Further memorandum submitted by ActionAid
International
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ActionAid is an international rights-based development
organization working in 42 countries, a significant percentage
of these are in war. A number of them are emerging from violent
wars including Rwanda. The Head Office of ActionAid is in Johannesburg,
South Africa. Rwanda is part of a cluster of countries making
what is currently the Great Lakes Office with a Regional Office
based in Kigali covering Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo
(DRC) and Burundi.
For many people around the globe Rwanda was
an unknown tiny country in Central/East Africa without much to
share both in economy and history until the date of 6 April 1994
when the plane carrying home the late Presidents Habyarimana of
Rwanda and Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi was shot down above the
Kanombe International Airport in Kigali. The atrocities sparkled
by that event made Rwanda a notorious country with about one million
Tutsis and moderate Hutus killed in 99 days. TV reporters from
all over the world, more than 200 NGOs in addition to the UN Agencies,
more than three million refugees fleeing the military might and
the heroic advance of RPA, one million old-case Rwandan refugees
repatriating en masse . . . This was a political, social and humanitarian
crisis unheard of before.
The RPF led government that was sworn in mid-July
1994 endeavored to set up a broad-based government including representatives
of the Hutu ethnic Group who had not participated in the genocide.
The government of National Unity has spared no effort to improve
the social welfare of the population, to strengthen Unity and
Reconciliation of the Rwandan people and to eradicate sources
of injustice. It is in this regard that the Government set up
different commissions and institutions to support its initiatives:
the Office of the Ombudsman, the National Unity and Reconciliation
Commission, the Human Rights Commission, the National Elections'
Commission . . . The purpose of the creation of those institutions
was the elimination of all forms of injustices drawing on the
negative impacts of a divisive history. Policies were formulated
to curb and prevent division. However, the process of change has
been slow-as usual- and sometimes disrupted by the deficit of
trust between the state and a portion of its citizens and the
international community. Such incidents were often sparkled by
positions which the GoR considered either unfavorable to them
or too critical. This situation has raised the issue the political
space in Rwanda and freedom of opinion.
Rwanda is a country recovering from war and
genocide and on the path of healing and reconciliation. The commemoration
of 12 years after genocide corresponds to a period in which many
questions have been asked about both the efficiency and efficacy
of the transition from discrimination and denial of citizens'
access to the rule of law, from the institutions of dictatorship
to the institution of political participation and from a past
characterized by ethnic antagonism to a situation and future of
interethnic pacific coexistence. This is a period of critical
reflection on the success of the launch and implementation of
the Gacaca restorative justice system, the institution of a young
democratic system based on the election of leaders at all levels,
the implementation of the reconciliation strategy.
Rwanda is at the crossroads with the challenges
of reengineering a society where groups who were historically
divided with the discrimination culminating into genocide living
together now in the same communities despite the wounds and scars
left behind by war and genocide.
— Transition from ethnic division
and discrimination to inclusion and political participation: The
current Rwanda government has pledged to its people and to the
international community that they will work on the elimination
of all sources of divisions within the Rwandan society and will
build a base for unity and reconciliation. A National Commission
for Unity and Reconciliation was created in 1999 and has worked
extremely hard to facilitate the pacific coexistence of its people
(Hutu and Tutsi on the same geographical space). This has not
been an easy task when both ethnic groups continue to have the
perception that not enough has been done to address their respective
grievances. Perpetrators and their families feel there has not
been justice for them, survivors feeling that the government has
been too generous with the perpetrators especially given the gravity
of the crimes meted out during the genocide. As Rwanda was commemorating
the 12 anniversary of the genocide, survivors of genocide were
claiming the payment of reparations and serious justice against
perpetrators and the presence of the members of the Hutu community
was insignificant.
— Manipulation of guilt as a negotiation
tool: Since the end of genocide, Rwanda as a country has used
the strategy of "guilt" to intimidate donors and the
international community for their non participation in stopping
the extermination of Tutsis in the 1994 genocide. Such strategy
has been efficient in making donors attentive and responsive to
the demands of the government of Rwanda. In terms of morality,
such a stand was at times acceptable. While its systematic use
has given the Rwandan Government an upper hand, at times bending
the rules of cooperation has had detrimental effects on creating
the balance between government and civil society. As case in point,
in 2004 DFID accepted to bend to the demands of the Rwanda government
to channel all its assistance through bilateral channels thus
leaving civil society organizations and NGOs unfunded despite
their capacity and experience in many of the areas that were funded
from 2004-06.
— Justice as a tool for healing
and reconciliation: Gacaca, the Rwanda traditional Justice System
was revived to contribute a justice that would go beyond "just
desert" and create space for the restoration of damaged trust
and relationships at the community level. In the beginning the
enthusiasm was very high on the side of both perpetrators and
survivors. In the process of the implementation of the provisions
of Gacaca, survivors, perpetrators and even the GoR became disillusioned
by the fact that the "magic" results of Gacaca did not
materialize. While Gacaca did not respond to all the expectations
of parties involved, it at least provided space to gather information
about what happened during the genocide, to know about the way
in which many of the victims were massacred, who killed them,
where were their bodies thrown. A considerable part of the truth
came out. As manipulations of the truth by perpetrators were generalized,
witnesses of the genocide who were willing to testify became threats
to the perpetrators released from jail and became targets of death
in the community. Another side effect is the fact that many perpetrators
confessed hypocritically just to leave the pain and suffering
of overly crowded jails. But at the community level their attitudes
and behavior are widely considered as nagging survivors with aggressive
comments and insults. The situation has resulted in a back lash
of anger and frustration on the part of the survivors. How to
address this situation and remain on track with the Justice and
Reconciliation of the Gacaca process is a situation that the GoR
is wrestling with.
— Political space and interactions
between GoR, Civil Society Organizations.
Many among the local and international civil
society organizations in Rwanda say that there is not enough political
space in Rwanda. It is hard to hear voices of dissent. Political
parties exist but don't seem to be able to operate in country.
The 2004 parliamentary report on the ideology of genocide has
intimated NGOs that were perceived to acquire space to criticize
the GoR. In the opinion of many, if NGOs had adequate resource
levels they would be able to provide another voice to the people
and to promote synergies for the community-based development and
enhance the capacity of the people to participate in the efforts
of their communities to address poverty and meet their development
challenges. Without funding, CSOs can't do much to assist poor
rural communities.
— Regional dimensions of the tensions
and reconstruction efforts ( Burundi, Rwanda and DRC): It has
been the practice of many donors including the British government
to give country specific funding to address humanitarian, transition
and recovery needs of each country in the Great Lakes. While this
strategy makes sense in the traditional diplomacy, in the current
situation a crisis in each of the country has spill over effects
on the rest of the countries. Therefore ActionAid International
is advocating a flexible assistance programme addressing the needs
of the three countries at the same time. Furthermore, it is in
the habits of the British Government to base assistance on impact.
In many post-war situations, it is almost impossible to assess
outputs of interventions in the area of peacebuilding. At the
same time, it is impossible to delink the improvement peoples'
livelihoods from peace and security. Therefore, while this seems
to be a violation of basic principles of logic and efficiency
in funding, it calls for new donor assistance insights to be able
to support fragile peace processes and to provide a foundation
for security and development.
— Disparity in public investment
in Kigali and Rural Rwanda: Since the end of the genocide in 1994,
there has been excellent rhetoric about rural development, poverty
alleviation and the improvement of the living conditions of rural
communities. However, there is a huge disparity in public investment
between Kigali and rural Rwanda. While the collapse in the quality
of public services is general, the rural milieu seems to be abandoned
and levels of poverty increasing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
— The British Government should
continue to support GoR on programmes facilitating healing, reconciliation
with the primary focus on change (addressing stereotypes, prejudice,
promoting positive attitudes and perceptions across ethnic lines);
— Given the successes and challenges
of the Gacaca process, the British Government should continue
and increase its support the GoR to consolidate the positive impacts
of the Gacaca and mitigate its negative outcomes;
— To support and reinforce reconciliation
efforts, the British Government should consider providing assistance
to the Rwandan Government that would address basic needs of vulnerable
families: survivors of genocide, families of prisoners, orphans;.
— The British Government needs
to engage top leadership for the promotion of inter-ethnic peaceful
coexistence starting with top leaders/elites themselves;
— The British Government should
support the growth and maturation of Civil Society by channeling
50% of its assistance to the GoR through Civil Society Organizations
(CSOs) both national and international;
— The British Government should
use both its diplomatic influence and its development assistance
leverage to encourage GoR to open political space through support
to existent political parties and creation of space for voices
of decent both in the political arena and in the media;
— The British Government and its
partners in the donor community should support the efforts of
the local media in building their capacity and accessing freedom
of speech;
— Given the fluid nature of problems
and challenges in the Great Lakes, the British Government should
design a flexible regional fund that would address the needs of
the populations of the Great Lakes (in the three countries) instead
of three rigid funds for each country individually;
— The British Government should
lobby the GoR to make more public investments in the country-side
so as to support the decentralization process and to provide equitable
access to services between Kigali urban dwellers and the rural
populations throughout the country.
May 2006
|
