Ahead of 7 April, the International Day of Reflection on the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, Ms. Alice Wairimu Nderitu, spoke to Africa Renewal's Zipporah Musau on progress made in protecting communities and some of the red flags to look out for as a precursor to genocide. Here are the excerpts:
Words can be weapons and hate speech can lead to the most atrocious violence. Hate speech is always present during genocide, but also before and after
Twenty-nine years since the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, where is the country now? What were the success & challenges along the way?
Rwanda has made enormous progress since the genocide, both in terms of accountability and reconciliation initiatives. The Rwandan society has made advances towards healing the traumas left by the genocide.
For Rwanda and the United Nations, one of the main successes has been the important work of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in ensuring justice and accountability to rebuild trust.
Most recently, in 2022, we saw the opening of the trial of Félicien Kabuga, who had spent 27 years on the run, before the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in The Hague.
Félicien Kabuga is a founder of the radio station, Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), and according to his indictment, his operation of this radio furthered hatred and violence against the Tutsi and other groups. Félicien Kabuga is charged with genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, persecution on political grounds, extermination, and murder as crimes against humanity, committed in Rwanda in 1994.
So, holding the perpetrators accountable for their action is an essential step towards progress in a post-genocidal context. It is a step that unfortunately we don't see in all contexts where such violence takes place and is therefore definitely a success.
Any challenges?
Rwanda, of course, has faced and continues to face many challenges along the way.
Delivering justice for genocide is a very difficult endeavor. The scale of the violence, with a million people killed, made the task overwhelming. Many people who would otherwise have been involved in ensuring the rule of law and holding people accountable, including judges, lawyers, and other judicial staff, were targeted for killing during the genocide, and much of the country's infrastructure was destroyed. This meant that it was difficult to hold many local level perpetrators to account.
A challenge that my Office also contends with is the knowledge that contexts where a genocide took place are more vulnerable for violence to reoccur.
Despite efforts, a challenge that remains for all post-genocidal societies is to foster continuing and meaningful reconciliation. It is a task that cannot rest and remains relevant even for the future.
Genocide doesn't just happen overnight; it takes a while to brew and execute. What are some of the red flags and warning signs to look out for as precursor to genocide or crimes against humanity?
Genocide is the result of a process that requires time, planning and resources with triggering factors that can enable their commission.
There are multiple red flags and warning signs ahead of atrocity crimes. We call them risk factors and they are explained in detail in the UN Framework of Analysis on Atrocity Crimes, our main methodological tool. I will mention a few.
One of the main risk factors that fuels cycles of violence is endemic impunity for serious human rights violations and atrocity crimes.
We continuously see the danger of lack of accountability processes which plays a significant role in fueling risks for further crimes. Accountability for atrocity crimes can serve not only as a deterrent; but is also key to successful reconciliation processes and the consolidation of peace in post-conflict societies.
Impunity, on the other hand, destroys the social fabric of societies and perpetuates mistrust among communities or towards the State, undermining prospects of a lasting peace. Thus, accountability contributes to cycles of violent discriminatory patterns that can lead to the occurrence or reoccurrence of atrocity crimes.
History also teaches us that hate speech can be a precursor to the commission of atrocity crimes as happened in the Holocaust, and in the genocides against the Tutsi in Rwanda and in Srebrenica, Bosnia Herzegovina. In all these cases hate speech and the dehumanization of 'the other' was present during, after and long before violence broke out. It is therefore crucial that the international, regional, national, and community levels engage on these matters and work hand in hand to address these challenges. We can all learn from one another.
Gender-based discrimination and inequality are also a significant risk factors for the widespread or systematic violence that constitutes the essence of atrocity crimes.
Discrimination, hate speech and xenophobia are on the rise across the world, often affecting women in a disproportionate way.
It is important therefore to include gender-sensitive analysis in early warning. It is further crucial to include women in efforts to prevent atrocity crimes. There are countless examples of women's, including young women's, contributions to early warning, conflict resolution, peace operations, peacebuilding, justice, and accountability.
Involving women leaders and decision-makers in these efforts leads to more lasting and sustainable peace.
I call on all of us to redouble our efforts to tackle hate speech trends both online and offline How can we counter this?
The process of genocide provides a number of entry points for prevention before a situation escalates. There is a range of structural policy options to address risk factors, including the development or strengthening of national and regional mechanisms to enhance good governance, human rights, rule of law and security sector reform.
These may include initiatives to develop and implement national action plans for atrocity prevention, support national independent human rights institutions, and ensure accountability for perpetrators of past atrocity crimes.
There is also need to broaden participation in decision-making processes, foster confidence building between communities and advance conflict resolution efforts, respond to incitement to violence, advance initiatives that re-affirm the role of women in atrocity prevention or prevent the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
All of this can be spearheaded by appointing of national genocide prevention focal points, whose role is to coordinate national action to identify and address existing risks.
Operational policy options for prevention should also include the developing of early warning, assessment and response mechanisms.
Yet despite these obvious opportunities for prevention, we must be humble in recognizing that, when it comes to learning the lessons of the past, humanity is very slow to put in place effective prevention policies. It is clear, however, that we are collectively taking steps in the right direction.
The prevention of genocide is a responsibility that falls upon all of us, and not just on any one actor alone. It cannot be successful without active contributions from everyone: Member States, regional and sub-regional organizations, international organizations, civil society, individuals.
We all have a role to play, and each and every individual can make a difference. If we hold that to be true, we must subject our institutions to the same degree of scrutiny that we subject ourselves to as individuals.
What is your office doing to protect populations around the world from genocide? What strategies are there, specifically, to protect societies that have gone through genocide to ensure it does not happen again?
My office is tasked with raising awareness to the causes and dynamics of genocide, to alert relevant actors where there is a risk of genocide, and to galvanize appropriate action.
Concretely, we collect information on systematic and grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law related to ethnic and racial origin that, if not prevented or halted, might lead to genocide.
Considering a wide array of sources from within and outside of the UN system, including information collected on field missions, the Office I lead assesses the situation based on the UN Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes.
The Framework is a methodological tool which my office [UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect], developed to assist with integrated and consistent analysis of the risk of atrocity crimes globally.
When we assess and find that there is a risk of genocide, we act as a mechanism of early warning to the UN Secretary-General, and through him to the UN Security Council.
I also provide recommendations to the UN Secretary-General on possible actions to prevent, or halt atrocity crimes.
Further, my Office works to enhance the capacity of the UN to analyse and manage information relevant to atrocity crimes.
We work to enable all stakeholders, the UN, regional organizations, Member States, and civil society to work together to collectively prevent genocide. We also share information on the dynamics and root causes of genocide, including through high-level conferences, case studies, and expert papers on thematic issues.
Importantly, however, the Office I lead does not possess judicial or quasi-judicial powers. Its focus is on the prevention of atrocity crimes. The legal determination as to the occurrence of genocide and other atrocity crimes is in the hands of courts of law only.
There is a strong link between justice and peace. If properly pursued, accountability for atrocity crimes can serve not only as a strong deterrent, but it is also key to successful reconciliation processes and the consolidation of peace in post-conflict societies and therefore a cornerstone of preventing atrocity crimes in the future.
Accountability is the main mechanism to protect societies that have gone through genocide to ensure it does not happen again.
Other strategies include investing in building a culture of respect for human rights. When we respect each other, and embrace each other's differences, there is no space for the commission of international crimes.
In general, we must invest more in prevention by building the resilience of societies to these crimes, through adequate norms and structures that comply with international standards of human rights and good governance, as well as by educating people towards a culture of respect.
In addition, we must also be ready to take appropriate measures when we see the first signs of concern in particular situations. We often fail to act in time or fail to act at all.
While there is a very broad agreement on the need to prevent atrocity crimes, many times risk factors are not all addressed. Many perpetrators continue to be left untouched. They get away with it. The main reason for this is lack of political will by countries.
The commitment of the global community to prevent the occurrence of genocide and other international crimes needs to be reinvigorated to prompt more effective action. It is important that we understand that the commission of these crimes constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Therefore, States cannot hide behind the claim that these relate to internal affairs to prevent what they call "interferences".
We must all be ready to act in the face of the risk of commission of atrocity crimes.
Atrocity crimes do not occur spontaneously but are the result of a long process of preparation. For this reason, it is crucial that new generations be educated with the knowledge, including on how to address hate speech, to recognize the indicators of risk and equipped with critical skills to address these risks before they escalate into genocidal violence. And to foster peace and inclusivity You have been very vocal against hate speech. What is the correlation between hate speech and genocide, and how can we counter it?
Let me share a most relevant example in this day of commemoration. Before the actual killings started in Rwanda, the Tutsi were widely and common referred to as "inyenze", which means a cockroach and also as snakes. They were reduced from being normal human beings to insects or dangerous animal. This was propagated on both radio and in print media.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Many people in Rwanda, especially the perpetrators, came to believe through hate speech that, the Tutsi were less human than the rest of the populations. Through the media, the government and interahanmwe militia called for the cleansing of the society.
When the perpetrators launched their mission to eliminate the Tutsi, the ordinary people who joined the killings had psychologically been prepared to destroy the Tutsi believing they were doing the right thing. This is the worst form of hate speech that translated to incitement to commit genocide and eventually to the commission of the genocide itself against the Tutsi.
If we have to prevent such calamities, we must be watchful of this form hate speech. Words can be weapons and hate speech can lead to the most atrocious violence. Hate speech is always present during genocide, but also before and after.
We also need to pay particular attention to genocide denial, a very noxious form of hate speech that still hampers accountability, reconciliation, trauma healing and long-term peace in many parts of the world.
Despite conclusive conclusions in international courts of law that a genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda happened, genocide denial continues to contribute to exacerbate mistrust between communities.
Hate speech, as it previously did in Rwanda, can lead to incitement to violence and even genocide.
Genocide denial of the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda is also widely propagated in diaspora communities, particularly in societies where genocide perpetrators have not been arrested and are living free. Hate speech trends along ethnic and identity lines are a rising phenomenon, especially with the advent of social media.
Hence, we must counter hate speech firmly and robustly if we want to prevent future genocides. But not at the expenses of freedom of opinion and expression.
My office leads the implementation of the UN Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, launched by the Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in 2019. This strategy sets out guidance for UN entities and other societal actors to address hate speech at the national and global level, enhance efforts to tackle the root causes and drivers of hate speech, including racism and racial discrimination.
The strategy is in line with international human rights standards, and with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
I take this opportunity to call on all of us to redouble our efforts to tackle hate speech trends both online and offline.
Let me also reiterate, once again, that atrocity crimes do not occur spontaneously, but are the result of a long process of preparation. For this reason, it is crucial that new generations be educated with the knowledge, including on how to address hate speech, to recognize the indicators of risk and equipped with critical skills to address these risks before they escalate into genocidal violence. And to foster peace and inclusivity.
