If it were a genocide against the Tutsi ONLY by the Hutu, how come that there were more Hutu…

Prof. Charles Kambanda

Prof. Charles Kambanda

Who killed those Hutu and “others” to the extent that the Hutu make the majority of the people killed?

After a lot of lobbying and unimaginable resistance by many UN Security Council members, Rwanda has sneaked the term “Tutsi” into the UN definition of what happened in Rwanda in 1994. Until recently, the UNSC had called the massacres in Rwanda “the 1994 Rwandan Genocide”. The official long name is different now. It is called “the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi during which Hutu and others who opposed the genocide (government) were killed”. I find this “new” name more confusing than the previous one. The “new” definition potentially removes the 1994 massacres from the legal definition of genocide. The UNSC has introduced two important factors to account for the 1994 massacres in Rwanda “ethnic clashes” and “political crisis.”

First, the “new” wording is inconsistent with the UN Specialized Tribunal for Rwanda’s findings. They tried all the Hutu suspects the world believed planned the genocide in Rwanda. The UN Tribunal for Rwanda found out that the genocide in Rwanda was not planned. Nobody planned the massacres we now call genocide? Legally, this finding is contradictory. It is like convicting an impotent male for rape as a principal in the first degree. It is impossible!! If the massacres were not planned, it becomes “spontaneous killing, effectively removing those massacres from the scope of “genocide”. The UNSC is impliedly saying, there were more Hutu and “others” killed. Yes. But the Hutu and “others”, the UNSC says, were killed for opposing their “genocidal” government; a government we are told was purely Hutu. Then who killed those Hutu in greater numbers than their counterpart the Tutsi? And who are those “others” that were killed for “political” reasons alongside the Hutu? I believe the UNSC missed out on critical thinking at this level. If so many Hutu were killed because they opposed the Tutsi genocide, then killing the Tutsi was not a predominant “ideology”; it was an ordinary crime that claimed the Tutsi!

Second, the population statistics during the genocide present a complex issue. The then government of Rwanda maintained a comprehensive population registry indicating each citizens’ ethnic group. Rwanda’s population was about 6.2 million people. The Tutsi were 14% while the Hutu were over 85% of the population. The Twa were less than 1%. The human skulls/remains/victims of the genocide now total to more than a million. The Tutsi survivors of genocide were over 300,000 people. These statistics are not in dispute. Here is the formula: 6.2 million – 14% is the total number of the Tutsi that were in Rwanda during the genocide. 14% of 6.2million – about 300, 000 Tutsi survivors of the genocide in 1994 is the number of Tutsi that perished in the genocide. 6.2 million – over one million skulls/remains that have been counted is the total number of the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa that perished in the genocide.

One outstanding conclusion of the statistical analysis is that there were far more Hutu killed than the Tutsi in a genocide that is called Tutsi genocide and was conducted by an exclusively Hutu “genocidal” government. And Kagame’s predominantly Tutsi government keeps talking of “the genocide ideology” among the Hutu. Yet there were so many Hutu to fight against the genocide; much more than the Tutsi who died and more than the entire Tutsi population in the country. It sounds ridiculous. Doesn’t it? The statistics are disturbing in light of the new name. If it were a genocide against the Tutsi ONLY by the Hutu, how come that there were more Hutu victims/killed? Is it possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but killed themselves more than they killed their victims? Going by the “new” UN definition, who killed the Hutu and “others” to the extent that there were more Hutu and “others” killed? Isn’t the “new” UNSC definition of what happened in Rwanda very confusing in light of the available body of knowledge that there is?

The UNSC wording suggests that the Hutu and “others” were killed because they opposed the government while the Tutsi were killed because they were Tutsi. The problem at this level is that if the Hutu and “others” were killed for political reasons make the majority of the people killed, then there was a national social political problem for which even the Tutsi were killed. How do you detach the Tutsi from a national social political crisis that led to death of so many Hutus and “others”? Who then killed those Hutus and “others” for opposing the government? Were the Tutsi, at least some, killed for opposing the government too? Didn’t the Tutsi oppose the Then Hutu government? Were the Tutsi immune to being killed for opposing the then purely Hutu government? Isn’t ridiculous that the Tutsi did not oppose the Hutu government we are told discriminated against them? Certainly, if group had the motive to oppose the then government, it were the Tutsi. If opposing the then government was “punished” by exterminating the Hutu, why were the Tutsi, who actually opposed the then Hutu government, not killed for opposing the government? I think the UNSC wording has effectively given the world an insight into what actually happened.

 It is important to note that president Habyarimana was running a dictatorship. He was assassinated together with his top and strong government officials. Effectively, there was no government at the time of the genocide. Who killed those Hutu and “others” to the extent that the Hutu make the majority of the people killed?

4 responses to “If it were a genocide against the Tutsi ONLY by the Hutu, how come that there were more Hutu…

  1. according to the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. therefore genocide is A STATE CRIME, in other words it mean that the government in one way or another has participate in preparation and in execution of the crime…and that what happened in Rwanda, when a HUTU dominant government prepared and deliberately exterminated the Tutsi….that is why IT HAS TO BE CALLED A GENOCIDE PERPETRATED AGAINST THE TUTSI.

    Like

    • Thanks for reminding readers of the page what defines genocide. HOWEVER, you seem to start from a false premise assuming that the article of Pr. Charles Kambanda denies the genocide which was perpetrated against the Tutsi. The definition you provide unfortunately applies as well to Hutu who were killed before, during the 94 tragedy and or until today are being killed under circumstances you defined as those of genocides. Unless you apply double standards, it would be irrational on your part to talk of the genocide against Tutsi and behave as if Hutu who were killed were not targeted by Interahamwe and RPF because of their ethnicity. Thus discriminating among the victims does not advocate for reconciliation among all Rwandans. If such situation was however was is intended because of those who benefit from it, this would be understandable.

      Like

What is your opinion about this?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s