
There had been ethnic massacres in Rwanda before, but nothing on the scale of the genocide that began in April 1994. The killing had been over for nearly a year when a young American reporter, Philip Gourevitch, set foot in Rwanda for the first time the following May. The bodies of the dead were reverting to bone but memories were still raw. Gourevitch wrote of accidentally crushing a skull beneath his foot, so thick were the dead at a massacre site, and of the eerie emptiness of a country where so many had died so violently and so recently. In his first dispatch from Rwanda for The New Yorker, seven months after arriving, he wrote, “It almost seemed as if, with the machete, the nail-studded club, a few well-placed grenades, and a few bursts of automatic rifle fire, the quiet orders of Hutu Power had made the neutron bomb obsolete.”
Over three years, Gourevitch spent months at a time in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa, committing himself more wholly to the story of the genocide’s aftermath than perhaps any other foreign journalist. The New Yorker ran eight of his lengthy articles during this period as he travelled tirelessly across Rwanda, to remote villages and regional towns as well as the capital. He met ordinary Tutsi survivors, imprisoned Hutu perpetrators, and the leaders of the Rwandan Patriotic Front, or RPF, the rebel army that had ended the genocide and taken control of the country. Gourevitch developed enduring contacts within the upper echelons of the RPF. He often interviewed Major General Paul Kagame, the head of the army, who would, years later, become president.
From his first New Yorker article about Rwanda, Gourevitch portrayed Kagame as calm, intelligent, thoughtful, and questioning—a man who, having stopped a great evil, was working against immense odds and in difficult circumstances to fix his broken country. That portrayal has remained fixed over the years. In his most recent Rwanda article, in May 2009, Gourevitch wrote, “Kagame led the rebel force that stopped the genocide. He has presided over Rwanda’s destiny ever since, and he has come to be recognized, by his adversaries and his admirers alike, as one of the most formidable political figures of our age.” Gourevitch went on to list Kagame’s achievements in creating “one of the safest and the most orderly countries in Africa”: per capita GDP has multiplied, national health insurance and free primary education are available to all, tourism is growing, the capital is clean (plastic bags are banned), Internet and cell phones reach across the country, drivers wear seatbelts, civil servants arrive at work on time, there is construction, rule of law, and justice.
Gourevitch’s early articles formed the basis of a book that won a clutch of awards and became a best seller. The compassion and clarity of writing, the attention to detail and in-depth interviews, and the freshness of his outsider’s eye meant that after it was published in 1998, We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories From Rwanda became required reading for anyone interested in Rwanda, Africa, genocide, or journalism. He defined an image of Rwanda and Kagame that has held firm for more than a decade.

I discern a weird revisionism. It would seem that those who did cover the genocide, myself, McGreal and others, must be tainted with journalistic imcompetence, verging on agitprop, by those who did not. Many of us covered both the genocide and the war(s) which followed, and continue today, in the Zaire/DRC. None of us, as far as I am aware, had a rose-tinted view of the RPF or its leader Kagame. When massacres occurred, and we could prove them, we reported them. There was no excusing them - but genocide they were not.
Today many journalists, who were not in Rwanda in 1994, seem hell bent on somehow proving a moral equivalence between the genocidaires and Kagame's regime. There isn't one. Kagame's people are guilty of war crimes for what they did in the DRC - but thse did not amount to anything on the scale of the systemmatic state-sponsored mass murder of 1994. Many Congolese believe there is an equivalence because they have suffered so horribly, that belief is misplaced but understandable. To imply that those who committed the genocide are as 'bad' as those who committed other horrible crimes might appear at first glance to be uncontroversial. The issue, really, is one of scale - when a million are killed in 100 days, it's only the scale one can comprehend.
I do not agree with the premise that journalists have been 'soft' on Kagame - but the UK and US governments certainly have.
#1 Posted by Sam Kiley, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 10:42 AM
I am a journalist, i am African, i worked for the BBC before moving to the united States, i find it intellectually disingenuous for Sam to say that those journalist who didn't cover the big genocide stories are trying to trash our records. Secondly,Arguing that the US and the UK has also been soft on Kagama as ludicrous attempt at a modest defense. Boys own up and say yes, by writing about Kagame the way we wrote we created a Sainthood out of a devil incarnate and we're story. Period.
#2 Posted by abdoul, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 11:01 AM
I am a journalist, i am African, i worked for the BBC before moving to the united States, i find it intellectually disingenuous for Sam to say that those journalist who didn't cover the big genocide stories are trying to trash our records. Secondly,Arguing that the US and the UK has also been soft on Kagama as ludicrous attempt at a modest defense. Boys own up and say yes, by writing about Kagame the way we wrote we created a Sainthood out of a devil incarnate and we're story. Period.
#3 Posted by abdoul, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 11:02 AM
Oh ya, where was Philip Gourevitch from 1990 to 1994? How many people were killed in Rwanda during that period and why? Can Philip Gourevitch talk about the graphics of the killings during that period, since by what I am reading he is the expert about what happened in Rwanda. The skull under Philip Gourevitch foot, was it of a tutsi, hutu, twa or a burundian refugee? How many skulls of tutsi was he able to indentifiy and how? And how many skulls of everyone else was he able to indentify and how? The truth is only people who have the power, money and the media (like Philip Gourevitch and Kagame)would cover the Rwandan story in their favor and the true history, the truth, the true stories will never be known. Philip Gourevitch and Kagame get recognition. Sad, isn't it? Sometimes I wonder if this is it, cover ups, greed and power. How about the little people, the people kills at Kibeho for instance, the people killed in Ruhengeri in 1993? To Philip Gourevitch and all the medias: the truth about Rwanda will never die , it will be still there when you and I depart from this world and still Philip Gourevitch will never be able to answer the question: whose skull was under your foot?
Thank you for reading and your fair thinking.
Good bless you all
#4 Posted by Em Uwayo, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 12:00 PM
I gave it to Kagame whenevr it was warranted, exposed the lie that Rwanda wasn not in the DRC in 1995 and that it was very much part of the problems that followed. And that Kagame was bjacking Nkunda. I totally reject the idea that those of us who followed these events over many years were suckered by Kagame
#5 Posted by Sam kiley, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 12:02 PM
I was also a journalist in Rwanda in 1994 (July) and 1996 (November). Everyone was quite skeptical of Kagame in 94 as he stayed behind the scenes and refused to speak publicly, though he was clearly the power in the country. It was pretty clear in 96 that it was Rwanda that had cleared out the camps though it was impossible to confirm and the US diplomats were actively putting out another story. It was also understandable; from the first visits there in 94, it was clear the Interhamwe were running the camps. The UN allowed this. When their hold was broken, the refugees came home. Perhaps there were some problems here and there, there was certainly tension, but for the most part they were welcomed. There was certainly no genocide.
Basically, I concur with Sam Kiley's post. Kagame has done a stunning job for his country on many levels. He has also done some pretty bad things in eastern Congo, some that can be explained by his protecting Rwanda, some that can't. The problem is that we want to make people purely good or purely evil. No one is, including Kagame.
#6 Posted by Michael Hill, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 01:34 PM
As an academic who has studied Rwanda for the last decade or so, I find Tristan McConnell's piece to balanced and fair. Gourevitch's writings are often the first introduction for general audiences that in turn shapes and impacts how Western audiences perceive Rwanda, the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front and Kagame the benevolent dictator. His reaction to McConnell’s piece and his fulsome attack on Howard French bear all the markings of a defensive, immature reaction to what is otherwise a thoughtful and important piece of journalism. Journalists are on the front line of informing and educating laypersons, and because knowledge on Rwanda is so polarized and politicized, Gourevitch is obliged to update and revise his positions, not accuse McConnell of professional entrapment when his body of work is revealed for what it is – a very powerful narrative about a country which few outsiders are familiar with in any depth.
While it is regrettable that McConnell did not clearly articulate to Gourevitch that his CJR piece was to be more than profile, this omission hardly merits Gourevitch’s vitriolic response. Indeed, his reaction makes me wonder if he cares more about his reputation than he does about Rwanda. An author of Gourevitch’s presumed status surely understands that mass political violence in Rwanda is once again a possibility because of three major themes that are in operation now were also in effect in the early 1990s: 1) the arrests, detention and massacres of opponents of the government (then the MNRD, now the RPF) within Rwanda; 2) military abuses by the government of the day; and, 3) intimidation of the opposition within and out of Rwanda.
It seems to me that Gourevitch has an obligation to his readers to revise his simple yet persuasive account of the 1994 genocide and regional crises it provoked. In this, he has failed because he has failed to do so despite compelling evidence to the contrary that Kagame's RPF has misbehaved (to put it lightly) at home and in the Congo. Indeed, no one expects Gourevitch to explain the ideological underpinnings of the official narrative of peace, reconciliation, and economic development that is at the centre of Kagame’s African success story (Pottier started the conversation in his 2002 book, Re-imagining Rwanda. Ingelaere added much needed nuance to Gourevitch’s bucolic interpretation of Rwanda under Kagame in the April 2010 issue of the African Studies Review).
Instead, he has an obligation to report what he sees to well-meaning but often uninformed Western audiences, even if this means revising and updating his reporting as new information becomes available, rather than morally absenting himself from debate about his own contribution to knowledge production in and on Rwanda.
#7 Posted by susan thomson, CJR on Tue 1 Feb 2011 at 09:11 PM
Sam,
Scale has nothing to do with it...as long as people are targeted because of their social, ethnic, or religious affiliation, that is genocide. Evidence is coming out that Hutus were targeted because they were Hutu - even if they were Zaireans, and that qualifies it as genocide...like it or not.
According to the UN "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Does it say anything in there about scale??? It's journalists like you who empowered Kagame because you don't know how to identify what is in front of your eyes.
Rwanda will emerge from all of this, though, with your help or not.
#8 Posted by Edouard S. Mutabazi, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 01:03 AM
It's a discouraging view of the state of journalism displayed here, when even those who criticize Gourevich's softness on Kagame still accept the Official Stories, that Kagame STOPPED "the" genocide, and that he is responsible for Rwanda's "development" and stability. Only Em Uwayo points out the need to understand what Kagame was doing between 1990 and 1994. An invading army slaughtered Rwandans all the way to Kigali, and there is reason to believe he STARTED (and facilitated) the slaughter of Tutsis and "moderate Hutus".
The development and economic success story is the story of a thief (of Congo resources) whose working expenses were provided by foreign powers, notably the US.
The "peace and stability" is the peace and stability of an urban elite (almost entirely Tutsi) keeping an impoverished rural mass (almost entirely Hutu) under control, using the usual means of a dictatorship.
I could suggest some sources for you "journalists" to read, but I think letting you search them out (hidden in plain sight) would make for a useful educational exercise.
#9 Posted by Frank LeFever, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 01:12 AM
80% of the Rwandan population is "Hutu". The majority of its army is "Hutu". Some genocide.
#10 Posted by Pierre, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 03:11 AM
Thank you for this beautiful article this man called Philip he is interested in making money not in reconciling Rwandans but making one murderer person as a hero ignoring the fact that my entire family of about 300 people of which 3/4 of them were children under 15 years old. If Kagame and Philip said that those who were killed in Tingitingi were Interahamwe does it mean that even my younger siblings who were between 2 and 11 were interahamwe? or the Hutu blood that was flowing down their nerves qualified them to be killed and on top of that to have Philip spreading propaganda so that they do not get justice they long for?
#11 Posted by KAMANZI, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 01:45 PM
Genocidaires complaining about justice. Amazing.
#12 Posted by Pierre, CJR on Wed 2 Feb 2011 at 03:30 PM
When I read the article and the comments it read like a movie review. And I am greatly appalled. I am African and I am human, and therefore I will always have a vested interest in Rwanda.
I am greatly intrigued by the Western media's approach of Africa it remains one in which ethnicity is the reason for violence on the African continent. And my favourite being the part where Africa is a 'basket-case continent' thriving on western media to save it from itself.
It is very easy to write and articulate in academic prose the reasons for why things are as they are in Africa. The genocide in Rwanda and even in Darfur give credence to why westerners can say what they say and depict Africa as the dumb little brother of the America's one that you always have to excuse because he wets his pants and walks around with a runny nose!
But the harsh reality of Africa is that it is African problems. And all that western academics do is sit behind their desks in the comfort of their 'safe' countries and write about an Africa that they never experience. Because even when they travel to 'Africa' they stay in humble European abodes. And when they write about Africa and even when journalists write about Africa they are more intrigued by African kids calling them mzungu and the excitement over the candy they receive from the mzungu.
How many times have you read about the poverty in Rwanda and elsewhere? How many times do you read that Africans live under a dollar a day? Then compare that too the reality that if you buy your food at the Kimironko market in Rwanda you pretty much only need a dollar to provide for the needs of your family. Yes African's don't have a diet of steaks and mash potato but their needs are met, it is only the west that has a problem with this. Simply because it is not western therefore it must be bad and inhumane!
Paul Kagame is a president of a country, he works in the best interest of his country. The section of him being one person in Rwanda and another in Congo is applicable to all heads of state. Is it inhumane to say that Kagame's first obligation is his own people Rwandans? Then we should say that about the Blair's and Bush's of the western world too ... Rwanda is by no means the only country with an interest in Congo all the world has. And too assume that all that the western world seeks is peace for Africa is the lies on which aid and involvement in Africa is based!
African leaders are greatly flawed, and Africans are not oblivious to this but because of Kagame and Chinese aid in Rwanda the country has roads, the new city plans all aimed at 2020 will contribute more to making Rwanda a first class African city! The problem in my opinion with western journalist such as McConnell and academics is that at the end of the film these people always have to be the good guys. The ones that Africans turn to, fall on their knees and say thank you!
The problem is that neither African leaders or Africans are interested in doing this anymore! And why not just for a change, write about the good in Rwanda try to not use the words genocide, Hutu, Tutsi, Twa and even Paul Kagame. I am certain that there is a lot to write, but in the end these won't help you sell your papers or your books!
#13 Posted by Mikhaila Cupido, CJR on Thu 3 Feb 2011 at 06:25 AM
Firstly, Michael Hill is right when he says: “The problem is that we want to make people purely good or purely evil. No one is, including Kagame”. To Hill’s statement, I can add UN. replace Kagame by UN. Kagame and his army at least stopped the genocide while UN and the international community were watching it.
Secondarily, I am shocked by the comparison of Susan Thomson between what happened before the Tutsi genocide and her misleading views of what is happening now: “(1) the arrests, detention and massacres of opponents of the government (then the MNRD, now the RPF) within Rwanda; military abuses by the government of the day; (3) intimidation of the opposition within and out of Rwanda.”
As someone who lived in these two situations, to compare them is not only irresponsible, it is sadism. People who were arrested before 1994- genocide were exclusively Tutsi wrongly called the opponents of the government. They were intimidated, abused by both the military and the MRND militias, and were killed. The killers, instead of being taken to court, were promoted by the government (i.e. Rwambuka in Bugesera in 1992). At least now, people can stand in court, and criminals are punished for their acts. There are many facts that can be verified about how justice was bad before the 1994 Tutsi genocide and the way justice is tremendously improving after the 1994 Tutsi genocide. It is this confusion created by some of the journals that make them to be viewed as genocide deniers or negationists disguised in journalists or human rights. It is very few journalists who can dig the history the history of Rwanda, it seems like some journalists started their carriers after the 1994 Tutsi genocide.
Nkubito
#14 Posted by Nkubito C., CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 07:03 AM
Em Uwayo, susan Thomson, Edouard S. Mutabazi, Frank LeFever, KAMANZI
: Your arguments above, are total crap, and you know it; but then again, this is probably some other kinds of propaganda as you know best how to do them! The truth of the fact is that Tutsi’s in Rwanda were targeted simply because they were Tutsi; the states planned it, local leaders facilitated it by producing lists of those who were and those who were not Tutsi; where they lived and who they hosted every day… This was their clear agenda for 4 years. In the Meantime, RPF under Kagame’s leadership, was fighting hard to stop killings that were happening (many Tutsi enforced disappearances, death clearly committed against the Tutsi population “you will certainly remember the massacres of 1992 in Bugesera where more than 100000 were killed, and many more…), RPF was also fighting to abolish this kind of discriminatory ruling system, and they always made this clear. So, Have they killed so called Hutus in Ruhengeri and Kibeho… I can’t state for a fact; but what I can state for a fact is that I know RPF and its politics, and it’s certainly not to kill people “any kind of people” due to their ethnic association… If there were some killings done, then explanations could be collateral damage or simply certain individuals avenging their families (such as in Kibeho); but we also know that RPF has punished these individuals… Do you want proof, ask the ministry of Justice, and these files will be provided to you… I do not understand why collateral damage is easily understood when it comes to Iraq, Afghanistan et al, but when it comes to RPF fighting to liberate a country (which was in trouble by all definition and to everyone’s knowledge): then it becomes so hard for many foreigners (many who so eagerly defend the US and western nations for crimes committed to defend their countries and their peoples)…
If Hutus where targeted, and RPF committed genocide against them; then you guys stating this fact should answer: WHO THEN STOP THIS GENOCIDE??? As far as I know, the RPF stopped the genocide committed against the TUTSI when the UN could not, and clearly the international community did not care!!!
Why did the RPF go in the Congo: well, to liberate the same people it’s now being accused of having been there to kill… We all know that the UN, through the French operation Turquoise facilitated the former genocidal government, its army and its militia to exist Rwanda and make it across the border into the UN refugee camps, with all their munitions and with millions of human shields, whom they prevented from returning home to Rwanda, and within whom they were recruiting soldiers and training them and coming to destabilize the country; using refugee camps as their bases… Those who refused were killed…
Just a question to you 6: if the RPF committed genocide against the Hutus in the Congo, then, why did more than 2 Millions of them come back to Rwanda, and were welcomed and reintegrated into their homes and their communities? If the RPF’s policy was to kill them all (as they wanted for Tutsis), what then prevented them from doing so?
Where there atrocities committed during this time: maybe, only true and impartial investigations can prove that… But these can never be equated to the Genocide committed against the Tutsi, where for 4 years people were being documented, to know who is a Tutsi, where they lived, who they were seeing, how many kids/relatives they had, and whom among these were guys etc…
The total BS of the UN mapping report people often refer to back their own agenda and opinion in so-called crimes committed against the RPF; we all clearly know that this report had an agenda, and was written by people who were spreading these same lies and rumors long before they documented these atrocities, and before the atrocities were allegedly committed (same people wrote similar articles in 1996-7, while in their UN report the same people docu
#15 Posted by Kamikamuntu, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 08:08 AM
I think Gourevitch deserves respect and the total tribute due. He is as visionary as Kagame, and so are other people with good faith. Rwanda has come from the hell, and now, under the visionary leadership of Paul Kagame, Rwanda, the heart of Africa, has become the "HEART OF AFRICA". Rwandans are united, and the country is developping.Gourevitch has seen and experienced that progress. Congratulations, Mr Gourevitch, don't give up before those who have destroyed Rwanda and its values for long. Rwandans support you, especially myself, and so is the rest of the world. Thank you for the good job, Mr Philip Gourevitch.
#16 Posted by Kalisa Kayitare, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 08:49 AM
I am a big fan of Gourevich, i truly believe that Gourvich has done a great justice to people of Rwanda by giving an international voice to voiceless in Rwanda.
Its a big tragedy to see so much ignorance and arrogancy in some small european writers who called themselves experts on Rwanda. These people continue to refuse to aknowledge all the great work and opportunity Kagame is giving to his people. The direction we Rwandans are taking to build our Nation is what the rest of African nation needs. I left Rwanda to Europe after the Genocide and return later to put my expertise and skills that i have gained into community projects.
Our grassroots projects support hundreds thousand young people whom among are former streets children. I wouldn't be able to do what i am doing today if we didn't have a good president. Most of the young people i work with they see our president as their heros regardless of what you and i think or even Gourevich. In their youth discussions club you can tell that they are believe and look up to their Leader Paul Kagame. People who have less impact and contribution to our people seems to be the one who are making a lots of noise. They sit down in their confortable chairs and write in our place.
I ve read Gourevich's book and articles he has published, i don't really praise Kagame at all, he only recount stories of what has happened when the devil invade Rwanda. Many people i know in UK have bought he is book because this guy can connect with readers. I guess they exist journalists who jealous of Goureverch and Rwanda's success my advice is get over it or keep talking but you are not going to stop us on our way to meet the millenium goal.
#17 Posted by Akila, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 09:25 AM
Relevant in this context is the ultra-revisionist interpretation of the Rwandan genocide advanced by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, in their book "The Politics of Genocide" (Monthly Review, 2010). This volume features the most intricate and extreme denials and fabrications concerning the 1994 genocide that I, as a scholar of comparative genocide, have ever seen. Yet Noam Chomsky supplied the preface, praising the book as "powerful"; and John Pilger, the very paragon of the the humanitarian journalist, praised it as a "brilliant exposé" that "defend[s] the right of us all to a truthful historical memory.’ The reaction if it were Holocaust denial being propounded and endorsed by these luminaries can only be imagined. But Herman & Peterson's enterprise, and that of a small coterie of fellow deniers, has mostly flown under the media radar so far. One can, and must, recognize and incorporate the atrocities of Kagame and the RPF into any analysis of the 1994 genocide and its sequel in Congo. But Rwandan-sponsored genocide in Congo in 1996-97 cannot responsibly be used to obfuscate the central historical fact of the 1994 events: the organized, systematic extermination of hundreds of thousands of defenseless Tutsis -- down to the youngest infant -- by agents and supporters of the "Hutu Power" regime. For Herman & Peterson, and apparently for Pilger (if this is his understanding of "truthful historical memory"), this genocide simply never happened. It's scary stuff. See my short open letter to Pilger (Google "pilger rwanda"), and my lengthy critique of the evasions and fabrications that underpin Herman & Peterson's account (Google "jonestream herman rwanda").
#18 Posted by Adam Jones, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 11:16 AM
Why all this fuss on Rwanda! Since Rwandans were solely responsible for stoping the 1994 tutsi genocide, some so called experts who are serving other thir own interests have been up in arms to always write negative articles on Rwanda.
That lady called Susan Thomson has never written any positive article on Rwanda. The truth is that she was sponsored to spread the negative propaganda, she served in Rwanda as part of the so called human rights monitors in 1997, after they were shown exit, she manouvered to come back to Rwanda and faked a PHD thesis. In actual fact, she was on the propaganda mission.
She in an ally of Rusesabagina and the likes of those self proclaimed enemies of Rwanda.
Gourevich understands the history of genocide in Rwanda and when he writes about it while trying to educate the revisionists and deniers because he interested in peace in our region they shout. Those trying to recruit him in that camp of genocide deniers are satanic and will be punished by the God of Rwanda.
I have question for Susan Thoson, what do you gain by antagosing with innocent Rwandans who are trying to rebuild and develop their country?
Anyway president Kagame has taugth Rwandans to work hard and leave those talking to continue doing so." Let them talk while we develop our country"
#19 Posted by Jacob, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 12:07 PM
McConnell's article is just part of the dog-pile on Kagame--a bit late to the party, I'd say, after the Rwandan election is over; most dog-pilers got in early. Framing this up on Gourovitch's back was risky. It gives the article absolutely no point, and that's always a chance. What is the purpose of "analyzing" Gourovitch in this way? There is none. The real aim is obviously to attack Kagame, and do so indirectly by going after Gourovich. And so McConnell begins trotting out the usual plateful of negative points on Kagame, like a waiter in a cheap tux with spaghetti and meatballs--choke me with a spoon, how boring! Arrgh!! Proving Kagame's not an angel doesn't make him a devil incarnate. There's only one interesting question--since this whole Kagame-as-devil parade is apparently intended to cut foreign aid to Rwanda, and so drag down the strongest "upstart" nation in Africa, my curiosity is how McConnell is paid, and by whom.
Too bad for you, Gourovich--I liked your book--but you didn't sign up with the Kagame-haters club and therefore you need to be "analyzed" by the "journalists." But my doctor's calling me in for a little proctology work myself, so I don't feel too bad about it--hopefully we'll both survive.
#20 Posted by Hiero, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 12:24 PM
Why all this fuss on Rwanda! Since Rwandans were solely responsible for stoping the 1994 tutsi genocide, some so called experts who are serving other their own interests have been up in arms to always write negative articles on Rwanda.
That lady called Susan Thomson has never written any positive article on Rwanda. The truth is that she was sponsored to spread the negative propaganda, she served in Rwanda as part of the so called human rights monitors in 1997, after they were shown exit, she manouvered to come back to Rwanda and faked a PHD thesis. In actual fact, she was on the propaganda mission.
She in an ally of Rusesabagina and the likes of those self proclaimed enemies of Rwanda.
Gourevich understands the history of genocide in Rwanda and when he writes about it while trying to educate the revisionists and deniers because he interested in peace in our region they shout. Those trying to recruit him in that camp of genocide deniers are satanic and will be punished by the God of Rwanda.
I have question for Susan Thoson, what do you gain by antagosing with innocent Rwandans who are trying to rebuild and develop their country?
Anyway president Kagame has taugth Rwandans to work hard and leave those talking to continue doing so." Let them talk while we develop our country"
#21 Posted by Jacob, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 12:28 PM
I appreciate Gourevitch's writtings. At least he is one of the rare journalists that had guts to go to the ground where the Genocidaires have been butchering innocent people to finally loose the war and seek sanctuary in Eastern Zaire. There they continued their heinous and ignomious activities of planning an invasion to the new government of Rwanda but at the same time hunting down the Congolese Tutsi in areas of Masisi, Rutchuru....This was being done under the watchful eyes of the UN, making it a second failure (may be the third) to really save the nation of Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda's intervention in the DRC was nothing else than a self defense and thank God it worked.
Gourevitch followed all these development with a clear sense of objectivity and this has urked people like Tristan McConnell who has always defended the genocidaires perhaps for the sake of promoting his own ego. He is in the same category of people who can never appreciate the achievements made in Rwanda by the leadership of President Paul Kagame. To the people like Tristan McConnell, nothing good can come from a Rwanda without the genocidaires.
Gourevitch, please do not bend to the pressure of people like McConnell. Keep it up and continue to defend the right cause through objective reporting.
#22 Posted by Karasanyi, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 04:40 PM
@ Adam Jones
I have your rebuttal to Herman & Peterson's BS. Highly appropriate and powerful.
But some little consistency wouldn't harm.
"Rwandan-sponsored genocide in Congo in 1996-97" ? Really?
Even the authors of the preposterous UN Mapping Report admit in private that the use of the "G" word to describe the events in Zaire/Congo was "excessive". No relevant judicial or political body as used that word in the DRC context
Now, you an expert on Genocide is throwing the G word around as if you didn't appreciate its weight and potential impacts.
#23 Posted by ALI, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 05:32 PM
@ Susan Thompson
"As an academic who has studied Rwanda for the last decade or so..."
Well, as a Rwandan who has lived in the country for 3 decades or so, I would like the suggest that the biggest service you could possibly render the people of Rwanda is to please stop spreading your demagogic lies.
"Gourevitch's writings are often the first introduction for general audiences that in turn shapes and impacts how Western audiences perceive Rwanda"
You and your zealous anti-Tutsi clique would probably like to replace him, right? Could you please start by demonstrating a tenth of his courage and decency?
"Gourevitch 'presumed status'". What's yours beyond your anti-RPF passion?
Would you please go back to your books and glasses of wine and stop pretending to be what you will never be?
#24 Posted by Iyamarere, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 05:50 PM
This article is on point. Kagame is a genocidaire. The truth about little babies, women and the elderly killed both in Rwanda and in Congo will not be buried. Reporters who had the monopoly of telling the story will have a hard time denying the genocide in Congo they failed to objectively report on. They may have missed the RPF massacres in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994, but the massacres by Kagame's troops were not hard to prove unless one refused to accept the proof. Those who do true research (the academics) have long found and show that Kagame is indeed a genocidaire.
#25 Posted by Champ, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 06:44 PM
Gourevitch's reputation is probably strong enough to take all this crap from individuals who don't have a fraction of his courage and competency.
Those who can't afford to ignore those demagogic lies anymore are Rwandans. Both their history and they future might be at stake.
What is disturbing is that the anti-RPF/Kagame/Tutsi's propaganda has become so forceful that the few decent observers who still resist the anti-Kagame frenzy; those who have the guts to question the international HR hypocrisy; or those who reject the genocide deniers' arguments come under such immediate and sustained attacks that they feel obliged to demonstrate their willingness to criticize the RPF in order to maintain their credibility as journalists/scholars, etc.I hope that Gourevitch doesn't fall into this cheap trap.
But whether he does or not; Those of us for who Rwanda is everything; Those of us who are lucid enough to remember where we came from and where we want to go, can only say with a clear and loud voice: BRING IT ON !
#26 Posted by Intare, CJR on Fri 4 Feb 2011 at 07:03 PM
Definitely Tristan McConnel's is jealous of Philip Gourevich's success. I know this might hurt him when he reads it but Gourevich is a good writer even BETTER good looking than Tristan. Trust me i can heal Tristan to be a better person, but i would have to be honest with him. By the way this is a free service!
First he has to realise that he is not a good writer, therefore can't be an expert writer on Rwanda or Africa issues. His other problem is that he has married the Interahamwe extrimism ideology, this means that he only sees Rwanda through two ethnic lenses (Hutu and Tutsi) which is not always the case, nothing to be ashamed off Tristan you are not alone and myself i ve been there now proud to say that i am no free from the Hutu extrimist manipulation and lies! What i can say is that need a quick divorce from the Hutu extrimists as fresh start. As you know Rwandans don't hold back, they will forgive you for all the pain and grief you have caused them through your publications. Finally, leave writing about Rwanda to Philip Gourevich. Hope i don't sound to harsh!
#27 Posted by kenia, CJR on Sat 5 Feb 2011 at 02:16 AM
Definitely Tristan McConnel's is jealous of Philip Gourevich's success. I know this might hurt him when he reads it but Gourevich is a good writer even BETTER good looking than Tristan. Trust me i can heal Tristan to be a better person, but i would have to be honest with him. By the way this is a free service!
First he has to realise that he is not a good writer, therefore can't be an expert writer on Rwanda or Africa issues. His other problem is that he has married the Interahamwe extrimism ideology, this means that he only sees Rwanda through two ethnic lenses (Hutu and Tutsi) which is not always the case, nothing to be ashamed off Tristan you are not alone and myself i ve been there now proud to say that i am no free from the Hutu extrimist manipulation and lies! What i can say is that need a quick divorce from the Hutu extrimists as fresh start. As you know Rwandans don't hold back, they will forgive you for all the pain and grief you have caused them through your publications. Finally, leave writing about Rwanda to Philip Gourevich. Hope i don't sound to harsh!
#28 Posted by kenia, CJR on Sat 5 Feb 2011 at 02:17 AM
Thank you Mr McConnell for challenging the media narrative of President Paul Kagame of Rwanda as provided by Gourevitch. The battle is not over as he, Kagame, still has friends in high places who have not decided to let him go as of yet though millions have died in Uganda, Rwanda, and Congo due to his actions in the region.
I covered the media prism in an article written a year ago here
http://sfbayview.com/2009/the-challenges-of-congo-advocacy-in-the-21st-century/
It is quite fascinating to read Gourevitch's response to this article not realizing that we are talking about the lives of millions of Africans dead in the hands of President Paul Kagame. There are many fingers to be pointed, but the narrative that was written in 1994 where victors of the 1994 genocide cannot be questioned for their actions still prevail today, thanks to Gourevitch's like response.
Reading this article has been quite telling on what is at stake in the region of the Great Lakes of Africa. McConnell has done a huge effort to broaden the dialogue from the good guy-bad guy narrative to identify the cover-up of facts in regard to what happened in Rwanda in 1994, and in later years up to present day.
As a Congolese activist, I have witnessed how the narrative of the war of aggression/invasion by Rwanda and Uganda in 1996 and 1998 happened with the complete silence of the international community and the majority of the mainstream media whereby the invaders' actions in the Congo were seen as justified by a pretext thus giving them carte blanche to commit atrocities on women and babies, even going to the extent of fighting each other (Rwanda and Uganda battle in Kisangani) where an estimated 3000 Congolese died.
So why am I making this explanation on an article about Rwanda. The reason why people continues to die in the region is because journalists time and time again have refused to tell the truth about where the money from the "miraculous" economic boom came from, why Congolese people have died in millions where half were children under the age of 5, minerals stolen from Congo, and the people of the region continue to suffer.
I hope that Gourevitch will rethink his approach to African issues rather than becoming the fly-by experts who comes in and stay for a couple of weeks in Africa and think they truly know what is happening while silencing the voice of African experts, intellectuals, activists, who have articulated what is at stake in the continent.
#29 Posted by Kambale Musavuli, CJR on Mon 7 Feb 2011 at 01:06 PM
Dear Mr Tristan McConnell,
I wish to inform you that President Paul Kagame is our Man and that your campaign to tarnish his name is null and void. You will never succeed in undermining our hero who saved us from the worst genocide of the century. Needless to recount how the genocide unfolded claiming more than a million lives because you must have a full account since you reported so well the facts contained in Mr Philip Gourevitch’s book; We wish to inform you that tomorrow We will be killed with our families. For a full account of what really happened and what triggered genocide, I will refer you also to two other books by Linda Melvern entitled; A people betrayed (the role of the West in Rwanda’s genocide) and Conspiracy to murder (the Rwandan genocide). I wholeheartedly commend the above-named journalists for their love of retelling the truth as it occurred, with no hidden agenda.
Besides, after having read your article, I have a feeling that it will just prove to be another mere exercise to go through what our Man has achieved, because I have the impression that even if the truth was slammed into your ears over and over again, you will still come up with a tainted story aimed at undermining all the efforts of reconciliation undertaken by our President to prevent another genocide right from the early aftermath of genocide. It must have come as a surprise to you when instead of seeking revenge; our President opted for reconciling and uniting his people. No wonder you deploy so much energy to fabricate fake evidence incriminating him. Sorry, not this time. We are now fully aware of how people of your kind operate. Rwandan people won’t fall in the same trap again. Rwandans will not start again to slaughter their brothers because outsiders incite them to do so. How can they follow your directions when those who ignited hatred in the people took off leaving them at their fate? How can they trust you again when you ignored their call for help when they were being slaughtered? They have paid a heavy price! Moreover, they are currently reaping the fruit of living together in peace and harmony in the best country of the world. The level of what has been achieved under the leadership of President Paul Kagame was never reached during the previous regimes, and no Rwandan will walk backwards.
I wish to inform you that we are still alive and kicking despite all the conspiracy to exterminate part of our population. Yes we rose from the dead and we are determined to remain alive and to fight for our rights. Yes, now we can do so because we have a voice. We had been muzzled for ages either by refugee status or by the status of second-class citizens depriving us from a voice during the previous regimes. You might recall that we even used to carry an identity card bearing our ethnic group. That is what our beloved President is trying to fight with his policy of reconciliation. We will never allow you to undermine the Man, our beloved President, the only one who stopped genocide and the only who is looking after his people.
You might share my opinion with regards to our President’s achievements because of the way you refer to Rwanda in the Congo. Indeed, when I see how you talk about our tiny cute Rwanda in the Congo, I feel as if you were referring to one of the superpowers such as one of the members of the G-20 if not a country of the G-8. Is it really this tiny little country that is shaking everyone in the Congo? How can it dictate all the rules to countries present in the Congo? Is it some kind of superpower everyone has to fear? If it is so, who else that power should be credited to if not our beloved President who amazed the world with his good governance?
We wish to tell you that we have reclaimed our voice! Indeed, we will speak out and beware of the new trend African children have embarked on. We have taken the reins of power; yes we have our destiny in our hands. Wait till
#30 Posted by Jane Karuretwa, CJR on Tue 8 Feb 2011 at 12:57 AM
It's one thing to swallow the awful truth that reality has neither the moral nor factual clarity we often wish. Its another to witness witless revisionists at work. The pedestrian witless seek to fight pointless battles (Kagame/RPF/Tutsi: devi(s) incarnate or angel(s) of rescue) or are itching to replay the battles of the past. The worse of them (insert Ed Herman) fabricate and confabulate a counter-narrative of denialism. If Herman is as successful as he's been in denying Serbian wrongdoing, we're in store for a new cottage industry eager to erase the memory of the 1994 genocide as the killers were to end their lives.
And then there's the academic hack (insert Susan Thomson) who channel an aura of objectivity but who is more likely trafficking in second-hand rumor or applying a set of ethical norms that are comparable to the ones used by the humanitarian groups when they rescued the genocidaires.
I hope the voices of Sam Kiley, Michael Hill, Chris McGreal - and Alex Jones can prevail in this moshpit of commentary. As we experience it the world is horribly unclear but its frightening what people resort to in order to construct clarity.
#31 Posted by Anon, CJR on Thu 10 Feb 2011 at 06:59 PM
Surprising as it is, those who cry loudest about the victimization of Tutsi people are the same people who tend to embrace the collective incrimination of Hutu. To them, everything Hutu is evil and demonic. The Hutus deserve to be killed for their role in the 1994 genocide.
This kind of thinking is the biggest threat to Rwanda's future. It presupposes that democracy cannot happen, because the majority of Rwandans (read Hutu) are killers. Ironically, this camp promote the humanity of Tutsi people by denying that of Hutu people. The same thinking that led to the genocide is replicated--and done so without the slightest trace of shame.
I read Gourevitchs book in about four years ago. I had just survived Kagame's killing field in the DRC and could not comprehend why a man had chosen to portray Kagame as a saint. Gourevitch knows very well that Kagame is guilty of many crimes, but, as a good liberal he is lost into the dark closet relativism. Thinking that Kagame must be the lesser evil since the man has killed fewer--in terms of numbers.
The comments on this page are very symbolic of the very nature of the struggle that Rwandans will have to face in the years to come. You can sense the raw anger, the unbridled extremism. Yet, Gourevitch has helped facilitate this, by choosing to support one group against another. This is surely not a journalist's job.
Lastly, Susan Thomson is right that Rwanda is heading towards a dangerous path. Already the country is a Tutsi dictatorship that has completely eradicated all forms of independent civil society. If Kagame were to go on public radio to promote killings, who would stop him?
I am looking forward to reading Gourevitchs new book. His previous book was a deserving to the Rwandan people, but there is always opportunity for re-evaluation (Ask Steven Kinzer).
#32 Posted by Rwanda Nkunda, CJR on Fri 11 Feb 2011 at 07:15 PM
"To them, everything Hutu is evil and demonic. The Hutus deserve to be killed for their role in the 1994 genocide."
If the overwhelming majority of Rwanda's population is "Hutu" (including its military and politicians), then why aren't "they" being killed?
"It presupposes that democracy cannot happen, because the majority of Rwandans (read Hutu) are killers."
See massive turn-outs and participation in recent elections, including the recent national election.
"I had just survived Kagame's killing field in the DRC and could not comprehend why a man had chosen to portray Kagame as a saint."
What were you doing in the DRC? Going for a stroll? What were you running away from? Exasperated with the approaching steps of implacable justice?
"You can sense the raw anger, the unbridled extremism."
That's rich. Such brazen chutzpah in an attempt to turn black into white, guilt into innocence.
"Lastly, Susan Thomson is right that Rwanda is heading towards a dangerous path."
If the last sixteen years represent a "dangerous path" -- then full steam ahead! Ninety-three percent of the population recently gave their hearty approval to a decided continuation along this "dangerous path". Much better than the "safe path" the genocidaires want to offer.
But the thing I wanna know about these genocidaires is, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!?! I mean, did they think nobody would notice had they been allowed to succeed with their diabolical plan and not been defeated? I suppose given their facility -- indeed talent -- with telling brazen, whopping lies, perhaps they could have managed to sweep it all under the rug. Their attempt to do so now, after they were frustrated and defeated on the battlefield, seems to suggest that they are not put off by reality. (Irrefutably documented genocide? Hmph! Means nothing!). But, really, how on earth do these people think? What in God's name goes on in their minds? If you don't believe in God and the spirit world and so forth, how else can you explain their behavior other than ascribe it to demon-possession?
#33 Posted by Pierre, CJR on Sun 13 Feb 2011 at 01:10 AM
The point of view of Susan Thompson, Kimbale Musavuli, Champ, and Rwanda Nkunda is 5/5 correct .
Of course, we know ad nauseam the point of view of the by RPF sponsored "gogo-girls & beech-boys" like Jane Karuretwa, Karasanyi, Lyamarere, Intare, Ali, Jacob, Kalisa Kayitare et al.: totally 5/5 uncorrect.
Truth is truth and Justice is Justice. Once upon a time, Kagame will lose his US allies and their UK puppet. And this day Kagame will be accused and arrested and put on Court. And this day, Rwandan people will remember the freshnes of oxygen.
Agaculama.
#34 Posted by Agaculama, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 02:45 PM
Thanks to Tristan McConnell for having reminded to us this tremendous souvenir: "Gourevitch wrote of accidentally crushing a skull beneath his foot".
Was it really accidental or just virtual in the fantasmagoric mind of Gourevitch? What did really think Gourevitch about the person to which this "by Gourevitch accidentally crushed skull" belonged? How can Gourevitch be 100% sure that this skull belonged to a Tutsi victim of the 1994 Rwandan genocide? Do you think that Gourevitch has any kind of morbid feeling to have crushed a human skull or to have walked on Rwandan bones? Why the skull of a Tutsi, and not the skull of a Hutu murderd by RPF/Ugandan invaders? Does Gourevitch have really skull skill for having crushed one skull under his feet?
Friends, the reality is that Filip Gourevitch, Linda Melvern, Stefen Kinzer or so many pro-RPF beachcombers walking between the Rwandan open air cemeteries, are making their career by trading in the Rwandan genocide and playing a close game in favour of the RPF/Kagame bloodthirsty dictatorship. They are unfortunately fortune soldiers belonging to the "Blancs Menteurs" (white liers), according to the definition of French writer Pierre Péan.
Dixi. Agaculama.
#35 Posted by Agaculama, CJR on Tue 23 Aug 2011 at 03:17 PM