RPF/A ushers fundamental changes When the genocide grew to its heights, peace talks in Arusha virtually flopped, Rwanda Patriotic Front/Army (RPF/A) had no choice but to fight genociders tooth and nail. As the genocidaires continued with their human slaughter, blood was flowing all over Rwanda and the so-called thousand hills, littered with dead bodies. In fact, one did not need to watch television to see the dead bodies, as a mere flow of the ‘tributaries’ of the Nile and Lake Victoria told the story.
RPF/A ushers fundamental changes
When the genocide grew to its heights, peace talks in Arusha virtually flopped, Rwanda Patriotic Front/Army (RPF/A) had no choice but to fight genociders tooth and nail. As the genocidaires continued with their human slaughter, blood was flowing all over Rwanda and the so-called thousand hills, littered with dead bodies. In fact, one did not need to watch television to see the dead bodies, as a mere flow of the ‘tributaries’ of the Nile and Lake Victoria told the story.
The UN presence in Rwanda was as good as its absence, or even worse. The whole world watched as Tutsi died in thousands everyday. Countries like France often sent several paratroopers ostensibly to protect and evacuate foreigners.
It was a compelling experience. RPF/A had to live by its name, ‘PATRIOTIC’ to end the genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda. It was a difficult task, both in cash and kind.
"The speed with which the regime was carrying out the genocide forced us to fight fast. This affected our general war strategy and tactics,” says Musoni Patrick, a demobilized soldier who fought the war.
Nevertheless, with all vicissitudes, the RPF/A stopped the genocide.
Challenges
The RPF/A war to stop the genocide faced enormous challenges that were both home and foreign grown. They include among others:
‘Militialized’ population, genocide ideology, and Justice.
Militialised population: On paper, Habyarimana’s government had a very slim army, but in real sense, it had trained thousands of others in form of militia. But people fail to understand this sad reality. So who is a soldier?
A soldier is somebody trained, equipped with skills to fight and is armed. Interahamwe therefore, qualified as soldiers because they were trained, and equipped with modern and traditional weapons to fight.
"I was given military skills to fight using a gun, grenades were necessary, traditional weapons. In fact I carried grenades and machetes whenever I went to work (kill Tutsi),” Ndahayo Sylvester confessed in a Gacaca court session in Rwamagana.
It was such a big challenge to fight militias since they were deployed, right from the cell level to the provincial one. The RPF/A again found it very difficult to identify and later on fight them, since they were never in military regalia as the regular army.
They could however be identified because they carried weapons wherever they went to kill Tutsi.
In fact, whenever you hear negationists or genocide deniers, talk about civilian deaths in the hands of RPF/A, they are ‘deliberately’ referring to the plain clothed Interahamwe militias.
This brings us to the issue of Just war theory, as agreed by the United Nations’ convention. Was RPF war against the genociders justified? Yes- it was justified because it fulfilled some fundamentals of a Just war theory. Some of these are:
• the war stopped genocide
• the war allowed the most minimal civilian causalities possible
• RPF/A was certain to win the war
• War against genociders was a last resort
The above factors as agreed by the Just war theory, characterized the RPF/A war against the genociders.
Genocide ideology: The Rwandan population was poisoned by the genocide ideology, by the time the RPF/A started taking over most of Rwanda. RPF political wing, consequently found strong resistance when it was trying to sensitize the population against the genocide.
Rwandan mind was poisoned and there was great need to depoison it- transforming the mind. But why and what is the mind?
The word mind in simple terms may be defined as that which is responsible for one’s thoughts and faculty of reason.
Every person has thought processes going on and self-awareness is our primary evidence of mental activity and the mind.
The brain also has a subconscious activity. However, an individual’s entire mind sorts out information while the brain is the physical vehicle for the information. It is an important faculty of reasoning.
The mind is the culprit through which hate, contempt and desire for annihilation of Tutsi and other Rwandans was fomented- through programs to orient it to genocide.
In other words, the mind pushes an individual in a certain way and at the same time prevents him to act in another way.
It therefore affects the person’s behaviour. This in short, explains why the RPF/A was interested in sensitizing the population, so that a transformation of the mind is realised.
Since wars and for that matter, genocide begins in the minds of men and women, it is in the minds of men and women that the defences of peace must be constructed (UNESCO).
The human species seem to have a virtual capacity for making harsh distinctions between groups and for justifying violence on whatever scale. In Rwanda for example, violence against the Tutsi was justified like eliminating a weed in your garden.
Although philosophers hold that conflict is part of human nature, with the attendant result that human beings are always in conflict with self, human conflict is a subject that demands the most careful and searching inquiry.
It is a subject that demands public understanding. This is where Rwanda is still finding great problems- working on people’s mind, poisoned by the genocide ideology.
"It is regrettable that there is still overwhelming evidence of genocide ideology in our schools. We are however going to leave no stone untouched to end it,” complained Mustindashyaka Theoneste, the Minister of State for education (in 2008).
It is lamentable that education in Rwanda has yet to rise to this challenge. This is however not surprising given that the education in pre-genocide period was founded on an ideology of irreconcilable differences meant to keep Rwandans apart and not exploit their commonality.
Issue of Justice: After the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, another big issue of justice emerged. An International Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was set up in Arusha to try the perpetrators of the genocide. Courts in Rwanda started trying those suspected of such crimes.
There were many disagreements concerning the type of justice, Rwanda should offer the genociders.
Understandably, the survivors of the genocide and their families wanted retributive justice, while the perpetrators and their families on the other hand, wanted a more relaxed approach or restorative justice.
We however need to have the two, retributive and restorative justice as a response to the genocide. For the sake of restoring the equilibrium between the harm and the compensation, retributive justice is needed.
We must understand that retributive justice does not necessarily have to be vengeance and that there can never be justice in its absence.
An obligation to punish should rise from its social utility. This means that overall; the good of not only a person but also the society must act as a reference point.
Which is why, we need a combination of both retributive and restorative justice. In fact, when capital punishment was abolished in Rwanda, some people cursed while others rejoiced, but they were all guided by wrong emotions.
Capital punishment does not always serve what it claims to do. Death as offered by the law will not subject the culprit to the sufferings he or she inflicted on the victim.
Our moral restraints cannot allow us to behave like the genociders, for instance. Life imprisonment offers a more reasonable alternative, since it leaves the culprit to keep his or her eyes on the persons, he or she wanted annihilate. It tortures psychologically and hence a punishment.
ICTR has also tried to give its hand in the trials, but its remoteness has been its undoing. One, it does not get facts right and hence tend to give complete misguided and wrong judgments to the perpetrators of genocide.
Two, the fact that it is not based in Rwanda, denies Rwandans of the real feeling of justice being done for them after the genocide. Unfortunately, it handles category one and two of the suspects- perpetrators and implementers of the genocide.
Gacaca courts have so far offered the best choice, since they were able to unearth most killers, and bring them before justice.
The only challenge has been the absence of witnesses, since very few Tutsi survived to tell the stories, while others are often scared or bribed off.
The culprits too, have not come out to genuinely confess and ask for forgiveness. This greatly handicaps the process for unity and reconciliation in Rwanda.
Despite all odds, we cannot over emphasize the fact that Gacaca courts, take all the credit for the justice so far done in Rwanda after the genocide. It actually offers one of the prime fundamental changes in Rwanda since the liberation of Rwanda.