The recent United Nations Security Council “new” name for the 1994 massacres in Rwanda is problematic.
After a lot of lobbying by Kigali and unimaginable resistance by many UN Security Council members, Rwanda has sneaked the term " Tutsi" into the UN definition of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda. Until recently, the UNSC had called the massacres in Rwanda "the 1994 Rwandan Genocide". Rwanda, originally, used the same name. After the " politics" of Rwandan genocide had intensified, Kagame amended the Constitution to change the name. Rwanda now calls it " Tutsi genocide". The UNSC has altered its original name for the massacres that took place in Rwanda. It is now called "THE 1994 GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TUTSI DURING WHICH HUTU and OTHERS OPPOSED TO THE GENOCIDE [government ] WERE KILLED". I find this " new" name more confusing than the previous one. The " new" definition potentially removes the 1994 massacres from the legal definition of genocide. The UNSC has introduced two important factors to account for the 1994 massacres in Rwanda "ethnic clashes" and " political crisis", by implication of the terms used.
First, the " new" wording is inconsistent with the UN Specialized Trbunal for Rwanda's findings. They tried all the Hutu suspects the world believed planned the genocide in Rwanda. The UN Tribunal for Rwanda found out that the genocide in Rwanda was not planned. Nobody planned the massacres the world call "Tutsi genocide". Legally, this finding is contradictory. It is like convicting an impotent male for rape as a principal in the first degree. It is impossible!! If the massacres were not planned, it becomes " spontaneous" killing, effectively removing those massacres from the scope of " genocide". The UNSC is, by implication, saying there were more Hutu and " others" killed. Yes. But the Hutu and "others" , the UNSC says, were killed for opposing their " genocidal" government; a government we are told was purely Hutu. Then who killed those Hutu in greater numbers than their counterpart the Tutsi? And who are those " others" that were killed for "political" reasons along side the Hutu? I believe the UNSC missed out on critical thinking at this level. If so many Hutu were killed because they opposed the "Tutsi genocide", then killing the Tutsi was not a predominant "" ideology"; it was an ordinary crime that claimed the Tutsi!
Second, the population statistics during the genocide present a complex issue. The then government of Rwanda maintained a comprehensive population registry indicating each citizens' ethnic group. Rwanda's population was about 6.2 million people. The Tutsi were 14% while the Hutu were over 85% of the population. The Twa were less than 1%. The human skulls/remains/victims of the genocide now total to more than a million. The Tutsi survivors of genocide were over 300,000 people. These statistics are not in dispute. Here is the formula: 6.2 million – 14% is the total number of the Tutsi that were in Rwanda during the genocide. 14% of 6.2million – about 3000, 000 Tutsi survivors of the genocide in 1994 is the number of Tutsi that perished in the genocide. 6.2 million – over one million skulls/remains that have been counted is the total number of the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa that perished in the genocide.
One outstanding conclusion of the statistical analysis is that there were far more Hutu killed than the Tutsi in a genocide that is called "Tutsi genocide" and was conducted by an exclusively Hutu "genocidal" government. A contradiction of the century. Isn't it? And Kagame's predominantly Tutsi government keeps talking of " the genocide ideology" among the Hutu. Yet there were so many Hutu to fight against the genocide; much more than the Tutsi who died and more than the entire Tutsi population in the country. It sounds ridiculous. Doesn't it? The statistics are disturbing in light of the new name. If it were a genocide against the Tutsi ONLY by the Hutu, how come that there were more Hutu victims/killed? Is it possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but killed themselves more than they killed their victims? Going by the " new" UN definition, who killed the Hutu and "others" to the extent that there were more Hutu and "others" killed?
The UNSC wording suggests that the Hutu and " others" were killed because they opposed the government while the Tutsi were killed because they were Tutsi. The problem at this level is that if the Hutu and " others" were killed for political reasons ( the Hutu having been the majority of the people killed), then there was a national social political problem for which even the Tutsi could have been killed. How do you detach the Tutsi from a national social political crisis that led to death of so many Hutus and " others"? Who then killed those Hutus and " others" for opposing the government? Were the Tutsi, at least some, killed for opposing the government too? Didn't the Tutsi oppose the then Hutu government? Were the Tutsi immune to being killed for opposing the then purely Hutu government? Isn't it ridiculous that the Tutsi did not oppose the Hutu government, we are told, discriminated against them? Certainly, if any group had the motive to oppose the then government, it were the Tutsi. If opposing the then government was " punished" by exterminating the Hutu, why were the Tutsi, who actually opposed the then Hutu government, not killed for opposing the government? I think the UNSC wording has effectively given the world an insight into what actually happened.
Third, the " new" UNSC wording of the 1994 massacres in Rwanda casts doubt on what Kigali government calls " the Tutsi genocide ideology" among the Hutu. An ideology is a dominant idea; an idea that defines a group or a community. An idea that is the major definition of each member's way of life. It could be an economic, social and/or political ideology. When you have so many Hutu, over half a million, killed because they were "opposed" to the Tutsi genocide, then the " Tutsi genocide ideology" Kagame accuses the Hutu of does not exist.
The UNSC wording ignores another important social phenomenon; some Tutsi killed their fellow Tutsi. Were those Tutsi killing their fellow Tutsi because their victims (fellow Tutsi) were Tutsi?
It is important to note that president Habyarimana was running a dictatorship. He was assassinated together with his top and strong government officials. Effectively, there was no government at the time of the genocide. Who killed those Hutu and "others" to the extent that the Hutu make the majority of the people killed?
Comments
Post a Comment