Citation
International Decision-Making
in the
Age of Genocide:
Rwanda 1990-1994
Rapporteur Report
The Hague
June 1-3, 2014
International Decision-Making in the Age of Genocide: Rwanda 1990-1994
Conference in The Hague, June 1 – June 3, 2014
Executive Summary
Former peacemakers, peacekeepers and peace monitors from more than a dozen
countries, as well as the United Nations, gathered in The Hague from June 1 to June
3, 2014, for the first multi-institutional examination of the Rwandan genocide
involving the major international players. Participants included the architects of the
1993 Arusha peace agreement, the leadership of the UN peacekeeping force known
as UNAMIR, and four former members of the UN Security Council, as well as senior
US, French, Belgian and Rwandan officials.
Over the course of the four working sessions, and numerous informal meetings,
conference participants focused on the breakdown in the accords and the failure of
the international community to either prevent the genocide or protect hundreds of
thousands of innocent civilians once the mass killing started in April 1994. Although
they disagreed on the exact chain of events that led to the genocide, participants
gained valuable insights into each other’s thinking as well as some major
institutional disconnects. Peacekeepers complained of unrealistic deadlines
imposed by the negotiators of the peace agreements. The peacemakers pointed to
delays by the United Nations in implementing the accords. Security Council
members cited the lack of real-time intelligence from Rwanda and a lack of
communication with the UN Secretariat.
1
Differences of approach were apparent not only between different governments and
international institutions but within the same institution. The discussions revealed
many examples of internal and external turf battles that made it difficult for the
United Nations and national governments to develop coherent policies on Rwanda,
both before and after the onset of the genocide. Differences in national policy were
compounded by disagreements about the mandate given to UNAMIR by the Security
Council, budgetary constraints, and the political fallout from the killings of US and
Pakistani peacekeepers in Somalia in 1993.
Insights that emerged over the course of the 2 ½ day conference included the
following:
The negotiation and implementation phases of the Arusha peace accords
were out of sync with each other. There should be much greater coordination
between peacemakers and peace implementers.
Ordinary Rwandans were poorly informed about the diplomatic negotiations
in Arusha, and became easy prey for demagogues and extremists. Civil
society should have been more closely involved in the peace process.
The United States, France, Belgium and other key international players did
not develop a common policy on Rwanda that could have prevented the
genocide. There should have been greater reliance on regional bodies, such
as the African Union.
Implementation of the 1993 Arusha peace agreement was hampered by
differences between Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General and
the UNAMIR force commander. Greater attention should be paid to such
appointments in the future to ensure a smooth working relationship between
the two officials and selection of the best personnel available.
The international community staked everything on the success of the Arusha
peace agreement, and did not develop a backup plan. Decision-makers
should prepare for the worst case scenario as well as the best case scenario,
and display greater tactical flexibility when circumstances change.
2
Introduction
Former peacemakers, peacekeepers, and peace monitors from more than a dozen
countries, as well as the United Nations, gathered in The Hague from June 1 to June
3, 2014, to discuss international decision-making before and during the Rwandan
genocide. There were 40 people gathered around the conference table, including
former members of the United Nations Security Council, the leadership of UNAMIR,
diplomats stationed in Kigali, the architects of the Arusha peace accords, NGO
representatives, journalists and scholars. (See annex for full participation list and
agenda.) Over the course of four working sessions and numerous informal
encounters, participants exchanged experiences and viewpoints, and drew lessons
for the future.
The conference was modeled on the “critical oral history” methodology developed
by the National Security Archive of George Washington University, previously used
to study such events as the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, and the end of the
Cold War. It was co-sponsored by the Simon-Skjodt Center for Prevention of
Genocide of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and The Hague Institute
for Global Justice, in cooperation with the National Security Archive.
By general consensus, the conference succeeded in bringing together a large group
of very diverse actors for the first multi-institutional examination of the Rwandan
genocide. Participants were exposed to a wide range of different viewpoints and
historical interpretations. In the words of Linda Melvern, author of numerous books
on the genocide, this was “the first time in twenty years that an open debate was
held among some of those who had taken part in decision-making” over Rwanda.1
The Belgian scholar and Rwanda expert, Filip Reyntjens, remarked on the “unique
lineup” of attendees gathered around the conference table. “This is never going to
happen again,” he told conference participants, assembled at The Hague Institute for
Global Justice. “We will never be again in the same room, so I think we need to seize
this opportunity.” [Reyntjens, Conference Transcript, page T1-2].2
During the working sessions of the conference, participants discussed the
negotiation, implementation, and eventual breakdown of the Arusha peace
agreement. Signed on August 4, 1993, the peace agreement included a set of five
accords, or protocols, negotiated between the Rwandan government and the
Rwandan Patriotic Front in Arusha, Tanzania, between July 1992 and July 1993. The
peace agreement was designed to put an end to a three-year Rwandan Civil War
triggered by the October 1990 invasion of Rwanda by the Uganda-based RPF. The
rebel movement was composed primarily of Tutsi exiles who had been forced out of
Rwanda during waves of anti-Tutsi violence fomented or tolerated by successive
Email to organizers, June 15, 2014.
Subsequent references to the Conference transcript (published as an annex to this report) will be in
the following format: Reyntjens, T1-2. (T1 referring to Day 1 of the transcript, and T2 referring to
Day 2 of the transcript)
1
2
3
Hutu-dominated governments. In addition to a military ceasefire, the accords
provided for the sharing of political power and the integration of the rebels into the
Rwandan army and police.
Conference participants grappled with a historical conundrum articulated in an
exchange that occurred at the very beginning of the conference. The former Belgian
ambassador to Rwanda, Johan Swinnen, drew attention to the “critical mass of
moderate forces” both inside and outside Rwanda who were in favor of “peace,
reconciliation, and internal reforms.” [Swinnen, T1-6]. According to Swinnen, the
strategy of the international community was to support these moderate forces. “We
became believers,” Swinnen recalled. “We truly believed in the success of the peace
process and the success of the democratization process.” The ambassador’s
comments provoked an immediate question from a Rwandan human rights activist
and survivor of the genocide, Monique Mujawamariya. If support for the Arusha
accords was so widespread, Mujawamariya asked, how come “all these positive
forces were not given the support necessary to prevail? What was lacking? And
what about the destabilizing forces, which were present on all sides? Why were they
allowed to supplant the positive forces?” [Mujawamariya, T1-7].
Two days of debate proved insufficient to answer this central question about the
dynamics of the most horrifying genocide since Word War II—and perhaps it can
never be authoritatively answered. As participants noted, there will always be
differences of interpretation over the chain of events that led to the genocide and
the role played by the international community. Nevertheless, our discussions shed
new light on some startling institutional disconnects and failings that contributed to
the unraveling of the Arusha accords.
By assembling many of the key players together in the same room, many of them for
the first time, we were able to re-examine a series of key moments when
international action might have made a significant difference. Accustomed to
operating within the framework of their own institutions, participants were able to
gain valuable insights into each other’s thinking. It became clear from the
conversation that there was little coordination between the key players.
Peacekeepers complained of unrealistic deadlines imposed by the architects of the
Arusha accords and lack of support from the Security Council. The peacemakers
pointed to delays by the United Nations in implementing the accords. Security
Council members talked about the lack of real-time intelligence from Rwanda, a lack
of communication with the UN Secretariat, and the political constraints imposed by
their own government.
Differences of approach were apparent not only between different governments and
international institutions, but within the same institution. There was a lack of
communication between the UN Security Council and UN Secretariat, and also
within the Secretariat, between the office of the Secretary-General and the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The commander of the UN peacekeeping
force in Rwanda, General Roméo Dallaire of Canada, and his civilian superior,
4
Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh of Cameroon, were frequently at odds. Diplomats
involved in the Arusha peace negotiations had a different set of priorities to their
colleagues in Kigali.
The arrangement of the conference room—with four members of the UN Security
Council lined up on one side, opposite the architects of the Arusha accords on the
other, with the peacekeepers in between, and French and Rwandan officials
opposite—facilitated a series of illuminating conversations.
The following summary of our discussions is designed to identify the highlights of
the conference and the principal insights that emerged. It is divided into four parts:
(1) Policy disconnects, (2) Implementation failings, (3) Mysteries and controversies,
and (4) Lessons.
1. Policy disconnects
If a consistent theme emerged from our two days of meetings, it was that the term
“international community” is a misnomer, at least as applied to Rwanda during the
critical years 1990-1994. While many governments and international institutions
voiced support for the Arusha peace process, this apparent unity of purpose
concealed some deep-seated differences. A geopolitical order that had been frozen
in place for more than four decades during the Cold War was suddenly in flux.
5
Declassified French documents show that President Mitterrand viewed the
Rwandan conflict at least partly through the prism of French-speaking versus
English-speaking Africa. In the opinion of Mitterrand and his senior aides,
Anglophone Uganda was actively supporting regime change to Francophone
Rwanda. “The Ugandan Tutsis are moving to conquer Rwanda, it’s worrying,”
Mitterrand told a cabinet meeting in January 1991. “We are at the edge of the
English-speaking front…It’s not normal that the Tutsi minority wants to impose its
rule over the Hutu majority.” [French cabinet meeting, January 23, 1991, Conference
briefing book 1-35].3
According to Jean-Christophe Belliard, the French observer at Arusha, there was a
“certain division of labor” at the peace negotiations, with France and the United
States “pushing” their respective clients to agree to a compromise. France provided
political and military support to the government of Rwandan President Juvénal
Habyarimana, whereas the United States, Belgium, and Britain attempted to wield
influence over the Uganda-backed Rwandan Patriotic Front. In an ideal world, the
Great Powers would have imposed their will on the belligerents. In the case of
Rwanda, this did not happen. “We were more divided than we are nowadays,” said
Belliard, who now serves as director of African Affairs at the French foreign
ministry. “Within the P-3 [western permanent members of the UN Security Council],
there was France and there were the other two [the US and the UK].” [Belliard, T126].
According to Jean-Marie Ndagijimana, who served as Rwandan ambassador to
France during the pre-genocide period, French support for Habyarimana was
counter-balanced by Ugandan support for the RPF. “People say that his
[Habyarimana’s] regime would have collapsed without the support of France, but
you can say the same thing about the RPF. Without support from abroad, the RPF
would not have managed to come back after October 1990.” [Ndagijimana, T1-33].
The differences in national policy were compounded by budgetary constraints, with
western governments (particularly the United States government) seeking to reduce
the amount spent on international peacekeeping. The result was a peace process
based on the lowest common denominator, whatever could be agreed on at the
lowest possible cost. In addition, Rwanda was only one of many issues demanding
the attention of western policy-makers, and relatively low on the list of international
priorities. As the Rwandan crisis came to a head in 1993-94, US officials were much
more focused on the fallout from the peacekeeping fiasco in Somalia (where 18 US
Army Rangers were killed following an ambush on October 3-4, 1993), while French
officials were preoccupied with events in the former Yugoslavia.
In the words of Mitterrand chief of staff and former foreign policy advisor Hubert
Védrine:
3
Subsequent references to the Conference briefing books will be in the following format: BB1-35.
6
When we try to reconstruct what happened in Paris, Brussels, London, Washington,
and New York, let us not forget that people were managing a series of
simultaneous problems, and were unable to focus on a single subject, as this
symposium is able to do. That is never the way it is. This famous “international
community” is an invention. If it really existed, it would act in a preventive fashion
more often…Had this imaginary international community existed, it would have
acted in the Yugoslav case, after the death of Tito, ten years earlier. But that is not
the way things happen. [Védrine, T1-88].
Even more damaging than the inability of the international community to speak
with one voice on Rwanda, according to Védrine, was the lack of an “international
system” that could sort through the conflicting interests and “impose the Arusha
accords on the participants.” [Védrine, T1-87]. The dysfunctional nature of the
“international system” was reflected at multiple levels, in numerous different ways.
Peacemakers vs Peacekeepers
One of the starkest policy disconnects over Rwanda became apparent right at the
start of our conference when the former UNAMIR Force Commander was asked to
describe the challenges of implementing the August 1993 Arusha accords. General
Dallaire told us that he was immediately confronted with a series of “impossible
milestones” negotiated by the warring parties with little or no input from the UN.
According to Dallaire, the unrealistic timetable for the implementation of the Arusha
agreements (notably a 37-day deadline for the creation of a “Broad-Based
Transitional Government” and a two-year deadline for “democratic elections”) had
the effect of exacerbating tensions on the ground.
It is one thing to negotiate [a peace agreement], another to end up with something
you can actually implement. I gather that the diplomats felt they had to conclude a
peace agreement in order to stabilize the situation in the country. One of the tools
they created to ensure this would happen was to create these incredible milestones,
including having [international peacekeeping] forces on the ground and the BroadBased Transitional Government set up by September 10, and so on…There was no
way we could meet these deadlines. To me, this is a major dysfunctional situation
which I expect diplomats to try to figure out, rather than simply write something
down and hope for the best. [Dallaire, T1-26, 27].
Dallaire’s comments drew an immediate response from Ami Mpungwe, a senior
Tanzanian diplomat who served as facilitator for the Arusha-based peace
negotiations between 1992 and 1993. According to Mpungwe, the negotiators of the
Arusha accords were “worried that the UN bureaucratic processes might not be in
sync with the timelines we had established.” [Mpungwe, T1-11]. Realizing that this
could be a problem, the peacemakers sent messages to the UN Secretary-General
urging him to send a reconnaissance mission to Rwanda while the negotiations were
7
still going on. But the UN “refused to start the implementation process until we got a
full agreement.” [Mpungwe, T1-35].
Nigeria’s representative on the UN Security Council, Ambassador Ibrahim Gambari,
said “it was a huge mistake…to ask the UN to implement an agreement with which it
was not closely associated.” [Gambari, T1-42]. Citing the example of Liberia and
Sierra Leone, he said the Arusha facilitators should have taken responsibility for
implementing the agreements by themselves, with the assistance of regional bodies.
“To wait for the UN implementation of such agreement is not advisable, in my view,”
said Gambari. “When you look at Mali, at the Central African Republic, it is when
Africans themselves put boots on the ground, and show some commitment, that the
international community tends to follow.” [Gambari, T1-42, 43]. In response,
Mpungwe said the Arusha negotiators had involved the Organization of African
Unity in the peace process. But he agreed that the OAU “should have remained
focused on Rwanda after we handed the issue over to the UN. There was too much
trust in the UN.” [Mpungwe, T1-44].
As events turned out, implementation of the Arusha accords was largely divorced
from the negotiating process. The United Nations operated according to its own
timetable, which had little in common with the diplomatic timetable negotiated in
Arusha. The size and capability of the UN peacekeeping force was determined by
budgetary constraints rather than actual requirements. (See Section 2 below)
The diplomats who negotiated the Arusha accords had every incentive to promote
the agreements as an unvarnished success story that would put an end to a hugely
destructive civil war. “The Arusha Agreements were presented to us as if they were
a piece of gold,” recalled Ambassador Colin Keating, New Zealand’s representative
on the Security Council. At the same time, said Keating, the Security Council failed
“to do appropriate due diligence about the quality of the advice” that it was
receiving. “There is always the need to accentuate the positive in these kinds of
negotiations. You have to sell the product, you have to believe in it, and you have to
hope it will hold. Sadly, in a percentage of cases, that does not work.” [Keating, T153, 54].
An uninvolved public
Several participants in our conference highlighted a disconnect between the
diplomatic process in Tanzania and the political process back home in Rwanda. As
they shuttled back and forth between Arusha, Kigali and Mulindi [headquarters of
the RPF], the diplomats and politicians inhabited three very different worlds. The
diplomatic negotiations were frequently out of sync with events unfolding on the
ground. At other times, according to James Gasana, Rwandan defense minister from
1992 to 1993, the peace negotiations became a substitute for a political dialogue
that should have taken place inside Rwanda itself. “The internal dialogue that should
8
have taken place in Rwanda even before the diplomatic process, or at the same time
as the process, did not take place. It was shifted to Arusha.” [Gasana, T1-16, 17].
Joyce Leader, who was assigned to observe the Arusha negotiations as US deputy
chief of mission in Kigali, echoed Gasana’s diagnosis. “The democratization dialogue
moved to Arusha,” she told us. “There were even divisions between the diplomatic
corps in Kigali and the ‘shadow’ diplomatic corps in Arusha…In Arusha, the
diplomats were supporting the process, trying to encourage a diplomatic solution, a
compromise that would bring an agreement. In Kigali, they were still working
within the framework of the political parties that were there. There was a different
perspective.” [Leader, T1-22].
One consequence of this dual-track political process was that ordinary Rwandans
were badly informed about the peace negotiations in Arusha and felt little sense of
ownership. In Gasana’s estimation, “the views of Rwandan civil society were not
represented in Arusha.” [Gasana, T1-17]. André Guichaoua, a French sociologist who
spent 20 years working in Rwanda, said that the establishment of a “multi-party
government” in Rwanda in 1992 became a substitute for true civic involvement.
“For ordinary people, this was the first element of political despair. During the
months that followed, everybody divided up the ministries, the state enterprises.
There was no popular control. The population understood that they were dealing
not with democrats, but with people from the former one-party system, who were
establishing similar parties under different names. None of this reflected the desires
or aspirations of ordinary people.” [Guichaoua, T1-69].
Another Arusha observer, Ambassador Swinnen of Belgium, said that the peace
accords were poorly explained. “Radio Rwanda described the Arusha Accords in
monotonous and insipid tones. I pleaded with the government to use more
attractive, persuasive language to convince the political forces that were becoming
radicalized to support the Arusha Accords. Unfortunately, the international
community failed in this effort.” [Swinnen, T1-6].
The failure to involve Rwandan civil society in the peace process, combined with the
lack of a serious public education effort, had damaging consequences. Ordinary
Rwandans became prey for demagogues and extremist political parties who fanned
deep-seated fears of the Hutu majority once again being dominated by the Tutsi
minority (as had happened during the Belgian colonial period). “Very little
information [about the Arusha negotiations] was being given to the Rwandan
population,” said Venuste Nshimiyimana, a reporter for the BBC African service,
who earlier served as UN information officer in Rwanda. “Occasionally you could
hear a report filed by a Radio Rwanda correspondant about the signing of a
protocol. But that was not enough…We did not explain properly to Rwandans that
these negotiations were being carried out between Rwandans seeking a lasting
peace between Rwandans.” According to Nshimiyimana, the information vacuum
made it possible for Hutu Power extremists “to work in a very fertile field.”
[Nshimiyimana, T1-51, 52].
9
The principal Hutu extremist party, the Coalition for the Defense of the Republic
[CDR], gained members rapidly in 1993, in part by portraying itself as the only
political party opposed to the peace process. The CDR was excluded from the
Transitional National Assembly under the terms of the January 1993 Power-Sharing
protocol, which required political parties to “avoid engaging in sectarian practices
and in any form of violence.”4 Several conference participants suggested it was a
mistake to deny the CDR a role in Rwanda’s new institutions. Former defense
minister Gasana noted that “if people are left out of the peace process, and cannot be
integrated into it, they will become a major destabilizing factor.” [Gasana, T1-19,
20]. Belliard referred to the “political intelligence” of South African leader Nelson
Mandela in including his National Party opponents in the transition process in South
Africa. “You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends,” Belliard noted. “I
think it is worth posing the question what might have happened if the CDR had been
associated with the Accords.”[Belliard, T1-25].
Ambassador Swinnen said that the issue of whether to include the CDR “in the
affairs of the country” was discussed “at great length” by western diplomats in
Kigali. They finally concluded that it would be better to involve the extremist party
in “the dynamic of peace and reform” rather than exclude them completely. As a
result, on March 28, 1994, less than two weeks before the start of the genocide, they
issued a joint declaration stating that “all political parties authorized in Rwanda” (a
formula that included the CDR) should be represented in the transitional National
Assembly.5
The chief RPF negotiator at Arusha, Patrick Mazimhaka, disagreed sharply with the
suggestion that it was possible to include the CDR in the transition arrangements.
He recalled that the party “rejected negotiations of any form or shape with the RPF.”
[Mazimhaka, T1-29]. General Dallaire described the CDR as “a front for a lot of the
subversive activities that were going on in the country,” including the creation of
militia groups that went on to play a leading role in the genocide. [Dallaire, T1-40].
Dallaire said he could “never understand” why the diplomats made a belated
attempt to seat a CDR member in the transitional national assembly in March 1994,
on the eve of the genocide. “I just did not see why all of a sudden we threw them [the
CDR] into the exercise when everything else was going up in smoke.” [Dallaire, T129].6 Dallaire later said that he was “aghast” at the diplomatic maneuver, which took
place during his absence from Rwanda, and “entered into heated discussions with
the SRSG” on the matter upon his return to Kigali. According to Dallaire, the move to
Article 61 of the Power-Sharing protocol required political parties “to support the peace process
and to avoid engaging in sectarian practices and in any form of violence” as “a pre-requisite for their
participation in the Transitional National Assembly.”
5 The text of the March 28 Declaration is contained in Booh-Booh, “Efforts to Install the Transitional
Institutions,” Outgoing Code Cable MIR-672, March 28, 1994, available here.
6 US diplomats were in favor of allowing CDR representation in the transitional assembly in order to
overcome a political impasse that had been blocking the creational of transitional institutions. See US
embassy Kigali cable 01319, March 25, 1994.
4
10
include the CDR in the transitional assembly was greeted with dismay by Rwanda’s
pro-democracy politicians. 7
Differences over the UN mandate
The dispatch of a United Nations peacekeeping force to Rwanda, to be known as
UNAMIR, was formally approved under UN Security Council Resolution 872 on
October 5, 1993. At the insistence of the United States, the Council was required to
approve extension of the mandate “beyond the initial 90 days”, based on whether or
not “substantive progress” had been made toward implementing the Arusha
agreements. It was a classic “Chapter VI mandate,” meaning that UN troops would be
dispatched to monitor a peace agreement already in place, rather than enforcing an
agreement on the warring parties under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
The limited nature of the mandate posed an immediate problem for General Dallaire
because it made no mention of the protection of civilians. Anxious to avoid a
situation in which crimes against humanity were committed under the nose of UN
peacekeepers, he drafted his own, more expansive, Rules of Engagement that he
described as Chapter “VI Plus.” [Dallaire, T1-94]. Modeled on similar Rules of
Engagement previously adopted for Cambodia, Paragraph 17 of the UNAMIR Force
Commander’s Operational Directive No. 2 dated November 19, 1993, stated:
There may also be ethnically or politically motivated criminal acts committed
during this mandate which will morally and legally require UNAMIR to use all
available means to halt them. Examples are executions, attacks on displaced
persons or refugees, ethnic riots, attacks on demobilized soldiers, etc. During such
occasions, UNAMIR military personnel will follow the ROD outlined in this
directive, in support of UNCIVPOL and local authorities or in their absence,
UNAMIR will take the necessary action to prevent any crime against humanity.
[Dallaire, BB2-74].
Dallaire sent his draft Rules of Engagement to the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations [DPKO] at UN headquarters in New York but did not receive an
immediate reply. The limits on his authority became apparent in January 1994 after
he received a tip from an informer that weapons were being stockpiled in Kigali for
distribution to Hutu extremists. Dallaire wanted to mount an “offensive operation”
to confiscate the weapon caches, which were in violation of the Arusha accords, but
was ordered to stand down by his superiors in New York. “I ultimately got a
response that I was not authorized [to use force],” Dallaire recalled.8 [Dallaire, T198].
E-mail communications to organizers, February 23, 2015 and March 27, 2015.
See Annan to Booh-Booh/Dallaire, UNAMIR 100, January 11, 1994, which states that DPKO “cannot
agree to the operation contemplated” by Dallaire “as it clearly goes beyond the mandate entrusted to
UNAMIR under resolution 872.” See BB 2-75 to 2-78 for exchange between Dallaire and DPKO. The
7
8
11
The official who drafted the January 11, 1994 response to Dallaire was Iqbal Riza,
then serving as deputy to UN Under Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Kofi Annan.
Riza told the conference that DPKO discussed Dallaire’s proposed Rules of
Engagement “very, very intensively.” He said it was “very clear” that the UN
mandate for Rwanda “did not authorize even deterrent actions [by UNAMIR],” and
ruled out the use of force, with the exception of “self-defense.” Riza explained that
the murders of UN peacekeepers in Somalia (both American and Pakistani) was
“very much in our minds.” He added that UN officials in New York were “very, very
worried” about a similar situation developing in Rwanda “where some armed action
would be taken by UNAMIR, and they would be overwhelmed.” [Riza, T1-101].
It was not only General Dallaire who felt that the mandate given to UN peacekeepers
in Rwanda was disconnected from the situation on the ground. When Belgian
foreign minister Willy Claes visited Rwanda in February 1994, he concluded that
there was a likelihood of “a new bloodbath” unless the mandate was strengthened. A
top Claes aide, Lode Willems, warned that UNAMIR was unable to maintain public
order “under its current mandate” and faced a “serious credibility problem.” [BB 290] But the Belgian appeal for a broader mandate and/or more robust rules of
engagement was brushed aside by the UN Secretariat and permanent members of
the Security Council. The objections ranged from financial (“The United States never
wanted more than 500 men for UNAMIR”), to military (“It is too dangerous, the
United Nations never has as much power as the parties”) to political (“If the United
Nations uses force, it takes a side (is no longer neutral)”). [BB 2-91].
Former UN ambassadors who participated in the conference differed sharply over
whether the Security Council should have been asked to sign off on UNAMIR’s Rules
of Engagement. New Zealand ambassador Colin Keating, who served as president of
the Council during the early genocide period, recalled that the Council had approved
“ambiguous language” about “contributing to a weapons free zone in Kigali.” He said
that Council members should have been much more closely involved in the debate
on whether or not UNAMIR had the right “to use military power to maintain
security” in Rwanda. [Keating, T2-7]. British permanent representative Sir David
[now Lord] Hannay said that “negotiating rules of engagement” went way beyond
the Security Council’s authority. “There is no peacekeeping operation in which that
has ever happened, nor could there be. The military will not negotiate rules of
engagement in that way. It would have been a complete conversation stopper if we
had tried to do so in the Council.” [Hannay, T2-9].
order to UNAMIR “not to fire until fired upon” was confirmed by Riza to Dallaire in a telephone
conversation on the morning of April 7, 1994. [BB 2-112].
12
Dysfunctional institutions
Our discussions unearthed numerous examples of lack of coordination not only
between institutions and governments, but within institutions and governments. The
syndrome of “the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing” was
particularly evident at the United Nations in New York. Former DPKO official Iqbal
Riza cited the lack of communication between different floors of the 39-floor United
Nations Secretariat overlooking Manhattan’s East River. He referred frequently to
decisions taken in the Secretary-General’s suite of offices “on the 38th floor,”
bypassing the Department of Peacekeeping Operations [DPKO], one floor below.
According to Riza, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali insisted that all
communications with the Security Council be handled by his assistant, Chinmaya
Gharekhan. This administrative structure made it impossible for DPKO to report
directly to the Security Council on day-to-day developments in Rwanda, including
Dallaire’s January 11, 1994 cable requesting authority to carry out weapons raids in
Kigali. “We could not do it [inform the Council] without clearance, without the 38th
floor who already had that very alarming cable. So we were stymied,” Riza recalled.
[Riza, T1-127].
Ambassador Hannay described the Secretary-General’s refusal to allow senior
officials from DPKO to brief the Security Council as “a completely disastrous
decision. I remonstrated with him [Boutros-Ghali] at the time. The result was that he
agreed that Ambassador Gharekhan should come and brief us, but that was not
frankly a substitute. That was one removed, Gharekhan was not the person who was
responsible for directing the peacekeeping operation.” [Hannay, T1-106]. A further
complication, according to Hannay, was the Secretary-General was frequently
traveling, which made it more difficult to contact him. “Because we had this very
centralized system, this meant (Iqbal Riza will be able to confirm this or not) that
DPKO was inhibited from coming forward with anything,” [Hannay, T2-11].
Ambassador Keating cited an August 1993 report by Bacre Ndiaye, special
rapporteur for the United Nations Human Rights Commission that described mass
atrocities against the Tutsi minority in Rwanda, as an example of a communications
failure. The report, which discussed the possibility of genocide, attracted little
attention and was not distributed to Security Council members. “If we had known
what we now know,” Keating told conference participants, “I am sure we would
have all come to the conclusion that a Chapter VI mandate and 2,600 soldiers was
simply not good enough for the job.” [Keating, T1-54].
The dysfunctional nature of the United Nations system extended to the field
operation in Rwanda, where the Force Commander [General Dallaire] and the
Special Representative of the Secretary-General [Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh] were
often at loggerheads. General Henry Anyidoho, a Ghanaian who served as Dallaire’s
deputy in Rwanda, said that “lack of coherence” in the leadership of the Rwandan
peacekeeping mission caused “major problems.” He spoke of a “crisis situation”
developing for UNAMIR “where the Force Commander and the Head of Mission, the
13
Special Representative of the Secretary-General, were not communicating properly.”
[Anyidoho, T1-124]. Several conference participants (including Riza, Hannay, and
Anyidoho) put the blame for the strained Force Commander-SRSG relationship on
Booh-Booh, who did not receive an invitation to the conference. Ambassador
Swinnen “found it a little bit uncomfortable that we put one of the protagonists
[Booh-Booh] on trial in the presence of his antagonist.” [Swinnen, T2-94]. 9
Internal turf battles also made it difficult for national governments to develop
coherent policies on Rwanda, both before and after the onset of the genocide.
General Dallaire said he was often confused about who was “running the show in
France,” citing differences between the French defense ministry and foreign
ministry. [Dallaire, T1-76]. Hubert Védrine reminded conference participants that
French parliamentary elections of March 1993 resulted in a political arrangement
known as “cohabitation” that divided power between a left-wing president
[Mitterrand] and a right-wing Prime Minister [Edouard Balladur] and foreign
minister [Alain Juppé]. [Védrine, T1-63]. According to other French insiders,
cohabitation made it difficult to react quickly when the massacres began. In a
memorandum dated May 5, 1994, Dominique Pin, a Mitterrand advisor on Africa,
complained that the conservative government was “culpably apathetic” on Rwanda.
“The speeches were: we retreat back home,” Pin noted. “I am personally convinced
that if there had been no cohabitation, we would have acted otherwise and avoided
the massacres.” [BB 4-13].
Similar political and bureaucratic divisions were visible in the United States, where
the Pentagon resisted even modest State Department attempts to get more closely
involved in Rwanda. “The DoD [Department of Defense] did not want to spend
money,” recalled Prudence Bushnell, who was in charge of day-to-day policy on
Rwanda as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of African Affairs at the
State Department. According to Bushnell, the State Department had to rely on the
efforts of a foreign government in order to prevail in the bureaucratic turf battle
with the Pentagon over authorization of a peace mission for Rwanda.
I used to call them the “no-where, no-how, no-way, and not with our toys, boys”
….The only reason that we got into Rwanda was because the French twisted our
arm in Somalia…We in the Africa Bureau were thrilled that the French were more
successful in our interagency process than the Department of State or USAID.
In a subsequent communication to the organizers, Dallaire referenced a February 25, 1994 Belgian
foreign ministry cable to New York that stated that “Booh-Booh seems to have lost his local
credibility.” [BB 2-90]. He also cited a 1997 report by the Belgian Senate, which concluded that the
SRSG did not meet his responsibilities. According to the Senate report, the SRSG was “totally passive
after April 6. As a consequence, General Dallaire, the Force Commander was obliged to also occupy
himself with the political aspects of the UNAMIR mission, the military aspect having being relegated
to second place.” A former foreign minister of Cameroon, Booh-Booh wrote a 2006 book titled Le
Patron de Dallaire Parle: revelations sur les dérives d'un général de l'ONU au Rwanda, that was sharply
critical of the Force Commander.
9
14
[Opponents of US involvement in Rwanda] found every excuse whatsoever to
make the mandate as limited in time and in manpower as possible. Boy oh boy, did
the shooting down of the [Habyarimana] plane on April 6 and the withdrawal of
the Belgians give us the excuse we needed to pull the plug. It was an unfortunate
period in my government’s history. [Bushnell, T2-29].
2. Arusha implementation failings
Signed on August 4, 1993, the Arusha peace accords envisaged a political powersharing arrangement between President Habyarimana and his allies, the “moderate
Hutu” internal opposition, and the Rwandan Patriotic Front. In addition to
establishing a transitional government and national assembly, the Arusha peace
accords envisaged a unified Rwandan army (with a 60-40 split between government
forces and the RPF) and officer corps (50-50 split). The accords also provided for
the return of an estimated 550,000 Rwandan refugees in Uganda, Burundi and
Tanzania, who fled Rwanda during successive waves of anti-Tutsi violence from
1959 onwards.10
Conference participants disagreed on whether the Arusha agreements were a
“house of cards,” in the phrase of the American expert Michael Barnett, or the only
reasonable solution to Rwanda’s political problems. “To put it uncharitably, it
sounds like the diplomats were handing a ticking time bomb off to the UN,” Barnett
noted. “This was not an agreement that was going to be workable in any realistic
setting given the gross limitations of the UN.” [Barnett, T1-36].
Tanzanian facilitator Ami Mpungwe took the opposite view. He pointed out that
Arusha succeeded, at least temporarily, in putting an end to “two years of serious
war.” “We achieved a ceasefire agreement that was maintained by a small force of
fifty African monitors,” he said, referring to the United Nations Observer Mission
Uganda-Rwanda [UNAMUR]. “We also had a mechanism for monitoring violations.
Things were moving. This was not a house of cards. We were not just ‘believers,’
sticking around to be seen to be busy.” [Mpungwe, T1-43]. In the view of the UK
representative to the UN, David Hannay, the alternative to Arusha was to “let the
RPF just take over by military means. The UN does not do that sort of thing.”
[Hannay, T2-12].
Whether or not the Arusha agreements were inherently flawed, as some speakers
maintained, there was broad agreement that they were badly implemented.
Problems identified by conference participants included inadequate peacekeeping
resources, intelligence failures, and the lack of a Plan B.
For overview of Rwandan refugee situation, see State Department “Refugee Fact Sheet,” March
1994, BB 2-93.
10
15
Inadequate resources
UNAMIR was under-resourced from the very beginning. During an initial
reconnaissance mission to Rwanda in August 1993, Dallaire recommended a force of
around 8,000 troops. “In DPKO we beat this down to about 5,000 or 5,500,” recalled
Iqbal Riza. [Riza, T2-32]. The final figure for UNAMIR authorized by the UN Security
Council in October 1993 was 2,548 troops. “I was instructed that this mission had to
be on the cheap,” recalled Dallaire. “The Americans had not paid [their UN dues],
there was no money, and nobody was particularly interested in the mission to start
with.” [Dallaire, T1-50]. Pru Bushnell confirmed that the US was “trying to get PKOs
out of Africa, not create peacekeeping operations in Africa.” The result, Bushnell
said, was that “UNAMIR was almost dead on arrival.” [Bushnell, T2-28].
The lack of resources available to UNAMIR became even more critical after the
genocide got underway on April 7 following the Habyarimana assassination. Instead
of strengthening UNAMIR, the UN Security Council gutted it almost entirely,
reducing the authorized level of the peacekeeping force on April 21, 1994, to “270
military personnel,” supported by civilian staff. This decision caused consternation
among the remaining peacekeepers. “We simply could not understand what was
happening in New York,” recalled General Anyidoho. “It was as if the mission was
being abandoned. The normal practice is that if you are in an emergency situation,
and you come under pressure, you are reinforced…We were totally confused. It was
against all our military thinking, all the lessons we were taught. We did not know
what to do.” [Anyidoho, T2-16].
Intelligence failures
As a United Nations peacekeeping force, UNAMIR was barred from having its own
intelligence service. General Dallaire drew a distinction between the gathering of
“information,” which was regarded as legitimate under the UN mandate, and the
gathering of “intelligence,” which would have been perceived as a violation of
UNAMIR’s neutral status. He acknowledged that when he arrived in Rwanda on
October 22, 1993, he “did not have a firm grip on the political maneuvering” taking
place behind the scenes. “We were working fairly blind at that time.” [Dallaire, T141, 42]. Dallaire said that he got “information” from various sources, including one
of his own officers, “who was going out with the President’s daughter,” but “this was
not intelligence, collated, verifiable information.” [Dallaire, T1-134]. There was no
system for analyzing the information that trickled into UNAMIR headquarters.
Intelligence failures were evident at all levels, not only UNAMIR. The complexities of
Rwandan politics were lost on many of the foreign diplomats and politicians who
helped negotiate the Arusha accords. One of the best informed western diplomats in
Kigali, US deputy chief of mission Joyce Leader, acknowledged that she
underestimated the importance of the “North-South divide” in the Rwandan
government delegation to the peace talks. [Leader, T1-21]. As she later came to
16
understand, several different power struggles were taking place in Rwanda
simultaneously, not simply Hutus versus Tutsis, but also within the majority Hutu
community. (President Habyarimana represented a group of Hutus from the
northern town of Ruhengeri who had seized power in 1973 from Hutus based in
southern Rwanda.)
As the western power with most at stake in Rwanda, France had the most
sophisticated foreign intelligence gathering operation in the country. (The United
States closed many of its CIA stations in Africa for budgetary reasons following the
end of the Cold War, according to a former US intelligence official.) French
diplomats expressed concern, as early as October 1990, that the RPF invasion could
trigger massacres that would result in the “physical elimination of Tutsis in the
interior of the country, 500,000 to 700,000 people,” by the Hutu majority. [BB1-32].
Nevertheless, the former director of African affairs at the French foreign ministry,
Jean-Marc Rochereau de La Sabliere, acknowledged that French intelligence services
did not provide the government with “sufficient intelligence about Hutu extremists
and the links between these people and the Habyarimana entourage.” De La Sabliere
said the French government also “underestimated the determination of the RPF” to
secure a total military victory in Rwanda. [de La Sabliere, T1-83, 84].
No Plan B
A cherished military axiom (attributed to Helmuth von Molthke) is that “no plan
survives contact with the enemy.” Political leaders, like generals, must preserve
strategic flexibility to respond to unexpected crises and events. Our conference
discussions suggested that, in the case of Rwanda, the mythical “international
community” failed to develop contingency plans for what to do if the peace process
broke down. Everything was predicated on the success of the Arusha accords, which
were viewed as a “make-or-break” solution to the crisis. “I remembered often
hearing amongst diplomats in Kigali concerning the Arusha Accords, ça passé ou ça
casse, meaning the accords will be passed or everything will break down,” said
Collette Braeckman, a journalist for the Belgian newspaper Le Soir.“In hindsight, I
wonder if it was a bit irresponsible to say ça passé ou ça casse because it broke down
and we saw the price that resulted.” [Braeckman, T1-48].
In the event, just about everything that could go wrong with the smooth
implementation of the peace plan did go wrong. Melchior Ndadaye, the first
democratically-elected president of Burundi, and country’s first Hutu president, was
assassinated on October 21, 1993, the day before General Dallaire arrived in Kigali
to take up his post as commander of UNAMIR. The Ndadaye murder by officers from
Burundi’s Tutsi-dominated army triggered attacks by Hutu militias against Tutsi
civilians and retaliatory attacks against Hutu civilians by the armed forces. More
than 100,000 people were killed during these massacres and counter-massacres,
and 700,000 Burundians fled the country. The arrival of half a million Burundian
refugees in southern Rwanda was profoundly destabilizing. In the opinion of former
17
Rwandan ambassador to Paris Ndagijimana, the two countries function “like
connecting vases. When something important happens in Burundi, it reproduces
itself almost automatically a few months later in Rwanda…the Ndadaye
assassination was more or less the destruction of the Arusha Accords.”
[Ndagijimana, T1-32].
Other external shocks to the peace process included the events in Somalia in early
October 1993 which “had an appalling effect on everyone’s reaction to Rwanda,”
according to David Hannay. “Why did practically no African countries volunteer to
send troops to Rwanda? Because some of them, the ones who were prepared to send
troops anywhere, had got them in Somalia and were worrying a great deal about
what happened when an operation started to collapse.” [Hannay, T1-107].
The Somalia fiasco put further pressure on the Clinton administration to reassess its
entire approach to peacekeeping operations, according to former State Department
official John Shattuck. The new peacekeeping doctrine was enshrined in Presidential
Decision Directive 25, which “required a tremendous amount of scrutiny to be
applied to virtually any multilateral peacekeeping operation.” The directive
established stringent conditions for future peacekeeping operations, including a
clear “threat to international security” and the advance of “US interests”. Shattuck
believes that PDD-25 gave a kind of “green light” to the planners of the Rwandan
genocide. “It effectively told the genocidaires, ‘The United States is not going to be
engaging.’” [Shattuck, T2-22].
In the meantime, Rwandan politics was becoming even more polarized. Joyce
Leader, the former US deputy chief of mission in Kigali, warned as early as August
1992 that “internal insecurity has increased in parallel with each significant step
forward in the democratization and peace process” and “we can anticipate a new
wave of internal insecurity, in some form or another, as peace talks proceed.”
[Leader, BB 1-55]. Dark forces released by the push for “democracy” and “free
speech” included hate radio and the growth of extremist militia groups. The hate
radio station known as Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, or RTLM, was
established in July 1993, as a direct response by Hutu hardliners to the Arusha
accords.
Former Rwandan defense minister Gasana attributed the political polarization to
Rwandan politics in part to a military offensive by the RPF in February 1993,
creating hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons, a fertile recruiting
ground for Hutu extremists. [Gasana, T1-58]. RPF negotiator Mazimhaka rejected
this explanation. He cited statements by Habyarimana and his allies that raised
doubts about their sincerity in implementing the peace accords. Mazimhaka noted
that President Habyarimana compared the Arusha protocols to “pieces of paper” in a
November 1992 speech, while a senior official of the president’s MRND party, Léon
Mugesera, suggested sending the minority Tutsi population back “home” to Ethiopia
via the Nyabarongo river. [Mazimhaka, T1-59].
18
Lack of Flexibility
Conference discussions provided several examples of international actions and
analysis lagging behind fast-moving events on the ground. Don Webster, the lead
international prosecutor in the trial of Rwandan paramilitary leaders, noted that the
political situation in Rwanda had become very unstable by January 1994. On
January 9, paramilitary groups known as the Interahamwe prevented the swearing
in of the “broad-based” transitional government and national assembly established
by the Arusha accords. Webster wondered why there was not a clearer “response on
the part of international actors in Rwanda” to the “massive and very public violence”
on the streets of Kigali. [Webster, T1-99].
Other participants noted that the standard international response to unwelcome
developments was to double down on the peace agreement. “We kept supporting
Arusha, all of us, even when it was collapsing before our eyes,” said Ambassador
Gambari, who joined the Security Council in January 1994. [Gambari, T1-108]. The
Czech representative on the Council, Karel Kovanda, noted that the Arusha
agreements continued to be “a sacred cow” long after the resumption of fighting.
“Even during the genocide, Arusha was invoked by the RPF and by us in the Security
Council as the basis for getting out of the mess.” According to Kovanda, it was not
until late May 1994, nearly two months into the genocide, that his delegation
“started questioning” the rationale for this policy. [Kovanda, T1-45].
Several speakers acknowledged that the Security Council failed to adapt to changing
circumstances, particularly after the start of the genocide on April 6. Instead of
devising a new strategy tailored to the startling upsurge in violence, the
international community attempted to resuscitate a peace agreement that had
irretrievably broken down. In the words of David Hannay, the UN Security Council
“needs to become more flexible. We discussed the endless reiteration of ceasefire
calls, the calls to return to the Arusha agreement, failing to take account of the
changing nature of the problem as events unfolded. There was a lack of flexibility
there that is pretty frightening.” [Hannay, T2-79].
Rwandan human rights activist Mujawamariya compared the Arusha accords to a
“tricycle” that lost a couple of its wheels. She noted that Habyarimana’s ruling MRND
party and the Rwandan army were riven by internal dissent, and no longer
functioning as effective institutions. This meant that the Arusha agreements had
ceased to function as “a tricycle”, or “even a bicycle. If you do not take time to
readjust your vehicle and make it functional, you cannot cycle with it. This never
happened, meaning that Rwanda was never able to get out of the torture, the
drama.” [Mujawamariya, T2-66].
Ambassador Gambari made a similar point:
It is one of the most inexplicable things that we kept hanging onto this straw—a
ceasefire, the Arusha Accords—when the facts on the ground no longer supported
19
it. Part of the reason was that UNAMIR was based on Chapter VI [of the UN
Charter]. The presumption was that there was a peace to be kept and an
agreement to implement. The raison d’être behind UNAMIR was that there was a
peace accord, the Arusha agreement. We were kept hoping against hope that the
accord would work. [Gambari, T2-66].
In retrospect, there may have been a brief window of opportunity to halt the
genocide in its tracks between the shootdown of the Habyarimana plane on April 6
and April 12, when Hutu hardliners consolidated their control over the interim
Rwandan government. General Dallaire described an “impasse on the ground”
between Rwandan government forces and the RPF. “The RPF said they did not want
a ceasefire until the government forces stopped the slaughtering. And the
government forces kept saying they could not stop the slaughtering because they
were too busy fighting with the RPF.” [Dallaire, T2-16]. According to Dallaire, the
deadlock might have been broken by a stronger “outside capability,” but this option
was never seriously considered. More than a thousand elite foreign troops were
mobilized to evacuate foreigners from Rwanda after April 6.11 Dallaire said that he
asked Belgian and French commanders to “modify their orders to let me establish a
force that would stop the massacres of threatened people, particularly in Kigali. The
answer was a categorical ‘No.’” [Dallaire, T1-76].12
French presidential advisor Hubert Védrine said he was unaware of Dallaire’s
proposal. “Nobody thought of pooling all these available forces, even outside of a UN
mandate, to do something in a unilateral fashion. With hindsight, perhaps we can
say that this was a huge pity. Since there were troops in place, they could certainly
have acted. But it seems to me that nobody requested this, and nobody envisaged it,
at the time.” [Védrine, T1-78].
Several participants pointed to a failure of imagination on the part of senior policymakers as a significant factor in the Rwandan tragedy. While there were numerous
warnings of an upsurge in violence in the event of a breakdown in the Arusha
accords, nobody imagined the scale of the horror as it actually unfolded. In the
words of Karel Kovanda, “people just did not understand the nature of the
beast…What was going on in Rwanda was so far outside the normal scope of a
diplomat’s experiences that it was hard to fathom…This is why it took us [on the UN
Security Council] so long to employ the word genocide, even though the NGOs had
been employing it for quite a while already before we started using it ourselves.”
[Kovanda, T2-27].
In addition to 2,539 UNAMIR peacekeepers, foreign troops in and around Rwanda during the
crucial period April 6-12 included: 24 French military advisors stationed in Kigali, 610 French troops
and 500-700 Belgian troops deployed to Kigali for the evacuation of their citizens, and 280 US
Marines deployed to Burundi to help with the evacuation of Americans.
12 In his book, Shake Hands with the Devil, (page 289), Dallaire states that he informed an unnamed
advisor to Boutros-Ghali on April 10 that “if I had four thousand effective troops, I could stop the
killing.”
11
20
The first recorded use of the term “genocide” by an international official to describe
events in Rwanda following the Habyarimana assassination occurred on April 9,
1994. The chief delegate of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC),
Philippe Gaillard, used the expression in a conversation with the Swiss journalist
Jean-Philippe Ceppi on the basis of reports that he was receiving from all over the
country. According to Ceppi, Gaillard “received the order from Geneva to speak very
freely to the media, a new practice for the Red Cross.” [Ceppi, T2-42]. Ceppi
subsequently used the word in an April 11 dispatch for Libération. [Ceppi, T2-43; BB
2-135]. But it was not until April 25 that UN Security Council members were first
briefed on “genocide” in Rwanda by the Secretary-General of Médecins Sans
Frontières after the violence spread to southern Rwanda and the town of Butare.
[BB 5-97].
3. Mysteries and controversies
Conference participants disagreed sharply on some key issues, notably the
interacting roles of France, the Habyarimana government, and the Rwandan
Patriotic Front. Such disagreements were scarcely surprising, given the diverse
background of the conference participants and the wide range of views that were
represented at the table. We heard differing interpretations about why the Arusha
agreements failed, and the extent to which the various political actors were
committed to the success of the peace process, as opposed to retaining or grabbing
power.
The afternoon session on the first day of the conference (Session II) was dominated
by a discussion about French policy toward Rwanda, particularly in the period
leading up to the genocide. Hubert Védrine said that French support for
Habyarimana was combined with “very strong political pressure…to reach a
political compromise” with the internal and external opposition. He said that, from
March 1993 onwards, Mitterrand began to think about how France would
“disengage” from Rwanda. [Védrine, T1-66]. Citing his own notes from a March 3,
1993 French cabinet meeting, Védrine quoted Mitterrand as saying, “We must get
out [of Rwanda], but only through the United Nations.” [BB 1-106]. Védrine recalled
Mitterrand’s dismayed reaction on April 6, 1994, following the assassination of
Habyarimana. “It is terrible,” he quoted the president as saying. “They are going to
massacre each other. Everything we have done since 1990 has been destroyed.”
[Védrine, T1-67].
Faustin Kagamé, senior media advisor to Rwandan president Paul Kagame, disputed
Védrine’s claim that French assistance to the Rwandan military was always
“conditional” on support for the peace and democratization process. [Kagamé, T180]. Rwandan Senator Jean Damascène Bizimana cited documents submitted to a
French parliamentary commission reporting that French military assistance to
Rwanda reached a level of 116 million francs in 1980, 190 million francs in 1990,
and 122 million francs in 1992. Bizimana said that these figures showed that France
21
“increased its military and technical aid” during “the period of peace negotiations, a
period when massacres were going on.” [Bizimana, T1-91, 92]. The director of
African Affairs at the French foreign ministry, Ambassador de La Sabliere, said that
no further French arms sales to Rwanda were authorized after August 1993, when
the Arusha agreements were signed. “The arms exports diminished very rapidly,
then they became non-lethal.” [de La Sabliere, T1-83].
Controversy also surrounded the role played by the RPF, and whether the rebel
movement was ever willing to agree to free elections in Rwanda, given its
identification with the minority Tutsi population. Filip Reyntjens, a former Belgian
human rights activist and author of several books on Rwanda, said it was a “major
mistake” to see the Rwandan conflict “in terms of good guys and bad guys. This is a
story of bad guys, period.” [Reyntjens, T2-76]. Michael Barnett, an American political
scientist assigned to the US mission to the United Nations during the genocide,
warned against equating the “crimes” of the two sides, which could be used as an
excuse for doing nothing. “What I hear you saying is…that there are bad guys
wherever you look and, as a consequence, there is moral equivalence and the
international community, or the United States, is off the hook.” [Barnett, T2-76].
One of the major unresolved mysteries from the genocide period concerns the
shootdown of the Habyarimana plane, the incident that provided the immediate
trigger for the genocide. Ambassador Swinnen noted that there had been several
investigations into the incident, including two French inquiries and a Rwandan
government inquiry, but no widely accepted conclusions. “I think we should be
indignant about the fact that the international community, twenty years later, has
still not commissioned an official international inquiry to answer the question: who
was responsible for this attack?”[Swinnen, T2-93].
There was general agreement that the withdrawal of most UN peacekeepers from
Rwanda at the very start of the genocide was “a disastrous decision [with]
horrendous consequences,” in the phrase of Nigeria’s UN envoy, Ibrahim Gambari.
[Gambari, T2-18]. The departure of the most capable UNAMIR units, led by the
Belgians, gave extremist Hutu militia a free rein in the capital Kigali. An estimated
500,000 to one million Rwandans, predominantly Tutsis, were murdered over the
next three months in organized killing sprees that spread from Kigali to other parts
of Rwanda. Johan Swinnen and Joyce Leader both described desperate appeals from
moderate Hutu military officers, calling for international intervention to end the
killing. [Swinnen, T2-46; Leader T2-50]. In an April 12, 1994 cable, Leader quoted a
senior Rwandan army officer, Colonel Leonidas Rusatira, as saying that the “killing
surpassed all imagination, with whole families being decimated” but that it “would
not be difficult for French and Belgian troops to gain control of the situation.”[BB 2142].
We heard differing accounts of why and how the UN Security Council adopted its
controversial Resolution 912 on April 21, 1994, reducing UNAMIR from 2,400
troops to a rump force of 270 troops. According to Ambassador Hannay, the Council
22
simply legitimized earlier decisions by the Belgian and Bangladeshi governments to
withdraw their national contingents. [Hannay, T2-14]. Former Council President
Colin Keating disputed Hannay’s version. “The only reason why [the authorized
level] went to 270 was because this was the one figure which the United States team
in New York would accept. I know because I was the one who was negotiating with
them. That was their bottom line.” [Keating, T2-30]. General Anyidoho pointed out
that more than 800 Ghanaian peacekeepers remained in Rwanda, despite the
withdrawal of 440 Belgians and 942 Bangladeshis. [Anyidoho, T2-15].
A declassified document obtained by conference organizers under the US Freedom
of Information Act shows that the Clinton administration favored an almost
complete withdrawal of UNAMIR from Rwanda as soon as the evacuation of foreign
nationals had been completed. In an April 12, 1994 cable, the US ambassador to the
United Nations, Madeleine Albright, said that Washington should consider “taking
the lead in the Security Council to authorize the evacuation of the bulk of UNAMIR,
while leaving behind a skeletal staff that might be able to facilitate a cease-fire and
any future political negotiations.” [BB 5-20]. On the same day, Belgium foreign
minister Claes informed UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali in Bonn that his
government had decided to withdraw its troops from Rwanda “at the earliest
possible date.” [BB 5-22].13
Several participants mentioned RPF opposition to a strengthening in the UNAMIR
mandate to allow the force to engage “in a combat role.” An RPF statement dated
April 30, 1994 insisted that the “time for UN intervention is long past” since the
genocide was “almost completed” and a “UN intervention at this stage can no longer
serve any useful purpose.”14 According to former State Department official David
Scheffer, the RPF position bolstered the arguments of Pentagon officials who were
opposed to military intervention of any kind in Rwanda. “It provided the basis for
cynical remarks at the policy table, which do not always come through in the
published documents.” [Scheffer, T2-88].
A former RPF representative in the United States, Ambassador Charles Murigande,
said the April 30 letter reflected frustration over the passivity of the international
community. “When the genocide started, instead of reinforcing UNAMIR, the
international community decided to withdraw almost all of UNAMIR. We felt
abandoned. Almost a whole month goes by, people are dying daily by the thousands,
and then we see a proposal for the reinforcement of UNAMIR. We interpreted this
proposal as a desire to do everything possible to save a government that had just
committed genocide.” [Murigande, T2-86].
See Mark Landler, “Declassified UN Cables reveal turning point in Rwanda crisis of 1994,” New
York Times, June 3, 2014.
14 Full text of the RPF April 30, 1994 statement is available here. The statement was signed by Gerald
Gahima and Claude Dusaidi on behalf of the RPF leadership. See also cable from New Zealand mission
to UN, C04272/NYK, April 8, 1994, BB 5-8.
13
23
There was a difference of opinion among participants over the importance of using
the term “genocide” to describe the ethnically-based mass killing that took place in
Rwanda. Czech UN Ambassador Karel Kovanda noted that “if you identify something
as genocide, you have to do something about it. If you do not do anything about it,
you are violating the Genocide Convention as well.” [Kovanda, T2-27].15 The UN
Security Council first used the term in an official document in a draft resolution
introduced by Kovanda on April 28, but the word was dropped in the final
resolution, at the insistence of non-aligned countries (including Rwanda). [Riza, T2102]. Former State Department official David Scheffer expressed concern that
debates over the “genocide” expression could delay an effective response. “Why?
Because of the legal analysis it invites, which delays and obfuscates what actually
needs to be done by policy makers.” Scheffer said he preferred the term “atrocity
crimes” which was a way of signaling policy makers that they needed “to respond
very effectively to what we know are crimes of high magnitude…What begins as a
crime against humanity may ultimately be determined to be a genocide. Who
knows? But we have to have a response.” [Scheffer, T2-88].
4. Lessons from Rwanda
The final session of the conference was devoted to summarizing the lessons of the
Rwanda genocide. Participants differed in their interpretation of key events, but
there was a common understanding that international institutions like the United
Nations and individual member states failed Rwanda both before and during the
genocide. Some of the most pertinent lessons to be drawn from the Rwanda tragedy
had already been mentioned in earlier sessions, including:
There should be much greater coordination between peacemakers and peace
implementers. [Dallaire, Mpungwe, Keating]
Civil society should be involved in the peace process. Public education is
vital. [Mujawamariya, Nshimiyimana, Leader, Swinnen, Guichaoua]
Much more can be achieved if Big Powers are acting in concert, rather than at
cross purposes with each other. [Védrine, Belliard]
Greater attention should be paid to the selection of key leaders of
international peacekeeping missions. [Ould Abdullah, Anyidoho, Hannay,
Riza]
Have a plan B. Prepare for the worst case scenario as well as the best case
scenario. [Kovanda, Gambari]
Signed in Paris on December 9, 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide defines “genocide” as acts of mass violence against “a national, ethnical, racial, or
religious group” committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part” the group. [Article 2 of
Genocide Convention].
15
24
Adapt your strategy to changing circumstances. Display tactical flexibility.
There was broad consensus that the international community failed to adapt
quickly enough to the collapse of the Arusha agreements. [Hannay, Dallaire]
Rely on regional organizations, such as the African Union, in addition to the
UN and the P-5. [Gambari, Mazimhaka]
While acknowledging that some progress has been made in correcting the flaws in
the international system that became apparent in 1994, participants agreed that
much more needs to be done to prevent future mass atrocities and genocides.
Several participants referred to recommendations contained in the August 2000
Report by the Panel on UN Peacekeeping Operations chaired by Under-SecretaryGeneral Lakhdar Brahimi. Created in the aftermath of the Rwanda and Srebrenica
tragedies, the Brahimi commission identified many shortcomings in the work of the
UN Security Council and Secretariat. Specific suggestions for improvement included
clear and achievable peacekeeping mandates, more robust rules of engagement,
better funding for peacekeeping operations, a greater reliance on regional
organizations such as the African Union, improvements in mission leadership, more
effective public information policies, and a rapid deployment capability.
Former Security Council members noted that some of the Brahimi
recommendations have been carried out while others remain unfulfilled. The former
UK representative, Lord Hannay, said that there had been “huge steps forward
between 1994 and today.” He cited, in particular, improved coordination with the
African Union and other regional bodies, and the development of a “Responsibility
to Protect” doctrine, displacing “the original UN charter provision that you do not
intervene in the internal affairs of Member States.” On the other hand, Hannay also
noted that “Responsibility to Protect” was “very contentious.” “Advocates of R2P
need to explain it better, make it more user friendly, less a recipe for military
intervention, more an instrument of prevention,” Hannay said. [Hannay, T2-78].
Ambassador de La Sabliere, who served as France’s representative on the Security
Council at the time R2P was being negotiated in 2005, agreed that the doctrine was
“a great advance” but noted that it did not have universal support. “After what
happened in Libya, we are seeing a bit of a brake on the application of this
principle,” said de La Sabliere, referring to the use of international air power to
overthrow the Gaddafi regime in 2011. [de La Sabliere, T2-83]. De La Sabliere said
that there had been “no progress” at all on the development of a UN rapid
deployment force. “The United Nations system is not equipped to respond to an
emergency.” Former UN Assistant Secretary-General Riza said that a rapid
deployment force had been “a dream” of the UN for fifty years. “We know we are
never going to get it.” [Riza, T1-55].
The former Nigerian representative, Ibrahim Gambari, said that Rwanda showed
that the UN Secretariat was too much under the control of the “big boys,” meaning
25
the permanent five members of the UN Security Council. Gambari said that the
African Union had decided to “set aside the principle of noninterference in the
affairs of Member States, particularly when it comes to genocide” and were
gradually “developing a rapid deployment capability.” The Nigerian ambassador
said that Africans were beginning to understand that they “have to rely primarily on
themselves in responding to massive violations of human rights and genocide.”
[Gambari, T2-70, 71].
Former RPF Vice-Chairman Mazimhaka agreed that cooperation between the UN
and the African Union was essential if future genocides were to be prevented. He
said there could have been a different outcome in Rwanda had a joint UN-AU rapid
reaction force been available in 1994. “Today there are such forces doing good
things. Most interesting for me is to the Central African Republic where the French
army and the Rwandese army are working closely together to try to save the
situation in Bangui. So nothing is taboo.” [Mazimhaka, T2-85].
According to Ambassador Ould Abdallah, the Secretary-General’s special
representative in Burundi in 1993-94, there has been “some progress” in the
screening and briefing of special representatives and force commanders but “this
needs to be a top priority. More attention must be given to the selection of Force
Commanders and SRSGs by the Secretary-General and the Security Council.” [Ould
Abdallah, T2-95]. Ambassador Hannay said that, in the case of Rwanda, there was
“pretty overwhelming evidence” that the SRSG was “a liability and made practically
no contribution” while the Force Commander was “very good.” He added that the
UN “has still not mastered the art of choosing a good team who work together, a
Special Representative and a Force Commander. They need some more structured
system for choosing these people.” [Hannay, T2-79].
US participants said that the horrifying example of inaction in Rwanda encouraged
the Clinton administration to be “more proactive” elsewhere, including Haiti and
Kosovo. David Scheffer, a former aide to US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine
Albright, said that PDD-25 was amended to include a stipulation known as the
“inaction clause,” requiring policy-makers to consider the consequences of doing
nothing.16 In the case of Haiti and Kosovo, Scheffer noted, “that was the criterion
that liberated us to be more proactive than we were in Rwanda…We made some
terrible mistakes, but we did take away lessons that we applied in later years.”
[Scheffer, T2-90].
Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy and Human Rights John Shattuck
agreed that the Rwanda tragedy set the stage for a more positive outcome in Haiti in
September 2004. He recalled briefing President Clinton about attacks on civilians
Scheffer is referencing Paragraph G of Annex I of the declassified version of PDD-25, available here.
Among “Factors to be Considered in Voting on UN Peace Operations Resolutions,” the annex lists the
following: “The political, economic and humanitarian consequences of inaction by the international
community have been weighed and are considered unacceptable.”
16
26
being carried out by Haitian paramilitary forces. According to Shattuck, Clinton
responded as follows: “That looks like Rwanda. We are not going to let that happen
again.” [Shattuck, T2-23, 24].
Several participants concluded that good intentions can sometimes produce harmful
consequences. US diplomat Joyce Leader mentioned “very profound disruptions in
societies” caused by “changes in power relationships” resulting from western
democracy promotion efforts. “I have come to the conclusion that we need to
acknowledge the link between violence and promotion of change [by the
international community], or democracy and peace in the case of Rwanda. We
should acknowledge the negative consequences that result in some cases from the
promotion of democratization.” [Leader, T2-92]. Ambassador Swinnen said that
democracy was “an important value but every country understands democracy in its
own way.” Westerners should “stop giving Africans the idea that they make us
happy by organizing elections.”[Swinnen, T2-94].
By contrast, Swinnen said, respect for human rights was a “universal priority
without distinction of ideology, national interests, or geopolitical considerations.”
UN human rights official Bacre Ndiaye agreed that international human rights
standards should be “universally applied.” He said there was no reason why
“Rwandan citizens, whatever their ethnic group or political affiliation or social
origin, should not have the same fundamental rights as all other citizens of the
world.” He called for the creation of an international Committee on the Prevention
of Genocide and UN Special Rapporteur on Genocide Prevention, as recommended
by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a January 1994 speech in Stockholm.
[Ndiaye, T2-99].17 Neither recommendation has been implemented so far.
According to several participants, the Rwanda tragedy demonstrated the need for a
vigorous international human rights movement with sufficient political clout to
bring pressure on western governments to prevent crimes against humanity.
Organizations like Human Rights Watch and Médecins Sans Frontières mounted
major public education campaigns in the case, but the results were disappointing.
After witnessing the early atrocities in Kigali, Doctor Jean-Hervé Bradol of Médecins
Sans Frontières also lobbied the French and US governments to intervene to halt the
genocide. Bradol said that MSF noticed a “change in the rhetoric of French officials”
by the beginning of June, almost two months into the genocide. At a private meeting
with MSF officials on June 14, President Mitterrand described the interim Rwandan
government as “a gang of assassins”. Bradol also traveled to Washington to try to
persuade the Clinton administration “to give some of their armored personnel
carriers from Somalia to UNAMIR, to make it possible to evacuate the wounded
across the front lines.” Because of bureaucratic obstacles, the APCs did not arrive in
time to be useful. [Bradol, T2-73].
See Kofi Annan, Keynote Address to the Stockholm International Forum on Preventing Genocide,
January 26, 1994, available here.
17
27
Following her escape from Kigali on April 12, Monique Mujawamariya became a key
player in the efforts by Human Rights Watch to inform the US government and
American public opinion about events in Rwanda. Together with the organization’s
Rwanda expert, Alison des Forges, Mujawamariya made the rounds of senior
officials in Washington, including National Security Advisor Anthony Lake.
Mujawamariya summed up her talks in Washington by citing a conversation with a
leading African-American Congressman, who told her: “Americans do not have
friends, Americans have interests, and there are no interests in Rwanda that could
justify coffins full of Marines as we saw in Somalia.” [Mujawamariya, T2-65].
The importance of leadership
In addition to lessons learned albeit incompletely implemented, the twentieth
anniversary of the Rwandan genocide offered conference participants the
opportunity to reflect on the importance of leadership and individual responsibility.
The Rwanda tragedy demonstrated that even modest actions by institutions or
individuals could make a difference. Mujawamariya credited Massachusetts senator
Edward Kennedy with saving her children through a well-timed phone call to the
Rwandan ambassador in Washington. [Mujawamariya, T2-64]. According to a study
by Human Rights Watch, the much-reduced force of less than 1,000 UNAMIR
peacekeepers was able to protect more than 20,000 Rwandans, who might
otherwise have been killed.” Dallaire established this protection in response to the
overwhelming needs on the spot, not as a result of orders from New York,” the HRW
study noted.18 “In an emergency situation, my feeling is that either you take
responsibility or you resign,” said Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, the Secretary-General’s
Special Representative in Bujumbura, who helped avert mass killings in Burundi
following the second assassination of a Burundian president in less than six
months.19 [Ould Abdallah, T1-111].
“I believe that individual human beings can make a difference… but we are not going
to make a difference unless we speak up,” said Ambassador Prudence Bushnell, who
called Colonel Théoneste Bagosora and other senior Rwandan officials during the
genocide to urge them to halt the killings. Bushnell drew a distinction between
“management” of a crisis, which “means doing things right”, and “leadership” during
a crisis, which “means doing the right thing.” Bushnell said that members of the
United Nations Security Council needed to be “held accountable” for their actions.
“The non-transparent way in which we did business as governments, and in the
Security Council, is behind us,” Bushnell said. [Bushnell, T2-90, 91].
Alison Des Forges, Leave None to Tell the Story, 630.
Burundi president Cyprien Ntaryamira was killed in the same plane crash on April 6, 1994, as
Rwandan President Habyarimana. Ntaryamira became president of Burundi on February 5, 1994,
following the assassination of Melchior Ndadaye on October 21, 1994.
18
19
28
It seems appropriate that the final word in this report should go to a survivor of the
Rwanda genocide, Monique Mujawamariya, who cited absence of leadership at
different levels as a primary cause of her country’s tragedy. She also alluded to
President Clinton’s March 1998 “apology” to Rwandan genocide victims in which he
stated that “all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after
day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and the speed with which you
were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror.”
I no longer believe in the international community. It is like a mythical dragon
which everyone fears but which does not actually exist. No one knows what it does.
However, I do believe in great powers. They certainly exist. I believe it was the
great powers who abandoned Rwanda. Why did the great powers abandon
Rwanda? Because the officials who could have done something to make sure that
great powers would be involved did not do anything. There is a kind of
professionalism without soul, without sensibility. People sitting in offices cease to
be human. These officials did not transmit the information to all those important
offices in the United Nations, and therefore the information did not circulate.
Because the information did not circulate, no decision could be taken. Everybody
thought that each person in his own corner had the power to draw conclusions
without consulting others. I think this is what sentenced Rwanda. [Mujawamariya,
T2-65].
29
Annex 1
Conference Agenda
Sunday, June 1
Dinner
Informal discussion.
Monday, June 2: Failure to Prevent
9:30 am – 12:30 pm: Working Session 1
“Peacemakers and Peacekeepers: The Promise and Perils of Arusha, 1990-1993”
Background to Arusha, e.g. Mitterrand’s La Baule speech, June 6, 1990;
introduction of multi-party system; RPF invasion of October 1, 1990
Political negotiations (July 1992-January 1993)
Massacres of Tutsi and RPF offensive of February 8, 1993
Military negotiations in Arusha, signing of Arusha agreements, August 1993
Conversation between “Peacemakers” and “Peacekeepers”
2:00pm – 5:00 pm: Working Session 2
“The Failed Peace: October 1993-April 1994”
UNSC vote to authorize peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, October 5, 1993
Assassination of Burundi president Melchior Ndadaye (October 21, 1993)
and the arrival of UNAMIR in Kigali
Jean-Pierre warning, January 10, 1994
Belgian call for a strengthening of UNAMIR, February 25, 1994
Shoot down of Habyarimana plane, killing of Belgian peacekeepers, and
beginning of the genocide, April 6-11, 1994
Tuesday, June 3: Failure to Prevent
9:30 am – 12:30 pm: Working Session 3
“Inside the UN Security Council, April –July 1994”
What did we know and when did we know it?
The UNAMIR withdrawal decision, April 11-21, 1994
Debating the “G-word”, April 21-May 5, 1994
Ending the genocide, May 15-July 18, 1994
Operation Turquoise and the victory of the RPF
Unresolved mysteries and controversies
2:00 pm – 5:00 pm: Working Session 4
“Lessons from Rwanda”
30
Annex 2
Conference Participants
(Unless otherwise stated, positions are those held in 1990-1994)
Major-General Henry Anyidoho, Deputy UNAMIR Force commander
Michael Barnett, Political Officer at US Mission to United Nations
Jean-Christophe Belliard, French observer in Arusha, currently director of
African Affairs at the French Foreign Ministry
Dr. Jean Damascène Bizimana,Rwandan senator, 2014
Dr. Jean-Hervé Bradol, Médecins sans Frontiéres representative in Rwanda
Colette Braeckman, Africa specialist for Belgian newspaper Le Soir.
Prudence Bushnell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in
the US State Department
Jean-Philippe Ceppi, reporter for Libération and Swiss radio
Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire, UNAMIR Force Commander
Jean-Marc Rochereau de La Sabliere, director of Africa Bureau at French
foreign ministry
Ibrahim Gambari, Nigerian representative on the UN Security Council, and
President of the Council in May 1994.
Dr. James Gasana, Minister of Defense of Rwanda, 1992-1993.
André Guichaoua, French sociologist and author
Lord David Hannay, UK permanent representative on the UN Security
Council.
Faustin Kagamé, communications advisor to Rwandan President Paul
Kagame, 2014
Colin Keating, New Zealand representative on the UN Security Council, and
President of the Council in April 1994
Karel Kovanda, Czech representative on the UN Security Council, and
President of the Council in January 1994
Joyce Leader, Deputy Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Kigali
Patrick Mazimhaka, Vice-Chairman of the Rwandan Patriotic Front
Linda Melvern, British investigative journalist and author
Edward Mortimer, Chief Program Advisor to the Salzburg Global Seminar
2014
Ami Mpunge, Tanzanian facilitator to the Arusha peace process
Monique Mujawamariya, Rwandan human rights activist
Charles Murigande, Washington representative of the Rwandan Patriotic
Front
Jean-Marie Vianney Ndagijimana, Rwandan ambassador to Paris
Bacre Ndiaye, Special UN Rapporteur
Venuste Nshimiyimana, UNAMIR press office.
Ahmedou Ould Abdallah, Special Representative of the UN SecretaryGeneral in Burundi
31
Filip Reyntjens, Belgian scholar and author
Iqbal Riza, Assistant Secretary-General in the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations at the UN
David Scheffer, senior advisor to US Representative to the UN, Madeleine
Albright
John Shattuck, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights,
and Labor
Johan Swinnen, Belgian ambassador to Rwanda
Hubert Védrine, Secretary-General of the French presidency
Don Webster, lead prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
1999-2012.
Conference Staff
Michael Abramowitz, Director of the Levine Institute for Holocaust
Education, US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Mark Bailey, Special Assistant to the President at The Hague Institute for
Global Justice
Tom Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive
Michael Dobbs, Senior Advisor to the Simon-Skjodt Center for the
Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Nadia Ficara, Director of Donor Travel Programs and the VIP Speakers
Bureau at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Cameron Hudson, Director of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of
Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Marie-Laure Poiré, Manager for Events and Communications at The Hague
Institute for Global Justice
Kristin Scalzo, Research Assistant at the Simon-Skjodt Center for the
Prevention of Genocide at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Emily Willard, Research Associate at the National Security Archive
Abiodun Williams, President of The Hague Institute for Global Justice
32
