entity, and the oral
sources are anonymous. The report’s
footnotes show that NGOs like HRW and Amnesty and a variety of Catholic NGOs
and missionary groups (several of which are notoriously sympathetic to the Hutu
Power cause) are particularly well represented among the written sources. The report does not define the criteria used
to establish the mutual independence of the two sources for each incident, or
the credibility of either. On the basis
of these sources, the report finds -- among many other things, but this has predictably
monopolized media reports -- that “tens of thousands” of persons were
deliberately killed between 1996 and 2003 by the Rwandan military and its
Congolese rebel allies (the AFDL), which the report charges were responsible
for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide against “a part”
of the Hutu population in the DRC. (The
authors had to specify “a part” because Rwandan authorities in 1996 had
repatriated and reintegrated into Rwandan society the large majority of the
Rwandan Hutu population in the “refugee camps” of eastern Congo.)
Because the Mapping
Report gives so little information about its authors and its sources, and is
based on such low evidentiary standards, to accept its vision of what occurred
in the DRC from 1993-2003 would be an act of faith rather than an a rational
judgment based on transparent, concrete information.(106) The Mapping Report’s
contention that Rwandan and allied Congolese forces may have committed
genocide, i.e. attempted to destroy “in part” the Congolese and Rwandan Hutu
they encountered,(107) is far too grave to be justified by the weakness of the
evidence and the tenuous argumentation in the report. The manner in which the report was leaked to
French media in draft form suggests (even to analysts who respect the work of its
authors) that the authors wanted to make it politically difficult for their UN
superiors to delete the reference to a possible genocide from the final report.(108) In the event, the reference was substantially
watered down in the final report, but remained.
HRW, which knew already
in 2009 that the Mapping Report would evoke genocide,(109) has embraced the
report as vitally important and an imperative for judicial action.(110) (Note
that the accountability which for HRW had lost its essential character with
regard to the proven genocide in Rwanda, has now regained in it with regard to
a dubious allegation of genocide in the Democratic Republic of Congo.)
HRW called in October
2010 for the creation of a “hybrid” DRC-international court in the DRC to conduct
trials of unspecified suspects, whether Congolese and foreign, with the
involvement of foreign judges and prosecutors alongside Congolese judicial
personnel as a guarantee against “political interference.”(111) There has been little progress on this front
since then, and there is not likely to be in the future.
However, that a UN body
has issued a long report suggesting (however tenuously is politically irrelevant)
the post-genocide Rwandan government may have committed a genocide against the
Hutu has replaced the Bruguière indictment as a leading theme for émigré Hutu
Power groups like the FDU/RDR, as a vindication of their long-standing “double
genocide” accusation.
6.
Holding Kagame responsible for any renewed genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi
One more and this time
forward-looking instance of HRW irresponsibly echoing the “accusations in a
mirror” of the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide merits attention here.
HRW Executive Director
Kenneth Roth’s April 2009 statement “The Power of Horror in Rwanda” argued that
Rwandan President Kagame was exploiting the 1994 genocide as a cover for
repression carried out through the gacaca courts and the criminalization of
genocide ideology. Roth concluded his
statement as follows:
“But Kagame’s strategy
is shortsighted and dangerous. He claims
to be building a society in which citizens are only Rwandans, not Tutsi or
Hutu, but his repression of civil society means that avenues to forge alternative
bonds among people are limited. That
makes it more likely that in moments of tension Rwandans will resort to their
ethnic identity, as so often happens in repressive societies. The challenge for world leaders 15 years
after the genocide is to overcome guilt and look beyond the enforced peace to
convince Kagame and his government to build the foundation for a more organic,
lasting stability. The best way to
prevent another genocide is to insist that Kagame stop manipulating the last
one.”
There are several remarkable
aspects of Roth’s thinking here. One is
the conflation between those he presumes to be the targets of the gacaca courts
and the law against genocide ideology, and the broader concept of “civil
society.” A second is the implication that
debating with genocide deniers can be a bonding experience. A third is the notion that people
spontaneously “resort to their ethnic identities” at moments of tension, as if
extremist, polarizing ideology and political leadership were not essential to
the process. But the most remarkable of
all is the last sentence, where Roth certainly seems to be saying, in a
backhanded way, that if there is another genocide against the Rwandan Tutsi, it
will be Kagame’s fault.
To hold the potential victim
of a future genocide at fault for his fate does not break any new ground in the
annals of genocide ideology, but it does for international humanitarian
thought.
VI.
Conclusion
I thought well of HRW
when it was Helsinki Watch and focused on East Europe, and I was a Foreign
Service Officer doing the same. I still
did, the first time I read Leave None to
Tell the Story before moving to Rwanda in 2008. But the more I learned about Rwanda, the less
I trusted HRW. The decisive eye-opener
for me was HRW’s campaign for the FDU/RDR to be included in Rwanda’s election
in 2010. There is something seriously
wrong with an institution that wants a political party founded by the leaders
of a genocide to be allowed back in to the scene of their crime. It is dangerous when this institution has the
power to influence Western policy. So I
took a closer look at HRW’s discourse on Rwanda over the years. I found that the summary that captures it
best is the one that structures this essay: let the genocidal parties back in,
don’t ban their ideology, don’t hold more than a few perpetrators accountable, and
admit you are no better than they. I
hope that my summary will open others’ eyes as well.
Readers who are
thinking “But this can’t be!” might want to review other contemporary evidence
that HRW and groups like it can behave quite strangely,(112) as well as the
sorry historical track record of Western intellectuals when it comes to dealing
with Africa.(113)
Other readers may well
be asking “But what about the real sins of the Kagame regime!” The post-genocide Rwandan government has
certainly committed serious human rights violations, both at home and in the
DRC, and it is regrettable that it has not provided more detailed information
about the conduct of its forces in Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide and later
in the DRC, and about its own efforts to hold violators accountable. However, the evidence concerning its
violations is polluted by enormous amounts of hostile misinformation and
propaganda -- in which HRW has played a leading role -- so that the scale and
intent are very hard to measure. To
recognize that HRW has lost its ethical and analytical bearings on Rwanda does
not require one to hold the post-genocide Rwandan government blameless;
instead, it is a necessary step in assessing the degree of blame that
government in fact deserves.
Finally, most readers
are surely looking for a plausible explanation as to why the most prestigious
and influential Western human rights organization has thought and behaved the way
it has on Rwanda. A number of hypotheses
come to mind. However, I have not been
in a position to interview those responsible, and have therefore chosen not to
speculate at this point. I have,
however, laid out what needs to be explained, based on the public record of
HRW’s discourse over the past twenty years.
Perhaps HRW will respond to this essay in ways that help us
understand. In any case, while it is
urgent to understand the motives and processes which have driven HRW’s behavior
on Rwanda, it is even more urgent to put an end to it.
The mendacity and bias in
HRW’s political campaign against the post-genocide Rwandan government
undermines the overall credibility of Western human rights advocacy. It does enormous damage to the West’s
dialogue with Rwanda on democratic governance, national unity and
reconciliation, and regional peace and security. It also makes HRW the de facto ally of a
small stratum of Rwandan reactionaries who want to restore the racist
governance of 1962-94, and quite possibly the genocidal policies which that
governance produced in 1994.
How can such a travesty
be contained, corrected, and prevented for the future?
Some solutions seem
unlikely, in the world as it is, but one can always hope. Might HRW be obliged to answer in a court of
law for its campaign to help a party created by the leaders of the 1994
genocide, and linked to the terrorist FDLR, to reenter Rwandan politics? Might major donors to HRW decide to suspend
their support? Might HRW Chairman Steve
Hoge have HRW’s Board of Directors investigate and take appropriate
action? Or, might Executive Director Kenneth
Roth hold himself accountable, or at a minimum, publicly acknowledge his
responsibility for an unscrupulous campaign which does grave harm to Rwanda as
well as to HRW’s credibility and legacy?
Other solutions are
certainly realistic. Western policy
makers could have the courage to stand up to HRW when appropriate, and should definitely
challenge HRW’s policy stance on Rwanda.
Western media could forego the convenience of echoing HRW reports, and
do as much investigative reporting of HRW’s errant behavior as they do about
other powerful institutions.
Organizations and groups committed to genocide remembrance and
prevention should take a close look at how the flagship of Western human rights
groups is dealing with the Rwandan case. Past or present HRW insiders who are troubled
by its travesty on Rwanda – and it is hard to imagine that such persons do not
exist – could speak their conscience.
And, of course, anyone who shares the concerns expressed above could make
their own analyses public.
1. The seminal work of this soul-searching is Karl Jaspers, The Question of German Guilt, Fordham
University Press 2001, originally published in Germany in 1947.
2. The best published account of this life support system is by
the renowned French historian of Central Africa Jean-Pierre Chrétien, Le Défi de l’Ethnisme – Rwanda et Burundi
1990-1996, Karthala, 1997, and updated edition 2012; see also his articles “Retour
du Hutu Power” in Le Soir, December 19, 1994, and “Le génocide du Rwanda:
un négationnisme structurel,”
published on line July 25, 2010.
3. See HRW Rwanda website for 2010-2011, as well as HRW African
director Georgette Gagnon, “A Nation’s Hope Imperiled,” April 30, 2010, The
Daily Beast.
4. The full history of the creation of the RDR in 1995 and its
evolution since then remains to be written, but much is known from the
following sources, on which I have drawn for my summary:
Jean Pierre Chrétien, Le Défi de l’Ethnisme (opcit); Tom Ndahiro, Friends of Evil, unpublished manuscript (187 pages), and
“Genocide-Laundering: Historical Revisionism, Genocide Denial and the ‘Rassemblement Républicain
Pour la Démocratie au Rwanda’,”
pp 125-144 in Phil Clark & Zachary Kaufman, eds., After Genocide: Transitional Justice, Post-Conflict Reconstruction
and Reconciliation in Rwanda and Beyond, Hurst 2008; Wm Cyrus Reed,
“Guerillas in the Midst – the former Government of Rwanda and the Alliance of
Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire in Eastern Zaire,” pp
134-154 in Christopher Clapham, ed., African
Guerillas, Oxford 1998; Howard Adelman & Govind Rao, eds., War and Peace in Zaire/Congo, Africa
World Press 2004, especially chapter 3, Abbas Gnamo, “The Role of the
Interahamwe in the Regional Conflict: the Origins of Unrest in Kivu, Zaire,” pp
85-108, chapter 4, Roger Winter, “Lancing the Boil: Rwanda’s Agenda in Zaire,”
pp 109-136, and chapter 7, Fiona Terry, “The Humanitarian Impulse: Imperatives
and Consequences,” pp 187-252; Médecins Sans Frontières, Breaking
the Cycle: MSF Calls for Action in the Rwandese Refugee Camps in Tanzania and
Zaire, 14 pages, November 1994, http://www.msf.fr, and Deadlock
in the Rwandese Refugee Crisis: Repatriation Virtually at a Standstill, 20
pages, July 20, 1995, http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org; Arnaud Royer, “L’Instrumentalisation
politique des refugies du Kivu entre 1994 et 1996,” pp 425-528 in André Guichaoua, ed., Exiles, refugies, déplacés en Afrique
Centrale et Orientale, Karthala 2004; Howard Adelman, “The Use and Abuse of Refugees
in Zaire, April 1996 to March 1997,” 26 pages, in Stephen John Stedman & Fred
Tanner, eds., Refugee Manipulation: War,
Politics, and the Abuse of Human Suffering (Brookings, 2003); Philip
Gourevitch, We Wish to Inform You that
Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, Picador 1999 (esp. pp
261-353); Marina Rafti, “Rwandan Hutu Rebels in Congo/Zaire 1994-2006: an
Extra-territorial Civil War in a Weak State?” in F. Reyntjens & S. Marysse,
eds., L’Afrique des Grands
Lacs – Annuaire 2006, “The Dismantling of the Rwandan Political Opposition in Exile,”
pp 22-42 in F. Reyntjens, ed., L’Afrique des Grands
Lacs – Annuaire 2003-2004, and The
Rwandan Political Opposition in Exile: A Valid Interlocutor vis-à-vis Kigali?
49 pages, University of Antwerp, Institute of Development Policy and
Management, April 2004; Pole Institute, Guerillas
in the Mist: the Congolese Experience of the FDLR War in Eastern Congo and the
Role of the International Community, 65 pages, Goma, February 2010; Hans
Romkema, Opportunities and Constraints
for the Disarmament and Repatriation of Foreign Armed Groups in the Democratic
Republic of Congo – The Cases of the FDLR, FNL and ADF/NALU, 94 pages,
MDRP, World Bank, June 2007, and The
FDLR: The End in Sight, 9 pages, May 2009; African Rights, A Welcome Expression of Intent: The Nairobi
Communiqué and the ex-FAR/Interahamwe, 88 pages, Kigali, December 2007;
Rakiya Omaar, The Leadership of Rwandan
Armed Groups Abroad with a Focus on the FDLR and RUD/URUNANA, 319 pages,
consultancy to the Rwanda Demobilization and Reintegration Commission, December
2008; Report of the UN Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of Congo,
December 9, 2009.
Several contemporary documents authored by key perpetrators of
the 1994 genocide shed light on the process whereby they created the RDR:
-- “To all Field and General Officers; Subject: Reorganization
of the Rwandan Armed Forces; From: Minister of Defense Augustin Bizimana, Goma,
11 August 1994” (6 pages), Case no. ICTR-98-41, Exhibit No. P339B, Date
Admitted 4-5-2005, Tendered by Prosecution, KO235046-KO235051. (This shows,
inter alia, that Bagosora was made head of the military’s Political and
External Relations Committee.)
-- “To the President and Prime Minister of the Rwandan Republic,
Bukavu (note: i.e., the “interim government in exile”); Subject: Meeting
Report; From Major General Augustin Bizimingu; marked ‘Very Secret,’ Goma 29
September 1994,” (47 pages), Case No. ICTR 98-41-T, Exhibit No. P453A, Date
Admitted 12-12-2006, Tendered by Prosecution, K0041476-K0041524 (This foresees
the need to replace the “interim government in exile” with a
“political-military organization whose structure will be studied and proposed
by Political and External Relations Committee,” i.e. the committee headed by
Bagosora).
-- “Déclaration du Haut Commandment des FAR a l’issue de sa
reunion du 28 au 29 Avril a Bukavu,” 2 pages, available at http://jkanya.free.fr/declaration.html. (This expresses loyalty to the RDR as the
new regime, breaks with “interim government in exile,” and demands that it transfer
all its files to the RDR.)
- André Guichaoua, opcit, pp 891-900, Annex 11, “Rwanda: Echange de courriers
entre le Gouvernement rwandais en exil et l’État-major des FAR au sujet de la création
du RDR (Avril-Mai 1995),” (ditto).
- André Guichaoua website “delaguerreaugenocide.univ-paris1.fr”
“Annexe 123: Les Stratégies de reconquête de Mathieu Ngirumpatse en
exil (extrait de Mathieu Ngirupatse, La Tragédie Rwandaise, sans date, p.185-187)” (provides background on
the role and thinking of the military genocide perpetrators, and of their
friends among Belgian Christian Democrats, in creating the RDR).
5. The 8-page minutes of the founding meeting of the RDR,
chaired by General Augustin Bizimingu at the Mugunga “refugee camp” near Goma
in eastern Congo, were introduced as evidence at the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) under the title “Réunion du 29 mars au
3 avril 1995: Expose de la situation générale, échange d’information.
Rapporteur Ntabakuze,” ICTR
Case no. ICTR-98-41-T, Exhibit No. P415B, Date Admitted 25-9-2006, Tendered by
Prosecution.
6. See African Rights and Rakiya Omaar, as well as Marina Rafti,
opcit.
7. See African Rights and Rakiya Omaar, opcit, as well as Hervé
Deguine, Un Idéologue dans le génocide
rwandais: Enquête sur Ferdinand Nahimana, Milles et une
nuits/Librairie Arthème Fayard,
2010; the latter work is largely based on Nahimana’s failed defense strategy at
the ICTR, but contains some useful information.
8. André Guichaoua, Rwanda
1994: Les Politiques du génocide a Butare, Karthala 2005, p. 124 and André
Guichaoua’s website, opcit, annexe 111, les agendas et carnets de notes de Jean
Kambanda, pages 6 and 32.
9. See, for example: Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, “President
Habyarimana’s Assassination or the Final Tutsi Operation to Regain Power in
Rwanda Using Force,” Yaoundé, Cameroon, 30 October, 1995 (37 pages), Case No.
ICTR-98-41-T, Exhibit No. P31B, Tendered 17-09-2002; Movement for the Return of
Refugees and Democracy to Rwanda (RDR), Cameroon Wing, “United Nations Security
Council Misled About the Presumed ‘Tutsi Genocide’ in Rwanda,” June 1996, 37
pages (twelve contributors, including Théoneste Bagosora, Jean Bosco
Barayagwiza, Pasteur Musabe (Bagosora’s brother), and Ferdinand Nahimana); and “Commandement des
Forces Armées Rwandaises en exil; Dossier Tribunal International Pour le
Rwanda; Contribution des FAR à la Recherche de la Vérité sur le Drame Rwandais,
La Guerre d’Octobre 1990 et la Catastrophe d’Avril 1994,” undated, 244 pages, Case No. ICTR-98-41-T,
Exhibit no. DK81C, Date Admitted 23-9-2004, Tendered by Defense.
10. My translation, from Hélène Dumas, “L’Histoire des
Vaincus. Négationnisme du Génocide des Tutsi au Rwanda,” pp 298-347 in Rwanda Quinze Ans Apres: Penser et Ecrire
l’Histoire du Génocide des Tutsi, Revue d’Histoire de la Shoah, No. 190,
Janvier-Juin, 2009, Paris); see also her “Banalisation, revision et negation:
la ‘réécriture’ de l’histoire du génocide des Tutsi,” pp 85-102 in Esprit
No.364, May 2010.
11. See the website tpirheritagedefense.org and the blogsite of
Eugene Rwamucyo for details.
12. For contemporary news reports on the arrest and confession
of Ingabire’s deputy, see The New Times, Kigali, “Rwanda: Ingabire’s assistant
pleads guilty, seeks forgiveness,” 25 March 2010, “It’s Time for Human Rights
Watch to Apologize,” 26 March, 2010, and “Ntawangundi Loses Appeal,” 16 April,
2010. HRW never addressed the
implications of Ntawangundi’s confession.
Nor did it report the statement by Domitilla Mukantaganzwa, Executive
Secretary of the Gacaca Administration, that Ingabire’s mother, who joined her
in Europe after the genocide, had been convicted in absentia for particularly
gruesome genocide crimes. See the New
Times, “Rwanda: Ingabire’s Mother a Fugitive Genocide Boss,” 28 January 2010, and
The Rwanda Focus, Kigali, “Who is Victoire Ingabire,” 28 July 2010. Nor did HRW acknowledge the many reports in
Rwandan media in 2010 about the history of Ingabire’s political party, for
example: “A Note Describing the Nature of Issues Raised by FDU Inkingi and
Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza,” posted on rwandaises.com on 10 June, 2010, and Tom
Ndahiro, “Rwanda: Genocide Deniers and their Agents,” the New Times, 4 April
2010.
13. See Richard Johnson, “Rwanda takes a strict line on genocide
denial – The U.S. should support that,” Christian Science Monitor June 28,
2010.
14. See HRW, “Rwanda:
Eight-Year Sentence for Opposition Leader,” October 30, 2012. Ingabire was convicted by the Rwandan High
Court on October 30, 2012 on charges of genocide denial and conspiracy with the
FDLR to cause state insecurity, acquitted of other charges related to genocide
ideology, divisionism and supporting armed groups, and sentenced to 8 years
prison. Both she and the Prosecution
have since appealed her case to the Rwandan Supreme Court, with Ingabire
seeking a reversal of her convictions and the Prosecution seeking a review of
her acquittals and of the lightness of her sentence.
15. HRW and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des
Droits de l’Homme, Leave None to Tell the Story, 1999, 789 pages. The index of this book makes no reference to
the first thorough documentation of the genocide by the NGO African Rights, Death, Despair and Defiance, London, 1995 (1201 pages), expanding on a
first edition of September 1994. This is
perhaps because the founder of African Rights had been fired by HRW for
opposing the U.S. military intervention in Somalia in late 1992.
16. See Hans Romkema, opcit; the RDR website; and the ICC
website. After refusing to register
several hundred witnesses on grounds of lack of resources, the ICC ultimately
dropped its case against Mbarushimana on grounds of insufficient evidence -–
see the 15 July 2011 statement by Redress, “Hundreds of Victims Prevented From
Participating in Crucial Court Hearings due to Lack of Resources at the
International Criminal Court.” For
Mbarushimana’s alleged crimes in 1994 and with the FDLR, see: Rakiya Omaar,
“The Leadership of Rwandan Armed Groups Abroad, opcit, pp. 187-191; African Rights
& Redress, “the Wider Implications of the Arrest of Callixte Mbarushimana
in Paris,” 12 October 2010; and “Rebel Leader Accused of Genocide Lives in
France, Washington Post, 24 January, 2010.
Mbarushimana’s many escapes from prosecution make him a prime example of
Western fecklessness on dealing with Rwandan genocide suspects.
17. HRW, “Rearming With Impunity: International Support for the
Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide,” May 1995.
18. Aside from a subdued echo of the call for arrests buried in
HRW’s October 1997 report “What Kabila is Hiding,” and after-the-fact applause
for the arrests of senior FDLR leaders in Europe in 2011-2012.
19. For example, HRW, “Democratic Republic of Congo - You Will
Be Punished – Attacks on Civilians in Eastern Congo,” December 2009, 183 pages.
20. See HRW, “DR Congo: Arrest Laurent Nkunda for War Crimes,
February 1, 2006; HRW, “Democratic Republic of Congo: You Will Be Punished,”
opcit; and Simone Schlindwein, “How FDLR President Ignace Murwanashyaka pulled
the strings in the Congo war from Germany without problems,” pp 50-63 in Guerillas in the Mist: The Congolese
experience of the FDLR war in Eastern Congo and the role of the international
community, Pole Institute, Goma, February 2010.
21. HRW written submission to the United Kingdom Parliament’s International
Development Committee, June 23, 2011.
22. Romkema, “End in Sight,” opcit; Lars Waldorf, “Transitional
Justice and DDR: the Case of Rwanda,” International Center for Transitional
Justice, June 2009; and Rwanda – Report of the National Summit on Unity and
Reconciliation 26 October 2002, p. 107.
23. Romkema, “End in Sight” opcit, and personal communication;
also data from MONUC (now MONUSCO) for demobilization and repatriation of
FDLR/ex-FAR and other Rwandan combatants, 2002-2012. MONUSCO data show that 10,721 Rwandan
combatants in Congo were demobilized and repatriated to Rwanda from early 2002
to mid-Febuary 2012. Judging from
MONUSCO data for specific years and for specific armed groups (e.g., FDLR, CDNP
etc), the vast majority of these Rwandans were from the FDLR. MONUSCO data show that 3259 FDLR combatants
were demobilized and sent home from early 2009 to the end of November
2011.
24. See Romkema and Waldorf, opcit.
25. IRIN News “Analysis: Rebel Leader’s arrest just one step in
fight against impunity in DRC,” October 21, 2010. Oddly enough, Van Woutenberg’s words to IRIN
news also appear in HRW’s December 2009 “You Will Be Punished” report, opcit, supposedly
from the mouth of an unnamed Western diplomat.
26. See the comments on this issue by Alan Doss, Special
Representative of the UN Secretary General in the Democratic Republic of Congo,
in “Alan Doss: HRW Attack on MONUC ‘Shortsighted’” Washington Times, December
28, 2009 and in Doss’s letters to HRW and Oxfam of April 28, 2009, published
online by ReliefWeb Report of April 30, 2009.
27. See HRW, “Obeying the Rules of War?” 2001 pp.7-10 and
“Democratic Republic of Congo ‘You Will Be Punished’,” opcit, which seeks to
characterize the FDLR in the least negative fashion imaginable, as follows:
“The FDLR are a predominantly Rwandan Hutu armed group that uses military force
to seek political change and greater representation for Hutu in Rwanda. Some of the FDLR leaders are believed to have
participated in the genocide in 1994 and the group has important ideological
links to the former (sic) Hutu Power movement…The vast majority of these
combatants did not participate in the genocide since they were too young at the
time to have played a role.” (p. 29) For
a more realistic assessment of the FDLR leadership and its roots in the 1994
genocide, see Romkema and Omaar, opcit, and particularly Omaar’s individual profiles of FLDR leaders,
pp.61-160 in her “The Leadership of Rwandan Armed Groups Abroad With a Focus on
the FDLR and RUD/URUNANA,” which make it clear that the FDLR leadership has a
far more sinister agenda than “political change and greater representation for
Hutu in Rwanda.”
28. Romkema, opcit.
29. HRW, “Obeying the Rules of War?” 2001, p.10.
30. HRW, “Germany: Groundbreaking Trial for Congo War Crimes”
May 2, 2011.
31. HRW, Briefing Paper “Preparing for Elections: Tightening
Control in the Name of Unity” (16 pages), May 2003.
32. For the massacres of 1963-64 and Kayibanda’s threat, see
Paul Rutayisire, “Les mécanismes de l’exclusion des Tutsi,” in Africa Review of
Books/Revue africaine des livres, September 2005; African Rights, Go, If You Die, Perhaps I Will Live – a
Collective Account of Genocide and Survival in Murambi, Gikongoro, April-July
1994, April 2010, 213 pages, (specifically pp 14-19 re Christmas 1963, “The
First Major Rehearsal”); Josias Semujanga et al, Le Manifeste des Bahutu et la diffusion de l’idéologie de la haine au
Rwanda (1957-2007), Editions de l’Université Nationale du Rwanda, 2010;
Denis-Gilles Vuillemin, “L’extermination des Tutsis: Les Massacres
du Ruanda sont la manifestation d’une haine racial soigneusement entretenue,” Le Monde, February 4, 1964; and the
website of French researcher Jacques Morel, which carries Vuillemin’s article
as well as the text of Kayibanda’s genocide threat as published at the time in
the Rwandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ journal, Rwanda Carrefour d’Afrique, no. 31, March 1964. HRW has noted that 1994 genocide ‘mastermind’
Bagosora found inspiration in Kayibanda’s speech. However, HRW relies on an expurgated version
of the speech published by the Habyarimana regime in 1990 to claim,
incorrectly, that Kayibanda did not threaten “the total and precipitate end of
the Tutsi race.” (See Leave None to Tell
the Story (henceforth Leave None),
p. 106.)
33. HRW’s Leave None
assigns MDR-Power a minor supporting role in the genocide; Jean-Paul Kimyono’s Rwanda: un génocide populaire, (535 pages, Karthala, Paris, 2008) demonstrates that MDR-Power
played a major role.
34. See these Rwandan documents: “Rapport de la
Commission Parlementaire sur les Problèmes du MDR,” Kigali, April 2003, 47
pages; “Rapport de la Commission Parlementaire Extraordinaire Mise en Place le
20 Janvier 2004, Chargé d’Examiner les Massacres Commis a Gikongoro et Analyser
l’Idéologie du Génocide et Ceux Qui La Propagent Partout Dans le Pays,” Kigali,
2004, 156 pages; Rwanda Senate, “Genocide Ideology and Strategies for Its
Eradication,” Kigali, 2007, 209 pages; and Institute of Research and Dialogue
for Peace, “La Négationnisme du Génocide des tutsi: Evolution, Expressions, Mécanismes
de Lutte,” December 2008, 165 pages.
35. On Joseph Sebarenzi, see HRW’s 2003 Briefing Paper, opcit;
HRW “Rwanda: From the Search for Security to Human Rights Abuses,” April 2000;
and Sebarenzi’s own account in his God
Sleeps in Rwanda, Simon and Schuster, 2009; on Bizimungu, see Stephen
Kinzer, A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s
Rebirth and the Man who Dreamed It, John Wiley & Sons, 2008, pp 220-226
and International Crisis Group, “Rwanda at the End of the Transition: A
Necessary Political Liberalization,” November 2002, pages 12 and 30-31; and the
text of Bizimungu’s interview in Jeune Afrique, No. 2112, July 3-9, 2001.
36. For a succinct overview of the differences between the U.S.
and other countries on freedom of speech, see Frederick Schaur, “The
Exceptional First Amendment,” pp 29-56 in Michael Ignatieff, ed, American Exceptionalism and Human Rights,
Princeton University Press, 2005; see also Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., The First Amendment in Cross-cultural
Perspective: A Comparative Analysis of the Freedom of Speech, New York
University Press, 2006; Ivan Hare & James Weinstein, eds., Extreme Speech and Democracy, Oxford
2009; and select U.S. Supreme Court rulings such as Brandenburg vs Ohio (1969)
and Virginia vs Black (2003).
For the variety and substance of European approaches to
restricting the freedoms of speech and association, see European Union “Council Framework Decision on combating
certain forms of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law,” November
28, 2008; Wikipedia, “Laws Against Holocaust Denial;” European Commission for
Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Guidelines
on the Prohibition and Dissolution of Political Parties and Analogous Measures,
Council of Europe, 41st Plenary Session, Venice December 10-11, 1999; and the German
Office for the Protection of the Constitution website (re banning the Nazi
successor “Socialist Reich Party” in 1952, the German Communist Party in 1956,
and some 24 rightwing extremist organizations from 1992 to 2010).
For restrictions on the freedom of speech and association in
Africa, see Matthias Basedau, Matthias Bogaards, Christof Hartmann and Peter
Niesen, “Ethnic Party Bans in Africa: a Research Agenda,” German Law Journal
vol 8, no. 6, 2007; Anika Becher and Matthias Basedau, “Promoting Peace and
Democracy Through Party Regulation? Ethnic Party bans in Africa,” German
Institute of Global and Area Studies (GIGA) Working Paper no. 66, January 2008;
Anika Moroff, “Ethnic Party Bans in East Africa from a Comparative
Perspective,” GIGA Working Paper no. 129, April 2010; Benjamin Reilly, Per
Nordlund, and Edward Newman, “Political Parties in Conflict-Prone Societies:
Encouraging Inclusive Politics and Democratic Development,” United Nations University
Policy Brief, no. 2, 2008.
37. HRW, “Law and Reality: Progress in Judicial Reform in
Rwanda,” 2008, 109 pages.
38. HRW, “’Germany for the Germans:’ Xenophobia and Racist
Violence in Germany,” 1995, 54 pages.
39. Frederic Schauer, opcit, p. 43.
40. See Deborah Lipstadt, Denying
the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin 1994; and
Robert Kahn, Holocaust Denial and the
Law: A Comparative Study, Palgrave MacMillan 2004.
41. See Deborah Lipstadt’s blog site, article posted July 16, 2007.
42. See the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) website.
43. It should be noted that there exists one scholarly study
which examines Rwanda’s laws against divisionism and genocide ideology in the
context of the post-World War II German model of “militant democracy,” and
finds them to be applied in a manipulative and repressive way -– because the
author relies on HRW’s assessment of the excluded opposition parties. This is
how Western intellectuals relying on each other’s views can, sometimes inadvertently,
create an echo chamber of false narratives about Rwanda. See Peter Niesen,
“Political Party Bans in Rwanda 1994-2003: three narratives of justification”,
in Democratization, vol. 17, no. 4, August 2010, pp 709-729. For a similar phenomenon, see also Zachary
Pall, “Light Shining Darkly: Comparing Post-Conflict Constitutional Structures
Concerning Speech and Association in Germany and Rwanda,” Columbia Human Rights
Law Review, Vol. 42.1, Fall 2010.
44. For examples of HRW criticism of Western governments for
guilt-ridden leniency on the Rwandan government see p. 737 in Leave None from 1999 and Kenneth Roth’s
“The Power of Horror” statement in 2009.
45. See Richard Johnson, “The Pin-Stripe Approach to Genocide,”
pp 65-73 in Stjepan Meštrović, ed., The Conceit
of Innocence, Texas A&M University Press, 1997; for examples of French
officials blaming the victims in Rwanda, see the website www.france-turquoise.fr.
46. A conservative estimate in one study based on comparing
local population data to the census data is that Tutsi were undercounted in the
1991 census by 40% -- see Marijke Verpooten,, “The Death Toll of the Rwandan
Genocide: A Detailed Analysis for Gikongoro Province,” I.N.E.D./population,
2005/4 – vol. 60, pp 331-367, available at http://www.cairn.info/revue-population-english-2005-4-page-331.htm.
47. Ministry for Local Government, “The Counting of the Genocide
Victims: Final Report Rwanda, Kigali, November 2002 (32 pages).
48. See HRW, Leave None, pp.
15-16 and p. 260; Alison Des Forges
& Timothy Longman, “Legal Responses to Genocide in Rwanda,” pp 49-68 in
Eric Stover & Harvey M. Weinstein, eds., My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass
Atrocity, Cambridge University Press 2004; and HRW, “Rwanda: Justice
Compromised, The Legacy of Rwanda’s Community-Based Gacaca Courts,” 2011, p.
13.
49. See Scott Strauss, The
Order of Genocide: Race, Power and War in Rwanda, Cornell University Press,
2006, and Omar McDoom, ”The Micro-Politics of Mass Violence: Authority,
Security, and Opportunity in Rwanda’s Genocide,” PhD thesis, 2008, London
School of Economics (my appreciation to Dr. McDoom for sharing the first
chapter of his thesis with me, pending its publication).
50. See “Law and Reality,” 2008, p. 13.
51. HRW, Leave None p.
736.
52. Ibid, p. 748 and 760.
53. For a more empathetic and reality-based approach to these
issues, see African Rights, Rwanda: Killing
the Evidence: Murder, Attacks, Arrests and Intimidation of Survivors and
Witnesses, April 1996, 105 pages, and Survivors
and Post-Genocide Justice in Rwanda – Their Experiences, Perspectives and Hopes
(132 pages), published by the two NGOs African Rights and Redress in November
2008.
54. HRW, “Justice or Therapy?” 2002.
55. Alison Des Forges & Timothy Longman, “Legal Responses to
Genocide,” opcit.
56. HRW, Leave None,
1999 and “Justice Compromised,” 2011.
57. Sanford Unger, “Leopold’s Ghost: How one man’s mysterious
past upended a college’s sense of purpose and its president’s sense of its
liberal mission,” New York Magazine, July 22, 2012. For more on Des Forges’
role in the Munyakazi case, see also Andrew Rice, “Doubt: A professor, a
genocide and NBC’s quest for a prime-time hit,” The New Republic, August 12,
2009. Additional perspective on the
interventions of HRW and its senior Rwanda expert Alison Des Forges on Rwandan
justice issues can be found in African Rights, Antoine Sibomana and his Supporters: Burying the Truth in the Name of
Human Rights, 91 pages, September 1997.
58. HRW – Kenneth Roth, “The Power of Horror,” April 11, 2009.
59. Indeed, in a conversation with Phil Clark (a leading Western
expert on gacaca), a HRW staffer had no hesitation in stating that amnesty
would have been preferable to the gacaca trials. (Personal communication from
Clark).
60. Rwanda Gacaca Administration, “Summary of the Report
Presented at the Closing of Gacaca Courts Activities,” Kigali, June 2012.
61. For the number of genocide convicts still in prison, see
Hirondelle News Agency, “Rwanda: 40,000 genocide convicts in jails,” February
29, 2012; for the number doing TIG community service, see The New Times, August
2, 2011 which reported that 60,000 persons were enrolled in the TIG program as
of 2010, 37,000 completed their sentences between 2010 and mid-2011, and 16,000
persons were serving TIG sentences in August 2011.
62. Des Forges and Longman, 2004 and HRW, Justice and Reality
2008, opcit.
63. See Hirondelle News Agency, “Belgique/Justice – Critiques
sur les Gacacas lors d’un colloque à Bruxelles,” November 27, 2007. Des Forges was addressing a seminar organized
by EURAC (Réseau européen pour l’Afrique Centrale) at the European Parliament.
64. HRW – Roth, “The Power of Horror,” opcit.
65. HRW, “Justice Compromised,” May 2011, 144 pages.
66. As Phil Clark, puts it, “Human rights commentators have
criticized gacaca from the outset, arguing that it contravenes norms of legal
due process and encourages corruption and political interference at the
community level. Such criticisms by
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others have been grossly
exaggerated and are based on a highly selective sample of the worst gacaca
cases.” See Phil Clark, “The Legacy of
Rwanda’s Gacaca Courts,” Think Africa Press, March 23, 2012, and “How Rwanda
Judged Its Genocide,” Africa Research Institute, April 2012).
67. HRW defends Theunis in its 2008 “Law and Reality” report (pp
60-62) and its 2011 “Justice Compromised” report (pp. 99-100); Theunis defends
himself in Mes Soizante-quinze Jours de
Prison à Kigali, Karthala, Paris, 2012. But see also Gérard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis, Columbia University
Press, 1997, p. 250; Jean-Damascene Bizimana, “Les attaques médiatiques du Père
Theunis contre le Rwanda, ou la poursuite de la stratégie génocidaire et négationniste,”
posted March 28, 2012 on Rwandaresponds.org; Antoine Mugesera, “Un Négationnisme Tombe dans l’Impunité: Le
Cas du Père Theunis”, 24 pages, downloaded
from the internet on April 11, 2012; Jean Paul Gouteux, “L’implication idéologique
et politique dans le génocide du Père Theunis de 1990 a 1994,” in La Nuit Rwandaise, no. 1, April 2007 ; and African
Rights, “Father Wenceslas Munyeshyaka: In the eyes of the survivors of Sainte
Famille,” 96 pages, April 1999.
68. HRW “Justice Compromised” p. 84-85; for a clearer view of
the ‘ceceka’ problem and its impact, see Penal Reform International (PRI), “The
Contribution of the Gacaca jurisdictions to resolving cases arising from the
genocide,” 2009.
69. On these issues, see Redress, “Access to Reparations for
Survivors of the 1994 Genocide,” August 17, 2011; Survivors Fund (SURF) and
Redress, “Survivors’ concerns over imminent closure of gacaca courts need to be
addressed,” June 15, 2012, and Survivors’ Fund (SURF), January 20, 2013
statement on the United Nations and Rwanda, which reports that despite a series
of pious UN General Assembly resolutions since 2004, UN agencies’ spending for
Rwanda survivors has totaled only $250,000 since 1994, or less than one dollar
per survivor.
70. HRW “Justice Compromised,” p. 126.
71. See, for example, three reports published by Rwanda’s
National Unity and Reconciliation Commission: The Causes of Violence After the 1994 Genocide (2008), Social Cohesion in Rwanda: an Opinion Survey
– Results 2005-2007 (2008), and most notably, Rwanda Reconciliation Barometer (2010), especially pp. 63-73 on
transitional justice.
72. A journalist for a Ugandan newspaper appears to have
violated HRW’s “off the record” terms; he quotes the Netherlands Ambassador as
saying “350 cases is a small number to base on to come up with a conclusive
view on Gacaca compared to the many cases the courts dealt with…The title and
timing of the report is not appropriate…It comes at a time when the government
has promised to evaluate Gacaca courts and review cases that did not go
well. I find it harsh, unfair and
unbalanced.” The journalist also writes
that “Surprisingly, when asked if HRW thought of an alternative to the Gacaca courts,
Haskell (note: the report’s author) said the Gacaca courts were actually the
best solution to the challenge Rwanda was facing.” See Magnus Mazimpaka, “Human Rights Watch
under scrutiny over controversial Gacaca report,” The Independent (Kampala), June
11, 2011.
73. See ICTR Trail chamber III, 3 January 2008, The Prosecutor
v. Fulgence Kayishema, Case No. ICTR-2001-67-I, Brief of Human Rights Watch as
amicus curiae in opposition to Rule 11 bis transfer, 23 pages; HRW, “UK: Put
Genocide suspects on Trial in Britain,” 2 pages, November 1, 2007).
74. For a sharp critique of the UK court’s misperceptions of the
Rwandan justice system, and of HRW’s role therein, see Phil Clark and Nicola
Palmer, “The International Community Fails Rwanda Again,” 2 pages, Oxford
Transitional Justice Research Working Paper Series, 5 May 2009.
75. See William A. Schabas, “Anti-Complementarity: Referral to
National Jurisdiction by the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,” pp
29-60 in Max Plank Yearbook of UN Law, vol 13, 2009.
76. See ICTR Referral chamber Designated under rule 11bis,
Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-R11bis: Decision on
Prosecutor’s Request for Referral to the Republic of Rwanda. It is noteworthy that HRW ignores this ICTR
legal decision and continues to decry the “lack of independence of the Justice
system” in Rwanda, for example in HRW, “Letter to World Bank Vice President for
Africa on Rwanda,” September 5, 2012.
77. For the state of play on bringing Rwandan genocide fugitives
to justice, see Redress and FDIH, “Fostering a European Approach to
Accountability for Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes and Torture –
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and the European Union Final Report,” April 2007
(85 pages); Redress and African Rights, “Extraditing Genocide Suspects from
Europe to Rwanda – Issues and Challenges – Report of a Conference Organized by
Redress and African Rights at the Belgian Parliament, 1 July, 2008,” (60 pages;
pp 52-60 provide an overview of proceedings against Rwandan genocide suspects
in Europe); Southern Africa Litigation Centre and Redress, “Closing the
Impunity Gap: Southern Africa’s Role in Ensuring Justice for the 1994 Genocide
in Rwanda – Moving Beyond the Tribunal’s Completion Strategy and Residual Mechanism,”
2012, (104 pages); and Rakiya Omaar, “Accountability for the Rwandan Genocide –
Where Does Africa’s Responsibility Lie?” Open Society Initiative for Southern
Africa (osisa.org), 7 March 2012.
78. See African Rights and Redress, “France to Prosecute Two
Rwandan Genocide Suspects,” 20 February 2008; for details on France’s failure
to try the two suspects, see the website of the French NGO “Collectif des Parties
Civiles Pour le Rwanda.”
79. See the Interpol website for the list of its Red List Rwandan
genocide suspects.
80. HRW, Leave None,
p. 737 and 769.
81. And indeed, no Western policy-maker has been held legally
responsible for failure to protect in Rwanda.
However, with regard to the April 1994 ETO massacre in Kigali (on which
the 2005 British movie Shooting Dogs
is based) where several thousand persons were slaughtered immediately after UN
troops from Belgium withdrew their protection, surviving widows filed suit in
Belgium in 2004 against the Belgian government and the three commanding Belgian
officers. The only relevant news reports
I found on the internet date from 2010 (La Libre Belgique, “Procès contre l’Etat
Belge,” September 9;, “Massacre à l’ETO: un procès sur le fond en octobre
2011,” November 12; AFP, “Génocide Rwandais: la Belgique avait décide d’évacuer
des Casques Bleus,” December
9); they indicate that in 2010 a Belgian court accepted the suit, at least
against the three officers, and scheduled a substantive hearing for October
2011. This is a sad story: the indicted
officers were ‘just following orders,’ the case has dragged on for years, and
public interest in the West is apparently minimal. HRW has not commented.
82. These French researchers and human rights activists and
their works include:
Pascale Krop, Le Génocide Franco-africain: faut-il juger les Mitterands, J.C.
Lattes, November 1994; Agir Ici et Survie, Dossiers
Noirs de la politique française au Rwanda: la France choisit le camp du génocide,
l’Harmattan, 1996; Mehdi Ba, Rwanda: Un génocide
français, l’Esprit Frappeur, 1997; J.P. Chrétien, Le Défi de l’Ethnisme, Karthala, 1997; Jean Paul Gouteux, Un Génocide Secret d’Etat: La France et le
Rwanda 1990-1994, éditions sociales, 1998; Michel Sitbon, Un Génocide sur la Conscience, l’Esprit
Frappeur, 1998; Monique Mas, Paris-Kigali
1990-1994, l’Harmattan 1999; Benjamin Sehene, Le Piège Ethnique, éditions Dagorno, 1999; and since 1999: Patrick
de Saint Exupery, Complices de
l’Inavouable: La France au Rwanda, éditions des Arenes, 2004; contributors to the annual journal La Nuit Rwandaise; Boubacar
Boris Diop, Odile Tobner, and Francois-Xavier Verschave, Négrophobie, Les Arènes 2005; Jean-Francois Dupaquier, L’Agenda du Génocide: Le Témoignage de
Richard Mugenzi, ex-espion rwandais, Karthala, 2010; Bruno Boudiguet, Françafrique 2012: La bombe à retardement,
Aviso, 2012; Laure de Vulpian & Thierry Prungnaud, Silence Turquoise: Rwanda 1992-1994, Responsabilités de l’Etat Français
dans le Génocide des Tutsi, Don Quichotte, 2012; the works of Hélène Dumas,
Catherine Coquio, Maria Malagardis and, most comprehensively, Jacques Morel, La France au Cœur du Génocide des Tutsi, L’Esprit Frappeur, 2010,
1500 pages. See also the work of the “Commission d’Enquête
Citoyenne” since 2004; and of the Collectif des Parties Civiles pour le Rwanda,
AIRCRIGE, and the websites France Rwanda Genocide and Izuba Editions.
83. Mucyo Commission Report, Kigali, August 2008, 414 pages; and
Mutsinzi Commission Report, Kigali, April 20, 2009, 186 pages and annex 107
pages; see also Philip Gourevitch, “The Mutsinzi Report on the Rwandan
Genocide,” on his New Yorker blogsite, 8 January, 2010.
84. See: African Rights “Open Letter to his Holiness the Pope
John-Paul II,” 12 pages, 13 May 1998, and “Open Letter to the His Holiness the
Pope John-Paul II on the Occasion of the 10th Commemoration of the Genocide in
Rwanda,” 4 pages, 2 April 2004; Jean-Damascene Bizimana, L’Eglise et le Génocide au Rwanda: les Pères
Blancs et le Négationnisme, l’Harmattan 2001; Christian Terras &
Mehdi Ba, Rwanda – l’Honneur Perdu de l’Eglise,
Ed. Golias, 1999; Jean Paul Gouteux, Un Génocide
Sans Importance: La France et le Vatican au Rwanda, Ed. Tahin party, 2007;
Faustin Rutembesa, Jean-Pierre Karegeye and Paul Rutayisire, eds., Rwanda, L’Eglise Catholique à l’épreuve du génocide,”
Ed. Africana, 2000; Leon Saur, Influences
parallèles - L’Internationale démocrate chrétienne au Rwanda, Ed. Luc Pire,
Bruxelles, 1998; Leon Saur, Le Sabre, la machette
et le goupillon – Des apparitions de Fatima au génocide rwandais, ed. mols,
2004.
85. HRW, Leave None,
pp 65-66, 70, 80, 171, 227, 256, 649; see also Kenneth L. Marcus, “Accusation
in a Mirror,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 43 (2012) pp. 357-393.
86. Lipstadt, opcit, p. 85.
87. Richard Johnson, “Pin-Stripe Approach,” opcit.
88. HRW “Law and Reality,” 2008, p.43.
89. Personal communication from William Schabas; also Fred
Grunfeld & Anke Huijboom, The Failure
to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda: The Role of Bystanders, Koninklijke Brill
NV, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2007, page 70, which states: “The Press Release
issued by the Commission at the conclusion of its visit was entitled ‘Genocide
and War Crimes in Rwanda.’ But
subsequently, after deliberations within the Commission, a more equivocal
position was taken. The final report
said that there were some who considered that ‘acts of genocide’ had been
committed, but it did not take a firm position on this point. One of the people who was strictly opposed to
using the word ‘genocide’ was the representative of HRW. According to him, it was too stringent to
argue that the events in Rwanda amounted to genocide. But William Schabas, the representative of
the International Center of Rights of the Person and Democratic Development was
convinced that what was happening in Rwanda did fulfill the criteria of Article
2 of the Genocide Convention of 1948.
According to him, the intent to destroy the Tutsi as a group was evident
and amounted to genocide. The Commission
Report was widely circulated, but the international attention was
minimal.”
Another member of the Commission, the Frenchman Jean Carbonare,
expressed the same alarm as Schabas in a passionate appearance on French TV
(available on YouTube). HRW, on the
other hand, followed up with its own report in June 1993, (“Beyond the
Rhetoric: Continuing Human Rights Abuses in Rwanda,” 28 pages), which featured
“even-handed” criticism of the Habyarimana regime and the RPF (for
“substituting words for action in the area of human rights” and “seeking
political advantage in this tragic human problem” - p. 26), but still no
warning of what was coming. The same is
true of HRW’s last report before the genocide, “Arming Rwanda: the Arms Trade
and Human Rights Abuses in the Rwandan War,” January 1994 (38 pages) -– even after
the UN Special Rapporteur Ndiaye had again raised the genocide issue in an
August 1993 report.
90. HRW, “Beyond the Rhetoric,” June 1993, p. 3.
91. HRW’s June 1993 and January 1994 reports, cited above,
mention the Arusha Accords but do not assess their worth or call for their
implementation; nor does HRW’s 1999 Leave
None (see pp. 123-126) assess the substance of the Accords.
92. See Alison Des Forges’ interview with PBS Frontline for its
“Ghosts of Rwanda” report, October 1, 2003, at pbs.org, where she says of the
Arusha Accords “We were all essentially naïve, I think, in failing to
appreciate the extent to which certain people at both ends of the spectrum were
not satisfied with that peace accord, and were determined to, in some way,
upset it for their own purpose.” Des
Forges does not specify how the RPF upset the Arusha Accords, which Habyarimana
had finally committed himself to stop blocking just before he was assassinated
on April 6, 1994. In response to a
question “were there good guys, were there bad guys?” Des Forges says “”The good
guys are the ones without the guns, and the bad guys are the ones with guns and
machetes.” Des Forges adds that the
Genocide Convention establishes a legal distinction between the genocide
carried out by one side and the war crimes and crimes against humanity she
imputes to the RPF, so that “there is no equivalence in the crimes.” Nonetheless, she leaves in place the notion
that both the genocide perpetrators and the armed RPF were “the bad guys.”
93. HRW, “Leave None” page 698.
94. For the “Gersony Report” see the Wikipedia entry and its
links; for critical views as to its veracity, see (then-UN Special
Representative) Shaharyar Khan, The
Shallow Graves of Rwanda, I.B. Taurus, 2001, pp 51-62, and (then-U.S.
Defense Attache) William Odom, Journey
Into Darkness: Genocide in Rwanda, Texas A&M 2005, pp 173-177;
additional perspective on the genocidaires’ disinformation tactics in areas
visited by Gersony can be found in Colette Braeckman, Rwanda: Histoire d’un Génocide, Fayard, 1994, pp 290-292, based on reporting from the NGO
Doctors Without Borders about the tight control which Hutu Power leaders
exercised over what their “refugee camp” populations said to outsiders.
95. HRW, Leave None,
p. 16.
96. See, for example, HRW, Letter to the Prosecutor of the ICTR
Regarding the Prosecution of RPF Crimes, 2009.
97. See HRW, Leave None
p. 16 and “Law and Reality” p. 89; Jean Damascene Bizimana, “La Vérité Pour le
Rwanda,” (5 pages), undated; Gérard Prunier, Africa’s World War – Congo, the Rwandan
Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Disaster, Oxford University
Press, 2009, pp 365-368; and Faustin Kagame, “Gérard Prunier et son invasion
ratée du Rwanda (Analyse),” 5 April 2010, (6 pages) on www.rnanews,com. By
1998, Sendashonga had been joined by the émigré “moderate” MDR leader Faustin
Twagiramungu (in 1994-95 he had been the first Prime Minister in the
post-genocide Rwandan government) in creating an émigré party called Resistance
Forces for Democracy, which Sendashonga wanted to make into an armed
movement. By 1998, Twagiramungu, as
‘authoritative’ a source as Sendashonga, was claiming the RPF had killed over
300,000 Hutus in 1994-95. In 2002 Twagiramungu
would appear as a defense witness for a subsequently convicted genocidaire, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,
and argue that the genocide was neither planned nor directed against the Tutsi. HRW has never commented on the vagaries of
the post-1995 political course charted by this primary leader of the “moderate”
wing of the MDR.
98. See Jean Pierre Chrétien, Le Défi de l’Ethnisme,
2012 edition, page 204 and the works cited there: Michael Radu, The New Insurgencies. Anticommunist
guerillas in the third world, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1990,
pp 185-187, and M. Cahen, “De la guerre civile à la plebe: la Renamo du
Mozambique,” page 74, in Y. Guillaud & F. Letang, eds, Du social hors la loi. L’anthropologie
analytique de Christian Geffray, Marseilles, IRD, 2009).
99. HRW, Leave None,
p. 734-35.
100. For HRW’s stance, see:
HRW, “Rwanda: Deliver Justice for Both Sides,” August 12, 2002; “Leading
Rights Groups Urge Security Council to Ensure Management Reforms Do Not Undermine
Rwanda Tribunal,” August 8, 2003; “Letter to the Prosecutor of the ITCR
Regarding the Prosecution of RPF Crimes,” May 26, 2009; “Rwanda: Tribunal Risks
Supporting ‘Victor’s Justice’,” June 1, 2009; “Letter to ICTR Chief Prosecutor
Hassan Jallow in Response to His Letter on the Prosecution of RPF Crimes,”
August 14, 2009; “Rwanda: Tribunal’s Work Incomplete,” August 17, 2009.
For the ICTR stance, see: ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Jallow letter
to HRW’s Kenneth Roth, June 22, 2009; and
“My Interview with Tim Gallimore, Former Spokesman for the ICTR
Prosecutor,” 6 pages, at http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2011/05/27.
101. The text of the Merelles indictment, in the form of an
unofficial French translation from the Spanish, can be found at www.gerald.foci.net/acte-accusa-esp1.htm; the text of the Bruguière indictment is
at www.lanuitrwandaise.org/.../023-ordonnance).
102. HRW, “Law and Reality,” 2008, p. 93; HRW failed to mention
here any of the many bizarre aspects of the Bruguière indictment, or the great
deal of other patently false “information” in the Merelles indictment, for
example, that in 1994-95 in Rwanda the RPF killed 321,726 persons in Rwanda.
103. There does not
appear to exist any non-Rwandan analysis of the Merelles indictment in English
or French. It is persuasively exposed as
a rehash of Hutu Power propaganda in a report to the Rwandan Parliament by Jean
Damascene Bizimana, “Analyse Critique des Conclusions d’Enquêtes Rendues par
les Juges Bruguière et Merelles,”
40 pages, Kigali 15 May, 2008, and in a study by Tom Ndahiro, “Merelles, the
Indictable Spanish Judge,” 6 pages, posted February 14, 2011 on his “Friends of
Evil” blog site).
An enormous amount has been published in French about the vices,
political motivation, and process of collapse of the Bruguière indictment, but
very little in English. From French and
Belgian researchers, see Jacques Morel & George Kepler, “Un juge de connivence? Analyse de l’ordonnance de soit-communiqué du
juge Bruguière mettant en cause Paul Kagame pour l’attentat du 6 avril 1994 a
Kigali,” 43 pages, March 29, 2007; Michel Sitbon, “A propos de l’attentat
contre Juvenal Habyrimana.” 37 pages, in La Nuit Rwandaise, No. 3, April 2009;
Jacques Morel, La France au cœur du génocide
des Tutsi, l’Esprit Frappeur, 2010; Jean-Pierre Perrin, “Paul Barril,
‘l’Affreux’,” pp 52-63 in XXI-Vingt et Un, No. 10, Spring 2010; as well as the works of Collette
Braeckman, Maria Malagardis, Jean-Francois Dupaquier, and the
“Rwandagrandemanip” website. From
Rwandan researchers, see Jean Damascene Bizimana, “Analyze Critique” opcit, and
the 2009 Mutsinzi Report, cited above.
For the most recent episode in the collapse of the Bruguière indictment,
see Reuters, “French probe exonerates Rwanda leader in genocide,” January 10,
2012; CNN, “Report: rebels cleared in plane crash that sparked Rwandan
genocide,” January 11, 2012; Linda Melvern, “Rwanda: At Last We Know the
Truth,” in the Guardian, January 10, 2012; Andrew Wallis, “Rwanda: A Step
Toward Truth,” posted January 21, 2012 on www.opendemocracy.net).
104. See “Democratic Republic of Congo 1993-2003 – Report of the
Mapping Exercise documenting the most serious violations of human rights and
international humanitarian law committed within the territory of the Democratic
Republic of Congo between March 1993 and June 2003,” Office of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, August 2010, 554 pages.
105. Anonymous save for
team leader Luc Coté, who went public the day after the report was leaked to
the French newspaper Le Monde, to allege that what “Rwandan Tutsi” troops did
to Hutus in the DRC in 1996-97 was “the same thing” that was done to the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. See AFP, “Congo Butchery resembled Rwanda
genocide,” August 27, 2010.
106. See also the range
of critiques in “Official Government of Rwanda Comments on the Draft UN Mapping
Report on the DRC,” 23 pages, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, transmitted to the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on September 30, 2010, and Jean Damascene Bizimana, “Fautes et carences
juridiques du Rapport Mapping de l’ONU sur les violations commises en République
Démocratique du Congo de 1993-2003”, Kigali, 9 December 2010.
107. The report posits
that Congolese and Rwandan Hutu constitute a single “ethnic group,” which makes
it easier to speculate that they were a target of genocide, but would probably
be news to them.
108. See Jason Stearn, “UN Mapping Report Leaked: Crime of
genocide against hutu center of controversy,” posted August 26, 2010 on his
Congo Siasa blogsite.
109. See Philip Gourevitch, “Rwanda Pushes Back Against U.N.
Genocide Charges,” 4 pages, posted August 27, 2010 on his The New Yorker
blogsite.
110. See HRW, “DR Congo: UN Report Exposes Grave Crimes,”
October 1, 2010; “DR Congo: Q & A on the United Nations Human Rights
Mapping Report,” October 1, 2010; HRW website posting of Reed Brody, “Identify
the Congo killers and bring them to justice,” as published in the Guardian; and
HRW, “DR Congo: Prosecute Atrocities Exposed by UN,” October 10, 2011.
111. See HRW, “DR Congo: Prosecute Atrocities Exposed by UN,”
October 10, 2011.
112. See the Wikipedia entries “criticism of HRW” and
“criticisms of Amnesty;” the NGO Monitor website (notably on Kenneth Roth’s
analysis of Iranian threats against the Israeli people); the exchange between
17 women’s rights organizations and HRW entitled “Women and Islam: An Exchange
with Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch” in the New York Review of Books
(NYRB), March 22, 2012; Gita Sighal’s “Statement on Leaving Amnesty
International” in the NYRB, May 13, 2010; and Stephen Kinzer, “End human rights
imperialism” in the Guardian, December 31, 2010.
113. See, for example: Thomas McCarthy, Race, Empire and the Idea of
Human Development, Cambridge University Press 2009; Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture
Beyond the Color Line, Harvard University Press 2000; Edward Said, Orientalism, Routledge 1978 and Culture and Imperialism, Vintage Books
1994; Achille Mbembe, Sortir de la Grande
Nuit: Essai sur l’Afrique décolonisée, La Découverte 2010; Catherine Coquio,
ed., Retours du Colonial? Disculpation et
Réhabilitation de l’Histoire Coloniale, l’Atalante 2008; Adame Ba Konare,
ed., Petit Précis de Remise à Niveau sur
l’Histoire Africaine à l’Usage du Président Sarkozy, La Découverte 2008;
Makhily Gassama, ed., L’Afrique Répond a
Sarkozy: Contre le Discours de Dakar, Philippe Rey 2008; Boubacar Boris
Diop, Odile Tobner, and François-Xavier Verschave, Négrophobie, opcit;
Michel-Ralph Trouillot, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of
History, Beacon Press, 1995; and Sven Lindqvist, Exterminate All the Brutes, The New Press 1996.