During the 1994 Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda, when much of the world remained indifferent to the atrocities, a global debate emerged questioning whether the events constituted genocide or merely ethnic violence. Certain diplomats, including Karel Kovanda of the Czech Republic and Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria, warned the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that its inaction risked undermining the credibility of the international body. Convinced that ethnic cleansing was underway, they labeled the killings as “genocide” before it was officially recognised. Today, these individuals are honored recipients of Rwanda's Umurinzi Campaign Against Genocide Medal. ALSO READ: Kagame commends Czech Republic’s role in stopping genocide The New Times delves into their stories and the roles they played during this period. Karel Kovanda Karel Kovanda, a Czech diplomat born in 1944 in Gilsland, United Kingdom, held a distinguished career until his retirement. He served as the Deputy Director-General for Foreign Relations at the European Commission's Directorate-General for External Relations until the end of 2010. Between 1993 and 1997, Kovanda represented the Czech Republic as its ambassador to the United Nations, where he played a role during his tenure on the UN Security Council from 1994 to 1995. His assertive advocacy on the issue of genocide in Rwanda caught global attention and earned him Rwanda's Umurinzi Medal - Campaign Against Genocide in 2010. ALSO READ: Who are the nine politicians set to be honoured for their anti-genocide stand? In October 1993, the newly independent Czech Republic gained admission to the UN Security Council. Shortly thereafter, Kovanda found himself confronting an unprecedented challenge: how should the international community respond to the rapidly unfolding mass murder Tutsi in Rwanda? Kovanda ardently advocated for a constructive resolution to the Genocide against the Tutsi at the United Nations, navigating through an institution paralyzed by the self-interests of post-colonial powers. Amidst a series of missteps and confusion by the international community, Kovanda courageously became the first to officially refer to the killings as Genocide. Through diplomatic and bureaucratic maneuvers, and by persistently appealing to the conscience of world powers, he compelled the Security Council to vote on a resolution that likely prevented the total extermination of the Tutsi population. His leadership spurred other UN members to apply pressure on the Secretary-General, leading to the Security Council's adoption of a statement invoking the genocide convention to describe the events in Rwanda as genocide. ALSO READ: Genocide cannot be mentioned in isolation, without adding the targeted group Linda Melvern, a British investigative journalist who was in Rwanda at the time, conducted interviews with key officials, including General Roméo Antonius Dallaire, the former commander of the UN forces in Rwanda during the genocide, and Kovanda. They recounted how they pleaded for reinforcements, but UN politicians failed to acknowledge the genocide in Rwanda. Reflecting on the events, Kovanda expressed in an opinion piece published by The New York Times in 2014 titled “Tracing the Rwanda ‘Genocide Fax’,” that engaging in “what-if” history is rarely productive. However, he emphasized that had the Security Council been aware of Brig. Gen. Roméo Dallaire’s warnings about the impending genocide, it could have had a chance to react, potentially altering the course of history. Drawing from the harrowing experience of his father’s family perishing in the Holocaust, Kovanda conveyed to the Security Council that suggesting the Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) negotiate a cease-fire with the government perpetrating the genocide was akin to asking Hitler to reach a cease-fire with the Jews. ALSO READ: Global researchers protest BBC Genocide revisionist film In his personal memoir published in 2010, Kovanda underscores the disparity in information sources. He contrasts the inadequate and biased information provided by the UN Secretariat with the detailed, accurate, and timely reports from non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Kovanda also reflects that during the initial weeks, the Security Council allocated approximately 80 percent of its attention to the civil war between Rwandan government forces and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), while only 20 percent was devoted to deliberating on how to address the challenges faced by UNAMIR, the peacekeeping operation on the ground in Rwanda. The Czech Republic's stance during this crisis was rooted in principle, reflecting a commitment forged from historical lessons. In the 1930s, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain infamously hesitated to support Czechoslovakia against Nazi Germany, dismissing it as a small far-away country which no one knows. “Similarly, Rwanda was a distant, lesser-known nation for us, but our past experiences with Western diplomacy compelled us to act differently,” Kovanda said, The Czech positions were guided by a fundamental principle of Czech foreign policy — respect for human rights. New Zealand exhibited even greater activism, likely owing to their extensive diplomatic experience and the legal acumen of Colin Keating, their ambassador and former justice minister. Even years later, the Czech Republic's role, statements, and positions during those critical months remain commendable, as the country that called on the international community to intervene and halt the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi. According to the 2010 edition of Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal (GSP), volume 5, issue 2, Rwanda was a key formative experience for Kovanda, shaping him on personal, diplomatic, and political levels. “It strengthened my realisation of how indispensable it is to act in accordance with one’s own internal moral compass, in accordance with the basic principles one adheres to, even if they cannot always be defined simply or briefly. Diplomatically, since Rwanda (and following the Security Council's handling of the Srebrenica massacre in 1995), I have been fully conscious of the imperative to oppose any threat of extermination of peoples anywhere. Politically, the red line beyond which further compromises are impossible became even clearer. Prof. Ibrahim Gambari Ibrahim Gambari, a 79-year-old Nigerian diplomat and former Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations, served as President of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) twice and as Chairman of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid. During the onset of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, Gambari was Nigeria's Permanent Representative to the UN. Amid debates surrounding reducing the number of Peacekeepers under the United Nations Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) and altering the mission's mandate, Gambari cautioned members about the potential catastrophic consequences of such decisions. He is widely recognised for his advocacy, alongside Colin Keating of New Zealand and Karel Kovanda of the Czech Republic, consistently pushing for action despite resistance from more powerful countries like the United Kingdom and the U.S., which had the capability to intervene but chose not to. During the 27th commemoration of the Genocide Against the Tutsi, President Paul Kagame acknowledged Prof. Gambari and Nigeria, emphasizing that despite challenges in acknowledging the genocide at the United Nations, including reluctance from the Secretary-General himself, certain countries and their representatives took a courageous stand and affirmed the reality. One of these countries is an African nation that we will always proudly call a good friend, represented by a man I recall, Ibrahim Gambari of Nigeria. His nation stood out, declared that there was indeed a problem and insisted on calling it by its true name. Gambari replaced New Zealand's Keating as chair of the UNSC, standing out for his urgent calls to action as debates unfolded at the UN. He cautioned that the Security Council risked becoming a 'laughing stock' if it failed to act promptly in Rwanda. Both Gambari and Keating shared a sense of frustration over the council's inaction. By April 20, 1994, when the violence had escalated dramatically, Keating remarked that the council's silence was becoming increasingly difficult to justify. Gambari, Keating, and other advocates for intervention faced formidable opposition from the council's permanent members, who held sway over decisions. Then UK's Permanent Representative to the UN, David Hannay, contended that protecting civilians in Rwanda was simply not achievable. He argued that the UN lacked the resources to respond effectively and cautioned against making promises that could not be fulfilled. Reflecting on his experiences in a 2004 interview as the UN Under-Secretary-General and the first Special Adviser on Africa to the UN Secretary-General, Gambari observed that non-permanent Security Council members were often viewed as guests whose opinions carried less weight than those of the five permanent members. Gambari disclosed that during a meeting with then U.S. head of mission to the UN, Madeleine Albright, it became evident that Rwanda was not a high priority for the United States. Washington's focus was primarily on events unfolding in Iraq and the Middle East. The Nigerian diplomat noted that at that time, countries were preoccupied with their own interests, and Rwanda was not considered important to them. Despite being largely sidelined, non-permanent members were made aware by Gambari that the signs, including a warning fax from UNAMIR head General Dallaire, indicated an impending ethnic massacre. It took weeks and months as powerful nations engaged in debates over whether the massacres should be classified as genocide, and even when the full scale of the tragedy became apparent, they remained reluctant to take meaningful action to halt the killings. Gambari advocated for an expanded peacekeeping mission with a robust mandate to save lives, aligning with Gen. Dallaire's urgent request. “As the debates ensued in New York and Washington, thousands of lives were being lost, with no chance of rapid action in sight.” The Nigerian diplomat opposed the idea of reducing the existing peacekeeping presence in Rwanda, expressing frustration that some African countries supported the drawdown. He attributed this decision to the persuasiveness of the Secretary General's report and pressure from influential nations.
