0:00      Kay Summers: From the School of International Service at American University in Washington, this is Big World, where we talk about something in the world that truly matters.

0:15      Kay Summers: The Rwandan genocide began April 4th, 1994, and lasted roughly 100 days after the Rwandan Civil War, a larger conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. During the genocide, it's estimated that 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were horrifically killed by extremist Hutus. Today, we're talking about the Rwandan genocide on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

0:43      Kay Summers: I'm Kay Summers, and I'm joined by Claudine Kuradusenge-McLeod. Claudine is a professor here in the School of International Service, and she's a scholar-activist specializing in genocide studies and the intersection of diaspora consciousness and social mobilization. She's the author of "Narratives of Victimhood and Perpetration: The Struggle of Bosnian and Rwandan Diaspora Communities in the United States." She's a 2023 Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation Distinguished Scholar, and she directs graduate programs in our Department of Peace, Human Rights, and Cultural Relations. Claudine, thank you for joining Big World.

1:21      Claudine Kuradusenge-McLeod: Thank you for having me.

1:23      KS: Claudine, leading up to the genocide, tension and division between the Hutus and the Tutsis had been simmering for decades. Set off in part by Belgian colonization in the 1930s, that introduced identity cards distinguishing the Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa peoples. The tension continued to escalate in the years leading up to the '94 genocide. Now, I'm wondering in broad strokes, what set off the events of the genocide, and what happened during the 100 days of the genocide in 1994?

1:58      CKM: That's a very complex question with a lot of different answers there. So, thank you. That's a good way to start this. Several things I think are very essential for us to understand. The first one is how connected Rwanda and Burundi are. The year before the genocide, Burundi had elected their first Hutu president, and he got assassinated within the first three months of his presidency, which started the Civil War in Burundi, and led to a lot of refugees, especially Hutu refugees, coming into Rwanda, and sharing messages of the atrocities they were experiencing, and also helping galvanize some of the anti-Tutsi sentiment in Rwanda.

2:45      CKM: The other thing that happened was the Civil War and how the Civil War was being framed by both parties. So the Rwandan government and the RPF, and the international communities really pushing both parties to engage in conversations, but not necessarily allowing them to do it properly. In some ways the international community was taking sides. And that was not necessarily seen as a good way to create negotiations, how parties who have been divided for so long.

3:23      CKM: And finally, Rwanda has never really been a democratic country. So every single government was really oppressing the other one. So it really got to that point where it was just the game in town. Whoever was in power was oppressing the other ones, and it was getting more and more oppressive, and less and less collaborative, I would say. So those are the three main things I want to start with. And when it comes to the 100 days, most people actually died within the first month where it was the extremist Hutus. And looking at the numbers, they usually says about 10 percent of the Hutu population that really engaged in just pure mass slaughter. From family members, friends, their own children, neighbors. And it was mostly targeting Tutsis.

4:20      CKM: But also a lot of Hutus got also killed. Those who did not want to participate, those who had a voice and want to use their voices. So it was pretty bad for really the first month or so. And then after that, it was a lot of episode happening, but it was not that constant targeting at that time. I think it's also important to mention, especially when you talk about Rwanda and then post-Rwanda genocide. It's also important to mention that we did have killings that were committed by the RPF and killings that were committed by also some Tutsi sympathizers. So I think it's a very complex dynamic that's been extremely simplified by looking at it in the lens of one ethnic identity really killing the other one, which really happened. But there were also a lot of tension dynamics that complexified and muddied the water.

5:26      KS: So when we think about '94, for the world looking in, there was shock at what was happening, or I guess probably a slowness to even grab onto what was happening, for those who weren't very close to it. What was the international response in 1994?

5:46      CKM: Not a good one. It was extremely slow, and it was just not a good one. I think the first thing was, and I feel troubled to say that, the first thing was that it was happening in Africa, in a place that had not necessarily been the most stable place on the continent. So they were like, "It's just tribalism at its core. It's just people fighting. We're not necessarily going to really pay attention to that." Also because Bosnia was happening at the same time. So the attention was really mostly on Bosnia, since it's in Europe, than really African countries. But they could not necessarily deny what they were seeing, because we had journalists in Rwanda, we had a lot of different people in Rwanda. So they could not really deny, but the first response was really to kind of close out the embassy and remove all the foreigners. And it really took several months for them to go from, "Oh, tribalism," to "Oh, acts of genocide," to "Okay, a genocide probably happened and we probably should look into really what happened there."

7:02      KS: And it's interesting you remind us that the situation in Bosnia was happening at the same time, and that it was in Europe, and thus more likely to attract attention from the Western world. Do you see any parallels today in the response of the world to atrocities that happen in what would be considered the West versus what might be considered the global south?

7:36      CKM: Very much so. The way the media covered Ukraine, and the way the media either did not cover or really kind of did in a second looking at Sudan, looking at Ethiopia, let's not even talk about the DRC that's been going on for over two decades. So the way that's been covered is different. Of course, in Ukraine we heard the reporters talking about Ukrainians as civilized, they are Christian like us, they are blond, blue-eyed, like us. So those are narratives we heard coming out of the Western media, talking about Ukraine, literally when it actually started. And also the responses in how the Ukrainian citizens were helped by European countries versus all the African international students mostly who were not able to leave the country for a while, who were having all those different challenges. So yeah, you can see that there is a value in some regions, some type of people, and there's less value in other places and other people.

8:49      KS: Okay. We're going to talk a little bit about different parts of the genocide, but just jetting ahead for a moment, 30 years later in Rwanda, where do relations stand between the Tutsis and the Hutus?

9:03      CKM: Do you want the official version? Do you want the scholarly version? Do you want my personal version?

9:13      KS: I would love all three, if you're inclined to give them to me. That would be wonderful.

9:18      CKM: So the official version is Rwanda is a reconciled country. Ethnicity is not a problem anymore, since we do not talk about ethnicity. And Rwanda, both Hutus and Tutsi, and of course, let's not forget the Twa, because we have three different ethnic group in Rwanda. They all live together, and things are looking good, things are better. That's the official version. The scholarly version, we don't know how really that looks like, because people don't really talk about it. Because it is kind of illegal to really

10:00      CKM: ... use ethnicity in a lot of different ways. People don't really talk about it. They don't really express their opinions because they're afraid of the consequences. Rwanda is not a democratic country. Rwanda has not a good track record when it comes to human rights, and it has been getting worse and worse. So I don't think I can say that the relationships are better because we are not really sure of what the truth is, because we're not sure that we're getting the actual information people want to share. On the personal level as a Rwandan, I can tell you that, yeah, no, the relationships have not necessarily improved, not that much. There are a lot of different reasons why they have not improved. But yeah, I cannot say that they have reconciled, not really.

10:57      KS: Claudine, I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge your own experience of losing your parents in the genocide, especially as I ask you this next question, which is, what is life like for survivors of the genocide today, including survivors who are still living in Rwanda and those in the diaspora?

11:21      CKM: Life looks differently if you're in the diaspora or if you are in Rwanda, of course, that is kind of understatement. The survivors of the genocide, since it is framed as a genocide against Tutsi, the survivors of the genocide are Tutsi. So those who are identified or who identify themselves in some capacity as Hutu descendants are not really considered as victims of the genocide, and that has in a lot of ways created then a lot of interesting dynamic especially with the diaspora, because the diaspora, they have the privilege of not being in the country and having a voice in some capacity. So the life has been different in Rwanda. Because ethnicity is not really a thing, you can still see that the country has catered to those who have been recognized as victims. The country has really catered to the Tutsi experience and has put together a lot of different initiatives to really help.

12:39      CKM: They have a Bureau of Reconciliation to really help a lot of Tutsi. I think the other thing that's also interesting is we do have Tutsi Rwandan, and we also have Tutsi Ugandan in the sense of those who really grew up in Uganda and ended up coming back after the genocide. Through my research, I had the privilege to talk to both. They have talked about how there is a difference in the way you are treated, in the way you are seen if you are a Tutsi from Rwanda or Tutsi from Burundi, which I think is extremely fascinating when it comes to the actual lived experience and how you understand then your position within the society. So it's not just that ethnic tension, but it's also inter-tension because of a lot of different dynamics. But life has looked differently for each group. In some ways, there's a sense that people have moved on, but they have not dealt with it. They found ways to have a life, but the trauma is still there in a lot of ways.

14:06      KS: I would think that might be exacerbated by this kind of strange dissonance between the government officially saying ethnicity isn't a problem, and then having reconciliation committees and things like that, but then also the knowledge that for people, there hasn't been that actual reconciliation, that ethnicity is still very much a thing. Is it possible to heal when those two forces are still at work?

14:40      CKM: I've done some work on trauma healing, and one of the main thing we really talk about is the difference between being forced to engage in the process of healing when it comes to the processes put together and the time and really engaging in that process, because you feel like you are ready to do it. In the context of Rwanda, a lot of the things I've seen is people have engaged in the process of healing because in some ways, it was imposed or it was the, "Oh, you need to do it. It's time to do it. We have all these resources. Let's all do it together, because the country's not going to move forward," versus "I'm just not ready, I'm just not ready." If I'm not ready, then there's that potentiality of re-traumatization. So it is a tricky place where reconciliation is framed as nation building and as a way to, in some ways, move past and hopefully not get into other ethnic violence, versus you need to heal to be able to reconcile.

15:59      KS: Claudine, I don't know that it's possible for us to talk about Rwanda over the past 30 years without talking about one man in particular, Paul Kagame, the current president of Rwanda. As you know, has led the Rwandan Patriotic Front in its mission to regain control of Rwanda in 1994. The RPF was successful in regaining control of the nation about 100 days after the massacre began. Paul Kagame has been president of Rwanda since 2000, and is running for a fourth term in the election scheduled for July of 2024, this year. While Rwanda is considered by some a democracy, Kagame is largely regarded as an authoritarian figure. Some might call him a dictator. I'd be interested to know what you would call him. He won the 2017 presidential election with 99% of the vote, which doesn't typically mean that someone is overwhelmingly popular. It means the election was rigged somehow. So, what has been Kagame's impact on Rwanda in the 30 years since the genocide, and how would you characterize him as a figure?

17:06      CKM: I think it's important to understand that the way Rwanda was right after the genocide was, I don't think it could have gone worse. The country was just destroyed in a lot of different ways, on a lot of different levels. So whoever was taking over after that, rebuilding something from the ashes of the genocide was not going to be a very hard task. If they had the means, which the means were there through the international community, and if they had the manpower and the capacity, rebuilding Rwanda was actually going to be possible and feasible in a lot of different ways. But Kagame as a leader, he was a leader of a rebel group, some people say a militia group that, as you said, came in and was engaged in some of the violence, a lot of the violence during the civil war and then during the genocide, and then after the genocide in Rwanda, Kagame was instrumental in a lot of the killing that happened in the DRC, in the Congo, and also in Rwanda. We had a lot of revenge killing right after the genocide. So his basis was not necessarily democratic, and it was not necessarily to build strong democratic institutions. He has done a lot of good things in the sense of Rwanda, the way it looks compared to a lot of African countries, Rwanda looks better. We have roads, we have paved roads. The capital, Kigali, is one of the cleanest cities all over Africa. So, Rwanda has made a lot of progress.

19:13      CKM: We also have a lot of women in the parliament, which that can be debated in terms of how much power they really have and how much of a role they really have, but we have women in the parliament. We have a lot of money come from the international community that helps really build the country. In terms of then what he's been doing the last, I'd say 15 years, he has taken the promises for me of a better Rwanda and has created a Rwanda that has two faces in the sense of you have two sides of the same coin, where the narrative is for Rwanda to prevent a future genocide and a future mass atrocity, we

20:00      CKM: ... cannot necessarily engage in that democratic process the way it is being implemented or conceptualized in other places. We need a strong leader who will show us how to, and will guide us in some ways, to hopefully prevent other atrocities. That is how, in some ways, the path has been created, where the power was consolidated in his hands, where he, in some ways, has a say in how pretty much everything goes in Rwanda and abroad. If anyone wants to attack Rwanda, either Rwandans or international communities, journalists, scholars, there is always a price that is attached to criticizing Rwanda and criticizing Paul Kagame. The price in Rwanda can mean death. The price abroad, in some ways, can also mean death, depending on who you are, depending on how connected and how attached to Rwanda are you.

21:09      CKM: In terms of the label of authoritarian, I think that is not a controversial label. Like, just looking at the reports, looking at all the things we are seeing, definitely Rwanda is not a democracy, and the people who say Rwanda is a democracy I think they're fooling themselves. It's just a way for them to feel better about some of the lack of actions and some of the money that's been sent there. The label of dictator, I think that's a label I will use more likely than the authoritarian one, just because, as you mentioned, this is going to be his fourth term, and he's the only real candidate. These elections, I don't think we need to have them, we already know the results of the elections. That's money spent that can be used for something else in this specific case.

22:07      CKM: But at the end of his fourth term, he will be in the top three longest rulers in Africa, and that goes with the ruler of Cameroon...or even Mussolini, some of those people who have been in power for so long that we don't know. Most people who are born now, Kagame is the only person they have ever known. Those who were born 28 years ago, Kagame is the only person they have ever known. So yeah, he has passed the line, he is a dictator in a lot of different ways.

22:59      KS: Claudine Kuradusenge-McLeod, it's time to Take Five. This is when you, our guest, get to daydream out loud and reorder the world as you'd like it to be by single-handedly instituting five policies or practices that would change the world for the better. What are five things Rwanda needs to do to become fully democratic?

23:17      CKM: I think the first one I 'll say, is an inclusive process, in terms of the reconciliation aspect in Rwanda, actually having that more inclusive to all Rwandans, including Hutus and including Twas. If only one people is given the opportunity to engage and have their voice heard through reconciliation processes and the other two are not, knowing that the other two are like 85 to 86 percent of the population, that does not necessarily lead to positive outcome and democracy. The second one will be accountability for those who are committing crimes. Rwanda has a track record of transnational repression of violation of human rights and of very, not so positive behaviors and actions, so a sense of accountability for all the victims and having a process where victims can actually come forward and seek justice will be helpful.

24:25      CKM: The third one, I would say, a new government. We cannot have the same president for four terms. That does not help create better processes. That does not help create what we would like to see democracy and how we talk about democracy. And that is tied to the fourth one, actually having democratic institutions. One of the problems Rwanda has, and most countries who have authoritarian and dictators, is the fact that they don't think democracy is good for them. They think democracy is a western concept, and they often do not see democracy as giving the voice to the people and allowing people to actually be guiding what the country needs.

25:19      CKM: So democracy is not just the label of the institution, but democracy is how much of a voice and how much of power the people are given to be able to control their own destiny. And the final one will be including the diaspora community. The diaspora community in Rwanda has been divided into a positive diaspora and a negative diaspora. The positive diaspora are the sympathizers, those who really work with the government and are in some ways an extension of the government. The negative diaspora, which is the biggest part of the diaspora, are seen as a threat to the government and, because they're seen as a threat to the government, they then experience massive repression and silencing.

26:10      CKM: So including the diaspora in the processes, actually stopping the division among the diaspora, which will happen if you're able to create inclusive processes that actually take into consideration everybody, will be one of the way to engage with all Rwandans and will in some ways allow then the divisions and will allow Rwanda to really stand on its two legs and talk about democratic institutions and democratic processes.

26:43      KS: Thank you. An international criminal tribunal for Rwanda was established in November of 1994 to prosecute people responsible for the genocide. According to the UN, 93 people were indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity, including Jean Kambanda, who served as caretaker/prime minister during the genocide and was sentenced to life in prison. Claudine, as people think of justice, is there a sense that justice has been served in the punishment of those who committed these actions and crimes, or is there a belief that more should have been done to punish specific people?

27:31      CKM: That's another controversial question. I feel like sometimes everything can be controversial when it comes to Rwanda. I think the simple answer will be, do we consider the ICTR justice for Rwandans, or is that in some ways justice for the international community? What I mean by that is, was that really created to acknowledge and bring accountability to Rwandan victims, or was that a process put together by the international community mostly to be like, "Oh, we messed up. Let's see then what we need to do to show that we are actually doing something."

28:26      CKM: In that context, I think the question of justice in itself is a very interesting one, but if I look at justice for Rwandans, the answer will be no, maybe, no. Right? No the sense of when they were going after the people they wanted to bring to the ICTR, one of the big challenge was, they realized that some of the crimes they were looking at were actually committed by RPF. And the RPF and current President Kagame was like, "No, you're going to focus on these specific crimes, you're going to focus on these specific people, and you're not touching us, you're not touching my people."

29:20      CKM: From very early on, a lot of Rwandans were like, "This is not justice for us because if I'm victim of something and I've been told that my victimhood and the person who actually committed the crimes against me are out of touch, we cannot touch them, then what exactly are you actually telling me?" Right? In the broader sense of the Rwandan people and that sense of justice, it is very much justice delayed, and in some ways, justice denied

30:00      CKM: Because one of the perpetrators is currently in power.

30:05      KS: So it was sort of like history is written by the victors, and this is who we're going to say was the bad guy for the international community to punish. And now everybody should just feel good because justice was done. But that's not at all how it feels or reality.

30:23      CKM: One of the research I'm currently conducting and the one that was selected for the Guggenheim grant is looking at then the Rwandan refugees who fled and ended up in the DRC. And the stories that we are hearing are stories of being hunted, like hunted like animals by some RPF members. And for them, it did not happen within the context of the genocide. It didn't happen in those hundred days. It happened a couple of years later. But for them as Rwandans who had fled mass atrocities and went to a place to experience and see mass atrocities, for them, as I said to one of the person who is responsible for a lot of the suffering, is the one who's also ruling the country. Justice is not really a thing in that specific context for them.

31:29      KS: Right. Claudine, when we look over the past 30 years, as you mentioned, Paul Kagame as leader of Rwanda has led the country in making some progress in reducing poverty, also witnessed economic growth, but there are serious challenges that remain, including human rights abuses. For example, the US Department of State has documented several instances of human rights abuses, including reports of unlawful killings, life-threatening prison conditions, restrictions on free expression, as you mentioned, and threats of violence against journalists. So looking broadly at human rights, what do you believe is the status of human rights for Rwandans today?

32:13      CKM: Last time I checked Freedom House, I think Rwanda, we had like a 21 or 22 out of 100. And a lot of the democracy and human rights indicators were not good. So Rwanda has massive violation of human rights, like actual basic ones that comes with idea of dignity. As you mentioned, some of the conditions in prison, some of the conditions actually like in the rural areas are also not good at all. We see Kigali as this paradise, but when you actually leave Kigali for a second, you have places that are just not taken care of at all. But also, as you mentioned, freedom of expression, being able to actually vote in elections, fair elections where you actually have options and you feel like you do have the option to choose who you want. And some of the basic rights we take for granted in these countries are just not given to all of Rwandans. So yeah, the track record is not a good one.

33:37      KS: Claudine, we've been talking about this because it's been 30 years, which sounds like a long time. I guess it definitely sounds like a long time if you're not even yet 30 years old. But in a situation of mass atrocities, I think time probably passes differently for people affected. I would guess that to some Rwandans, it seems like yesterday. So two questions in closing. Given 30 years, first, what has been the lasting impact of the genocide on the nation? And then, what do you envision life looking like for the people of Rwanda over the next decade or so?

34:16      CKM: I think for a lot of people, let's start in Rwanda. For a lot of people in Rwanda, the last 30 years have gone slowly, and the last 10 years are going to be the same because nothing has really changed much for their condition. Things look cleaner, things look prettier, but the social political conditions have not necessarily changed much. And for the people in the diaspora, I think the last 30 years for some of them feels like yesterday. For others, it feels like a century ago, and they just want to move on. They don't want to talk about it, don't want to even listen or hear anything about it. For the next 10 years, I think there's a sense of uncertainty for a lot of people. And the uncertainty comes with: if Paul Kagame is not president, what will happen? And I know some people are afraid that he's been holding... He had such a strong hold on the country for so long that if he's not there anymore, they just don't know.

35:34      CKM: We just don't know who's going to take over. We don't know if all the animosity, in a lot of ways, that has been boiling up because of some of the conditions are going to lead to something violent or if a transition will be implemented in the right way. If you have never experienced democracy, it is hard to implement it. And Rwandans have never experienced democracy, not just under President Kagame. They have never experienced democracy. So a lot of people are kind of nervous and worry about what will happen if and when President Kagame is not in power.

36:21      CKM: But also a lot of people are willing to take the gamble. They're willing to be like, "It's been 30 years." He was not officially in the government, or at least the leader, for the first six years after the genocide, but he was, right? So they are willing to take the gamble, and they are becoming louder and louder. They are doing everything they can to make themselves heard. A lot of them are doing it through nonviolent means, but then you also have others who are just tired of waiting and they are ready to do anything by any means necessary, which in some ways that is a little bit more frightening, I think. But yeah, the next 10 years will be interesting. Will he go for a fifth term? That's scary.

37:18      KS: Claudine Kuradusenge-McLeod, thank you for joining Big World to discuss the 30th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide. It's really been a privilege to speak with you about this. Thank you.

37:28      CKM: Thank you for having me.

37:30      KS: Big World is a production of the School of International Service at American University. Our podcast is available on our website, on Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. If you leave us a good rating or a review, it'll be like free extra legroom. Our theme music is "It Was Just Cold," by Andrew Codeman. Until next time.