WHISTLEBLOWING FROM A RWANDAN PEACE EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL WORRIED BY HIS COUNTRY’S PEACEFULNESS — President Macron’s Kigali Last Speech Consequences

French President Emmanuel Macron visited Rwanda on May 27-28, 2021. During this visit, President Macron delivered on May 27, 2021 at the Kigali Genocide Memorial a speech, and this speech not only revived the controversy that existed already between two key Rwandan constituencies, but also further sparked a new other controversy this time around between three new other key Rwandan constituencies.

SECTION ONE: Already existing controversy that was revived by French President Macron’s speech between two key Rwandan constituencies

As can be seen from the website of L’Elysée, President Emmanuel Macron’s speech was introduced by the overarching watchword ? Seul celui qui a traversé la nuit peut la raconter ?. Automatically translated in English by Google, this watchword means “Only the one who has been through the night can tell it”, and it is particularly worth noting that this watchword further corresponds to the Kinyarwanda proverb Ijoro ribara uwariraye —— on his part, David Mwambari (2019, p.7) translates in English Ijoro ribara uwariraye but “loosely: The One Who Was Awake Narrates the Night Tales” and from there continues to use it throughout his article in the sense of “The One Who Was Awake” —— which proverb, in a controversial way,

● on the one hand was used as the title of one of the two greatest hits used in genocide commemoration ceremonies since 2012 that were composed by Rwandan iconic Catholic singer Kizito Mihigo whom the Government of Rwanda claims has died by hanging himself with bedsheets attached onto the window of his police prison cell on February 16, 2020 while in custody of the Rwanda National Police while,

●● on the other hand it has become the leitmotiv for both: (i) Rwanda’s National Commission for the Fight against Genocide — known under its French name of Commission Nationale de Lutte contre le Genocide [CNLG] — which commission used the proverb’s short form Ribara Uwariraye as the title of one of its 2017 publications (see here); and, (ii) Young Rwandans Reconciliation Activists operating outside Rwanda in opposition to Rwanda politics of commemoration not formally including the memory of Hutu people killed outside the framework of the 1994 Genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi whose activism those ethnicity-wise all-inclusive Young Rwandans Reconciliation Activists operating outside Rwanda roll out also under the proverb’s short form Ribara Uwariraye (see for instance here, here, and here).?

So, more precisely, the controversy that was revived from the outset of President Macron’s speech resides in the fact that it is not clear which Ribara Uwariraye President Macron’s speech overall watchword Ijoro ribara uwariraye was aligning to between (a) the Ribara Uwariraye put forward by CNLG (see here), and (b) the Ribara Uwariraye professed by the above-mentioned ethnicity-wise all-inclusive Young Rwandans Reconciliation Activists operating outside Rwanda (see for instance here, here, and here).

SECTION TWO: New other controversy that was sparked by French President Macron’s speech this time around between three new other key Rwandan constituencies

In addition to being introduced by the overarching controversial watchword Ijoro ribara uwariraye, President Emmanuel Macron’s speech was also characterized by a lack of apology, which too resulted in controversial reactions, but this time around between three new other key Rwandan constituencies. Particularly regarding the said lack of apology from President Macron’s speech, France 24 reports the following:

? French President Emmanuel Macron, on a symbolic visit to Rwanda Thursday [i.e. May 27, 2021], said France had “a role, a history and a political responsibility” towards Rwanda. But he stopped short of an official apology, saying France had not been complicit in the 1994 genocide [emphasis added]?.

This time, President Macron’s speech is specifically found to have sparked a new other controversy between three new other key Rwandan constituencies — namely: (i) President Paul Kagame; (ii) Genocide Survivor’s association Ibuka; and (iii) the Catholic Church through its top leader Cardinal Antoine Kambanda — as can be seen from the particular stands adopted by those three key constituencies respectively in the way those particular stands transpire through the following three bulleted points:

● Particular stand adopted by President Paul Kagame — According to Newsweek,

? Rwandan President Paul Kagame praised Macron for his “powerful speech”. “His [i.e. President Macron’s] words were something more valuable than an apology [emphasis added], they were the truth”, Kagame said. “This was an act of tremendous courage” ?.

● Particular stand adopted by Genocide Survivor’s association Ibuka — According to Newsweek too,

??Survivors of the genocide expressed their disappointment at his [i.e. President Macron’s] lack of an apology. “We don’t want to hear him talk about responsibility, about France’s role in the genocide”, genocide survivor Dan Karenzi told the Associated Press. “We, the survivors, wanted to hear Macron apologizing to us officially. I am really disappointed” [emphasis added] ?.

On this second point, France 24 had also reported the same stand being expressed at home in Rwanda in the following words:

? The head of Ibuka, the?main survivors’ association, said Macron’s speech fell short of expectations. Ibuka’s president Egide Nkuranga said he was disappointed that Macron did not “present a clear apology on behalf of the French state” or “ask for forgiveness” [emphasis added]?.

● Particular stand adopted by Rwanda’s Catholic Church through its top leader Cardinal Antoine Kambanda — this particular stand of Rwanda’s Catholic Church transpires through the following excerpt verbatim reproduced from the automatically Google-translated English version of an interview Cardinal Antoine Kambanda [hereafter Card. A. K.] originally gave in French to the?Catholic journal La Croix:

? - [La Croix:] Should he [i.e. Pres. Macron] explicitly ask for forgiveness?

- Card. A. K: He did it the Rwandan way [underlining added], expressing compassion for the suffering that has been inflicted on us. By recognizing this, he is in the process of asking for forgiveness from us [underlining added]. It is very important for us that France understands how much we have suffered from the choices she has made at home. This understanding is a first step.

- [La Croix:] What do you mean?

- Card. A. K: President Macron as well as our president recognized that it was a step [emphasis added]. After having recognized France’s responsibility in our drama, after having expressed its compassion for our sufferings, the time will come to ask our forgiveness. But in my eyes, as in those of many Rwandans, President Macron has said the essential [underlining added]. We can now truly become partners in a peaceful and peaceful spirit ?.?

Now with special respect to apology, Psychology Today states that a meaningful and heartfelt apology must embody Acknowledgement, Remorse and Empathy, as well as Restitution as its three constituent parts.

Further about apology, a renowned statement about it from Live Life Happy - Page 75 of 957 has that

“A sincere apology has three parts: I am sorry; It is my fault; What can I do to make it right?”

To this last statement’s three parts, a fourth equally important element is worth being added as per the formulation of a certain Corinne Dixon in her Facebook comment (see here) through the following words:

“And then the follow up idea of not doing it again... Apologizing and then just repeating the behaviour over and over — this is the classic cycle of abuse”.

Further still about apology, on her part Jennie Davidow (2013, p.294) even considers ‘apology’ to be ‘the good beginning for reconciliation’ and she, in this respect, specifically observes that “it [i.e. apology] is only the beginning of what needs to be done if reconciliation is to be achieved” and at the same time further refers to related statements such as ??“An apology is a start, but more is needed” and “A simple apology is a first step to reconciliation” ?. Furthermore on this same issue of apology’s precedence over reconciliation, Ojas Joshi on Facebook also submits that “Reconciliation begins with an apology. Even a child knows this”.

SECTION THREE: In guise of conclusion

The above-elicited two controversies specifically as far as President Macron’s speech is concerned —— namely: (1) the first controversy described in the present article’s SECTION ONE above, currently revived by President Macron’s speech overarching watchword Ijoro ribara uwariraye, which exists between CNLG on the one hand and the above-mentioned ethnicity-wise all-inclusive Young Rwandans Reconciliation Activists operating outside Rwanda on the other hand, and revolves around the ethnicity-related reach of the interpretation made of Ribara Uwariraye by each one of the two sides; and (2) the other controversy described in the present article’s SECTION TWO above the lack of apology from President Macron’s speech lately sparked between Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame, the Genocide Survivors’ association Ibuka, and the Catholic Church through its top leader Cardinal Antoine Kambanda —— can well be seen as either aligned with President Kagame’s stand (in this case fall CNLG as well as the Catholic Church through its top leader Cardinal Antoine Kambanda) or in disagreement with President Kagame’s stand (in this case fall the above-mentioned ethnicity-wise all-inclusive Young Rwandans Reconciliation Activists operating outside Rwanda as well as the Genocide Survivors’ association Ibuka).?

The critical situation described in the preceding paragraph actually corresponds to a situation of polarization localizable at the level of the country’s top leadership if one understands the concept as the “movement to more extreme positions […] said to reflect polarization because each side has moved to a more extreme pole or endpoint on the relevant continuum” (see here). More especially when it comes to Politics in general, polarization is “when political leaders cast their opponents as immoral or corrupt, they create ‘us’ and ‘them’ camps” (Jennifer McCoy: 2019), and in such case “people feel distant from and suspicious of the ‘other’ camp. At the same time, they feel loyal to, and trusting of, their own camp — without examining their biases or factual basis of their information” (Jennifer McCoy: 2019). With respect to the particular political case like the one of Rwanda we have at hand in the present document however, Jennifer McCoy (2019) further writes that

“When countries polarize around rifts?that reflect unresolved debates [emphasis added] present at the country’s formation, then that polarization is most likely to be enduring and harmful. These rifts are often around concepts of national identity and citizenship rights. This type of polarization is particularly pernicious because it revolves around debates over who is a legitimate citizen and who can legitimately represent them”.

In the final analysis of it all, it may be generally agreed that polarization at a country’s top leadership level results in polarization at the country’s bottom followership level too as, in the case of Rwanda, the fact can be illustrated by the recent instance reported on Facebook both here and here, and this is actually what makes it therefore obvious that any Rwandan national — let alone now a Rwandan national who is at the same time a Peace Education professional too — worried by the peacefulness of his/her country would obviously not refrain from asking the following underscored crucial question as a matter of fact: Does the polarization observed at Rwanda’s top leadership level stand any chances of having its gap progressively narrowed down over time going forward, or is that polarization doomed to have its gap being progressively increased as time goes by to the risk of provoking at some point the ultimate Genocide’s exterminatory mass killings to which may lead an even whole range vertical polarization thoroughly established from the top leadership level to the bottom followership level that may result from it once it stays on unresolved??

So, responding to the above-asked question is obviously critical because unresolved polarization between key constituencies in a country indeed ultimately leads to a genocidal exterminatory turn as can be illustrated by the “Ten Stages of Genocide” of Dr Gregory Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, the 6th of the said 10 stages is Polarization which, unresolved, is expected to actually lead to the next Genocide-executory 4 stages of Preparation – Persecution – Extermination – and Denial. At this juncture it is also particularly worth observing that, in contrast with the 2020 Rwanda Reconciliation Barometer that places at 98.3% the assessment of “Factors/Mechanisms promoting reconciliation in Rwanda” (p.XI), Genocide Watch in February 2021 updated their assessment of the state of current socio-political affairs in Rwanda and found the country to be at their continuum’s 6th stage of Polarization instead, which fact is also corroborated by the instance recently reported on Facebook both here and here.?

Now for the sake of Rwanda’s peacefulness, in order to prevent the risk of falling into Genocide’s exterminatory mass killings as it especially so happened against the Tutsi in 1994 in case, this time too, a critical event likely to shake up the balance of the existing power and thus serve as a trigger suddenly erupted in the above-described current context of Polarization the way the shooting down of President Habyarimana's Falcon 50 plane did in 1994 (see for instance: BBC; Boston College Third World Law Journal Vol23 No2; African Union’s Panel of Eminent Personalities; UN International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals - Legacy website of the ICTR since the closure of the latter on 31 December 2015; and United Nations’ Outreach Programme on the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda), the question formulated in the present document’s SECTION THREE above is hereby being shared with anyone willing and able, and well thought-through responses to it are more than welcome.

NOTA BENE: Due to the reason explained in the following lines, Rwanda needs to keep being closely monitored as far as the risk of Genocide re-occurrence is concerned

As a matter of fact, genocide prevention scholar Barbara Harff considers ‘prior genocides and politicides’ as the most prominent among her seven ‘factors influencing the risk of genocide or politicide’ (Barbara Harff: 2012a, p.54) and, in this respect further specifies that “empirical findings show that risks of genocide/politicide are three times more likely in countries that experienced prior genocides” (Barbara Harff: 2012b here or else here, p.6). In the same perspective, the UN on its part considers ‘past or current serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law’ as the secondly prominent among its fourteen factors of risk for atrocity crimes (United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect: 2014, p.11), which it explains in detail as follows (Idem, ibid.):

“Societies that have a history of violence and serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law or atrocity crimes, or where these are currently taking place, can be more prone to further atrocity crimes. As history has demonstrated, atrocity crimes in general and genocide in particular are preceded by less widespread or systematic serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. These are typically violations of civil and political rights, but they may include also severe restrictions to economic, social and cultural rights, often linked to patterns of discrimination or exclusion of protected groups, populations or individuals. This risk factor is also relevant where the legacies of past atrocity crimes have not been adequately addressed through individual criminal accountability, reparation, truth-seeking and reconciliation processes, as well as comprehensive reform measures in the security and judicial sectors. A society in this situation is more likely to resort again to violence as a form of addressing problems”.

At the beginning of the use of the term Genocide indeed — at least between the end of World War II in 1945 up to November 9, 1946 — political groups were among the groups of people targeted by — and thus to be protected against — Genocide (Beth Van Schaack: 1997). Therefore, obviously in order not to lose this important group of people in need of being protected against mass killings too, US Naval Academy political scientist Professor Barbara Harff always uses the terms ‘genocide’ and ‘politicide’ alongside each other and defines both of them, as reported by Human Security Report (2005, p.40), “as acts perpetrated by governments (or in civil wars, by their opponents) that are ‘intended to destroy in whole or in part a communal, political or politicized ethnic group’”. Further in the same line of understanding, Human Security Report (2005, p.41) proposes to figure out Genocides and Politicides as follows:

“Genocides and politicides often take place during civil wars, as happened in Rwanda in 1994, or in their aftermath, as happened in Cambodia in 1975-79, where most of the mass killings were perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge after [sic] the fighting had stopped. […]. Distinguishing civil wars from genocides and politicides is not easy — except in the small number of cases where the latter take place in times of peace. But while parties in a civil war usually seek to defeat [sic] their politically defined enemy, politicide only occurs if they attempt to physically eliminate [sic] that enemy. The considerable overlap between civil wars and politicides in the Harff dataset has led some researchers to argue that the distinction should be abandoned [emphasis added]”.

Finally back to the above particular observation made by Professor Barbara Harff relating to ‘prior genocides and politicides’ increasing many times the likelihood of occurrence of future genocides and politicides, Aegis Trust CEO Dr James Smith (James Smith: 2015) so pertinently comments as follows:

“One risk factor for genocide, as identified by political scientist Barbara Harff, is the occurrence of previous massacres of the group at risk. It is clear that a state of impunity for initial offences will not reduce the risk of further atrocities allowing perpetrators time to consider how they might execute more radical solutions for what they view as their troublesome ethnic or religious problem, should the opportunity or need arise”.