Friends of evil (Chapter 8): Rwandan civil society in exile–villains posturing as victims

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

After the departure of Frans Van Hoof and Ivan Godfroid, the Rwandan NGOs in areas controlled by the genocidal interim government effectively went to work. And already, on June 21, 1994, the newly created Collective for Emergency Aid and the Bureau for Coordination of Humanitarian Interventions of the NGOS in Rwanda sent an open letter to the Northern NGOs, their partners[1].

The letter was not meant to denounce all the NGOs which had left Rwanda the day after the start of the “war by the RPF”, but only some of them.

The letter noticeably, not only condemns the abandonment, the lack of solidarity shown by the Northern NGOs; but it particularly denounces the attitude of some Northern NGOs who, far from attempting to collect truthful information, and coming to the help of the victims of the war in the whole country, instead, actively took part in the conflicts by, among other things, giving direct or indirect help to those who started this bloody war (the RPF); it condemns those who imposed the humanitarian embargo against the victims of this bloody war, as well as those who only intervene in areas occupied by the RPF.

The Collective hopes for a quick return of those who stayed neutral, asks them to come and see ‘up close the distress of this population’, and to “ ‘support or complete the self-help initiatives taken locally in the different refugee sites of this population condemned to wander like people without any rights. The Collective invites its Northern partner NGOs to mobilize resources to help their brothers, sisters, parents and friends, without food, shelter, clothing, and future.”[2]

As we can see, most of the open letter to the Northern NGOs focuses on the misfortune of the Hutu people, and the blame is entirely attributed to the RPF war. There is total silence over the Tutsi genocide. The letter attacks the NGOs which “betrayed” the genocidaires and collaborated with “the RPF government”.

It is once more a barely veiled way of denying the genocide against the Tutsi by distracting people’s attention (the NGO world, the Churches) from the real problem (the genocide) and orienting them towards lesser problems to which they are more sensitive such as hunger, epidemics, etc.

Two days later, on June 23, 1994, the RWANDAN NGOs and CIVIL SOCIETY made their declaration concerning the French intervention (Operation Turquoise). While criticizing the international community and claiming to be victims of misinformation calculated to tarnish Rwanda’s image, they express gratitude to France for understanding the situation her friends were caught in, and wanting to help them get out of it.

They naturally condemn those who are against the French intervention, i.e. “those who led the country into the disaster everyone knows it is in, who are happy to see millions of human beings kill each other for their selfish interests.” [3]

Here, one can clearly recognize the accusations of the same Collective of Rwandan NGOs against the RPF, whom they accuse of being responsible for the genocide, stubbornly refusing to recognize the interim government, refusing any compromise and resuming the war.

This firm position taken by the Collective of Rwandan NGOs will remain a paradigm in different interventions of the Collective. Their constant slogan is: if there is genocide, the RPF is fully responsible, and therefore all others are innocent.

On July 26, 1994, the same Collective of Rwandan NGOs published its report on “the question on interethnic relations.” [4] This report aims to categorically deny the genocide; it talks instead of “the drama that befell Rwanda and the ethnic group massacres which started on April 6, 1994 and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in a very short period of time.”

The Collective of Rwandan NGOs asserted that it “had to take a stand relating to the recent evolution of the Rwandan problem and trace future prospects in the search for harmony for the society and lasting peace for Rwanda”[5].

In this context, the Collective blames the RPF for every factor which contributed to the deterioration of relations between Hutu and Tutsi: “the continuous attacks of the Inyenzi (name the rebels who attacked Rwanda from neighbouring countries since 1960 gave themselves), the October 1990 war (attributed to the ethnic question for two reasons : the name ‘’Inkotanyi’’ adopted by the armed group made reference to the King’s close guards during the feudal-monarchist period, then the high ranking officials of the RPF army were almost exclusively sons of old dignitaries who reminded everyone of the time of the Inyenzi. There is also the non-application of the Arusha Agreements, the death of the Head of State and the institutional vacuum which followed the resumption of the war by the RPF.”

The Collective even dares affirm that “the interim government had organized a pacification campaign by government officials and other leaders in the country. Slogans were continuously played on the national radio to call the population to remain calm, but the effectiveness of these actions was limited due to the psychosis the population had suffered for four years of war, the stubbornness of the RPF not to recognize the government and agree to negotiations, and most especially due to the advance of the RPF on all fronts.”[6]

In reality of course, the slogans aired over the National Radio and RTLM radio throughout the country were those inciting the population to “work”—a term understood by the Hutu population to mean killing Tutsis, destroying and burning their houses.

The Collective insists on denying any direct responsibility of the interim Government, as well as any individual or Collective responsibility apart from that of the RPF during the genocide. The Collective justifies itself by saying that NGOs and human rights associations failed because the RPF stubbornly refused to recognize the Government in place, thereby refusing any compromise and starting the war again.

The Collective also tries to define RTLM radio—notorious for inciting the Hutu population to pursue and exterminate the Tutsis—as a defensive operation. It says that the RTLM “was practically born to counter radio Muhabura”[7] (the RPF radio station) which, according to the Collective, also incited to hatred.

The Collective thus argues that the RPF was therefore indirectly responsible for the massacre of the Tutsis by inciting the population to kill the Tutsis, and concludes that the RPF voluntarily used the massacre of the Tutsis to seize power: “The RPF should have realized that its behaviour could incite the population to massacre the Tutsis, unless they wanted to use this element as a pretext to seize power”[8].

The Collective accuses the international community of having imposed an arms embargo against the Rwandan government, therefore facilitating the rapid advance of the RPF on all fronts.

Concerning the massacres, the stand of the Collective in its July 1994 declaration is the same as the one later expressed by Rwandan émigré advocates of “Hutu power” in Europe. It denies the genocide and seeks to exonerate the genocidaires, while heaping all the blame on the RPF.

The Collective uses a number of arguments which, according to them, show that “the RPF is directly involved in the massacres of Tutsis and bears responsibility for what happened”[9]. It claims that the RPF went on with the recruitment of soldiers although the country had just signed the Arusha Agreements. “Their fund-raising campaigns also went on, the behaviour of the RPF as soon as it entered Kigali forced the MRND, the former unique party in power, to enter into confrontation mood and prepare for war, the resumption of the war by the RPF after the assassination of the Head of State and their stubborn refusal to recognize the interim government.”[10]

As an obvious solution to relieve the ordeal the refugees had been going through for four years, and to achieve national reconciliation, the NGOs propose, as they did at Froidmont[11], the dissolution of the government which was set up after the defeat of genocidaires. They wish for a compromise in the Arusha Agreements, that the responsibilities of each party be established, that the voice of the people be listened to, that power be equally shared and that the population be represented in the political and administrative structures. They also propose reintegration of the refugees (old and new) into their property, this with the help of the international community.

On July 29, 1994, the exiled NGOs also members of the Collective, in Bukavu sent their “analysis of the socio-political situation in Rwanda” to the Belgian NGOs COOPIBO, Vredeseilanden and SOS FAIM[12].

The self-proclaimed objective of this meeting of Rwandan NGOs in Bukavu was to think about the Rwandan “drama” (the term genocide seems taboo to them), its causes, and possible solutions. In addition, they intended to study conditions for the return of the refugees, without forgetting the role to be played by the NGOs in all this. They report that millions of Hutus and Tutsis are dead. Of what? They avoid saying there was a genocide in Rwanda, or advance their thesis of a double genocide. They report that: “Rwanda seems totally empty of its population who live in exile,”[13] and deplore the plight of “millions of refugees in exile.” They gloss over the identity of these refugees, who, of course, are definitely not Tutsi, since the Tutsi were largely exterminated.

Additionally, the NGOs still count on the genocidal Government, but deplore the breakup of the Hutu cohesion into two antagonistic communities. They cite a myriad of other causes of the “Rwandan drama”, including the struggle for power, the reference to ethnicity, economic problems, misunderstanding and mismanagement of the multiparty system since 1959, the absence of civil society opposition as a third force, the complicity of the international community and the mass media, the bias of UNAMIR in the Rwandan conflict in favour of the RPF, the periodic attacks of the Inyenzi and finally Uganda which shelters the RPF.

They cite another factor, with deep roots in extremist Hutu ideology: that Hutus have a bad memory of the feudal-monarchic regime. They do not, of course, cite the planning of genocide against the Tutsis.

As a way out of this crisis, the Rwandan NGOs advocate for five strategies, and it is not by chance that their strategies correspond to those proposed earlier by Froidmont, Nzabahimana and NCOS: give the right of expression to the population (democracy), promote political pluralism, reinforce civil society, ensure transparent elections, and install political mechanisms which protect the parties which are not in power. What they mean here is, the political parties which were behind the genocide.

The Rwandan NGOs also tackle the issue of the return of refugees and national reconciliation. Conditions which, it will be recalled, had already been proposed by Nzabahimana. The Rwandan NGOs think that for the return[14] of the refugees, a government of national unity which doesn’t exclude anyone should be put in place, the refugees should be repatriated in an organized manner, the deaths of presidents Habyarimana and Ntaryamira should be investigated and a neutral and competent tribunal should be established to identify, judge and condemn the culprits of both the RPF and the interim government. They recall the extent of the massacres perpetrated since October 1990 (since the war started), and finally, call for free and democratic elections to be organized under the aegis of the International Community.

Participants[15], as indicated in the footnote, included people like Innocent Butare who would later become the Executive Secretary of the RDR, and Marie Beatrice Umutesi.

Two months later, in October 13-29, 1994, another mission is jointly organized by three Belgian NGOs, namely COOPIBO, VREDESILANDEN and SOS-FAIM, to evaluate the work done by the Rwandan NGOs. Participating in this mission was Marie Goretti Nyirarukundo and once again Ivan Godfroid, respectively coordinator of the COOPIBO program in Rwanda and Kivu and in charge of programs in Africa within COOPIBO.

The ostensible objective of the mission was to ensure the follow-up of the programs of the Rwandan NGOs in Goma and Bukavu, collecting as much recent information as possible, to fuel the work of the Rwandan cell of the Belgian consortium (composed of COOPIBO VREDESILANDEN and SOS-FAIM) informing all the partners of the Collective, and contacting all the partners of COOPIBO in Kivu for a minimal follow-up of activities.

They would also visit Rwanda to identify new ways of collaboration with the Rwandan NGOs inside the country, to stimulate the exchange between the NGOs inside and outside the country. They would also seek a quick reinforcement of the consortium’s permanent delegation in Kigali, as a way of reinstalling a full-time representative, and identify ways to distribute the magazine “Traits d’Union-Rwanda” inside as well as outside the country.

It is worth noting that this mission, called “THE RWANDAN NGOS AND REHABILITATION… ” was the fourth organized by COOPIBO and its partners since the beginning of the genocide. The first was in May 1994 to do some preliminary scouting and establish contacts—primarily with perpetrators of genocide and their future public relations organisations in the guise of NGOs.

The second was organized at the beginning of July 1994 after the great flight of Rwandan refugees towards Cyangugu and Gisenyi.

In the meantime COOPIBO had been joined by Vredeseilanden and SOS-FAIM, and the mission was dispatched to Goma to participate in the creation of the Collective of the Rwandan NGOs and the fine tuning of a six-month emergency programme.

After the final victory of the RPF, two French NGOs, Groupe Développement and Frères des Hommes-Toulouse joined the Belgian consortium to make a request for funds from the European Union. In the available reports, it is not clear how and why they linked up.

In late August to early September 1994, a third mission of the Consortium COOPIBO-VREDESEILANDEN-SOS-FAIM gave fresh impetus to the reorientation of their programme, to adjust to the new situation, with at least 1.5 million refugees in Kivu. The main focus was life in the refugee camps in Zaïre.

The Collective of Rwandan NGOs (Goma zone) finds occupations for the refugees. Curiously, they contend that the ex-FAR and Interahamwe do not stop anyone from returning home. The professed objective of the NGOs is the organization of the refugees in structures that are reliable and representative for the refugees and credible for the outside world.

This objective corresponds to one expressed earlier by Jean Kambanda, but the NGOs  fear “all identification of this popular organization with the government in exile which risks endangering its credibility from the start, in the eyes of the government of Kigali and of the international community.”[16]

For the mission, however, Jean Kambanda remains a valuable person for future negotiations with the government of Kigali. The mission reports the “Kambanda’s will to be tried by an international tribunal is understandable, since an acquittal would make him a key figure in future negotiations. At the same time it is an impressive proof that he doesn’t consider himself guilty of genocide. If only he could contribute to the condemnation of the real culprits.”[17]

The four missions of COOPIBO and/or of Vredeseilanden, SOS-FAIM, Groupe Développement and Frères des Hommes-Toulouse from May to October 1994, and those of Fans Van Hoof and Maria Goretti Nyirarukundo, appear to have had the underlying objective of denying the Tutsi genocide, re-establishing contacts with the Hutu genocidaires, rehabilitating and reintegrating them vis-a-vis the international community, as suggested by the name of the fourth mission.

Until the month of October 1994, these NGOs persevered still in justifying Kambanda’s role in the genocide, and considering him as a key person in the negotiations into which the NGOs were hoping to force the Government of Kigali.

Here one cannot avoid questioning the NGOs’ reasoning: If Kambanda is innocent—then there was no genocide in Rwanda either. In this case, where will he find “the real culprits” that these NGOs wish to be condemned? And what crime will they be accused of, since there was no genocide?

The Collective of Rwandan NGOs Bukavu zone then held another meeting of its General Assembly on July 31, 1995. The objective of the Collective was to pronounce itself on “the initiative for the Development of the Synergies “IDS-TWUBAKE”.

According to its report of August 1, 1995, the meeting wanted to recall that the Collective of Rwandan NGOs is an association of persons from Rwandan NGOs (as contained in the charter). They expressed frustration that since the genocide, the NGOS were experiencing difficulties in contacting their partners (European). Meanwhile, the Rwandan refugees needed urgent help.

To achieve this, the members and agents of the NGOs, with support from certain European partners, created the Collective of Rwandan NGOs on July 4, 1994.

Concerning its charter and its rules and regulations, the Collective never claimed to support the transfer to Zaïre of Rwandan NGOs which were operating in Rwanda under the same names. On the contrary, one of its objectives was to encourage the Rwandan NGO team outside the country to contact those remaining inside, to see how to elaborate a single, common support programme to the Rwandan population wherever they are. This principle was reaffirmed during the meeting held in Nairobi on November 16-18, 1994, bringing together the NGO teams from inside the country and those in exile in the presence of Zaïrean and European partner NGOs.

The members of the Collective considered that the platform IDS-TWUBAKE could not legally be an association of Rwandan NGOs, for the same reasons as those evoked during the creation of the Collective and considering the actual dynamics of the NGO movement in Rwanda. Since its creation, the Collective always maintained that it was a structure representative of the Rwandan NGOs.

This is because they could not carry out their activities on Zaïrean territory since they were legally Rwandan organizations. The Collective continued to work under the cover of Zaïrean NGOs, notably the CRONGD South Kivu, the CRONGD North Kivu and the CRONGD.

In conclusion, the General Assembly decided not to recognize the platform IDS-TWUBAKE under its actual form, “[…] the Collective will not be able to support the platform if it presents itself as an association of natural persons and not of Rwandan NGOs in exile.” In addition, they excluded from the Collective: JMV Musabimana, Jean Evariste Nayigizente, Télesphore Munyandamutsa, Thérèse Nyiranzabandora and Marie Uzanyinka for misconduct. The Chairperson of the meeting was Spéciose Kamanzi and the secretary of the meeting was Barutwanayo Augustin.[18]

In November 1995, a women’s NGO called the DUTERIMBERE, in its report titled “The contribution of the NGO teams to the UNHCR on voluntary repatriation of Rwandan Refugees”, denounced any attempt at forced repatriation of the refugees similar to the one in August 19-24, 1995, which allegedly cost the lives of 15,000 refugees and dispersed more than 150,000 others into the forests.

The DUTERIMBERE denounced the international community for not taking care of the refugees and removing the embargo on arms for Rwanda. It especially denounces the government of Kigali for threatening and attacking them. DUTERIMBERE categorically denied any intimidation of refugees by the Interahamwe militia, and advanced other reasons for the refugees’ refusal to return.

The DUTERIMBERE report reasserts the central responsibility of the RPF in the refugee problem. It describes the RPF as the cause of the exile of more than three million Rwandans to Tanzania, Zaïre and Burundi, who are permanently traumatized, and do not know when they will be able to go home.

The report says that if they do not want to go home it is due to insecurity (arrests, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, deportations, cruel and inhuman treatment, massacres and assassinations, summary executions of those who go back home, injustice, illegal occupation of refugee property, etc.)

The report insists that Rwandan NGOs must collaborate with the UNHCR and with international decision-makers to make them accept that these are the real reasons that prevent the refugees from returning home.

For DUTERIMBERE, the RPF is responsible for the misfortune of the refugees and this since the war of October 1990. This NGO accuses the RPF of being responsible for the war, for non-compliance with the Arusha Agreements, and for the death of Habyarimana and the massacres that followed. (DUTERIMBERE, also, does not use the word genocide here)

In addition, according to DUTERIMBERE, the RPF does not tell the truth; it does not wish for the repatriation of the refugees since it deliberately chose dictatorial practices and manifested the will to eliminate the Hutu ethnic group. Furthermore, the DUTERIMBERE report accuses the RPF of using an alleged genocide for political ends to receive help, and to exclude Hutu from the management of the country. However, the NGO asserts, the refugees cannot live forever in exile; they want to come home in peace and rebuild their country.

DUTERIMBERE contests the idea that the refugees must be sorted out in terms of innocent peasants and killers, and regrets that the international community seems to share this idea. DUTERIMBERE proposes instead that as long as everyone’s responsibility has not been established, both parties should sit at the same table to think about how to rebuild their country. The report then asks for negotiations with Kigali in order to implement the Arusha Agreements; it calls on the UNHCR and the International Community to consider the problem of insecurity which prevails in Rwanda before forcing the refugees to go home to be killed; it calls on the UN, the Big Powers and also Uganda to reconsider their behaviour and do what they did not do in the past to rebuild Rwanda.

As condition for the return of the refugees, DUTERIMBERE demands that the International Community impose an arms embargo against Kigali, and order Kigali to release all prisoners. It calls on the authorities in Kigali to cease talking about an alleged genocide, and asks other countries to keep helping refugees.

In addition, DUTERIMBERE asks the NGOs which constitute the Rwandan intelligentsia not to encourage the refugees to return home as long as their security is not guaranteed. It asks the RDR to sensitize the international community to the problems of Rwandan refugees. DUTERIMBERE denies the genocide of the Tutsi and does not even want the authorities in Kigali to mention it. DUTERIMBERE holds that the RPF assassinated President Habyarimana, and is therefore responsible for any killings that ensued.

From 16th to 18th November 1994 a seminar was held in Nairobi, organized by NCOS in collaboration with EUROSTEP (earlier dealt with at length) and the members of Rwandan NGOs, with the technical collaboration from the Africa Conference of Churches. The theme of the conference was “THE FUTURE AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE NGO WORLD IN RWANDA.”[19] The meeting brought together 12 participants from inside Rwanda, 11 from Bukavu and Goma and about 30 from regional and Northern partner NGOs.

Three themes were addressed at the seminar: the NGO world in Rwanda at that time; the reconstruction of the NGO world and tasks of the Rwandan civil society for the future; and the cooperation between Rwandan and European NGOs.

As explained by Mr. Leo Goovaerts, responsible for the NCOS projects in central Africa, the purpose of the seminar was to organize a meeting between the Rwandan NGOs inside and outside Rwanda so as to facilitate a dialogue and the reconstruction of the Rwandan NGO world; and to organize a meeting between the Rwandan NGOs and the Northern NGOs so as to redefine and promote their collaboration and determine an action plan for the future and reconstruction.

At the end of the discussions, the seminar created a follow-up committee with a six month term. The committee was to work towards the return of the refugees, the reconstruction of the NGOs, communication and information inside the country as well as outside, and lobbying. This committee included four members of the Rwandan NGOs (two inside and two outside), a representative of the regional NGOs, in this case the PREFED, and a representative of the Northern NGOS. From inside Rwanda, those chosen were Josue Kayijaho, Charles Karemano, Landrada Mukayiranga, and Euphrem Mbugulize. For PREFED, Kabirigi Lindiro was chosen while for the Northern NGOS, the NCOS was free to take care of finding someone.

The participants committed themselves to working towards the return of the refugees through psychological preparation of minds inside and outside the country, putting in place reception structures, the fight against impunity and violation of human rights.

The participants also asked the Rwandan government to facilitate the work of NGOs in relation to the return of the refugees. They asked the humanitarian organizations to make an effort to understand the situation of the refugees. From February 27 to March 4, 1996, the Collective of Rwandan NGOs in exile was visited by HILDE de MOOR and IVAN GODFROID and had a meeting.

From the report of this meeting it is clear that the Collective had an important extension to the South. Considering the activities in the South as well as elsewhere, the Collective gained consistency and remained highly significant in the refugee camps.

The Collective seemed well known by the Zairean authorities and the refugees. The latter allegedly prefer the work of the Collective to the work of foreign NGOs, because the Collective consists of fellow Rwandans, and through the Collective there is already solidarity with Europe.

The report describes a difference in approach between the North Kivu Zone and the South Kivu Zone. In North Kivu the focus is on concrete activities, given the large number of refugees, while in the South the focus is on reflective activities. The report stresses that the camps of Katale and Kahindo, in north Kivu are little or not at all open because the people there are extremists.

The report says that the desire to return home is strong and the refugees are ready to go home and face justice. It claims that the much reported intimidation of refugees who want to go home is not explicit but rather implicit (fear of denouncing someone, or of being pursued).

The report finds the UNHCR more intimidating since it urges refugees to go home while keeping others at bay, considering them responsible of intimidation.

The report finds that the real reason for not returning is fear of the RPF and RPA, who kill Hutu men according to the information which comes everyday to the camps. “We prefer dying in the camps than in the killing fields in Rwanda”, they said. The refugees, were not reassured by what they heard on the radio, nor by what is said by certain authorities in the country, for instance the Minister of Foreign Affairs who said openly they would use force to repatriate the refugees.

The report accuses the government of Rwanda of not taking any initiative to encourage the refugees to come home. The report also regrets that the UNHCR pointed an accusing finger at the Collective as being intimidators of refugees and therefore responsible for the refugees not returning to their country Rwanda.

The report defends the Collective and charges the real intimidators are Zaïrean soldiers who encircle the camps from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. The report does not say exactly when the Zairean soldiers conducted such an operation. Those who have the intention of never returning, so they say, are the ones with the means and motives for remaining.  The report tends to justify the violence meted out by the Hutu extremists against the Rwandophone Tutsi population of Masisi, explaining that it is due to the lack of a clear perspective for the refugees.

The Collective gives strong support to the creation of a Rwandan Civil Society in Exile in South Kivu after the forced repatriation of August 1995. The Collective however does not appreciate the UNHCR’s position against holding meetings in the camps. This, the report says, goes against the rights of refugees and against the very programme of the Collective.

The report acknowledges largely negative effects of the presence of the refugees on the native population. In this regard, a new NGO, the EUB (Emergency Biodiversity Group) was created with the intention of enhancing collaboration between refugees and the local population with leaders from Zaire, Kenya, and Rwanda.

The report claims that the UNHCR understood the Collective’s importance and invited the northern NGOs which had suspended their activities to come back. These include the Doctors without Borders from Belgium working in Kahindo, and the Doctors without Borders from the Netherlands operating in Katale. Both camps were in Kivu province of the then Zaire. The authorities from Kigali are also said to have asked the EUB to come and work inside the country.

In an annex to this meeting’s report, are comments on “THE RWANDAN CIVIL SOCIETY IN EXILE”. This group is described as one that aspires to be a platform of associations, to which the Collective of Rwandan NGOs would belong with the goal of educating the refugees about democratic and human values, building caucuses in the camps for the defence of refugees’ rights, producing and sending documents and letters, and organising sessions. Strange as it may sound, Jean Pierre Godding who is said to represent “Justice and Peace in Goma” is said to be part of these activities whose sole purpose was to spread hate ideology and prepare for war against Rwanda!

Towards the end of 1996, on 02/12/1996, the European Movement for International solidarity (Frères des hommes) also made its position clear on the crisis in the Great Lakes region. It states that it is happy about the return of the refugees, but that the challenges have just begun. In addition, it is only one part of the refugees who went home, the others (Rwandans and Zaïreans) about half a million are scattered in South Kivu. The Movement believes more human rights observers should be deployed in Rwanda, to monitor the government’s side, to reassure the returnees on justice, the recovery of their property and arbitrary arrests. The Movement takes up again the causes of refugees not returning home spontaneously; causes raised by the Collective of Rwandan NGOs in Exile and DUTERIMBERE.

From the analyses above the perpetrators of genocide had got a good camouflage whereby the “Civil Society” and its activities provided them legitimacy of being seen as refugees. Furthermore, this status allowed many of them to speak as victims, rather than as the villains they were.





[5] Collective of Rwanda NGOS Zone of Goma (Zaïre), Goma, 26 July 1994, p. 1.

[6] Ibid, p. 5

[7] Ibid, p. 6

[8] Collective of Rwandan NGOs, zone of Goma (Zaïre), Goma, July 26,  1994,  p. 5.

[9] Ibid, p.5

[10] Ibid, p.5

[11] Ibid. “RWANDA: FROIDMONT MEETING May 20-21, 1994, Provisional report “. See more on Froidmont


[13] Ibidem, p. 2.


[15] Participants in this Bukavu meeting include: 1. JMV Musabimana (IWACU Center), 2. Telesphore Munyandamutsa (IWACU Centre), 3. Gabriel Nkuliyimana (ADENYA), 4. Thérèse Nyiranzabondora (ADENYA), 5. J. d’Arc Ntakibaruta (ARTC Filles), 6. Damien Hakizimana (ARTC Hommes), 7. J. Evariste Nayigizente (CCOAIB), 8. Isabelle Nibakure (CCOIB), 9. J. Bosco Gahongayire (ADENYA), 10. Aloys Nyarwaya (INADES), 11 Révocata Uwamutara (Women Network), 12. Josepha Nyirankundabera (), 13. Epiphanie Kampundu (Women Network), 14. Marie Unzaniyinka (ASR), 15. Spéciose Kamanzi (Women Network), 16. Marie Béatrice Umutesi (Programmme of Women of Byumba), 17. Innocent Butare (ARAMET), OBSERVERS LIST: 1. Arsène Kirhero (IRED), 2. Uzziel Twagilimana (IWACU Center), 3. J.D. Nyamwasa (IWACU Center), 4. Ephrem Mbugulize (Consultant ONGD), 5. Gilbert Kashemwa (C.DE.KA), 6. Thaddée Hyawe-Hinyi (SIKASH), 7. Alphonse-Marie Baddy (UWAKI), 8. Albert Hategekimana (ADENYA) 9. Régine Van Der Syp (Consultant NOVIB/DRA).




[Names, NGO of origin , Past and present positions ].

1. NDAGIJIMANA Cyprien, ENERWA Legal Representative

2. KAMANZI Spéciose, C.S.C GITARAMA-DUTERIMBERE, Coordinator,  and founding member respectively

3. MUKANYEMAZI Frieda, DUHAMIC/ADRI-DUTERIMBERE, respectively Executive Secretary, Founding Member

4. UMUTESI M. Béatrice,  Programme of support to the Socio-Economic Promotion of Women/ BYUMBA, Coordinator

5. BUCUMI Balthazar, P.A.M.U, Coordinator

6. NKULIYIMANA Gabriel, ADENYA-IMBAGA-CCOAIB, respectively Coordinator, Founding Member.

7. MUTABAZI Edouard,  SNV-PADEC/GITARAMA, AJED (Youth Animation Association for development), respectively a.g Coordinator, Legal Representative

8. NSABIMANA Athanase, .ADENYA a.s.b.l., Member of Administration Council and advisor.

9. HATEGEKIMANA Albert, ADENYA a.s.b.1., Chief of Secretariat

10. HAKIZIMANA Damien, A.R.T.C/H a.s.b.1., Group leader and Committee member

11. SIBORUREMA Athanase, ARDI-KIGALI, Assistant in project service

12. GAHONGAYIRE J.Bosco, ADENYA, in charge of Health and Population

13. NYIRAHABIMANA Marguerite, ARBEF, Secretary.

14. NTAKIBARUTA Jeanne, ARTCF, Leader.

15. MUKAGELIMANA Faina, ARDI et ARTCF, Training officer ARTCF, Member of ARDI.

16. NYIRAKOBWA Pauline, Women Network working for developpement, SNV-RWANDA, Leader.

17. UWAMAHORO Séraphine, SNV-RWANDA, Women Network, Animator, PADEC

18. MUJAWIMANA M.Goretti, ARTC/F, Training officer

19. UZALIBARA Félicien, ADEHAMU, In-charge of Agriculture Service

20. MUKANDEBE Bernadette, Women Network working for development, Handicapped center, DUTERIMBERE, respectively founding member, reintegration service, Founding member.

21. NYARWAYA Aloys, INADES-training.

22. AVEMARIYA Védaste, C.S.C GITARAMA, Finance Officer

23. BARUTWANAYO Augustin, C.S.C GITARAMA, Research trainer

24. TWAGILIMANA Uzziel, IWACU/ CFRC, In charge of the Unit, Training member of management


25. MUSHIMIYIMANA Clotilde, CCOAIB, Secretary

[19] Due to the importance of the Seminar, White Father, Guy Theunis announced it in Dialogue N°179, of November 1994, p.128. The journal, Dialogue where G.Theunis is an acting editor in charge is sold at the headquarters of NCOS which is organized the meeting. Names of participants and in brackets NGOs they represent :




  1. […] Chapter VIII: Rwandan civil society in exile–villains posturing as victims […]

  2. […] Chapter VIII: Rwandan civil society in exile–villains posturing as victims […]