Thirty Years Later— Understanding the Rwandan Genocide: Who Decided and How?
Ammar Ahmad
What is a Genocide?
The term “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer and academic in his 1944 book, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, to characterize Nazi Germany’s extermination of Jews. Lemkin’s concept of genocide, however, traces back to his earlier reflections during World War I, particularly in the context of the Ottoman Empire’s persecution of Armenians “for no other reason than they were Christians.” Lemkin observed similarities between the Ottoman Empire’s mass extermination of Armenians and the Nazis’ establishment of death camps for Jewish people, recognizing the shared characteristics of deliberate and systematic attempts to eradicate a specific population. Following World War II in 1948, genocide was codified as a crime in an international treaty named the Genocide Convention. This treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, the policy-making organ of the United Nations. Once legislated in the Genocide Convention, Lemkin’s concept of genocide was described as an act of “killing, causing serious harm, deliberately creating conditions leading to physical destruction, imposing measures to prevent births, or forcibly transferring children of a targeted group to another with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
The treaty’s purpose was to serve as a preventative measure for any future attempts of genocide on any group. However, in the actual event of a genocide, various political or economic motives may lead to its intentional disregard, misrepresentation, or a delay in response. This underscores the importance of establishing clear criteria for determining when a genocide is occurring and defining the entities responsible for making such determinations. The final decision determining a genocide should be done within an internationally recognized court by presiding judges; in determining how an event is classified as genocidal, it is crucial to collect evidence aligning with the Genocide Convention which can be sourced from early journalistic reports, or, more formally, a reputable human rights organizations.
The Genocide in Rwanda and its Early Signs
To realize the importance of the Genocide Convention (and shortcomings in its urgent international recognition), we can look to the genocide that unfolded in Rwanda between April 7 and July 15, 1994. Over the span of roughly 100 days, armed Hutu militias systematically targeted and killed members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group, as well as some moderate Hutu. The key players in the conflict, the Tutsi and Hutu groups, were not different in any physical characteristics. Rather, they were distinguished by class and work. The minority group of Tutsis were cattle herders, soldiers, and administrators. Meanwhile, the majority group of Hutu were farmers.
Before Belgian colonialism, the Hutu and Tutsi populations lived in relative harmony. Members of the different groups were able to recast themselves across the Tutsi and Hutu as their wealth and material conditions changed. However, in the early 1930s, the League of Nations mandate gave Belgium administrative control of two former German colonies: Rwanda and Burundi. Belgium capitalized on the class differences and introduced identity cards that were utilized to enforce a divisive ethnic classification system, distinguishing between the Hutu and Tutsi groups. This racialization program fixed populations into particular, non-changing identities, and it served as an important precursor for later conflict and even genocide. Tutsis were granted more privileges by the Belgians as only Tutsi children were allowed secondary education and future work in colonial administration. Under Belgian colonialism, Tutsis were also in charge of large Hutu working populations, severing any hope for harmony by empowering one group and using it to oppress the other. Inevitably, this led to violence and heated tensions between the two groups. And although Rwanda gained independence from Belgium in 1962, the relics of racial classification persisted as violence between the two groups did not stop. The mark of the beginning of the genocide was on April 6, 1994, when Hutu President Habyarimana was assassinated. The onslaught commenced the following day, as majority Hutu soldiers, police, and militia reacted by murdering Tutsi and moderate Hutu military and political figures. By July of 1994, at least 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutus were killed.
The ICTR and its Determination of the Rwandan Genocide
While numerous early indicators may suggest a genocide, an international court relies on the assessment of established judges from different countries who carefully examine the evidence presented forth on strict legal grounds in order to determine if a genocide occurred and prosecute those that they find responsible. It is important that the court is an international one because a domestic court may be biased in its judgment, especially if the crime is being committed on a national level. In the case of Rwanda, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 1994. The ICTR was the first international tribunal to actually interpret the definition of genocide outlined in the Genocide Convention by applying it and pronouncing judgments on genocide. The tribunal fulfilled three important tasks: it recognized that there was a genocide against the Tutsi minority group in Rwanda, it gathered journalistic investigations, firsthand witnesses, and documents to establish a factual basis for the charges, and it prosecuted those that it found responsible for the genocide.
First, the ICTR explicitly recognized that a genocide was carried out “primarily against Tutsi civilians.” This is important as it acknowledges that members of a group were being exterminated for no other reason than being in that group. Second, in its “Rules of Procedure and Evidence,” the ICTR outlines how prosecutors “summon and question suspects, victims and witnesses and record their statements, collect evidence and conduct on-site investigations,” thereby ensuring a thorough understanding of the crimes committed. Third, by relying on experienced judges and a structured sentencing system, the ICTR indicted more than 90 individuals, effectively sentencing over 60 of them for genocide and crimes against humanity. And that was not limited to politicians and military officers. For instance, the “Media Case” held media members accountable for broadcasts intended to incite the public to engage in acts of genocide, carefully considering the “intent” element outlined in the Genocide Convention.
Nonetheless, in the case of Rwanda, the tribunal was established longer after the genocide ended. Tragically, this reactionary measure exacted an immense toll on the Rwandan population, claiming the lives of nearly a million people. Thus, although the ICTR was effective in legally determining that a genocide had occurred, it was quite delayed and ineffective in actually doing anything to deter the gencoide (with the main reason being that the United Nations was reluctant to engage in an intervention given recent failed efforts in Somalia).
To serve as more than just a deterrent for future events and actively engage in prevention, courts should be established early to avert further loss of life especially if there are early indicators of a genocide. In the case in Rwanda, early journalism and human rights organizations provided evidence that predated the court judgment by the ICTR. These reports contributed to demonstrating how the events in Rwanda met the criteria for genocide.
Early Journalistic Accounts of Rwandan Genocide
Journalist reports can serve as early indicators that a genocide is unfolding. In the case of Rwanda, some early Western reporting misrepresented the genocide as a civil war between the Tutsis and Hutu, conveying it as a tribalistic, anarchic, and chaotic violence. This made it initially difficult for the international community to realize that what was happening was not a conventional war with two armies fighting, but instead a government-organized, systematic mass killing of a minority group. However, by late April and early May, major news outlets began to recognize signs of a genocide by using genocide-jargon. For example, on April 25th, 1994, The New York Times reported that “what began as political violence…has widened into what appears to be a methodical killing of Tutsis across the countryside.” Further, on May 8th, The Washington Post addressed the massacres in Rwanda and recognized that they “did not begin as a spontaneous outpouring of tribal rage, but rather as a systematic campaign of killing directed by political leaders and backed by the military.”
Although these posts never explicitly state the word “genocide,” they present important evidence that there was an organized killing and persecution of the Tutsi group. As events intensified and the reality became harder to ignore, however, some news outlets began to actually use the word “genocide.” For example, in June of 1994, The Los Angeles Times stated that there was a clear “master plan” in “genocidal scope.” Hence, it is evident that early signs of a genocide were apparent in journalistic reports. Catherine Bond, a British journalist who covered the Rwandan genocide from the start, succinctly addressed the role of initial reports in an interview: “My main findings were that, in the early days of the genocide, national and international coverage of the killings was detailed, accurate and swift.”
Journalistic evidence can be used by a legal entity like the ICTR to determine that a genocide had happened. However, in the context of the Rwandan genocide, the international community would not seriously respond until long after the genocide concluded. The ICTR was established almost seven months after the genocide began. Ideally, when understanding how a potential event qualifies as a genocide, it is pivotal to pay special attention to early journalistic accounts in order to deter or halt the genocide and judge those responsible in a court of law.
Evidence from the Human Rights Watch
In showcasing how a genocide was committed, it is essential to adhere to the guidelines outlined in the Genocide Convention, and humanitarian organizations can play a vital role in meticulously delineating the factors that classify an incident as genocide. Humanitarian organizations rely on witness testimonies and journalistic reports, and they are written and reviewed by a team of lawyers, journalists, and other qualified personnel. Unlike journalistic accounts, however, humanitarian reports formalize information through the creation of long, well-organized reports, thereby aiding in its legal recognition. On May 1st, 1994, six months before the ICTR was formed, the Human Rights Watch (HRW), a nonprofit and nongovernmental human rights organization, filed a report describing the systematic slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda. The report explicitly outlined how there had been “a campaign of genocide against the Tutsi” following Habyarimana’s plane crash on April 6th. Further, the organized nature of the killings is explicated in the report, pinpointing how the Presidential Guard and the Rwandan army taught members of the political party militias how to kill Tutsi in the most efficient manner. It also describes the role of Tutsi hate-propaganda, which disseminated through prominent state-radio stations like the government-supported Radio Télévision des Milles Collines. According to the report, this radio station incited direct violence against the Tutsi community by labeling Tutsi as “enemies” and “traitors,” encouraging Hutu listeners to “fill the half-empty graves.” Additionally, the report details the nuances of the systematic slaughter of the Tutsi in a comprehensive guide by tracing a long list of group killings in various cities and narrating the violent nature of countless massacres. One prominent example is from the city of Cyahinda, in which “6000 Tutsi who had taken refuge in a church were attacked by militia who left only about 200 to live.”
In essence, the report effectively highlights the government’s and extremist Hutus’ intention to annihilate the Tutsi population, meeting the criteria for genocide as defined by the Genocide Convention. By upholding the principles of this convention, this humanitarian organization demonstrated how the occurrences on April 6th in Rwanda unmistakably aligned with the definition of genocide. For potential occurrences of genocide, reports from human rights organizations that align with the Genocide Convention and assert the occurrence of genocide must lead to subsequent legal actions. This may be the establishment of an international tribunal and subsequent prosecution by judges, similar to the ICTR in the Rwandan context.
Who Decides the Genocide, and How?
The ultimate decision in determining that a genocide has occurred must be made in a court room by judges who can properly assess the evidence presented to them. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, the ICTR was the international court that ultimately decided that a genocide had occurred in Rwanda. In determining how a genocide has occurred, it is critical to consider emerging evidence that aligns with the Genocide Convention, which can come from journalistic and human rights reports. There was abundant early journalism that uncovered the genocide in Rwanda and, within a month of the onslaught, a full humanitarian report by the HRW outlining how the events in Rwanda constitute a genocide.
Characterizing an event as a genocide acknowledges that there is an intentional and systematic extermination of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This was the case in Rwanda in April of 1994, wherein the Tutsi minority group were slaughtered for no other reason than that they were Tutsi. Tragically, the Rwandan Genocide led to the brutal massacre of the Tutsi minority with an estimated 800,000 lives lost in just 100 days. In the face of potential genocide, it is crucial to diligently heed emerging journalistic evidence alongside human rights reports, which could serve as vital indicators that a systemic killing is underway.
