1.0 Introduction
In this paper I will look at why the
international community didn’t intervene. Then I will look and get to know more
about the two Ad hoc institutions for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s
and the international Tribunal in Haag.
1.1 Research questions
What was the background for the genocide in Rwanda and
the establishment of ICTR and has the establishment been playing an important
role to make peace in Rwanda?
1.2 Overview
After choosing a Research question I
decided to go deeper into the historical approach of the genocide. To illustrate
the research questions I’d first make a brief review of Rwanda’s history and
the main features of the event that led to the genocide in 1994. Then I look at the genocide so
I can study it. The theoretical part starts with looking at the overall
development of international humanitarian law and enforcement in the
experiences of international settlements in
different countries.
The paper is written in 6 different areas.
The first part looks at the historical approach the second describe how they
establish the court in Rwanda. The second part looks at ICTR and the
establishment of ICTR. The third part looks at the crimes and the different
courts. The forth part presents the International Role. The fifth part is on
the theoretical approaches and the sixth is the conclusion.
1.3 Rwanda: a historical review
Rwanda is a really poor country in Africa.
And has a population of 8 million people. The genocide that occurred in Rwanda
was organized to kill and delete the Tutsi and the people that had turned their
backs to the government run by the Hutu. It was the army of paramilitary and
civil Hutus that participated in the brutal execution.
1.4 Who was Rwandese?
Banyarwanda means “The people of Rwanda”,
and is divided in 2 different categories: Bahutu and Batusi, also known as Hutu
and Tutsi. In Rwanda the main ethnic groups are Hutu and the Tutsi. They share
a common language; have the same religions, traditions and government. There
was never any type of “Tutsi or Hutu homeland”. The main reason that divided
the people in Rwanda was an invented history (Ruseabagina 2006:21)
“but it remains a matter of controversy if these are
indeed two separate races or if that is just an artificial political
distinction created in a relatively short period of time” (Ruseabagina 2006:21)
The difference between a Tutsi and a Hutu, is
that the Tutsi measured their wealth in cows, drank milk, ate beef, and they
seemed to be taller than the Hutus. They fed their families by growing
cassavas, sweet potatoes and other vegetables. They were the people that took
care of the cows. A normal explanation is that the Tutsi moved between the
Victoria Lake in east and the Kivu Lake in west. They had military, economic
and cultural power. When we look at the Hutu, the name itself is remarkable,
Hutu mean “one who work” (Ruseabagina 2006:22)
1.5 Hutu and Tutsi
“ The usual stereotype is that Tutsis are more tall and
thin with delicate noses, and Hutus are short and stocky with wider noses, but
most people in Rwanda fit neither description” (Ruseabagina 2006:x)
The two different groups have lived next to
each other for five hundred years. But in the late spring and early summer of
1994 the meanings in Rwanda was about life or death. The relationship between Hutu and Tutsi was
based on two contracts: the Ubugabire and the Ungerwa. (Jimeno 1995:4)
1.6 Colonial past and
disunity of the people
1885 was the year of the famous conference in Berlin.
“Witch
put the seal on what was to become nearly seven decades of colonial government
in Africa. This was also were Rwanda’s fate was to be determined” (Ruseabagina 2006:27)
The social line and difference between the
Hutu and the Tutsi was reinforced during the Belgian colonial period between
1917 and 1962. The Belgian power introduced the concept of two races and ethnic
groups in Rwanda. They also made “books” most similar to Id-card that we have today that
showed if the person was a Hutu or a Tutsi. This book was the answer to life or
death later in Rwanda.
When the Germans loss in WW1, was Rwanda
handed over to the government of Belgium. It is here the massive change was
going to start. The Belgium’s wanted to get the most out of Rwanda. The new
colonial leader looked at the social differences between the people living in
Rwanda. The difference between the leaders and the farm workers was an easy way
to rule the country by Proxy.
“It was a version of the old divides-and conquers
tactics used so effectively by colonizers throughout history” (Ruseabagina 2006:29)
In Mexico a man called Hernan Cortez
realized he could make difference between the tribes to his advantages. So did
the Belgians. It got so extreme that one time the Belgians went out around in
Rwanda with measuring tapes, to find out who was a Hutu and who was a Tutsi. (Ruseabagina 2006:29)
In the late 1950s the Rwanda’s apartheid
system began to fall apart. The European power could no longer hold on their
colonies in Africa. After the WW2 almost all of the nations that had
participated were now without an empire.
(Ruseabagina 2006:31) A pressure from the United Nations and the
world community, Belgium had to let go of its claim on Rwanda. But before they
went completely they had one more surprise to Rwanda. The Belgium patrons had
been supportive to the Tutsi aristocracy and the other way throughout the
years. Now the Tutsi got a limited amount of power. They also cooperated in the
oppression of the Hutu, who were forced to harvest timber and crops, with Tutsi
leaders. (Ruseabagina 2006:31). After the
1950s the sympathy for the Hutu underclass was starting to upraise. The
authorities empowered the people that had been suffering for so long. Now the
Hutu slowly assumed the power as the ruling class, in fear of losing their
longstanding grip on power, a period of sharp opposition to Belgium’s continued
in Rwanda. This led the Tutsi to a disaster as the shift in Belgium favor over
to the Hutu. (Ruseabagina 2006:33)
1.7 The Civil War
The civil war was a conflict within the
central African nation of Rwanda between the president Juvenal Habyarimana and
the rebel Rwanda Patriotic front (RPF). The conflict began the first of October
1990 when the RPF invaded and ostensibly ended on the 4th of august
1993 with the signing of the Arusha Accords to create a power-sharing
government. If I look at the background we can say that the ethnic tensions
between the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority had their roots in the Belgian
colonial era, here the ruling began authorities empowered the Tutsi
aristocracy, and cemented the second class status of Hutus.
1.8 Genocide 1994:
Why did it occurred
The background of the start of the genocide
4 April 1994 was the shooting at the plain of the president Juvenal
Habyarimana. It was when the Tutsi rebel army captured the capital of Kigali,
where eight hundred thousands Rwandese where killed. (Ruseabagina 2006:xi) The radio station was also a
massive way to tell the Hutus to go into their neighbors’ houses and kill them
all. Some message was in codes but everybody could understand them “cut the
tall threes. Clean your neighborhood. Do your duty” (Ruseabagina 2006:xvi) The events that occurred on the 4
Of April 1994, were certainly incidences of ethnic genocide directed at Tutsi
(Klinghoffer 1998:3)
During
the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, the FN government did not want to use the word
“genocide” and certainly did not encourage other countries to do so. The reason
why they didn’t want to call it genocide was that recognizing a genocidal
situation would commit the US to action, a course that was not intended. (Klinghoffer
1998:99)
1.9 The international community's role
At first not many paid any attention to the
brutal murders that was according in Rwanda, but after a while, when TV bore
witness to the cruel action taking place, they were looking. (Kroslak 2007:1)
Rwanda did early warn the international community, but still they didn’t intervene. Many of the countries and the UN leader did not see that they should be involved in Rwanda effectively. They thought that the massive situation would resolve itself. (Jimeno 1995:13)
“Certainly
the specifics of the Rwandan crisis were unique and more horrific than might
have been anticipated. However there is clear proof that the international
community was fully aware of the incipient crisis in Rwanda through reports of
NGOs and UN organizations. What is not clear, and may never be known, is the
extent to which individual countries had their own intelligence on what was
happening.” ( Jimeno 1995:11)
1.10 The truth about hotel Rwanda.
In April 1994 a man called Paul Ruseabagina
saved 1268 people inside the hotel he was working for. Most of the refugees at
the hotel were Tutsis that once had the ruling role in the country. The people
that wanted to kill the Tutsis were mostly Hutus whom were the farmers in the
country.
2.0 The International
Court Tribunal of Rwanda
The international criminal court tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) was established by the United Nation Security Council on 9. November 1994 and is located in Arusha, Tanzania. (Totten & Bartrop 2009:464) One of the critism to the tribunal of Rwanda is that it only seeks to hear cases against those considered politically important within the overall scope in Rwanda. Also known as the “big fish” (ibid.) The ICTR is the first criminal court that judge people on crime of genocide (Moghalu 2005:1) It had an enormous impact on the development of humanitarian law. This normative impact is a part of the tribunal’s political dimensions. International war crimes tribunals is created by politics (3)
The first case hold in ICTR was the case
with former major of the town Jean-Paul Akayesu in January 1997 and it resulted
as the first successful tribunal in 1998.
2.1 background of the world (non) intervention in Rwanda
On the first of July 1994, the UN Council
had been slow to react when the genocide accorded. Voted to establish a
commission of experts, similar in structure and mandate to the one crated to
former Yugoslavia Criminal Court Tribunal nearly 2 years earlier. (Schabas 2006:26)
“The major world powers and the international community did not prevent genocide. Although the general of UN forces in Rwanda had presented an action scenario that he believed would constrain the Hutu from committing genocide, his suggestions were rejected by the Security Council.” (Totten & Bartrop 2009:468)
When the genocide stopped and when the
picture of what really happened got visible so the whole world could see, the
international community rushed into humanitarian aid with guilty relief, thus
greatly helping the perpetrators of the very crimes it had done nothing to
stop. The whole thing had been funny if
it had not been tragic. (Prunier 2009:30)
The world stood still and watches while the
slaughter goes on in Rwanda. The reason why the world community did not intervene
was because they were occupied with debates about military intervention and
nonintervention in Balkan wars. (Moghalu 2005:8) Another reason why the world
community didn’t intervene was because of Somalia in 1993 were American soldier
got killed and their bodies were dragged through the city. (Moghalu 2005:19)
2.2 Establishment of Arusha court
In the fall of 1994, UN Security Council
sends a special rapporteur to go to Rwanda and report back to the Security
Council about what he saw. After seeing hundreds of bodies lying in the street
get dogs and other animals gnawing on their bodies. Both of the rapporteur and
the commission reported finding clear evidence of genocide and crime against
humanity. (Ibid)
They then recommended an establishment of
an international court tribunal for Rwanda, to hear cases and to take the
person responsible for the genocide. The UN Security Council said it was
important to established a court house like this, and one year after the
genocide had occurred, ICTR was up and running. The ICTR became the first
genocide court, with jurisdiction over crimes of genocide and other crimes
against humanity. On December 18, 1994, the Security Council passed Resolution
955 and established the ICTR, and its purpose was to:
“Prosecute persons responsible for
genocide, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law
committed in the territory of Rwanda citizen responsible for genocide and other
such violations committed in the territory of neighboring states between
January 1st 1994 and December 31, 1994” (Totten & Bartrop 2009:468)
The UN Security Council, acting under
chapter VII of the UN Charter, created the ICTR by virtue of resolution 955, in
November 8, 1994. Actually the only member that didn’t support the UN Security
Council resolution 955 was Rwanda.
“In the resolution 955 the Security Council
recognized reports that genocide and other systematic, widespread and flagrant
violations of international humanitarian law have been committed in Rwanda”(Totten
& Bartrop 2009:474)
The international criminal court tribunal
was built in the northeastern Tanzania, a city called Arusha. They first choice
Kenya to hold the international criminal court tribunal, but they didn’t want
it, so then it was established in Arusha. The second reason why the
international criminal court was established in Tanzania was because Tanzania
was willing to host the tribunal and Arusha had symbolic value as the town
where the failed Rwandan peace process was negotiated before the genocide.
(Moghalu 2005:53)
2.3 Mandate, Goals and
Structure
ICTR is a temporary or ad hoc, institution that will close when it has done its mission. The general thinking about ICTR was that it would complete it’s investigate and trial work by 2008, to be followed by the resolution of outstanding appeals. (Totten & Bartrop 2009:473)
The creating of ICTR was that the US
Security Council would judge the responsible persons of massive violence of
international humanitarian law in Rwanda. The ICTR had different goals and the
UN Security Council identified these as:
“(1) Bringing to justice those responsible
for genocide in Rwanda, (2) contributing to the process of national
reconciliation; (3) restoring and maintaining peace in Rwanda and the great
lakes region of Africa generally and; (4) halting future violations and
effectively redressing those violations that have been committed.” (Totten
& Bartrop 2009:474)
Also on a larger scale the UN Security
Council intend to signal that the international community would not tolerate
crimes of genocide. In order for the ICTR to fulfill its mandate, the Security
Council exhorted that it should receive the assistance of all states.
The structure of ICTR is composed of three
units, (1) Judicial chambers (2) The Prosecutors office, and; (3) The registry.
The ICTR has also three different trial chambers and one appeals chamber.
“The trial chambers handle the actual
trials of the accused and pretrial procedural matters. The appeals chamber
hears appeals from decisions of the trial chamber, and may involve judgments or
sentence, that is the punishment for one person. The office is in charge of
investigations and prosecutions. And the registry is responsible for providing
overall judicial and administrative support for the chambers and the
prosecutor. “(Totten & Bartrop 2009:475)
The three different chambers are composted
of judges elected by the UN Security Council. The prosecutor’s office act
independently to investigate crimes, prepare charges, and prosecute accused
persons. The registry is responsible for the ICTR overall administration and
management. (Totten & Bartrop 2009:476)
2.4 Results
ICTR has so far listed about four hundred
genocide suspects In April 1995 but had not managed to enforce its search
warrants (Pruiner 2009:12)So far has 6.500 people been convicted in crimes
against humanity and genocide by ICTR. (Totten & Bartrop 2009:476)
2.5 Challenges
The challenges for the ICTR are there,
because it is an Ad Hoc institution its only there for a decided time.
3.0 The criminal courts
Every court has a court system, where the
main goal is the same: to see that justice is done. The idea of a system of international
criminal justice came after the end of the cold war. But while the negotiations
of the ICC statute was under establishment under United Nations, the
international world witness crimes in territory of the former Yugoslavia and in
Rwanda. A response to the massive situations led The United Nations Security
council to establish an ad hoc
tribunal for these two types of situations (ICC 2013:8) the set of the international court is in
Hague in the Netherlands.
3.1 Nuremberg and
Tokyo courts
“The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals were established in
the wake of the second world war. In 1948, when the convention on the prevention
and punishment of the crime of genocide was adopted, the United Nations general
assembly recognized the need for a permanent international court to deal with
the kinds of atrocities witch had just been perpetrated”. (ICC 2013:8)
3.2 Yugoslavia and Arusha court
Both Yugoslavia and Arusha are ad hoc trials; they are established to
punish the people that have done crimes against humanity, war crimes of
aggression or genocide. Ad hoc means temporary. It’s a court established to
judge people that has done crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes over
time.
3.3 The International Criminal Court in
The Haag
“Is a permanent international court established to
investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most
serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the
crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes of aggression. (ICC
2013:8.)
4.0 National uprising
after serious assault
4.1 About reconciliation
National reconciliation is a vague and
messy process. As we saw in the post-genocide in Rwanda, it presents special
difficulties that stem the particular nature of the Rwandan crisis and the
popular participation that characterized the Rwandan atrocities. (Zorbas
2004:29) Reconciliation is as a told a vague concept. In the wake of mass
violence, there is no goal post past which recondition has been achieved.
(Zorbas 2004:30)
4.2 Judicial processes
Retributive justice is the foundation of
formal and informal justice system across the world, including the criminal law
model that dominates the western world. International humanitarian law and
criminal legal norms have been established on the western conception of
criminal law. This includes both of the international criminal tribunals for
the former Yugoslavia and the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda. The
theory of justice views crime as primarily the breaking of law and pursues the
punishment. (Brandner 2003:6)
5.0 Theoretical clarifications
5.1 The International Humanitarian Law
The humanitarian
international law is a set of rules witch seek, for humanitarian reasons, to
limit the effect of armed conflict. The law protects people who are not or no
longer participating in the conflicts, also known as civilians. The law is also
known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict. You can think of the
international law as the body of rules that connect the relationship between
states. The international law contains agreements between states, conventions
or treaties. (ISRC 2004:1) The international law applies only to armed
conflict. It doesn’t cover internal tensions or disturbances such as isolated
acts of violence.
5.2 Geneva and Haag
Conventions
The Geneva Convention was founded in 1949.
It’s a major part of the international humanitarian law. Almost every state in
the world had agreed to be bound by them (ISRC 2004:1). ICC has three main goals they fallow.
These are war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.
5.3 UN Charter and human
rights
In article 1 in
the UN charter they have listed 4 main goals of the purpose of the United Nations.
These are as follow:
(1) To maintain international peace and
security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts
of aggression or other breaches of the peace. (2) To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for principle of equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to
strengthen universal peace. (3) To achieve international co-operation in
solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or
humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion. And forth and last; (4) to be Centre for harmonizing the
actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends (FN Charter 1945).
One can define human
rights as fundamental rules
that describe how people need to live in
righteousness. They are a set
of rules aimed at
protecting individuals from abuse.
They are short and well explained a set of obligations of any State that has ratified it. Ratification
means that different parties have
approved an agreement and that it
is formal binding (LO HIO).
"All people shall have the right to
live, no one should be tortured
or treated in a
degrading way, everyone should
have the right to think and
believe what they want, everyone
should have the right to say what
they think and move freely, everyone have
the right to work and be supported by the government when they need it and
several other rights (LO HIO).
5.4 Convention against Genocide
December 9, 1948 did the Generak assembly
of the United Nation adopted a resolution made in Paris approving annexed
convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. The next
time genocide was used as a word was by Paohael Lemkin in his study of the Axis
Power “Occupation of Europe”. The word was defined as the destruction of a
nation or ethnic group. Through mass killing, and planning of different actions
aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of a national
group (Finch 1949:738).
6.0 Conclusion
In this case-study I was looking at the
background of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda in 1994. I also been looking
at the different international criminal court tribunal and their purpose and
then I looked at the background and establishment of ICTR. I got a new
knowledge of the ICTR and the genocide, and now that I have study and writing
this case-study over two months and really got to know the background. I been
reading a lot of books, and been using the “Nobels
freds institutt” to find books.
The established of ICTR was the first
international criminal court tribunal that was ever established in the world.
Its purpose was to judge people that had done crimes against the humanitarian
law and genocide. The main challenge is that the tribunal only judges “the big
fish” and not the “small fish” that also have done crimes against humanity. At
the same time it’s just an Ad Hoc institute so it will really soon close. The
tribunal has done a lot of good work and has punished a lot of “big fishes”. I
also got to learn about the international community and why they didn’t
intervene in Rwanda. After what had happened in Somalia, only one year earlier
where American soldiers got killed. Also I looked at the UN Security Council
and this role playing in the genocide in Rwanda after it had accorded.
indeed the international community did wrong
in not intervene when the genocide accorded. But from studying this genocide
and get to know the history in a higher level I learned that we can now prevent
and stop the genocide before it has accord. In the world today we have tolls we
can use to prevent this kind of things and I think after not intervene in
Rwanda the international community has been witness to something so cruel that
they won’t let it happened again.
Last I learned about ICTR, the human
rights, FN charter and the other different criminal court tribunal in the
world. I think it’s great that UN Security Council make this kind of
institution alive to help a country in need. That they have made different
roles to judge the guilty parts its wonderful. And maybe since ICTR is just an
Ad Hoc institute when its stops running maybe the Rwandan people now have time
to breath and to let go of the past. Maybe when it’s gone they can see what it
did trying to make Rwanda back on its fits and to judge the people doing crimes
against humanity and humanitarian law. It’s been a good experience learning and
reading about the genocide in Rwanda and the establishment of ICTR. Am really
glad I choose this case to study and am happy to present it to my teacher and
other readers that may be interested to read this paper. Thank you for giving
me this opportunity to write about the genocide in Rwanda, am not a little bit
more cleaver then I was before I started to write the case study for “Bjørknes Høyskole i Regioner I konflikt”
Source Reference
Arthur Jay Klinghoffer (1998) The international dimension of genocide in Rwanda, Rutgers
University, New Jersey, USA
Brandner, Anne Kaju (2003) Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: An evaluation of Judicial
responses to genocide and mass atrocities. The University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Barnett, Michael (2002) Eyewitness, the United Nations and Rwanda to a Genocide Cornell
University
Cook, Susan E (2006) Genocide
in Cambodia and Rwanda, new perspectives
Donika:
Rwanda mellom forsoning og rettferdighet»
URL:http://www.donika.com/rwandareport.htm
Eugenia Zorbas (2004) African
Journal of Legal Studies: Reconciliation in post-conflict Rwanda.
Ghali, Boutros Boutros (1996) The united Nation and Rwanda 1993-1996. Security General of the
United Nations, Department of Public Information United Nation, New York
International Criminal Court: Understanding the International Criminal
Court The Hauge, Nederland’s 09 may 2013. URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/PIDS/publications/UICCEng.pdf
ICRC (2004) What is international humanitarian law?
Keane, Fergal (1997) Season of blood, A Rwanda journey. Penguin books
Jimeno, Alfredo Orrego (1995) The Rwanda crisis: Role of international community. Webster
Jones, Bruce D. (2001)
Peacemaking in Rwanda, The dynamics of failure
Kroslak, Daniela (2007) The role of France in the Rwandan genocide. Hurst and company,
London
Lemkin, Paohael (1949) The American Journal of International Law. URL: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2193262?uid=3738744&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21102281840967
Magnarella, Paul J. (2000) Justice in Africa, Rwanda’s genocide, its court and the UN Criminal
Tribunal”
Moghalu, Kingsley (2005) Rwanda’s genocide, the politics of global justice
Prunier Gerard (2009) Africa’s
World War, Congo, the Rwandan genocide, and the making of a continental
catastrophe. Oxford University press
Ruseabagina, Paul (2007) An ordinary man: An autobiography. Penguin books
Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop (2009) The genocide studies reader
Schabas Williams A. (2006)
The UN international Criminal Tribunals, The former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and
Sierra Leone. Cambridge University Press
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar