Clarification of Exactly What We Did and Did not Say

Rwanda 1994: Genocide + Politicide

To begin, we have never “denied” mass killing or genocide. Part of the confusion concerning our research rests in the practice of defining what took place in 1994 as one thing, as an exclusive/singular categorization; which we did/do not wish to do but did for reasons outlined below.

If only Tutsi were killed, then classifying the mass killing as genocide exclusively would not be problematic. It is clear that Tutsi were persecuted, targeted, hunted down and killed. It is also clear that this fits with the legal, political and behavioral definitions of genocide. This cannot be stated any clearer and to deny this is absurd given the evidence (note: the name of our project “GenoDynamics – Understanding Genocide Through Space and Time” reflects this awareness as well, something ignored previously within the media). At the same time, it is also clear that non-Tutsi were targeted and killed (at untold but likely not insignificant numbers). This fits with another set of political definitions and processes, but not any clear legal definition. This also needs to be clearly understood.

What our research (based on data collection efforts of Rwandan ngos, government ministries as well as international ngos) thus far leads us to conclude was that “politicide” more adequately describes a situation where a weak, ruthless regime struck out at everyone in their reach. The classification genocide privileges one reason for mass killing, but politicide allows for a wider variety of targets/motives all linked to the coercive machinery of the state. This was either lost or neglected within earlier reports.

Why do we say this and why is this shift useful? By most accounts, there was 650,000 Tutsi in the country in 1994. By most accounts, there were 150,000 Tutsi that survived (one survivors' organization - Ibuka - estimates that this figure is doubled). When one considers how individuals were targeted, how individuals were mobilized and the brutal manner in which they were killed, it is clear that this is genocide (the majority of Tutsi were killed). The question remains: what do we do with others that were killed when we classify the event in this manner? One estimate (Human Rights Watch) identifies that 500,000 individuals were killed. In this context, the event would exclusively be genocide. Another estimate (The Rwandan Ministry of Youth, Culture and Sport) identifies that 834,283 individuals were killed. In this context, approximately 500,000 Tutsi were killed and the remaining 334,283 would be Hutu (and/or Twa). Yet another estimate (The Rwandan Ministry of Local Administration) identifies that 914,989 individuals were killed. In this context, approximately 500,000 Tutsi were killed and the remaining 414,989 would be Hutu (and/or Twa). Others estimate that the number of victims exceeded a million. This compels yet another conclusion.

In these later data compilations (which we are comparing and have no reason to disregard as invalid), it is not clear how one should categorize the events of 1994 and this is the context within which our earlier statement was made. Clearly, there was a genocide (Tutsi were targeted and killed because of their ethnicity), but there was something else as well, which when considered simultaneously complicates use of the phrase to describe the whole event. To address this complexity, we preferred to employ the label politicide for it highlights the fact that the regime at the time massacred their citizens for “political” reasons (some of which were ethnic and some of which were not). This does not “deny” mass killing; it suggests that mass killing was based on ethnicity as well as other factors. The media’s desire for controversy should have been tempered by the careful phrasing that we employed within our statement(s). Additionally, as scholars that have spent a good deal of time reading about the Holocaust, we are well aware of what such claims imply and this is offensive to Rwandans as well as to us.

What was ignored entirely within earlier releases/articles and a point that we have made each time we have spoken about this issue was the fact that we do not advocate singularly classifying the events of 1994. Indeed, we maintain that based off of existing information, the most accurate description would probably entail a combination of genocide (against Tutsi) and politicide (against all Tutsi and Hutu within the country at the time who threatened the regime and/or stood in their way or in the way of those siding with them). Both are implied by the Rwandan phrases "Itsembasemba" (the killing of those against genocide) and "Itsembabwoko" (the killing of those targeted for elimination). All we have done was raise the issue of the victim distributions and the problems inherent with classifying what took place simply and singularly. All we have done was raise the issue that additional effort needs to be extended at comparing investigations into the events of 1994 and on-going research undertaken by individuals throughout the world. It is possible that the population figures could be challenged. It is possible that the victim estimates could be challenged. If this is done, then our work, our understanding, and that of others would be seriously modified as well as improved. This will only be accomplished, however, if we address and discuss what took place in Rwanda, in 1994. Invariably, this was our only objective for providing information about our project in the first place.

Earlier, in the brief formats that were provided to us, we were not allowed to explain any of this in detail - the media formats compelled us to be brief and most of our analysis/discussion was cut (generally without our approval). As a result, we decided that it was necessary to issue this statement, no longer wishing to be misquoted and misunderstood. In fact, this experience has forced us to conclude that unless detailed analysis/discussion can be provided and prior approval over finished content are granted ahead of time, we are done with interacting with the news media.

It should be clear, we did not and do not seek to offend the survivors of this horrible event or any efforts at truth-telling and prosecution of those accountable. If this was done in any way, shape or form, we apologize. We all have dear friends in and outside of Rwanda and we have been deeply affected by their strength of character and forthrightness. We have also been deeply affected by how our research has been received within the press. We never said that we “deny genocide”, which implies that there was no killing in 1994. What we attempted to say was that based off of the available information in the popular domain, the labeling of the mass killing that took place 10 years ago (as linked to exactly who was killed) is complex and we thus chose a label that allowed for multiple victims as well as multiple motives. We did not and do not seek to mischaracterize the events of 1994. This is in fact the objective of the research: to understand what took place and to facilitate communication as well as analysis about the events involved. We need to return to this point and get away from everything else. In this context, we felt that it was necessary to correct how our work was being covered/understood and to be more vigilant in protecting the integrity of what we were attempting to do - advocating the most accurate description of what occurred: in 1994, the Rwandan government engaged in a horrendous mass killing of it’s citizens, targeting ethnic Tutsis as well as political enemies (both Tutsis and Hutus); the first is called genocide and the second is called politicide.