Genocide Convention , conceived the term as he was grappling with magnitude of the horror that befell the Jews under Nazi rule in Germany in the lead up to the Nuremburg Trials . He referred to genocide as the “ crime of crimes ”. It is the crime that carries the highest moral opprobrium . That is because a group is targeted for elimination simply for existing : the crime of being . The moral difference between genocide and other crimes is that it doesn ’ t offer the opportunity of life / living for the targeted group ; they can ’ t escape death . Once the target group has been identified , the members of that group are locked-in for extermination .
This observation is significant even when considering other protected groups under the genocide convention . For instance , in a politicide , a politician who denounces his or her party / ideological convictions is afforded the opportunity to escape death and get spared . Heroic politicians have often chosen death rather than give up their ideological convictions . Similarly , a believer can choose martyrdom rather than denounce his or her religion . But obviously , those targeted for their beliefs / opinions / convictions often have an opportunity to escape death , while those targeted for being do not . There lies the difference ! This means that when discussing genocide in Rwanda , we are discussing the highest level of moral opprobrium as envisaged by the Genocide Convention . It is how to grasp the predicament of the seven-year-old who pleaded in vain with his killers to spare him , “ sinzongera kuba umututsi ” ( I will no longer be a Tutsi , if you spare me ).
“ Well-intentioned ” unpremeditated denial
The slippery of genocide denial starts with the failure to recognize this moral difference . For instance , it is rare to find people of conscience who find genocide denial acceptable . Even most ardent defenders of freedom of speech agree that genocide denial represents an assault on the memory of victims , mocks survivors , and threatens the fight against the recurrence of genocide . However , genocide denial can – and often is – reproduced by very reasonable people . This is done unwittingly due to negligence and , at times , failure to see the entire set of consequences for treating the subject of genocide casually .
Unpremeditated denial usually stems from ignorance despite “ good intentions .” For instance , the use of the terminology “ Rwandan genocide ” is often unpremeditated denial . That is because the moment the term genocide is used , it is essential to identify the target group . On the contrary , the term “ Rwandan genocide ” conceals who the victims are .
For one thing , the concept of “ Rwandan genocide ” wasn ’ t pointing at any targeted group , as the United Nations definition of genocide warrants . Between 1994 and
2006 the Rwandan government was using the term “ Rwandan genocide .” Clearly , its intent was not to deny the genocide . But it had assumed goodwill since at the time the facts of the genocide were everywhere for all to see . The government did not imagine that these facts could be distorted by those who sought to bring it under their control by weaponizing the terminology against the Rwandan people . Similarly , it is possible that at the time the significance of the terminology had not been well appreciated . Indeed , the international solidarity to the denialist resurgence could not have been envisaged by those who imagined that the world would show solidarity to survivors in particular and to Rwandans in general .
Further , the post-genocide government ’ s preoccupation with unity most likely informed the decision to use a “ unifying ” – albeit denialist – terminology . This would have been alright if the world had done its part to show solidarity , especially after its indifference in the face of the killings .
However , as much as unity was needed , it didn ’ t need to come at the cost of accommodating a denialist concept . What was more unifying and reconciling was the clarity of the terminology and the proper identification of the culprits as a means of pursuing accountability and nurturing collective consciousness in Rwandan society around the tragedy . Crucially , to refer to it
05