By Tom Ndahiro

On April 8, 2004, as part of the 10th commemoration of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, the President of the International Crisis Group (ICG) Gareth Evans and Stephen Ellis, ICG’s Africa Program Director published an article with a title:  ‘The Rwandan Genocide: Memory Is Not Enough’[1] The article reminds: “Each time such an atrocity happens, we look back wondering, with varying degrees of incomprehension, horror, anger and shame, how we could have let it all happen. And then we let it happen all over again.” The two authors maintain that something more than memory is required if another cataclysmic genocide was not to happen, sooner or later somewhere in world. They recommend “effective action” and also reiterated “the need for vigilance is nowhere greater than in Africa, where a genocidal ideology is far from dead, particularly in Central Africa.”

There are reasons why I think this is easily said than done. Philippe Gaillard was the head of the ICRC’s delegation in Rwanda, 1993-1994. In January 2002 he delivered a speech at a Genocide Prevention Conference, London, organized by the Aegis Trust and the British Foreign Office. In his speech, Gaillard revealed that in mid-July 1993, his delegation met Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana to discuss about the danger of anti-personnel mines on the front line. Habyarimana told them that he was fully aware of it, but added: “The main danger is actually that the hearts and minds of the Rwandan people are mined.”[2] Gaillard said.

In August 2010 former Rwandan senior officials published a mined 60 page document titled: “Rwanda Briefing”. Authors are Lt. General Kayumba Nyamwasa, Col. Patrick Karegeya, Dr. Theogene Rudasingwa and Gerald Gahima.  Because of positions they held in the government, without knowing their sources and driving force, its unsuspecting readers may be hoodwinked. For the most part the document contains narratives inundated with hate speech and incitement to violence and genocide. My attention was drawn to noteworthy discourse, which embrace the mainstream genocide denialism and ideology as shall be discussed in this article. The content of “Rwanda Briefing” is a recycled material, mainly from genocidaires’ organisations, mainly the members of the FDU-Inkingi which will be extensively discussed, the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda (FDLR)[3] and from some individuals, and Non-Governmental Organisations.

The mission of genocide deniers is to kill the memory of genocide, to pave way to deaths of more lives. Pseudo-intellectualism, racism, ignorance and deliberate misinformation at the service of genocidaires have contributed the befouling of more hearts and minds. Not of ‘Rwandan people’ only, but of the world.   In the west, the danger of poisoning people’s minds is a fact ignored and denied by people claiming to be erudite.

Legitimating genocidaires and “the people”

The narrative in the briefing goes: “Neither brute force nor the financial and material support of external backers can sustain a government that the people overwhelmingly consider to be illegitimate in power indefinitely.”(p.49) In the same vein, the Kayumba group asks: “Can Rwanda continue to be peaceful while the government continues to be repressive and the majority of the people consider the government illegitimate?” (p.2)

Whenever you read “the people of Rwanda”, and the illegitimacy of the government led by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which are concepts repeated in this document, the issue is who the people are and who provides the legitimacy. For a quick understanding read: Ethnic Stereotypes in RDR’s Discourse

The leaders and key people in the interim government and its armed forces who perpetrated the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi were, from top to bottom, remorseless—and determined to pose as victims.  As soon as they crossed the Rwanda border to the former Zaire, the military option had been decided and operations were on-going. They were convinced it was a matter of time. Stanislas Mbonampeka, who later became a minister in their “Government of Rwanda in Exile”, had estimated the government which ousted the genocidaires would not last beyond April 1995.

As French journalist Laurence Simon reported July 1994, there were “desperadoes” amongst the FAR who feared punishment for “the massacres they committed against the Tutsis.” They wanted to go through to the bitter end, and “arm themselves in order to harass the RPF” and start a resistance movement, using Zairean soil as a rear base.[4]

The language used by the leaders of the “government in exile”, the FAR, and the Rally for the Return and Democracy in Rwanda (RDR) in 1994-95, the “honourable manner of return,” the ‘legitimate representative’ and ‘real national army’ or ‘people’s army’, all meant the same thing: the genocidaires meant to return to power.

That is also what they meant when they spoke about “contributing towards a search for a durable peace, by addressing once for all, the root causes of the Calvary of the Rwandese people.”[5] It also held the same meaning as the ‘Rwandese people’ have no trust in RPF government[6] or, are ‘victims of the brutal force unleashed on it by the Kigali regime.’[7]

In its press release to celebrate Rwanda’s Independence Day on July 1, 1995, the RDR said:  “it will be a year since the RPF conquered the Rwandan territory but it still faces an uphill task to win the hearts of the Rwandan people.”[8]

The RDR’s dogma was that “the Rwandan people” have never considered the RPF as its liberator, because the people who had run away from its advance in the summer of 1994 were “a glaring example of the opposition of the majority of the Rwandan people to the Kigali regime.”[9]

A malignant form of genocide denial is expressed in this document. The Kayumba group, implicitly, consider genocidaires as victims and legitimate political actors to negotiate with. So they say:

“The majority of the Hutu middle-class that was ousted from power  in 1994 remains in exile, un-reconciled  to the new political order, biding time and hoping for a regime change.  …  The externally-based unarmed opposition calls for dialogue on how to resolve the country’s continuing crisis…” (p.18)

“Hundreds of thousands of Rwandans who fled the country in 1994 remain in exile because of the repressive environment that prevails in the country.” (p. 21)

“Rwanda lost much of its human capital during the genocide.  The vast majority of the intelligentsia who survived the war and genocide went into exile and has never returned, largely because of the unfavourable situation for which President Kagame and the RPF bear responsibility.” (p.30)

“The middle-class that run the country prior to the genocide remains in exile. The Hutu majority feel marginalised and excluded.” (p.42)

Members and leaders of the RDR who happen to be “the middle-class that run the country prior to the genocide”, are categorical, that “the true people of Rwanda will never back the RPF”, and that “no amount of intimidation or military support will deter Rwandese refugees and other victims of RPF repressive policy, from claiming their inalienable rights to a homeland and a rule of law.”[10] With this Rwanda briefing, the Kayumba group feels the “true people of Rwanda.”

The RDR insisted that the refugees would not return without their army, because: “They refuse to succumb to blackmailing whose aim is to bring them into surrendering to RPF and meeting the worst humiliation in its hands.”[11] Voluntary returns in response to UNHCR appeals were considered as “surrendering” to the RPF government and facing its wrath, or lending “legitimacy to RPF dictatorship.”[12] The RDR regarded the regime set up by RPF in Kigali as “not viable.”[13]

The apocalyptic talk is exactly what the “Rwanda Briefing” propagates 15 years later. “What strategies would help Rwanda avoid violent conflict that appears inevitable…?” (p.2) Rwanda is portrayed as very “unstable and vulnerable to violent conflict.” (p.21)  Or “…perpetually insecure…” (p.32); they predict the likelihood of a recurrence of violent conflict, and that “even the possibility of genocide, is very high.”(p.36) The gang of four allege the situation “…exposes all Tutsi to the risk of violence, even violence of genocidal proportions…” (p.35) talks about “…renewed war and bloodshed…”(p.40); and, the country being “on the brink of an abyss.” (p.50)

In the same frame of mind, on August 28, 1995, the RDR blamed the UN Security Council for making peace with “the bloodthirsty regime of the RPF”, at the expense of the “Rwandan people hurt by more than 5 years of a war imposed by the RPF.” It hoped that peace-loving countries would maintain the arms embargo as a sign of “solidarity with the Rwandan people”[14]

Five years later, in August 2000, some of the resolutions at the RDR’s third Congress were to “allow the people to regain her sovereignty” and renewed commitment to co-operate with the other democratic forces struggling for the liberation of the “Rwandan people from the RPF bloodthirsty and bellicose dictatorship.”[15]

It is standard in the discourse of extremist Hutus and their friends’ to gloss over the genocide against the Tutsi, attribute to the RPF the kind of behaviour typical Hutu extremism, and to assert as a statement of faith that the “Rwandan people” can only be loyal to Hutu extremism.

Thus, a 1995 RDR statement claims that “Since the 1st October 1990, date when the RPF rebels invaded Rwanda, the people of Rwanda are going through the most tragic period of their recent history. Massacres, fear, grief, injustice, violence, repression and falsehood are part of the daily problems that the Rwandan people have to face. The RPF has won a military victory, God knows at what human sacrifice, but fifteen months later it has not yet won the trust of the Rwandan people.”[16]

The RDR blames the international community for consolidating or imposing a “Stalinist RPF regime on a people that hate it.” The RDR particularly faults the international community for denying it rearmament, and therefore asks on behalf of the ‘Rwandan people’: “who armed the RPF and financed its war and in whose interest?”[17]

In one of their press releases in 2002, the RDR talks about the loathed “illegitimate government, dictatorial and controlled by warmongers of the RPF”[18] a government which had been described before, as a “permanent danger for peace in the African Great Lakes region”.[19]

On August 27, 1998, in an open letter addressed to US President Clinton, the RDR says that: “The oppressed people of Rwanda” represented by the RDR, appeals to the American people to stop spilling blood and fuelling chaos in the African Great Lakes region.[20] Only the RDR, they claim can produce a national consensus, since on one side there is the “RPF military regime in Kigali,” and on the other the RDR as “representatives of refugees and Rwandese people.”[21] Instead of the genocide against the Tutsi, authors invoke “…the events of 1994” (p.50)

Authors of the apocalyptic briefing propose the creation of “The New National Partnership Government”.  They seem to have had the RDR in mind whose president is Ingabire Victoire. This NNPG, so they say “… would, in particular, have to include leaders whom the Hutu majority consider legitimate as representatives of their community.” (p.45) To understand what they mean by legitimate representatives of the Hutu, one should go back and read several concepts developed. You have, for example “legitimate Hutu leaders” versus “fictitious and compromised leaders” (p.23) same as:  “The Hutu who serve in government are only surrogates of the RPF who lack legitimacy in their community.” (p.16)  Authors were disappointed by the banning of the MDR which they consider “…a credible challenge to the RPF” (p.11)

In early 1996, the current government of Rwanda embarked on a program of issuing new identity cards which did not have a mention of one’s ethnic group. The RDR, with their racist ideology of looking at Tutsi as foreigners, described this as an RPF ploy to import from abroad more than half a million people, rewarding “aliens for their contribution towards RPF war.”[22]

The RDR consistently portrays the RPF and, by extension, all Tutsi as outsiders and usurpers.  Such distortion  and  reversal of historical  reality, which belittles  the  significance  of  the  genocide,  is  common  throughout  the RDR’s documents.  The RDR refers regularly to Hutu refugees as “Rwandan and Burundian”[23] refugees, while Tutsi refugees are referred to simply as Tutsi.

The implication here is that Tutsi belong to their ethnic group, rather than to their nation, and that Hutu are the rightful heirs to power in Rwanda and Burundi. The governments in Rwanda and Burundi are described as “Tutsi-led”[24] or “minority”[25]regimes, implying a lack of popular credibility or an inherent injustice in anything but ethnic majority—that is, Hutu—rule. Maintaining the argument that the RPF and all Tutsi are outsiders, Press Release No. 11 of 1 July 1995 states that the RPF’s high command “is exclusively made up of former members of a foreign army” and refers to “the so-called national assembly,”[26] while another statement refers to “the so–called national parliament”[27] in Rwanda, reinforcing the notion of the illegitimacy of RPF rule in Rwanda.

Generally speaking, in the RDR’s press releases, the terms “RPF” and “Tutsi” are used interchangeably and contrasted with descriptions of Hutu as “true Rwandans,” “the Rwandan people” and “the population.”[28]

The RDR continually attempts to distance the RPF from the “Rwandan people,” implying that the RPF is not truly Rwandan and instead a self-imposed and discredited government; “a clique of individuals, who are desperately trying to cling to power against the verdict of the people.”[29] The Kayumba group replicates almost the same in many parts of the document.[30]

Such statements echo the claim in the RDR’s Political Platform that the RPF government “has no political or social base; it is not representative of the population.  It is a government that took power through military force by an ethnocentric oligarchy, which so far has not been able to win the hearts of the people over which it rules.”[31]

The RPF is portrayed as an occupying force; an administration of non-Rwandans subjecting true Rwandans—Hutu—to repressive, minority rule.

In the RDR’s Press Release No. 67 of 17 April 1996 describes economic migrants and foreigners who have been given legal rights to property in which they had been “squatting” since the genocide, allegedly as part of an attempt by the RPF to “enhance its political constituency.”[32]

This implies that the RPF is not a party for Rwandans; that to maintain power it must buy support from outside of the country and can only govern with the help of foreigners. An RDR statement on 4 June 1996 accuses the RPF of needing to “pay a moral debt to Tutsi in Zaire who financed the RPF war,” alleging that the RPF relies on foreigners, especially members of the Tutsi Diaspora, to stay in power.[33]

During the whole period of 1996, RDR-led forces in eastern Zaire, were preparing to escalate armed incursions into Rwanda, and the tone of the RDR’s press releases reflected this. In one of them, on April 17, 1996, the UN Security Council was blamed for consolidating “a mono-ethnic army that cannot inspire confidence to all citizens of the country”.

The RDR further described the RPF government as an “intrinsically unviable political system.” Without denying that the FAR and Interahamwe were rearming, the RDR claimed the issue was that “any human being will always find a way of resisting and getting rid of injustice meted out on him from any quarter however apparently powerful.”[34]

This was repeated in another press release of September 29, 1996, where the RDR sought to give their hideous plans the legitimacy of South African struggle against apartheid.

The communiqué states: “No amount of weaponry will deter thousands and thousands of Rwandese victims of RPF repression from claiming their inalienable rights to democratic governance. (…) After two years in power, RPF has proved that it carries within itself seeds of self-destruction; the same way the military mighty of the apartheid regime did not prevent it from collapsing. Like in South Africa, Rwanda needs a democratically elected government and a truly national army.’[35]

The RDR accused the USAID of funding an RPF school of military science and political education, reminiscent of the communist era, at GISHARI in what used to be MUHAZI commune. Yet such a school has never existed. USAID was requested to fund more pro-people projects, instead of RPF ‘instruments of coercion and political indoctrination.’[36]

To justify and confirm its readiness to use violence to recapture power, the RDR evoked genocide or a “deliberate attempt by the RPF to wipe out part or the whole population of Hutu refugees in Eastern Zaïre” something that would “ultimately compel the victims to resort to the use of all available means to resist the RPF regime as a way of reclaiming their dignity and other legitimate aspirations of any free human being.”[37]

Towards the end of the year 1996, the successful repatriation of Rwandese refugees from Tanzania was seen by the RDR as part of a “wide conspiracy against Hutu refugees”. They renewed their threats saying this was not the beginning of the end of the crisis, but ‘the beginning of a new cycle of instability, and eventually a return to square one.’[38]

Glorification of hate and genocide

In RDR’s Press Release NO. 8/2001 of May15, 2001 with a title: “RDR CONDEMNS THE EXPLOITATION OF THE 1994 RWANDAN GENOCIDE FOR POLITICAL ENDS” the RDR “denounces and condemns” what they term “the political exploitation of the 1994 Rwandan genocide” by General Paul Kagame in order “to suppress any political opposition to his tyrannical regime or to justify crimes committed by his militia, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA), in Rwanda since October 1990 and in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since August 1996. (…) The genocide of Tutsis is exploited by the RPF as a political weapon to disqualify any person or political party (allied or in opposition) contesting its political choices or leadership.[39]

Charles Ndereyehe, a genocide ideologue now based in Holland repeats the same discourse in his article Solidarité entre les réfugiés, published in October 1998: that the people of Rwanda had never known a regime as cruel as the RPF.[40]

Twelve years later, the Kayumba group adopted the language of comparing the incomparable. They write as if genocide that was committed against the Tutsi is not the most heinous crime. A crime usually planned and carried out following years of racist and discriminatory policies against a targeted group.

The crime of genocide against the Tutsi emanated from policies of Hutu Power doctrine which characterised governments of Gregory Kayibanda and Juvenal Habyarimana. And, now, those genocidal regimes who planned and perpetrated that crime, are now praised by the gang of four wrote with Nostalgia and worship:

“Rwanda is far less free now than it was prior to the genocide.” (p. 7-8)

“In fact, impunity for human rights violations is now far more deeply entrenched than it has ever been in Rwanda’s history.” (p. 18)

“Impunity for gross human rights abuses is worse than it was prior to the genocide. ” (p. 21) “Rwanda is less free today than it was prior to the genocide. There is less room for political participation than there was in 1994.  Civil society is less free and effective. The media is less free. The Rwanda government is more repressive than the one that it overthrew.” (p. 21)

“The situation in Rwanda is the most repressive it has ever been.” (p. 21)

The RDR discourse of genocide denial has been assiduously echoed and supported by their friends and sympathisers in the North. Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian academic considered to be an expert on Central Africa, is a Professor of African Law and Politics and Chair of the Institute of Development Policy and Management, at the University of Antwerp.

Reyntjens’ main concern since 1994 has been to blame the international community for not punishing the RPF for human rights abuses, despite “international condemnations.” His primary sources are himself and other known friends of Hutu extremism like Serge Desouter, Nick Gordon, and Stephen Smith.[41]

To support this school of thought against the RPF, Reyntjens invokes a supposed “conspiracy of silence, induced in part by an international feeling of guilt over the genocide and a comfortable ‘good guys-bad guys’ dichotomy.”[42]

He also says that: “The refusal to see the RPF for what it really is, a banal and tragically violent military dictatorship, is the product of a severe form of “political correctness,” which the RPF fully exploits by using the ‘genocide credit’ to hide its own past and current crimes.”[43]

What Reyntjens expresses is very common among the friends of Hutu extremism who wish to portray the genocide against the Tutsi as “manipulation.” Sharing the same school of thought is Johan Pottier who says: “Kigali’s post-genocide regime knows how to make political capital out of the empathy and guilt that exist within the international community.”[44] He emphasizes the point by referring to what was said by former Prime Minister Faustin Twagiramungu in September 1995, that “the RPF knew how to exploit the international guilt to maximum benefit.”[45]

In December 1995, the FAR High Command wrote a 134 page document meant for the ICTR, about “The war of October 1990 and the tragedy of April 1994. Its title is: “Contribution of FAR to the Search for Truth on the Rwandan Tragedy.”

The FAR writes that the RPF was aware that the Tutsi minority ethnic group would ultimately be the victims of the RPF war, and set the international community against the Hutus to justify its attacks: “The RPF used genocide as a trump card in order to win support from the international community.”[46]

Another aspect of the genocide deniers and genocidaires’ tactic of dismissing the genocide as a “manipulation” is to also dismiss the Kigali government’s prosecution of the perpetrators as a political manoeuvre. Thus the RDR charges that: ‘it is common knowledge that the RPF authoritarian regime exploits the 1994 genocide against Tutsis for political ends.’ Lists of alleged genocide suspects are dismissed as a political weapon for the current Rwandan government “to silence any real, potential or imaginary political opponent from the Hutu community.”[47]

In an article by the Human Rights Watch boss, Kenneth Roth, with a title: The power of horror in Rwanda which was published in The Los Angeles Times of April 11, 2009. Roth alleges “the genocide has “provided the government with a cover for repression.” Roth expressed frustrations that there was “no meaningful opposition.” And, that, Gacaca courts was “one tool of repression” and that Gacaca had “morphed into a forum for settling personal vendettas or silencing dissident voices.” What he refers to as meaningful opposition, are groups headed and dominated by genocide ideologues and genocide deniers. Roth, without a pang of conscience, says that criminalising genocide ideology “leaves little political space for dissent.” Impliedly, genocide ideology should be left to flourish and compete in the political arena. In a tone of threat or blackmail, Roth predicts people will “resort to their ethnic identity” to fight repression and that “the best way, to prevent another genocide, is to insist that Kagame stop manipulating the last one.”Here the HRW boss makes genocide more likely, and if it happens, it will be Kagame’s fault.

Chi Mgbako is an associate professor of law at Fordham Law School in New York City. In his article of July 22, 2010, he also accuses the Rwandan government that “by using the charge of genocidal ideology to stifle opposition and buttress its own power.” The victims’ list includes Peter Erlinder and his made-up client in Rwanda.[48]

Mgbako, cobble together gratuitous affirmations and accusations. For example, he says: “Although the government has denied recent allegations of abuse… the authoritarian tendencies of Rwanda’s ruling party are not a new phenomenon.” To lend credence to his article, the only source is “a junior Rwandan government official who allegedly conceded that ‘genocidal ideology’ had become code for overt criticism of government policy.”

Mgbako claims Rwandan laws against ‘genocidal ideology’ and ‘ethnic divisionism’ “trivialise the genocide” and uses “these ill-defined crimes …to solidify its power and oppress alternative political viewpoints under the pretence of advancing national unity.” Unless one suffers from amnesia, or is a genocide denier, the denial of existence of genocide ideology in Rwanda, for an academic worth a name, is simply preposterous.

Most of what Mgbako said wasn’t new whatsoever. It was a mere repetition of what organisations like Human Rights Watch (HRW) have been writing. On February 10, 2010, Georgette Gagnon, Africa director published a report alleging: “The Rwandan government and the RPF have strongly resisted any political opposition or broader challenge of their policies by civil society. On several occasions, the government has used accusations of participation in the genocide, or “genocide ideology,” as a way of targeting and discrediting its critics. The current RPF-dominated government has been in power in Rwanda since the end of the 1994 genocide.”[49] Most allegations and accusations were not different from another report by HRW two months later.[50]

Jon Elliott, Africa advocacy director with HRW says: There has been no meaningful insistence that Kigali amend its “genocide ideology” law that is so broad it makes almost any kind of criticism of the RPF illegal.[51]

Time to say ‘Never Again”

A day before Chi Mgbako’s article was published, in Sydney, Australia, a Canadian MP and former justice minister, Professor Irwin Cotler, delivered the ADC Gandel-NSW Jewish Board of Deputies Oration on Contemporary Anti-Semitism.  Cotler said “There is no such thing as the absolute protection of free speech. All constitutional democracies exclude some categories of speech from protection, be it obscenity, fighting words or racist hate speech.”[52]

Those who go against these laws, Cotler insisted “belongs in the dock of the accused.” One example among those, he mentioned is the Iranian president, Mahmood Ahmadinejad. Prof. Cotler recaps:  “Calls by senior figures in the Iranian leadership for the destruction of Israel are frighteningly reminiscent of calls for the Rwandan extermination of Tutsis by the Hutu leadership.”

Cotler said Ahmadinejad’s Iran was increasingly resorting to incendiary and demonising language, including epidemiological metaphors reminiscent of Nazi incitement. Ahmadinejad and other officials, Cotler said, characterise Israel as a “filthy germ”, a “stain of disgrace” and “a stinking corpse”, while referring to Israelis as “the true manifestation of Satan” and “blood-thirsty barbarians”, as a prologue to – and justification for – a Middle East genocide, while at the same time denying the Nazi one. All Cotler doesn’t know, is that the Hutu extremist leadership under the leadership of Victoire Ingabire, or the FDLR, considered a credible member of opposition against the government of Rwanda, still use the same hate speech.

Indeed, the danger more than land mines, “in the hearts and minds” was the genocidal ideology which killed over a million lives of Rwandan Tutsi. In the coded language of genocidaires, including Habyarimana, the ‘Rwandan people,’ meant Hutu. Many victims of the genocide against the Tutsi, were killed by machetes than bullets and grenades. There is a lesson to be learnt.

September 12, 2010




[3]Read FDLR 83 page document titled: ‘DRAME RWANDAIS’ available on

[4] France Inter Radio, 26 July 94

[5] Ibid.

[6] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº5  May 10, 1995 Signed by Dr. Innocent BUTARE Executive Secretary: See

[7] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº 6 May 24, 1995. See

[8] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº11of July 1, See: 1995 See:

[9] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº 12 of 10th July 1995 See:

[10] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº 16  of 19th, August 1995 See:

[11] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº17 of 24th August 1995 with a title: The Rising Anguish of Rwandese Refugees See:

[12] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº29 of 16th October, 1995 See:

[13] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº19 of 28 August 1995 See:

[14] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº8 June 13, 1995 See:

[15] Resolutions of the RDR 3rd Ordinary Congress – Bonn, 17 – 19 August 2000

[16]RDR Memorandum to the Heads of State, heads of Delegations and Mediators participating in a Regional Conference on the Great Lakes Region       November 21, 1995 See:

[17] Viewpoint of RDR on the Cairo Declaration of November 29, 1995- published on December 31, 1995  See:

[18] The Illegitimate and bellicose Kigali government is the main obstacle to durable peace in the African Great Lakes Region. Press Release nº 4/2002

[19] The New Phase for General Kagame’s War of Conquest–  Press Release of August 6, 1998 See:

[20] The Clinton Administration should stop all military assistance to Rwandan and Ugandan warmonger dictators. Press release signed in Brussels, August 27, 1998 See: also available on


[22] PRESS RELEASE Nº67 April 17,1996 See:

[23] RDR Press Release No.6 May 24, 1995

[24] Ibid,

[25] Ibid,

[26] RDR Press Release No. 11, 1 July 1995

[27] Ibid

[28] Ibid

[29] Ibid

[30] One example is where they state: “The President and the inner circle of his close associates that monopolises political power and marginalizes and excludes the rest of the people of Rwanda…” p.15

[31] The document, simply titled “RDR Political Platform” published in Paris, on August 23,

1998 is available on

[32] RDR Press Release No. 67, April 17, 1996 See:

[33] Ibid.

[34] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº71 April 26,1996 See:

[35] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº92 September 29, 1996. The ANC Government Decision to Sell Arms to the RPF Government amounts to add fuel to fire. See:

[36] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº86 September 5, 1996—USAID involvement in funding an RPF school set up to dispense military science and political education. See:

[37] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº108 November 27, 1996 See:

[38] RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº110 December 9, 1996 See:

[39] See: In the same vein the RDR claims the most of Rwandan opponents in DRC are ‘survivors of numerous crimes against peace and humanity, war crimes and genocide committed by the RPA in Rwanda since October 1990 and in eastern DRC since August 1996. See: RDR-PRESS RELEASE Nº 6/2002 Done at Montreal on 27 August 2002—DURABLE PEACE IN CENTRAL AFRICA: STATEMENT ON THE PRETORIA ACCORD

[40] In French Ndereyehe says:  “…dans son histoire, le Rwanda n’a jamais connu de régime dont la cruauté soit comparable à celui que fait vivre le FPR au peuple rwandais depuis le 1er octobre 1990.” See: (

[41] Filip Reyntjens, RWANDA, TEN YEARS ON: FROM GENOCIDE TO DICTATORSHIP in Royal African society journal (2004) p.197-198. [S. Desouter and F. Reyntjens, Rwanda: Les violations des droits de l’homme par le FPR/APR. Plaidoyer pour une enquête approfondie (Centre for the Study of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, Antwerp, June 1995); S. Smith, ‘Rwanda: enquête sur la terreur tutsie’, Libération, 27 February 1996; N. Gordon, ‘Return to Hell’, Sunday Express, 21 April 1996. (footnote 79)

[42] Ibid, p.198

[43] Reyntjens, Filip (1999) ‘Rwanda: The Conspiracy of Silence’

[44] Pottier, Johan (2002): ‘Re-imagining Rwanda. Conflict, Survival and Disinformation in the late Twentieth’ Century,’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (p. 47)

[45] Ibid, Pottier,  (p.159-160)

[46]Ibid FAR  (1995) (p.17-18)

[47] Press Release No.12/2001, Montreal on 23 July 2001—The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) must rise above the politics See:

[48] See: ‘Manipulating the memory of the Rwandan genocide’ in Pambazuka Issue No 491

[49] Georgette Gagnon, ‘Intimidation of Political Opponents Increases in Advance of Presidential Election’ February 10, 2010

[50] See: “Government Denies Visa to Rights Researcher in Crackdown on Critics’ Georgette Gagnon, (April 23, 2010)

[51] In an article titled ‘Rwanda: None So Blind as Those That Will Not See’ published in: All Africa November 26, 2009  Also see:

[52] IRWIN COTLER, Stop the incitement to prevent genocide July 22, 2010.

Comments are closed.