THE HORRORS OF RWANDAN GENOCIDE
by Antonio Jones
One of the more disconcerting truths in society is that atrocites have occurred and continue to occur with little to no international coverage. If justice is to be served, the world needs to be told in greater detail exactly what is occurring and the horrors that go on virtually uncontested. The media must be confronted by pretending to be a neutral entity. The media should not ignore stories that are newsworthy, which have an enormous impact on the lives of people in this country. The media should be looked upon as a system of checks and balances that informs citizens of the affairs of the government and its role in the international community. Years later, in the broadest investigation of Rwanda's 1994 genocide, an international panel blamed the United Nations Security Council, the United States, France and the Catholic Church for allowing more than 500,000 people to be slaughtered. It is unfortunate that the media afforded the wider society limited coverage of the horrors that occurred. Although the media was not listed by the international panel in its report condemning various entities of their lack of involvement during the genocide, it can be contended that the media is partly to blame for their failure to shed sufficient light on this atrocity.
The 90-day genocide was orchestrated by a small group of Hutu extremists against the Tutsi minority. More than half a million Tutsis and thousands of moderate Hutus were killed in a slaughter that ended when Tutsi-led rebels seized control. The United States certainly had prior information that a small group of Hutu extremists were committing genocide against the Tutsi minority. Whether the United States had a behind the scene role in this remains to be seen. Where was this seven-member panel, established in 1998 by the Organization of African Unity, while this genocide was taking place? Unfortunately, panels such as the afore-mentioned usually operate in a latent context: after the horrors have been committed. To ensure that justice will be served, the organization should take a more proactive role in helping to identify and bring the perpetrators of the genocide to face War Crimes charges.
Former Canadian Ambassador and panel member Stephen Lewis can be commended for openly criticizing the French and the United States role in blocking the United Nations Security Council from intervening in this genocide. Madeline Albright's former position of Ambassador to the United Nations, and her present role as the U.S. Secretary of State explains the disinterest of this country in dealing with this genocide. It is not surprising to see why the Security Council hesitated in intervening in this conflict. The United States, who is the forerunner, lead the way by not getting involved. The U.S. has a track record of not caring about conflicts in Africa. Historically, their track record reflects this. The United States has a long-standing history of remaining passive in the face of dictators who commit human rights abuses against their own people.
History has a way of repeating itself. This can be observed when tracing the roots of the genocide back to Rwanda's colonial rulers and the religious forces behind the scenes. These are the same forces that instigated and caused disruption in Rwanda. Their purpose was to stir up dissension by fostering the idea that the country's minority Tutsis was superior to its Hutu majority. What is so alarming is the similarity of the recent 90-day genocide, which was orchestrated by a small group of Hutu extremists against the Tutsi minority. One major question is why the major forces (the United Nations, the United States, and the Security Council) acted in harmony by not intervening. In addition, why the same forces, Belgium and the religious leaders who were instrumental in starting the first genocide, are still blameworthy by not preventing the recent genocide.
Since President Clinton, the United Nation's Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the prime minister of Belgium and the Anglican Church have all apologized for failing to stop the killings, they all should focus their attention on Rwanda by installing peacekeeping forces that would interdict the genocide buildup that was caused by their inaction. This would underscore the sincerity of their apologies. With regard to the French, the international community, led by the United States, should ostracize France for its refusal to deter the genocide in Rwanda. Sometimes, refusing to intervene in the face of atrocities creates greater harm to the powerless victims at the hands of the perpetrators. 500, 000 human beings were slaughtered while the international community and the media took a pacified stance. Refusing to intervene is reason enough to blame.
Both the Catholic and Anglican hierarchies were blamed for failing to use their moral influence among the overwhelmingly Christian population. At least the Anglican Church has apologized for failing to stop the killings. In an effort to show how sincere the Anglican Church is, they should show their resolve by trying to collaborate with the Catholic Church who still has not vowed to change their known position since the first genocide. This is an opportunity for the Catholic Church to reassert itself. One problem may be that the reason the Catholic Church may be delaying is because the overwhelming population of Rwanda is Christian. Like the French government, the Catholic Church should be ostracized as well by others in the religious community. An effective strategy would be for other religious leaders to seek out the media. Unfortunately, since Rwanda has not been receiving suffiecient media coverage, non-apologists such as the French government and the Catholic Church will maintain their stance. When incidents of human rights abuses and acts of genocide resonate, everyone in the international community has a responsibility to intervene.
All Content Inclusive www.angelfire.com/id/multicultural, Copyright © Calabrians Multicultural World Society Inc.
