Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

DENYING THROUGH MISNAMING: Globalization in the Genocide

Discourse Burundi.1

By
Emmanuel Nkurunziza,
Toronto, Ontario.
Email: enkurunz@gmail.com

Abstract

This paper attempts to identify a particular form of genocide denial. It is based on the
massacres that started in Burundi in October 1993 and went on unabated for a decade. Using a
sample of texts from Burundi-based media and international organizations reports, it shows how
acts of genocide came to be equated with political activities. Following the peace negotiations
held between June 1998 and December 2003 in Arusha (Tanzania), persons detained on
accusations of genocide were deemed political prisoners and released. Consequently, the
political institutions begotten from the above-mentioned negotiations champion a discourse of
reconciliation whereby responsibility lays not on organizations or individuals, but on whole
social groups. This paper argues that this globalizing discourse is intended to obscure the identity
of perpetrators. For the sake of the survivor’s search for justice, the paper suggests that linguists
systematically analyze critically the political discourse in Burundi in order to detect any covert or
overt avoidance of the G-word that is intended to misrepresent the perpetrator.

1
This paper is adapted from my presentation at the 12th Biannual Conference of the International Association of
Genocide Scholars (IAGS), at the University of Siena (Italy), June 19th, 2013.

1
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

Introduction

If one were to draw a list of the causes of genocide impunity in Burundi, “misnaming the

perpetrator” should be on the top. Indeed, in the literature pertaining to genocide in that country,

very often, we read that “the Hutu killed the Tutsi,” or that “the Tutsi killed the Hutu,” but none

of these characterizations is accurate. Sometimes, these globalizations are produced benignly,

some other times, they are reproduced unknowingly. Quite often, though, they are used

deliberately to avoid naming the perpetrator as is the case in today’s Burundi where the ruling

party, CNDD-FDD, is alleged to have perpetrated genocide against the Tutsi.2

The overall objective of this paper is to help understand how mass violence and acts of

genocide came to be misnamed in the Burundi context. I show that "genocide denying" proceeds

mainly by misnaming the perpetrators. I also investigate how the globalizing discourse that is

deployed for the purpose of denying genocide, affects the victim who is seeking justice. For this,

I analyze a corpus of reports from the UN and two NGO’s, namely, Human Rights Amnesty

International and Human Rights Watch. As well, I review a number of news articles from the

Burundian press. The common point to the selected texts is the reference to genocide in Burundi.

The question that needs to be answered is whether it is possible for genocide victims to

obtain justice in Burundi where the prevailing discourse on reconciliation puts the responsibility

not on individuals or organizations, but on entire social groups. I hypothesize that whether

benign or deliberate; misnaming genocide perpetrators hampers the victim’s search for justice.

This paper consists of three major parts. First, I review genocide in the history of

Burundi; second, I survey how UN agencies, NGO’s and the media reproduce the misnaming of

genocide perpetrators in their written production; and third and last, I analyze how this

2
For the alleged CNDD-FDD’s participation in the genocide against the Tutsi, please refer to the UN Security
Council, Report S/1998/777, pages 10-24.

2
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

misnaming of genocide perpetrators affects the victim in his search for justice.

1. Genocide in Burundi’s History

Throughout its contemporary history, Burundi has undergone a series of genocidal

killings. According to Eric Sotas,

Despite several genocides (1966–1972 and 1993) (there) has not been
accompanied by any efforts to achieve justice, be it retributive or restorative, for
these extremely grave violations.3

I too share this view that very little has been done so far to address this state of affairs. For

instance, it is only in 1994 that the Constitution of Burundi mentions genocide. 4 And though

mass violence marred the country repeatedly for decades, the most remarkable in number and in

scope are those of 1972 and 1993. To date, the 1972 massacres have never been investigated by

an independent commission. Consequently, politicians from the Hutu and Tutsi social groups

blame each other, while, at the same, they both claim to be victims. 5 Only the killings of 1993

were investigated by a UN-appointed international commission, which concluded that they were

genocide against the Tutsi:

The Commission considers that evidence is sufficient to establish that acts of

genocide against the Tutsi minority took place in Burundi on 21 October 1993,
and the days following, at the instigation and with the participation of certain
Hutu FRODEBU functionaries and leaders up to commune level.6

Despite the completed investigation, owing to the international community’s reluctance

to set a special criminal tribunal for Burundi, no one has ever been held responsible for those

massacres. In this regard, it is worth noting, however, that another UN inquiry commission
3
Sotas (2000:373)
4
In the framework of the “Convention de Gouvernement.” (Nkurunziza, 2012a:161)
5
Idem
6
UN Security Council, Report S/1996/682, paragraph 483 (UNSC, 1996)

3
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

established that there is a link between Burundian suspects with the Rwanda génocidaires whose

acts had prompted the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda:

Close link existed [in 1996] between the former Rwandan government forces and
the Burundian Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie (CNDD) and its
military wing Forces pour la Défense de la Démocratie (FDD) … That conviction
has been further reinforced by documentary evidence demonstrating that very
close cooperation exists between the ex-FAR and two Burundian rebel groups,
CNDD/FDD and PALIPEHUTU and its military wing.7

Given this state of affairs, one can’t fail to ask oneself what the international community

did do instead.

2. Genocide in UN, NGO and Burundi Medias Reports

Before taking up the selected corpus, it is worth recalling that today’s ruling party in

Burundi, CNDD-FDD, is an offspring of FRODEBU, which was in office from 1993 to 2005.

The following excerpt of an official letter by one of the founding members of the latter formation

proves it beyond any doubt:

The armed bands, as we call them, but who should be called by their true name,
the FDD, are not the fruit of Nyangoma’s or Sendegeya’s work only. It is the
work of all of FRODEBU party, at least the political bureau, in November or
December 1993.8

A fact worth underscoring is that before it became public knowledge that Burundi is ruled

by an organization that is characterized by, among other features, the genocidal ideology, some

UN agencies reports on Burundi referred to genocide in rather globalizing terms. For instance,

the UN Social and Economic Council talks of “Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and

7
UN Security Council, Report S/1998/777, paragraph 46 (UNSC, 1996)
8
My translation of an excerpt of Sendegeya’s letter to Burundi Public Attorney. The original document in French:
“Les bandes armées comme on les désigne, mais qu’il convient mieux d’appeler par leur véritable nom, les FDD, ne
sont pas l’oeuvre de Nyangoma ou de Sendegeya seulement. Elles sont l’œuvre de tout le Bureau Politique du
FRODEBU au mois de novembre ou décembre 1993 (…).” Available at http://burundi-information.net/preuve-de-
la-filiation-frodebu-cndd-fdd.html .

4
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

1972.”9 Similar assertions are found in later reports. Thus, in a 1995 document widely known as

the “Ake-Huslid Report,” it is stated that “The Hutu, like the Tutsi, the army and even political

leaders, must assume, undoubtedly to varying degrees, their respective share of the responsibility

for these massacres.”10 The corollary of this misnaming could be but the anointment of genocidal

organizations into normal political formations, who were later invited to the negotiation table.

And not surprisingly, during peace negotiations, those very organizations who perpetrated

genocide pressed for, and obtained amnesty for their followers:

In the most recent round of negotiations to end the Burundian war, negotiators
and foreign observers for the first time talked openly of an amnesty for such
crimes and for other killings of tens of thousands of civilians during the six-year
old war.11

This is how today’s Burundi came to be governed by an organization that perpetrated genocide.

It is also in this way that persons who had been jailed on accusation of genocide were deemed

political prisoners and released. It is imperative to note, though, that many voices kept warning

about the controversial amnesty. One such example is Human Rights Watch:

An amnesty in Burundi is exactly the wrong direction to take (…). Many of the
killings in Burundi, whether perpetrated by Tutsi or by Hutu, were crimes against
humanity. A UN Commission has described some of them as genocide. How can
there be any hope of justice and order in Burundi if crimes of this magnitude are
left unpunished?”12

Similar remarks came from Amnesty International whose 2010 annual report recalls that:

While the 2000 Arusha power sharing agreement prohibited amnesty for war
crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and coup d'état, rebel groups that

9
UN Economic and Social Council, Report E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6, paragraph 24. (UNESC, 1985)
10
UN Security Council, Report S/1995/157, paragraph 130. (UNSC, 1995) This report is named after the two
commissioners who conducted it, namely, the Ivorian Siméon Aké and the Norwegian Martin Huslid.
11
Human Rights Watch. New York. March 2000
12
Idem

5
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

joined the peace process at a later time pressed for and obtained some form of
immunity.13
This latter organization should be commended because it relentlessly sounded the alarm that

impunity of mass atrocities begets more violence. In one of the publications that Amnesty

International released about three years later the above mentioned report, it observes that

The cycle of impunity remained unbroken and the government did not fully
investigate and prosecute extrajudicial executions from previous years. Promising
signs that the government would establish a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission in 2012 faded progressively throughout the year. Human rights
defenders and journalists faced repression because of their work.14

Overall, the over-regarding of warnings from human rights organizations, the misnaming

of genocide perpetrators, together with the ensuing amnesty of otherwise unpardonable crimes,

has led to “the Burundi paradox” of “genocide without génocidaires.” Indeed, despite the fact

that all of the major political families in Burundi agree that there has been genocide, and though

the Constitution of Burundi concurs that this type of crime did take place in the country, 15 no one

has ever faced justice to respond to charges of genocide in local courts. After the release in the

first quarter of 2006, of the 3, 299 so called “political prisoners”, there is no one left behind bars

because of genocide related allegations. Yet, even the contested amnesty law leading to those

liberations stipulates that it does not apply to people accused of genocide.

This state of affairs will inevitably lead analysts to wonder about the consequences on the

surviving victims.

13
This Ngo notes further that “Later agreements extended “provisional immunity” to other former armed opposition
groups, as well as government security forces, for “politically-motivated” crimes, excluding genocide, war crimes
and crimes against humanity until the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Special Tribunal.
Provisional immunity does not apply to crimes committed by any group after the September 2006 ceasefire.”
Amnesty International, 28 December 2010.
14
Amnesty International, April 2013 Report
15
See Paragraph 1 of the Preamble of the Burundi Constitution of March 18, 2005.

6
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

3. How misnaming the perpetrator affects the victim’s search for justice

There is no question that the globalizing tendency in the discourse on genocide in

Burundi and its consequences affect the victim in his search for justice. What needs to be found

out is the nature and extent of that impact. Therefore, one needs to identify what messages the

surviving victim receives from the various stakeholders.

The most remarkable is when the victim is asked to stop observing his duty of memory

despite its irreplaceable place in the aftermath of genocide. Thus, following a given

commemoration gathering, a participant attempted to mitigate the importance of the memorials,

arguing that they bother people who have not suffered from genocide on the one hand, or those

who did not perpetrate the ultimate evil, on the other hand:

If every genocide is a horrible reality to never forget, is the Jew ready to turn to "live"
the torments of the people around? It is he interested in the fate of the Kurds? Is the
Rwandan Tutsi preoccupied by the future of Hutu and Twa in his mind and
geographical universe.16

The other form of direct impact on the victim is to be found in how faces daily the unpunished,

unrepentant perpetrator he lives with. Indeed, in addition to the politician, at the other end of the

social spectrum, there is the perpetrator who, invigorated by the impunity that he has been

enjoying in the framework of an ill-advised amnesty, turns arrogant. To illustrate this, one can

mention the statement by the leader of the Imbonerakure youth league of Burundi’s CNDD-FDD

ruling party, who are widely accused of behaving like a militia. In a radio broadcast which was

aired nationwide, he stated that his organization will not allow that members of the ruling party

16
My translation of “Si tout génocide est une réalité horrible à ne jamais oublier, le Juif est-il à son tour prêt à
« vivre » les tourments des peuples alentours ? L’Arménien va-t-il s’intéresser au sort des Kurdes ? Le Tutsi
rwandais se préoccupera-t-il de l’avenir des Hutu et des Twa dans son univers mental et géographique?” by Jean-
Marie Ngendahayo. (Iwacu, 2013). For the sakeof clarification, it is important to note that these statements are not
by an ordinary columnist. Originally elected as an MP the FRODEBU party in June 1993, Jean-Marie Ngendahayo
was Minister of Communication and Governent Spokesperson during the Tutsi genocide of October 1993. He went
on to become a State Minister in Charge of Foreign Affairs from February 1994 to his resignation one year later.

7
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

who are suspected of genocide, be taken to the ICC at The Hague.17 A similar statement had been

made some eight years earlier by then Deputy Speaker of Parliament, who had justified the 1993

genocide against the Tutsi as normal, necessary reprisals for the murder of a sitting president:

It’s said that after the murder of His Excellence [President] Ndadaye, the Hutu killed the
Tutsi […] Let me ask you, was there any regicide in the history of Burundi that caused no
reprisals? And it is not only in Burundi […]. Those who advocate for the Tutsi who were
massacred, should feel ashamed. As a matter of fact, they must realize that if another
FRODEBU leader were to be murdered, the same thing shall happen again. 18

In this context where “impunity still rules” (Manirakiza, 2012:376), the result for the

victim’s self-esteem is to plummet and, with it, the will to seek justice. The question that one can

ask oneself is: “How much of chance of getting justice, does a surviving victim have?” Before

attempting an answer, it is worth recalling that the victims have never been represented either in

the drafting or in the implementation of the Transitional Justice mechanisms:

Contrary to Cambodia, in Burundi, genocide victims were never represented

whether in the negotiations that led to the so called “provisional amnesty” of the
perpetrators, or in the talks between the government and the UN and which
decided the creation of a special chamber within the Burundi judiciary, instead of
an International Tribunal.19

It is also crucial to note the sui generis position of genocide survivors in Burundi. They

are in a relation of asymmetrical power whereby they are the dominated, living under the rule of

the powerful, unpunished perpetrator. The ruling CNDD-FDD organization being the key

suspected perpetrators, and the leaders in office are well aware that in case of really independent

justice, say, in the form of an international tribunal, they may end up in jail for life for their acts

17
Fidèle Nsengumukama said this on May 12, 2013during Uterereye Iki?[What’s Your Contribution], a Kirundi
program by Radio Publique Africaine.
18
My translation of the original, which was in Kirundi: “(…) ngw’inyuma y’igandagurwa nya Nyenicubahiro
Ndadaye abahutu baciye bica abatutsi. Mbega ndababaze, kuva na kera, mwari bwumve aho mu Burundi Umwami
yagandagurwa bigaherera ng’aho? Eka mbere si mu Burundi gusa (…) abitwaje rero ngo abatutsi babo barapfuye,
bakwiye kumeramara (…) Kukaba nkako, n’ejo bakica umutegetsi wa FRODEBU bamenye ko bizogenda
nkambere.” (Christian Sendegeya, 1994)
19
See Nkurunziza (2012b). Also available online at http://www.burundi-information.net/reflexions-on-a-forgotten-
genocide.html

8
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

of genocide that they carried out. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the rulers will allow such an

institution to be set up in Burundi. On the other hand, in absence of an international tribunal, the

country relies on transitional justice mechanisms, which are conducted exclusively by the very

perpetrators. All these factors, coupled with the globalizing discourse, which might achieve

complete bleaching of the perpetrators and eventually succeed in getting the victim to accept that

“both social groups are guilty,” suggest that the victim it is very unlikely to raise his voice in

search for justice.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This paper was intended to explain how genocide denying can proceed by misnaming

perpetrators. It investigated the effects of this globalizing discourse on the victim who is seeking

justice, and it shed a light on how, for political expediency, acts of genocide in Burundi came to

be “christened” as political activities. It has also shown that though genocide was perpetrated

more than once in Burundi, it has partly investigated and [the results] overly politicized. Also

brought to surface is the fact that misnaming genocide perpetrators is found both in international

and Burundian sources. In this regard, the paper showed that misnaming proceeds in different

ways and pertains to different realities, the main one being acts of genocide and perpetrators. As

well, incriminating a whole community as being the perpetrator of acts of genocide, was found to

be a possible form of genocide denial especially when it comes from someone who is

knowledgeable. Finally, the paper uncovered how in the early stages of the genocidal process,

misnaming is one of the tactics used to obscure the genocidal intent whereas in the aftermath, it

is one of the tools that unpunished perpetrators use to justify their acts.

9
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

In view of the above, I recommend that we keep an eye on the misnaming whether it is

intentional or resulting from ignorance. The latter category comprises foreign researchers or

journalists who are not knowledgeable enough on Burundi; they are the ones who may reproduce

the inaccuracies published previously by organizations and individuals who have acquired the

status of “expert on Burundi.” And though this task binds everyone in the community of

genocide scholars, I call mostly on linguists for a sustained scrutiny of the political discourse

from and on Burundi to detect any covert or overt concealment of the G-word.

References

- Amnesty International. 2001. Annual Report 2000.

- ---. 2010. Annual Report 2010.

- --- . 2013. Annual Report 2013. The state of the world's human rights. Burundi, 23 May
2013. Online http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/burundi/report-2013

10
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

- IBIS (Institute for British-Irish Studies). No date. Arusha Peace and Reconciliation
Agreement for Burundi. Online. http://www.ucd.ie/ibis/filestore/arusha%20(burundi)
%20.pdf

- HRW (Human Rights Watch). 2000. Executive Director of the Africa Division of Human
Rights Watch. March 2000 Report. Online https://reliefweb.int/report/burundi/brutal-
burundi-war-draws-rwandan-combatants .

- Manirakiza, Pacifique. 2012. “The Case for an African Criminal Court to Prosecute
Crimes Committed in Africa.” In Vincent O. Nmehielle (ed.). Africa and the Future of
International Criminal Justice, pp. 375-404. The Haig: Eleven International Publishing.

- Ngendahayo, Jean-Marie. 2013. “Génocide : une Expérience Qui Isole du Reste de

l’Humanité.”In Iwacu Burundi. 23 mai 2013.

- Nkurunziza, Emmanuel. 2012a. “L’Apport des textes Juridiques Internationaux dans la

Constitution du Burundi.” In Marie-Christine Aubin (ed). 2012. Building Cultures. The
Impact of Translation and Translators. Toronto: Antares Publishing House. pp. 153-175.

- Nkurunziza, Emmanuel. 2012b. “Contemporary Reflections on a Forgotten Genocide.”

Royal Museum of Ontario. November 26, 2012. Online http://www.burundi-
information.net/reflexions-on-a-forgotten-genocide.html

- RPA (Radio Publique Africaine). 2013. “Uterereye Iki?” [What’s Your Contribution]
Radio Show. May 12, 2013.

- RTNB (Radiotélévision Nationale du Burundi). Journal Télévisé. No date. Author’s

personal collection.

- République du Burundi. 2005. Loi n°1/ 010 du 18 Mars 2005 Portant Promulgation de la
Constitution de la République du Burundi. Online
http://www.vicepresidence2.gov.bi/IMG/pdf/Constitution_de_la_Republique_du_Burund
i.pdf

- Rutamucero, Diomède. 2007. La Démocratie du Nombre, Arme pour le Génocide contre

les Tutsi au Burundi (1959-2006). Bujumbura. Editions Intore.

- Sendegeya, Christian. circa 1994. “Ijambo Rishikirijwe n’Icegera c’Umukuru w’Inama

Nshingamateka, Umushingantahe Sendegeya Christian” [Speech by the Deputy-Speaker
of the National Assembly, Mr. Christian Sendegeya]. No date. Author’s personal
collection.

- --- . 1995. “Personnes en Prison pour Détention Illégale d’Armes à Feu.” Online
http://burundi-information.net/preuve-de-la-filiation-frodebu-cndd-fdd.html

11
Denying through Misnaming Emmanuel Nkurunziza

- Sotas, Eric. 2008. “Transitional Justice and Sanctions.” In International Review of the
Red Cross, Vol. 90, N° 870, pp 371-398

- UNESC (United Nations Economic and Social Council). 1985. “Revised and Updated
Report on the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
prepared by Mr. B. Whitaker,” Online https://undocs.org/en/E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/6

- UNSC (United Nations Security Council). 1995. Report of the Preparatory Fact-finding
Mission to Burundi to the Secretary General. Online https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N95/053/59/PDF/N9505359.pdf?OpenElement

- ---. 1996. Report S/1996/682 Letter Dated 25 July 1996 from the Secretary-General
Addressed to the President of the Security Council https://undocs.org/S/1996/682

- ---. 1998. Interim Report of the International Commission of Inquiry (Rwanda).

https://undocs.org/S/1998/777

- ---. 2005. Report S/2005/158 Report of the Assessment Mission on the Establishment of
an International Judicial Commission of Inquiry for Burundi. Online
https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/Burundi%20S2005158.pdf

12