There are always some who feign ignorance in the wake of unimaginable human catastrophe, most particularly when the catastrophe is genocide. "If only we had fully comprehended" is a refrain which was articulated in the aftermath of the Holocaust of the Second World War, and it was echoed once again following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. But in an age of highly sophisticated intelligence, communications, and intrusive media coverage can anyone really claim not to have known?
The release of the OAU report investigating the genocide in Rwanda coincided with my own official visit to Rwanda in July. Six years after the genocide, and two years after my last visit to the country, the horrors of the war continue to haunt a nation whose very soul has been ripped apart. Controversy burns as to whether enough time has gone by that congregations can return to the churches which served as death chambers for sometimes 20,000 people in one afternoon. The human bones and skulls are encased in glass in basements beneath pulpits, in concrete vaults in gardens, or in some cases, lie in the very places in which the victims fell.
Today widows have been audience to the 'forgive and move on' talks of visiting religious and other leaders who want to see Rwanda succeed. One widow told me that she is ready to forgive, but wants only to be asked for forgiveness by those who killed 200 members of her extended family. These perpetrators wallow in squalid conditions in Rwanda's jails, some not yet officially charged. It would take over a century for all of the 120,000 prisoners suspected of carrying out the genocide to be processed through the existing judicial system.
The contention of the authors of the recently released OAU report is that many members of the international community knew and did nothing. "Virtually everyone in Rwanda associated with the UN, the diplomatic community, or human rights groups knew about death lists, accelerating massacres and threats to opposition politicians," the report notes. The UN and all the major western powers knew that some individuals were talking openly of eliminating all Tutsi and moderate Hutu, and that massacres were being masterminded at the highest levels of the Rwandan government. Well-placed sources also believe that certain permanent members of the UN Security Council had more information concerning what was happening in Rwanda than did the UN force on the ground.
The world failed Rwanda not only in that it did not act on legitimate early warning reports, but we sat and watched as genocide unfolded on the television screens of our living rooms. According to the report which was tabled by an international panel of eminent personalities, tens of thousands of Rwandans were dying daily when the UN Security Council decided to cut the UN force in half, just at the time that massive reinforcements were needed. Despite later authorizing a stronger mission, not one additional soldier or piece of military hardware reached the country before the genocide ended after 100 days and 800,000 or more bodies lay massacred.
The report concludes that the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was not inevitable and could have been prevented entirely. A reasonably sized international military force was needed with a strong mandate to enforce the Arusha agreements, but nothing like that was authorized before or during the genocide. One of Canada's national heroes, General Romeo Dallaire, will always be remembered as a courageous but lone voice in the wilderness, pleading for reinforcements and the permission to interpret his mandate flexibly. The General and his men were left with nothing but a skeleton force and an unconscionably weak mandate as the carnage continued around them.
The report argues that a number of major actors could have directly prevented, halted or reduced the slaughter. According to the authors, they include France in Rwanda itself; the United States at the Security Council; Belgium, whose soldiers knew they could save countless lives if they were allowed to remain in the country; and some of Rwanda's church leaders. In the bitter words of the commander of the UN's military mission, the "international community has blood on its hands." In the years since the genocide, the leaders of the United Nations, the United States, Belgium, and the Presbyterian and Anglican churches have all apologized for their failures to stop the genocide. The collective guilt has not, however, compelled the international community to heed calls for the disarmament and demilitarization of the Interahamwe and ex-FAR forces which continue to threaten Rwanda's security to this day.
Human security, which has been integral to Canadian foreign policy, is a commitment not only to ensuring that peoples' basic needs are met in times of peace, but that civilians are protected in situations of armed conflict. Ultimately human security is about ensuring that the experience of Rwanda in 1994 is never again repeated anywhere. The Rwandan tragedy shows that what is now required in the DRC is a very large UN military mission with a mandate to enforce the Lusaka agreement. What is being authorized by the UN Security Council is a modest monitoring mission which is not to be deployed in effect unless peace and cooperation among the conflicting forces breaks out.
Just as one wonders whether we have perhaps not learnt from history, the United Nations released a report on 23 August 2000, making long overdue recommendations which, if implemented, could revolutionize UN peacekeeping. The report recommends that peacekeeping troops should be provided with the authorization, equipment and backing to respond to violence against civilians and take action against one side in a conflict if it violates peace agreements. It also recommends that UN peacekeepers witnessing violence against civilians be authorized to stop it. Canada welcomes these recommendations, and will use its seat on the UN Security Council to push for the implementation of the report.