Stephanie T.

1. President Juvenal Habyarimana was a prime political face during the Rwandan slaughtering. The whole thing began under his control. Even after he was no longer President or living, he had an influential role in the killing of the Tutsi population. In fact, the heart of the genocide of 1994 really didn’t begin until his "accidental death," at which point the real masterminds of the crimes stepped forward to lead the Hutu majority into killing their fellow Rwandans.

Habyarimana came to power on the platform that the ongoing Tutsi attacks should stop. However, this initial attitude was not a lasting one, and it wasn’t before long before the government showed definitive signs of corruption and Hutu bias. Although Habyarimana did manage to boost the nation’s economy overall, most of the country remained poor, and his bad relations with Rwanda’s refugees are what spurred the genocide to occur in the first place. He exaggerated and exploited these relations with the refugees, who formed an army called the "Rwandanese Patriotic Front," creating a common enemy for Hutus – associating the RPF’s often nonexistent attacks with both the RPF and the Rwandan Tutsi population. This further aggravated the Hutu people’s already injured attitudes towards Tutsis and their own political situations, and the killing began.

At this time, Habyarimana continued to feed the flames of Hutu hate. He created propaganda in the form of a newspaper and played the press in such a way to make it believable and widely swaying. The Hutu Ten Commandments were written, ordering all Hutus to kill Tutsis and crush them like cockroaches, while also organizing Hutu militia, not to mention arranging for a whole lot of foreign "humanitarian aid" to finance the entire operation.

Eventually, he signed a treaty with the RPF and this was ultimately his downfall. It allowed the Tutsi refugees back into Rwanda and additionally United Nations assistance in achieving peace. Hutu Power, which had grown out of control within Rwanda, was quick to label Habyarimana as a traitor, often labeling him "Tutsi lover" and "a Hutu bought by cockroaches." Shortly thereafter he was assassinated and other Hutu Power leaders took control in his name to increase the genocide of the Tutsi population.

Habyarimana really covered most bases while in office. Economically, politically and socially, he was able to use the people to come to his own ends, and managed to find weaknesses of the country’s particular situation that ultimately turned the Rwandan people against each other. This effect was so strong that even after he was assassinated people were still killing, and hating. That’s doing your job a little too well.

Odette Nyiraamilimo was a Tutsi born and living in Rwanda during the genocide time period. At a young age, her family was driven into living in the bushes, hiding, near their home. Then, when Hutus attacked and killed most of the family, Odette managed to escape to her Hutu godmother. She later attended school until she was expelled as a Tutsi. Only education behind the back of the government at that point allowed her to become a doctor. Her adult life until the main part of the genocide in 1994 seemed happy enough – she married a Hutu, which kept her out of many Tutsi situations, and had both children and a decent paying job in the medical field.

With the onset of the genocide, Odette and her husband were basically labeled as Tutsis, and things felt like they were getting dangerous, so they attempted unsuccessfully to leave Rwanda. What saved the family was a Hutu man named Paul Rusesabagina, who took them in at his hotel. He kept Tutsis out of harm’s way at the Hotel de Milles Collines as long as he could until they were all evacuated to an RPF zone.

Odette’s story of the genocide is told almost like a recollection of a bad dream might be told. Save for a few exceptions of things like the doctor who patted her on the butt and the death of her sister the story seemed somewhat impersonal and more like a general historical account of what happened. Like all of the other survivor accounts in this book, Odette’s story is full of incredible "almost"s and "just barely survived"s, making their lives amazing. On a specific level, Odette was fortunate in the sense that she was married to a Hutu and possessed medical skills and wealth. Without them, the Nyiraamilimo family would probably not have survived. But then, all of those who lived were blessed in some way or another, and in many cases it was by being in the right place at the right time. Odette and her family were no exception.

General Paul Kagama was actually a Rwandan refugee as a boy. He grew up in Uganda and was less affected by Hutu power directly than he was by the fact that he was seen as a foreigner in Uganda. He later joined the RPF army to replace his best friend, and fought with vigor when the RPF entered Rwanda. And, when the RPF government was installed, Kagame was appointed as Vice president and Minister of Defense. He sometimes used violence to achieve his ends and put the tightly run RPF into Zaire to halt Mobuto’s power and support of the genocide. He was also somewhat responsible for the forced shutdown of the (Hutu) refugee camps not far outside of Rwanda. Because Hutu Power officials had basically taken over the camps and were killing and abusing citizens, while taking advantage of foreign aid, something had to be done. The UN and other countries did nothing but offer complacency and in actuality more supplies for Hutu Power leaders, the RPF was forced to take action, and more Rwandans were sent home.

Kagame is portrayed in the book as a man of military genius with specific goals in mind for his country. He is clearly a little unsure of what to do in terms of balancing justice and unity, but Kagame’s initial actions speak to a united Rwanda, despite the genocide. At the same time, he is frustrated with the world’s halfhearted effort to convict the people largely responsible for the genocide in Rwanda. Certainly, given the extreme circumstances in Rwanda the country is lucky to have as level-headed a leader as Kagame because he is not passionately swayed towards the killing or brutality of either side. If anything keeps the country in one piece, I would certainly expect Kagame to be one of the primary factors.

Hasan Ngeze, was portrayed as one of the major bad guys in the story of Rwanda. Habyarimana’s government placed him in charge of a newspaper called the "Kangura," originally founded to counter the effect of the Tutsi newspaper, the "Kanguka." But, it’s usefulness in Hutu Power only grew as Ngeze and the Kangura basically narrated and spread propaganda about the genocide. It publicized Habyarimana’s death about a month before it happened; it spread the Hutu Ten Commandments. And, because Ngeze maintained a balance between being primarily for the killing of Tutsis but also speaking sensibly about organization (some criticism of government), the people rallied behind it. Ngeze was largely responsible for the publicity and spreading of the genocide; however, it must be recognized that had he not done it, someone else would have. He is just another example of the enormity of Rwanda’s genocide – certain individuals came forward but the truth of the matter is that they may as well have been just about anyone. The mentality was encompassing for all of the country.

Major General Dallaire was a Canadian in charge of the UNAMIR operation in Rwanda. He was one of the few foreigners who recognized and actually cared about resolving the genocide situation. Dallaire repeatedly tried to inform the UN about what was going on in Rwanda and how much military help could be utilized by the Tutsi population, but was met with little more than indifference to the situation. Throughout the crisis, UNAMIR troops were only granted the ability to defend themselves from attack, not to provide the sort of aid that was desperately needed. And this was the extent to which they acted. Dallaire eventually went on Canadian television to inform the world of the magnitude of the crimes in Rwanda and the failure on the part of the Security Council and the General Assembly to do anything about the problem. The UNAMIR mission was a failure, and on several levels. Higher authorities failed to grant the military the power to resolve the problem, and the military failed to take its own moral initiative to solve the problem anyway. As a result, and as Dallaire acknowledged in his television address, "soldiers were injured and fell sick, fifty six Red Cross people were killed, two million people became displaced and refugees, and about a million Rwandans were also killed." Those effects are responsibilities of both parties.

Jean Girumuhatse was a Hutu leader during the Rwandan genocide. He was a regional leader, in charge of a roadblock in his hometown and additionally, ordered Tutsis, sometimes his own family, to be killed. When Hutu refugees were called back into Rwanda by the RPF government, he came back to claim his house, but the villagers surviving his leadership in his hometown still held a grudge. He told Gourevitch that he killed only because he was told he would be killed otherwise. That justified it in his mind, but even his son resented his father’s cowardice and willingness to kill in the situation. Girumuhatse recognized that he would be punished for killing during the genocide, but he was hoping for a mitigated punishment with confession. Those who had survived his victims, however, did not feel the same way. In some cases, he took the lives of an individual’s entire family. And in truth, how do you allow a man who has tried to have his own brother-in-law killed and successfully killed over seventy others to roam the world free and equal to any other? This story is certainly an example of the struggle for justice in Rwanda following the genocide, even today.

2. John Hanning Speke was an English explorer who was famous for his journeys into Africa and he had his own anthropological theories of people living in Africa. The heart of this theory relies on the idea that some Africans were of superior ancestral descent than others, making them something of a "master race" that evolved to rule the others. This makes up the basis of Hamitic myth, the idea that some genetically superior people should basically be treated as such. The Belgians used this ideology, which Rwandans had for the most part already taken to heart, to further divide the people and achieve control. In dividing people against each other and setting Tutsis up to be "better," they utilized the basic want for power inherent to human nature to essentially have the nation conquer itself. The Belgians cultivated the differences between the Hutu and Tutsi races, in many cases openly discriminating against Hutus, to keep the Rwandans separated and under control.

Hamitic myth played its own part in the genocide itself. The established system of racial difference and discrimination ultimately drove Hutus to a revolution, and the "us-them" mentality is what drove the country to war and separation. Even while the Hutu population was wiping out Tutsis it maintained the feeling of inferiority that only drove it to kill further. The sense of inequality and the want power is what most directly caused the genocide to happen, and although Hamitic myth in its original form disappeared from Rwandan society, the feelings it evoked nevertheless remained.

3. Hutu Power was the name given to the Hutu movement to exterminate Rwanda’s Tutsi population and put Hutus into power. Before the heavy genocide of 1994, it surfaced in random Hutu attacks on Tutsi villages and homes, as well as in the Hutu revolution. At that point, it was more of an attitude than an action, or an organized party.

As time moved on Hutu behavior began to increasingly resemble a cult of the worst kind. The violence on the lowest levels steadily became more frequent and the whole ball was moving with so much momentum at the time of Habyarimana’s death, Hutu Power activities only intensified. Hutu Power found its way into the heads and hands of the Rwandans to the extent that Hutu people picked up machetes and killed and Tutsis resigned themselves to be exterminated. During the genocide Hutu Power’s presence dominated the scene and with every piece of propaganda and every command from the government at the time increased the bloodshed, mostly without any questioning. The leaders of the movement were both crafty and efficient in the implementation of the genocide and the attitude. The manipulation of the press and propaganda was done with careful precision and was extremely successful in exploiting the desires and weaknesses of the people it sought to control. Hutu Power in itself was expressed through figure heads, from many sources of authority and especially from the poor majority. This is what made the genocide and the attitude so thorough – Hutu Power was a sort of disease that infected most of the nation to make it a complete genocide.

Even following the RPF victory it became apparent that Hutu Power was still very much alive. Within the refugee camps, and outside of Rwanda, there were still many Tutsi exterminations. What’s more, Hutus began terrorizing other Hutus to try and maintain power. At that time, because the Hutu army was dependent on the support of foreign aid, it was of extreme importance that the refugee camps look full and suffering and that the rest of the world believe that it was the Hutus and Hutu refugees that were suffering. And, indeed they were, but at the hands of their very own militia. Hutu Power worked tirelessly to sustain itself and in many cases it used brutality and force to either bully or beat people into remaining in the refugee camps. It further protected itself by brainwashing people to maintain that there was no genocide in Rwanda. This is a ridiculous concept, but the world ate it up. Not only did the Hutu majority deny that they were every killing Tutsis, but they went so far as to accuse Tutsis of attempting genocide on them. Foreign countries kept signing checks, and justice within the Rwandan courts became impossible with the refusal to acknowledge what happened on the part of many of the Rwandan people. It took full out RPF military invasion to finally settle the epidemic of Hutu Power in Rwanda’s neighboring countries. Even today, however, many are still under the influence of what happened and have difficulty acknowledging that there was a genocide at all.

In reality, Hutu Power before, during and after the genocide was mostly an exploitation of the feelings of Rwanda’s people. The drive for control and "power" as it were, drove people to being the worst of things, and you can call it Hutu Power, but you would be more accurate in labeling the situation "human nature."

4. I found the United States complicity during the Rwandan genocide to be morally repugnant. It is fairly clear to me that Gourevitch feels similarly on the issue, but from the way this book is written the U.S.’s inaction and furthermore damaging action in the face of injustice seems nearly unbelievable. The failure of American politicians to utilize their humanity in dealing with foreign countries begs the question of where morals should lie in the place of politics. After books such as this and after situations like the Holocaust, the answer should be that there is clearly some place for empathy in our foreign relations policy. Instead, the United States was a hindrance to what could have been relief to Rwanda. Madeline Albright, who was ambassador to the UN at the time was entirely against United States – and UN – involvement in the situation playing out in Rwanda. Clinton’s administration had also just gotten through with a piece of legislation called the Presidential Decision Directive, a document basically calling for United States inaction in UN peacekeeping missions. Then, when it came time for the UN to send military equipment into Rwanda, instead of just allowing them to borrow it, as the United States could easily afford to do, we insisted on leasing it to them for around fifteen million dollars. In every way, the most powerful and wealthy country in the world amounted to little help in a crisis situation, and our shining representatives were unable to play heroes in a time when they were needed. And of course, this is during the time period where the French were pumping money and armaments into Rwanda in support of Hutu Power. Our inaction in the face of Rwanda GENOCIDE was largely responsible for the killing of many Tutsi citizens. It may certainly be argued that at the time, it may have been politically questionable after the events in Somalia or whatever, even that it was an extra expenditure not necessary to the American people. But, we must ask ourselves, what is a necessary expenditure? I would argue that the lives of human beings, inside or outside our borders are worth saving. If we are going to jump in to place humanitarian aid once a genocide has occurred, if we are going to try and promote ourselves as the moral police of the world, if we want to have any kind of meaningful government promoting meaningful policy, if we are to be human beings, then I would argue it is our responsibility to jump in with full force into Rwanda’s politics. Anything less is very nearly an egregious crime on our part and to fuel the flames as the United States did is morally unacceptable.

Our press played its own unique role in the entire situation. Instead of publicizing the events in Rwanda as being the full crimes that they were, we failed to publicize until too late, and often the wrong story. Gourevitch tells us that the world got one of two stories: the one where Hutus were being killed in Rwanda and were forced into refugee camps in neighboring countries, or the one where the refugees were people who had committed genocide and were suffering for a reason. Overall, the American media was either incorrect or not useful in alerting the public as to the events happening in Rwanda.

For the most part, we flat out denied that there was any sort of genocide going on in Rwanda. It was almost as though we had been brainwashed along with the Hutu population that killed off Tutsis. Washington didn’t want to take any action, so they denied any reason to have to take action. Bill Richardson was not sent into Rwanda until years after the 1994 genocide and only then did the international community begin to acknowledge what had happened to the Tutsi population. At that point, it was still unpublicized. Then, Madeleine Albright and President Clinton both made stops in Rwanda where they made apologies and attempt rather unconvincing promises as to help in the future. Gourevitch takes a moment here to point out that Clinton is under no pressure to say anything at this point and that merits some kind of hope, but I tend to disagree. Personally, I feel like it’s an effort to make a hopeful or uplifting ending to the story of genocide in Rwanda – that the Americans are turning around to acknowledge their lack of morality in the last few pages of the book, not a convincing portrayal of the situation. Albright and Clinton’s brief "stops" in Rwanda to deliver some charitable apologies hardly seems like the amazing political statement that Gourevitch makes them out to be. Frankly, I still feel like the whole thing was too little and too late – the truth should be taken for granted and the United States should have stepped in. It was disappointing to hear the whole thing boil down to so little in the eyes of the international community, and worse, that the Rwandan population accepted it as full on charity.

5(b). During the Rwandan genocide itself, most of Rwanda’s neighboring countries were pretty indifferent. For the most part, they allowed Tutsi refugees into their borders, and sometimes allowed them to become naturalized citizens. It was after the genocide that different countries dealt with things in different ways.

For one, they were pretty much all forced to accept Hutu refugees close to the Rwandan border, and dealing with them and their attitudes, and the foreign aid they brought with them created new situations for all the countries.

In Uganda, many Tutsi refugees banded together to form the RPF army. Uganda’s government was initially unsupportive of these endeavors, at first refusing to let the armed forces out of Uganda and into Rwanda. However, after Habyarimana basically snubbed Uganda’s warnings, the RPF army was allowed into Rwanda and not allowed back into Uganda. The cultivation and allowance of this army was probably one of the greatest factors in Hutu Power defeat by the RPF. As far as the Tutsi population, Uganda is a nation composed of minorities, so they fit in fairly well and were not badly discriminated against by the native Ugandan population.

Berundi became home to a lot of Hutu refugees, and all of the problems that Hutu refugee camps bring with them. It wasn’t long before the Berundi government sent its army to shut down the camps, and Berundi became one of the first countries that a huge mass of Hutu people were relocated to their homes in Rwanda.

Zaire was perhaps one of the more involved countries in the genocide in Rwanda. Its leader, Mobotu fully supported Habyarimana in his doings as a Hutu dictator. In fact, Mobotu actually had the remains of Habyarimana’s dead body taken to Zaire, and later cancelled citizenship for all Tutsi refugees in Zaire borders. A second genocide almost embarked, and the camps were probably the worst and most numerous in Zaire. Not to mention that they were basically supported by the government, so the problem basically festered in Zaire. This was worse than complicity for the situation, because it actually equaled support for what was going on. Finally, RPF soldiers went into Zaire to ultimately "liberate" it and crush Mobotu’s control.

6. The biblical story of Esther is the second main Biblical reference Gourevitch makes in the book. The first is that of Cain, who slew his brother because his brother had more than he did. That story paralleled the situation with the Tutsi and Hutu populations pretty well, in particular the fact that Cain received little punishment from authority for his actions. The story of Esther plays a similar use to the author. I think it does this on several levels. First, it sort of asks the question, do the Tutsis seek revenge for what the Hutus did? This desire is somewhat illustrated by the RPF attacks on Hutus, but truly, are the victims of genocide now looking for some sort of retribution? It sounds as though the Jews of Esther’s time did. Second, the Bible is a manifestation of what people believe. And, human nature does prevail, both within the writing itself and the actions of those that committed and received genocide. There is, like the Cain story a comparison between the people of human myth and the people of human reality. Finally, the story plays on some reflection as to how the pastors at one of the earlier genocides felt about their situation. Knowing scripture, they deliberately used Esther in pleading for their lives. And this now brings us to the question, "how will Rwanda achieve deliverance from the genocide?" The entire country needs saving and a bad guy to indict, but that’s something that is certainly not clear as of yet.

7. The ending paragraph of the book is sort of like Clinton and Albright’s apology. Gourevitch makes something of an attempt to lighten the heaviness of the story by adding an element of hope to the remains of Rwanda’s torn state. And to some level, he does. The massacre of the teenage girls who refuse to divide themselves provides a somewhat bittersweet ending to the stories from Rwanda. It perfectly illustrates how the innocence of youth can forgive and overcome hate, the girls died together rather than be separated into the institutionalized groups of Hamitic myth, and that gives the reader hope for a united future in Rwanda. At the same time, the reader must also realize that the hate and killing extends beyond the supposed RPF victory. We must acknowledge that Hutu power and racial hate still exist even with improvement of the situation. The fact that this hate could enter a girls’ school and attempt separation and then kill youth sends us a second message. That bloodshed is the ugliness of the situation at its worth – we must not assume that the problem has been solved and pat our nonacting selves on our backs. I would say that this is a powerful conclusion because it sums up all of the things Gourevitch is trying to portray in the book. The magnitude and extent to which Rwanda absorbed the crimes of genocide, but also give some hope in regards to the strength and endurance a group of people can maintain, even in the most difficult of times. The girls who died in the school are nearly martyrs in their symbolic value to the story of what happened to their country.

8. Gourevitch’s writeup of the Rwandan genocide is well written and his analysis of the mechanics of the majority exterminating a minority is excellent. It’s too bad that the Rwandan genocide was carried out so effectively and efficiently. The whole thing was primarily successful because the leaders of the genocide were able to spread responsibility sufficiently amongst the Hutu majority so that culpability and manpower was no longer an issue. As Gourevitch tells it, when everyone is accountable, accountability basically becomes useless, because the key to that is singling individuals out to take the blame. The Hutu Power movement took full control of the Hutu majority because it exploited all of the weaknesses present in the individuals making up the population. First, it took advantage of Hamitic myth and the feeling of inferiority within Hutu individuals. As in the story of Cain, when one feels less good or discriminated against, there is often some feeling to take action on one’s own part. For the Hutu population, this meant killing, cleaning out, or crushing the Tutsi "cockroaches." And every Hutu citizen who felt some sort of resentment for the class system set up by the Belgians and further carried by tradition also felt responsibility for picking a machete and doing his or her part towards creating a nation of people who could be better, if for nothing else, lack of something better. Second, Hutu Power exploited a basic human quality – the want for power. In promising government jobs, success, and escape from poverty, there was a positive appeal to killing, and I’m sure a lot of people took advantage of it. Finally, the genocide utilized fear to achieve its ends. Fear on two levels: first, the us-them difference that created a perpetual war between the two races of people, and second, the kill-or-be-killed message of Hutu Power officials. It is easy for us, as third parties to stand by and indict Hutu people for going to terrible levels in killing the Tutsi population. However, we must not overlook the difficulty in sacrificing our lives, and furthermore, our loved ones lives because we will not kill people we often do not know. Certainly, it is more than an easy decision. By including all of Rwanda’s population in what happened, the genocide was made to be almost completely effective and even today, still encompasses people as a mentality, if not a physical killing.

At this point, it is a difficult balance between justice and unity for Rwanda. Justice is a necessary element to many of the survivors and certainly within our scope of what should be done. The people who caused the bloodshed in Rwanda should meet some sort of retribution in light of the actions they took – this is reasonable and normal procedure. However, remember that almost everyone is responsible to at least some extent. How then, do you go about indicting almost an entire nation? This is particular difficult at the point where Rwandans are trying to reunite themselves as a country of Rwandans, not one of Tutsis and Hutus. To some level, punishing all Hutus as offenders during the genocide only exacerbates the problem of separation and violence. There is a continuation of the us-them paradigm set so early by Speke and maintained by the Belgians that is altogether unhealthy for a nation wishing to have peace and prosperity. But, on another level, Rwandans also recognize that many Tutsis who saw their families killed by Hutus they grew up with feel a need for justice that cannot be quenched by merely getting their homes and partial safety back. This in turn also destroys some hope for a cohesive society. Government officials like Kagame are torn between the two opposing goals for a society, and so Rwanda struggles a little with each. There were criminal hearings for those who participated heavily in the genocide, but there was also much leniency with the people who had been swayed by the tide of Hutu Power. It is apparent that there may always be some struggle in Rwanda over the entire class/race issue, but we may also acknowledge that the scars are beginning to fade as new generations are able to look forward in forgiveness. Obviously, the people may have problems going back to being one as mass killing occurred less than a decade ago, but there is hope for a future Rwanda containing a balance of justice and unity.