In the ongoing trials of three accused perpetrators of genocide in Brussels and Paris, a stark parallel is starting to emerge between the challenges faced by the now-closed International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the contemporary trials in Europe. Just like the ICTR in its time, while these trials aim to bring justice and reveal the truth behind the Genocide against the Tutsi, the intricacies of legal processes, combined with political and logistical hurdles, are fostering an environment where some individuals exploit opportunities to deny or manipulate the gravity of the atrocities. Coming out as a denier In Paris, in the grand spectacle of defense witnesses, one figure stole the spotlight: Johan Swinnen. The former Belgian ambassador, once stationed in Kigali during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, has become an unexpected player in the world of ‘denialism’. Unlike his counterparts, Swinnen’s foray into denialism commenced relatively late, catalysed by the 2016 release of his memoir, “Rwanda: My Story”. Since then, through opinion pieces and panel appearances, he has been challenging the ‘official narrative’, demanding a ‘truth unveiling’ about the ‘Rwandan Genocide’. During the trial of Sosthene Munyemana, he took the stage last week to defend the accused, alleging that the Genocide against the Tutsi was part of a ‘Machiavellian’ whose sole aim was to have an excuse to invade the Congo. However, he went beyond the expected script, and, for the first time, attacked Belgium, his own country’s actions. “Belgium was manipulated” The Achilles’ heel of Johan Swinnen, and the major contradiction in his positions, lies in his denial of the accountability of the Habyarimana regime for the Genocide. In 1997, Belgium’s Rwanda Commission — a Belgian parliamentary investigation — had established the Belgian government’s prior knowledge of the Genocide’s preparation. One crucial piece of evidence used by the Commission was a diplomatic cable signed by Ambassador Swinnen himself, indicating that the Belgian government was aware as early as March 1992 of the Genocide’s planning. Confronted by a civil parties’ lawyer, Swinnen offered a perplexing defense. He suggested that a member of the Belgian parliament, potentially acting with ulterior motives, manipulated his own country’s parliamentary proceedings. In Swinnen’s version, a Belgian parliamentarian, then in the opposition, allegedly sought to exaggerate Belgium’s responsibility in the Genocide by distorting and extrapolating the content of the telex Swinnen sent in the spring of 1992. This pivotal cable, featured on page 493 of the Belgian Senate report—an indispensable resource for genocide researchers—raises a fundamental question: Why would a diplomat, who initially expressed concern based on firsthand information about the impending Tutsi genocide, cast doubt on it nearly 30 years later? Denial 3.0? The awareness that individuals tied to the Rwandan regime pre-1994, their allies, or those who willingly ignored the impending extermination plan persist in their efforts to shield the guilty from historical accountability is no secret. However, for a former ambassador to criticise a parliamentary report of his own country and accuse a senator of manipulation before the courts is unprecedented. Swinnen’s evolving narrative transcends the confines of a courtroom saga; it harbours the potential for profound implications, particularly concerning the credibility of historical accounts linked to the Genocide against the Tutsi. Denial is a complex and evolving beast. The denial of the past, outright claiming the nonexistence of the Genocide, has given way to a contemporary iteration acknowledging its reality but disputing every other facet — from victim numbers to its uniqueness and process. Is Swinnen’s emerging narrative the advent of denial 3.0, a fresh manifestation rooted in dismantling the extensive body of work and research undertaken since 1994? Even more troubling is the media’s silence and the public’s lack of interest in the face of a disinformation campaign about their history. The reality is that all the claims made by Swinnen, such as details about Habyarimana’s plane crash, can be immediately verified. As the recent French Duclert report has demonstrated, Rwanda’s genocide history has been mistreated and manipulated for political and ideological purposes for too long. As Aldous Huxley famously wrote, facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
