Demystifying the role and meaning of humanitarianism in the eyes of - - PDF document

Demystifying the role and meaning of humanitarianism in the eyes of survivors of the Rwandan Genocide

How have the most well-informed and intelligent people got it so wrong? In recent years, there has been a glut of organisations set up to evaluate the role of

• humanitarianism. Much money is being spent on appraising the lessons learnt from recent

crises and conflicts, facilitating reconciliation and the sharing of experiences and proclaiming recommendations for the future. But despite all of this, the humanitarian world continues to get it wrong. Darfur is just

• ne current example. The humanitarian community talks a lot and discusses a great deal

about the need to act, but seemingly it is doing little. Sadly, it appears that history is being left to repeat itself - as we begin to hear all too familiar stories from Sudan about mass rape. Not only has the humanitarian world not learnt the lesson of inaction during the 100 days

• f the Rwandan genocide, it also has not learnt the lessons of ineffectiveness over the last

ten years following the genocide. The survivors of the Rwandan genocide continue to be sidelined today. Is this continued dereliction a deliberate racist statement, or don’t Rwandans - to whom we shut our doors ten years ago, and continue to close out today - deserve our support and recognition? Is this neglect due to lack of information or does the humanitarian sector believe that the entire people who were targeted by the killers died, leaving no one to tell the story? Humanitarians prize human values and rights, and in simple terms this is what survivors

• understand. They are a group of people that mean and do good - intervening to save the

most vulnerable, and targeting their efforts to help the most needy. Humanitarian

• rganisations cover the spectrum of traditional development agencies, relief and

emergency oriented agencies. During the genocide, as bodies of the Rwandan victims floated down the Lake Victoria, the British public and the world at large gave money generously to these organisations to support the survivors of the atrocities. But, as we are all too aware now, many agencies left Rwanda in search of safety during the 100 days of the genocide, only returning once security was restored by the Government of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). Following the genocide, well over 200 International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) flew in to Rwanda to set themselves up in strategic sites, mostly in the capital

• Kigali. The majority of these INGOs spent their money supporting refugees across the

border, committing little or no resource to assess the needs of survivors of the genocide living in Rwanda. Worse still some agencies raised money on the back of sympathy for victims of the genocide, which they then channelled to refugee camps to support the people and structures that caused the genocide. Aiding the killers who had executed, and were planning to resume, the genocide was not intentional – but the diversion of aid away from Rwanda was.

This alone is cause for consternation but the matter was exacerbated by the fact that established INGOs working in Rwanda then began to consider themselves more legitimate than the newly established Rwandan Government. The Government was highly criticised and much maligned by these INGOs, a matter that did little to enhance stability in the country, or perceptions of stability so critical for prospective donors. The Government was often depicted as a Tutsi minority illegitimate government. But what these INGOs never discussed nor mentioned was that the majority lead - elected government - with which they worked pre-genocide - had endorsed, supported and armed the very people that killed over one million people in just 100 days. In the days that followed the genocide, the new Rwandan Government appealed to the international community to remove refugees from its borders to prevent the infiltration and destabilisation of the country. In conflict zones, such as Sierra Leone, Western governments had set a precedent by dispatching peacekeepers to help the Government get back to its feet and re-establish order and security. However, the case was different in

• Rwanda. With no support from the international community, the Government of Rwanda

had to deal with the situation alone. As such, it launched an offensive to ensure that no incursions could be launched from Rwanda’s borders. Tragically innocent people died, but the objective was achieved and unquestionably future instability was averted. However the INGOs overcompensated for their earlier silence, by vocalising their belief that the newly established Rwandan Government was now committing genocide. I contest that this was not the case. But where are / were the survivors in all this? I strongly believe that as a result of the bad chemistry between the INGOs and the Rwandan Government the survivors again were the victims. It was they that have been punished, and left to be slaughtered, they have been dehumanised. Rather than being referred to as individuals deserving of our help and support they are instead labelled as Tutsis. They continue to be neglected, and are still very much isolated. Representing, and speaking here today on behalf of survivors I can tell you that this is more than just a perception. This lack of empathy with the victims and survivors of the genocide is very much a reality. This feeling of isolation and neglect is a fact. The suffering and distress is still acute – as much today, as ten years ago. People continue to die as a result of the genocide, in particular the 25,000 women deliberately infected by HIV positive men during the systematic programme of rape in 1994. A situation no different, some are claiming, to what is happening today in Darfur, Sudan. And still the international community, and humanitarian world do little. The fact that INGOs, on the10th anniversary of the genocide still refuse to speak out about the genocide, in many instances refuse to take responsibility for what happened and continue to not give the support so needed by the survivors today - is wrong. In my opinion, and hopefully yours too.

Why was I invited to address this meeting of ALNAP? To tell a story that you already know, or out of curiosity as to how survivors have managed their lives without your support? Let me tell you why I came here today. I came here to tell you how it is, from the survivors’ perspective. And I do not and cannot apologise if this is not what you wanted,

• r expected, to hear.

The message from survivors is this:

• lessons are too often discussed, but not often enough learnt…
• to remind you that the genocide in Rwanda was planned, controlled and executed

whilst the world stood by and did nothing.

• that the survivors of the genocide in Rwanda have no expectation nor trust of

humanitarian organisations. That they have been failed once already is enough. The lesson they have tragically learnt is to rely on no-one except themselves.

• that survivors will never allow the world to forget, the 1,000,000 who died in
• Rwanda. Nor those survivors who continue to fight for justice.

This is the thread that runs through all the work of Survivors Fund, a motivation to ensure that the voice of survivors is heard, that the memory of the genocide is kept alive and that the victims are never forgotten - especially those still living under the legacy of the Rwandan genocide. Women and girls raped and deliberately infected by HIV positive men are now dying from AIDS, with no help or support from you or any of the international community. What is humanitarianism, if it is not the belief in the importance of alleviating the suffering of those in need? If that is so, then I call on you to make good on your belief and help those still suffering in Rwanda. To help now.