“Rwanda is our nightmare, South Africa is our dream,” wrote the Nigerian author Wole Soyinka, reflecting on the events of April 1994 — the most momentous month in Africa’s post-indepedence history.
Even as South Africans formed endless human chains — to vote for former South African president Nelson Mandela — their first black president and as they buried racial apartheid under euphoria, hundreds of thousands of people were being murdered in a tiny east African country away from the the global gaze.
Twenty years on from these twin eruptions, South Africa remains a template of reconciliation studied everywhere from Northern Ireland to Palestine, but the Rwandan genocide can be seen as a fork in the road not just for Africa, but the world.
That searing experience continues to shape the thinking of a generation of policymakers and peacemakers anxious that there should not be “another Rwanda” on their watch. It is a constant specter when global powers debate the morality of intervention — whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Syria, the Central African Republic (CAR) or Ukraine.
“No serious international lawyer has applauded the US’ failure to act in Rwanda... Syria should not be another Rwanda.” Mia Swart, a professor of international law at the University of Johannesburg, wrote in South Africa’s Business Day newspaper.
Along with that other 1990s catastrophe in Bosnia, the killing of 800,000 Tutsis by Hutu extremists in Rwanda over 100 days was a signal failure of UN peacekeeping.
Then-UN military commander Romeo Dallaire had warned of impending massacres three months earlier, but was ignored by the UN Security Council.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, then-head of UN peacekeeping, writes in his memoir: “We spent days frantically lobbying more than 100 governments. I called dozens myself ... We did not receive a single serious offer. It was one of the most shocking and deeply formative experiences of my entire career.”
Scarred by memories of Vietnam and Somalia, the US government did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying “acts of genocide.”
Former US president Bill Clinton has since described it as “my personal failure.”
In his millennium report of 2000, Annan laid down a challenge: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica, to gross and systematic violation of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”
The result five years later was a UN doctrine, Responsibility to Protect, adopted as a “norm” for dealing with conflicts where civilians were under attack.
It was invoked in the deployment of peacekeeping troops to Darfur a year later and has since been referenced in UN debates on Libya, Ivory Coast, South Sudan, Yemen, Syria and the CAR.
However, whereas the 1990s had brought Rwanda and Bosnia, the 2000s delivered a counter-weight in the form of Afghanistan and Iraq, both widely condemned as blundering adventures that exemplified the law of unintended consequences.
Annan was an outspoken critic of the US decision to oust former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Some analysts argued that, in effect, it canceled out Rwanda when it comes to weighing the balance of intervention.
“People are outraged, but it is on paper and when it comes to the practicalities they don’t want to move quickly, for example in Syria... The execution of the UN’s resolutions has not been vigorous. If it was not for France in Mali or the CAR, we would have had a genocide,” said Koffi Kouakou, a foreign policy expert at Wits University in Johannesburg.
Such examples illustrate how every case has specific dynamics and demand for pragmatism.
In their book, Can Intervention Work?, Rory Stewart and Gerald Knaus write: “We both believe that it is possible to walk the tightrope between the horrors of over-intervention and non-intervention; that there is still a possibility of avoiding the horrors not only of Iraq but also of Rwanda.”
The biggest UN intervention of all has come in Rwanda’s giant neighbor, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where genocide has had its most lethal legacy: Millions have died in subsequent wars and clashes between rebel groups.
The presence of Hutu extremists who fled Rwanda when the tide turned against them is cited by Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s government as justification for its continued interference.
A post-1994 outpouring of Western guilt has, many argue, allowed Kagame to escape criticism for running an authoritarian regime that ruthlessly crushes dissent, including the alleged assassination of opponents abroad.
Clinton has described him as “one of the greatest leaders of our time,” former British prime minister Tony Blair called him a “visionary leader” and the UK’s former international development secretary Clare Short infamously said of him: “Such a sweetie.”
Kagame, a bush fighter turned strongman leader, is a worrying role model who risks legitimizing autocrats in other counties, according to Kouakou.
“He is one of those ex-rebels who graduated to power through a process of ‘legal systems’, as we also see in Uganda and South Sudan. But the remnants of the rebels are still there: they still carry with them that authoritarian or ‘big man’ tendency,” Kouakou said.
It is one reflection of how, as each prepares 20th anniversary commemorations, Rwanda and South Africa have taken divergent paths.
One is among the fastest-growing economies in the world, but lacking in basic political and media freedoms. The other is its inverted mirror: a robust constitutional democracy with a vibrant press, already on its fourth president, but economically stagnant and among the most unequal societies on the planet.
Soyinka’s dichotomy of dreams and nightmares continues to resonate in Africa and beyond.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.