Nora Lyons
What information is the SABC program getting out to the world in this video? Do you
think you get a full picture of what's occurring on the ground from this reporting? What
questions would you have asked?
The SABC video shows the aftermath of one of the attacks by the Hutu militias against the Tutsi.
Property is destroyed and people have been killed, yet they still must focus on preparing for
another battle. General Kagame is a prime leader of the Tutsi group. The reporter asks where the
weapons come from, and they explain how many have come from South Africa. They focus on
how the Hutu militias have violently massacred people and thrown them into wells to dispose of
their bodies. They have refugee camps for those trying to escape the war, but they are considered
lucky because at least they survived. The hospital system and aid is not going well, and it is hard
to reach the refugee camps. For the injured that can reach the hospitals, they can't provide
extensive care.
I don’t think we can get a full picture of what is happening on the ground because we only get a
report from one side. It is not possible to know the full picture without insight on both sides. We
also don’t get information on why the genocide is happening, rather just footage of the aftermath
or active battle. The video relies on the fact that people have previous knowledge, but if they
don’t it's impossible to understand the full picture.
If I were the reporter I would have asked more questions about people's opinions on why this is
happening, what it means, how they feel about it, get more emotions-based responses along with
the facts. I would also ask for an extensive response on what started the genocide. To be an
extraordinary and unbiased reporter, I would try to get insight from both sides, but as I am
detached from the situation I do not know if this is possible or if Hutus are open to talk.
What explains the Clinton Administration's hesitation to call the events in Rwanda
“Genocide.” What does this say about the “rules-based” world order that supposedly
followed the end of the Cold War?
The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment established a legal
obligation with the term genocide. Because of these “rules”, the US would be obligated to
intervene if they established it as genocide. The Clinton Administration did not want to intervene
in the Rwanda genocide, therefore they avoided calling it a genocide. They were reluctant to help
because they were hoping to avoid another failed mission like the one in Somalia. They did not
have complete control over legal jurisdiction in Rwanda as the State Department May 20 1994
document states, “the U.S. has no criminal jurisdiction over acts of genocide occurring within
Rwanda unless they are committed by U.S citizens or they fall under another criminal provision
of the U.S. law.” However, this causes issues to arise with the rule-based world that developed
after the Cold War. The end of the Cold War was meant to signal a shift toward greater global
cooperation and the protection of human rights. However, these agreements caused the U.S. to
disregard the evident genocide that was occurring in Rwanda for their own interests. If they were
not obligated to help, it would be much simpler to establish genocide and gain support from
other allies. The lack of action in Rwanda reflects a common theme that occurred in this
rules-based world order. The international community was dominated by powerful states that
failed to take action when it did not align with their national interests.
What role does the memory of trauma play in nation-building? What do you think about
the reconciliation process described in this video? How is Rwanda a different nation today,
and what does it tell you about the interplay between development and human rights?
Victoria Uwonkunda notes that the physical transformations are remarkable, you see tall
buildings and better infrastructure. However, she still notes that some places have remained the
same and the people still speak her mother tongue which brings a sense of home. Seeing her old
school brought back memories of how deep-seated the divisions in her country were. They
divided the children by Hutu’s and Tutsi’s four years before the genocide occurred. However, in
the search for reconciliation, some people feel that their trauma is not being accounted for and
they can’t discuss the genocide openly. Victoria meets with Christophe Mbonyingabo, the leader
of the Christian reconciliation group, CARSA. CARSA helps genocide survivors and former
perpetrators heal their trauma through a process called the trauma healing workshop where both
former perpetrators and survivors learn and work together. This is important in nation-building
so that all different groups of people can live together peacefully. I think this organization is a
really healthy part of the reconciliation process because both perpetrators and survivors are able
to openly talk about their shame or trauma and it helps them heal these wounds. Development
and human rights go hand in hand because the emotion of forgiveness and peace that comes with
development is very beneficial to human rights. People can forgive one another for their pasts
and live in harmony.