World

these thugs which stated that they were in for the Britonsand Americans, because they said, these two countries aresupporting the Tutsis, who are in the minority, leaving theHutus, who are in the majority suffering. (2.3.99Channel 5 1900-1930)We are told, ‘those extremists from the Hutu ethnicgroup killed more than half a million people’ and then‘lost out to rivals from the ethnic group, the Tutsi.’ But,the reasons for the violence are not explained. Thegenocide is depicted as both the cause and effect ofethnic hatred in Africa. We are told they are killingbecause of ‘ethnic hatred’ and the murder of the touristsis retribution for British and American support of thenew Tutsi government in Rwanda. Other reports tell how‘since the genocide in 1994 there have been a lot of thoseHutu Interahamwe people running wild really’ (2.3.99Channel 5 1200-1230; researcher’s italics) and that‘thousands of Hutus took to the bush and jungle and still mountmurderous raids on communities in Rwanda, Ugandaand the Democratic Republic of Congo’ (2.3.99 BBC11300-1330; our italics). In the absence of detailedexplanation, such violence may appear inexplicable andperhaps systemic to Africa.It would be difficult to see how viewers could makemuch sense of these events, beyond the fact that Hutusand Tutsis are ‘rivals’ and that the violence is driven bydeep-seated ‘ethnic hatred’. What is not said is that morethan ‘ethnic hatred’ propelled the violence. Reports suchas these deflect attention from politics to notions ofanarchy resulting from the innate ‘brutality’ of itsinhabitants. Channel 4 contained a more comprehensiveexplanation of the genocide. For example:Reporter: The conflict between Hutus and Tutsis goesback to the end of colonialism in 1959. In 1994 Rwandacollapsed into anarchy. Hutu extremists including theInterahamwe, killed more than 800,000 Tutsis andmoderate Hutus.Graphic (Over map of Congo and Rwanda andvisual of dead bodies): 1994 – Extremists then flee toformer ZaireGraphic: 1996 – Laurent Kabila topples the dictatorshipin Zaire…renaming the Democratic Republic of Congo1998 – The Interahamwe maintain their presence inEastern Congo…Kabila switches sides and supportsHutus.Reporter: The extremists were defeated and fled mainlyto what’s now become the Democratic Republic of Congo.Behind the minority Tutsi during the fighting wasPresident Museveni of Uganda. In 1996, Laurent Kabilatoppled the dictatorship of President Mobutu andrenamed Zaire, the Democratic Republic of Congo. TheHutu Interahamwe retain their presence in the East of thecountry by 1998, Kabila had changed allegiances fromTutsis to Hutus and made enemies of the governments.(2.3.99 Channel 4 1900-1950)This report also notes, unusually, that the Hutu‘extremists’ killed both Hutu moderates and Tutsis in thegenocide. The majority of the reports refer to thekidnapping and murder of British and Americantourists, but not to how the release of French captivesrelates to the history of Rwanda. Reports refer to howBritons were murdered because it is ‘the Tutsi dominatedgovernment, with British and American support thatthey want to get rid of’ (3.3.99 Channel 4 1900-1955).But, in only two reports is it explained how the intricaciesof Rwandan politics determined the release of Frenchtourists from the kidnapped group. Both the lunchtimeand late evening bulletins on BBC1 dealt with this, thelunchtime bulletin in particular, contained a detaileddiscussions. The report begins with a review of whyBritish and American tourists may have been targeted,but quickly moves on to consider why French touristswere released because the Hutus have ‘historic coloniallinks with the French’:Reporter: It’s a United Nations tribunal which tried andconvicted the former Hutu Prime Minister, who led thegenocide. But the Hutu did get some active support andhave historic colonial links with the French. Thatprobably explains why their nationals among the safarigroup were spared.This is addressed in more depth in the discussionwhich follows:Newscaster: You mention in your piece, the linksbetween France and Belgium and the Hutus, thetraditional links, are these purely a thing of the past or dothey still exist?Reporter: No, they’re not a thing of the past and I thinkthis is a cause for concern, particularly within WesternEurope. Many of the leaders of the Hutu rebels haveactually sought and found refuge, exile in both Franceand in Belgium, the old colonial power and its believedthat there’s some good evidence that Hutus in both thesecountries, France and Belgium, are actively raisingfunds, helping the Interahamwe to carry on this last ditcheffort to sow mayhem and bring bloodshed to the area.So, there is a strong feeling that the Hutus are enjoyingsome form of tacit support within France and Belgium,although the governments there of course, would denyany form of active support. (3.3.99 BBC1 1300-1330)DFID – July 2000 51