Among the things that have not changed since the last genocide of the 20th century claimed more than 1 million Tutsi lives is the way in which bystanders and accomplices to the crime have attempted, time and again, to not only rewrite history but also to impose the contours of acceptable speech in Rwandan society and, subsequently, the terms of reconciliation. Activists and organizations operating from countries that first denied the occurrence of genocide in order to evade their responsibility to protect are today at the forefront in the fight to overthrow the RPF-led government. The RPF is a prime target for being the only military force that opposed the extermination project. Logically, accomplices have vested interests in rewriting history. In this endeavor, they have found willing partners in those whose direct involvement in the mass murder or sectarian political interests require this rewriting. Consequently, Rwanda and the survivors of the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi have had to deal with genocide denial, revisionism, and minimization. Genocide denial and revisionism often go hand in hand. The denial of facts legally-established beyond a reasonable doubt necessarily leads to a revision of history. As such, it is no longer surprising to learn about the publication of books such as In Praise of Blood’. - only two decades after the genocide. In this book, Judi Rever advances a theory of double genocide that is entirely discredited and is strongly rejected by serious researchers. Equally unsurprising, although he is not a mere bystander, but an active participant in the intellectual wing of the genocidaires in his capacity as the chairperson of the genocidal constitution in 1978, is Filip Reytiens’ use of anonymous sources, genocide suspects and genocide convicts, to build cases from scratch against the RPF. In the same vein, Jean Kambanda, the former prime minister of the genocidal government who pleaded guilty to crimes of genocide and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the ICTR, recently published, from his jail cell, a book entitled Les Interahamwe du FPR- RPF Killers . Judi Rever, Filip Reytiens, Jean Kambanda, and other “critics” of the Rwandan government, in reality critics of the genocide against the Tutsi, such as Paul Rusesabagina or Ingabire Victoire have a thing in common: They shamelessly shift from denial to revisionism or use a combination of the two in this agenda. Where they do not simply deny the reality of the genocide against the Tutsi, they attribute the responsibility to the RPF or quite simply promote the double genocide theory. The political utility of these attempts, as has been argued before, is to level the field between genocidaires and those who defeated them or to reverse responsibilities. In his recent interview with the Rwandan Broadcasting Agency on September 6th, 2020, while referring to Jean Kambanda’s book, President Kagame mentioned the disturbing aspect of the publication. “Seeing someone who was convicted and imprisoned, given a platform to write a book denying the history that led to his imprisonment is a problem,” the President said. Indeed, it is a shame to see unscrupulous publishing houses, activists, and organizations operating from countries whose inaction or direct support for genocidal forces facilitated mass crimes, continue to lend a hand to the denial and revisionist propaganda under the guise of freedom of expression. In their understanding of what freedom of expression should be, individuals and western NGOs that masquerade as defenders of human rights and democracy have not found other more credible figures to promote their agenda. Yet, it should have been a warning sign for genuine defenders of human rights and democracy that the attempts of their chosen human rights activists to discredit the RPF-led government have genocide denial and revisionism as a foundation. If such attempts to discredit the Rwandan government must involve the rewriting of history and constant attacks on the memory of victims of the genocide, then obviously the criticisms they put forward as far as the present is concerned are either too dubious or illegitimate grounds to mobilize the Rwandan people against the current dispensation. However, far from doing a work of introspection on the responsibility of their countries of origin in the tragedy of 1994 and taking their own responsibility in the criminality, they have turned to uninhibited genocide denial and revisionism; consequently, those activists and western NGOs continue to interfere undermine the process of nation-state building undertaken by the RPF. Unable to recognize the extraordinary progress in Rwanda and the improvement in the living conditions of Rwandans, they continue, from the height of their insufferable arrogant ignorance, to blame the Rwandan leadership for all sorts of evils while remaining loudly silent on the unwillingness of their home countries to shoulder their responsibilities: the minimum would be to arrest and prosecute those responsible for the genocide. Ironically, they portray their own tolerance of crime and the sheltering of criminals as moderation,” respect for human rights, and free speech. Emboldened by this support, genocidaires like Jean Kambanda or genocide deniers like Paul Rusesabagina, have felt themselves growing wings to the point of publishing books that deny the very crime they were convicted for or calling for war against the Rwandan government. Similarly, a person like Paul Rusesabagina openly refers to the government as “the enemy of the Rwandan people since 1990”. The promoters of revisionism that is camouflaged in “moderation” his promoters fail to ask the obvious question: “Which Rwandan people was Rusesabagina referring to?” In the video where Rusesabagina calls for war against the “Kagame army”, he accuses the RPF of enacting policies that impoverish the “natives”. In the context of the Great Lakes Region, “natives” is a loaded word. It refers to colonial theories on the origins of Tutsi which are described as invaders akin to settler colonialists who imposed themselves on the indigenous populations –the natives. Such terminology was used to deny Tutsi citizenship rights; similar terminology was used to fuel hatred that led to genocidal massacres targeting Tutsi since 1959, culminating in the 1994 genocide. At the time, in the late 50s and early 60s, the masterminds of the genocide encouraged the “natives” to throw Tutsi “invaders” in Nyabarongo river so that they return to their place of origin – Ethiopia. In other words, the “Hotel Rwanda Hero” misleads no one in Rwanda as far as his intent and his perceived “moderation” are concerned. His coded language is understood by all; it is the rallying call of genocidaires. Beyond Rusesabagina, however, the failure of introspection on the part of the bystanders during the genocide informs their definition of “moderation” in which those who stopped the genocide and are committed to preventing its recurrence are labeled “intolerant.” For the NGOs, introspection would have them reflect on the reasons their own governments looked the other way while a million people were being massacred; they would reflect on why their countries have not brought to book the killers who fled to their home countries; they would reflect on the reasons why their home countries were chosen as a sanctuary for the genocidal killers; they would reflect on the reasons a man they call a hero declared a war on his home country and subsequently took responsibility for attacks that took the lives of innocent people; they would reflect on why they consider these people moderates. If bystanders were genuine advocates of human rights and democracy, they would not have been bystanders in the first place. Moreover, if they had any regret for the indifference then, they would center the perspective of victims rather than those of the perpetrators of crime now; moreover, they would give sanctuary to the former rather than the latter. They would allow the victims to define the terms of reconciliation rather than impose upon them what “moderation” is. If moderation is defined as accommodating an ideology that informed the slaughter of more than a million Rwandans, then radicalness against the ideology is the only antidote against the recurrence of genocide. Bystanders to genocide, unrepentant and indifferent, remain on the wrong side of history.
