Rwanda’s ambassador to Kenya has issued a strong warning stating that denial of genocide is not only historical distortion but also presents a risk of starting violence again. This warning was given at a conference in Nairobi aimed at preventing genocide, with Rwandan High Commissioner to Kenya Ernest Rwamucyo indicating that failure to acknowledge previous atrocities will lead to reopening wounds from those atrocities which many societies have not yet fully healed from.
His message comes at a time when rising misinformation, historical revisionism, and polarised narratives have become a global concern, each of them being a factor, according to experts, that usually precedes conflict. The example of Rwanda serves as a strong reminder to us all. In 1994, extremist propaganda and ethnic hatred led to the genocide against Tutsis that resulted in the deaths of over 1 million people within 100 days. This was one of the quickest and most brutal mass executions in modern history.
Rwamucyo has said that by denying the occurrence of a genocide, you create an ideological context that allowed for large-scale violence to happen before. Some excuse the perpetrators, some want to erase the victims, and some dispute the event’s facts. These are all things that erode the moral barrier to prevent such events from happening again. According to the envoy, ignoring or misrepresenting historical truths creates an environment that supports extremist views and normalises hate speech; these same types of environments have historically been precursors to large-scale violence.
Concerns about denialism are not unfounded. Analysts indicate that denialism is a process that consists of three distinct stages. The first stage consists of the questioning of facts. The second stage consists of reframing the perceived victims of the violence as the aggressors. The last stage consists of justifying acts of violence as acts of self-defence. The process has been observed in many different places, and therefore, it is critical that we respond early in the process.
In Rwanda, the use of propaganda to paint the entire population of Rwanda as the enemy provided the necessary impetus for ordinary citizens to get involved with the violence, which illustrates how words can be transformed into violent action.
Rwamucyo emphasised that countering denialism must include educational components, legal protections and international partnership; he called upon both national and international organisations and governments to develop stronger legislation designed to combat genocide ideology, hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric. He argued that these types of measures will not only help to support Rwanda; they will provide the necessary foundation for a stable world, because in the current digital world denialism can easily cross into other countries.
During the Nairobi symposium, diplomats, educators, and policymakers recognised their broader responsibility to maintain historical consciousness. They emphasised that memory has an active role in prevention, as societies build resilience against the threat of manipulation and division by acknowledging past violence. Conversely, silence and denial provide fertile ground for mythmaking.
As some continue to remember the genocide against the Tutsi, observers note that many in Rwanda and the Rwandan diaspora will reflect on the consequences of hatred and the need for vigilance about potential consequences. Anniversaries of these events are often targeted by online denialist narratives, increasing the urgency for proactive responses to the threat of such narratives, which can lead to a resurgence of hate and violence against vulnerable communities.
The message from the envoy is simple: deny the occurrence of genocide, and you are also ignoring the risk of security problems. Undermining the truth is a risk for legitimising violence against a population, destabilising communities, and eroding the efforts of reconciliation with a population that has worked for years trying to achieve that.
With so many people now basing their lives and actions upon disputed accounts of history, the experience of Rwanda provides a valuable lesson. When history is altered/changed, it is used as a means of attack (weapon). When history is documented/truthfully told, it becomes a form of protection (shield); this is a way to avoid plating into the hands/history of mankind.
