UN Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali has tried to cover up that his own secretariat deliberately stopped warnings coming from Rwanda about plans by Hutu extremists to kill Belgian soldiers in order to initiate a genocide of Rwanda’s Tutsi population. As described in Information on Saturday, crucial information on what was to happen was not passed on to the Security Council.

As a response to the Danish led, multi-donor evaluation report, which criticised him and his staff for misreading the conflict and overlooking serious warnings because of a lack of human resources, bureaucratic inertia and mere incompetence, Boutros-Ghali now claims that the information was passed on. In the official book, The UN and Rwanda 1993-1996, Boutros-Ghali says in his foreword that he, the day after the cables were received on January 12th, informed the Security Council “through my special adviser.”

But Czech Ambassador Karel Kovanda, President of the Council at that time seems to disagree. After having gone through his notes he explains: “There was a meeting of the Security Council on that day, but it was not on Rwanda; it was about general discussions on the role of regional organisations and of the UN. We were not told about the informer, the militias or the plans to assassinate the Belgians,” “nothing whatsoever”, Karel Kovanda tells Information.

Top chief surprised

This is confirmed by James Jonah, who at that time was Chief of the UN Department of Political Affairs (DPA), “Together with chief of DPKO [Department of Peacekeeping Operations, ed.] I was in charge of preparing the material for the Security Council. If it had been brought to the Council I would have known.” Jonah says that he was surprised when he last year read about the cable in the press.

‘We were not told about the informer, the militias or the plans to assassinate the Belgians [...] nothing whatsoever‘
Former Ambassador to the UN, Karel Kovanda

The Secretary-General and his advisers as well as the top of the DPKO have been busy covering up their role in the decisive days of April 1994. In the same introduction Boutros-Ghali says, “The killings… up to a million people are estimated to have been killed…. was clearly genocide”.

But it took many weeks before the Secretary-General actually used the word genocide despite the fact that his personal military adviser and the chief of DPKO for months had known that the militias planned this. Instead he described the killings during the first weeks as mindless blood frenzy caused by “deep-rooted ethnic hatred”. Only after the Czech Republic and other countries had pressurised the Secretary-General, by making the Security Council adopt a statement using language that referred to the Genocide Convention, was the word introduced by the Secretary-General. The use of this word in the UN system has the special effect that the Convention obliges the member states to intervene, but Boutros-Ghali even toned down its meaning by describing the violence as “Hutus killing Tutsis and Tutsis killing Hutus”.

Danish Provocation

The Secretary-General started a cover-up action after a number of countries, chaired by Denmark, in March 1996 released a comprehensive report on the efforts of the international community in Rwanda.

The report concluded that essential information was overlooked in the Secretariat because of incompetence, understaffing and bureaucratic inertia. The report contains a further critique of the Secretary-General and his staff because of their lack of action.

The Secretary-General immediately launched a counterattack: In a press statement – released the day before the announcement of the report – Boutros-Ghali accused the report of being revisionist and “containing unfounded accusations about the Secretary-General and the Secretariat and their actions or lack thereof”.

In its own comment the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, DHA, is positive towards this report. But a single line in the cover text of the DHA response condemns the report as consisting of factual inaccuracies. This is directly ordered by the Secretary-General. One of the main authors of the report, Professor Howard Adelman, tells Information that three officers in DHA on different occasions to him stressed that this was not something they had suggested. Boutros-Ghali had called and had forced the newly appointed DHA-chief Yasushi Akashi to submit the critique.

A corrective to the evaluation-report

The next countermove from the Secretary-General is to release his version of the criticised events. On two decisive points it is an attempt to cover his own – or his Secretariat’s – lack of actions.

According to the Secretary-Generals “corrective” to the multi-donor evaluation report, the Secretary-General one week into the conflict, on April 13th, sent a letter to the Security Council in which he encouraged the Council to send reinforcements.

This is not correct. On the contrary, the letter from April 13th says that the Secretary-General has ordered his Commander-in-Chief of the UN forces, Major-General Romeo Dallaire, to prepare for the withdrawal of the forces.In the Secretary-General’s chronology he hereafter writes that he on April 20th – the day before the crucial meeting at the Security Council – recommended to the Council “an immediate and massive reinforcement of UNAMIR troops.

“This is not correct either, Czech Ambassador Kovanda tells Information, “No, he did not. And I have spoken to other ambassadors who said that too”. The Secretary-General nevertheless wished to reinforce his cover. “After the Danish report he wished to give his own perspective,” a UN source tells Information. This happened with the earlier mentioned book, The United Nations and Rwanda, 1993-1996, in which he wrote the introduction himself, which summarises the whole chain of events.

Here it is said about his recommendation to the Security Council on April 20th: “I asked my spokesperson to announce publicly that I wished” the massive forceful response. According to the UN’s own notes from press briefings, Noon Briefing Reports, the spokesperson did not state this point of view before on April 22nd, i.e. the day after the Security Council had decided to pull out.

The remaining question is whom is Boutros-Ghali trying to protect. As documented in the Saturday edition of Information, it has been possible to trace the crucial intelligence from the UN forces in Rwanda that was not passed on to the Security Council all the way up to his second-in-command, Kofi Annan. He, by the way, stands as one of the strongest candidates in case Boutros-Ghali is not re-elected.

Gunnar Willum and Bjørn Willum

http://nuit.rwandaise.free.fr/CEC/Willum-Ghali.htm and http://www.willum.com/articles/information19nov1996/index.htm

Nyuma y’amagambo y’urwango yanditswe kuri murandasi na Evode Uwizeyimana ku itariki ya 17 Ugushyingo 2011, byatumye nandika ngaragaza aho bihurira  n’imvugo y’abateguye bagakora jenoside. Habanje: “Ibimenyetso by’Abaholandi bibaye umutingito. IVU arasaba imbabazi, FDU ikagadagadwa, Evode Uwizeyimana akambaza Kangura”.

Iyo nyandiko iza gukurikirwa n’indi nise “Uwizeyimana Evode: Umunyeshuri n’umufana wa Bikindi na Kangura”.

Naje kongeraho indi mvuga ko “Ukurikije imyanzuro ya ICTR, Uwizeyimana ni nka Barayagwiza” ngaragaza ko mu rubanza rwa ICTR basuzumye neza ikibazo cy’urwango rwibasiye abagore nk’urwo Evode Uwizeyimana yagaragaje ubwo yivagamo.

Nyuma yizo nyandiko, nasanze hari n’abandi banditse kuri iki kibazo.Uwashaka kumva neza uburemere bw’amagambo y’urwango rwa Uwizeyimana akwiye gusoma inyandiko y’umunyamategeko Binaifer Nowrojee wayanditse akiri muri kaminuza ya Havard muri Leta zunze ubumwe za Amerika.

Click: A lost opportunity for justice: why did the ICTR not prosecute gender propaganda?

Ni inyandiko abantu bose bakwiye gsoma bakumva neza urwango rwacuriwe abagore bazira ubwoko bwabo.

Bimwe mubyo usanga muri iyi nyandiko ni nk’ibi:

• “In their drive to dominate, propagandists said, Tutsi used their women – thought to be more beautiful than Hutu women – to infiltrate Hutu ranks. Through the written press and then through RTLM radio, extremists portrayed Tutsi women as devious seductresses who would undermine the Hutu.”
• “Kangura (‘wake up’ in Kinyarwanda) magazine was the first and most virulent voice of hate. Kangura often warned the Hutu to be on guard against Tutsi women. According to Kangura, ‘[t]he Inkotanyi [a word used to refer to the RPF meaning 'fierce fighter' in Kinyarwanda] will not hesitate to transform their sisters, wives and mothers into pistols’ to conquer Rwanda”

Evode Uwizeyimana bavugishwa no kurengera Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza, bari bakwiye kugerageza bakumva ko bibatesha agaciro kuko ari ugushyigikira jenoside.

Kubyumva neza soma: Genocide-laundering: Historical Revisionism, Genocide Denial and the Role of the Rassemblement Républicain Pour la Democratie au Rwanda (RDR)[1]

Gushigikira jenoside n’ibiyiranga ni icyaha. Kutabigaragaza nabyo n’ikindi. Kurwanya abakora icyo cyaha ni ukubabwiza ukuri ukoresheje ibimenyetso bifatika.

Ntibazahangana n’ukuri. Babura icyo bakora bagatukana, bakivovota, bakavuga ubusa, bakiyita abanyapolitiki ari abagome.

Ariko ikigaragara ni uko ukuri kubatesha umutwe bakivamo nk’uko Evode Uwizeyimana byamugendekeye Abaholandi batanze inyandiko zishinja IVU, akibagirwa n’amategeko yize nkuko Barayagwiza byamugendekeye.

Ku itariki ya 3 Ukuboza 2003 nari mu Urukiko Mpuzamahanga Mpanabyaha rwagenewe u Rwanda rukorera Arusha.

Nari nagiyeyo kumva isomwa ry’urubanza rwitiriwe itangazamakuru.

Ubushinjacyaha bwaregaga Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza na Hassan Ngeze.

Byarampagurukije njya kwiyumvira uburyo rusomwa, ngo mbashe no kureba mu maso y’abaregwa.

Mu baregwa, babiri bari bahari uretse Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, wari waranze na mbere kujya yitaba urukiko aregwamo.

Nagiraga ngo ndebe niba hari ikimwaro cyangwa imbebya abaregwa bagaragaza.

Nta na kimwe nababonyeho kubera ingengabitekerezo.

Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, nawe yari umunyamategeko nka Evode Uwizeyimana wababajwe n’uko igihugu cy’Ubuholandi cyahaye ubucamanza bw’u Rwanda inyandiko zirimo ibimenyetso by’ibyaha Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza (IVU) aregwa.

Akababaro ka Evode Uwizeyimana, niko katumye ku itariki ya 17 Ugushyingo 2011ahimba ibinyoma, byuzuye urwango, nkabigaragaza mu “Ibimenyetso by’Abaholandi bibaye umutingito. IVU arasaba imbabazi, FDU ikagadagadwa, Evode Uwizeyimana akambaza Kangura”.

Nanabisubiyemo mu yindi nyandiko “Uwizeyimana Evode: Umunyeshuri n’umufana wa Bikindi na Kangura”.

Incamake y’urwo rubanza numvise uwo munsi, narayibutse numva na Evode Uwizeyimana ntaho ataniye n’abaregwaba bakaza no gukatirwa.

Ibyo yanditse ku itariki abeshyera abahagarariye ibihugu by’Ubufaransa n’Ubuholandi mu Rwanda, kimwe n’abanyarwandakazi bajya mu mahanga ngo barangije kwiga muri “KIST na ULK”.

Ibaze kuri ibi Evode  Uwizeyimana avuga Kandi yarize amategeko akaba agomba kuba yaranasomye imanza zaciwe Arusha n’ahandi.

“Ni hatari kiriya gihugu gifite abagore beza ndakubwiza ukuri aba diplomates benshi bazagwa muri ririya keri.”

“Uzabona nka 30 bose basa. Bucye uhure n’undi muganire wibwira ko ari uwo mwari kumwe ejo maze uhere aho mwacumbikiye ikiganiro akubwire ati ibintu uvuga sinzi ibyo aribyo aguhindure umusazi.”

“Bapfa kuba barangije KIST cg ULK bavuga igifransa cyangwa icyongereza gusa bashobora kuvugana n’abo badiplomates.”

“Si mu Rwanda honyine na hano muri ibi bihugu barazamo ngo baje kwiga ariko wareba imyitwarire yabo, uburyo bashaka kumenya umuntu mu buryo bucukumbuye, uburyo bashaka umuntu ho ubucuti budasanzwe, uburyo bakwereka ko nta madorali yawe bakeneye kurya ahubwo bafite ayabo…. ibyo bintu ugasanga biteye inkeke.”

“…Oya, igitsina kiravuza ubuhuha ku isi yose inkundura yacyo izasiga bake kuko kimaze gutsinda amatora nibyo mbona.”

Icyo agushaho muri make ni uko hari abagore bakwiye kwirindwa, bita “femme fatale”. Bidatandukanye n’ibyo ICTR yasomye mu myanzuro yarwo.

Mu rurimi rw’icyongereza umucamanza yarusomyemo yagize ati:

“The Chamber notes that Tutsi women, in particular, were targeted for persecution. The portrayal of the Tutsi woman as a femme fatale, and the message that Tutsi women were seductive agents of the enemy was conveyed repeatedly by RTLM and Kangura. The Ten Commandments, broadcast on RTLM and published in Kangura, vilified and endangered Tutsi women. By defining the Tutsi woman as an enemy in this way, RTLM and Kangura articulated a framework that made the sexual attack of Tutsi women a foreseeable consequence of the role attributed to them.” (para.118)[1]

Ibyanditswe muri iyi ncamake, bisobanurwa cyane n’inyandiko ndende y’imikirize y’urubanza.[2]

Kuba Uwizeyimana atumva uburemere bw’amagambo y’urwango yanditse, usanga ntaho ataniye na Jean Bosco Barayagwiza. Bize amategeko atabayobora mu buzima bubarinda kwamamaza urwango.

Uwizeyimana nawe yari akwiye gukurikiranwa n’ubucamanza.

72. The newspaper and the radio explicitly and repeatedly, in fact relentlessly, targeted the Tutsi population for destruction. Demonizing the Tutsi as having inherently evil qualities, equating the ethnic group with ‘the enemy’ and portraying its women as seductive enemy agents, the media called for the extermination of the Tutsi ethnic group as a response to the political threat that they associated with Tutsi ethnicity.

118. … Tutsi women, in particular, were targeted for persecution. The portrayal of the Tutsi woman as femme fatale, and the message that Tutsi women were seductive agents of the enemy was conveyed repeatedly… [and] vilified and endangered Tutsi women … defining the Tutsi woman as an enemy in this way… articulated a framework that made the sexual attack of Tutsi women a foreseeable consequence of the role attributed to them. (ICTR 2003, judgement see Chapter 25)

In December 2003, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) delivered a judgement that convicted three media executives for their role in instigating hatred and inciting genocide. It was a significant judgement in that it acknowledged the powerful role that the media and hate speech can play in inciting people to mass violence. In Rwanda, the consequences were devastating. In a three-month period, some 800,000 were killed and thousands were raped and mutilated.

Why were none of these men held responsible for their role in provoking the sexual attacks against Tutsi women? Clearly the evidence was there. In strong language, the court found that these media executives had ‘targeted’, ‘vilified’ and ‘endangered’ Tutsi women in such a way that made the sexual attacks ‘a foreseeable consequence of the role attributed to them’ (ICTR 2003, judgement summary: para. 118).

But the ICTR prosecutor never led charges to hold these three defendants responsible for their part in encouraging the brutal rapes and sexual mutilations. In fact, in arguing the case, the prosecutor paid little or no attention to the vicious gender propaganda, despite the strong evidence that continued to make its way into the courtroom and, ultimately, into the judgement.

This negligence is part of a larger failure of the Prosecutor’s Office at the ICTR to fully deliver justice to Rwanda’s victims. Given the overwhelming evidence of widespread sexual violence during the genocide, the lack of account-ability for these crimes can only be attributed to the lack of a comprehensive strategy on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office to effectively investigate and prosecute these crimes.

The legacy is that the crimes against Rwandan women are largely going unpunished by the ICTR. At the tenth anniversary of the genocide (in April 2004), the figures were dismal: of the completed cases, 90 per cent had no sexual violence convictions. In 70 per cent of those cases, the prosecutor had not even brought sexual violence charges.

The ‘Media Trial’ judgement (ICTR 2003), in particular, stands as a symbol of the neglect of the prosecutor to pursue the sexual violence crimes against women even though she possessed strong evidence, thus making the prosecutor responsible for an injustice to women in the course of administering international justice.

WIDESPREAD SEXUAL VIOLENCE DURING THE GENOCIDE

When Roméo Dallaire, commander of the United Nations peacekeeping force during the Rwanda genocide, testified before the ICTR, he graphically described the female corpses he had witnessed:

we could notice on many sites, sometimes very fresh – that is, I am speaking of my observers and myself – that young girls, young women, would be laid out with their dresses over their heads, the legs spread and bent. You could see what seemed to be semen drying or dried. And it all indicated to me that these women were raped. And then a variety of material were crushed or implanted into their vaginas; their breasts were cut off, and the faces were, in many cases, still the eyes were open and there was like a face that seemed horrified or something. They all laid on their backs. So there were some men that were mutilated also, their genitals and the like. A number of them were – women had their breasts cut off or their stomach open. But there was, I would say generally at the sites you could find younger girls and young women who had been raped. (ICTR-98–41-T transcript, 20 January 2004)

The following month, when Dallaire’s assistant, Major Brent Beardsley, followed as a witness in the same ‘Military I’ case, the prosecuting lawyer asked: ‘With respect to the female corpses, in particular, did you make any observations about any particular characteristics that those corpses may have had?’ Beardsley replied:

Yes, two things, really. One, when they killed women it appeared that the blows that had killed them were aimed at sexual organs, either breasts or vagina; they had been deliberately swiped or slashed in those areas. And, secondly, there was a great deal of what we came to believe was rape, where the women’s bodies or clothes would be ripped off their bodies, they would be lying back in a back position, their legs spread, especially in the case of very young girls. I’m talking girls as young as six, seven years of age, their vaginas would be split and swollen from obviously multiple gang rape, and then they would have been killed in that position. So they were laying in a position they had been raped; that’s the position they were in.

Rape was one of the hardest things to deal with in Rwanda on our part. It deeply affected every one of us. We had a habit at night of coming back to the headquarters and, after the activities had slowed down for the night, before we went to bed, sitting around talking about what happened that day, drink coffee, have a chat, and amongst all of us the hardest thing that we had to deal with was not so much the bodies of people, the murder of people – I know that can sound bad, but that wasn’t as bad to us as the rape and especially the systematic rape and gang rape of children. Massacres kill the body. Rape kills the soul. And there was a lot of rape.

It seemed that everywhere we went, from the period of 19th of April until the time we left, there was rape everywhere near these killing sites. (ICTR-98–41-T transcript, 3 February 2004)

Sexual violence, directed predominantly against Tutsi women, occurred on a massive scale during the Rwanda genocide. Although the exact number of women raped will never be known, testimonies from survivors confirm that rape was extremely widespread. Thousands of women were individually raped, gang-raped, raped with objects such as sharpened sticks or gun barrels, held in sexual slavery (either collectively by a militia group or singled out by one militia man) or sexually mutilated. These crimes were frequently part of a pattern in which Tutsi women were raped after they had witnessed the torture and killings of their relatives and the destruction of their homes. Many women were killed immediately after being raped or raped to death using sharp sticks or other objects (Nowrojee 1996).

The sexual violence was perpetrated largely by members of the Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe, by other civilians and by soldiers of the Rwandan armed forces (Forces Armées Rwandaises (FAR)), including the Presidential Guard. Administrative, military and political leaders at the national and local levels, as well as heads of militia, directed, encouraged and allowed both the killings and sexual violence to further their political goal: the destruction of the Tutsi as a group. Sexually subjugating and mutilating Tutsi women was both a way to punish the women and to attack the ethnic group.

GENOCIDE PROPAGANDA AGAINST TUTSI WOMEN¹

The outpouring of violence directed against Rwandan women on the basis of their gender and ethnicity was fuelled by the hate propaganda before and during the genocide. To this end, the media played a role in propagating and disseminating stereotypes of Tutsi women as devious seductresses who would use their beauty to undermine the Hutu community. The hate propaganda before and during the genocide demonized Tutsi women’s sexuality and, as the Media Trial judgement noted, ‘made the sexual attack of Tutsi women a foreseeable consequence’.

In the years preceding the genocide, the organizers used propaganda to heighten fear and hatred between Hutu and Tutsi. Through the written press and then through Radio-Télévision des Milles Collines (RTLM), extremists taught that the two were different peoples: the Hutu part of the larger category of ‘Bantu’ and the Tutsi part of the ‘Ethiopid’ or ‘Nilotic’ group. Such categories, once thought to be real, are now recognized to be inaccurate groupings and a legacy of nineteenth century European racism. Simplifying and distorting history, the propagandists insisted that Tutsi were foreign conquerors, who had mastered the majority Hutu through a combination of ruse and ruthlessness. According to these beliefs, the Tutsi had refused to accept the destruction of their power in the 1959 revolution and were determined to re-assert control over the Hutu.

In their drive to dominate, propagandists said, Tutsi used their women – thought to be more beautiful than Hutu women – to infiltrate Hutu ranks. Through the written press and then through RTLM radio, extremists portrayed Tutsi women as devious seductresses who would undermine the Hutu. The propaganda warned Hutu men to beware of Tutsi women. Military men were barred from marrying Tutsi women. The stereotypes also portrayed Tutsi women as arrogant and looking down on Hutu men whom they considered ugly and inferior (Chrétien et al. 1995).

Beginning in 1990, over a dozen newspapers in Kinyarwanda or French were launched, and they systematically exploited ethnic hatred (Chrétien et al. 1995: 45–7). Although these papers had a relatively small circulation, mostly in the capital, Kigali, they were often taken to the countryside by urban workers on the weekends and their message was shared widely in rural communities. In some cases, the local authorities in the rural areas were provided with copies. In addition to articles excoriating the Tutsi community, the magazines printed graphic cartoons portraying Tutsi women using their supposed sexual prowess on UN peacekeepers (Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) supporters according to the propaganda) and the moderate Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana in various sexual poses with other politicians (Chrétien et al. 1995: 336, 368).

Kangura (‘wake up’ in Kinyarwanda) magazine was the first and most virulent voice of hate. Kangura often warned the Hutu to be on guard against Tutsi women. According to Kangura, ‘[t]he Inkotanyi [a word used to refer to the RPF meaning 'fierce fighter' in Kinyarwanda] will not hesitate to transform their sisters, wives and mothers into pistols’ to conquer Rwanda (Anon. 1991). In the December 1990 issue of Kangura, editor Hassan Ngeze published the ‘Ten Commandments’ of the Hutu, four of which dealt specifically with women (Anon. 1990):

1. Every Hutu should know that a Tutsi woman, wherever she is, works for the interest of her Tutsi ethnic group. As a result, we shall consider a traitor any Hutu who: marries a Tutsi woman; befriends a Tutsi woman; employs a Tutsi woman as a secretary or a concubine.

2. Every Hutu should know that our Hutu daughters are more suitable and conscientious in their role as woman, wife and mother of the family. Are they not beautiful, good secretaries and more honest?

3. Hutu women, be vigilant and try to bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to reason.

7. The Rwandese Armed Forces should be exclusively Hutu. The experience of the October [1990] war has taught us a lesson. No member of the military shall marry a Tutsi.

Another issue of Kangura (1992, 29 (January): 16–17) accused Tutsi women of monopolizing positions of employment in both the public and private sectors, hiring their Tutsi sisters on the basis of their thin noses (a stereotypically ‘Tutsi feature’), thereby contributing to the unemployment rate of the Hutu, particularly Hutu women. Kangura called on Hutu to use the necessary vigilance against the Tutsi, whom it dubbed the inyenzi (cockroaches), and accomplice Hutu (ibyitso: traitors). One Hutu woman commented, ‘According to the propaganda, the Tutsi were hiding the enemy. And their beautiful women were being used to do it. So, everybody knew what that meant’ (Human Rights Watch/FIDH interview, 18 March 1996, Kigali).

THE IMPACT OF THE MEDIA PROPAGANDA DURING THE VIOLENCE

When the violence began in 1994, not surprisingly, aggression against Tutsi women targeted their sexuality and was fuelled by both ethnic and gender stereotypes. Rape served to shatter the image of Tutsi women – as spies for the Tutsi community through their sexual prowess – by humiliating, degrading, and ultimately destroying them. Even Tutsi women married to Hutu men were not spared, despite the custom that a wife was protected by her husband’s lineage after marriage.

Throughout the genocide, women were consistently raped, with explicit verbal reference to their status as Tutsi women. It is clear that the rapists took up the media message that raping Tutsi women was justified because of their ethnicity and gender. Of the statements that concentrated on the Tutsi stereotype, the overwhelming majority were sexual references. Tutsi women were perceived as overly sexualized, ‘destroying the country with their seduction’; therefore, many rapists referred to their right to satisfy their sexual desire by force. Rape witnesses and victims report the following statements, among others: ‘Now we can have Tutsi women for free,’ ‘The tables have turned so now I can satisfy my sexual desires’ or ‘It is unfortunate to be killing Tutsi women since they taste better than Hutu women.’ Rapists repeatedly referred to Tutsi genitalia and the desire to see what Tutsi look or taste like. Rape survivors recount comments such as: ‘We want to see how sweet Tutsi women are,’ or ‘You Tutsi womenthink that you are too good for us,’ or ‘We want to see if a Tutsi woman is like a Hutu woman,’ or ‘If there were peace, you would never accept me,’ or ‘You Tutsi girls are too proud,’ apparently setting the stage for their degradation.

Many statements from broadcasters or in Kangura were cast in the form of a proverb. The use of proverbs suggests a concerted effort to promote slogans to motivate rapists and provide a broadly accessible terminology of justification in perpetrating sexual violence. Rape survivors and witnesses recount rapists saying: ‘Tutsi caused problems and must be exterminated with their eggs,’ ‘If you cannot catch the lice, you kill its egg’ and ‘If you set out to kill a rat, you must kill the pregnant rat.’

Statements during rape also referred to non-sexual Tutsi stereotyped characteristics. Most either labelled Tutsi women as generally arrogant or sexually arrogant in their sexual refusal of Hutu men. Rapists also repeatedly used general ethic insults, such as ‘Tutsi snake’.

Different rapists throughout the country repeatedly employed the same terminology – echoing the invectives in the media propaganda – while raping Tutsi women. The statements at the time of rape demonstrate links with the media propaganda that had advocated the same gender and ethnic stereotypes. Specific insults deployed by the radio and print media were repeated by rapists during rape. This direct correlation between media propoganda and statements by rapists demonstrates a causal link between the propaganda and the ensuing sexual violence across the country.

THE MEDIA TRIAL: A SQUANDERED OPPORTUNITY TO PROSECUTE GENDER PROPAGANDA

In December 2003, the ICTR Trial Chamber handed down a judgement in the Media Trial against two founders of RTML and the editor of Kangura newspaper. The three were found guilty of genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity (extermination and persecution). RTLM founder, Ferdinand Nahimana, and former Kangura editor, Hassan Ngeze, received life sentences; Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, another RTLM founder, was sentenced to 35 years.

Despite the strong evidence in the possession of the prosecuting attorneys, the Prosecutor’s Office had not brought charges against the accused for their role in inciting sexual violence against women. Throughout the trial, strong evidence of the gender propaganda and its devastating impact on Tutsi women made its way into the courtroom, and in the judgement the court referred to it several times and noted its devastating impact on Tutsi women. Because the prosecutor had not brought sexual violence charges, the Trial Chamber was not able to convict on that basis; it could only note the many references to women that had arisen during the course of the trial.

The Trial Chamber noted that Tutsi women were particularly targeted for persecution: the presentation of Tutsi women as femmes fatales and a danger to the Hutu that was explicitly associated with sexuality. By defining the Tutsi women as enemies in this way, Kangura articulated a framework that made the sexual attack of Tutsi women a ‘foreseeable consequence’. The court found that Kangura played a substantial role in inciting Hutu hatred and violence against Tutsis, especially Tutsi women:

The newspaper and radio explicitly and repeatedly, in fact relentlessly, targeted the Tutsi population for destruction. Demonizing the Tutsi as having inherently evil qualities, equating the ethnic group with ‘the enemy’ and portraying its women as seductive enemy agents, the media called for the extermination of the Tutsi ethnic group as a response to the political threat that they associated with Tutsi ethnicity. (ICTR 2003, summary judgement: para. 72)

The Trial Chamber highlighted the Ten Commandments of the Hutu and the Kangura article entitled ‘Appeal to the conscience of the Hutu,’ which contained various myths about the Tutsi people, including that they were all bloodthirsty and that they used the two weapons of ‘money and Tutsi women’ against the Hutu. The article warned of an impending Tutsi attack and rallied its readers to commit acts of violence against Tutsis to ‘deter the enemy’.

An article published in issue 19 of Kangura described Tutsi women enemy agents who infiltrated Hutu households through marriage. The Chamber held that this passage promoted the stereotype that Tutsi women intentionally used their sexuality to lure Hutu men into liaisons to promote the ethnic dominance of the Tutsi over the Hutu.

The judgement recounts testimonies from witnesses who described the effect of the Kangura publications and the RTLM broadcasts in inciting Hutu men to attack and kill Tutsi women, including their own Tutsi wives.² RTLM broadcasts denounced specific Tutsi women, who were later targeted for violence. Witness BI, who was specifically singled out on RTLM broadcasts that alleged her mother was a Tutsi who had married a Hutu man to make him lose his head, was then violently attacked in her home. Another broadcast about her used explicit sexual imagery and resulted in a sexually motivated attack against her (ICTR 2003: para. 442).

THE ICTR’S SHAMEFUL RECORD IN PROSECUTING SEXUAL VIOLENCE CRIMES

The Media Trial is unfortunately symptomatic of a larger neglect by the ICTR prosecutor to fully prosecute crimes of sexual violence directed at Rwandan women during the genocide. The ICTR was tasked with prosecuting serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during 1994 in Rwanda or by Rwandan citizens in neighbouring states. Rape is a prosecutable crime under international law.

Given the evidence and the elements of the crimes that the ICTR was tasked with prosecuting, virtually every defendant coming before this international court should be charged and convicted, where appropriate, for their role in perpetrating such acts against women or for command responsibility in not preventing the acts of their subordinates.

Ten years after the genocide, the ICTR had handed down 21 sentences: 18 convictions and 3 acquittals.³ This is approximately a third of those in custody. An overwhelming 90 per cent of those judgements contain no rape convictions. More disturbing, there are double the number of acquittals for rape than rape convictions.

No rape charges were even brought by the Prosecutor’s Office in 70 per cent of the adjudicated cases. In the 30 per cent that included rape charges: only 10 per cent were found guilty for their role in the widespread sexual violence. Double that number, 20 per cent, were acquitted because the court found that the prosecutor did not properly present the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴ In real numbers, that means only two defendants have specifically been held responsible for their role in the sexual violence crimes (a third was convicted by a judgement which was reversed on appeal), despite the tens of thousands of rapes committed during the genocide.⁵ How can this be?

It is hard to imagine that anyone present in Rwanda during the genocide would not have been aware that tens of thousands of women were being attacked with such ferocity. Political, administrative and military leaders at the national and local levels as well as heads of militia directed, encouraged or permitted the killings and sexual violence to further their political goals: the destruction of the Tutsi as a group. They bear responsibility for these abuses.

Much has been written by legal scholars celebrating the international tribunals as an important step in ending impunity for sexual violence against women. The widespread evidence of sexual violence as a weapon of conflict in the former Yugoslavia and during the genocide in Rwanda has led to groundbreaking judgements through the UN tribunals set up to try those responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.⁶ The ICTR was feted by lawyers for its first landmark judgement in the case of Akayesu that expanded international law on rape – a point of pride that ICTR officials always cite as a manifestation of their commitment to prosecute sexual violence. Yet, as groundbreaking as the Akayesu judgement is, it is increasingly standing alone as an exception – an anomaly.

If the current trend continues, when the doors of the ICTR close, its judgements will not tell the full story of what happened during the Rwanda genocide. They will not correctly reflect responsibility for the shocking rapes, sexual slavery and sexual mutilations that tens of thousands of Rwandan women suffered.

The jurisprudence as it stands now – a growing string of acquittals for rape – in fact will do the opposite. The record of this tribunal in history will not only minimize responsibility for the crimes against women, but will actually deny that these crimes occurred. A reader of the ICTR jurisprudence will be left believing mistakenly that the mass rapes had little or nothing to do with the genocidal policies of the leaders. That indeed is a serious miscarriage of justice.

PROSECUTING SEXUAL VIOLENCE AS AN AFTERTHOUGHT

There is a reason why 90 per cent of the ICTR judgements do not contain rape convictions and why the number of rape acquittals is double the number of convictions. At the ICTR, crimes of sexual violence have never been fully and consistently incorporated into the investigations and strategy of the Prosecutor’s Office. No comprehensive prosecution strategy or a precise work plan to document and bring the evidence of sex crimes into the courtroom has been pursued consistently for the past decade.

This is not to say that the Prosecutor’s Office has neglected this issue entirely – not at all. Approximately half the cases that the court will ultimately hear contain allegations of sexual violence.⁷ Commendable efforts have been made, but the problem is that they have not been consistently pursued. The squandered opportunities, periods of neglect and repeated mistakes have caused major setbacks to effective investigations and prosecutions of sexual violence crimes.

Ten years after the genocide, international justice for Rwandan women remains unattainable largely because of a lack of political will in the Prosecutor’s Office to comprehensively investigate or reflect the widespread sexual violence in the indictments – particularly during the tenure of Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte. The sporadic attention to gender crimes over the years has implicitly sent a message to the investigations and prosecution staff that this issue is not important. The lack of sustained attention by the leadership has in turn resulted in a weak institutional capacity within the Prosecutor’s Office to effectively investigate and develop the evidence to prosecute these crimes.

Some cases have moved forward without rape charges, sometimes even when the prosecutor is in possession of strong evidence. Other cases with rape charges have come to trial without adequate attention to ensuring that the necessary evidence has been collected. In a significant proportion of the cases, rape charges have been added belatedly as amendments, as an afterthought, rather than an integral part of a prosecution strategy to acknowledge that rape was used as a form of genocidal violence. To this day, trial team leaders continue to have differing, and even contradictory, interpretations of legal responsibility for the violence against women and what legal approaches to adopt in the courtroom.

Despite the rhetoric and the repeated pronouncements expressing a commitment to prosecuting rape, the Prosecutor’s Office has never articulated and pursued a consistently defined prosecution strategy of how this crime fits into the genocidal policies of the leaders nor has it consistently employed effective investigative techniques to fully document the crimes against women. The four prosecutors that have held this office since 1994 have adopted a variety of approaches to this issue. As a result, there has never been one identified work plan pursued consistently by all investigators and trial lawyers in putting together their cases on this issue over the decade. To date, the lack of a coherent and consistent policy on sexual violence prosecutions remains a major impediment. Prosecuting trial attorneys are quick to blame their shortfalls on inadequate investigations or unwilling rape victims, rather than to reinvigorate their investigations and to find ways to make the process more enabling for rape victims to testify.

MORE MUST BE DONE BY THE ICTR PROSECUTOR

Sexual violence against women and girls in situations of armed conflict or systematic persecution constitutes a clear breach of international law.⁸ Perpetrators of sexual violence can be convicted for rape as a war crime, a crime against humanity or as an act of genocide or torture, if their actions meet the elements of each. Leaders in positions of responsibility who knew or should have known of such abuses and who took no steps to stop subordinates who committed sex crimes can also be held accountable.

It is therefore part of the mandate of the ICTR. It is the job of the prosecutor to effectively investigate and prosecute this crime with the same seriousness as other international crimes under his or her brief. Given what happened in Rwanda, accountability for the sexual violence should be integrated in virtually all the cases given its widespread and systematic use during the Rwanda genocide.

Although the Media Trial judgement is a lost opportunity for the ICTR prosecutor to deliver justice to women, it provides an avenue to redress the historic neglect of gender crimes. The Trial Chamber language that identifies the mass rapes as ‘a foreseeable consequence’ of the gender propaganda provides a strong basis on which the prosecutor can build to argue that the top military and government command should have had reason to know that widespread sexual violence would be directed at Tutsi women and, therefore, bear responsibility for not preventing or punishing their subordinates.

NOTES

¹ The report, Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath (Nowrojee 1996) published by Human Rights Watch was written by Binaifer Nowrojee, a consultant to the Women’s Rights Project. It was based on interviews and research conducted in Rwanda in March and April 1996 by Binaifer Nowrojee and Janet Fleischman. It remains one of the only dedicated studies of the impact of sexual violence against women during the Rwanda genocide. Readers are referred to it for further information and details on the issue of sexual violence during the genocide.

² For example, witness GO described the effect of RTLM broadcasts of the Ten Commandments in inciting Hutu men to kill their Tutsi wives: ‘The goal of mentioning the ten Hutu commandments was to ensure that the population understood that all the Hutus must become united. And they must have a single fighting goal that they should aim for. And that they should have no link or no relationship between Hutus and Tutsis. And it’s for that reason that some men started killing their wives who were Tutsis. In other cases, children who, with the result of a mixed marriage, whether they had a Tutsi mother or a Hutu father, but thought that they were more Hutu than Tutsi, killed their own mothers. Just that it was explained to Hutu widows, i.e., Hutu women who had been married to Tutsi men, and whose husbands had been killed and whose children had been killed, that in fact, it was not a problem. That they had just gotten rid of enemies. And that the only persons who had any link with these people were those women. And that is indeed how things happened.’ (ICTR 2003: para. 438)

³ As of April 2004, the ICTR had indicted 82 people and made 66 arrests. Sixteen indicted suspects remained at large and six others were no longer in custody: one died before trial, two have had indictments against them withdrawn and three have been acquitted. Among the 60 in custody, 18 were convicted (12 had appeals pending), 21 accused were on trial and another 21 were in detention awaiting trial. The Appeals Chamber has so far confirmed seven convictions and one acquittal. Still in question was whether the ICTR would bring any new indictments for crimes committed by members of RPF credited with ending the genocide before taking power; and whether the ICTR will opt to transfer some of its caseload either to Rwanda or some other national jurisdiction in order to meet the 2008 completion deadline (ICTR detainees – status chart as of 15 March 2004; see <http://196.45.185.38/ENGLISH/factsheets/detainee.htm for updates.).

⁴ Alfred Musema (ICTR-96–13), life sentence for rape (2000), overturned on appeal and acquitted of rape (2001); Eliezer Niyitegeka (ICTR-96–14), acquitted of rape (2003); Juvénal Kajelijeli (ICTR-98–44A), acquitted of rape (2003); and Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda (ICTR-99–54), acquitted of rape (2004).

⁵ Jean Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96–4), 15 years for rape (1998), upheld on appeal (2001); Alfred Musema (ICTR-96–13), life sentence for rape (2000), overturned on appeal and acquitted of rape (2001); Laurent Semanza (ICTR-97–20), 7 and 10 years for two counts of rape, appeal pending.

⁶ In 1998, the ICTR handed down a landmark judgement in the case of Akayesu. It was the first conviction for genocide by an international court; the first time an international court punished sexual violence in an internal conflict; and the first time that rape was found to be an act of genocide to destroy a group. In 2002, the ICTY issued a significant ruling in the Foca case, convicting three men for rape, torture and enslavement as crimes against humanity. It was the first indictment by an international tribunal solely for crimes of sexual violence against women and the first conviction by the ICTY for rape and enslavement as crimes against humanity.

⁷ Unless of course the rape charges are withdrawn, as was done in the case of Emmanuel Ndindabahizi in 2003.

⁸ Rape, when committed on a mass scale, is explicitly identified as a crime against humanity. Rape and other forms of sexual violence against civilians are a violation of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (for both international and internal conflicts). Sexual violence can be a crime under the Genocide Convention (UN 1951) if committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group through killing or serious bodily harm. Rape can also be a form of torture.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1991. Kangura, 19 (July). (Quoted in Chrétien et al. 1995: 161).

Chrétien, J.P., J.F. Dupaquier and M. Kabanda. 1995. Rwanda: les médias du génocide. Karthala, Paris, France. 397 pp.

ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). 2003. Judgement and sentence. The Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza and Hassan Ngeze. Case no. ICTR-99–52-T: Arusha, Tanzania, 3 December.

——. 2004. Examination-in-Chief of General Roméo Dallaire, former force commander, U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR). Transcript. In The Prosecutor v. Bagasora, Kabiligi, Ntabakuze, Nsengiyumva. Case no. ICTR-98–41-T.

Nowrojee, B. 1996. Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath. Human Rights Watch, New York, NY, USA.

UN (United Nations). 1951. Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) of the UN General Assembly, 9 December. 1948. UN Treaty Series no. 1021, vol. 78: 277. Available at <www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm> (accessed 6 September 2005).

Source: http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-108296-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Evode Uwizeyimana ni umunyarwanda ubu uba muri Canada. Hashize imyaka Radiyo BBC, igice kivuga ikinyarwanda n’ikirundi yaramubonyemo kuba impuguke.

Ushatse kumenya  uburyo bamubonyemo uwo kwiyambaza wajya muri Google ukandika “Evode Uwizeyimana BBC” wabona inshuro yagiye abazwa.

Uyobora igice kivuga ikinyarwanda n’ikirundi muri BBC, Mugenzi Ally Yusuf, nigeze kumubaza impamvu abikora aryumaho.

Icyo nabibarizaga Mugenzi, ni ingengabitekerezo ya jenoside numvanaga Uwizeyimana uwo kimwe n’abandi benshi bakunze kuza kuri iyo Radiyo.

Nyuma y’aho nandikiye iby’uwo mugabo Uwizeyimana avuga ko ngo yatangajwe n’amagambo ambasaderi w’ubufaransa mu Rwanda, Laurent Contini yari asigaye avuga. Akibaza ngo: “nawe yazize akadahingwa?  Nibajije ngo yinjiye muri RPF ryari?….Baracyagwamo tu! Abafransa noneho bohereje Amb. w’umugore nzaba ndeba uko babigenza niba ari mu kwaha kw’akaguru bakorera diplomatie.”

Uwo munyamategeko wemerwa na Mugenzi Ally Yusuf, Evode Uwizeyimana agatinyuka akavuga ngo: “Ni hatari kiriya gihugu gifite abagore beza ndakubwiza ukuri aba diplomates benshi bazagwa muri ririya keri. Ubwo wowe witwa Rwembe hano ku mbuga uzanyarukireyo rimwe …uzambwira. Uzabona nka 30 bose basa. Bucye uhure n’undi muganire wibwira ko ari uwo mwari kumwe ejo maze uhere aho mwacumbikiye ikiganiro akubwire ati ibintu uvuga sinzi ibyo aribyo aguhindure umusazi.  Nibaza ko uherukayo mbere ya 1994 selon tes dires, nyarukirayo uzambwira. Bapfa kuba barangije KIST cg ULK bavuga igifransa cyangwa icyongereza gusa bashobora kuvugana n’abo badiplomates. Si mu Rwanda honyine na hano muri ibi bihugu barazamo ngo baje kwiga ariko wareba imyitwarire yabo, uburyo bashaka kumenya umuntu mu buryo bucukumbuye, uburyo bashaka umuntu ho ubucuti budasanzwe, uburyo bakwereka ko nta madorali yawe bakeneye kurya ahubwo bafite ayabo…. ibyo bintu ugasanga biteye inkeke. …Oya, igitsina kiravuza ubuhuha ku isi yose inkundura yacyo izasiga bake kuko kimaze gutsinda amatora nibyo mbona.”

Nizeye ko ayo maradiyo azamubaza ibyo yavuze n’aho yabikuye, n’ubushakashatsi bundi yakoze atarandagaza abantu.

Icyo nahagararaho ni uko ibyo byo kuvuga ko hari abakobwa basuzugura, bakora ibyo kuneka… ari ishuri Evode Uwizeyimana yize muri Kangura no mu ndirimbo z’umujenosideri Bikindi Simoni.

Ibyo muri Kangura nari nabivuze, n’ubwo ndibubigarukeho. Hera ku magambo avugwa muri iyi ndirimbo ya Bikindi yitwa “Intabaza” batangiraga baririmba ngo: “Icyampa akana kari amanyama nkagira n’akandi kari amaguru (bis)nkabitumira kuri Muhinzi…”

Ukomeze ugere aho Bikindi ahuza na Evode Uwizeyimana.

“Mbe Mutaba, uyu muzimu ko afite amayeri menshi

turabikika dute?

Inda nini rwose.

Turabikika dute rwose Mutabazi,

Ahubwo iyo utagera hano ko kari kabaye.

Dore nguyu yigize umugore.

Nguriya kandi abaye umukobwa.

Dore nguyu yigize umwana mu rugo.

Mutaba ! Dore kandi abaye ikirura.

Dore nguyu yigize umuhinzi ariko isuka ayikwikiye mu rwubati.

Mbe Mutaba.., uyu muzimu ariyuburura.

Dore nguwo yisakaje mu bisahiranda

Dore nguwo yabaye muramu wa Ntibibuka.

Dore kandi abaye umukwe wa Mbonabihita.

Mbe Mutaba, dore nguriya mwene Sebahinzi

ashukisha inka.”

Inganzo ya Bikindi, n’ibyo Evode Uwizeyimana avuga ubu, ntaho bitaniye. Uretse ko bahuzwa na Kangura n’irindi tangazamakuru ry’interahamwe n’impuzamugambi.

Muri iryo tangazamakuru harimo ikinyamakuru cya CDR cyitwa ZIRIKANA. Icyo kinyamakuru kivuga ngo uburyo abatutsi bategetse abahutu.

“Si inyama n’amata byonyine bakoresheje ahubwo bagemuriraga Abahinza abakobwa babo maze ibihutu byawe biraryama biradamarara, bikangutse bisanga byaboshwe nka Samusoni na Dalila, kuva ubwo bihinduka abaja n’abagaragu” (Zirikana N^o 005 Mutarama 1993 p. 5)

“Inkotanyi zaje rero nk’uko abatutsi ba mbere badutse mu Rwanda. Kuko nubwo inka n’abakobwa byabibafashijemo cyane…” (Zirikana N^o 005 p.6)

Uretse izi ngero nke Amategeko 10 ikinyamakuru Kangura (Kangura No 6 p.8) cyitiriye abahutu, ane (4) muri aya mategeko avuga ku buryo bweruye (irya 1) cyangwa buziguye (irya 2 n’irya7) abatutsikazi bagomba gufatwa nk’umutego abanzi (Abatutsi) batega abahutu.

Kangura N^o 4 yari yaranditse ko ngo mubyo abatutsi bakoresha kwigarurira akarere ari amafaranga n’abagore.

Kangura ikavuga ko ari ngombwa kubirinda ah’ariho hose kugirango batabona aho babacengereramo.

Urwango n’ishyari babyandikanaga bishobora gusobanura ubugome bukabije bagiriwe muri jenoside.

Mu mategeko Evode azi, ibi yagombye kubimenya, ingengabitekerezo yamwaritsemo ibimwemereye.

Azabibwire IMVO n’IMVANO, asobanure uburyo kwica ibintu ubizi bishoboka, akigisha urwango ashishikaye.

Igihugu cy’Ubuholandi giherutse kwoherereza ubucamanza bw’u Rwanda inyandiko zizakoreshwa n’ubushinjacyaha nk’ibimenyetso mu rubanza rw’Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza (IVU) areganwa na bagenzi be.

IVU we yasanze nta kindi gisigaye ari ugusaba imbabazi. Amakuru aravuga ko atanabibwira ba avoka bamwunganira. Ngo inyandiko yambere yaba yarayishyikirije ubuyobozi bwa gereza ya Kigali.

Impungenge ni zose mu bikeka ko bazigaragaramo. FDU-Inkingi n’inshuti zabo nka Rwanda National Congress (RNC) n’abandi na Neo-Interahamwe, abatarahahamutse barahungabanye. Hari n’abasa n’abasaze.

Imyigaragambyo yari yateguwe ku wa 19 Ugushyingo, i Buruseli mu Bubiligi, yarapfubye. Iyo myigaragambyo yari igamije gushyigikira IVU uregwa ibyaha birimo ingengabitekerezo ya jenoside n’ibindi bikorwa by’iterabwoba yarapfubye kubera ibyo bimenyetso byoherejwe.

Hari benshi batayijemo kuko bangaga ko amafoto azaberekana akabihuza n’ibimenyetso abaholandi batanze.

Ibyo bikaba byaranatumye ngo hari abaza muri iyo myigaragambyo yitabiriwe ngo n’abantu batarenze 50 (harimo n’abacanshuro b’abanyekongo n’abazungu 3) bitwikira ibikoti ku mason go batagaragara ishusho yabo.

Nkubito Jean Claude uhagarariye RNC muri BBC-Gahuzamiryango azongeraho indi zero babe 500 cyangwa 700. Aho ahunganirwe na Jambonews.

Abari ku isonga ni aba Neo-Interahamwe Joseph Matata wa CLIIR, Joseph Bukeye wabaye umujyanama wa RDR kuva igitangira ubu akaba mu bayobozi b’ihuriro FDU-Inkingi.

RNC yahagarariwe na Joseph Ngarambe, Nkubito Jean Claude (mu ishusho y’umunyamakuru) na Jean Paul Kazungu.

Muri Kamena 2011, Lin MUYIZERE, umugabo wa IVU yaratatse aratakamba ndetse aregera n’urukiko ko ibyafatiwe mu nzu yabo bidakwiye kuzahabwa leta y’u Rwanda.

Yabwiye BBC ko ari ibintu bibabaje gushyikiriza inyandiko zirimo amabanga y’ ishyaka umugore we ayobora.

Ako kababaro yavugaga karushijeho kuko inyandiko zoherejwe zirimo ibyari amabanga, nk’inyandiko mvugo z’inama zateguraga ibikorwa by’iterabwoba n’urugomo.

Ubwoba butera kuvuga ubusa no kuvugishwa. Bigaragara mu itangazo ry’umuhuzabikorwa wa FDU rigenewe abanyamakuru ryo ku wa 16 Ugushyingo 2011.

Nkiko Nsengimana ntahisha kwikoma leta y’ubuholandi kuba yaratanze ibyo bimenyetso.

Bababazwa n’uko ngo yari azi ko impapuro zizatangwa zitazarenga 20, akumva ko ngo izageze mu Rwanda zigera kuri 600. Bati izi se kandi zije zite?

Icyatubuye umubare w’izo mpapuro, ni uko harimo urutonde rwa telephone z’abo IVU n’abayoboke be bavuganaga.

Hakabamo n’inyandiko mvugo z’abo ubutabera bw’ubuholandi bwabajije bikanatuma bumva ko ibirego u Rwanda rurega IVU bifite ishingiro.

Ndetse mubyafatiwe mu rugo rwa Lin Muyizere n’umugore we, ni imyanzuro y’inama zitegura intambara n’ibikorwa by’iterabwoba. Amazina y’abazizagamo ntiyaburamo.

Muri iryo tangazo, Nkiko n’umutwe akuriye  bababajwe ngo n’uko ibikurikiranwa byakorewe hanze y’u Rwanda.

Birengiza ko ibikorwa byabo byari bigamije guhungabanya igihugu, biyibagiza ko n’amategeko abihana!

Ikibazo kiri mu rukiko. Bakwiye kwihangana, urubanza rukaba ibyari amabanga bikamenyekana. Kandi niko bizagenda.

Mu bantu bunganira IVU ni umwongereza Ian Edwards, afatanije na Gatera Gashabana. Biravugwa ko Ian Edwards ari mubahahamuwe n’ibimenyetso atari yiteze.

Vuba aha yasabye kuba agiye iwabo mu gihe cy’ibyumweru bitatu. Abajijwe niba urubanza rugomba guhagarara asubiza ko uwo bafatanyije yakomeza, ariko ntiruhagarare. Ntiyishoboreye gushya ntacyo yokora.

Abahungabanijwe n’ibimenyetso bishinja IVU batangiye gukwiza ibihuha ku mbuga zo kuli murandasi (internet) ko ba ambasaderi Mr. Makken Frans w’Ubuholandi na Laurent Contini w’Ubufaransa mu Rwanda babogamye ngo kubera kugira abasambane b’aba (Tutsikazi).

Ibyo bandika bisa neza neza n’ibya Kangura. Umwanditsi si Ngeze Hassan ahubwo ni Neo-Interahamwe Evode Uwizeyimana ukunze gutumirwa nk’umuhanga mu mategeko n’indi nkawe Mugenzi Ally Yusuf mu kiganiro IMVO n’IMVANO ya BBC.

Evode ngo yatangajwe n’amagambo ambasaderi Laurent Contini yari asigaye avuga. Akibaza ngo: “nawe yazize akadahingwa?  Nibajije ngo yinjiye muri RPF ryari?….Baracyagwamo tu! Abafransa noneho bohereje Amb. w’umugore nzaba ndeba uko babigenza niba ari mu kwaha kw’akaguru bakorera diplomatie.”

Uwo IMVO n’IMVANO yita umuhanga muby’amategeko aravuga ibintu wibaza aho biva mu mwaka w’2011.

Evode Uwizeyimana ati: “Ni hatari kiriya gihugu gifite abagore beza ndakubwiza ukuri aba diplomates benshi bazagwa muri ririya keri. Ubwo wowe witwa Rwembe hano ku mbuga uzanyarukireyo rimwe …uzambwira. Uzabona nka 30 bose basa. Bucye uhure n’undi muganire wibwira ko ari uwo mwari kumwe ejo maze uhere aho mwacumbikiye ikiganiro akubwire ati ibintu uvuga sinzi ibyo aribyo aguhindure umusazi.  Nibaza ko uherukayo mbere ya 1994 selon tes dires, nyarukirayo uzambwira. Bapfa kuba barangije KIST cg ULK bavuga igifransa cyangwa icyongereza gusa bashobora kuvugana n’abo badiplomates. Si mu Rwanda honyine na hano muri ibi bihugu barazamo ngo baje kwiga ariko wareba imyitwarire yabo, uburyo bashaka kumenya umuntu mu buryo bucukumbuye, uburyo bashaka umuntu ho ubucuti budasanzwe, uburyo bakwereka ko nta madorali yawe bakeneye kurya ahubwo bafite ayabo…. ibyo bintu ugasanga biteye inkeke. …Oya, igitsina kiravuza ubuhuha ku isi yose inkundura yacyo izasiga bake kuko kimaze gutsinda amatora nibyo mbona.”

Ibi byose Evode yabyanditse ku itariki ya 17 Ugushyingo 2011.

Amagambo nk’aya yaherukaga muri Kangura na za tracts zandikwaga n’interahamwe n’impuzamugambi mbere ya jenoside.

Abanyapolitiki cyangwa abadiplomate banzwe n’abo bicanyi bagombaga kuberekana ko basambana. Abari i Kigali bakwibuka ibishushanyo by’urukozasoni berekana ngo intumwa ya Papa mu Rwanda asambana na nyakwigendera Agatha Uwilingiyimana.

Ku rupapuro rwa mbere rwa Kangura N^o 55 yo muri Mutarama 1994, hari ifoto ya perezida wa CDR, Bucyana Martin yivugisha ngo “Mbega ba minisitiri b’intebe?”. Iruhande hari ifoto ya Faustin Twagiramungu yicaye ku murere w’uburiri yambaye ikariso gusa bigaragaza ko abyutse cyangwa agiye kuryama, kuri ubwo buriri hari umugore banditse ku ibere ko yitwa “Agatha”.

Muri iyo foto Twagiramungu arabaza Agatha ngo: “Icyana, urarizwa n’iki?” “Icyana bite se?” Undi agasubiza ngo: “Keretse nungira minisitiri mu nzibacyuho yaguye”.

Kangura N^o 54 (p.4&5) yari yashushanyije abo banyapolitiki babiri bangwaga n’interahamwe n’impuzamugambi

Urupapuro rwa gatanu rwa Kangura N^o 57 (Gashyantare 1994) rufite inkuru ifite umutwe “Twagiramungu na Agatha bahejeje igihugu mu gihirahiro” yari ifite ifoto bashushanyije Twagiramungu Faustin aryamanye na Agatha Uwilingiyimana.

Ibyo bishushanyo n’amagambo abirimo niyo Evode Uwizeyimana na bagenzi be basubiramo none, ngo ubwo babaye abahanga. Byahe se? Ingengabitekerezo y’interahamwe yabaritsemo irabazonga.

Umunyakanada Gen. Romeo Dallaire wayoboye MINUAR n’Umunyanijeriya Gen. Ekundayo Opaleye wayoboye GOMN nabo Kangura yarabibasiye. Dallaire bamushushanyije apfukamye ngo yonka “abatutsikazi” Opaleye we bandika ko ngo “yifunze” umukobwa w’umututsikazi. Banavuga se. (Kangura N^o 53 bis p. 6)

Evode Uwizeyimana kimwe na Ngeze Hassan bavuga amazina y’abantu bitwa ko basambanaga/basambana n’abo badashaka. Nirinze kuvuga amazina y’abo babeshyera kuko byaba kubahemukira.

Icya ngombwa ni uko abantu bamenya ko ari Ngeze, ari Uwizeyimana na Nsengimana amateka azabakoba mbere y’amategeko, nk’abandi bambari bose ba politiki y’ubwaku.

Like many western ‘do gooders’ who seek to offer a hand in solving problems in Africa, Lantos Foundation has made decisions based on distorted information that is derived from a sad combination of stereotypes, ignorance and self-interest by public relations agents who earn a handsome cut from revenues generated from Rusesabagina’s public appearences. Such decisions that only serve to confirm biases towards Africa and particularly Rwanda in this case, serve no positive purpose; if at all that was the intention.

The Hollywood manufactured hero, that they are recognising, is no hero in Rwanda. The Rwandan people, and most importantly the genocide survivors know who saved them. You do not need to first sell your story to the western world to become a hero of the Rwandan people.

For long, Rusesabagina has traded in Genocide. Lantos and other organization that have decided to offer him a platform for his trade, will have history judge them harshly for trivializing the unfortunate history of the Rwandan people, as the Foundation seeks perpetuate a fraud .

That the Lantos Foundation can never entertain the idea of presenting the award to a Nazi sympathiser, is a sad commentary to the fact that the more things change, the more they remain the same…

Source: http://allafrica.com/stories/201111140306.html

Sometimes songs of praise go to false characters. Because of the movie ‘Hotel Rwanda’ Paul Rusesabagina was made a Hollywood star and a conqueror of hearts.

He is expected to receive Tom Lantos Human Rights, come November 2011. The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice has entered the list of American institutions and organizations that thrilled this genocide denier–intentionally or naively.

Rusesabagina has won several awards as an unequalled ‘Humanitarian’ as he describes himself. On Top of Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award[1] and Amnesty International’s Enduring Spirit award he got the prestigious US Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Going through Rusesabagina’s speeches, and numerous articles about him, tells a different story and person.

Rusesabagina is consistently vague and evasive whenever he responds to issues related to the role of known criminals in the cataclysm.

His punctilious lies and denial of genocide has earned him fortune through his foundation Hotel Rwanda Rusesabagina Foundation.

Considering the way he defends and recycles the genocidaires’ ideology, he sounds a man with regrets for not having participated in the genocide enterprise.

Lantos Foundation may not be aware of this, which is why they dismissed the genocide survivors’ protests as an ‘absurd’ and ‘petty’ script manufactured by the government of Rwanda.

If Lantos Foundation boss, Katrina Lantos Swett, had asked reliable genocide scholars, and not unswerving genocide deniers, she wouldn’t have intrepidly denied her ‘award recipient’ is a grisly promoter of hatred against the Tutsi, and the very people who stopped genocide.

One of those the organisation should have asked is a well-known academic, Deborah Lipstadt, in her November 2007 piece–“Rwanda: A new form of genocide denial”[2]

Rusesabagina repeatedly refers to “the power of words.” He has said that “[w]ith words you can kill and with words you can save lives, depending on what you want to achieve, evil or the right thing.”

True, that makes him a powerful genocide denier. He knows that words denying the reality about the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda would influence how some ignorant people think about the crime committed.

His speeches and writings betray both sensitivity to this power, and portray carelessness in its usage. See: Liar and genocide denier Rusesabagina allege genocide began in his house

His sensitivity to the power of words is seen in his refusal to admit that what happened in Rwanda in 1994 was Genocide against the Tutsi. He uses his speeches to paint what happened in Rwanda as a simple conflict started by Tutsi rebels in 1990. The “result” that he hopes to achieve with his words is the removal from history of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide against the Tutsi.

To do this, he first describes the Tutsi as slave drivers. In a March 2007 address given to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, he explained that “[s]tarting from before colonization, Rwandans were divided. The relationships between the Hutus and the Tutsis were relationships between a master and a slave, because Hutus were slaves to Tutsis.”

Then, again and again, he describes what happened in Rwanda as Tutsis “attack[ing] their own country” in 1990, causing a war to break out. He has said of the Tutsi rebels, “…when they came in, they came in killing Hutu civilians.”

Rusesabagina has said that “what is happening in Darfur is the same thing that happened in Rwanda from 1990 to 1994.”

Note that he does not say it is the same thing that happened in 1994, when the Tutsi’s were targeted, but rather it is the same thing that happened from 1990 to 1994, when, as he explains, “the rebels attacked, killed men and their sons” and “all the people were fleeing the zones occupied by the rebels” so that “by 1994 Rwanda had 1.2 million people surrounding Kigali.”

The way this reads, the real crimes were not in 1994, but in 1990. 1994 was a natural consequence of RPF’s actions in 1990.

In an interview in the Rome News Tribune, Rusesabagina repeats: Actually, what happened — is happening today in Darfur is exactly what was going on in Rwanda between ’90 and 1994, when the rebels on the hills were butchering men— and, also, the militia, on the other hand, also killing civilians.

He uses his words cleverly, to pin the blame for the mass-murder in 1994 on the RPF rebels. As an afterthought, he throws in a line about the militia “also killing civilians” — not Tutsi, just civilians — presumably in response to the rebels’ actions.

Rusesabagina categorically alienates the Tutsi.  He firmly alleges that in 1959 Hutus took over from “Tutsis and colonizers. Tutsis went away. 250,000 of them fled the country.”

Placing the “Tutsi and colonisers” on the same plane is not different from what the genocidaire Leon Mugesera announced in 1992, that the Tutsi should be sent back to Ethiopia.

Considering Tutsis as foreigners was meant to justify their hounding and discrimination.

When talking about the events of 1994, he speaks of soldiers and militia killing his neighbours and other civilians.

He does not call it genocide, and he does not explain that it was Tutsis being targeted. If he had his way, this Genocide against the Tutsi would be remembered as a simple conflict, like any other, started when Tutsi rebels attacked their own country and butchered civilians.

However, even while carefully choosing his words to create a specific impression of the events in Rwanda in the early 1990s, he’s shown carelessness with words at other times.

Most strikingly, his comments on current Hutu-Tutsi relations are confusing and incorrect. He says that the two groups “hate each other.”

The use of the phrase “each other” implies that the hatred goes both ways, calling to mind an image of Rwanda where neighbour actively abhor neighbour based on ethnicity.

At the same time, he contradicts himself. Speaking to a group of journalism students in Chicago, Rusesabagina said Hutus and Tutsis “are the same culture.”

For more of his incongruity read: Inconsistencies boom in Hotel Rwanda “Hero’s” Camp

In other speeches, he describes the designations of Hutu and Tutsi as artificial and proclaims that they “share the same country” and “worship the same God.”

He has pointed out that “Hutus and Tutsis have been intermarrying and mixing.”

Indeed, Rusesabagina himself is the product of intermarriage: his mother was Tutsi and his father Hutu. He identifies as Hutu, and his wife identifies as Tutsi.

How can he cling to these ideas of boundaries and hatred between the groups when his own personal life is proof that they do not exist?

Rusesabagina must be a racist, like those who promote him, rather than a humanitarian. And, an established conman than a hero!

*This is a revised edition of Rusesabagina and the power of lies

The 1994 genocide is never far from anyone’s mind in Rwanda. But for some Rwandans it’s a constant horror.

This morning we talked with several survivors of the massacres, who told their stories through a translator.

It’s estimated that 250,000 genocide survivors are also rape victims, though that number may be low because some women won’t admit what happened to them.

Sevota, an organization set up in 1994 by Rwandan social worker Godelieve Mukasarasi to help rape survivors of the genocide, brought half a dozen women together to speak with us.

I won’t name them, in keeping with The Times’ policy about rape victims. Be warned: Their stories contain graphic descriptions.

The first woman who spoke  to us was 18 in 1994, married but still living with her family. The killing began in her neighborhood at 9 a.m.

She ran away and was hidden by a Hutu family. At one point, she thought she would be safer if she got to where other Tutsis were, so she left.

Outside, she discovered that her mother and brother were dead. She went to a church where her Tutsi neighbors were hiding. They thought they were  safe, but then the Hutus came.

The priest allowed them to come inside, where they picked Tutsis to kill. They took her to be raped. When they finished, they found sticks and stones and raped her again with them.

A second woman said that when the genocide started, her family thought the Hutus might come and kill their cows or other animals. But they never thought that humans would be killed.

She and her brother fled into the forest, but her parents were too old to run fast. They were killed. She and her brother stayed in the forest for a week.

Then they heard about a camp of Tutsis in the mountains; they headed for it. But soon after they got there, the Hutus came.

They ran to a Catholic church. Again the Hutus came and began butchering people.

The woman  pretended to be dead. She stayed motionless, among  dead bodies, for two days. Then she ran away again. She hid  for two days before a Hutu soldier found her.

After he raped her, he took her to his mother’s house. She spent a week there. During the days, she was treated like a slave and forced to work in the fields.

At night, soldiers raped her. Again she ran away, but she was soon caught by another Hutu and turned over to guards at a roadblock.

One of them wanted to kill her, but another said, “No, rape her.”

Again she got away and ran to another Catholic church. At first it was better. She believed the church would protect her, and she was reunited with her brother there.

But then the Hutus came, and the priest allowed them to take Tutsis. They killed her brother. She spent one month at the church, and every day Hutus raped her.

She soon realized she was pregnant. Finally, she was rescued when the Tutsi army came through.

She found four orphaned children and began taking care of them. When her own child was born, she found it difficult to accept him. But  Sevota has helped her cope.

The third woman said that in her part of the country, the Hutu power movement  began as early as 1990.  Once, before the genocide, Hutu men came to her house to inspect her to see if she had the name of the Tutsi king written on her body.

This was just an excuse to humiliate Tutsi women.

She fled when Hutus killed her family in 1994. A Hutu man who had worked for her family as a houseboy hid her in a water tank. But other Hutus found her.

One man drew a long sword from his boot and was about to kill her when another one said, no, she had beautiful ankles and would be good for raping.

Hutu men who were pillaging raped her, again and again, saying they wanted a taste of Tutsi women. She ended up pregnant and with HIV.

She loves her daughter, but she says that her daughter always asks her about her daddy. The girl, now 16, was told by neighbor children that she’s really a child of rape.

The mother still hasn’t been able to admit that to the girl but says she is moving in that direction. She says she is shunned by the neighbors for having HIV.

As we listened to the stories, one of the women broke down, sobbing hysterically. But the others insisted they wanted to continue; they wanted their stories to be known, and they wanted us to tell people in the United States what they’d been through and how much Sevota had helped them.

Rwanda  today is a remarkable country. But considering that just 17 years ago the country was in  chaos, it’s amazing.

Source: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/11/genocide-survivors-testimony-journey-to-rwanda.html

The former soldier is pacing in circles in a small office in the bowels of a nondescript, tan brick building at 17 Wing.

He can’t stand still. His mind is racing, too.

Bad memories. Baggage. And the little things that remind him of both.

“You drive by the Maple Leaf plant (the smell of burning flesh and dead meat) and you have to pull over and start crying,” the former Canadian Forces warrant officer begins. “Sitting at a campfire with your kids, it smells like burning buildings. You see a little kid walking around with one arm…”

The man — we’ll call him Mike — is trim and fit at age 44. He could still drop and give you 50. He’s wearing a suit jacket with his medals of service on the left side of his chest. Some are for tours in Bosnia, Haiti, Nairobi and Oka.

Two decades later, he’s in the offices of the Operational Stress Injury Support Services (OSISS), a peer and family support system jointly run by the Department of National Defence and Veteran’s Affairs that currently deals with well over 5,500 active and non-active military and RCMP personnel across the country.

The actual number of service members suffering from operational stress injuries, or post-traumatic stress, is estimated to be much higher — especially after 10 years of Canada’s forces serving in Afghanistan.

You could walk by Mike on the street or meet him at a social function and never have a clue that he suffers from OSI. But if you’re going to pry into the heart and mind of a Canadian soldier still dealing with the emotional scars of more than two decades of combat, you must be prepared for what comes flooding out.

When he came home from Croatia (the first time), he didn’t talk to his wife (his first wife) for a week. He was drinking every day. Isolated, withdrawn, depressed.

“Totally self-destructive,” he says. “Didn’t care. It didn’t matter.”

After five years, and counting, of therapy and peer support, Mike believes he’s changed. “It’s like night and day.”

How has he changed?

“Well, for starters,” he says, his eyes narrowing. “I have a question. Where is your poppy?”

In a split-second, it’s the warrant officer talking, not the civilian who left the service last year. The voice rises, a flash of anger.

“How disrespectful is that to come onto this base without a poppy? How disrespectful is that to the uniform? Do you see these?” he asks, pointing to his row of medals. “How disrespectful is that?”

The tiny room feels like it is getting even smaller. And then…

“Five years ago, I wouldn’t have been so nice,” he says. “And I wouldn’t have kept my hands in my pockets, either.”

The former soldier takes a seat.

“That’s how I’ve changed.”

2It doesn’t have to equate to the picking up of blown-up body parts or pools of blood streaming from fellow soldiers or innocent victims. It could be, and often is, something as inconsequential as a dirty sock left on the floor. Or listening to a total stranger complain about an everyday inconvenience that to someone who has witnessed genocide in Rwanda or mass graves in Bosnia would seem utterly ludicrous.

Imagine a medic who sees a woman in war-torn Rwanda walk into a clinic with a dead baby’s arm sticking out of her womb. Imagine seeing a young girl run down by a group of drunken foreign soldiers who show zero remorse, yet you are powerless to see any justice done.

“We just had a 10-year war,” explained Jim Lowther, a Halifax-based veteran who served two tours in Bosnia and was a member of the first mission to Afghanistan.

“And we had another 10 years of so-called peacekeeping missions where we were getting shot at and thrown in between three countries that were at war. So these guys do all their tours, they come home, and when you’re over there, you have to have your spidey senses going all the time. You’re looking over your shoulder 24/7. If you do that for six months, it’s hard to turn that off.

“That’s the problem. You can’t do your job. When you’ve seen horrible things and done things… it’s hard. So you have to put it away. You have to do your job. But when things calm down, that’s when it comes back to bite you. That’s when it spirals.”

Lowther was perfectly fine until about 10 years ago when he went to the movie Behind Enemy Lineswith his son. It’s about an American soldier (played by Owen Wilson) who witnesses a massacre during the Bosnian conflict. Lowther had to leave the theatre.

“(The Wilson character) was running through the same places I had patrolled and something snapped,” Lowther said. “I got sick and went and threw up in the garbage can. That was it. Full-blown nightmares. Just like that.”

Said Mike, who served three tours in Bosnia: “A lot of stuff you shrug off or keep it internally. I could sit here and list example after example (of trauma), but I’m not going to do that. I’m not going to beat myself up.”

The OSISS groups are not just peer support, they’re conduits to professional therapy and medical counselling. Groups include active and non-active members. Ranks are thrown out the window. So are service records.

“The important thing is that everybody has a common denominator — we all served in some sort of way,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if you’re an officer or a junior rank. It doesn’t matter if you’re male or female. What matters is you went through a trauma, and we’re here to help bring you back.”

The OSISS, which has 20 sites across Canada, also offers spousal support.

“The person who lives with you is going to see some things even if you don’t realize you’re not well,” said regional family peer support co-ordinator Angela Duda. “So what we try to do is say you’re not the only person out there. There is help for you, so you don’t feel like you’re alone.

“And we go out into the units,” Duda added. “We tell them that you need to watch each other and these are the signs.”

All Canadian Forces personnel who come off tour in Afghanistan now have a mandatory decompression that includes education on identifying signs of OSI, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

“You don’t just come home to your family,” Duda said. “You may come off a six-month tour and say, ‘I’m good.’ But three months after you come home, you might be saying, ‘God, I don’t want to go out. I don’t want to see anybody. I’ve got to call someone.’ “

Education for OSI includes both entrance and exit sessions, a fundamental shift from the prevailing pre-1990s military attitudes, where any mental health issues would be seen by both soldiers and officers as career-ending.

In fact, the stigma still exists.

“A lot of people are very, very reluctant to come forward to get help,” said Louise Groulx, OSISS regional co-ordinator for the Prairie region. “There’s a stigma, a shame about having mental illness — certainly in the military. We’ve all been trained to be tough. ‘Suck it up, carry on.’ You don’t want to let your team down.

“(But) it’s really come a long way as far as I’m concerned,” Groulx added. “I think it’s happening on the civilian side a lot more. The more it goes into the public sector, once it becomes more of the norm, it will help the military take some of the stigma off of it.”

Added Follette: “At one time, if you got an OSI, goodbye. But now it’s gotten to the point where they’re trying to keep people, trying to help them get stronger and stay in the military, if that’s the best thing for them. We’re just trying to take it to the level where it’s OK to say if things aren’t going well.”

Still, in life-and-death military training, where room for error or indecision is unacceptable, a decision to seek help can itself be traumatic. One day in 2005, Mike got in his car and drove around the Winnipeg base “four or five times,” trying to bring himself to walk into a building where a sign said “Mental Health Ward.”

“I was sick and tired of being sick and tired,” he said. “I knew I needed help. When your soul is that lost, you know.”

Mike walked unannounced into the office of a medic of a similar rank. He fumbled to explain the impromptu visit.

Finally, the medic asked, “Feeling a little unglued?”

The floodgates opened.

“That’s when I got help,” Mike said. “That one person made all the difference.”

But like so many aspects of mental trauma, there are no absolutes.

“I’m grateful every day I wake up,” Mike said. “It’s a journey. I’m not ashamed to say I’m a veteran. I’m not ashamed to have served. And I’m not ashamed to say I have an OSI. I really like who I am now.

“But all of us that have an OSI, we’ll have a monkey on our back for the rest of our lives. We just have to deal with it. It’s extremely difficult sometimes. It’s a daily battle.”

And it’s a battle that doesn’t end in far-off places like Somalia or Bosnia or Afghanistan.

“The one thing about (these disorders) is you can’t make promises,” Follette said. “There is a light at the end of the tunnel, but it’s going to be a lot of work. We can help keep you on track.”

Does the current OSISS infrastructure meet the demand? Or the future demand?

For Lowther, it’s at least a start. For Mike, it’s a lifeline. For Groulx, it’s a place where soldiers can reach out and get help to deal with the hidden casualties of war that weren’t acknowledged in previous generations.

“For so long, people have needed a program and it wasn’t there,” she said. “Too many people who left the military ashamed or numb, and they didn’t have to.”

randy.turner@freepress.mb.ca

Source: The Winnipeg Free Press print edition November 12, 2011