On April 8, a controversial association based in Belgium attended a commemoration ceremony of the victims of the 1994 Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in an act decried by survivors and the broader Rwandan community as soon as pictures started circulating online.

It soon became evident that they were using commemoration events as new mediums to spread their denial rhetoric.

This event marks the latest development of a worrying trend: the rise of a new, rebranded type of genocide denial that hides its true intentions behind a respectable and sombre face—a clear change from the previous narrative claiming that the genocide was a civil war.

In 2000, Belgium became the first country to apologize for its responsibilities in the Genocide. Yet, twenty-three years later, how can we explain that a highly controversial group was invited to an official commemoration?

Multiple factors can explain this turnaround.

Persisting ignorance

The rise of social media and the international media’s persisting disinterest toward Africa and a general zeitgeist opposed to official discourses and favoring wild conspiracy theories contributed to clouding the contours of the Genocide against the Tutsi.

While denial is an integral part of any Genocide, in comparison to the two other Genocides of the 20th century, in the case of Rwanda, the truth had to emerge and solidify in a totally different world - an age of information overdose, where the line between genuine facts and misinformation is blurred.

Foreign audiences know very little about the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. This is in part due to changes in the media landscape: in the last two decades, we saw a radical shift in traditional media.

A growing pressure to make news more profitable created increased competition within media outlets, affecting the reporting quality. As a result, real experts on any said topics are increasingly rare.

Lost momentum

If according to genocide scholar Gregory H. Stanton, denial is the last stage of Genocide; in the case of Rwanda, denial was an integral part of its preparation. As early as April 1994, the seeds of denial were already bearing fruit, whether as a proactive deflecting tactic to cover up the acts or perpetrators or by lack of information.

Getting people to recognise what happened in Rwanda was always an uphill battle. Rwandans, and especially survivors, had to fight tooth and nail for the truth to see the light and played a crucial role in the early recognition of the Genocide.

Recognition of historical events in Belgium was a lengthy bottom-up process led by civil society together with influential allies. They were responsible, in part, for the establishment of official practices that shaped the makeup of the current memory culture around Rwanda.

However, in time, this momentum was lost, and a new, less engaged generation failed to occupy this space. In a context where the historical facts of the genocide are still largely misunderstood, denial proliferated in the vacuum created by this decline in activism.

Change in discourse

Denial nowadays is rarely a direct plain negation of the horrific events around the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. It has become more insidious and cunning.

As the international community finally accepted the most fundamental aspects of the Genocide, deniers are adapting their discourse accordingly for fear of losing credibility or access to certain forums.

Scholars like Jos Van Oijen and Dr. Helen Hintjens dubbed this phenomenon "implicatory denial,” a form of denial consisting in acknowledging the genocide against the Tutsi as a historical fact but shifting its responsibility to the "other side.” This form of denial is all the more dangerous because it is centered on alleged motives and conspiracies.

Since humans are intuitive beings, it is hard for them to spot fallacies and inconsistencies in a narrative at first glance. New conspiracy theories are formed as soon as older ones are debunked, forever evolving and creating more confusion.

Actions to counter these changing arguments require constant monitoring and community educational engagements.

Accountability requires pressure

The current ideological war around the memory of the Genocide against the Tutsi is a clear sign that genocide ideology is alive and well, especially as our history is increasingly intertwined with debates about the politics of the Great Lakes region or other grand geopolitical events.

This, in turn, creates confusion in a largely biased public opinion abroad. It should be reason enough to worry.

We must act continuously and without rest to make sure we contain this cancer. We should educate and raise awareness. We should be loud about our cause and not be afraid that others might not agree. Indifference should not deter us from occupying spaces.

We should create an environment where denial cannot and will not thrive in peace. We must do this for our sake, for the sake of future generations untouched by the plague of Genocide ideology.

For the remainder of these 100 days, let us reflect on ways we can make an impact.

Gilbert Kalisa is a Ph.D. candidate and Laetitia Tran Ngoc is a writer based in Belgium.