Anatomy of a genocide assassins sought a final solution.
The comparison with the genocide of the Jews by Hitler is completely valid. There are only two differences; the absolute number of victims (the Nazis exterminated six million Jews) and
International Viewpoint #260 October 1994
AFTER Bosnia, the world watched Rwandan kill
Rwandan. Yet the genocide did not appear from nowhere.
FRANÇOIS VERCAMMEN argues that behind the misery lie concealed political responsibilities and material interests.
the fact that the Nazis employed the infrastructure of a modern industrialised country. The Habyarimana clan had to content itself with more mundane means of destruction and small calibre weapons. But the goal, as in Nazi Germany, was a final solution, a genocide; the planned destruction of an entire people by mass murder, with the goal of stopping its social and biological reproduction.4
No comparison is possible with the acts which members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) committed and might still commit in the future. Their attacks on the Hutus are obviously reprehensible, but are acts of revenge.
M ORE than a million and a half deaths, more than two million refugees, some hundreds of thousands of sick and wounded - out of a population estimated at seven and a half million. Civil war, racist massacres, famine, epidemics... One can hardly imagine the consequences of the Rwandan drama, in the short and long term, for individuals and for society, for the country and for Africa. A "rational" analysis of the events is not easy, but is necessary, for behind the indescribable chaos and this absolute misery are concealed political responsibilities and
"This drama is completely incomprehensible", say some collaborators of the NGOs who have known Rwanda for many years. Other commentators single out "natural" causes; the "congenital" cruelty of human beings, or "ancestral" ethnic rivalries. The colonial mentality nourishes such reflections; "the backwardness of the blacks" their "too superficial conversion to Christianity" are evoked.' But much more serious is the fact that, as Alain Destexhe, secretary general of the Médecins san frontières states: "The genocide is denied, international responsibility is hidden and the culpability of the authors is buried in the general unhappiness."2
No accident
The genocide of the Tutsis was no accident, nor was it an explosion of spontaneous violence. Neither can one speak of the violence of war — even if a war was under way at the time of the deeds and the genocide was part of it (such as the massacre of the Jews by the Nazis). One can still less speak of a return to the Middle Ages. The genocide of the Tutsis was not some act of atavism; it was a modern phenomenon, an indication of the barbarity which surges forward to the extent that the free market generalises itself and the social crisis deepens. On 6 April, a plane was shot down most professionally in the skies above Kigali; the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi died in the crash.
In the hour following, the presidential guard — the nucleus of the Rwandan army — took over the capital. The
### Planned genocide
Nobody can avoid this conclusion. Rwanda has been the theatre of the planned genocide of the Tutsi community; 500 thousand deaths in six weeks according to the Red Cross, more than a million in three months according to the joint co-ordinator of the UN office in Rwanda.3 These people have been systematically massacred (90% outside of the towns) on the basis of their ethnic origin. Their property has been stolen. Their houses have been pillaged and burned. These were unarmed civilians; there was no confrontation, either war or civil war. Children, women and pregnant women were particularly targeted. There was no place of refuge, certainly not the hospitals and the churches. The troops, accompanied by death squads, raided a number of houses on the basis of prepared lists. Within several hours barricades were set up on the roads. Every Rwandan who passed was stopped and asked to present their identity cards (which state ethnic origin)and a massive carnage was unleashed throughout the country, in deliberate and planned fashion.
1. Le Soir, 26/07/94; Dirk Thijs, Knack, 10/08/94
2. Libération, 08/08/94.
3. De Standaard, 25/08/94.
4. Frank Chalk et al, 'The History and Sociology of Genocide', Yale University Press, pp. 16-17.
13
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
RWANDA
sto ymossn
International Viewpoint #260 October 1994
•..almost all genocides are accompanied by massacres which target that part of the community which refuses to collaborate. ...a climate of terror is vital...a choice of killing others or being killed themselves."
In the course of the first hours, as many Hutus as Tutsis were killed. Did it amount, then, to ethnic violence? Yes, but the motives of the assassins were obviously political; they wished to block the implementation of the Arusha accords, because these meant the dismantling of the power and privileges of the Habyarimana clan. The genocide began with a series of political assassinations inside the Hutu community, the goal of which was the elimination of those Hutu leaders disposed to form a government of national reconciliation with the Tutsis. Thus, the prime minister of the transitional government, Agathe Uwilingiyaiamana, five other ministers, the president of the constitutional court, the Hutu presidents of a number of opposition parties, and some opposition businessmen, were all murdered. Any alternative to the Habyarimana clique was eliminated, and the political choice became a "purely ethnic" one; a Hutu government or a Tutsi government. The genocide had been given a political perspective.
### Rejection
At this stage the assassins still had to surmount two significant obstacles; the mixing of Hutus and Tutsis on the social, family and professional levels had to be eliminated; and the natural rejection of the massacre of fellow human beings had to be broken.
These obstacles exist to every genocide, which is why almost all genocides are accompanied by massacres which target that part of the people which refuses to collaborate. For this, a climate 14 of terror is vital. It is necessary to create a situation in which the adversaries of genocide inside the community are permanently confronted by moral insecurity; with a choice of killing others or being killed themselves. And with the risk of being killed by either camp; by the ethnic rival or members of one's own group. Only this terrible insecurity and — the next stage — active or passive collaboration (under constraint) in ethnic carnage allows the creation of the extreme conditions in which "the human" in us is destroyed. The story of the massacre at the hospital in Butare is an apt illustration; the Hutu personnel were forced by the Hutu soldiers to participate in the elimination of their Tutsi colleagues, to prove that they were true
The imposition of ethnic loyalty and ethnic purification as a means of social cohesion soldered in the blood of genocide, represents a gigantic social regression which has long term consequences in social relationships, in the collective memory and in the individual mentality. Thus "The Shoah" had enormous consequences for Jewish people world-wide, and on the relations of Jews with other people, notably Palestinians. Thus also the "question of culpability" surfaces constantly in Germany, fifty years after the Nazi extermination.
### Sole means
The negotiation and signature of the Arusha accords in August 1993 convinced the Habyarimana clan that genocide was the sole means of maintaining itself in power. The genocide did not come from nowhere. It came in the context of a profound crisis with social, economic and ethnic aspects; "The regime totters", stated the Gazet van Antwerpen on 3 October 1989, "The country is experiencing an unprecedented crisis" recorded Le Soir on 10 March 1990, "There is a sense of an end of the regime" according to La libre Belgique on 3 October 1989.5
In September 1990, a series of human rights organisations were set up to denounce the growing number of disappearances, arbitrary arrests, individual aggressions and collective mas-
5. Cited in Reyntjens, "'Afrique des Grands Lacs en crise, Kathala 1994.
Anatomy of a genocide
International Viewpoint #260 October 1994
The RPF offensive which rapidly reached the gates of Kigali, was not the cause of this crisis, but the regime reacted by hardening its grip on power, through repression and racism. The corruption of the 1970s and early 1980s was monopolised by the Habyarimana clan, originating from the north-west.
The Hutu businessmen in the rest of Rwanda (often the poorest regions) were not invited to share the spoils, explaining the rapid success of the Hutu opposition parties. Moreover, after its successful 1973 coup (the so-called moral revolution, supposed to prolong the so-called social revolution of 1959), the Habyarimana clan politically and physically eliminated the other wing of the ruling Hutu elite, based around Gregoire Kayibanda.6
It is worth noting that a conference of the Tutsi diaspora held in New York in Summer 1990 demanded negotiation for the peaceful return of the refugees of 1959. This demand remains unfulfilled.
Habyarimana survived the crisis at the end of 1990 solely because of French aid (along with short-lived Belgian support). From then on, the situation was dominated by the preparation for war against the RPF. The army went from 5 thousand to 34 thousand men and was armed to the teeth with modern weapons, with the assistance of France.
The social and political contradictions remained intense (with already a million refugees). To bring the situation under control, Habyarimana decided to stoke up ethnic contradictions; quotas were introduced at every level, controls on ethnic origin (inscribed on passports) multiplied, and racist propaganda was stepped up.7
From the second half of 1992, the daily newspaper Kangura began a campaign of propaganda, seeking to demonise the Tutsis, exalting Hutu racial purity and denouncing the rapaciousness of the Tutsis who "wished to take over everything", as well as advocating the right of the Hutus to arm themselves in self-defence. Although, the ideological backbone of the genocide was being put in place, this fascistic campaign covered itself with a mantle of respectability; large photographs were published of President Habyarimana shaking hands with President Mitterand of France. It was in the name of Western democracy that the exclusion of the Tutsis and the exclusivist domination of the Hutu majority were "justified".
It was also in 1992 that the infamous Interhamwe (those who combat together) and Inpuzamugambi (those who have the same goal) gangs were set up. From 1993, quotas were set; a militia was set up in every prefecture (local police area), composed of around two hundred armed citizens. The project of the "self-defence of the people", red by the government since August/September 1991, had entered
Blacklists were drawn up and circulated, which mentioned, in order, the names of the people who were to be killed. The death squads multiplied the pogroms (by early 1993, 2 thousand people had already been massacred). 10
The creation of the radio station "Milles Collines" was the final touch to the preparation of the final solution. The radio multiplied the appeals to murder: "The graves are not yet full. Who will help us fill them?"|! This station also dispensed practical advice, such as how to invade a house and round up its inha-
In January 1993, the Rwandan human rights federation published a report which stated explicitly that "The premises of genocide exist."13
Who was pulling the strings? As in a classical fascist regime (the Western model was being followed!) the genocide rested on a double structure; an legal institutional structure and an illegal clandestine structure, the first being a cover for the second. The centralisation of the two structures was realised in Rwanda in the Habyarimana family. Habyarimana was the president, his wife and his brother who together led the "network zero", which directed the State apparatus, both civil and military. The presidential guard was the hard core of the army, while the civil administration formed a well furnished network of governors, prefects and mayors. 14
When the genocide entered its final phase, after 6 April, the State apparatus played the greatest role. The mayors armed the population, kept the blacklists, and went from house to house with the local military authorities and the "illegal" armed bands to execute their sinister designs. It was these gentlemen also who, faced with the RPF, organised the "scorched earth" policy and forced the population to follow them to the Zairean frontier and the refugee camps. And it was State officials who in the camps continued to direct the people and, by terror and constraint, prevented them from returning to Rwanda.
"Monsieur Z"
The illegal structure, which took the initiative before 6 April, was directed from the "synagogue" as the house of the president's brother-in-law is known. The brother of Agathe Habyarimana, Protais Zigiranyirazo, nicknamed "Monsieur Z', had already been condemned in Canada for violence against Rwandan students. From his headquarters, he and his staff planned pogroms, massacres, individual assassinations, and the purchase and transport of clandestine arms. It was also from "the synagogue" that the hate campaign of Radio Milles Collines was directed. An important role was played in this latter by Ferdinand Nahimana, the regime's propaganda chief.!5 A Belgian, "Monsieur George" took the microphone, but the president's brother-in-law was the principal actor. 16
6. Ibid, pp. 30-31.
7. Stephen Smith, Libération, 28/05/94.
8. Colette Braeckman, 'Chronique d'une tragédie annoncée', Dossier du Grip 1994, p. 13.
9. See "secret" exchange of letters of the government reproduced in "Arming Rwanda", report of Human Rights Watch, Dossier du Grip, Annexe C.
10. Report from the International Commission on Human Rights Violations in Rwanda
11. Els Temmerman, De Morgan, 14/04/94.
12. Stephen Smith, op. cit.
13. Le Point, 30/07/94
14 Reyntjens, Knack, 20/07/94.
15. See his Rwanda, émergence d'un etat, L'Harmattan 1993.
16. Le Soir, 18/04/94.
15
International Viewpoint #260 October 1994
The real turn towards genocide came in December 1993. The last "official" French soldiers left the country ("official" because informal training of the Rwandan army and death squads continued). The first of the Arusha accords was implemented; between Christmas and New Year, the RPF was allowed to station six hundred men at Kigali (for, as has been remarked, the Rwandan Tutsis, unlike those in Burundi, had no means of defending themselves against Hutu State violence.!? The application of the accords was sabotaged and slowed down, but pressure mounted from every side. It was then, that, with its back to the wall, the regime decided to embark upon genocide.
Firstly, the political centre was elition ("For or against the RPF"). Some did seek a rapprochement with the RPF on the basis of the Arusha accords.
In December, according to Collette Braeckman, the president's entourage openly distributed arms to the population. "Uncontrolled" massacres spread. Thousands of uprooted youth who are the product of the social crisis formed shock troops..18
Forbidden
A new stage was reached in February 1994 when, after a further massacre of at least forty-nine victims, UN troops were forbidden to intervene. This injunction lifted an important psychological and political obstacle for the assassins, according to an eyewitness.19
In March, the presidential guard began to encircle Kigali. Negotiations recommenced at Arusha, and the accord were again confirmed. Was the attempt against the presidential plane the response of the ruling clique? In any case, the death of President Habyarimana provided the ideal pretext.
A "crisis committee of the Rwandan Army" (or a part of it) took power in a military coup d'état. An interim government was formed, composed solely of Hutu hard-liners, including some personalities who had led the 1959 revolution but been swept aside in 1972. (This throws some light on the internal conflicts and the recent nervousness at the summit of the army and among the presidential guard.) A new alliance was formed between the hard-liners of the Habyarimana regime and the radical Hutu leaders of 1959, an alliance to which President Habyarimana would 16 have constituted an obstacle, according to a Hutu human rights activist, Gasana Ndoba.20 It also sheds light on the most paradoxical question: Why, as seems to be the case, was Habyarimana assassinated by his own presidential guard?
The genocide met with no resistance. The famous "international community" remaining absent. Nobody intervened when there was still time to do so. Certainly not France; since 1990 it has been at the side of the assassins, notably through the person of Lieutenant-colonel Chollet, a military adviser in Rwanda.21 Nor did the Belgian soldiers intervene, either, not even when Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyamana and the Belgian paratroopers who protected him were killed. Why? Nobody is ready to admit what the governments (thanks to their information services) and the UN (thanks to its official reports) knew: The genocide had been planned for several months. Everyone had an interest in doing nothing! *
17. Le Soir, 11/04/94.
18. Le Soir, 08/04/94.
19. The account of an NGO worker, Dominique Evrard,
Le Soir, 25/04/94.
20. L'Express, 21/04/94, p. 14.
21. Libération, 18/05/94.