Ann McKechin MP

Labour Member of Parliament for Glasgow North

Rwanda - 18 December 2002

I am grateful to have secured today's Adjournment debate on an area of the world that continues to demand the attention of the international community. Rwanda is a country that suffers from all the problems endemic throughout sub-Saharan Africa, but it also has to cope with the effects of one of the most horrendous incidents of genocide in the 20th century, in which more than 1 million of its population were massacred in about 100 days in 1994. The failures of the international community at that time are well documented, but the question now is how we are contributing today and what we shall do in future to ensure peace and justice for that troubled land.

In October this year, I was fortunate to be part of a cross-party delegation organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. I am delighted that several colleagues who were part of that delegation are here today—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), who so expertly led that delegation. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who is chair of the all-party group on the great lakes region and genocide prevention and has done enormous work to highlight the problems facing Rwanda, is unable to be present. However, I am sure that hon. Members will recall from her address sponsoring the Queen's Speech this year that our delegation faced some unusual challenges, including a closer than expected encounter with a group of silver-backed gorillas who managed to instil more terror in our party than an invitation to a personal meeting with our Chief Whip.

I believe that I can speak for all members of the delegation when I say that our visit greatly increased our insight into the scale and depth of the challenges that currently face the Rwandan nation. I wish to concentrate on one particular day during our visit. It brought home to me that the reconciliation that so many seek is not only a personal desire for justice, but essential to the survival of the nation. The day started with an unscheduled meeting with President Kagame, who answered our questions candidly. We focused on relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a matter to which I shall return.

We then travelled to the genocide site of Ntarama. The site was an abandoned Catholic church where terrified Tutsis and moderate Hutus had gathered, under the false belief that they would gain sanctuary from the rampaging mobs. Churches were often the site of horrendous massacres in 1994. More than 5,000 people—mostly women and children—were killed at that site alone. Their skulls and bones were laid out on shelves, a dreadful reminder of the legacy that the people of Rwanda have had to cope with as they struggle for survival. Even eight years on, the atmosphere of death and despair was overwhelming. That the survivors had deliberately left the remains of their families and friends where they fell was an accusation to the world that had abandoned them and a warning for the future. All they ask for is a proper memorial to the dead. We continued our journey to one of the Gacaca courts that is made up of local lay justices. It was set up this year to deal with the outstanding backlog of cases—about 115,000—from the genocide period. At first glance, the scene seemed almost idyllic. Women in brightly coloured clothes sat on the ground in the shaded wooded area, along with numerous babies and toddlers. More women, together with men of the rural community, stood at the back or at the side of the loosely formed square—about 500 in all. On the other side of the square, perched on small wooden chairs, sat 18 men and women with a man sitting next to them, huddled over papers on an unstable wooden table. The sun streamed through the trees as the children of the local school ran up to stand behind the seated dignitaries. My eyes were then drawn to the four men sitting on the bench dressed in bright pink shirts and shorts—the prisoners.

After a short introduction from the president of the judges and a minute's silence in honour of the victims, the prisoners walked up to the desk in turn and were asked to identify the killers of two local people. They gave out a list of names dispassionately, and returned to sit on the bench. However, the president called back one of the prisoners, Martin. He looked as though he was only in his early 20s, which meant that at the time of the genocide he would have been in his early to mid teens. Martin was asked to give an account of his actions on a particular day. He stated that he was part of a group that went out to look for and kill some of the local Tutsi population. The victims were put into an irrigation ditch and the group started to attack them with machetes. A local senator came along carrying a gun. He asked Martin whether he had ever used a gun before. Martin said no, at which point the senator suggested that he try it out in an attempt to kill off the remaining victims.

The assembled community heard the confession in silence. Suddenly, a woman who was sitting behind us walked up to the judges and stood beside the prisoner. Some of the women assembled gave her a quiet handclap of support. She asked how her father, one of the victims, was killed. Martin did not look at her but confirmed that a sword was used to kill him. Then she stated that the mob had cut off her sister's breasts before she was killed, and that her mother had been stripped of her clothes. Again, Martin did not deny the contention. Still outwardly composed, the woman asked whether Martin had killed her three children. Due to a mix-up at that point, she was forced to hand the microphone directly to Martin. He stated without showing distress that he had murdered 13 people on that day, including her three children. She walked back to her seat, where she later broke down in tears. The clerk wrote a statement for Martin to sign and the president announced the end of the hearing—hearings are held weekly—and the crowd dispersed.

It is difficult to guess the feelings and reactions that must have been raised in the community by that stunning confession. Many are still deeply traumatised and find it difficult to discuss their loss. Many are afraid that the current peace will fail and that the country will again descend into violent revenge. Some who took part in the genocide but remain free are afraid of being identified by the prisoners. To us in the west, such a lack of outward emotion from both the victims and perpetrators seems incredible, but the courts are the first nationwide attempt since the genocide to recognise the truth and achieve some form of comprehensive reconciliation among the Rwandan people.

Two days later, we visited one of the country's prisons. Inside were gathered more than 700 prisoners—men, women and children—who were literally squashed in appallingly squalid and tiny accommodation. Even after only a few days' stay, it was glaringly apparent that the Government do not have the resources to maintain so many prisoners while such a large proportion of the population outside is living in abject poverty. That is the main reason why the Government have offered such a generous deal to those prisoners who agree to confess. Martin's punishment will be determined not by the local Gacaca court, but by a superior district court. The maximum penalty for those who murdered under the direction of others and have confessed is 20 years, of which one half will be served in the prisoner's community. As Martin has been imprisoned for more than seven years, he can expect to return home in less than three years. In turn, the victims' families and the local community are encouraged to accept the confessions and, in a few short years, to allow the perpetrators to live among them again.

The United Kingdom Government have assisted in funding some independent research into the new system, and that research is being piloted in various areas throughout Rwanda. Although the initial reaction has been largely favourable, significant problems still exist in achieving consistency and implementation. It is clear that the meetings revive very painful memories that can lead to even more trauma for the witnesses, and the support offered to them is still weak. Prisoners can appear emotionless or even aggressive when giving evidence. In many cases, that is probably a symptom of traumatic stress, which many of them are experiencing in coming to terms with their participation in the killings and many years of brutal imprisonment.

In addition, many of the local judges are illiterate, and at present they receive a maximum training of only 36 hours in Gacaca law and the legal process. Understandably, their decisions are at times unsatisfactory, and they find it difficult to respond to complex questions about the process asked by members of their community.

The Rwandan Government have still to find much of the funding for the scheme, including the implementation of the community service programme. By contrast, this year the international community will contribute $177 million to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which was established in 1995 at Arusha in Tanzania to try the leaders of the genocide. To date, only nine cases have been fully processed, although in a welcome step the United Nations agreed in August this year to treble the number of judges to speed up work on the backlog. It is unprecedented for the Gacaca system of justice to be applied on such a scale and the risk of failure is high. The necessity of establishing an international tribunal regarding the ringleaders is not in question, but there has been a weak response from the international community to the struggles of ordinary Rwandans in coping with the aftermath of the genocides. The UK's record of assistance was consistently commended by everyone whom we met during our visit. I would, however, urge the Secretary of State to persuade our European colleagues to take greater heed of the need for justice. Despite the inherent risks of such a process, it has received widespread support and it is, at present, the only viable solution whereby reconciliation might be achieved. Time is not on the Rwandan Government's side. The transitional Government will come to an end next year and, for the first time since the genocide, there will be elections for both the Parliament and the President. There is growing cynicism in Rwanda about the work of the international tribunal, which is expressed at the highest levels from President Kagame down.

Last month, Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, visited Westminister. She reported that the Rwandan Government and their agencies were increasingly reluctant to co-operate with the tribunal's investigations, particularly with those that related to inquiries into crimes of retribution by forces that are loyal to the current Administration. There is mounting speculation that the Rwandan military are putting pressure on the President and his Government to block inquiries. Carla del Ponte rightly mentioned the old maxim that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is closely followed by the Serbian population, but there is little access to television in Rwanda. Accordingly, most of the people there are unaware of the extent of the complex and expensive work that is carried out by the tribunal and of the scale of the evidence against the genocide ringleaders. Despite the criticisms, the tribunal has achieved the first finding in international law of the crime of genocide. Anyone who meets Miss del Ponte will quickly become aware of her professionalism and her determination to fulfil her remit. She herself acknowledged the inherent weakness of instituting such proceedings many hundreds of miles away from the nation, and from the victims who suffered from the dreadful crimes.

I am concerned that the remit of the UN regarding the tribunal and the scope of the inquiries should take some account of next year's political changes, because at the end of the current, transitional Government a new constitution will go to a referendum for approval. This is not to suggest that any person should escape justice, but to accept that it is important that none of the international agencies provide—even inadvertently—causes for destabilisation in this sensitive and vital period of change. The Secretary of State might want to comment on whether she would consider it appropriate for the UN to suspend direct investigations in Rwanda for a short, defined period until all elections are complete and then to propose that all further hearings of the tribunal be moved to Rwanda, wherever possible.

Internally, the Rwandan Administration must become sensitive to avoiding a build-up of tension and mistrust among their own population. The restrictions on political and civil liberty, which are to some extent understandable in view of the fragile security situation following the aftermath of the genocide, are radicalising opposition in such a way as to stifle reconciliation and hinder the transition to democracy. It is counterproductive and even dangerous to clamp down on institutions of common ground, where both Hutus and Tutsis can meet, talk and, hopefully, agree on their nation's future

I would refer to the independent monitoring document that was commissioned by the Department for International Development last year, which commented that the law on non-profit associations, the press law and severe constraints on important political parties limited the scope for genuine political dissent. We must bear it in mind that the current 115,000 prisoners will be released into the community in the next three to four years, and it is also anticipated that there will be an influx of demobilised soldiers. It would be disastrous if those people were the focus of recruitment into an aggressive anti-Government sect. It would be preferable for the current Rwandan Patriotic Front regime to permit more peaceful public criticism and debate. I hope that the Secretary of State will use her best endeavours to encourage the Rwandan Government to permit a more open political system.

Another important aspect of long-term peace is the cessation of conflict in the neighbouring Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Rwandan Government are to be commended for the prompt withdrawal of their troops following the agreement that was reached between the two countries earlier this year in South Africa. Yesterday's announcement of a new peace deal between the warring factions within the DRC is very welcome and to the tremendous credit of the South African negotiators. However, as President Kagame made clear to us at our meeting, the eastern DRC has not been an effective state for many years. It will take time to address the root causes of that situation. If the militias that are currently operating in that part of the DRC are not disarmed, and if they continue to pose a threat, the President says that there is a strong likelihood that Rwandan forces will have to re-enter to secure their own borders. That may be understandable, but the consequence is likely to be a collapse of the Pretoria peace process and renewed conflict.

Despite yesterday's announcement, and contrary to the pronouncement of the DRC Minister of Information, I believe that the continued presence of an international peacekeeping force is vital to facilitate an effective disarmament. The recent UN decision substantially to increase the MONUC force is very welcome; but as the Secretary of State well knows, the current force is under strength and there will be great difficulty in persuading neighbouring states to provide further forces unless the richer nations of the world—including our nation—are prepared to provide the appropriate finance. The UK is in a strong position to influence decisions in the area and I am pleased to note that the UN recently considered providing finance for a peacekeeping force in neighbouring Burundi. I hope that our Government can argue a similar case for forces in the DRC. Sadly, the humanitarian situation in eastern DRC has not improved. There is an urgent need to address the political vacuum and protect the civilian population. The conflict has claimed the lives of three million people since 1998. The suffering continues. Most commentators feel that there will not be sustainable peace in the region until economic factors, such as mineral exploitation, are taken into account.

The recent report by the UN panel of experts—about which the Secretary of State has reservations—and last month's report by the all-party great lakes group provide disturbing evidence of the involvement of Rwandan-backed military groups and companies in large-scale mineral exploitation that provides no benefit for the local population. For example, in recent years there have been noticeable increases in production and export figures in Rwanda for certain minerals that are not found in large quantities in Rwanda itself. It is alleged that such economic interests have been funding as much as 80 per cent. of the Rwandan army's operating expenditure. There is also strong evidence of the involvement of a number of European Union companies in that type of exploitation. That involvement is in clear breach of the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for multinational enterprises. In light of the reports, will my right hon. Friend tell us how her Department intends to respond to the recent recommendations? What assessment has she made of the reports? Given the recent history of the great lakes region, does my right hon. Friend agree that none of the problems faced by any one country can be assessed in isolation? Should the Government not now be taking a more integrated, regional perspective by producing a regional policy paper? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current memorandum of understanding with the Rwandan Government should be strengthened in the area of conflict resolution to cover human rights issues and mineral exploitation? With a lack of local, national and international regulatory bodies in the DRC, certain western companies have paid little or no regard to the rights and concerns of the local community.

The most recent report from the UN panel of experts named 12 UK businesses that are considered to be in breach of the OECD guidelines. I urge the Government to carry out a review of those businesses and to contact them to remind them of their corporate responsibilities and the need to abide by the OECD guidelines and the UN declaration of human rights. We must not forget that there has been a mass of human rights abuses by all sides in the current conflict. As in Rwanda itself, the right to justice must be addressed if reconciliation is to be achieved.

Carla del Ponte suggested that such issues might properly be investigated by the new permanent International Criminal Court. I hope that the UK Government, and the Secretary of State, will take an active role in setting up an appropriate international mechanism to bring the culprits to justice. The UK Government—and my right hon. Friend in particular—have taken a commendably pragmatic view in assisting the Rwandan Administration to develop essential public services. The UK has made a major contribution to its reconstruction. However, the approach of the European Union, which has major influence in that part of the African continent, has been disjointed and slow.

Not only does Rwanda suffer from all the major problems that afflict sub-Saharan Africa but the overwhelming majority of its adult population witnessed acts of violence during the genocide. Their scars are deep, and unless the global community—and the west, in particular—is prepared to support with substantial measures their search for peace, democracy and justice, the possibility of further genocide cannot be discounted.


^^ Back to the Top