ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA
On June 20, 1994, the BBC’s Marc Doyle sent a stern memo to his London-based editors. Writing from the streets of Rwanda, where defenseless men, women, and children were being slaughtered at the rate of 10,000 a day; the journalist cautioned that “It is a very serious misrepresentation of the situation in Rwanda to describe the killings simply as 'the slaughter of civilians' or 'the mass killings,' without explaining who is killing whom […T]he government militia and the government armed forces are responsible for the bodies being found in mass graves in Rwanda and floating in rivers.”
Doyle, who spent more time on the ground throughout the genocide than any other foreign reporter, recalls the frequent calls from London requesting that he submit "balanced reports". “[Show] the other side!” he was told. The BBC editors maintained that whatever crimes the Hutu Interahamwe militia and the government army were committing were almost certainly replicated by their opponents, the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF). The BBC were not the only ones uncomfortable with the idea that Rwanda’s tragedy could possibly be as unbalanced as was being reported. Other western media outlets took the same approach.
After all, this was Africa! The events in Rwanda could not be anything else than yet another eruption of irrational tribal or inter-ethnic violence. It had to be about “tribesmen killing each other for obscure reasons”, "inter-ethnic carnage", "indiscriminate mass killings", “various clans murdering others”, “the explosion of some ancient tribal hatred", “gangs of youth settling tribal scores”, “incomprehensible savagery”, etc. Doyle recalls that every instance of exaction by individual RPF soldiers was reported and magnified with “undisguised glee” to demonstrate that the “other side” was just as evil.
The media attempts to establish a moral equivalency "between the two sides" was playing right in the hands of the genocidaires. From the beginning, the extremists had capitalized on an orchestrated confusion between two distinct wars, distinguished by Marc Doyle as the "shooting war" (easy to describe with two armies fiercely fighting each other in the North of the country), and the "genocide war" (in which a government was involved in the systematic annihilation of part of its own population).
16 years later, the "moral equivalency" fight is still on. It is tougher than ever. The crusaders’ ranks have swollen. Knowingly or not; human rights activists, lawyers, journalists, etc. are now working hands in hands with genocide suspects and nostalgics of the "Hutu Power" era based in the West. Their agenda has expanded; it now appears to include outright genocide denial.
The strange case of Peter Erlinder
“Can the tragedy that engulfed Rwanda properly be called 'a genocide' at all? Or, was it closer to a case of civilians being caught up in war-time violence, like the Eastern Front in WWII, rather than the planned behind-the-lines killings in Nazi death camps? The ICTR [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] judgment found the former.” - Peter Erlinder
One of the crusaders’ champions, Peter Erlinder, is finding out, at his own expense, that Rwandans have learned from their painful past. They will no longer cross their arms while their history is being distorted and their hardly-earned stability is jeopardized by unscrupulous individuals, however powerful. They know, from experience, that none of those individuals will stand by them when it’s time to reap the seeds of lies and division. They have not forgotten the sight of departing evacuation vehicles in which there was no space for Rwandans (only expatriates, their pets, and their belongings), the convoys that drove inexorably to safer havens amidst screams of agony and gunshots.
Erlinder, an American law professor at the William Mitchell College of Law who acted as a defense lawyer in the ICTR, is now being prosecuted for his controversial suggestion that the killings in Rwanda in 1994 not be termed a genocide at all. Under Rwanda’s anti-genocide law, individuals condemned for denying or grossly minimizing genocide, attempting to justify or approve genocide, or who destroy evidence related to it are liable to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 in prison.
If the professor’s objective in repeatedly uttering his genocide-negating statement was to achieve fame, he was certainly successful. The reaction in academic and legal circles in the U.S. was immediate. Lawyers, professors, human rights activists throughout the U.S. have made their views clear. Peter Erlinder’s prosecution by that “petty dictatorship”, as they call Rwanda, has nothing to do with the country’s laws, they said. It is pure political vendetta directed against an ICTR defense lawyer in the exercise of his functions. On this, they appear to be in notable disagreement with, of all people, Peter Erlinder, who wrote in one of his more inflammatory essays: “I have to disclose my own bias because, under the laws of Rwanda, I too am a criminal”.
The outraged intellectuals – who seem to suggest that the right to defend alleged genocide perpetrators entails the right to contend it never happened, and to propagate such views in Rwanda – are also in disagreement with Peter Erlinder’s employer. The ICTR, whose relationship with the Rwandan government has not been exactly smooth over the past decade, is, nonetheless, clear in this case: Peter Erlinder’s immunity as a defense lawyer at the international court does not apply to the accusations formulated against him in this case.
24 comments
By Martin Ngoga
As Amanda Pinto wrote on 30 June 2010, Peter Erlinder was arrested in Rwanda and accused of genocide denial, genocide ideology and of being a threat to national security. He was not, as Pinto suggests, arrested for submissions made during proceedings of an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda case in which he was acting as a defence lawyer. Nor was he arrested for entering Rwanda to help in the defence of Victoire Ingabire – official records show that Erlinder never registered as her lawyer.Erlinder came to Rwanda in the full knowledge that he had broken the law. He has, for many years, propagated his own, false theory about the genocide and worked hard to build an international network of genocide deniers to amplify its diffusion. Erlinder's theory is based on the selective use of conclusions of an ICTR ruling which acquitted four prominent senior military officers of one count of conspiracy to commit genocide. Out of court, Erlinder generalises this specific ruling to the whole genocide and argues that there was no conspiracy or planning in Rwanda, and therefore no genocide. He says it was a spontaneous and uncoordinated act of panic and anger following the shooting down of the president's plane.In February 2008, Erlinder himself wrote: "Under the laws of Rwanda, I too am a criminal 'negationist' for writing this essay." The grounds for Erlinder's arrest were based on his writing of essays like this, claims made during appearances on television and radio and the organisation of conferences which convened the who's who of Rwanda genocide deniers.These were not the actions of a lawyer, and thus not protected by immunity of counsel. Immunity of counsel does not grant lawyers free rein to say whatever they wish, wherever they wish, so long as they once defended someone who also held these views. Erlinder's defence of an individual accused of genocide no more entitles him to moonlight as a genocide denier than a lawyer's representation of a child molester gives him license to traffic in child pornography.Nevertheless, some still cite concerns for Erlinder's rights to freedom of speech as a human being, questioning the justification of Rwanda's strict anti-genocide laws which make it an offence to deny, minimise, attempt to justify or trivialise the events of April 1994. If the facts of the past aren't made clear, they risk being repeated in the future. This risk is not hypothetical, it is very real: in November 2009, a UN report showed that the FDLR and other terrorist militarised groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo depend more and more on political and material support from extremist and genocide deniers' networks established in the West.What's more, Rwanda's laws do not differ significantly from laws in place in 11 European countries regarding the denial of the Jewish holocaust; nor does the way in which they are enforced. In Germany, prosecutions are made under holocaust denial laws some 65 years after the events, without any suggestion that this constitutes denial of human rights. Why, just 16 years after Rwanda's genocide, should its laws be viewed any differently?Erlinder was released from Rwanda not because of international pressures, or because Rwanda did not have faith in the robustness of its laws; he was released on medical bail. The charges against him still stand and the prosecution against him will continue in order to ensure justice and security for the people of Rwanda.No one should fear for the strength and integrity of the ICTR based on the arrest of Peter Erlinder. Even while Erlinder was in custody in Rwanda, the ICTR transferred 25 cases to Rwanda's Office of the Prosecutor for further investigation and issued a statement commending the Rwandan government for the improvements it has made to its judicial infrastructure and capacity. Should there be a different interpretation of the extent of functional immunities for lawyers from the ICTR, that is a grey area we are ready to argue legally and there is no standing jurisprudence to that effect.
Erlinder wouldn't have said better. So there was no Tutsi genocide. ... Just honest citizens who got really, really angry (because a group of 30-year long Rwandan refugees were fighting their way back home) and decide to massacre every one, babies and women included who couldn't prove they were pro-government Hutu.
You are entitled to your own views, (Although some of your suggestion could get you into legal trouble) but please don't put your words into my mouth. My own position about the so-called Hutu/Tutsi problem is stated clearly in my previous comment. I am copying it below in case you didn't read itAs I mentioned in my previous comment, I will ignore personal attacks. The readers will probably figure out that they tell more about their authors than myself.
Two quick responses to some of the earlier comments.Firstly, in reference to ‘anonymous’ n.1 whose comment seems to suggest that every Rwandan opinion should be labeled as either a Hutu or Tutsi opinion.
This is a typical mistake that reveals the inability of many observers to read accurately into Rwanda's events. Many have said it before me: This is not a Hutu-Tutsi issue. Rwandans today are dealing with the disastrous impact of ta ‘solution’ implemented by a small group of individuals in order to advance some very specific interests. That the extremists’ clique was able to rally large numbers of simple citizens to their radical cause is an important but different issue that should not hide this basic fact.
The current government that the ‘gang of crusaders’ so passionately hates comprises more Hutus than Tutsis. The same can probably be said about security and defense forces, businesses, academic institutions, etc. although the ethnic lines are much more blurred than often suggested.
There are so many Tutsis who wouldn’t have survived the 1994 genocide without the courageous, selfless acts of every-day Hutus. There are so many Hutus who lost their lives because they refused to espouse the agenda of the radical ideologists.
The achievements I briefly refer to in this article will not have been possible without the active participation of Hutus from all walks of lives.
Those are the people who, as I suggest in this article, might experience some occasional doubt and confusion in the face of the crusader’s forceful propaganda. Yet, the majority among them will inevitably reject the ‘Erlinders’ disingenuous arguments. They live in the 'real' Rwanda , they don’t look at their own reality through the ethnic prism that so many ‘out of touch westerners’ cling to while analyzing Rwanda and Africa.Secondly, in reference to c's comment regarding the ICTR's position. I think you are generally, but not fully, right. The ICTR did change its official position after it appeared that the Rwandan prosecution had wrongly (in my view) included in Erlinder's charge sheet some of Erlinder's statements in the defense of his clients at the ICTR.
It is however inaccurate to say that "[I]t is very clear that ICTR now knows that Peter is being prosecuted for his work as a UN-appointed defense attorney".
The prosecution charges contain many of Erlinder's genocide-denying statements unrelated to his work at the ICTR. Assuming that the Rwandan prosecution removes the ICTR-related statements, there are still a large number of unequivocal statements that are entirely within the range of Rwanda's anti-genocide laws. Several of such written and oral statements are available on the internet. Just google 'Peter Erlinder' and 'genocide' and see by yourself.
While you 're distracting people here, your brother Tutsi are in the Kivu region (Congo) , appropriating Congolese lands containing coltan, cassterite, between the river Luholu (Lubero) , the river Mweso (Masisi) and the river (Pinga). We , Hutu are honest and peaceful people . We do not steal other people’s property and claim achievements. Please have some conscience
This is a typical mistake that reveals the inability of many observers to read accurately into the Rwandan events. Many have said it before me: This is not a Hutu-Tutsi issue. Rwandans today are dealing with the disastrous impact of ta ‘solution’ implemented by a small group of individuals in order to advance some very specific interests. That the extremists’ clique was able to rally large numbers of normal citizens to their radical cause is an important but different issue that should not hide this basic fact. The current government that the ‘gang of cruisaders’ so passionately hates comprises more Hutus than Tutsis. The same can probably be said about security and defense forces, businesses, academic institutions, etc. although the ethnic lines are much more blurred than often suggested. There are so many Tutsis who wouldn’t have survived the 1994 genocide without the courageous, selfless acts of every-day Hutus. There are so many Hutus who lost their lives because they refused to espouse the agenda of the radical ideologists.
The achievements I briefly refer to in this article will not have been possible without the active participation of Hutus from all walks of lives. Those are the people who, as I suggest in this article, might experience some occasional doubt and confusion in the face of the crusader’s forceful propaganda. Yet, the majority among them will inevitably reject the ‘Erlinders’ disingenuous arguments. They live in the 'real' Rwanda , they don’t look at their own reality through the ethnic prism that so many ‘out of touch westerners’ cling to while analyzing Rwanda and Africa.In reference to c's comment regarding the ICTR position. I think you are essentially but not fully right. The ICTR did change its official position after it appeared that the Rwandan prosecution had wrongly (in my view) included in Erlinder's charge sheet some of Erlinder's statements in the defense of his clients at the ICTR.
It is however erroneous to say that "[I]t is very clear that ICTR now knows that Peter is being prosecuted for his work as a UN-appointed defense attorney".
The prosecution charges contain many of Erlinder's genocide-denying statements unrelated to his work at the ICTR. A number of unequivocal written and oral statements are available on the internet. Just google 'Peter Erlinder' and 'Rwanda'.
Your detractors who posted several comments here are just using the old tactic of amalgamation, bringin in the Congo, bringing in all kinds of things not even mentioned in your article.
The truth will prevail, and let everyone know that Rwanda will not take it on the chin and keep quiet anymore.Keep up the good work.
Yes, Rwanda with the support of US and UK is unique in the world for one reason: In 16 years, without a Marshall Plan, this country is able to loot a neighboring country where you were born in mafia war (Congo ) plundering its natural ressources, and killing 6 millions people. Kagame is still a free man. Is that what you call being successful? Can Rwanda give back what was plundered and looted?
Do you have a conscience? Is this how you pay back a country that has given you everything?PATRICK KARURETWA,
Languages spoken: English; French; Kinyarwanda; Swahali; LingalaBorn in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Karuretwa holds a bachelor of laws degree from the National University of Rwanda. He is an army officer in the Rwanda Defense Forces and a Presidential Protection Officer. “When I got an opportunity to go back to my studies I tried to find a program that would offer the possibility of establishing a connection between Law studies and my professional experience (Defense and Security) while keeping open the possibility of exploring other interesting fields. I couldn’t have found a better place than Fletcher. The flexible curriculum perfectly combines the pragmatism of a professional degree with the intellectual rigor of an academic program. While the outstanding quality of the teaching and administrative staff largely justifies the top reputation of the School, it is also characterized by an amazing students-faculty synergy and sense of community.”He remains at Fletcher, completing a MALD degree, as the first joint LLM/MALD degree candidate.
Please correct your plainly inaccurate post. For example, take your statement that “The ICTR, whose relationship with the Rwandan government has not been exactly smooth over the past decade, is, nonetheless, clear in this case: Peter Erlinder’s immunity as a defense lawyer at the international court does not apply to the accusations formulated against him in this case.” Unless you are willing to correct is, readers will be justified in doubting the fact-checking behind the rest of your assertions.
Your post is dated June 16, 2010. The spokesman statement that you claim to rely upon first appeared on June 2, 2010 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hgcAaa03rFq5LuB97LBtk9mtyqoA). Read in the context of the article, the statement does not mean what you say it means. It says that based on the information then held by the ICTR, that is what it seemed like.
Obviously, much happened since then, a summary of which is included in the most recent ICTR statement, dated June 15, 2010 (available here:http://web.wmitchell.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/SUBMISSIONS-UNDER-RULE-33B-OF-THE-RULES-OF-PROCEDURE-AND-EVIDENCE-EN-15-JUNE-20101.pdf). In part, the record reveals that the prosecutor and judge directly relied upon actions at the ICTR as a basis for the charges against Erlinder.
AFTER this June 15, 2010 ICTR statement, on June 16, 2010, All Africa reproduced the June 2, 2010 quote in a June 16, 2010 article. (http://allafrica.com/stories/201006170141.html) The All Africa story acknowledges the June 15, 2010 ICTR statement, but then it goes on to say that the AFP quote was from "Tuesday," which falsely implied it was made on June 15, at the same time as the June 15 ICTR statement, when in fact it was made on June 2, 2010, and in context it is perfectly consistent with the subsequent, June 15, 2010 story. There is not even any inconsistency, let alone a clear position as you assert. It is the obvious.
It is obvious to the most humble reader that the June 16 All Africa story was propaganda released in response to the official ICTR statement of June 15.
Indeed, Patrick, a google search limited to June 15-June 17, 2010 reveals that only you and All Africa were still pushing the June 2 quote in that time period. This may lead one to be of the opinion that the forces behind the so-called factual basis for your story are one and the same forces behind the All Africa story. It is dishonest to make a statement such as the one made by you and quoted above, when you know or should have known it has no basis.
You see , you 're stuck now . You cannot stand the thruth. You probably has used Genocide sympathy and excuses to get in School at Tufts as Kagame uses it as his foreign policy in order to get free pass. Kagame has twice led attacks on a sovereign state, proxy armies to enslave Congolese, and looted resources in the North-East. 4-5 million people have died in the Congo as a result of the two congolese wars
Kagame should be in jail (soon or later)
What do you say about using the genocide rethoric to do atrocities in Rwanda and Congo ?
Genocide can never justify violent predation that has already killed more than six million additional Africans—Congolese to be precise.And Africans have a final question--for Mr. Kagame’s Western admirers and enablers: What do you say about his causal role in mass death and suffering in the Eastern Congo?.
Beyond that, and with all due respect for yet another zealous ICTR defense lawyer, I do not see any point in responding to your personal attacks and wild allegations. Idem for anonymous' condescending comments.