Yesterday Rwandans, and the whole world, began a period of commemoration of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. President Paul Kagame presided over the ceremony and reminded the whole world what it meant to Rwandans and indeed all humanity.

It is a time to remember and honour the victims of the most hateful, most vicious killing campaign in Rwanda’s history. It is also a moment for reflection – on why such horrendous acts could happen and go unchecked and not condemned for so long, and their known perpetrators not punished but given abode instead.

And for people with a good conscience, it is an opportunity to accept responsibility for whatever role they may have played. It is not the time for recrimination or apportioning of blame. Instead, the commemoration offers everyone the chance to recommit to the idea of each being the other’s keeper. But that presupposes several things.

First, that all human beings are equal in fact, not just a declaration of principle in international conventions. Second, that the earth, or the portion of it we identify as country, is our shared home to which all have equal rights. And third, in the event of any or all of these being denied or wilfully breached, the right to protect ourselves.

But as past experience has shown, we will not be allowed to do our remembrance in peace because this period also sees the unleashing of a lot of anti-Rwanda activity. Attacks on Rwanda’s leadership, especially President Paul Kagame, are at their most vicious. Misinformation is at its highest. Distortion of history and the inversion of truth are at their worst.

Books on Rwanda, by foreigners calling themselves experts on the country, make an appearance at this time and get rave reviews in major world media outlet.

Invariably all the books and reviews portray President Kagame in the most horrible manner. They question Rwanda’s progress and when forced to admit what they cannot contradict because the evidence is so visible, claim it is all achieved as part of a huge scheme of abuse and violation of people’s rights.

They present Rwandans as stupid sheep meekly led to the slaughter and they as the saviours of these foolish people.

This is not new. It is a continuation of a tradition of expatriate writing on Africa – condescending, patronising, supremacist. The Africans are a clueless, ignorant lot that cannot recognise danger, even to themselves, and so must be rescued by a white saviour.

In the particular instance of the commemoration of genocide against the Tutsi, these publications and the heightened attacks are calculated to achieve a number of goals.

First, it is to divert attention from the crime of genocide and its perpetrators and their foreign backers. It is an attempt to obscure the record and create doubts about the events. In this way, for instance, they undermine the fact of the RPF ending the genocide, and subsequent efforts of the government to unite and reconcile the country, and to rebuild the nation.

Second, it is an assault on the memory of victims and therefore on the genocide itself that they intend to achieve by reversing roles. Blame the victim and absolve the perpetrator.

The ultimate objective is to deny the genocide.

One of the favourite methods of undermining the achievements of the government of Rwanda is always to try to link them to western guilt for its failure to prevent or stop the genocide. They accuse the government of expertly manipulating this supposed guilt to get donor support and to get away with all manner of crimes.

This is, of course, incorrect. The feeling of guilt presupposes admission that one did wrong. No one has ever publicly admitted any wrong-doing or any form of responsibility and therefore there cannot be a feeling of guilt.

Following from that would be remorse and apology. None has sought or asked for forgiveness for their action or inaction or of those they wronged. Whatever sounds like apology has always been qualified, never an act of real contrition.

So, where does all this thing about guilt come from? Like the various publications, it is also intended to achieve certain objectives.

One, it is another form of inversion of truth. to shift to blame to victims from those who refused to act, or looked the other way, or actively aided and abetted the genocide.

This is a clever way of deflecting any idea of complicity and avoiding responsibility of any sort.

And having set that aside, then they go on to hit the victim with alleged infringements of things they define, like human rights, political space, and so on.

Where is the guilt in all this?

It is about time some accepted responsibility and maybe then feel really guilty. Perhaps then they will come clean and move forward with a clear conscience. Playing with words or a blame game will simply not do.