Rwanda’s trial by none-state actors and the love-hate relations with the United Nations

Rwanda has not fared well with International Organizations including the United Nations and international Human Rights Organizations, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders and others. The United Nations, in particular, which recently celebrated the United Nations Day, has had a love-hate relations with Rwanda right from the unhappy events of 1959 when this country witnessed the genesis of a genocide. In 1959, it should be recalled; Rwandans fled their country in the very eyes of the United Nations which was acting as a mid-wife, at a delicate time of the nation’s tumultuous history. Amnesty International released, a few years ago, a press statement that infuriated many in Rwanda. The release entitled: “Rwanda: Genocide suspects must not be transferred until fair trial conditions are met” urged governments worldwide not to transfer people suspected of crimes during the 1994 genocide to Rwanda for trial. The immediate response from Rwanda then ranged from disgust to outright denunciation of the statement. And interestingly, in its press release, Amnesty International did acknowledge that Rwanda had made improvements in her justice system and had even abolished the dreaded death sentence. Amnesty International, however, hastened at the time to add that the ability to investigate and prosecute crimes related to the 1994 genocide fairly and impartially in accordance with international standards of justice was lacking in Rwanda. That was then. Today, an increasing number of genocide suspects, ranging from Leon Mugesera, who was extradited from Canada, Pastor Munyankindi from ICTR in Arusha, and others are in Rwanda facing trial. Amnesty International, like other international organizations such as the Human Rights Watch and others, have come to play central roles in an increasing range of issues in world politics and sometimes have got enmeshed in post-conflict nation building challenges. International NGOs have come to play a greater role in fulfilling the need for collectively coordinated responses to common problems in the absence of world government-global governance. But the problem is that they have sometimes, despite their critically important roles, a holier than thou approach when it comes to African issues. With regard to Rwanda, it is well known that the tragedy that faced this country was unparalleled in the later part of the twentieth century. Apart from the 1994 genocide being the fastest in living memory, the management of the said post-genocide experience was a mammoth undertaking. When the International Criminal Tribunal was established sometime in late 1995, it was envisaged that it would try the bulk of genocide ring leaders in a speedy manner. Today, less than thirty of the genocide suspects have been tried in a period of eighteen years and millions of dollars spent on their expensive trials. When Rwanda devised the traditional Gacaca court system to try hundreds of thousands of suspected genocide criminals, following the 1994 genocide, the result is that this restorative justice system has contributed to the country’s prevailing stability with unimagined peace dividends despite the fact that challenges still exist. Besides restoring hope and confidence among the victims of the genocide, the system has re-united people who had been torn apart by the macabre events of 1994 and they now live side by side to rebuild their lives. This system is now being emulated by countries that have come from civil strife and warfare. Liberians, South Sudanese, Sierraleoneans and others have trooped to Rwanda in large numbers to witness Gacaca courts in session and they have borrowed a leaf from this effective and yet inexpensive system that is truly African. There is an element of hypocrisy on the part of international organisations that contradict proclaimed values, and is generally condemned as a form of dishonesty. International organizations have a holier than thou approach to measuring ‘international standards’ when it comes to the so-called developing world. Here we seem to use other yardsticks. It is therefore fair that some of the genocide suspects have come back to where they truly belong – Rwanda so that the Rwandan people have a glimpse of their prodigal sons and daughters who committed unimaginable crimes against humanity and no attempts to exert unfair punishments would be made on them. Rwanda would certainly want to demonstrate to the world that the prisoners brought from Arusha and elsewhere will face a fair trial; after all, this would be in the country’s interests. If Rwandan troops are playing an important role in peace keeping elsewhere in Africa and the world, the Rwandan courts of law would equally make a contribution in the area of justice, not withstanding the professed international justice system.

Opinions

Rwanda’s trial by none-state actors and the love-hate relations with the United Nations