responsibility , commiserate and identify with the survivors of the genocide , they carry no guilt for it since they are not the killers . They also know that the killers want to use them as a cleansing agent . It is the killers who are ascribing guilt to Hutus as a group in order to bring all Hutus to their camp and to incite them to subscribe to their “ self-defence ” strategy of denial . In doing so , the killers seek to associate them with criminality and to ascribe victimhood onto themselves in order to trade places with survivors .
People who committed the genocide have two identities : one ethnic ; the other criminal . Their ethnic identity before they committed genocide was Hutu .
However , after committing genocide they renounced their right to belong to any community and assumed the criminal identity of genocidaires or , in Kinyarwanda , Interahamwe ( a term that has been extended to all killers , although it originally meant a youth wing militia of the genocidal government ). ( Ubwoko bwabo batarahemuka ).
In other words , one can share ethnic identity with criminals and not the second . To share the first doesn ’ t imply the sharing of the second . Yet , this is what the UK and the US governments are indirectly implying . By so doing , they are playing from the genocidaires ’ handbook .
This strategy isn ’ t new for the killers . In 1994 , when they were inciting ordinary Rwandans to go out and kill , the genocidaires told Hutus that as more of them participated in the killings , it would be impossible to hold any of them accountable . This is exactly what they are doing with the terminology . They believe that by confounding their criminal identity with the Hutu identity they will evade accountability since their crimes get whitewashed . This is identity theft .
How the US and the UK are inciting killers
The US and UK have emboldened the killers to the point that the latter are making claims to political power as representatives of the Hutus . The criminals have been branding themselves “ the majority ” as if Rwanda is a gangster paradise .
In fact , they are – and ought to remain – on the fringes of society and , therefore , far removed from any consideration for political leadership at any level . Those among them who have evaded justice and who show no remorse belong in prison since their criminal identity defines who they are and what they stand for . They ought to take responsibility for their criminality without having to drag others into it .
Moreover , there is no society where criminals are allowed to legitimately organize and pursue political power . But the criminals of the genocide have managed to delude themselves into this possibility because two powerful countries , the UK and the US , have signalled support . Ironically , this is happening when more Hutus are coming out to reject confounding them with criminality ; they are demanding that the killers carry their cross . Instead of amplifying these voices to help build an unbreakable , reassuring wall of unity around survivors , the US and the UK are once again feigning ignorance so that one day they get to claim , “ We didn ’ t know .”
Reconciliation and peace cannot come from ambiguity about the 7th of April . It certainly cannot come from confounding Hutus with criminals . The majority of Hutus know that they don ’ t have to deny the genocide , or to create ambiguity around it - which the designation of “ others ” does - in order to affirm their innocence . They can , and do , remember the genocide without claiming to be its targeted victims .
If the US and UK can hold remembrance for Holocaust victims without feeling that they are excluding other Germans , then to suggest otherwise for Rwanda is to attack the dignity of all Hutus ( by associating them with perpetrators of genocide ) and make a mockery of the survivors .
The two countries can – and ought to – do better . ❧ ❧ ❧
21