Talk:Rwandan genocide/Draft RPF killings section

Current version
During the genocide and in the months following the RPF victory, RPF soldiers killed many people they accused of participating in or supporting the genocide. Many of these soldiers were recent Tutsi recruits from within Rwanda, who had lost family or friends and sought revenge. The scale, scope, and source of ultimate responsibility of these killings is disputed. Human Rights Watch, as well as scholars such as Prunier, allege that the death toll might be as high as 100,000, and that Kagame and the RPF elite either tolerated or organised the killings. In an interview with journalist Stephen Kinzer, Kagame acknowledged that killings had occurred but stated that they were carried out by rogue soldiers and had been impossible to control. The RPF killings gained international attention with the 1995 Kibeho massacre, in which soldiers opened fire on a camp for internally displaced persons in Butare prefecture. Australian soldiers serving as part of UNAMIR estimated at least 4,000 people were killed, while the Rwandan government claimed that the death toll was 338.

Original rewrite
Rumors of RPF killings emerged after 250,000 mostly Hutu refugees streamed into Tanzania at the border crossing of Rusumo on 28 April 1994, in "the biggest and fastest refugee movement UNHCR had ever witnessed." A refugee worker said that "The Rusumo road was just one compact mass of people, like a flow of lava descending inexorably toward the Tanzanian border." A journalist on the scene reported that "Though none of the people interviewed said they saw the fighters or witnessed any killing, they all accuse the Tutsi rebels, grouped in the Rwandan Patriotic Front, of atrocities." After the RPF took control of the border crossing at Rusumo on 30 April, refugees continued to cross the Kagera River, ending up in remote areas of Tanzania. By mid-May, refugee organizations had been made privy to details of specific atrocities reported by survivors.

Allegations of RPF atrocities were repeated after the RPF took power by a team led by Robert Gersony which had been tasked with finding ways to speed up the repatriation of the refugees, but, on the basis of hundreds of interviews, concluded that "clearly systematic murders and persecution of the Hutu population in certain parts of the country" had taken place. Alison Des Forges called Gersony's findings "The first convincing evidence of wide-spread, systematic killings by the RPF". Gersony's findings were suppressed by the United Nations. The scholar Gérard Prunier was fooled into believing that the Gersony Report "did not exist", which was only technically true. Prunier later admitted that "the reason for 'selecting facts' was my sympathy for the RPF and my refusal at the time to believe that it could be cold-bloodedly killing people." The new authorities, in contrast, maintained that these atrocities were perpetrated by undisciplined recruits seeking revenge. According to an RPA officer, "There was not time to do proper screening. [...] We needed a force, and some of those recruited were thieves and criminals. Those people have been responsible for much of our trouble today." The new Interior Minister, Seth Sendashonga, emphasized the "phenomenal" discipline at display, which supposedly kept unauthorized killings at a minimum. But Sendashonga later went into exile and reversed his position, stating that "These were not slip-ups born out of anger, as I believed at the beginning. There was a master plan". In an interview with journalist Stephen Kinzer, Kagame acknowledged that killings had occurred but stated that they were carried out by rogue soldiers and had been impossible to control.

The RPF killings gained international attention with the 1995 Kibeho massacre, in which soldiers opened fire on a camp for internally displaced persons in Butare prefecture. Australian soldiers serving as part of UNAMIR estimated at least 4,000 people were killed, while the Rwandan government claimed that the death toll was 338.

Proposed draft
During the genocide and in the months following the RPF victory, RPF soldiers killed many people, although the nature and causes of these atrocities is a matter of dispute. According to one view, which is supported by the post-genocide regime, killings by RPF soldiers were perpetrated by undisciplined recruits seeking revenge. Furthermore, all such transgressions were promptly punished. Another view, maintained by critics of the regime, is that RPF committed atrocities in a systematic fashion which were directed by officers with a high level of authority, possibly implicating Paul Kagame himself. Some of those critics argue that these killings amounted to genocide under international law.

The first rumours of RPF killings emerged after 250,000 mostly Hutu refugees streamed into Tanzania at the border crossing of Rusumo on 28 April 1994. The refugees had fled before the Tutsi rebels arrived because they believed the RPF were committing atrocities. A spokesperson for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) observed that "There's a lot of propaganda by the Government radio aimed at the Hutu" which "makes them feel very anti-Tutsi." After the RPF took control of the border crossing at Rusumo on 30 April, refugees continued to cross the Kagera River, ending up in remote areas of Tanzania. In early May, the UNHCR began hearing concrete accounts of atrocities and made this information public on 17 May.

After the RPF took power in Rwanda, UNHCR sent a team led by Robert Gersony to investigate the prospects for a speedy return of the nearly two million refugees that had fled Rwanda since April. On the basis of 300 interviews, Gersony concluded that "clearly systematic murders and persecution of the Hutu population in certain parts of the country" had taken place. Gersony's findings were suppressed by the United Nations. The Gersony Report did not technically exist because Gersony did not complete it, but a summary of an oral presentation of his findings was leaked in 2010. The new authorities strongly denied the allegations of Gersony, details of which leaked to the press. According to an RPA officer, "There was not time to do proper screening. [...] We needed a force, and some of those recruited were thieves and criminals. Those people have been responsible for much of our trouble today." In an interview with journalist Stephen Kinzer, Kagame acknowledged that killings had occurred but stated that they were carried out by rogue soldiers and had been impossible to control.

The RPF killings gained international attention with the 1995 Kibeho massacre, in which soldiers opened fire on a camp for internally displaced persons in Butare prefecture. Australian soldiers serving as part of UNAMIR estimated at least 4,000 people were killed, while the Rwandan government claimed that the death toll was 338.

Comments
I think the statement that "RPF soldiers killed many people they accused of participating in or supporting the genocide" should not be included, or it should be modified, because it misrepresents the allegations against the RPF. The killings made by the RPF was a matter of utmost secrecy, and more often than not the victims were not "accused" of anything, they were just killed. The RPF called for meetings on "peace and security", offered food, etc., then slaughtered them, just like that. No explanation given, no accusations involved. These facts are well known by scholars, and it happened repeatedly. It was not a matter of public debate. The RPF disposed of many bodies in the Akagera National Park, and they created a crematorium in Gabiro to hide the evidence. The RPF also systematically killed Hutus who tried to join the RPF. They were driven in trucks to Akagera and killed. Of course, when details of the Gersony Report was leaked, the narrative of "revenge killings" by "undisciplined recruits" was invoked, but we must treat such claims with the skepticism they deserve. It has no semblance to the highly credible and very specific allegations against the RPF's Directorate of Military Intelligence made in Judi Rever's book. Uglemat (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that we can solve this by using the first paragraph to explain briefly the two contrasting viewpoints. This way, both viewpoints are faithfully represented. I'll see if I can do it. Uglemat (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, you may be interested to know that the 30-page, top-secret ICTR report used by Rever has been leaked online in its entirety and can be downloaded here: http://intabaza.com/?p=3561&lang=en I should mention that Rever has been in contact with ICTR prosecutor investigators (she probably went after the names in the report), and Carla Del Ponte's "special investigations" was common knowledge and a cause of friction between Rwanda and the ICTR, so there is no doubt that the document is genuine. Uglemat (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is generally quite good and balanced now, but I'm wary of the inclusion of the final sentence Some of those critics argue that these killings amounted to genocide. Yes, there may be some such as Filip Reyntjens who have used the term in conjunction with this, but very few of the sources seriously claim that it was a "genocide" in the same way as the Hutu killing of the Tutsi (in which extermination of the whole group was a proven aim), making that really quite a WP:FRINGE theory. Reyntjens claims that the killings amounted to an attempt to actually wipe out the Hutu, yet his own article only claims that the deaths might "run into the hundreds of thousands"... out of a Hutu population of six million or so. In a relatively short section such as this, I think it would be WP:UNDUE to refer to this as a genocide at all. Otherwise it's a good start. I'll try to get some more time in the next few days to draft and tweak the text myself (sorry, I don't ever have as much time for this as I'd like... pressures of real life and all!) Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I also like the opening paragraph, but you are wrong to believe that what Reyntjens is writing is fringe. Reyntjens refers to the Genocide Convention, which defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" (my emphasis). Genocide is a legal term, and that is what Reyntjens is referring to. I haven't read the whole book by Rever yet, but I think the allegation she is making is that the RPF killed Hutus as a group, in part and as such, in order to clear room for Tutsi refugees to settle in northeast. The intention on the part of the perpetrator is crucial here, and that is why it is crucial that Rever has interview RPF defectors, because they can tell her what RPF intentions were. I see how this can be confusing, but that is how genocide is defined in international law. For example, the Srebrenica massacre was hardly intended to kill all Bosniaks, but it was undoubtedly a genocide, even though "only" 8000 people were killed. Uglemat (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of the types of allegations in Rever's book. This is Théogène Murwanashyaka, an interior Tutsi who joined the RPF in 1991: "[From the very beginning of the rebel movement], the RPF had two objectives: seize power and as much as possible eliminate the Hutu population in their territory. That's what they did. This is not invented. It actually happened." (p. 114) Murwanashyaka lost his father and three brothers to the Interahamwe. He is a credible and independent witness (one of many). The evidence for genocide is there, but for many different reasons it has been suppressed: psychological (on the part westerners who out of principle refuse to "equate" it with the genocide against the Tutsi, and therefore reject the evidence out of hand), political (Washington D.C. and London has protected the RPF from ICTR prosecution, notably), but also because RPF is extremely good at propaganda. The result is that Hutu victims have not been believed when they claimed that the RPF perpetrated genocide, that the RPF killed people simply because they were Hutu. Hutus have universally been portrayed as perpetrators, Tutsis as victims. Hutus by default are crazy killers, but some of them may be upgraded to "moderate", for example if they deny the extremely serious crimes of the RPF. If the RPF kills Hutus, then the victims must ipso facto have been Interahamwe genocidaires. It's quite racist, if you ask me. Uglemat (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I forgot a fourth reason, namely that Rwanda is a Stasi-like state in which the "Truth" is totally unquestionable. The fate of Kizito Mihigo after he released "The meaning of death" is a case of point (he challenged the official Truth by acknowledging that Hutus were also killed). The RPF has agents everywhere. This is the testimony of one of those agents: "You wear two hats. You have your job, and you are a spy for the RPF. Rwandans known what's going on. That's why very few talk in public. They are afraid." (Rever 2018, p. 122) Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza is one of the few people who dare speak up: "It is an open secret that the social capital has been seriously depleted. Children report parents, wives report husbands and vice versa, neighbours spy on neighbours to report them to government."


 * This quote from Claudine Vidal is instructive:

"For 20 years, publications on the crimes of the RPF – by NGOs, researchers, and eyewitnesses – have only really appealed to a small number of people. These readers are split into two irreconcilable factions.

One side is aligned with the official history, as maintained by current Rwandan authorities. It rejects the allegations against Kagame and others and calls the accusers negationists seeking to deny the Tutsi genocide. The other uses evidence from various investigations to attack the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, accusing it of implementing a “justice of the winning side” by refusing to put the RPF leaders on trial for their crimes. It demands that international courts prosecute the FPR them for actions that are sometimes labelled as war crimes or crimes against humanity and, more often, as genocide. [my emphasis]"


 * She writes that the second camp more often than not allege genocide. Like it or not, that is the position of many in the second camp, and it should therefore be mentioned. I tend to agree with Vidal that the fixation on whether certain crimes fit the legal definition of genocide is not good and that all human rights abuse should be denounced. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in. It would be nice, though. Uglemat (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. It shouldn't matter whether it's a genocide or not. The fact that people are being systematically killed is enough. Sorry for the delay on this, but I will circle back to it very soon. I think we're making good progress already, I'm happier with the balance in the draft so far. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Very Soon.™ :P I've rewritten the final part, trying to let the facts speak for themselves (logos) rather than invoking the ethos of Des Forges, Prunier and Seth Sendashonga. Let me know if you think it's good to go. Uglemat (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I guess my "very soon" is up there with "temporary" fixes that are still in place 20 years later... I actually think the paragraph is alright now. As you say, introducing the dispute and the two points of view in the opening paragraph and then stating facts is the best way to present it so well done on that, and apologies for not being involved more. Please feel free to insert it into the article. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors of the version of this article on nl.Wikipedia.org and am amazed at this discussion. Too much credibility is given to Judi Rever - not a scholar - who has not yet proven herself to be a reliable source. Some scholars like Lemarchand and Reyntjens have praised the book, but did so at face value - risky as it turns out. Critical reviews are slowly becoming available, as well as some of Rever's sources, like the 'secret' ICTR report which is on the internet. The secret report is actually an intermediate "summary presentation of the activities of the Special Investigations Team", not an "official compendium of RPF crimes" as Rever alleges. On a number of suspected crimes it concludes: "more information needed". Some of the allegations are based on hearsay only. There's no mention of the Gabiro "death factory" either. The report does mention executions in the area between Gabiro town and Akagera Park, carried out by a special squad, but with a death toll of "5 to 20 persons a day" during May-August 1994. The Byumba stadium massacre and the Kabgayi-killings were deemed to be solid cases, but evidence of the rest was not very strong. Moreover, the crematoriums-thesis, with hundreds of thousands of victims, violates the laws of physics according to forensic scientists who were invited to respond to the methods described in Rever's book. On the discussion about the assault on the plane carrying Juvenal Habyarimana: The results of the 2012 report by a group of five scientists, commissioned by the French judges Poux and Trevidic, did not exonerate the RPF but made it very unlikely that they were involved. Reyntjens has written in 1995 that it would have been practically impossible for the RPF to get into the Kanombe camp and shoot missiles from there. He hasn't provided a new scenario to suggest differently. More interesting is the fact that the conclusions of the report exclude Masaka as the location of the assault, which discredits Judi Rever's sources who claim they were there. Even Reyntjens disputes the part where Judi Rever claims the RPF had an infiltrator inside the control tower of the airport who guided the assault team in Masaka by two way radio. In short: too many controversies about the contents of this book to use it for now. We just don't know yet which parts are real and which are not.Saflieni (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)