Share
Share
Share

kAMBANDA

Prof Charles Kambanda is a Rwandan American legal scholar, and professor at St. John's University in New York City, formerly a professor at several East African universities. He was once a member of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front.

In one of his writings on Facebook on 17th May 2014 about his views and comments on situation in Rwanda, he demonstrated why what is known as Rwandan Genocide or Genocide against the Tutsi were not Genocide.

 

Here is what Prof  Kambanda he has written.

"I am one of the people who are convinced that the massacres in Rwanda should not be referred to as genocide. It is true that the Tutsi were a major target for some Hutu interahamwe. However, it is equally true that the Hutu were the major target for some Tutsi killers under RPA/F.

It is not true that the Tutsi were killed exclusively by the Hutu. We know for fact that some Hutu killed the Tutsi and Twa as well as some foreigners. We know for fact that some Tutsi killed some Hutu, Twa and foreigners. We also know that some Twa killed some Hutu, Tutsi and foreigners. It is my submission that those massacres shouldn't be termed genocide because: 1) Some people who killed the Tutsi were Tutsi. Some Tutsi who killed the Tutsi were well trained RPF/A soldiers who infiltrated the Hutu youth groups that had gone radical. Some of these people are still alive. Some of RPA commanders who trained, armed and deployed these RPA special force to kill the Tutsi posing as interahamwe are still alive.

2) The interahamwe who allegedly killed the Tutsi were not exclusively Hutu. Some interahamwe were Tutsi. In effect, the commander, political affairs and recruitment boss of the interahamwe was Tutsi. Except if you argue that the Tutsi had the specific intent to kill in whole or part their fellow Tutsi.

3) The number of Tutsi victims of the massacres is far less than the number of the Hutu who died during the massacres. Refer to the then population statistics, the number of skulls in genocide memorial sites and the number of the Tutsi survivors of the massacres. It is not possible that the Hutu set out to exterminate the Tutsi but ended up exterminating themselves.

4) Execution of genocide is impossible without planning on the top. There is no evidence that some Hutu at the top planned what you want to call Tutsi genocide.

5) if you agree that shooting down Habyarimana's plane was the proximate cause of what you call genocide, and the "genocide" started immediately after shooting down the plane, and, considering point (4) above, it is evident there was no time for planning and propagating what you want to call genocide.

6) Considering that the massacres occurred in the context of a bloody ethnic war between the Hutu and Tutsi and considering point (3) above, it is naive to refer to those massacres as genocide.

7) At the time of the massacres, the then government troops (the Hutu) were disarmed by UN forces, fully disarmed. However, RPA was well armed with very many troops in Kigali. Generally, the Hutu government and troops had lost power and the war. How the disarmed Hutu troops did exterminated the Tutsi in front of the armed RPF Tutsi troops?

I think the "Tutsi genocide" propaganda is for a different purpose. I will NEVER buy into that propaganda; it does not make much sense, at least legally."