Friends of evil (Chapter 4): The RDR or disguised genocidaires

Posted: August 28, 2013 in Book
Tags: , , , , ,

On March 30, 2009, the BBC-radio (Kinyarwanda service) aired an interview of Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza, an extremist Hutu who is president of the RDR and also president of another umbrella organisation called FDU-Inkingi. At the time of this interview she was based in The Hague, Holland. She told her Rwandan listeners that if the government in Kigali does not change their ways, there will be another 1994.

This threat was uttered close to the 15th commemoration of the genocide of Tutsis. It was horrifying and revealing—both of the BBC’s bizarre willingness to serve as a conduit for hate-speech to Rwanda, and the tenor of RDR discourse.

Such discourse, the history of RDR and that of its leaders, together with documentary evidence available, indicate that there is no other way to qualify the RDR, than as a genocidal rather than a political organisation. That it can operate on the international level, is a stark reminder of the dangers of international indifference to the dangers of racism and resultant ideologies.

Towards the end of year 1996, when regional countries— especially Tanzania—were cracking down on the RDR operatives who were known as ‘intimidators’, this organisation declared it was non-political and therefore did not see why their members were being persecuted.[1]

These ‘intimidators’ were influential men and women in the camps in Tanzania and Zaire, who had the duty and powers to discourage, threaten or even kill refugees who wished or tried to return to Rwanda.

Political or not, what is this organisation which has its base in The Hague, Holland, where Dutch officials profess ignorance as to its nature and aims?

There is a newspaper, Intego, which used to be published in Kigali two years after the genocide in 1994. This paper’s journalists were privileged and able to visit refugee camps in Zaire and Tanzania, because they had close relatives there.

In their first issue, Intego described the RDR as an organisation “dominated by genocide perpetrators” and reported how it had filed a case with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda against some officials in Kigali, because RDR also claims that the authorities in Kigali took part in the genocide and must be tried for it.[2]

In their next issue, Intego spoke to an unnamed Rwandan refugee in America who gave them his analysis about the return of refugees. He told the paper, that the RDR had no chance of success because it is supported by those refugees in Goma and Bukavu who were involved in the genocide, and is equally supported by civilians and the military who led the people of Rwanda into committing genocide, adding, that those people will continue sabotaging Rwanda through small-scale attacks.[3]

This assessment associating RDR with genocide was also expressed by the former Prime Minister of the Government of genocidaires, Jean Kambanda, in his testimony to the ICTR investigators, saying that the RDR was a creation of the military and members of the MRND and CDR.[4]

It was after many months of deliberations and planning by the FAR that finally, on April 3, 1995, the political-military organization, the RDR, was born. Indeed, the initial and crucial decision to create this criminal organization, to replace the so called ‘government in exile’ had been taken by the FAR Command on September 2-8, 1994, when they met in Goma.

A second six day meeting of eleven men to formalize the creation of the political-military organisation they named the RDR, was held in Goma on March 29- April 3, 1995.[5] Its composition included  Major-General  Augustin  BIZIMUNGU (Chairman),  Brigadier-General  Gratien KABILIGI, Claver  KANYARUSHOKI, François  NZABAHIMANA, Charles NDEREYEHE, Aloys NGENDAHIMANA, Aloys RUKEBESHA, Colonel  Joseph  MURASAMONGO, Jean  Marie  Vianney  BAGEZAHO, Lieutenant  Colonel  BEM  Juvénal  BAHUFITE, and Major  CGSC  Aloys  NTABAKUZE who was their rapporteur.[6]

The chairman told the ten other participants in the meeting that the FAR “was prepared to face the RPF, but it was necessary to create a political organization capable of mobilizing the means and ensuring unity among the population for concerted action.”  Furthermore, their “interlocutors in Europe” had proposed a “credible political organization to represent the refugees.”

It is very clear from the onset that the military was to remain in charge.  The first leadership of RDR, which was made public in 1995, was its executive committee of extremist civilians. But the real power lay in the Umbrella committee, as the “decision-making politico-military organ”.[7] But they decided it should “not be official for strategic reasons”. Its members,  6 from  the  executive  committee and 4 members  of  the  FAR  command  council,  i.e.  the  FAR  Commander and  Deputy  Commander,  and 2  Division  Commander were: François  NZABAHIMANA (Chairman) and Major-General  Augustin  BIZIMUNGU as Vice/Chairman. Other members included Claver  KANYARUSHOKI, Froduald  GASAMUNYIGA, Aloys NGENDAHIMANA, Innocent  BUTARE, Denys  NTIRUGILIMBABAZI, Brigadier-General  Gratien  KABILIGI, Colonel  Tharcisse  RENZAHO and Colonel  Aloys  NTIWlRAGABO.

It was also decided to integrate the Interahamwe in the new army which would become the “RDR’s military wing”.[8]   The FAR high command reiterated that it “still consider themselves as the ‘People’s army’ and confirmed their strong willingness to work directly with and for the people.”[9]

As announced in the declaration of the creation of the RDR, in Mugunga camp on  April 3, 1995, appointed members of the Executive committee were: François Nzabahimana (Chairman); Pierre Claver Kanyarushoki (V/Chairman in charge of external relations); Aloys Ngendahimana (V/ Chairman in charge of social affairs); François Gasamunyiga, V/ Chairman in charge of economic affairs and planning; Dr. Innocent Butare (Executive Secretary); Denis Ntirugirimbabazi (Treasurer); Oscar Murayi (Advisor and chairman of the legal commission). Others with the position of advisors were Joseph Bukeye,[10] Jean Marie Vianney Ndagijimana[11], Eugenie Nyiramajoro; Donatila Nzabonimpa;  Donat Hakizimana, Jean Marie Vianney Bagezaho; Sebahakwa, Augustin Banyaga and  Cyprien Habimana.

The four key ‘goals’ of this organisation, from its establishment were:

–        To do everything possible, for the quick return of refugees, in a peaceful and honourable manner;

–        To strive for dialogue, peace and national reconciliation;

–        To represent and defend the interest of Rwandese refugees as well as all Rwandese excluded from the governance of the country; and

–        To contribute in throwing light on the tragedy of the Rwandese people in view of achieving a fair justice inside Rwanda and the impartiality of the International Tribunal on Rwanda.[12]

The president and chief ideologue of the RDR admitted in 1998 this organisation was established to bypass or circumvent the de facto embargo imposed on the “government in exile” in Zaire, and of course on other fugitives who were in positions of power during the genocide.

An RDR document published on 17 November 1998 and signed by Charles Ndereyehe revealed that it took the “refugees two months of serious thinking about setting up an organisation, which would be capable of breaking the media and diplomatic embargo affecting them.”

The document reads:

“The idea of a large organisation was born during the meeting held in Bukavu in October 1994. To circumvent the embargo which had struck the government in exile during the 2-3 months while  the  refugees  lived  in  exile,  several  series of  refugee  initiatives were launched in different places, particularly in the former Zaire and Tanzania, where more than 2 million Rwandans who fled en masse in July and August 1994 were living. But these initiatives lacked coordination. Mr. François Nzabahimana was among the organisers of this meeting, at which the refugees from Europe and the Americas were unfortunately under-represented. After two days of debates, the refugees were given 2 months for reflection before establishing an organisation which was able to break the media and diplomatic embargo under which the refugees were struggling. At the end of the first gathering of the organisation, the refugees published a charter for the rapid and peaceful return of refugees who fulfilled its requirements.”[13]

The  FAR leadership which “actively  participated  in  the  creation  of  the  RDR” but for  “strategic reasons” did not sign  the  declaration  on  its  establishment,[14]  issued  a  statement  of  support  for  the  RDR the very next day.

On April 4, 1995, in Bukavu-Zaire, this declaration was issued by the FAR high command:

“We, members of the Rwandan Armed Forces in exile, heard about the creation of the “RDR” and express our satisfaction to know that the “RDR” is an organization of refugees whose main objective is to mobilize all socio-political forces, for a quick repatriation, justice for all, the instauration of legitimate and representative institutions, the creation of a real national army, peace, and national reconciliation. Therefore we subscribe completely to the noble objectives of the RDR.”[15]

The signatories were Major-General Augustin Bizimungu, Brigadier-General Gratien Kabiligi, Colonel Murasampongo, Colonel Aloys Ntiwiragabo, Colonel Venant Musonera, Lieutenant-Colonel Juvénal Bahufite, Lieutenant-Colonel Antoine Sebahire, Lieutenant-Colonel Augustin Rwamanywa, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Rwarakabije, and Lieutenant–Colonel Edouard Gasarabwe Lieutenant- Colonel Baransalitse, Major Aloys Ntabakuze, Major Théophile Gakara, and, Major François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye.

As one can see, among the signatories of this declaration of support, were people who attended the March 29-April 3, 1995 meeting which created the RDR, and were in its leadership. The remaining signatories had participated in the meeting of September 2-8, 1994 which had initially proposed the creation of such a politico-military organisation.

Whether to make it crystal clear to all members of the previous “government in exile” that their job titles were defunct, or to enforce the desired illusion that the RDR was a break with the past, the FAR High Command issued a further declaration April 29, 1995.

“Since its creation on April 9, 1994, with the assistance of the Rwandan Armed Forces, the Government has been subjected to media and diplomatic embargo, and the Government reshuffle of November 1994 did not improve the situation. The absence of Government action for the refugees in the camps due to lack of adequate and efficient structures is remarkable.…In the search of intermediate solutions to get out of the impasse, with the refugees’ initiative, the “RDR” was recently created to address the concerns of the refugees and of the oppressed Rwandans inside the country. After examining the goal and the objectives of “RDR,” the Rwandan Armed Forces saluted this good initiative setting up an organisation that can ensure efficient supervision of the population in exile, guarantee maximum cohesion and having a media and diplomatic influence, which are preliminary conditions to the refugees’ return to their country. This is the reason why the Rwandan Armed Forces signed a declaration of support to the “RDR” on April 4, 1995….Conscious of their responsibilities and …their strong willingness to work directly with and for the people… [t]he FAR believe that the Government must be aware of its responsibilities before history, the Rwandan people in general and the refugees in particular, by supporting the refugees’ good initiative, and by resigning to let the “RDR” represent and defend their  interests. Therefore, the Government must hand in all documents it has been keeping on behalf of the people in exile. The relations between the FAR and the Government are stopped as of April 29, 1995.”[16]

The FAR’s statement, signed in Bukavu by the same group which made the first declaration in support of the RDR, tells the sincere objectives behind the creation of RDR. The real power behind the newly created organisation believed that the “government  exile” had  become  ineffective  in  serving  the  interests  of  refugees  in Zaire and of Hutu everywhere, and instead declared its unswerving support for the RDR.

The birth of RDR and its objectives were expressed in an ideological discourse which poured out hatred against the Tutsi and denial of the genocide. One of these was in the editorial of the April 1995 issue of Kangura, where Hassan Ngeze, the publisher and editor, suggests Tutsi are ridiculous, that they made the world believe that the Hutu exterminated the Tutsi race. Ngeze celebrates the crime of which he is among the perpetrators: “When they call us criminals, do they believe that we have forgotten that they exterminated the Hutus in the prefectures of Byumba, Ruhengeri and Kibungo? If we exterminated them—who is occupying the country and our houses? Why don’t they show Hutu dead bodies? All dead bodies look alike. Must we return to the country through negotiations or through war? The community must be sensitized on the merits of a political dialogue that must be privileged instead of war.”[17]

For those who knew Ngeze, it is not surprising that he started using the language of the RDR the same month this organisation was created. With a combination of menace and optimism, Ngeze asserts that the RPF knows well that “some day we will go back to our country,” and that there were only two alternatives: “starting political negotiations or go to war.” As he rightly added, everyone knows they left Rwanda with their army, and supplies in armaments were easy to obtain.[18]

Ngeze began his enthusiastic cheerleading for the RDR by showering praises on the RDR leadership, for having the special Hutu qualities key to ensuring the return of the refugees. As he put it in an article whose title can be translated as “Here are the Hutu who will ensure our return to Rwanda”, these were: the ability to infiltrate, communicate and lobby in order to convince the international community about the importance of the refugee problem; the ability to enter into dialogue and to consult with those concerned; the capacity to combine ideas and acts; the ability to use deceit and cunningness like the Tutsi; and a commitment to kill in self-defence only, and to promote fraternity among all the brothers of the same ethnic group. This, Ngeze said, was what they call the Hutu code of ethics.[19]

In the following issue of Kangura, another voice of support for the RDR was Dr. Joseph Mugenzi, a refugee in Nairobi, who had previously been in charge of the Umuravumba Pharmacy in Kigali. His interview in Kangura covered two pages. He said the RDR is an association he supports without a second thought. Mugenzi emphasised about the need to combine efforts for a dignified, secure and quick return of Rwandan refugees back to their homeland.[20]

In another Kangura interview, RDR Vice-president Aloys Ngendahimana puts it in plain words that his movement was the only one capable of representing, defending and uniting all Rwandan refugees. It was a matter of promoting the unity of Rwandans in exile. The RDR is presented as the right party to enter into negotiations with the RPF.[21]

The Genocidaires as the “Hutu”, “the people,” and “victims”

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.  In the previous chapter we saw the FAR planning for its public relations work. This scheme was again emphasized in the meeting, to formally establish RDR, when General Bizimungu spoke about his army’s readiness.

The military option had been decided and operations were on-going. After all, they were convinced it was a matter of time. As noted above, Mbonampeka had estimated the government which ousted the genocidaires would not last beyond April 1995.

From Kinshasa, Jerome Bicamumpaka, on behalf of what was dubbed as the ‘legitimate government of the Republic of Rwanda’ had issued on the July 27, 1994, a threatening and racist statement saying:

“In the absence of a determined action based on the force of law to which the RPF and its accomplices remain allergic, the Rwandan people, thus compelled and forced, will have no other choice but to resort to armed struggle to restore their inalienable rights. The legitimate government of the Republic of Rwanda, which has always sought a negotiated political settlement of the conflict and tragedy that has afflicted the Rwandan people, recommends the implementation of the following proposals and measures to definitely end the conflict and tragedy.”[22]

As if by coincidence, General Augustin Bizimungu spoke to the press in the town of Goma the very same day. He criticized the international community which, he said after “supporting the RPF”, is asking refugees to return to their country, and he felt this was “the most ignoble of complicities”.

Menacingly, he affirmed they were “capable of organizing” themselves to “resume war” inside Rwanda where they still had soldiers.

Gen. Bizimungu told reporters that he could not counsel Rwandan refugees in Zaire to return to their country unless a political solution was found to the crisis.

For him, refugees like him had run away from danger—“the minority Tutsi RPF who want to exterminate the majority Hutus,” especially its intellectuals.

True to his racist ideology, the defeated general said the new Rwandan head of state, Pasteur Bizimungu, was “a renegade who wants to satisfy his stomach” who allied himself to the RPF “because he is married to a Tutsi.”

For this general, president Bizimungu was therefore a “traitor used as a front by the RPF to deceive international opinion.”[23]

As French journalist Laurence Simon reported at the time, 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.[24]

The language used by the leaders of the “government in exile”, the FAR, and the 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.”[25] It also held the same meaning as the ‘Rwandese people’ have no trust in RPF government[26] or, are ‘victims of the brutal force unleashed on it by the Kigali regime.’[27]

Charles Ndereyehe, at the time the second president of the RDR after the departure of Francois Nzabahimana, repeated 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.[28]

As can be read from various statements before and later in this book, “the people” and “Rwandans” to the genocidaires and their friends means the Hutu.

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.”[29]

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.”[30]

They 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.”[31]

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.”[32] 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.”[33]  The RDR regarded the regime set up by RPF in Kigali as “not viable.”[34]

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”[35]

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.”[36]

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.”[37]

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?”[38]

In one of their press releases in 2002, the RDR talks about the loathed “illegitimate government, dictatorial and controlled by warmongers of the RPF”[39]  a government which had been described before, as a “permanent danger for peace in the African Great Lakes region”.[40]

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.[41] 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.”[42]

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.”[43]

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”[44] 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”[45] or “minority”[46]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,”[47] while another statement refers to “the so–called national parliament”[48] 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.”[49]

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.”[50]

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.”[51]

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

The myth of Tutsi being “foreigners” or “outsiders” is not new in Rwanda. After 1959, successive governments maintained that the Tutsi were foreigners who needed to be eradicated. Killing Tutsi by throwing them in the Nyabarongo River was considered part of sending them back to their purported origin—Ethiopia, via the River Nile.

In a more recent version of this argument, 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.”[52]

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.[53]

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.”[54]

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.’[55]

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.’[56]

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.”[57]

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.’[58]


Denial and hate

Genocide denial and genocide ideology is the founding doctrine of the RDR. In the minutes of the meeting which decided to form the RDR, there was a resolution on what they called the “genocide issue”.

Unambiguously, the founders of the RDR said that “there is no evidence of the preparation of the genocide on the part of the Rwandan people and their leaders.” Rather, they emphasize—“it is true that massacres occurred and that the RPF must mainly be held responsible for the tragedy that befell Rwanda.”[59]

The RDR denies there are any fugitives from justice among the refugees, and says that claim to the contrary are “false and dangerous:” the refugees are simply people who ran away from a country “ruled by the machine gun and the jail keys.” They are “political opponents” who need a political dialogue, and hence who “cannot return to their homeland while the evil political system, which forced them to exile, is still in place.”[60]

In the Kangura issue No 69, of May 1995 Ngeze derisively declared that it was the RPF which was responsible for genocide. In the typical manner of genocidaires to blame others for the crime for which they themselves are responsible, he said it was RPF propaganda which provoked massacres of the Tutsi.

Ngeze predicted that this RPF propaganda would endure for only two more years. And then, he asks: “What will the Tutsi do when that time comes and they realize that the 1994 genocide was prepared by the RPF?” He even claimed that some Tutsi were already aware of the emptiness of such a pyrrhic victory.[61]

In this very issue of Kangura, there was also a mention of a document which was published by the NGO Solidairé-Rwanda in October 1994, giving a list of alleged sites of RPF massacres and the number of victims, an RDR appeal to the international community to stop the RPF abuses, and a warning to the media against being manipulated. It was made public on April 27, 1995 at Mugunga by Dr. Innocent Butare, the RDR’s Executive Secretary.[62]

These spirals into the depths of denial are found not only throughout the RDR’s writings, but also in the writings of their European friends. The racist description of Tutsis as liars is found in the early RDR Press releases.

In one such press release are presented accusations such as: “The RPF has so much benefited from its policy of lying that it has institutionalised it.” (…) “The RPF has developed in a refined manner the art of lying.”[63] Thus, the release states: “The international community has come to consider the aggressed as aggressor and the aggressor as the aggressed; the main killers who in fact launched the war in October 1990 are today considered as victims of genocide”.[64]

The same arguments appear, for example, in the writings of the notorious French genocide denier Pierre Péan and the Spanish hate-monger Juan Carrero.

It is my firm conviction that genocide scholars analysing the discourse of the genocidaires and their friends will certainly agree with Alex Alvarez, who fittingly says: “Invariably, genocide receives much of its perceived legitimacy from professionals who provide the ideological, intellectual, scientific, and legal underpinnings for the destruction of a specific group. Because of their status and visibility certain professions are very important in legitimating the destructive actions of their states. Lawyers, doctors, and scientists often justify genocide by providing “vocabularies of motive” that frame the genocidal actions in such a way as to make it acceptable and palatable for the mass of a society.”[65] Alvarez borrowed the term “vocabularies of motive”, from C. Wright Mills, “Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive,” American Sociological Review 5 (1940)

The genocidaires, and especially the intellectuals who led them, never admit committing that crime. They know very well that what they do is a crime punishable by law. That is why they deny it and attribute it to others.

In June 1996, members of the RDR’s Cameroon branch released a typical genocide denial statement to validate genocide. The original text, which was in French, has the title: “Le conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU Induit en erreur sur Pretendu ‘Genocide Tutsi’ au Rwanda”. The text used in this book is the English translation by the ICTR, (United Nations Security Council Misled About the Presumed ‘Tutsi genocide’ Rwanda) as a Prosecution Exhibit tendered in court on October 11, 2006 as Exhibit No P419B in Case No ICTR-98-41-T and also as Exhibit No P161 (E) on 20 February 2007 in Case No ICTR-99-50-T RDR Cameroon Wing.

The signatories of this document were: Col. Theoneste BAGOSORA,[66] Dr. Ferdinand NAHIMANA, Jean Bosco RARAYAGWIZA, AnatoIe NSENGIYUMVA, Laurent  SEMANZA,  Telesphore BIZIMUNGU, Andre  NTAGERURA, Jean-Baptiste BUTERA, Augustin RUZINDANA,  Col. Felicien MUBERUKA,  Michel BAKUZAKUNDI[67]  and  Pasteur MUSABE (+).[68]

This group of thinkers for the RDR is very categorical in denying the established facts of history. They said “there was neither “Tutsi genocide” nor any “genocide” at all in Rwanda.”[69]

Thus the use of  the word “genocide”, according to these genocidaires,  was born of a campaign “expertly orchestrated  by  the  RPF  and  its  allies  to  gain  all  the  sympathy  of  the  international  community  in a war they  resumed and which they saw as a final solution.”[70]

Knowing the seriousness of their crime, this RDR group says: “The word “genocide” gives one the shivers; it immediately arouses widespread disapproval, and an overwhelming urge for repression.  The word “genocide” warrants prompt, concrete measures that are supposed to yield visible results against the perpetrators of that “genocide”.[71]

The RDR brings into play the argument of self-defence throughout their writings. The RDR Cameroun branch made up of ideologues and planners of genocide, thus accuses the UN Special Rapporteur of not being conversant with the social, political and historic realities of Rwanda, and of compiling his report on the basis of information furnished by persons who were implicated in the conflict. Otherwise, so they say, “he would have noted that those massacres had always stemmed from extremism, arrogance and murderous provocation by certain members of the Tutsi population (…)”.[72]

The RDR Cameroon branch talks about a “wave of inter-ethnic insecurity” which occurred after an alleged “large scale drafting of Tutsi youth into the RPF and the attendant systematic insubordination against established authority”.[73]

They see no falsehood at all, in portraying Tutsi as “bloodthirsty, power-hungry” and “determined to impose their rule on the people of Rwanda by means of the gun…” [74]

Therefore, they argue that: “…denouncing the danger constituted by the Tutsis regaining power by arms should not be tantamount to incitement to ethnic hatred and violence”.[75] Thus they defend the incendiary RTLM radio, of which all the authors of the document were shareholders urging that the RTLM was merely “Denouncing the enemy’s manoeuvres, boosting the morale of the resistance fighters, and denouncing the crimes already committed by the RPF.”[76]

The RDR Cameroon branch’s genocide denial is quite similar to that of their genocidal interim government during the genocide itself. By April 8, 1994, genocide was already underway in many parts of Rwanda—especially Kigali and many parts in the east.

Many people including anti-genocide members of the previous government and the president of the Constitutional Court had been killed, and the systematic slaughter of Tutsis was gathering steam. Genocidal killings were fully taking place. Yet in a special announcement from the Ministry of Defence, there was no mention of that situation. It simply spoke about security being merely “disrupted”, due to “some soldiers who, because they were angry, escaped from their barracks and attacked and harmed the population.”[77]

The Ministry did not admit there were massacres. Rather in a veiled discourse, it announced: “The armed forces once again urge the people to be vigilant and help them stop the wrongdoers.”[78] In practice, “stop the wrong doers” meant “kill the Tutsis and those who do not want to kill the Tutsis”.  The Ministry claimed the armed forces were doing everything possible to protect “those in trouble”, and asked “the people” to assist the armed forces so that they can “continue to maintain security.” The announcement concludes with a slogan of the ultra-extremist Hutu-Power party, the CDR: “Stay alert.”

Similarly, the new “interim government’s” Prime Minister Jean Kambanda announced in an April 9, 1994 speech that the commitment of his government was to provide “security for people and property, and restoring understanding among the people and, “restoring peace and pacifying Rwandans” over coming weeks. All this would be done “with only the welfare of the people at heart and not personal or group interests.”

Rwandans and the friends of Rwanda were reminded by the Prime Minister of the country’s critical situation, whereby the “contribution of everyone is necessary so that we can solve the difficult problems.”[79]

Kambanda announced that a top priority of his government was the “effective management of state affairs, notably by restoring order and the security of people and property”.  Once again, “Rwandans, friends of Rwanda” were requested to “double their vigilance.”

In practice, alertness and maintenance of vigilance were meant to convey the message of tracking down the “defined enemy,” i.e. the Tutsi. Ensuring effective security of the people was a metaphor or codeword for the extermination of the Tutsi.

The language of denial is part of the process of extermination. In his April 9, 1994, inaugural speech, interim President Sindikubwabo said the country needed the “strength of its children.” He thanks and expresses support to those who acted swiftly after the death of the president and “did their utmost, as always, to preserve the peace of Rwandans,” especially in the capital, Kigali.[80] As if the dead and the dying were none of his business.

What Sindikubwabo said was later echoed by the RDR, in defence of the Interahamwe: “The noun Interahamwe is used to signify men determined to walk together, to accomplish good deeds for the benefit of the country.”[81] The RDR adds that from April 6 to July 1994 the term Interahamwe meant: “Rwandans opposed to the RPF taking power by force”.[82]

In mid-May 1994, the President of the Interahamwe, Robert Kajuga, was interviewed by a French reporter, Jean Helene. He told him that the massacres of the Tutsi were the results of fate rather than of any deliberate plan.

Asked if the militia were organised; his answer was: “They are not organized – no way, no way, no way. You have to see the situation: the President died, and after three hours, the population really did not understand what was going on. They saw their neighbours next door who had guns to kill everyone – well, they just defended themselves.”

[Q] Are you collaborating with the army in this form of civilian defence?[83]

[A] Hmm. Well, we just exchange advice. Otherwise there are really no regular contacts with the army. We are just doing our best not to disturb the army. If the army asks us to leave a spot, we leave it, but we help the army to defend the country.[84]

Jerome Bicamumpaka, on his May 1994 tour to meet friends of genocidaires in Europe, told the German TV reporter Beate Mueller-Blattau that the Rwandans, fleeing to Tanzania at the time, were Hutu running away from the mostly Tutsis RPF rebels who are taking revenge for the Hutu army’s massacres of the civilians.

Bicamumpaka spoke about RPF soldiers attacking Rwanda “from the neighbouring country of Uganda.” During these attacks, he said, they carried out massacres of the civilian population, because these people had helped the army when the RPF opened fire.

Still, to avoid admitting genocide was the main preoccupation of his government, so Bicamumpaka said: “… the rebels had infiltrated their fighters into private houses, which belonged to people who are accomplices of the RPF. The Rwandan army then did the following. They attacked the houses of the RPF-sympathizers in order to get hold of the rebels. Civilians were killed in the process. Incidentally, those who were hiding RPF-rebels in Kigali were predominantly Tutsis.”[85]

In a remarkable instruction handbook prepared by the “Rwandan Government in exile” for those of its members likely face trial for genocide by the ICTR, the state that: “contrary to what the authorities in Kigali claim, if there had been a genocide organized by the Hutu, no Tutsi would have been spared. However, due to the continuous Hutu extermination, the Tutsi organized a real genocide against the Tutsi themselves.”[86] They then generalise that “every person who followed the situation closely” easily realizes that imposing the crime of genocide on the Hutu, was an RPF ploy to avoid any negotiations with those they consider “genocidaires…”[87]

This “Rwandan Government in exile” had earlier written and published a document which was meant for the UN Commission for Human Rights.

Using again a metaphorical language of hate and justification of the genocide against the Tutsi, the authors urge that: “One should not forget that the RPF was conceived and created just to kill, it has been killing in the past, and to-day it continues to kill.”[88]

Jean Bosco Barayagwiza, a genocidaire convicted by the ICTR, and a member of the RDR, also blames everything on the RPF: “The Planners and conceivers of the massacres are the RPF and its allies. The executing mercenaries are the RPF troops, and the foreign mercenaries are the Ugandans, Tanzanians and Burundians.”[89]

Barayagwiza’s associate in the genocide enterprise and in the RDR, and also convicted by the ICTR, Ferdinand Nahimana, in a book he published the same month the RDR was officially born, also denies the genocide, attributing it to the “war launched by the RPF which culminated in the killings that followed the assassination of President Habyarimana and the terrible hostilities which brought the RPF to power after sending 4,000,000 people into exile.”[90] He further says “the RPF itself is the principal culprit who must not hide behind those it accuses.”[91]

In the same vein, the RDR in their Press Release of December 30, 1996 asked the ICTR to get more involved in the genocide trials then underway in  Rwanda, on the grounds that the RPF had been the “master planner and architect of the so-called October War which had sowed the seeds of the massacres”, (…) and because the RPF were a front for Anglo-Saxons and were denying suspects basic rights of the defence like the “right to plead in a language of their choice, just to accommodate English-speaking prosecutors.”[92]

This statement by RDR to deny genocide by justifying it is not hit or miss. It is a verbal skill found amongst genocidaires and their friends. The government in exile’s instruction handbook for the accused at the ICTR says, “It is obvious that the Hutu and Tutsi who were killed during the violence started by the vile assassination of president HABYARIMANA, were killed because they were part of the same diabolical plan of exterminating the Hutu, modestly called “satellites” of Habyarimana. From then, it is absurd to talk of a genocide committed by the Hutu against the Tutsi. The Hutu did nothing more, during the sad events triggered by the RPF, than exercise their right to self-defence to escape extermination.”[93]

Barayagwiza repeats the same: “With the Tutsi on the other hand, domination, murders and selective massacres of the Hutu forced the latter to take measures of self-defense and into reprisals. The Hutus never elaborated a doctrine aiming at exterminating the Tutsi like the Nazi. The Hutu reaction stems from pure self-defense and in no circumstance can it be qualified as an act of genocide.”[94]

Nahimana also justifies genocide when he says that since the death of Habyarimana was “the main trigger” of what he calls the most “serious” and most “catastrophic” time for the “Rwandan people”.  He comes to a conclusion that, “The perpetrators of this death are therefore the real people responsible for the massacres that occurred in Rwanda. [95]

In April 1994, the Minister of Planning in the interim Kambanda government, Augustin Ngirabatware, went to Gabon to meet President Omar Bongo, of Gabon. He told a radio reporter, Eugene Lamberne, in Libreville, that through the “RPF media campaign and that of its acolytes – the world has received information solely from the RPF which, we know, is often full of lies.”

He was then asked: “What is your government saying about the massacres?” The answer was: “The RPF is directly and indirectly responsible for these massacres. Undeniably, the RPF – probably with external support – assassinated President Habyarimana. All the other massacres that followed in Rwanda and the ethnic troubles originated from the assassination of the president of the republic.”[96]

Just as the 1995 instruction handbook for genocidaires advised them to deny everything and charge the RPF with the genocide, RDR discourse commonly portrayed the Kigali government as a genocidal regime.

In 1997 for example, the RDR described the situation in Rwanda as “increasingly unbearable” and what they asserted as the beginning of the “long-dreamed RPF hard liners’ policy of ethnic and political cleansing;” the Kigali government was “busy weeding out prisoners” who had refused to succumb to its trap of forcing them to plead guilty.”[97]

The RDR charged the RPF with “rampant genocide” against the Hutu population,[98] a genocide which they said was “planned and executed” and demonstrated the “true nature of this criminal regime” which has no other project than “the extermination of one section of the Rwandan population.”[99]



Genocide as beneficial

Genocide denial is intended to further deepen the injury to survivors, to isolate them and to silence them as witnesses. The perpetrators of the genocide against the Tutsis have thus sought to perpetuate and reinforce the world’s indifference about their victims.

Accordingly, the above mentioned document prepared by the ideologues and planners of the genocide who resurfaced as members of RDR Cameroun branch, noted that genocide was something which “generates instinctive coalition and sympathy for the victims.” What’s more, they said, in the case of Rwanda, “the number of victims, and macabre pictures which were projected on the television screens, and photographs published on cover pages with captions indicating that the victims were Tutsis,  … was intended to forge a spirit of solidarity with  the  Tutsis  throughout  the  world,  while  whipping  up  a  sentiment of  reprobation towards the Hutus.”[100]

Additionally they charge that the use of the term “genocide” to designate what they insist on calling “interethnic massacres” was adopted by the RPF to get sympathy and enlist the assistance of the international community, and “was exploited to stop the Tutsi criminals from being bothered by the ICTR”[101]

They regret that because of the use of the word genocide, erstwhile allies of the interim government “refrained from supporting it” for fear of being labelled allies of the “genocide perpetrators.”[102]

The RDR Cameroon branch called for the treatment and policy towards the Hutu refugees in host countries to be reviewed, and demanded that the expression “genocide of the Tutsi” which was “used as capital by the RPF”, should be “reconsidered and cease being used to demonize an entire people.”[103]

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 is described by his colleague Professor René Lemarchand as an eminent and reliable analyst of the Rwandan political scene on the eve of the genocide, and as the most reliable source on post-genocide developments in Rwanda.[104]

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.[105]

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.”[106]

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.”[107]

What Reyntjens expresses is very common among the friends of Hutu extremism who wish to portray the genocide against the Tutsi as “manipulation.” One of these friends, who will be discussed at length later, is Juan Carrero, who says that, “The manipulation of the term “genocide” by Kigali is simple enough: It is carried out in three phases. First it has to do with imposing an easily understood way of looking at things: good guys and bad guys, cowboys and Indians, assassins and victims, Hutus and Tutsis. For this they have no hesitation to use the media, exhibiting dead bodies, lies and half-truths. They play insistently on the emotions of an ignorant public and also on a good number of ignorant politicians. In the second phase, the public opinion thus established is consecrated and repeated until it turns into sacred and untouchable proof. It is convenient to use big slogans made up of words intended to shock, such as genocide, mock trials, death squads, revisionism, minimalism, planned extermination… Anyone who would raise their voice is condemned beforehand”.[108]

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.”

Carrero’s arguments mirror those of the FAR perfectly. The FAR writes that “for the RPF, the ethnic massacres were deliberately termed the genocide of the Tutsi at the hands of the Hutu in order to mislead public opinion and cover up the Hutu genocide, which was carefully prepared by RPF before and during the war and even currently, but about which the international community remains silent”.[109] The FAR continues to say 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.”[110]

Carrero argues that the current government of Rwanda uses “genocide” as an excuse to commit extensive crimes against the Hutu population. Throughout his work, refers to the beginning of the conflict happening when the RPF “invaded” Rwanda in 1990, and to the genocide of 1994 as “events”. He argues that the RPF uses the term genocide as a self-defence tactic. He even goes as far as to blame the RPF for the genocide, saying that the RPF knew what would happen to the Tutsis in Rwanda but saw this as acceptable collateral damage that would allow the RPF to establish a dictatorship in Rwanda, gain power in the region, and get better access to the mineral rich Congo (Zaire at the time).[111]

Carrero often finds support in the writings of Christophe Hakizabera, who wrongfully claims to be a former member of the RPF, but who fled Rwanda to join fellow genocide deniers and ideologues in the FDLR. Hakizabera is someone who urges that: “It is obvious that Kagame needed a Tutsi bloodbath as a later justification for the planned extermination of the Hutus and in order to broadcast far and wide the genocide that has today become an inexhaustible blank cheque for the legitimisation of his regime.”[112]

Nyarubuye is a well known site in the southeast Rwanda where thousands of Tutsis were massacred in or around a parish church. As this occurred was under the leadership of the FAR and the communal administration of Sylvester Gacumbitsi, who was convicted by the ICTR for, among other things, his participation in the massacre at that parish church. Despite this unquestionable truth, for the RDR, “…Nyarubuye is a golden opportunity to justify [the RPF’s] 4-year guerrilla war, and for the national and international community to forgive and forget that it took over power at the expense of more than 1 million citizens massacred.”[113]

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.”[114]

The Union of Rwandese Democratic Forces (UFDR), in their Press Release No January 23, 2000 with a title: “UFDR is convinced that any lasting solution to the war in the DRC will never end without finding an acceptable solution to the Rwandese crisis” had a similar message.

They maintained some UN Security Council members had succumbed to the propaganda of the Kigali government and therefore associate all the opponents of that regime with genocidaires, and agitate the scarecrow of “Interahamwe” militiamen and a permanent danger of genocide against the remaining Tutsis of Rwanda.

The UFDR, an umbrella organisation, whose most influential member was the RDR, asserts this was a diversionary strategy developed by the regime in Kigali in order to cover up its countless crimes including a “rampant genocide against innocent civilian Hutu population, in a diabolical scheme of achieving numerical parity between the two ethnic groups.”[115] The press release was signed by Charles Ndereyehe.

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.[116]

[1] Calls to the International witch hunting of so called “intimidators” in Eastern Zaire are misconceived. RDR PRESS RELEASE Nº106 November 15, 1996

[2] News in Brief, Intego N° 0 (sic!), p. 17

[3] A story by Amiel Nkuriza, Intego n° 1, p. 9 to 11

[4] See: Tom Ndahiro in “After Genocide”

[5] Prosecution Exhibit No P191B Tendered on 25 October 2002 in Case No ICTR-99-52-T. Minutes of MEETING OF 29 MARCH-3  APRIL 1995

[6] Ibid, p.1

[7] Ibid, p.4

[8]  Ibid. ICTR Exhibit P191B p.8

[9]Declaration of the High Command of the Rwandan armed forces after its meeting of 28 to 29 April 1995 in Bukavu (Author’s Archives)

[10] He is one of the people who penetrated or was deployed  to work in the ICTR as defence investigator, and he is one of the “Obnoxious Petitioners”

[11] See the chapter which talks about Obnoxious Petitioners. He is the Chairman of La Fédération Internationale des Associations Rwandaises (The international federation of Rwandan associations).

[12] These objectives appeared in RDR’s PRESS RELEASE No 1.Nairobi, 20th April 1995 on


[14] Ibid. ICTR Exhibit P191B p.7

[15] The document is in the author’s archives

[16] In a Declaration of the high Command of the Rwandan Armed Forces after its meeting of 28 to 29 April 1995, Bukavu, document in author’s archives.

[17] Editorial: If the Tutsi call us criminals, why are they inciting us into going to war? By: Hassan Ngeze. Kangura n° 68, April 1995, pages 1 and 2

[18] Kangura N° 68, April 1995, page 2

[19]Hassan Ngeze, Kangura n° 68, April 1995, pages 9 – 14

[20] Interview with Dr. Joseph Mugenzi: Kangura n° 69, May 1995, pages 9 and 10

[21] The communiqué about the creation of the RDR as well as that of the FAR expressing their support to the RDR were published by Kangura from page 13 to 15 as part of RDR’s campaign  in Kangura n° 69, May 1995, pages 11 – 15

[22] Voix du Zaire, 27 July 94

[23]AFP news agency, 27 July 94

[24] France Inter Radio, 26 July 94

[25] Ibid.

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

[28] 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: (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[37]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:

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

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

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

[41] 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


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

[45] Ibid,

[46] Ibid,

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

[48] Ibid

[49] Ibid

[50] Ibid

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

1998 is available on

[53] Ibid.

[55] 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:

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

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

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

[59] Ibid. ICTR Exhibit P191B  p.8


[61] Kangura n° 69, May 1995, pages 8 and 9

[62] Kangura N° 69, May 1995, pages 14 and 15

[63] RDR-PRESS RELEASE Nº 6 Mugunga, May 24, 1995


[65]Alex Alvarez, Justifying Genocide: The Role of Professionals in Legitimizing Mass Killing
first Published in IDEA-A journal of Social issues, December 20, 2001 — Vol.6, no.1 Also read

[66] Bagosora, Nahimana, Barayagwiza, Nsengiyumva, and Semanza, have all been convicted of genocide by the ICTR.

[67] Bakuzakundi Michel, like Nahimana,was a founder member of the CRP

[68] He died in Cameroun and was a young brother of Bagosora.

[69] Ibid, RDR Cameroun 1996 p.36

[70] Ibid, RDR Cameroon  June 1996 p.4

[71] Ibid, RDR Cameroon  June 1996 p.5

[72] Ibid, RDR Cameroon  June 1996 p.7

[73] Ibid, RDR Cameroon 1996  p.8

[74] Ibid, RDR Cameroon 1996  p.11

[75] Ibid, RDR Cameroon  1996  p.11

[76] Ibid, RDR Cameroon 1996  p.29

[77] Radio Rwanda April 8, 1994

[78] Ibid, Radio Rwanda April 8,1994

[79] Radio Rwanda, 9 April 94

[80] Radio Rwanda, 9 April 94

[81] Ibid, RDR Cameroun, 1996 p.31

[82] Ibid, RDR Cameroun, 1996 p.33

[83] It is truly remarkable how easily this French journalist adopted the “civil defence” codeword for extermination as if it was conventional.

[84] RFI, May 15, 1994

[85] Ibid,

[86] VADE MECUM DES JUSTICIABLES DU TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL POUR LE  RWANDA. (T.I.R) Par le Gouvernement Rwandais en exil, Ministère de la Justice, Bukavu, Novembre 1995/ Vade Mecum of those to be tried by the international tribunal for rwanda (ICTR)  By the Rwandan Government in exile, Ministry of Justice, Bukavu, November 1995 (p. 6) [Author’s archives]

[87] Ibid p. 6

[88]LE PEUPLE RWANDAIS ACCUSE, Bukavu, le 21 septembre 1994/THE RWANDAN PEOPLE ACCUSES, A document prepared by the Government in exile. Bukavu, 21/09/1994 p.10 Was presented as Prosecution exhibit No P.129 in Case No. ICTR-99-50-T on August 29, 2006. Also in the author’s archives.

[89]Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA, LE SANG HUTU EST-IL ROUGE? Yaounde, 1995. IS HUTU BLOOD RED? (BY Jean Bosco BARAYAGWIZA) (p. 140) Was presented as defence exhibit in “the Media Trial” No. ICTR-99-52-T on May 31, 2002 as DEF.EXH.2D35

[90] Ferdinand NAHIMANA, RWANDA.  L’ELITE HUTU ACCUSEE/ THE HUTU ELITE ACCUSED, April 1995. p. 17 was presented as Defence exhibit No ID 103 in Case No. ICTR-99-52-T on May 31, 2006.

[91] Ibid,  THE HUTU ELITE ACCUSED… p. 18

[92] RDR-PRESS RELEASE Nº113 December 30,1996

[93] Vade mecum p. 13

[94] Barayagwiza p. 140

[95] Nahimana p.20 The author say: “Not finding those people and not bringing them to justice would be the wrong step in the search for an explanation for the events that took place in this country through judgments delivered by the international tribunal; it would be discrediting the international community in general and the United Nations Organization in particular.”

[96] Africa No. 1 Radio, 27 April 94

[97] RDR-PRESS RELEASE Nº 115 January 20, 1997 –Flare-up of killings and disappearances in Rwanda See:



[100] Ibid, RDR Cameroun  1996 p. 5

[101] Ibid, RDR Cameroun  1996 p. 36

[102] Ibid,Cameroon Doc. 1996  p.5

[103] Ibid,Cameroon Doc p.37

[104] René Lemarchand, Rwanda: The State of Research (November 2007) in Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence ISSN 1961-9898 – Edited by Jacques Semelin Read on

[105] 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)

[106] Ibid, p.198

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

[108] Saralegui, J. C. (2002). The Case of the Great Lakes Region. Paths and Stumbling Blocks to Peace in Africa. Madrid: Conference on Anthroplogy and Missionary Work.,

[109] FAR (1995) “Contribution of FAR to the Search for Truth on the Rwandan Tragedy.” (p.5)

[110]Ibid FAR  (1995) (p.17-18)

[111] Saralegui, J. C. (2002). The Case of the Great Lakes Region. Paths and Stumbling Blocks to Peace in Africa. Madrid: Conference on Anthroplogy and Missionary Work.,

[112] Inshuti. (1999, November 19). Letter of Support to the candidature of Juan Carrero Saralegui for the Nobel Peace prize of the year 2000. Manresa, Catalonia, Spain.,

[113]RDR Document, Rwandese crisis: The other side of the story -July 1996 See:

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

[115] UFDR Press Release nº18 Brussels, January 23, 2000 See :

[116] 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

  1. […] Chapter IV: The RDR or disguised genocidaires […]