2: Journalism as Genocide: The Media Trial > Question
Download this section (11 pages) in PDF
(184 kb) or Word
Thierry Cruvellier: Merci.
Mr Nsanzuwera, you now have the right to ask two questions.
Francois-Xavier Nsanzuwera: Well
I’d like to ask three questions, because they’re
very complex questions. The first question is addressed to
Mrs. Simone, and Mrs. Charity, who were the trial attorneys
in the case. I will not ask them to repeat the trial
here, but I would like to ask them if they were able to establish
a link between the three people found guilty, the intellectual
authors of the crime, and those who actually killed.
My second question, which might seem to be provocative is
to know when should a reporter stop being a reporter, and
become a criminal responsible for crimes against humanity?
This is provocative, because this morning I found myself being
accused, if not charged, because between 1990 and 1994, I
was a crown prosecutor of the Republic. I am very bitter.
I often ask myself if I did enough, if I did my duty as I
should have during that time, and I console myself sometimes
by saying that November, ’93, I wrote, way before the
genocide, that we the Rwandan authorities were responsible,
were guilty, because of the dictatorship and the violence
that existed in our country, and that we were responsible
because we did not speak out, because fear had shut our mouths.
And then in ’94, there was the genocide. So I
would like to repeat my question when does a reporter stop
being a reporter, and when does he become a criminal?
And my last question: what can we do as a reporter so that
international justice will not be suspect of serving other
interests than justice? Thank you.
Thierry: Mrs. Kagwi. Speak
more. I guess you can answer the first question. Thanks.
Charity Kagwi: Yes, now
the first thing I want to say is that international law does
not require us to show a link between the actual incitement
and the killings. In fact, all we need to show is that
there was the act of the incitement. The fact that the
genocide did occur is not, in fact, relevant. However,
what we have shown, and what we did show in the media trial
was what the Kangura Journal and the RTLM did, was to stigmatize
the Tutsi ethnic group within the Rwanda, to stigmatize them
to such a level that killing them not only became a matter
of national duty, but killing them was not like killing a
human being. You were getting rid of a cockroach.
That is why it was very easy for you to take up a machete,
kill somebody, and go back home, and talk to your children.
It was like getting rid of a snake, and in every single genocide
there has been the stigmatization of the people, the dehumanization
of the people that makes it easy, gives us, gives the people,
the reason to take up whatever weapon they’re going
to do to exterminate what they consider is vermin in the society.
Another thing I would like to show is that
what consistently happened within Rwanda, and this was shown
through the Kangura Journal, was that the Tutsi population
within Rwanda, were being held hostage to the war situation.
What was being seen was that the people outside Rwanda, who
were attacking the country were people from the 1959 Diaspora,
mainly Tutsi, and the people within Rwanda, the Tutsi within
Rwanda, were being held to be accomplices of the enemy.
So I can just read one small extract that shows the people
in Rwanda, the Tutsi civilians in Rwanda were hostages to
the war situation. This is in Kangura 54, and it says,
“It is up to the Inyenzis, now Inyenzi means cockroach,
and that came to mean the Tutsi people, now to demonstrate
that they are courageous, and to know what till happen in
the future. They should understand that if they commit
the slightest mistake, then all of them will perish.
And, that if they make a mistake of once again attacking,
launching an attack, no accomplice will survive in Rwanda.
They should know today that all Hutus have become united.
They are united as one man.” I think that’s
all I have to say about that.
Thierry Cruvellier: Mr.
Biju Duval do you want to say something about that?
Biju Duval: Well yes,
it’s an important question. Mrs. Kagwi has just
given more details concerning the Kangura Journal, and there
again you mustn’t create confusion. There’s
Kangura. There’s RTLM Radio. There are 80
other newspapers being sold in Kigali. There’s
Radio Muhabura. There’s the government radio,
and all that is a very complex reality. And as you have
all understood certain words come back repeatedly, certain
expressions “Inyenzi-Nkotanyi,” accomplices
of the cockroaches, and these will play an important role
in the propaganda. And one of the main questions that
was judged in Arusha was to identify and to know if these
words have a criminal sense to them, if the use of these words
has as it’s purpose, direct extermination of a people,
and of course in 30 seconds I can’t present all the
details of this debate, but I’d like to tell you that
the debate does exist. It’s a complex one, and
it’s a debate will even come before your Canadian courts,
which last December rendered a decision, which encourages
you to reflect on this subject, a decision which is diametrically
opposed to the judgment of ICTR. So you can see the
danger for justice. If in Montreal, in Ottawa, you are
acquitted, and if for the same case you are found guilty for
using the same words in Arusha, where’s the role of
justice? So you have to be very prudent, and maybe prudent
or caution is not the right term. When you speak of
justice, you must be brave, but you must be very rigorous
in your use of principles. You must be brave, because
you have to be brave to not follow the experts, to speak out
for yourself, and that’s the answer I would give to
Thierry Cruvellier: Madame
Kagwi wants to reply of course. Please shortly so we
can move to the second question, very shortly.
Charity Kagwi: Okay.
The Mugesera judgment that was rendered in Canada is in appeal,
so I think that’s not a complete issue, and neither
is this one that was in the media trial. It’s
still going to go on appeal, and these issues will be handled
in other courts. But I want note that while I read an
extract from Kangura, this is an extract of Kangura 54 that
came up in March, of 1994. At the same time within Rwanda,
RTLM was running a competition, was actually running what
were advertisements for Kangura. They would tell people,
and this was read straight onto the record, they’d tell
people, “go read Kangura 54, read Kangura 54.
See what Kangura 54 is saying”. Now apart from
that, there was a competition in which people were told, “go
buy Kanguras, fill in answers, have answers, we’re going
to give you a lot of rewards for the people who win this,”
and, they also stated that you should rate RTLM. Now
the people, who were the owners of RTLM cannot take themselves
away from what Kangura was saying at that time, because by
advocating for the Kangura Journal what they were actually
doing was propagating the message that Kangura was giving.
So that’s about what I’m going to say.
Thierry Cruvellier: Thomas
Kamilindi, maybe you want to answer the second question at
what point a journalist becomes a criminal? How would
you understand that?
Thomas Kamilindi: Thank
you very much. It’s extremely difficult to answer
that question, because journalists are human like everyone
else. Sometimes reporters think they are supermen or
women, but no we are human beings. We have feelings
like everyone else, and we are members of society. And
we can be caught up in the circle of violence like anyone
else. We can identify with the group responsible for
violence, like other members of society can do. So that
is why as reporters we should be more objective. In
April last year, I was in Cote d’Ivoire covering journalism,
covering the situation in Cote d’Ivoire, and I spoke
to journalists about what we lived in, in Rwanda. I
said that certain reporters participated in this violence
by speaking out, but other reporters spoke out against the
violence. 48 of them were killed because they spoke.
So these reporters asked me, “how can we know if what
we’re doing is wrong?” They didn’t
know the answer to that question. They had already gone
too far. They had entered the hate media without knowing
it. So I told them, “look at what you write.
Listen to what you say, and analyze yourself. If you
are demonizing people, if you are stigmatizing other tribes,
other clans, you’re involved in violence. How
did you get there?” They don’t know.
So I said, “you’re no longer reporters.
You’re no longer journalists, and I would like to congratulate
the politicians who managed to co-opt you, and co-opt you
without you’re knowing it. I congratulate these
politicians. They’re good politicians. Very
effective. Now, stand up and be reporters, do you job,
report the facts objectively.” And during these
three days I stayed with them, they reacted, and somebody
said, “well there was a politician who has said, well,
we want Cote d’Ivoire for the people from Cote d’Ivoire”.
They said, “can we repeat that?” Well yes,
you can say that, you can say that this politician said that.
You can report that, and public opinion will know how to react
to this politician, who is an ultraationalist. You can
report the facts, but don’t get involved.
So in conclusion, it’s hard to know
as a reporter when you’ve taken the wrong turn.
Despite ethics and so on, it’s hard to know when you’ve
taken the wrong turn, but don’t be a coward. Stand
up for your work as a reporter.
Thierry Cruvellier: So
what I just heard here, we see here we have certain journalism,
then we have propaganda, but then we have another level, which
is crime. Maybe the lawyers could inform us about this,
what this actually means in terms of law.
Biju Duval: Well I think
the question here is absolutely crucial. When you’re
talking about international justice in Arusha, as in the Hague
has only one purpose, and only one subject: crime against
humanity and genocide. That is the most capital of all
crimes. That’s the sole subject, and the sole
purpose of international criminal justice. There’s
one thing I want to say here. I think that’s why
this trial for the incitement to genocide is not a really
a trial about freedom of expression, even distorted.
It’s not a kind of journalism as I say, which has gone
wrong, which has really been incriminated here, which has
really been judged by international law. What we’re
talking about here is a journalism, which is no longer going
to be called journalism. What we’re talking about
here is a crime. What they’re trying to do is
exterminate people. And in Kigali, in the studios of
the RTLM after April 6, then it’s absolutely clear what
we have here is not journalists who were at the microphone.
They’re actually wearing military uniforms. They
had weapons. Every morning, they went to headquarters
in order to get their instructions. They themselves
take part in combat, and then they return to the microphone,
the microphone which they use, themselves, as a weapon.
They use it as another form of weapon, but really we’re
not talking here about freedom of expression. It’s
a different matter altogether. What we have here is
the most capital of all crimes, the crime against humanity,
namely genocide. And that’s what, in fact, as
from 1945 has been examined by the international criminal
justice system, and it’s on the basis of this criminal
involvement in the most capital of all crimes that the judges
in Nuremberg, and also the United Nations delegates in 1948,
it was in those areas that they imposed legal standards.
They created the charge of direct and public incitement to
genocide. So this is the mission of the international
criminal system, and the international criminal system- if
we want it to be legitimate- if we want it to be legitimate
in ethical terms and also in legal terms to protect all of
mankind without any political involvement, then it has to
be limited solely to it’s main purpose, which is the
essential purpose, otherwise in fact, it will lose all effectiveness.
Thank you very much.
Thierry Cruvellier: I’m
sorry, maybe we can move onto the third question now.
We’ve got 25 minutes I think, and that’s all the
time we have. We don’t have any more than that.
First we’ll give the floor to the ladies.
Blythe McKay: (?) My name
is Blythe McKay (?), and I have a question for Thomas Kamilindi.
You mentioned that journalists have a role to play for the
good, and I was wondering what positive roles are media in
Rwanda currently playing in rebuilding Rwanda and reporting
on the genocide, and is it enough?
Thomas Kamilindi: So once
again after 10 years of genocide, it’s difficult for
Rwanda to get over the situation, to recover. So I just
want to talk about the press here. I’m not going
to talk about other things, for example, the creation of the
journalism school, or this kind of initiative. The press
at the present time, it’s weak in financial terms and
professional terms. Well, the journalists themselves
are traumatized, as is the rest of society, so there’s
a haunting feeling. They’re afraid that they’re
going to go back to the mistakes of the past, with the divisions,
the extremism, etc. So there is a press that censors
itself very much, and also it’s sometimes very passionate.
I’ll explain why. Well it’s very easy, for
example, for the press in Rwanda to report certain things
without any evidence. This could also happen.
Interahamwe is the name which has been given to the militia.
It’s the name of the militia who exterminated the Tutsi
in ’94. So sometimes they do some good things.
There are sometimes journalists who do, in fact, report the
facts as they are, as they took place without being in favor
of any political party, without being partisan in any way.
So it’s difficult still. Nevertheless, there are
some good steps, which have been taken, but there are still
And as regards reconciliation, as regards
reporting genocide, there’s also the issue of international
solidarity. That’s very important. At the
present time, there are some Americans, in fact, who are setting
up a project, and I’m going to get involved in it.
It’s still at the early stages, which is called Benevolencia.
I guess this term came from Bosnia, an initiative by Jewish
people there, who saved people in Bosnia, people who were
being hunted. Benevolencia, I guess it means benevolence
really, is where it comes from, goodwill. So they want
to go back to the origins of genocide, the sources of it,
the traumatism, trauma healing, this kind of thing.
Through leaflets, radio programs, small plays, for example,
plays on the radio, factual programs, documentaries, magazines,
because these programs while they’re fiction, and we
also have documentaries based on the facts. So this
is the kind of thing they’re trying to do in order to
go back to the source of the problem of genocide. There
is, or example, at the ICTR, and it’s a pity that the
international press is not at all interested in what this
tribunal is doing, but there’s an agency there, which
everyday, the Hirondelle Agency, which reports everyday.
They’re based there, and they report everyday what’s
going on at the ICTR, the trials, etc. So as I say,
things are being done, but nevertheless problems do remain.
Thierry Cruvellier: Next
Alex Ferrier (?): Hi I’m
Alex Ferrier. My question is for the panelists, who
were at the ICTR. During the trial process, did you
find the tribunal to actually be impartial, or did they demonstrate
favour to either side in this conflict?
Thierry Cruvellier: That’s
a question for me. I was not supposed to answer.
Yes, it’s been a major concern for most observers of
the tribunal, and it still is. There is clearly a deep
feeling among those who have been covering the trials that
the political drive that created the tribunal is still there.
In a way the ICTR has not emancipated itself from it’s
political origin, and so it is still being felt that the trials
are pretty much influenced politically, and under the political
influence, are sensitive to the political concerns of both
the international community and the Rwandan government.
Thierry Cruvellier: Yeah
Jean Boscu Culiny: (?)
Thank you. I’m Jean Boscu Culiny (?). I’m
a student at Laval University. I’m preparing my
doctorate in law on the prevention of genocide. I’ve
only one question. It’s addressed to Mr. Duval,
but before asking my question, I’d like to express what
was said by my compatriots if when he asked whether everything
was done which could have been done. I was there.
I know that everything was done that could have been done,
and I’d say that some people are very courageous.
So my question, Mr. Duval. Before asking the question,
I’d like to say two things; one which is factual, and
deals actually with the events before and after April 6, 1994.
It seemed to me, that Mr. Duval thinks that before April 6,
1994, the RTlM was not broadcasting really incendiary or inflammatory
messages. That’s not true. I was there.
Everybody knows, that even before April 6, 1994, that the
newspaper, news media were, in fact, making broadcasts advocating
genocide. Maybe he has other information, but I was
there. I actually witnessed that. So I don’t
know really who could decide this between us.
Now as regards the law issue, well I very
much appreciated your argument, but I don’t agree with
you on one point. You talked about the conviction of
Julius Streicher by the Nuremberg courts, the court in Nuremberg,
in fact, he was convicted not because of what he said during
the genocide, during the holocaust, but rather long before
that, he began long before that. He continued- it wasn’t
because he actually broadcast inflammatory things before the
holocaust. He was convicted because of the newspaper
he published, which is anti-Semitic, and also because he persecuted
a race. He was convicted for crimes against humanity
through persecuting a race or an ethnic group.
So having said that, I’ve made those
points. Now I’ve got to ask you a question.
If Mr. Streicher was convicted and sentenced in 1945, then
you rely on the 1948, December 9conviction concerning the
prevention of genocide in order to say that the law should
have gone backwards? I don’t think it should.
I think rather that law has evolved. The protection
of human rights has evolved since then. So we can’t
go back to before 1945. It’s only from 1945 onwards
that we have to look at things. If in 1945, Julius Streicher
was found guilty, then you’d expect therefore a journalist
to be found guilty now, a journalist, who created a media,
which was calling for genocide.
You talked about another gentleman, I don’t
want to talk about that now, because it’s before the
Supreme Court, the case, but I would ask the students in journalism
here to consider the judgment of Georges Ruggiu, Georges Ruggiu,
which did not consider the other judgments, particularly
Mugesera. Thank you very much.
Biju Duval: Thank you
very much. It’s a long question, but a very short answer.
At least I hope it will be short. Well, the effect or
the impact of law, or the effect first of all, of the impact,
and I’m talking only about RTLM, because we shouldn’t
mix everything up. Before April 6, as you said, these
were also inflammatory programs, which would lead to genocide.
These are the facts. So I think therefore that as regards
to the substance here, that I think we could almost agree
with one another. It’s obvious that given the
extremely tense situation, given the civil war situation,
the hidden civil war, in fact, which existed before April
6, then when you have programs, which lead to a violent political
fight in which the ethnic factor is very obvious, then these
programs, such programs, obviously are not conducive to peace.
They’re not conducive to the Arusha Peace Accords, so
we agree on this. And I would even go as far to say,
and here, I guess historians will have to consider this in
some way or another, maybe the answer is yes to some degree
did these programs, in fact, lead to the genocide, the explosion
after April 6? Yes, we probably agree on that, on the
analysis. But here once again, I’m not speaking
here as a witness of April, 1994, I’m talking rather
as somebody involved in a trial. Now a trial means actually
judging people based on the evidence, and the evidence here
was, in fact, 300 radio recordings. There was an enormous
amount of evidence here. 300 radio programs. So
I’ll ask all of you to actually go back to the source
of information here, and there was a lot of evidence.
Look at the judgment of December 3, look objectively, look
carefully, scrupulously at the programs selected by the tribunal.
That is essentially what was said before April 6, 1994, and
you’ll see, in fact, those programs which were inflammatory,
and not, in fact, a direct cause to extermination, even the
So we can come back to this on the legal
question, but I think the point is clear. Simone
Monasebian? Because we would like to take
a few other questions.
Simone Monasebian: Yeah,
it’s a mistake to suggest that the entirety of the judgment
was based on 303, 45- minute cassette tapes when RTLM broadcasted
for 365 days, several hours a day, sometimes 24 hours a day.
But within those 300 some-odd tapes, there are numerous examples
of RTLM expressing before April 6th that they knew their broadcast
had an impact, and just one of them was on January 21, 1994,
when one of the RTLM broadcasters said, “Little Tutsi
children in Nyamirambo came over to me and said, Kantano,
why do you persecute us? We are few in number, and when
we walk down the down street, CDR, the militia, beats us up,
pounces upon us. Why do you hate us just because we’re
Tutsis? We’re few in numbers. Please don’t
heat up people’s head.” And there’s
a term for that in Kenya and Rwanda, which is called “gushushway
nitway” (?) to heat up heads. Chauffer la tête.
And RTLM acknowledged on several occasions in these 300 some-odd
tapes before April 6th that people were getting beaten up.
There was causation demonstrated by their very own words.
And finally on the other thing that Mr.
Biju Duval says that, my colleague Charity Kagwi points out
that there was lay witness testimony. When Francois-Xavier
Nsanzuwera talked about the four times that he was incited
against on RTLM, twice before April 6, and twice after to
his knowledge, and we only have one of those four tapes, are
we to discount his testimony? Should people be acquitted
because not all the tapes existed? Should we have no
genocide trials if nobody was fortunate enough to record those
tapes? The judges relied on witness testimony.
The judges relied on expert testimony and the tapes, and in
all three circumstances found that there was sufficient evidence
that these journalists knew, they were told by the Ministry
of Information, they were told by Francois-Xavier Nsanzuwera,
who was threatened if he continued to stop RTLM, he would
be killed. They were told they did not care, and they
were lawless, and that is why they were convicted.
Thierry Cruvellier: Thank
you, next question please.
Ernesto Caceres: My name
Ernesto Caceres, I’m a second-year student here at Carleton,
and I have two separate but connected questions dealing with
the current state of Rwanda. I’m wondering in
the past panel it was discussed that the low literacy rate
in Rwanda lead to the depth of, I guess the commitment to
radio, and the listening to radio. I was wondering if
there’s anything currently in Rwanda that is going on
to increase the literacy rate in English, French or Rwandan?
And also my second question is does radio still have the same
impact now that it did 10 years ago? I know that I guess
what was the RPF is in control of the country now, are they
promoting a certain pro-Tutsi line that is anti-Hutu in the
radio, and are the people of Rwanda listening into it with
the same kind of loyalty that they listened to RTLM?
Thierry Cruvellier: I
guess Thomas would be the one answering that question.
Thomas Kamilindi: Rwanda
is still a country with a low level of literacy. But
when I follow the education policy, I see that there’s
a break, given what happened before. Before we had an
elitist type of education. They educated the elite,
but today this has changed. Now we have a mass type
education, education of the masses, but this hasn’t
borne results yet. And this can be seen at the higher
level also. Before ’94, there were a few universities.
Today I think there are about 10, about 10 or 12 universities
including private universities, so something is being done,
but we still haven’t seen actually the results of this
in terms of literacy.
Now in terms of radio, do people listen
to the radio as much as they used to? Is the situation
as it was? The answer to that is yes. We still
have only one radio station, the state radio network.
But over the last three or four weeks, there has been a new
private radio network, which was setup, which has started
to broadcast, which is still at the trial level, and which
broadcasts only music for the moment. It’s a very
young network. It has a small team there, not very large,
not that much experience, but there are about four or five
private radio projects, which in fact, have been approved
by the government. And they think that the frequencies
have been attributed already to some, so they should to broadcast
soon. So as from June, maybe there’ll be four
radio networks, which will be broadcasting, which are not
government-owned, and therefore I think myself, that this
will break, this will break the myth of the radio, because
the radio has an enormous mythic value there. That’s
the way the situation is. Only the government for the
moment has access to radio and television. There’s
only one television network, except a corporation which redistributes
foreign programs also. In other words, it’s still
the same problem. And radio is listened to as much as
it was 10 years ago. It still has a myth value as regards
the promotion of two ethnic groups. There has been a
break. Genocide created an enormous rupture, an enormous
break. It’s very, very difficult therefore to
promote the two ethnic groups, but that’s the situation.
In legal terms, for example, we’ve
set up a system, a traditional justice system, or semi-traditional
justice system, and we hope that it’s a system where
everybody will judge everybody else. So they’ll
judge their peers, and it’s the people who decide who
is guilty and not guilty. So we think that this might
reconcile the two groups. A lot has been done.
I’m just giving out one example, given all the shortcomings,
and given all the weaknesses that such a system might have.
Thierry Cruvellier: One
question from the floor first, and I’ll get the question
Jean-Claude Ngaboziza (?): Thank
you. I am Jean-Claude Ngaboziza.(?) I’m a survivor
of genocide. I was in Rwanda in ’94, and I have
a question for Mr. Duval, and if I may, I would just like
to make one comment. I would point out that in ’94
the journalists were fully aware that their statements would,
in fact, lead to people being killed. They were fully
aware of this. Habimana Kantano, for example, who we
quoted, did, in fact, ask I remember this very well, he asked
his militia to show some pity towards a Tutsi, who was a goalkeeper
in his favorite soccer team, Rayon Sport, but he said, “don’t
kill that one. Close your eyes.” But he
was very aware of the fact of what was going on, and what
was being done. I’d also mention that the only
positive point for the media, because instructions were given
openly, you could change where you wanted to hide. Once
you found you were a target, you change your hiding place.
So I have a question for Mr. Duval.
I understood that he regrets that Mr. Nahimana was, in fact,
convicted, by acts, which were committed by others, because
he, in fact, was just directing things. So my question
is as follows. Nahimana was the head. He was the
boss, if you will. He could authorize the broadcasting
of certain facts, of certain events. By authorizing
the broadcasting of certain messages, was he not guilty?
Yes or no. That’s the question by authorizing
Biju Duval: Thank you
very much. Now as regards your first comment, I think
that we agree. It’s perfectly clear that after
April 6, 1994, Kantano in particular, became the archetype,
if you will, of the criminal journalist against humanity.
Now the second observation, and this is the whole question
of the trial of Ferdinand Nahimana. As you can appreciate,
it’s difficult for me to answer this at length, well
just in 30 seconds, but I do nevertheless, well I will answer
the main point, what seems to be the main point. I’ll
rise to the challenge there. You talked about the difficult
sense of deposition of international justice, which is exercised
under a certain pressure, which by it’s very nature
does, in fact, endanger it’s fans or it’s equity.
And therefore, there’s a risk. There’s a
very serious risk, an inherent risk, if you will, which is
characteristic, if you will, of crimes against humanity. There’s
a temptation here, a temptation to find a scapegoat, to get
somebody convicted because of crimes committed by other people,
because people are so horrified by something that surpasses
anything we’ve seen before, and in order to withstand
that temptation, which is absolutely fatal in terms of the
justice system, there’s only one way you can withstand
this. You have to establish principles of law, principles
of law which have to be applied with absolute rigor.
These principles of law are individual penal responsibility,
individual criminal responsibility. You can be found
guilty only if you yourself have committed a crime, or if
you are, as you say, the person in charge, the boss if you
will, and it’s on that basis that the international
criminal justice system was set up in Nuremberg. You
have to first convict the leaders. And of course, you
must define international justice, international law, in fact,
defines who a leader is, what the person in charge is, it’s
the person who exercises effective power of control similar
to that which is, for example exercised by a military commander
over his troops. You have to prove in that situation
that you do have an almost military power of control over
somebody. And what’s striking here, and what’s
very interesting, and what’s shocking also in the Nahimana
case is that as from April 6, as from the call for extermination,
Nahimana is totally absent. He’s not involved.
And there was no contact which was ever established here,
no link between him, who was at the other end of Rwanda, and
the journalists of RTLM. So that’s the serious
question here, which the ICTR has to decide on, and my criticism
here of the judgment is that these standards, these absolute
criteria which make it possible to avoid finding a scapegoat,
these criteria were not, in fact, applied, at least that’s
the way I analyze things.
Thierry Cruvellier: I
can see the reactions, I know. But it’s really time
to stop. You’ll have time in private.
Simone Monasebian: Thierry,
can I just say something? This is very short, just brief,
a reference. All I can suggest is that people read Mr.
Nahimana’s comments of April 25, 1994, in the judgment,
and when you see what his comments of April 25 were, I leave
it to you to decide whether or not he was sanctioning RTLM,
and applauding it, and saying that it did reach the majority
of the population, and did good work. So look at the
Thierry Cruvellier: Thank
you, yeah, read the judgment. That’s a good point.
Thank you, I want to thank, of course, all the participants,
and Mary Kimani has the last comment.
Mary Kimani: I just wanted
to add a comment, because I see we’ve concentrated on
Nahimana, and the head of Kangura, and we’ve not dealt
at all with the Rwandan journalists, who are still in jail
in Rwanda. I think it’s important to underline
that as much as the decision at ICTR is important, we have
to think about what motivated the actual journalists to follow
the instructions of their leaders. And unless we address
the things that make such local journalists to follow whatever
they are told, we still have not solved the problem.
We can sentence Nahimana, we can sentence the head of Kangura,
but we have to do something about the ordinary journalists.
I’ve talked to many of them, and for a lot of them,
the problem was not ideology. They didn’t necessarily
believe in the genocide. For a lot of them, it was a
question of fear, it was the question of poverty. It
was a question of having been brought up to believe that the
majority population they were once suppressed, and they have
to fight to make sure that this oppression does not return.
And I think we have to do this in all the other communities
that are in conflict to make sure we address the things that
make journalists likely to follow what their leader says.
The second very brief point I want to outline,
it’s very easy in such a symposium and we’re in
a hurry, to let things pass off very quickly without correction.
Inyenzi it means cockroach. True, and it was used to
mean that, but Inyenzi has a separate meaning, and if you
have history books, go and read them, and it’s that
play of words that made RTLM and Kangura very effective.
If you miss out on the second meaning, you miss out on the
Last thing, …
Audience: What is it?
Mary Kimani: Inyenzi was
at times used for the former for some of the brigades of the
monarchial armies, and it was used in the early ‘60s
during the invasion back into Rwanda of the Tutsi leaders
that had been sent out, trying to come back to restore themselves
to power. So if you miss out on that meaning, that clear
of meaning by RTLM and Kangura, you might miss out on why
it was so effective.
The last thing is there’s a lady
who asked the question of what the press is doing now.
I have to add this because I work for Internews. It’s
an organization that currently is taking the stories of what
is happening at the ICTR, and what is happening in the Rwandan
national courts, making a newsreel, and taking it to the rural
audience by cinemobile, and even in prison. So there
are people who are trying to make sure that there’s
more information so that people can make better decisions
hopefully in the future.
Allan Thompson: Thank
you very much. Thank you very much to the panelists.
I remind those who were still at the microphones, please we
have volunteers, who are going to come and speak with you.
They want to take your names, your questions, and who you
would like those questions to be directed to, and this will
become part of the proceedings. We’re moving to
the lunch period now. For those who don’t know
their way around this campus, look for volunteers who will
lead the way. You can go underground or above ground
to the Residence Commons for lunch. We will resume on
time at 2:00. It’s a buffet. So you
can eat very quickly. Thank you.
3: International media