Genocide, guilt and indifference

Ms. Mushikiwabo points an accusing finger at the US, Belgium and the UK for lobbying for the withdrawal of the UN forces.  She also accuses the Catholic Church and the French government for failing to use the enormous political influence they had with the Rwandan government for the purpose of preventing the genocide.  Stern words of condemnation from the Catholic Church and the French government would have gone a long way in discouraging the perpetrators of the genocide. Mushikiwabo’s conclusions are not baseless.  According to Ms. Des Forges’ testimony those with clout could influence the actions of the perpetrators of the genocide.  When the killer gangs surrounded a Sabena owned hotel in Kigali, the manager telephoned a number in Paris, France.  A telephone call from France to Rwandan army officials ensured that the militias were pulled back, sparing the lives of thousands.  This positive peddling of influence was available to the Catholic Church and the French government.  That they failed to act is evidence of duplicity and complicity, according to Mushikiwabo.

The genocide was a carefully planned thing.  The Radio Milles Collines was used to broadcast hate messages and to describe the locations of targeted Tutsi and moderate Hutus then perceived as traitors.

According the written testimony of Lt. Col. (Ret.) Anthony D. Marley, who at the time of the genocide was the Political-Military Advisor to the Bureau of African Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, there was a policy of indifference to African conflicts.  Marley stated to the Committee that “the Executive Branch felt that it could to a great degree ignore crises in Africa since the U.S. National Security Strategy at that time did not identify any ‘vital’ American interests in Africa.”

Marley augmented Ms. Mushikiwabo position that after the genocide, Rwandan refugees in Congo – many of whom had actively committed genocide, were the first recipients of huge sums worth of humanitarian aid while their victims many of whom were now infected with HIV/AIDS remained neglected.

Marley said:  “Several months later, DoD (Department of Defense) did provide water purification capacity in (then) Zaire in response to the flood of Hutu refugees to Goma and Bukavu.  In many cases, these refugees that we were now helping had been active participants in the genocide.”

Marley also believed that the US should have jammed the hate radio that mobilised the killers.  In his testimony, he wrote: “In May (1994), I suggested to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Prudence  Bushnell, and to the Director of the Office for Central African Affairs, Ambassador Arlene Render, that it might be possible to counter the effects of the hate radio broadcasts inside Rwanda.  U.S. Special Operations aircraft could jam the frequencies being used for the hate radiobroadcasts and/or broadcast counter messages condemning the genocide and calling on the populace to stop the killings.  This would be relatively easy to accomplish since the primary broadcast facility was located in Kigali immediately across the street from the US Embassy, and the other broadcast facilities were much weaker in power output.  (In fact, I even pointed out that the U.S. Air force could destroy the broadcast facilities by means of a radio homing missile that would track directly to the transmitting antennas.  I knew that this was not a policy option, but considered the other possibilities to be viable options to do something constructive to counter the genocide.)  Due to the small size of Rwanda, these missions could be successfully completed from Tanzanian, Burundi, or Ugandan airspace, precluding the need for U.S. military aircraft to operate over Rwanda itself.  Again, the Department of Defense refused to provide support.”

Marley insists that the U.S. had all the information it needed to take a stand.  “The problem confronting the Executive branch,” he states, “was not a lack of adequate intelligence as to what was transpiring in Rwanda.  Rather, it was a lack of political will stemming from the desire to avoid “another Somalia.”

On whether or not another Rwanda could occur in the future, Marley says that it is “possible.”  He adds, “The issue, as always, will hinge on the moral fiber of those United States officials empowered to make the nation’s key decisions.”

Indeed Radio Milles Colline, in the words of Gen. Dallaire was “not a radio station” but a “weapon of genocide”.  Gen. Dallaire also denounced the cloudy concept of national sovereignty, which interferes with the world’s ability to act.  “Sovereignty is a great impediment – it precludes some of the solutions that are required.”

Twenty years on, as the world gathers around the memory of the Rwanda genocide, its collective remorse can create the momentum to do the things necessary to prevent another Rwanda.  The first step is for the truth to be revealed.  The crimes of omission have to be inquired into and revealed.  Samantha Power noted that despite its enormous agenda setting capacity, the US cabinet and Congress never even once convened a meeting to discuss the genocide.

Samantha Power insisted that the words of those in positions of power do indeed matter and can influence the behavior of governments in faraway lands.  As an example she pointed out that on April 8, 2004 Khartoum announced a ceasefire in the Darfour region of Sudan following a terse denunciation by President Bush of its obstruction of humanitarian efforts and support to militias carrying out ethnic cleansing in the region.  “Our words matter,” said Samantha Power.

Ms. Des Forges believes that genocide is not just a crime but also a historical event.  Therefore preventing genocide is not simply a matter of military intervention.  According to Des Forges “a genocide can be prevented by studying it from inside out”.

The world must take an uncompromising stand and monitor the path of genocide before the blood-dimmed eruptions occur.  If the world does not act with resolve and conscience there is no saying there will not be “another Rwanda”.  It may not be in Rwanda but elsewhere.

Since the Rwanda genocide, the bloodletting in Africa has continued. The bloodshed we have witnessed in Central Africa, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Northern Uganda, Burundi and Eastern DRC are nothing if not genocidal in nature.  Indifference is not a choice in the face of genocide and crimes against humanity. The international community must act by deploying effective troops in such areas.  Otherwise the words of remorse over Rwanda will continue to ring hollow.

Norbert Mao is the leader of the Democratic Party of Uganda