Following Edward Herman and David Peterson's challenge to Gerald Caplan's critique of their book 'The Politics of Genocide', Adam Jones provides a powerful riposte to their arguments, emphasising what actually occurred in Rwanda in 1994. 'Herman and Peterson's attempts to disguise and deny it constitute,' writes Jones, 'the nadir of their respective careers.'
Edward Herman and David Peterson's response to Gerald Caplan's review of their book, 'The Politics of Genocide' (8 July), merits a lengthy riposte. I will limit myself to a few comments, pending a closer engagement to follow.
(1) Herman and Peterson contend that mainstream scholarship on Rwanda in 1994, such as Caplan's, "turns perpetrator and victim upside-down." In fact, they allege, Hutus were the principal victims of the bloodbath, and the RPF/Tutsis - "the 'only well-organized killing force within Rwanda in 1994'" - were "both the initiators and the main perpetrators of 1994's mass blood-letting."
The crucial source they cite in support of this argument is research by Christian Davenport and Allan Stam, notably their October 2009 article, "What Really Happened in Rwanda?" Curiously, though, Herman and Peterson never mention Davenport and Stam's core finding: that "the vast majority of the 1994 killing had been conducted by the FAR [Rwandan army], the Interahamwe [militia] and their associates." All three of these Hutu-controlled bodies were apparently quite "well-organized killing force[s]," if they were responsible for "the vast majority" of up to a million murders in a few months. With regard to the RPF, Davenport and Stam claim that it played a "not insignificant role" in the carnage. Certainly, the RPF's probable tens of thousands of killings in Rwanda in 1994 are significant. But they are hardly justification for flipping the Rwandan genocide on its head, and depicting the RPF/Tutsis as "the main perpetrators" of the killing, as Herman and Peterson do. Indeed, Davenport and Stam's finding was precisely the opposite.
(Note in passing, however, the fundamental illogic which characterises both Davenport and Stam's article, and Herman and Peterson's mendaciously selective use of it. If the Hutu-controlled 'FAR, the Interahamwe and their associates' were responsible for the 'vast majority' of the 1994 murders, and if - as Davenport and Stam also allege, and Herman and Peterson repeat - the majority of those killed were likely Hutus, why on earth would Hutus have been killing other Hutus on such a massive scale, and in such a seemingly systematic fashion? We know that many oppositionist and other Hutus did perish in the genocide. But where is the evidence for such a gargantuan Hutu-on-Hutu bloodbath, with Tutsi victims pushed to the periphery?)
(2) Perhaps the most disturbing passage in Herman and Peterson's response to Caplan is this: "Would it not have been incredible for Kagame's Tutsi forces to conquer Rwanda in 100 days, and yet the number of minority Tutsi deaths be greater than the number of majority Hutu deaths by a ratio of something like three-to-one? Surely then we would have to count Rwanda 1994 as the only country in history where the victims of genocide triumphed over those who committed genocide against them, and wiped the territory clean of its 'genocidaires' at the same time."
Of course, no mainstream authority has ever claimed that the Tutsi "victims of genocide" in Rwanda in 1994 were drawn from "Kagame's Tutsi forces." The latter were invading from Uganda, as Herman and Peterson themselves emphasize. They were outsiders with no connection to, and apparently no particular sympathy for, the Tutsi civilian population of Rwanda. It was the Rwandan Tutsi population which, by all serious accounts, bore the overwhelming brunt of the Hutu Power genocide.
So Herman and Peterson's mocking reference to the "minority Tutsi" population supposedly bearing the brunt of the massacres, then assuming "complete control" of Rwanda, is pure sleight-of-hand. To repeat the indisputable: it was the foreign-based RPF that took "complete control" in July 1994 and "wiped the territory clean of its 'genocidaires'" - not the "minority Tutsi" population of Rwanda, which had been mostly exterminated by that point. By insinuating otherwise - by conflating Rwanda's civilian Tutsis with "Kagame's Tutsi forces" - Herman and Peterson none-too-subtly adopt Hutu Power's justification for slaughtering Tutsi civilians: that they constituted a "fifth column," indistinguishable from the invading RPF. This casual parroting of the most virulent Hutu-extremist propaganda effectively blames Rwanda's Tutsis for their own extermination. It is a disgraceful ploy, and by itself it casts Herman and Peterson's "analysis" into utter disrepute.
(3) Herman and Peterson quote approvingly Allan Stam's claim that the RPF's military maneuvers were "staggeringly like the United States invasion of Iraq in 1991." This is advanced to buttress their (painfully thin) argument that the RPF acted as a US proxy throughout 1994, and after. But if RPF military actions were indeed "staggeringly like" those of the US and its allies in the 1991 Gulf conflict, we must assume that the RPF mustered over half a million troops for its offensive; dropped tens of thousands of tons of bombs on enemy positions and population centers; mounted massed armoured thrusts to overwhelm its opponent; and routed the foe in a mere 100 hours of land warfare. Since none of these remotely obtained in the RPF's 1994 campaign, an objective observer might rather conclude that in all central respects, that campaign was staggeringly unlike the 1991 invasion of Iraq.
(4) At various points, Herman and Peterson make much of the supposed lightning speed of the RPF victory ("incredible for Kagame's Tutsi forces to conquer Rwanda in 100 days," etc.). One hundred days, in fact, can be a very long time in war and genocide. In the 1991 Gulf War, as noted, the Allies crushed Iraqi forces in 100 hours. Many other examples could be cited, from the 1967 Six-Day War in which Israel nearly obliterated the forces of three Arab states, to the six-week blitzkrieg in which the Nazis conquered France in 1940. For Hutu Power to have supervised the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people in three-and-a-half months is surely "incredible" in a moral sense - not that we can expect such an acknowledgment from Herman and Peterson. But it is perfectly credible in a logistical sense, with the target populations utterly defenseless, and prone to be rounded up and slaughtered by the thousands or tens of thousands at a time. That, in any case, is what actually occurred in Rwanda in 1994. Herman and Peterson's attempts to disguise and deny it constitute the nadir of their respective careers.
Adam Jones is associate professor of political science at the University of British Columbia, Okanagan.
Comments 1 to 2 of 2 Post a comment
The mainstream media narrative regarding the tragic events that took place in Rwanda in 1994 seek to portray an image of evil Hutus suddenly killing their own evil leader and then proceeding by butchering their angel Tutsi neighbors for no reason whatsoever. This narrative claims that all Tutsis are good people while all Hutus are bad people. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Rwanda, there are two groups of Tutsis. The extremist Tutsis who grew up in neighboring Uganda and the moderate Tutsis who grew up in Rwanda and other countries. The extremist Tutsis who grew up in Uganda have never liked the moderate Tutsis who grew up in Rwanda. Whereas the extremist Tutsis believe they are royal blood who are born to rule, the moderate Tutsis consider themselves normal human beings. But somehow the extremist Tutsis have used the moderate Tutsis as pawns to be sacrificed in their quest for power.
On January 28, 1993 exactly 15 months before the so-called "Tutsi genocide", it was the first time that anyone had ever mentioned the word "genocide" in relation to Rwanda. This word was mentioned by extremist Tutsis who were part of the RPF rebel group. From that moment on, these extremist Tutsis in the RPF started using the word "genocide" in all their interviews, their speeches, their written materials, everything. On the other hand, on February 8, 1993 exactly 11 days after the first mention of that word, the extremist Tutsi forces in the RPF butchered 40,000 unarmed Hutu civilians in one day in the regions of Ruhengeri and Byumba in Rwanda. Since then, the extremist Tutsis in the RPF escalated their killings of the Hutu civilian population over the following 15 months. This appears to have been a calculated effort to provoke the Hutu extremists into mass revenge killings, which would then be labeled "genocide" and with the international community on their side, the extremist Tutsis can take over power. The extremist Tutsis' wishes appear to have been granted on April 6, 1994 when they finally killed two Hutu Presidents, president Habyarimana of Rwanda and president Ntaryamira of Burundi as well as the Hutu Chief of Army. The Hutu extremists after 15 months of sustained provocations launched into mass revenge killings against moderate Tutsis that have since been labeled the "Tutsi genocide."
A fair review of Rwandan history that fully examines all the actions that have been taken by extremist Tutsis since January 28, 1993 when they first claimed "genocide" can only lead to one conclusion: the extremist Tutsis continuously intentionally provoked extremist Hutus over a 15 month period into the mass killings until the extremist Hutus were foolish enough to oblige them.
The mainstream media narrative implies that there is a comparison between Nazi Germany and Rwanda circa 1994. What this mainstream media does not realize or intentionally ignores are some of the differences below:
1. The Jews in Germany have never enslaved Germans and never claimed that they were superior and born to rule over the German masses. Some extremist Tutsis in Rwanda were an aristocratic minority that enslaved the Hutu peasant majority for over 400 years all the way until 1959. When the Hutu peasants asked for democracy the extremist Tutsis responded that the Hutu masses were inferior by birth and were born to be ruled by the superior Tutsi aristocrats.
2. The Jews in Germany have never started a war attacking Germany from a foreign country. Some extremist Tutsis in Rwanda attacked the country from Uganda on October 1st, 1990. This was more than 5 times since 1960 that the extremist Tutsis had attacked the country.
3. The Jews in Germany did not spend a 4 year war fighting to gain power and in the process killing innocent German civilians. Some extremist Tutsis in Rwanda fought since October 1990 until April 1994 fighting to gain power and in the process displaced 1 million civilians and killed thousands others, an example being on February 8, 1993 when the Tutsi extremists in the RPF killed 40 thousand unarmed civilians in Byumba and Ruhengeri.
4. The Jews in Germany did not kill the German president, together with the Austrian president, the Chief of Army and several high-ranking officials after they had signed a peace treaty with them. Some extremist Tutsis in Rwanda killed the Hutu President of Rwanda, the Hutu President of Burundi, the Hutu Chief of Army and several high-ranking officials after they had signed a peace treaty with them.
5. The Jews in Germany did not follow the Germans into exile in neighboring countries and kill hundreds of thousands of them in forests like hunted animals. Some extremist Tutsis in Rwanda bombed refugee camps in Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo) and chased the survivors into the forests of the Congo (DRC) where they butchered hundreds of thousands of them.
Therefore, I really think it is completely wrong to compare Hitler's Germany to 1994 Rwanda.
Rwanda will never move forward until the crimes against humanity committed by extremist Tutsis are acknowledged too. The saddest part in all this is that the moderate Tutsis and the moderate Hutus are the ones that have suffered whenever the extremist Hutus and the extremist Tutsis decided to kill people.
While ensconced in warmth, comfort and security far away from Tutsi's killing fields of Rwanda and the lakes region, a foreign associate professor at the nadir of his career in British Columbia lazily opines:
" .. That, in any case, is what actually occurred in Rwanda in 1994. .."
"actually"?
Once upon a time, our professor may opine, the land now known as British Columbia teemed with many natives who lived happily with a few brit foreigners. Suddenly and without provocation, the native genocidaires rose up and slaughtered many of the minority foreign brits. The carnage lasted a year. Then the peaceful brits waved their magic wand and calm returned again and everyone lived happily ever after. [No, he would insist, there was no wholesale slaughter/extermination of the defenceless then-majority natives by the well-armed bloodletting brits. And that the dwindling number of natives is explained purely by the natives' lack of desire to live.]
1994? Mr professor, did genocidaire Kagame and his murderous Tutsi partake in wide-ranging mass slaughter of the Hutu in the lakes region before 1994? After 1994?
The professorial expert on Africa's affairs may not stop there. He may opine about what 'actually' happened in the Congo at the turn of the last century where, during a period of a few years, over 10 million natives - half of the population - was wiped out by a few well-armed Belgians. Hey, the story here is not about the sustained victimization of natives prior to and after the duration of that holocaust (one among several) but the death of a few (and hence, propaganda-wise, "up to millions") of Belgians!
Now even the good professor would glibly repeat the refrain "800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu" - and not pause to wonder why he must use that (Kagame-approved) phrase whose origin and accuracy are suspect. [For instance, would that phrase apply to a case of 1,000 Tutsi and 7999,000 Hutu? What Kagame-approved propaganda purpose is served by the qualified "moderate"?]]
Our ancestors have said that the story of the hunt would be different if told by the antelope.