We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families

1. Genocide: Planned Extermination, Not Spontaneous Chaos

In fact, the genocide was the product of order, authoritarianism, decades of modern political theorizing and indoctrination, and one of the most meticulously administered states in history.

Not random violence. The Rwandan genocide was not a chaotic, spontaneous eruption of ancient tribal hatreds, but a highly organized, state-sponsored campaign of extermination. Leaders at every level, from national officials to local mayors, systematically mobilized the Hutu population to kill the Tutsi minority. This required planning, lists of victims, distribution of weapons, and constant communication.

Work of butchery. The killing was often described as "work," requiring sustained effort over weeks and months, not just a brief frenzy. Killers worked in shifts, using machetes and clubs, demonstrating that the objective was thoroughness, not just emotional release. The scale and speed of the killing (800,000 in 100 days) underscore the level of organization and intent.

Ideology of Hutu Power. The genocide was driven by the Hutu Power ideology, which portrayed Tutsis as an absolute menace requiring absolute eradication. This ideology, framed as self-defense and the fulfillment of the 1959 Hutu revolution, provided a compellingly simple and absolute justification for murder, binding leaders and people in a perverse utopian embrace.

2. Colonial Roots: Divisions Exacerbated for Control

The Belgians could hardly have pretended they were needed to bring order to Rwanda. Instead, they sought out those features of the existing civilization that fit their own ideas of mastery and subjugation and bent them to fit their purposes.

Precolonial fluidity. Before European colonization, Hutu and Tutsi identities were more fluid, based on class or occupation (cultivators vs. herdsmen) with intermarriage and social mobility possible. The Belgian colonizers, influenced by racist "Hamitic hypothesis" theories, rigidified these distinctions, portraying Tutsis as a superior, foreign race and Hutus as an inferior native one.

Apartheid system imposed. The Belgians implemented an apartheid system, favoring Tutsis for administrative roles and education, and issuing ethnic identity cards in the 1930s that made these divisions permanent. This created deep resentment among the Hutu majority and solidified ethnic identity as the primary political cleavage, replacing a sense of shared national identity.

Switching sides. On the eve of independence, the Belgians abruptly switched support to the Hutu majority, facilitating the 1959 "social revolution" which led to massacres and the exile of Tutsis. This established a pattern of ethnic violence and exclusion under Hutu rule, where the new regime simply inverted the old colonial hierarchy.

3. Propaganda: Dehumanization and Mobilizing Mass Murder

The eighth and most often quoted commandment said: “Hutus most stop having mercy on the Tutsis.”

Media as weapon. State-controlled media and extremist publications like Kangura and Radio Television Libres des Milles Collines (RTLM) were crucial tools for inciting and directing the genocide. They relentlessly dehumanized Tutsis, calling them "cockroaches" and portraying them as an existential threat to Hutus.

Hutu Ten Commandments. Hassan Ngeze's "Hutu Ten Commandments" codified the Hutu Power ideology, explicitly commanding Hutus to distrust and exclude Tutsis, particularly Tutsi women, and to unite against the "common Tutsi enemy." This propaganda was widely distributed and read aloud at public meetings, becoming tantamount to law.

Incitement and instruction. RTLM broadcasters provided explicit instructions on where to find Tutsis, encouraged killers, and reminded listeners not to spare women or children. This constant barrage of hate speech created a climate where murder was not only permissible but presented as a civic duty and a necessity for survival.

4. International Failure: Warnings Ignored, Mandates Limited

The West’s post-Holocaust pledge that genocide would never again be tolerated proved to be hollow, and for all the fine sentiments inspired by the memory of Auschwitz, the problem remains that denouncing evil is a far cry from doing good.

Ignoring clear warnings. Despite explicit warnings from UNAMIR commander General Dallaire about planned extermination and arms caches, UN headquarters in New York refused permission for preemptive action, citing a limited mandate. Dallaire was instructed to inform the very government planning the genocide.

Withdrawal of forces. Following the murder of Belgian peacekeepers, the UN Security Council drastically reduced the UNAMIR force by 90%, leaving only a skeleton crew with a mandate that prohibited intervention. Major powers, particularly the United States, were unwilling to risk their troops after the Somalia debacle.

Semantic evasion. Governments, including the US, actively avoided using the word "genocide" because it carried obligations under the 1948 Convention to intervene. This semantic evasion allowed them to stand by while the killing unfolded, prioritizing political convenience over moral imperative.

5. Survival: Defying the Logic of Annihilation

Every survivor wonders why he is alive.

Life as an accident. For those targeted, survival often felt like an accident of fate, a random reprieve in a system designed for total extermination. Many were saved by chance, by the kindness of a few individuals (Hutu or foreign), or by their own desperate ingenuity.

Defiance through resistance. Individuals like Paul Rusesabagina at the Hotel des Mille Collines defied the logic of the genocide by actively protecting others, using negotiation, bribery, and sheer refusal to comply with the killers' demands. His actions demonstrated that resistance, even without force, was possible.

Psychological toll. Survival came at an immense psychological cost. Survivors were haunted by the loss of their families and communities, the betrayal by neighbors, and the trauma of witnessing atrocities. The question of "why me?" and the difficulty of trusting others became central to their post-genocide lives.

6. Aftermath: Trauma, Loss, and the Struggle to Rebuild

This life after a genocide is really a terrible life.

Devastated society. The genocide left Rwanda physically and socially devastated, with nearly a million dead, infrastructure destroyed, and a population deeply traumatized. Families were annihilated, leaving behind tens of thousands of orphaned children caring for themselves.

Psychological wounds. Trauma was widespread among survivors, marked by depression, nightmares, and difficulty trusting others, including fellow survivors and returnees. The experience of being hunted and betrayed by neighbors left deep scars on the national psyche.

Rebuilding from scratch. The new government faced the monumental task of rebuilding a state with no resources, no functioning institutions, and a population divided by the recent past. Basic services, justice systems, and social trust had to be reconstructed almost entirely from zero.

7. Refugee Camps: Sanctuaries for Génocidaires, Hostages for Civilians

The humanitarian mind-set is to not think—just to do.

Criminals in control. Refugee camps in neighboring countries, particularly Zaire, became havens for the ex-FAR and interahamwe who had led the genocide. These militants maintained control over the civilian population in the camps, using them as a human shield and base for future attacks on Rwanda.

International aid exploited. International humanitarian agencies, operating under mandates that prioritized neutrality and aid delivery, inadvertently sustained the génocidaires by providing food, shelter, and resources in the camps. This aid was often extorted or diverted by the militants.

Obstacle to repatriation. The Hutu Power leaders in the camps actively prevented refugees from returning to Rwanda through propaganda and violence, fearing that mass repatriation would expose them and undermine their political project of a rump Hutu state in exile. This created a dangerous deadlock.

8. Justice: An Impossible Ideal, A Necessary Pursuit

In other words, a true genocide and true justice are incompatible.

Overwhelming scale. The sheer number of perpetrators (potentially hundreds of thousands) made conventional justice impossible. Rwanda's judicial system was destroyed, lacking judges, lawyers, police, and prisons capable of handling the caseload.

Balancing justice and order. The new government faced the dilemma of pursuing justice for genocide while maintaining order and promoting reconciliation. Mass arrests filled prisons to horrific levels, but many perpetrators remained free, and the process of bringing cases to trial was agonizingly slow.

International tribunal limitations. The UN's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, based in Tanzania, was slow, underfunded, and limited in scope, focusing on only a few dozen high-level perpetrators. Its refusal to impose the death penalty and its perceived detachment from Rwandan reality frustrated the government and survivors.

9. Zaire War: Genocide's Regional Fallout and African Response

The memory of the genocide, combined with Mobutu’s sponsorship of its full-scale renewal, had “global repercussions, wider than Rwanda,” Museveni told me, “and here in Africa we were determined to resist it.”

Mobutu's complicity. Zaire's President Mobutu Sese Seko actively supported Rwanda's génocidaires, providing them sanctuary, arms, and a base for attacks. He also instigated violence against Zairean Tutsis (Banyamulenge) in eastern Zaire, mirroring the genocide in Rwanda.

African intervention. Frustrated by the international community's inaction regarding the camps and Mobutu's destabilizing role, Rwanda, with support from other African nations, backed a rebellion in Zaire led by Laurent Kabila. This force invaded Zaire, targeting the Hutu Power camps and Mobutu's regime.

Dispersal of camps. The invasion led to the rapid collapse of Mobutu's army and the dispersal of the Rwandan refugee camps in eastern Zaire. Hundreds of thousands of refugees returned to Rwanda, while many génocidaires fled deeper into the Congo, continuing to pose a threat.

10. Reconciliation: A Long, Painful, and Uncertain Path

People can’t say out loud that they want revenge. But truly many people have the wish.

Living side-by-side. The mass return of Hutus, including perpetrators, forced survivors to live alongside those who had killed their families. This daily proximity made reconciliation incredibly difficult, reopening wounds and fueling distrust and fear.

Confession and atonement. The government promoted confession and a tiered justice system to encourage perpetrators to admit guilt and seek forgiveness, hoping this would facilitate reconciliation. However, genuine remorse was often absent, replaced by strategic admissions to reduce sentences.

Survivor neglect. Many survivors felt neglected by the government and international community, who focused on the returning refugees. This lack of support exacerbated their suffering and resentment, making it harder for them to embrace reconciliation.

11. Leadership: Confronting Ugliness with Reason and Action

Personally, I have no problem with telling the truth, and I’m Rwandan, so why don’t people also take me as an example of a Rwandan?

RPF's pragmatic approach. The RPF leadership, particularly Paul Kagame, adopted a pragmatic and rational approach to governing post-genocide Rwanda, prioritizing order, security, and rebuilding the state over immediate, comprehensive justice or emotional appeals. They aimed to create a new national identity based on shared citizenship rather than ethnicity.

Defying expectations. Kagame and the RPF defied expectations by not establishing a Tutsi dictatorship or seeking widespread revenge. They included Hutus in government and the army, abolished ethnic identity cards, and sought to hold perpetrators accountable through law, however imperfectly.

Self-reliance. Frustrated by international failures, the RPF demonstrated a willingness to act unilaterally to address threats, such as the Hutu Power camps in Zaire. This self-reliance, born of necessity, became a defining characteristic of the new regime.

12. Memory: A Burden, A Weapon, and A Quest for Truth

The horror, as horror, interests me only insofar as a precise memory of the offense is necessary to understand its legacy.

Memory as affliction. For survivors, memory is a constant burden, a source of ongoing trauma and pain. They long for the capacity to forget, to move beyond the horrific images and experiences that define their present.

Memory as political tool. Memory is also a political battleground. Hutu Power sought to deny the genocide or portray it as mutual killing, while the new government insisted on its recognition as a unique crime. Competing narratives vie for dominance, shaping perceptions within Rwanda and internationally.

Quest for understanding. The author's journey is a quest to understand how such a crime could happen and what it means to live in its aftermath. It involves confronting the limits of language, the inadequacy of conventional explanations, and the difficulty of discerning truth in a society steeped in fear and denial.

Last updated: June 15, 2025