Despite the unequivocal evidence of the genocide against Tutsi, and its international recognition, there persists a troubling reluctance to confront this reality head-on. There are many forms of genocide denial which are hurtful to survivors, but usually committed by individuals and organisations and the media, but there is one which seems to be accepted by countries like the United States of America. The stealthy form of denial is rightful naming of the crime based on the victims. When US President Bill Clinton came to Rwanda in March 1998, self-confessed that the world “did not act quickly enough” to stop the genocide, and that “we did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name - genocide.” Although President Clinton was the head of the US delegation at Kwibuka-30, his country still evades rightful naming of the crime. Thirty years of fudging In his April 7, 2024 message on X, supposedly of solidarity with Rwanda, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken wrote: “The United States stands with the people of Rwanda during Kwibuka 30 in remembering the victims of genocide. We mourn the many thousands of Tutsis, Hutus, Twas, and others whose lives were lost during 100 days of unspeakable violence.” Initially I thought it was a fake account until I verified it was on his official handle. Secretary Blinken’s goes back thirty years. On June 10, 1994 the New York Times wrote that US ‘Officials Told to Avoid Calling Rwanda Killings 'Genocide'’. The then US Ambassador to Rwanda—David Rawson was quoted saying: As a responsible Government, you don't just go around hollering 'genocide,' ... You say that acts of genocide may have occurred and they need to be investigated. They were avoiding to accept the truth despite full knowledge of what was going on, who were the perpetrators and who were the victims. Prevaricating or hedging on the use of the correct term referring to the systematic slaughter of Tutsi in Rwanda, is not merely a matter of semantics. It is a betrayal of truth, a capitulation to the forces of denial, and a tacit endorsement of the perpetrators' heinous agenda. Whether this evasion is intentional or born out of ignorance, its consequences are dire and far-reaching. The term genocide carries with it a specific legal and moral weight. Coined by Raphael Lemkin in 1944, it denotes the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group. The genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda meets every criterion outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It was a calculated campaign to exterminate an entire ethnic group based solely on their identity. In her remarks to the African Union Peace and Security Council (AU-PSC), Rwanda in mind, Wairimu Nderitu, the UN’s Special Advisor on Genocide emphasised what Blinken should always remember: “Genocides are planned. They are not unexpected; they are not spontaneous. They are intended. There was intent, demonstrated in clear plans, to destroy in whole or in part – the Tutsi.” What she underscored had earlier been determined by the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR in June 2006. The absurdity of denial Rejecting to call the Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsi what it remains to be – is an absurd and offensive position that undermines the historical truth and the memory of the victims. Just imagine, for a moment, if we applied the same logic to other genocides throughout history. Would we hesitate to call the Holocaust what it was, simply because the Nazis targeted other groups as well? The absurdity of such a notion underscores the gravity of the issue at hand. Some argue that the term is too loaded, too politicized, or too divisive. Others suggest using alternative terms such as civil war or ethnic conflict to describe the events, in an attempt to avoid offense or controversy. Such euphemisms not only fail to accurately describe the nature of the atrocities but also serve to downplay the magnitude of the crimes committed. One of the reasons why the Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsi is often treated differently from other genocides, such as the Holocaust, is the perception that it was a tribal conflict, a spontaneous eruption of violence rooted in ancient ethnic animosities. This narrative is not only false but also dangerous, as it absolves the perpetrators of their responsibility and ignores the role of colonialism and political manipulation in powering the genocide. On May 3, 1994 a German N-TV News Channel hosted Jerome Bicamumpaka, the Rwandan genocidaire government’s Foreign Minister. He defended their army saying “the army isn’t killing any civilians, while the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) is murdering innocent people.” Asked about who has been murdering whom, Bicamumpaka’s response was: “It was the people of the different ethnic groups slaughtering each other. Our army has even prevented murders. “There is no more killing” ... Before any investigations have been carried out it’s very difficult to say exactly that this person has murdered that one. But to put it in general terms, the Tutsis and Hutus have massacred each other to an equal extent.” There are many examples like that which shapes Blinken’s narrative. In conclusion, the avoidance or dodging on the use of the term genocide when referring to the atrocities committed against the Tutsi in Rwanda is not a mere academic debate or a matter of semantics. It is a moral imperative, a test of our commitment to truth, justice, and human dignity. The consequences of this evasion are profound. The refusal to acknowledge this fact, reassures genocide deniers and revisionists, who seek to distort the truth and sow seeds of doubt. Bypassing this reality, we effectively whitewash history and dishonour the memory of the victims. We allow the perpetrators and their apologists to evade accountability and perpetuate a culture of impunity. It is a dangerous message to the world that certain carnages are more tolerable or less deserving of condemnation based on political expediency or geopolitical considerations. It is incumbent upon us, to confront this reality with unwavering clarity and moral courage. We must call genocide by its name, regardless of the discomfort it may cause or the political ramifications it may entail.
