For those who have experienced or studied the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda, its facts might seem like common knowledge. The extremist Hutu killers made no secret of their target: Tutsis. Their extermination chants and zeal killing Tutsis for 3+ months stick in memories, as does hate-filled Kantano Habimana on RTLM radio directing them. Tutsis were explicitly targeted via media and speeches, labeled “cockroaches” and foreigners deserving elimination down the Nyabarongo River toward Abyssinia “where they came from.”

However, a recent experience in a Twitter Space (a feature for live audio group discussions) revealed to me that what seems commonly understood about the genocide is, in fact, not so universally acknowledged. As with the Holocaust, despite extensive scholarship and survivor testimonies, the genocide against the Tutsis continues to face denial and lack of understanding. During this discussion, I was abruptly removed for merely mentioning the term “genocide against the Tutsis” – a phrase that the participants vehemently contested.

Their main argument was against the specific phrase “genocide against the Tutsi,” noting that Hutus were also victims during the same period. While it’s true that some moderate Hutus – including those who opposed the Habyarimana regime, those intermarried with Tutsis, and even Hutus mistaken for Tutsis due to facial stereotypes – were killed, this doesn’t alter the characterization of the event as a genocide against the Tutsi.

The term “genocide against the Tutsi” doesn’t negate the fact that others, including foreigners, were killed; it simply clarifies the primary intent of the perpetrators: to exterminate the Tutsi as an ethnic group.

This distinction is crucial. The Tutsis were targeted for extermination based on their ethnic identity, which aligns with the 1948 UN Genocide Convention’s definition. The Convention defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This specificity is what differentiates genocide from other crimes.

The moderate Hutus and others were targeted for their actions (such as marrying or protecting Tutsis or opposing the Hutu Power faction) and their political views. Examples include Boniface Ngurinzira, the Foreign Affairs Minister from the moderate MDR party, and Agathe Uwiringiyimana, the Prime Minister, both of whom were murdered not for being Hutus, but for their political opposition to the Habyarimana regime and the subsequent genocidal government.

These killings, while heinous, fall under different categories of international law, such as crimes against humanity or war crimes, but not under genocide as defined by the 1948 Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. This exclusion of political opinion from the genocide definition was a point of contention among scholars and human rights activists during the drafting of the Convention. Yet, it was not included in the final version.

Some extremists call the appellation genocide against the Tutsi RPF propaganda but it is not. Survivors have fought to have a clear definition of the extermination of Tutsis since 1994 when the new RPF government employed vague phrases like ‘’itsembatsemba n’itsembabwoko –loosely translated as massacres and genocide. It took more than 10 years of advocacy for the RPF Government to start using the term genocide against the Tutsi as survivors have initially demanded.

While the term ‘’genocide against the Tutsi’’ is a good starting point, I hope better terms attempting to show the extent of this tragedy that annihilated 9 out 10 Tutsis in Rwanda, can be coined. My preference is something like Irimburabatutsi (Annihilation of Tutsi).

In Rwanda, possessing an ID card labeled “Tutsi” was effectively a death sentence, whereas “Hutu” indicated a chance for survival. Moderate Hutus could sometimes find safety in unfamiliar areas, but for Tutsis, there was no safe haven in Rwanda during the genocide.

This stark reality highlights the specific targeting of the Tutsi and underscores why the term “genocide against the Tutsi” is not only accurate but essential for historical and legal clarity. Surprisingly, this understanding is not as widespread as one might expect, underscoring the need for continued education and awareness about the true nature of the Rwandan Genocide.

Written by Albert Gasake, December 18, 2023.