Mundo
Negro
Madrid, Spain
July 2002
Due to the magnitude and extent of the crimes committed over the period of a few short weeks, the Rwandan genocide continues to elicit a shudder of horror. Less well known is what could be called the “Other Genocide,” the one committed against the Hutu refugees in the east of what was then called Zaire. The Rwandan refugee Marie-Beatrice Umutesi tells us the story of her own suffering. She was in Madrid last June 23rd to present her book Flight or Death in Zaire.
From time to time when she hears the questions of the reporters, Marie-Beatrice Umutesi cannot avoid feeling a sharp stab of pain, closing her eyes, her face contracted into an expression of inconsolable sorrow. This Rwandan sociologist, a 43 year old Hutu, carries on her shoulders a burden that will be with her all her life. Marie-Beatrice Umutesi is the protagonist (as victim) and privileged witness (as author of the book) of the “Other Genocide,” of which much less is spoken than is of the genocide of 1994.
Two years after these killings in 1994, the troops of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (the military arm of the Rwandan Patriotic Front – FPR -, an organization made up mainly of Tutsis which took power in 1994) invaded what was then Zaire. Its objective was twofold: to support the troops of the Democratic Force for the Liberation of Zaire – AFDL - of Laurent-Desire Kabila in his conquest of power and to destroy the refugee camps located close to the border of Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. It is estimated that more that 200,000 Hutu refugees died in the destruction of the camps and during their hallucinatory flight across the entire Congo, a distance of more than 2,000 km. This is the experience that Marie-Beatrice Umutesi, who now works in rural development projects in Cameroon, recounts in her book and during her public appearances.
What reasons pushed you to write this book?
In the first place, it was my duty to give testimony to what I had lived through. To make a contribution so that the international community would not forget, for a second time, my friends, my co-workers and my dead children who crossed the former Zaire, and that some day those who were responsible for these crimes would be captured and brought to justice. In the second place, I wanted the largest number of people possible to know what had happened and is still happening in the Great Lakes Region, so that no one could say that they did nothing because they knew nothing. The third reason is personal. The fact of writing this book was a kind of therapy. When I left the jungle, after traveling on foot for 2,000 km, I felt frustrated and full of anger. Anger against the Rwandan Patriotic Front, who forced us to endure this suffering, but also against the international community, who watched our death indifferently, without moving a finger, instead of using every means at their disposal to avoid it.
Do international documents exist which demonstrate that it was known that there were preparations for the massacres of 1994 and that they could have been avoided?
There were people who thought that if Habyarimana disappeared, it wouldn’t be the fist time that a president was assassinated, and that this fact didn’t need to lead to widespread killing. There were also those who thought that, even if there were deaths, the important thing was for Habyarimana to disappear from the political scene. These ideas were current among the diplomatic community. For many of the international representatives in Rwanda, preventing the killings was not a priority. The priority was that Habyarimana disappear.
On various occasions, most recently by the Cameroonian journalist Charles Onana, Paul Kagame has been held responsible for the assassinations of the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi in 1994. What do you think?
I am convinced that Paul Kagame and the FPR are responsible for the assassination of Habyarimana. They were the only ones whose interests would be served by his assassination, because the Arusha accords (between the rebels and the government) presumed that Habyarimana would continue as president during the transition period. Knowing Rwanda, the elections during the transition period would again have elevated Habyarimana to a position of power and the entire struggle of the FPR would have been useless. In addition, the FPR knew that killing Habyarimana would lead to the killing of Tutsis in the interior of the country and that they could use these killings as a justification for the use of violence to assume power and transform themselves into the saviors of a Rwandan people on the verge of chaos.
The attitude of the UNHCR, which applied a lot of pressure in favor of the return to Rwanda of the refugees in the Congolese camps, was very controversial. On the other hand, the Rwandans attacked the camps, alleging that they were dominated by the influence of the extremist Hutu Interahamwes. Is this true?
The camp at Inera, where I was for two years, was administrated by father Carlos Oliveras, a Catholic priest, and decisions were made by him. I don’t think that this priest could consider himself a Hutu extremist. My personal opinion is that these accusations constituted a campaign of disinformation in order to prepare international opinion for the destruction of the camps and to prevent any sympathy in the international community.
On the other hand, in the refugee camps in Zaire, the primary preoccupation of the UNHCR was to have us return as rapidly as possible to Rwanda, no matter what the security situation was at the time of return. UNHCR used various types of pressure in order to oblige us to return. For example, a substantial reduction in food rations and a prohibition against attending school. If the Congolese soldiers in charge of our security discovered any teacher giving classes in the “sheeting” (the typical blue tents of the UNHCR) he was accused of intimidation and send to Kinshasa.
But it wasn’t only in the camps that the attitude of the UNHCR was negative. After the destruction of the camps, after crossing almost the whole of Zaire, when we were only 130 km from Congo-Brazzaville, we lived in the villages with the people, because Mbandaka had been taken by Kabila’s troops and we couldn’t get to Congo-Brazzaville. The UNHCR had begun a program of repatriation and, in order to send us back to Rwanda, since their personnel couldn’t get to where we were, they paid $10 for every refugee who was handed over to them. And $10 in this region is an enormous amount of money. This provoked the appearance of groups of bounty hunters. At times the very Congolese who welcomed us, who never threatened us, begged us to go in order to avoid harassment by these groups who threatened the families who welcomed refugees and who assured the families that if they provided shelter to refugees, when Kabila’s troops came, they would be killed along with the refugees.
The refugee camps were located next to the Rwandan frontier. Wasn’t that a little strange? Didn’t that expose them too much to a possible attack from Rwanda?
International regulations stipulate that refugee camps must not be located on the border of the country of origin. But they made no effort to move us farther towards the interior in spite of the increased risk. On the one hand, the Rwandans could attack. On the other the supposed Interahamwe could attack Rwanda. The FPR bombarded the camps every day, and in spite of that, no one did anything to distance us from the border. It is certain that, at the beginning, there were weapons in the camp. But later there were fewer. The government of Zaire obliged many to sell them in exchange for money and food. The danger of attacks on Rwanda from the camps was a falsehood. It was used to justify the attacks on the camps and the entry of FPR troops into the former Zaire. The proof is that we are no longer there and that, nevertheless, the FPR are still there.
Are there documents proving that the Americans collaborated in the massacre with spy planes which were used to show the Rwandan troops and Kabila where the refugees were hiding?
We saw the airplanes, they were small planes which flew over us. We thought that they came to bring us humanitarian aid, but this didn’t come. On the other hand, when we listened to the radio, they said that there were no more refugees in the jungle. This seemed strange to us because those airplanes flew by and we know that they were coming to us and that they knew that refugees were there. Later, when we came out of the jungle we knew that they were spy planes.
Is reconciliation possible in Rwanda?
Yes. I think that the Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi can be reconciled. There are signs of this in Rwanda. Marriages and friendships between members of the two ethnic groups continue. The only thing that can obstruct reconciliation is the use of ethnic identity in order to maintain or fight for power. Something that the present government of Kigali is doing.
What value to you attribute to the popular courts, gacacas, and the International Tribunal of Arusha?
The gacacas are a parody of justice. I do not believe in them, because it is not possible to ask a peasant who can neither read nor write, who knows nothing about the law, to pass judgment on matters as complex as the crimes of genocide. It is impossible. On the other hand, from my point of view, the Arusha Tribunal is the entity that the international community has put in place in order to exonerate itself, to justify itself, because it did nothing to stop the genocide. But it is a case of a court that only judges crimes against humanity committed by Hutus and not those crimes committed by the FPR, which also took place.
What value to you give to the meeting of the Intercongolese Dialog in Sun City (South Africa) and the agreement signed between the government and the rebels of the Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC), of Jean-Pierre Bemba, and the RCD-MCL of Mbusa Nyamwisi?
The agreements signed there remind me of those of Arusha. If the agreements do not have the support of those who are waging the war, they lead to nothing. Rwanda has not signed the agreements and the international community does nothing to bring peace to the Congo. The whole world knows that the war in the Congo is a war of aggression in which Rwanda and Uganda have attacked Congo, and the international community has not imposed sanctions on these countries. I do not believe in the solidity of these agreements.
What was the role of the Catholic Church before, during and after the genocide?
The Congolese Church was always on the side of the refugees. The archbishops of Bukava, Msgr. Munzihirwa and Msgr. Kataliko, made a clear commitment on the side of justice and this was the reason they were assassinated. Without any doubt in the case of Munzihirwa, and most likely in the case of Kataliko. The position of the church in Rwanda . . . I am not going to talk about that. The only thing that I want to say is that I do not share the idea of some in the international media who say that the Catholic Church was on the side of the genocide in Rwanda. What happened was that neither the Rwandan Church, nor the civil society, nor the NGO’s knew how to distance themselves in time from political positions and denounce the war, the confrontations between the political parties, and the violence that had reigned since 1990. When they wanted to take the initiative, it was too late. There are those who say that many people were killed inside of churches and who accuse the priests of not having prevented the killings. They say this be cause they were not living in Rwanda in 1994. No one was capable of stopping these killings. Confronted with one hundred armed soldiers, one lone priest could do nothing.
At the current time the attitude of the Catholic Church in Rwanda is not like that of the Church in Latin America, which has come forward on the side of the people. It is less engaged, preferring to remain in good standing, making compromises with power. The criticisms they make are never clear and strong.