Causes of Rwandan Genocide still not addressed
November 3rd, 2009 by Wil Robinson
It’s noticeable as soon as you cross the border from Uganda.
A palpable anxiety, hanging in the air over the country: a sense of apprehension. Rwanda feels like it’s trying to enjoy a brief respite from violence, knowing that a similar future is inevitable. The genocide of 1994 may be in the past, but the causes have not been addressed.
If Rwanda continues down the path it’s on now – despite the infrastructure development in Kigali, Rick Warren’s attempts to create a “purpose-driven nation,” and all the good intentions and foreign aid of international organizations – it won’t be long before genocide surfaces again.
And I get the feeling that deep down, many Rwandans sense it.
There were several factors that led to the 1994 genocide, but land pressures were probably the primary cause. A country of 8 million that relied on agriculture, in a land smaller than the state of Maryland, simply couldn’t continue to support population growth. Nearly every square inch of Rwanda’s steep hillsides is deforested and used for growing crops.
Add the authoritarian government of Habyarimana, the Hutu president that had held power since the early 1970s. Since independence, the Tutsi – a minority but a favorite of the colonial powers – had been seeking to restore their power. In the early 1990s, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Paul Kagame, was trying to destabilize the government from bases in Uganda.
But the fuse that set the whole thing off was the media. “Hutu Power Radio,” as it was known, fueled ethnic hatred as an outlet for the economic and land frustrations in the country. It’s an age-old recipe for controlling an angry public: channel the anger away from authority figures and toward the minority “other.” When the shipments of Chinese-made machetes started arriving across the country, the solution became obvious.
![[...at a Genocide Memorial in southern Rwanda, the clothes of victims found in a mass grave have been collected and still remain, 15 years on...]](http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/clothes_1.jpg)
[...at Murambi Genocide Memorial in southern Rwanda, the clothes of victims found in a mass grave have been collected and still remain, 15 years on...]
Unfortunately, despite the reconstruction efforts of the international community, the major causes of the genocide – insufficient land area, an authoritarian government and the abuse of media – all still exist in Rwanda.
Other than two national parks, the entire country is deforested and farmed. The only trees left are non-native eucalyptus, a fast-growing tree that provides firewood.
Paul Kagame has been the effective leader of Rwanda since 1994, first directing a figurehead transitional government. He was installed as president in 2000, and finally elected in 2003. He is expected to run for president again in 2010. That’s at least 16 years and counting…
Throw in the Rwanda military’s penchant for interfering with its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Congo (at the behest of Kagame and his RPF-government). Tutsi militias, backed by Rwanda, have been on a 15-year, human-rights-abusing warpath of revenge against Hutus in the Congo (many genocidaires fled to the Congo and are a primary factor in Congo’s conflict). Of course, there is also Rwanda’s long-held claims that large swaths of Eastern Congo are actually part of Rwanda (that would solve the lack of land, wouldn’t it?).
But don’t forget a complicit media. The Rwanda Dispatch, a glossy monthly “news” magazine sold on the streets of Kigali, had an article praising the new media laws in Rwanda. Why do they think that “both journalists…and media consumers…will be celebrating?”
“[A new law requires] minimum capital for prospective investors…Some people have been setting up media firms, especially newspapers, without figuring out sustainability of resources for administrative and other costs…
[T]he result has often been publications registered as weeklies, but actually coming out after three months…
[The lack of start-up capital] had a lot to do with the abundant freedom exercised by all, including those having less than a million francs ($20,000 USD) as initial investment, to set up so-called newspapers.
[This law] will no doubt deal a blow to the lazy, irresponsible, malicious and amateurish press.”
Really? Saying you’ll publish once a week and then (heaven forbid!) only publishing once a month is a serious problem? (I’ll ignore the fact that the Dispatch apparently doesn’t have enough capital themselves to renew their website domain…)
As a sign of their responsible and professional journalism, the next story in the magazine is a 2-page hagiography on Paul Kagame. It’s so over-the-top NOT journalism, it’s embarrassing to read:
“…Paul Kagame – the man who has come to personify hope, vision and reconciliation world over…but of whose transformational prowess and ideas are beyond [his] territorial boundaries.
In this unfolding appeal, I wish to give my attention to the man the world has come to admire most because of his superlative performances…The man is Paul Kagame….”
It goes on from there – but you get the idea (I wonder how much Congolese civilians admire Kagame, given his support for pro-Rwandan militias operating in the Congo). The rest of the magazine is filled with pro-RPF, pro-Rwandan government, pro-Kagame propaganda. The daily newspaper, The New Times, isn’t much better.
![[...more than 50,000 Tutsi were slaughtered inside the Murambi school in southern Rwanda during the genocide. The rooms still house the dead - men, women, hcildren, and babies - preserved in lime and all with tell-tale signs of murder: heads with machete marks still visible; legs cut clean through, distorted limbs mangled by hate...]](http://www.internationalpoliticalwill.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tarp-rooms_1.jpg)
[...more than 50,000 Tutsi were slaughtered inside the Murambi school in southern Rwanda during the genocide. The rooms still house the dead - men, women, children, and babies - preserved in lime and all with tell-tale signs of murder: heads with machete marks still visible; legs cut clean through, limbs mangled by clubs and garden hoes...]
Rwanda, still trying to recover from mass murder, where their friends and neighbors were among the perpetrators, faces the same three problems almost two decades later:
- Pushed to the brink by unsustainable land use and over-population, they have done little to address the problem.
- After suffering under one authoritarian government, they have replaced it with another.
- A media that followed the government line to the point that they incited mass murder has used that lesson to justify a crackdown on media that doesn’t follow the new government line.
In reality, the genocide never really ended – it just transplanted itself into the DRC, causing a 15-year conflict. The international community and media seem content to ignore the Congo and the 4 million dead, conveniently misidentifying it as a “civil war” (which is also what the world said in 1994 about Rwanda) and placating themselves with slogans like “never again.”
Meanwhile, international aid workers have developed a fetish for anything Rwanda, driving up the cost of living in Kigali far beyond what average Rwandans can afford. The Tutsi have been labeled as victims and given a free pass in world politics by an international community that feels guilty for letting one million people be murdered. The Hutu have wrongly been generalized, stereotyped and demonized as tribal, blood-thirsty and hateful, and are used as evidence that ethnicity – not economics – was the cause of the genocide.
The new generation of Rwandans has no memory of 1994, but the causes are still there – no land, authoritarian and unresponsive government, and a censored and controlled media. How long before the young are manipulated into perpetrating the same crimes?
The clock is ticking.
Tags: Rwanda, hate, 1994, media, authoritarianism
My impression of your article is that you went to Rwanda with a specific mindset, a preconceived notion of impending doom. You would have gotten a vastly different impression if you’d gone to Rwanda with an open mind and heart rather than with the expectation of seeing her as she was in 1994. I am extremely offended that you would say that another genocide is inevitable! My impression of Rwanda when I visited this beautiful country this past spring was totally the opposite. I was very impressed by the progress this country has made in the last 15 years. Never once did I feel threatened or intimidated. Quite the opposite! I was welcomed with literally open arms and made to feel like I was at home. Did you even make the effort to spend any time with the incredible people of this country or were you too terrified to leave the safety of your hotel room? These people are incredibly strong and the most forgiving souls that I’m sure I’ll every have the pleasure of knowing. Yes knowing, because I made many friends in the short time I spent in Rwanda. Yes this country has land issues. Yes there is poverty. But if you’d actually done any comprehensive research of Rwanda you’d know that land was never the primary reason for the all the chaos and turmoil over the years. Of course there are still people there who are apprehensive. Wouldn’t you be if you’d survived such tragedy? And most certainly there are still people living in Rwanda and being sheltered in countries across the world who continue to promote and incite more violence. And you obviously never stepped foot outside the city limits into the forests or you’d know (or maybe you wouldn’t) that are a vast range of native tree and plant species all over this country and not just non-native eucalyptus! And you probably don’t know that they have many native animal, bird and insect species as well! As for the media I can speak to your biased opinion of the Rwanda New Times. If you read the New Times on a daily basis as I do you would know that this paper has no issue with publishing articles and/or letters that question government policy and is continually exposing corruption. As for your opinion of Mr. Kagame…do you live in a country that is completely supportive of its politicians? I live in Canada and we, as a people, very often find ourselves questioning and objecting to our leaders policies and decisions. It’s called democracy and that’s what Rwanda is trying so heroically to achieve. As for the international community providing aid due to guilt…we most certainly should be helping Rwanda! We ignored and abandoned them in their darkest time! And your comment that the new generations have no memory of the genocide! They live with it each and every day! It is their history and if you’d spent any time at all with the survivors you’d know that they tell the children about the past so they, as the future of Rwanda, will be more tolerant, more compassionate, more understanding, more forgiving and more willing to resolve issues in a peaceful way without violence. It’s so sad to know that there are still so many people out there who have no real understanding of Rwanda and her amazing people. Please do more research before you publish more of your propaganda because there are people who will believe your words without knowing the entire story.
Dear Wil Robinson,
Excellent analysis of today’s Rwanda. I take it as an urgent call for action on the part of the international community. God forbid the genocide happens again, but should it happen, you’ll have done your part in forewarning the world. For us in Rwanda, life is hell under a fascist dictatorship that enjoys international support. One way or another, we know that this will soon be history. That is, regardless of how long it takes.
Marie Collins–
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion and to make assumptions. But there is a big difference between the “tourist” Rwanda that you describe and the real Rwanda. And if you think the genocide is a thing of the past, ask the Congolese what they think. They’ve been dealing with repercussions for 15 years.
Peacemaker–
Thanks for your comment. It is an urgent call. Realistically, I can’t imagine another genocide - certainly not on the scale of 1994 - but I think political and/or economic violence could be directed toward ethnic groups - much as we saw in Kenya in 2007/2008 after the elections.
Too often it seems, socio-political-economic factors are the instigators of violence, but it is reported/recorded for history as “ethnic.” Ethnicity is simply an easy rallying cry, a flag to wave in front of the masses that can justify violence far easier than economic or political reasons. It’s used by people seeking power (much as religion is) to unite people behind radical ideas and actions that otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to justify.
We’ll see what next year’s elections bring…but I don’t see Kagame relinquishing power anytime soon - at least not willingly. A strong people’s voice - with international support for democratic justice - could persuade Kagame to change his mind…
WiL Robinson,
You actually talk blindly, I’ve just now realized.
You yourself have touched on the exact primary cause of the 1994 genocide: politicians’ propaganda rallying the populace around the ethnicity card. Poverty, land scarcity, etc. are used as secondary rallying tools.
President Kagame and the RPF-led government that he heads, as well as the rest of us concerned Rwandans, are very much aware of that.
We are addressing those problems through reconciliation and unity campaigns, impunity eradication efforts, investment and privatisation as well as regional integration drives so as to create a knowledge-based economy that sees itself rather as being part of a wider diversity than a unitary Hutu-Tutsi confine.
Don’t mislead the world.
Still willing to read ‘The New Times’? See my “Peddlers of falsehoods on Rwanda in increasing abundance”.
Butamire Pan–
Your article (http://allafrica.com/stories/200911130200.html) takes many of my quotes out of context. It is not “Rwanda” that is on a human-rights abusing warpath in Congo - but “Tutsi militias” - an indisputable fact.
Secondly, I did not equate the Dispatch with Hutu-Power Radio - I merely pointed out that a controlled and censored media leads to abuses like pre-1994. Can you dispute that?
Third, you claim that Rwanda is at peace with DRC. Really? Would you like to inform the thousands of refugees still unable to return to their homes because of the various militias-some of which were funded via Kigali at the outset- still operating in DRC? I’m sure they’d like to know that Rwanda and the DRC are friends. Of course, if you speak of the two authoritarian leaders finding common ground (Kabila, who is isolated in Kinshasa, and Kagame), then yes, the elite have made up and are friends.
The land problem. Can you explain how Rwanda has addressed it? At least 90% of the plots of land are still unsustainably-farmed, with erosion and a complete lack of terrace cropping. With soil that is mostly clay, how is allowing the nutrient-rich topsoil to wash away considered “addressing the land problem?” If sustainable methods are used, yields will increase, and land pressures will subside.
The knowledge-based economy you speak of - the new “tech” development - is, by all means, a fabulous movement. Once primary and secondary education are guaranteed for every citizen - it will flourish and pay off. But that’s a long way off, and is contingent upon guaranteed education for a generation.
As for the rest of your claims - I would love to see the day that privatization and and foreign investment actually do more for the ordinary people than for the few elite…let me know when that happens.
Instead, what I see is a suppression of economic activity. Everyone in Kigali needs a vest to engage in business - you can’t even sell a newspaper without being licensed (and controlled).
Does this make Kigali appear to be a developed city? I guess it does at a glance.
But in reality, it simply masks over the millions that could otherwise be engaged in a truly free economy. Commerce in Rwanda is tightly controlled, and only by a few. Truly free enterprise is non-existent. Rwanda lacks the free entrepreneurship that Ugandans enjoy across that border that you seem to think I imagined.
True development isn’t a facade put up for foreigners and tourists to see when they visit. It isn’t AC restaurants and luxury goods stores.
True development is when everybody participates - and is allowed to participate. Unfortunately, I don’t see that as the case in Rwanda. The Dispatch said themselves that 8% of the population in Rwanda has access to a computer - so I suppose that tech-savvy development plan isn’t for everyone, just the 8% that are already in a financial position to be able to access computers.
Yes, GDP is increasing, and yes, per capita income is increasing. But you and I know those are misleading figures, easily skewed by a very select few that make most of the money.
Is Rwanda better off now than 1994? Of course it is, no one’s disputing that.
But can average Rwandans afford to travel on the new express buses with assigned seating? Can average Rwandans afford live in Kigali? Can groups of white foreigners sit at coffee shops in Kigali and discuss “how to help Rwanda develop” and come up with real solutions without actually including a Rwandan in the conversation? Does the average Rwandan harvest a higher yield on their crop? Does the average Rwandan have access to a free press that is open to criticizing leadership? Does the average Rwandan hear the opposition voices in that media that dare to oppose Kagame?
No.
In the end, I would love to be proved wrong. And I don’t envision some genocide anywhere near the scale of 1994. As I mentioned in the comment above, I fear violence incorrectly identified as “ethnic” breaking out over economic or political issues - much as in Kenya in 2007/2008, or in India (just about all the time…).
But media (western media) doesn’t like to report that people are pissed about economics or politics (after all, our media is owned by huge corporations that profit from “free” trade”) - the media salivates over “ethnic” problems and usually misrepresent events to sensationalize the story for Western (and uninformed) audiences.
My piece is not a Rwanda-hating tirade. It is simply a warning to the international community - as human beings, we have a responsibility for each other, no matter which country or nation. And right now, that means paying attention and getting at the real roots of problems instead of just superficially addressing the effects.
Or, I guess we could just keep going along convincing ourselves that everything is okay, that the genocide is in the past, and that the West has no more responsibility (and never did) for the 1 million dead- or the 8 million still alive. We can just go along our merry way, confident in the righteousness of Kagame and the RPF, giving them a free pass to do as they please without fear of consequences.
And then the western media ( as they are prone to do) can blame “tribal” tendencies when violence does break out. Because it’s not our fault - it’s those ‘Africans.’
Butamire Pan–
P.S. - By the way, I am extremely critical of all media (as many posts on this site shows) - especially Western - and hold all journalists to the same standards.
Wil Robinson,
I can see you are genuinely COMPLETELY astray, because you talk about a Rwanda completely alien to me. And I am TOTALLY sincere when I say that.
If I don’t get time to respond to your bizarre ramblings, I promise to get someone else who does, if for nothing else, at least to give you an opinion of another Rwandan, much as Marie Collins has done a stellar job of it.
Ain’t done with you yet, watch this space!
P.S. - Wil Robinson, could “Peacemaker” by any chance have held a machete? And could he be advising you, perhaps, so that you just came out here to confirm his stories?
Otherwise, why not use his name? Or he fears for his life, because Kagame does not allow free speech?
Butamire:
I take your lack of evidence to dispute facts to mean you have no answer, and are content to keep living in a world where your own GDP/per capita is the only one that really matters.
And your equating others who disagree as being mass-murderers is a common tactic used by those who wish to silence opposition. It smacks of Israelis who accuse any critics of their apartheid state as being anti-Semitic and Nazis. Or of US Republicans that accuse any Americans who criticize the military as being pro-Al Qaeda.
I had hoped this would simply stimulate discussion - yet I see it’s quite obvious that you have no intention of discussion.
Given your unwillingness to debate with facts, and your personal (and baseless) attacks on other commentors who disagree with you, consider your thread now closed.
And by the way, thanks for including a link to my site on allafrica.com. I appreciate the free publicity…