Following is an article that I wrote for publication for www.americandiplomacy.org. It is on their May 2019 edition.
The Rwandan Genocide Revisited by Robert E. Gribbin
Twenty-five years ago in April 1994, the havoc of genocide
visited Rwanda. In a three month long paroxysm of violence almost a million
souls died. The country was devastated.
The remaining population cowed, government non-existent and the economy in
shambles. Today, Rwanda has bounced back. It is an economic success,
politically stable and mildly progressive. It delivered victors’ justice to
perpetrators of genocide. It has prohibited ethnic labels and has become a more
responsible regional partner. Politics,
however, are tightly controlled by the ruling clique led by President Paul
Kagame. American relations with Rwanda
are good. The U.S. was helpful in
redressing the wounds of genocide and in encouraging the nation to focus on
rural development, political and civil imperatives. As true elsewhere American
counsel was not always welcomed or followed.
Nonetheless, today the U.S. and Rwanda have a mature mutually
satisfactory relationship.
During my diplomatic career I was involved in Rwanda as desk
officer, DCM in Kigali, DCM in Kampala, Uganda during the RPF invasion and
finally as ambassador in Kigali.
However, in April 1994 I was ambassador in Bangui, Central African
Republic. News of the shooting down of President Habyarimana’s aircraft on
April 6 was followed by reports of wide-spread violence. Embassy Kigali quickly went dark as all
personnel evacuated to Burundi. Soon no
one from the outside world was left in Kigali to observe and report. French
military aircraft from Bangui evacuated French personnel from Kigali. I learned
that Madame Habyarimana and her family transited Bangui en route to Paris
courtesy of the French Air Force and that her husband’s remains had been left
at Gabadolite in neighboring Zaire with President Mobutu.
As diplomatic reporting and news evaporated, I consulted
regularly with local Rwandan friends, one Hutu and two Tutsi, all of whom
tracked events as best they could. They were terrified by what information did
filter out. The situation was grim, but slowly during April and May the
magnitude of the catastrophe was revealed.
A methodical genocide was underway, a sponsored deliberate effort to
murder a million people on account of their ethnicity. Even as those facts emerged, the
international community - including especially the United States - refused to
recognize reality. At few times in
history has the U.S. government looked so inept and feckless by refusing even
to use the word “genocide” to characterize events.
American policy makers in the Clinton administration were
new to the job. They were hamstrung by a policy of “non-interference, except
when U.S. national security was at stake” adopted in the waning days of the
Bush administration as a result of the debacle of black hawk down in Somalia.
Certainly, no one made the argument that American national security was a risk
in Rwanda. Initially no one was willing
to think outside that box. The tone was
set the day after the genocide began when Secretary Christopher, on his own
counsel, acceded to the withdrawal of the Belgian battalion from UNAMIR. Nebulous dithering characterized internal U.S.
deliberations for weeks.
However, soon images of scores of bloated bodies floating
down the Akagera River and reports of thousands of dead murdered by the road
side, in churches and homes galvanized the world to action. The UN peace
keeping operation, hamstrung by the withdrawal of the Belgium battalion when
the violence started, was further thwarted by the Security Council’s inability
to reconstitute it effectively. In June
France stepped into the gap advising it would send a force to restore order. An
undertaking the Council reluctantly approved.
On June 22, only hours after the UNSC vote, a telephone call
woke me up about midnight. A colonel from French headquarters Bangui advised
that French aircraft were on the ground in Goma and Bukavu and troops would
move into Rwanda at dawn. In turn I
advised the State operations center of the notice. The senior watch officer
told me my information could not be true. “Why?” I asked. He replied, “Because the U.S. has not been
contacted by the French in Paris.”
Astounded, I told him to blame it on me, but to be sure to put it in the
morning brief.
Operation Turquiose was not a success. By the time the
French arrived, much of the killing was already done. The Rwandan Patriotic Army occupied half of
the nation. A million Hutu peasants fled
advancing troops to Tanzania and a million others were departing for
Zaire. The French occupied the
southwestern quadrant of the country, where they did protect some Tutsi from
death, but their control there also permitted much of the genocidaire military and power structure to flee safely to Zaire. Over the next few years genocidaire elements would agitate the region by mounting an
insurgency back into Rwanda. Genocidaire control
of vast refugee camps and their enduring presence just across the border posed
a national security threat to Rwanda and was the root cause for two wars in
eastern Congo where unrest continues today.
Kigali fell to the RPA on July 4 and by July 15 the genocide
was over. The tally was enormous. About
800,000 people died; identified and sought out on account of ethnicity. No
place was safe. Homes were invaded; citizens killed at road blocks or in places
of refuge - churches, stadiums or government centers. Victims were hacked to
pieces, bludgeoned to death, raped by Interahamwe militia thugs. The few lucky ones were shot
or killed by grenades thrown into crowded sites. As many as a half million residents were
complicit in the murders. About three
million people were displaced, some internally, but most in refugee camps in
Tanzania and Zaire. The nation was
prostrate. There was no
government. The educated class -civil
servants, teachers, health workers, etc. were gone - either dead or in exile. The
victorious mostly Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Army filled the void. Even as the
dust settled, the RPA too engaged in atrocities and retributions, documentation
for which is scant. Meanwhile, the political
wing, the Rwanda Patriotic Front, took the reins of government and began a
process to reconstitute government, rebuild human and physical infrastructure,
return refugees, deliver justice, wipe out genocide sentiment and promote
reconciliation. Intertwined in these
noble goals was the underlying mantra of “never again”. And to ensure never again the new Tutsi
rulers insisted upon Tutsi control of the security and political apparatus.
American policy had shifted by this time. Leaders - President Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, Tony Lake, Brian Atwood and Susan Rice - recognized the terrible
error of not recognizing genocide or trying to stop it. Consequently, efforts were underway to
support the new regime in Kigali across the spectrum of issues - justice,
returns of refugees, rebuilding the economy, reconstituting government,
demining and military assistance. I was
to have solid support.
I arrived as ambassador in January 1996, presented my
credentials to President Bizimungu on the first morning, then hosted Senator
Nancy Kassebaum. We traveled to
isolated Nyarubuye parish church where thousands had been slaughtered. Their
unburied desiccated corpses stacked like cordwood in church buildings gave mute
witness to the terrors inflicted. This
sobering experience drove home the horror of genocide and provided me with some
understanding of the intensity of the “never again” mantra.
Over the next few years the U.S. government worked closely with
the victorious RPF government to accomplish mutual goals. We helped reconstitute the judicial system.
We reorganized ministries, provided succor - food, tools, seeds and housing
materials to returnees, empowered women headed households, demined conflict
zones, supported UN human rights and justice initiatives and promoted
reconciliation. I also argued for tolerance, cessation of military abuses
against civilians, and expanding the political pie.
In addition to reconstructing a working government, economy
and society, the Rwandan government focused on national security issues,
especially eradication of the genocidaire
inspired insurgency spilling over from Zaire. As the refugee camps were
dismantled in 1996, it carried the anti-genocide effort to Zaire resulting
initially in the ouster of Mobutu, then when Kabila proved unacceptable, an
effort to overthrow him. The impact of
Rwanda’s extra-border activities had immediate fallout for relations with the
United States particularly requiring a halt to nascent military cooperation.
Nonetheless Rwandan leaders remained convinced as to the validity of their commitment
to eliminate all vestiges of genocide, both externally and internally. Remembering the failure of the international
community to halt the genocide - and often playing that card on us - leaders
stubbornly forged ahead to create the new Rwanda they imagined.
The new Rwanda was to be different, a society free from
ethnicity. A society not encumbered by
the narrative of ethnic differences and strife.
It was to be a modern state with a viable economy where citizens could
realize their individual potential. Yet to move ahead on these goals, the
leadership then firmly under the thumb of Vice President Paul Kagame who became
President in 2001, reverted to use of control mechanisms deeply rooted in
Rwandan culture. Traditionally Rwandan
society was highly regimented and hierarchal.
People knew their place and respected and obeyed their superiors. It was this ethic of subservience that rendered
the genocide so effective. People did what they were told. They were told to
fear and then kill Tutsi on account of years of oppression. So they did. Now the new government opened re-education
camps to revise the narrative. Ethnic
differences were the fault of colonizers. Rwandans historically lived in
harmony. Ethnic tags were dropped. Henceforth all citizens were “Rwandans”. Espousing genocide, advocating a countervailing
theory of the violence or denying “genocide against the Tutsi” were unacceptable
leading to loss of status, land, jobs, ostracism, imprisonment or worse. Indeed
the charge of genocide participation or denial has been used effectively by the
Rwandan leadership for the past twenty-five years to stifle dissent.
Upon taking power in 1995 the Tutsi victors quickly adopted
the power sharing formula set forth in the never- implemented Arusha Accords. All the non-genocide parties
got parliamentary seats and positions in the cabinet. So quickly the new
government was majority Hutu, even the president Pasteur Bizimungu, although a
RPF stalwart, was Hutu. Although an
encouraging start, reality was that the Tutsi military power structure
dominated. Soon defections and expulsions
began, first of Prime Minister Twagiramungu, followed by other Hutu
cooperators, then a slew of Tutsi insiders.
Subsequently manipulated elections and intimidation cleansed the ranks
of all principled opposition. Even
though Rwanda now boasts the most women in Parliament of any nation in the
world and some power has devolved downward to localities, there can be no
realistic challenge to President Kagame who has been re-elected three
times. So rather than gradually expand
the political envelope, Rwanda has kept it narrow.
Economic and social indicators demonstrate Rwanda has moved
forward remarkably well in the past twenty-five years. GDP grew at over five
percent per year reaching 8% in 2017. Rwanda expanded high end agriculture exports,
especially coffee. It increased overall agriculture productivity through more
and better inputs, but small plots circumscribe large scale mechanization. There is a growing middle class, including
many Hutu, and the beginnings of high tech in call centers, software startups
and international banking. Gorilla
tourism has flourished. Rwanda
undoubtedly benefited from illegal exploitation of mineral resources, gold and
coltan, from neighboring Congo. Rwanda
joined the East African Community and strengthened trading links with
neighbors.
Primary school
enrollment is above 90 %, but the level of instruction in rural zones is poor.
Secondary and college numbers are also way up. There standards are better. Health indicators are also improved. Life
expectancy has risen to male 66/female 70. Most children are immunized. Malaria and HIV are at bay, but population
growth continues apace. Over half of the nation’s 12 million people are under
twenty-five (so have no personal memory of the genocide). Reflecting an orderly
society is an orderly environment.
Rwanda banned plastic bags. Kigali’s streets are swept clean on a weekly
basis.
As is true in every nation the blessings of economic
progress are not shared equitably. The
new ruling elite, the Rwandan Patriotic Front, its military leadership and
progeny are the major beneficiaries. The
rural peasantry hemmed in by lack of land, insufficient education and few opportunities
are stuck in an endless - and even worsening cycle - of poverty. One of the most densely populated nations of
the world with almost 12 million inhabitants, farm size might total only an
acre or two. What are families to do when sons need land? Government edicts to prohibit further
sub-division, establish housing standards (a house is necessary for a man to
marry), and to grow coffee, not food; lead to quiet frustrations and unrest. Similarly another government policy raising
the marrying age to 18 has unintentionally generated a cadre of unhappy
unmarried young women whose prospects for marriage (no eligible men with houses)
and families are limited. Education success
is also hampered by the fact that there are few jobs for graduates in rural
areas which leads to expanding rates of urban migration and unemployment.
Internationally Rwanda refurbished its reputation. It has
evolved from a regional trouble maker arising from military undertakings in the
Congo, where it still keeps a careful eye on developments, to become a stalwart
participant in African peacekeeping operations.
The well disciplined RPA renamed as the Rwandan Defense Force has proved
itself a competent partner in UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur and South
Sudan. In recognition of Rwanda’s more
mature regional role, President Paul Kagame was elected to chair the African
Union in 2018.
By 2000 American policy towards Rwanda was settling into the
continental norm, which continues today.
We maintain an active USAID program focused on rural development. We work to combat HIV/AIDS and malaria. We
restarted the Peace Corps. We applaud
Rwanda’s pragmatic economic and trade policies.
Even while recognizing the legacy of genocide, we seek greater respect
for civil rights and democratic processes. We protested Rwanda’s mischief
making in neighboring Congo, but appreciate its positive peacekeeping role
elsewhere in Africa.
So what is the verdict twenty-five years after the
genocide? First, if the genocide had
succeeded, the resulting government would certainly have become an
international pariah. Ultimately, the international community would probably have
been compelled to take action against it. But that did not happen. Instead a largely
Tutsi army and its political leaders took power after a calamitous genocide and
pledged that such an event would never happen again. Confident in their vision and goals, disdaining
outside advice and eschewing internal counsel, the new rulers reshaped the
nation to conform to their view. Their
vision is a society where economic and social progress obviates old divisions.
That entity is Rwanda today. It is stable, economically sound and mildly
progressive. Certainly the issue of
overt ethnicity has been put to rest.
The vision is overseen by a narrow cadre of believers around President
Kagame that hew carefully to the “never again” mantra. This group is determined to stay in control
and have structured the state apparatus to that end. There is relentless
oversight. Opposition is squashed.
So the question remains, how long can this last? Ethnic tensions - and there are certainly
still some however mightily the government tries to sweep them under the rug -
are being replaced by class tensions: haves versus have-nots (where
unfortunately almost all Tutsi and many Hutu are haves and almost all have-nots
are Hutu). But how this political/economic dynamic might
be mobilized remains to be seen. For
the time being, certainly for this generation and probably the next, Rwanda has
achieved what author Susan Thompson has dubbed a “precarious peace.” That is an
apt description, but Rwanda is not a powder keg. Only time will tell whether
progress towards prosperity can override the reality of third world poverty and
the lingering impact of genocide.