as genocide against the Tutsi is not to suggest that all Hutus are perpetrators – the criminal entity is the government and all those who subscribed to the Parmehutu ideology that was the basis for the genocide . In the same way , it is not all Germans who committed the Holocaust but the Nazi regime and adherents to the ideology of Nazism regarding the Arian race and Lebensraum .
Secondly , whereas Hutus and Tutsis do not fit the precise definition of ethnic groups and in fact belong to the same Rwandan ethnicity , per definition , the fact that the victims were “ targeted as such ” means that the perpetrators targeted Tutsis because they perceived them to constitute an ethnic group , a condition that was sufficient for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ( ICTR ) to rule that a “ genocide against the Tutsi ethnic group ” took place in Rwanda in 1994 ; the court ordered subsequent judicial proceedings to consider it as a fact “ beyond any dispute and requiring no proof .”
Third , once this reality is established then it remains unintelligible to refer to the “ Rwandan genocide ” because it is clearly inconsistent with the definition of genocide . A Rwandan genocide is only possible as an interstate phenomenon . Even though the term “ the genocide in Rwanda ” might be acceptable ( because the targeted group may be understood to be the subtext ), to be unambiguous about it by using “ the genocide against the Tutsis ” is to exercise moral clarity . Significantly , “ Rwandan genocide ” conceals – deliberately or otherwise – the target group , as though people were targeted for their national identity , which is a misrepresentation that suggests inter-state actors , as noted above . Additionally , such terminology would also defeat the very essence of state control over the annihilation of its population “ in part or in whole ,” as the definition in the Genocide Convention states . It would follow that if the state has no control , its intent cannot be established , thereby diluting its responsibility in the case of Rwanda .
Further , “ Genocide against the Tutsis ” is a recognition of solidarity with the targeted group , given that it locks out any other group as victims of the 1994 genocide . In this regard , it is unintelligible to refer to “ moderate Hutu victims of genocide ”. This is so simply because , while Tutsis were targeted as a group , Hutus were targeted as individuals for opposing the extermination project targeting Tutsis ; they were killed for “ believing ” that genocide was unacceptable , itself a moral conviction worth emulating .
Unpremeditated denial has often also used the figure 800,000 deaths ( as premeditated denial uses figures of 500,000 and below ) when the figure corroborated by survivors in the 2002 Minaloc census stands at 1,070,014 . The blatant rejection of this figure questions the goodwill of the authors , and puts victims on trial , as though they have something to gain from inflating the number of deaths . It aims to belittle the genocide since there ’ s no precise threshold of deaths necessary for the crime to constitute genocide . The only factor that matters under the genocide convention is the intent to destroy “ in part or in whole ” a protected group . In other words , even if the death toll stands at 50,000 , it would be appropriately called genocide , and it would still be morally reprehensible that genocide was allowed to take place amidst international indifference .
The fact that denial is “ well-intentioned ” doesn ’ t diminish the responsibility that should come with any discussion of genocide . Neither is ignorance a defence . Sadly , the fact that it ’ s the value of African lives at stake appears to be the driver of this wilful ignorance .
Premeditated and flagrant denial
The failure to grasp the moral difference between genocide from other crimes has been a tool for premeditated genocide denial whose aim has been to , when the genocide is acknowledged , belittle , justify , and invoke a parallel genocide . The intention is to create a moral equivalence that suggests that “ both sides killed and everyone is to blame .” It is a way of decentralizing criminal responsibility just as the killers used to tell people in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi that as more go out to kill no one will be held responsible .
06