Last Monday Rwanda commemorated the 20th anniversary of the genocide that took place when the world stood by as 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred by members of the Hutu majority over a 100-day period.
Many say the massacre was sparked by the shooting down of a plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, both of whom were killed, but evidence has shown that the planning for these mass murders had long been in the pipeline.
Rwanda certainly taught us about the dangers of mass incitement, especially State-sanctioned incitement; during radio transmissions the Tutsis were constantly referred to as ‘cockroaches’ which had to be eliminated. This is why everyone, especially those in authority or public figures, have to be so careful about the way they speak about minorities, whether ethnic or religious groups.
The genocide, the worst since Pol Pot murdered two million people in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, is a stain on mankind’s conscience, and shamed the international community which didn’t even lift a finger when it was clear that killings on a mass scale were taking place.
It is estimated that an intervention by as little as 5,000 troops would have stopped the killings which were being carried out not by a professional army but by militias armed with machetes. Instead, the United Nations withdrew its tiny presence in the country.
The United States, which had just pulled out of Somalia (after it lost 19 men in that mission), was in no mood to get involved in another African conflict, and even prevented the UN from taking action in Rwanda. This is what Samantha Power, today’s US Ambassador to the UN, who led the US delegation in Rwanda last week to mark the 20th anniversary of the atrocities, had written in 2001 when she criticised former president Bill Clinton’s lack of action in Rwanda:
“The United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorisation of UN reinforcements.”
This, is, of course, nothing but shameful, just as it is shameful that the rest of the international community, including fellow African nations, did not intervene, with or without the support of the UN. Was it not right, after all, when Tanzania sent in troops to oust Idi Amin in Uganda in 1979, and when Vietnam sent in troops to topple Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, also in 1979? Both missions were not authorised by the UN, yet they were the right thing to do and put a stop to the mass murder that was taking place.
The Rwandan genocide did make the world more aware of the need to intervene on humanitarian grounds and although the Syrian conflict today represents one huge failure of the international community, there have been clear cases over the past 20 years where outside military intervention prevented more killings taken place.
These include Nato action in Bosnia in 1995 (rather late in the day and after the Srebrenica massacre), in Kosovo in 1999 (after ethnic cleansing had already taken place) and in Libya in 2011, UK action in Sierra Leone in 2000, UN and French action in the Congo since 2003 (not enough but it certainly helped the situation), African Union and French action in the Central African Republic in 2013 and French action in Mali in 2013.
Rwanda is a stain on mankind’s conscience
The genocide in Rwanda also led to the establishment, in November 1994, of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in order to prosecute people responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in that country in 1994. (This was more or less based on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, dealing with war crimes that took place during the conflicts in the Balkans, which was established in 1993).
The Rwanda genocide, however, was also the catalyst, in 2002, for the setting up of the International Criminal Court, which is the court of last resort for the prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So far, this court has opened investigations into eight situations in Africa: the Democratic Republic of the Congo; Uganda; the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; Kenya; Libya; Ivory Coast; and Mali.
Has the world learned any lessons from the Rwandan genocide? Yes, to an certain extent, in the sense that military interventions in other conflicts have taken place post-1994 in order to prevent genocide or to put an end to mass killings. Also, the setting up of the International Criminal Court is a step in the right direction.
However, very often, there is a reluctance by many countries to get ‘involved’ in ‘the internal affairs of other countries’ – an excuse to do nothing because of a mix of selfish national interests and perceived ulterior motives by the countries wanting to take action.
Kosovo was a case in point; genocide was clearly taking place, yet Russia refused to authorise military action at the UN. Thankfully, Nato went ahead and stopped the killings. Today, the international community is at a loss over what to do about Syria; sadly, it is now probably too late to take any military action and although some sort of ‘dialogue’ has taken place between the government and the Opposition, the situation has not improved.
Rwanda was a blot on our conscience. The world must never forget what happened; it must redouble its efforts to ensure that such things don’t happen again.