History of the Rwanda genocide has become the subject of conflicting narratives
They say truth is the first casualty of war. But it may also be the final casualty of genocide
Truths about the Rwanda genocide, like that nearly one million Rwandans lost their lives during its unraveling, are as haunting today as they were in 1994.
But other “truths” remain widely disputed by journalists, experts, and scholars alike.
British journalist Linda Melvern and Antwerp University professor Filip Reyntjens are both aware of the power of narrative in genocide, and discussed them at length during their panel at the Media and Mass Atrocity round table.
Melvern talked about the 2014 BBC documentary Rwanda’s Untold Story, and its role in what she describes as the denial of genocide.
“Genocide denial seeks to prove equal wrong”, she said about génocidaire discourse.
“Universal guilt is their get out clause — they positively welcome collective guilt as it allows them to disappear into a vast guilty withdrawal,” adding that they want “to prove the victims somehow provoked the attacks.”
The documentary has been criticized for its attempt to implicate Paul Kagame in the assassination of his predecessor, the late President Juvénal Habyarimana. At the time of the genocide, Kagame was the general of the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), the armed Tutsi forces that ultimately took power of the country after the violence subsided.
Most agree that the assassination kickstarted the genocide. Allegations of the RPF’s involvement in that assassination are controversial because they would link the man previously credited with having stopped the genocide with having intentionally triggered it.
The documentary also depicts the memorialization of the genocide as state propaganda, which Melvern says implies that “the official story the world believes is wrong.”
On the other hand, Reyntjens argued that the RPF and Kagame used a carefully calculated strategy to frame public opinion around the genocide.
The RPF, he says, used denial to deflect its own responsibility for political assassinations, amongst other actions, that he and other scholars say contributed to the genocide.
Said Reyntjens: “In the late 1990s, Kagame stated ‘we used communication and information warfare better than anyone. We have found a new way of doing things.’”
“The term media warfare was used by Kagame — it was not me. He said this is warfare, and he is right.”
Reyntjens described a six-part communications strategy which includes the denial of responsibility, closure to international community, redesigning of truth, and labelling of questioners as “génocidaires” or “deniers.”
He argued that the RPF has successfully reshaped the truth in an attempt to maintain a monopoly on the narrative by “exploiting the ‘genocide credit’ and international feelings of guilt over inaction in 1994.”
“They developed with ease a simple story of good guys vs. bad guys,” he said.
“The international community has an overwhelming responsibility in helping Kagame deploy his communication strategy.”
Discussing and uncovering the truth about genocide narratives matters because of the power they hold over perceptions about victims and perpetrators, even 23 years later.
These perceptions influence the international community’s relationships with Rwandan political figures such as Kagame.
As memories and evidence resurface, continued discourse over these conflicting narratives help to clarify our understanding of Rwanda’s past, present and potential future.
Interesting points:
Melvern says there has been no extensive Ph.D. research on the Interhamwe, and that this significant gap in scholarly attention could contribute to existing beliefs and narratives.
Reyntjens noted that on Nov. 18, 2017, Melvern was awarded the Igihango National Order of Outstanding Friendship by President Kagame, an award the president gave the journalist and others “in recognition of their exemplary service to the nation in various capacities.”
