GenoDynamics

Understanding Rwandan Political Violence in 1994

Conflict in Time and Space

For approximately 12 years, GenoDynamics has been attempting to understand exactly who did what to whom in Rwanda during 1994. What we know is that there was a significant amount of violence. What we do not know as well is exactly who was engaged in what activity at what time and at what place.

To shed some light on these issues, our research consulted numerous sources both inside as well as outside the country. Some sources directly interviewed/surveyed victims and survivors in Rwanda or refugee camps outside of it, asking them exactly what they lived through. Other sources interviewed/surveyed bystanders, asking them what they saw as well as who was lost and how. Still other sources interviewed perpetrators, asking them what they did and why. Some of the data collection was conducted by ourselves (e.g., focus groups, interviews and surveys). Some of the data was compiled by others: e.g., the Rwandan government, the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR), Human Rights Watch, African Rights and Ibuka. Our research was funded by the National Science Foundation and undertaken with partners at the University of Maryland (the Center for International Development and Conflict Management as well as Government and Politics), Dartmouth College, the National University of Rwanda at Butare (The Centre for Conflict Management), The University of Notre Dame and the University of Michigan.

Below, we provide a summary of our work thus far, the sources employed, the methodology used to combine them, the data that emerged from our efforts as well as responses to the project that we received. In addition to this, you will find animations of diverse phenomenon relevant to the topic, links to other data that is generally not made available to the public as well as photographs of Rwanda.

GenoDynamics makes all of this information available in order to facilitate the systematic and transparent examination of what took place during 1994. The final additions will be made on the anniversary of the genocide. One of the difficulties with comprehending what took place is that very few have had access to the information necesary to make an informed opinion. Only by making raw materials available are we able to overcome this problem.

Christian Davenport - Political Science & Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan

Allan Stam - Department of Political Science, University of Michigan

Project Summary

While there are many issues we seek to understand, thus far we have concluded several things about the violence that took place in Rwanda during 1994: 1) there were several forms of political violence being enacted at once (genocide - mass killing of an ethnic group and/or mass killing of a political group, civil war, random violence and vendetta/reprisal killings), 2) the extremist Hutu government as well as the Rwandan Patriotic Front engaged in violent activity against Rwandan citizens, and 3) the majority of victims were likely Hutu and not Tutsi.

These findings have implications for public policy, advocacy, humanitarian intervention as well as post-conflict reconstruction as they fundamentally shift our understandings regarding the “lessons” of Rwanda 1994. A discussion of our three points are found here.

Fifteen Years is Enough: Rwanda, Political Violence and Justice for All (written in 2009)

Is fifteen years enough time to hold the guilty parties accountable for what took place in Rwanda during 1994? Since then, the international community’s focus has been on tracking down and convicting Hutu Genocidaires; these are the individuals responsible for the killings of Francophone Tutsi in Rwanda associated with the extremist government of the time. Other perpetrators of violence - genocide, civil war, and related violent crimes against humanity of that year, have gone largely unnoticed.

Progress in holding the perpetrators of violence has been mind numbingly slow. Ten years after the events of 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania, had handed down only 21 judgments resulting in 18 convictions. Five years later, the number of completed cases reached 37, while the local gacaca courts operating in Rwanda have processed close to 200,000 alleged participants and perpetrators.

Irregardless of pace, however, both of these proceedings have ignored the role and crimes against humanity committed by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) during the civil war and immediately after. Why should we care that the RPF has been given essentially a free pass? Because in the space of 100 days, as is now widely accepted, it is likely that one million people in Rwanda died. Another two million became refugees and an untold number fled their homes as internally displaced persons. Of the million dead, best estimates place the number of Tutsi (the ethnic minority in the region) dead between 300,000 and 500,000. The ongoing international tribunal and Rwandan justice efforts have been charged with bringing those guilty of the systematic slaughter of the Tutsi to justice.

But what of the killers of the other 500-700 thousand humans? Who is responsible? Clearly, members of the extremist government, those associated with them, and roving bands of violent young men are guilty of some, and perhaps most of this carnage. At the same time, however, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (then rebels, the government now) literally has blood on its hands as well. As Judge Fernando Andreu of the Spanish court has argued, there is more than enough evidence to indict Paul Kagame, the current President of Rwanda. Moreover, from our 10-year investigation into the subject, we estimate that the RPF was directly responsible for the deaths of between 100,000 and 300,000 during and immediately after the civil war. Unfortunately, none of those responsible for the latter crimes has been held accountable. Indeed, tremendous efforts have been extended to make sure that the focus stays exclusively on the Francophone Tutsi victims of the 1994 civil war and their Hutu/FAR executioners.

In addition to the deaths that are directly attributable to the RPF, the research of GenoDynamics (Directed by Christian Davenport – Kroc Institute/Notre Dame, and Allan Stam – University of Michigan) find that deaths under the jurisdiction of the extremist government at the time were directly influenced by military advancements of the RPF into the country. When the RPF surged forward, killings generally increased; when they stopped, killings generally decreased. This analysis severely complicates our understanding of perpetration, guilt, punishment and justice. Indeed, to understand who was involved, who should be held accountable, who should be punished, and who should be assisted in recovering, we need to engage in a more thorough discussion of what happened – taking all of the events and actors into consideration, not fewer of them.

Such an effort is in line with the tireless efforts of the recently deceased Human Rights Watch activist Alison Des Forges. One of the eminent scholars of the genocide, Des Forges wrote extensively on the abuses and aftermath of the genocide and civil war in Rwanda.

In her writings, she argued that the both sides to the 1994 conflict were guilty of war crimes and should be held accountable. She publicly criticized the current gacaca process for its focus on the genocide while ignoring the contemporaneous killings by the RPF. In fact, at the time of her death, Des Forges was working to pressure the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to indict RPF officials for the role in war crimes during the course of the conflict. For this work, in 2008, Des Forges was banned from Rwanda. Confronting the scope and dynamics of the violence has implications for recovery efforts. Unless we set the record straight, it will be as if many of the killings never happened and that would be a grave travesty.

Controversy at the 10th Anniversary (written in 2004)

At the 10th Anniversary of the political violence in Rwanda, individuals from around the world began to put forward their comments/reflections about what took place. GenoDynamics contributed to this discussion by presenting what our research had found up to that date. The basic point of our research at the time was compelling: we found evidence of not only “genocide” (i.e., violence took place in areas that were under the territorial jurisdiction of the Rwandan government). In addition to this, we also found other types of violence as well: 1) violence on the battle-front between the Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) - the rebels that had entered from Uganda), 2) violence that took place under the territorial jurisdiction of the RPF and 3) violence in government territory that did not seem associated with either the extremist government or the RPF. This complicated the basic story that was being put out at the time - making things look even worse than anyone had thought. Unfortunately, the format of the press release did not allow us to address these issues in detail and the information distributed did not immediately make our position clear. This emerged over time.

As a result, there was a significant amount of controversy surrounding our work. Individuals took issue with our claim that multiple forms of violence must be labeled something other than just genocide alone. Remarkably, some argued that if we objected to calling multiple forms of violence genocide, that we must be denying that genocide took place, which we never did.

Below we provide highlights of the debate:

1) What we said/what we wrote (“Rwandan Genocide, 10th Anniversary: Correcting

the Record ”)

2) The poorly researched and inaccurate Reuters Article that started all the

controversy (“Rwanda Killings weren’t Genocide”)

“An aide to Rwandan President Paul Kagame said the research was a "malicious”

attempt to distort the truth just days ahead of memorials on Wednesday to mark

the 10th anniversary of the start of the killings... "It's an insult to survivors and to

Rwandans in general," said Alfred Ndahiro, an adviser to Kagame. "I think we

should treat it with contempt. It's incredible that such things can come up at this

time," he told Reuters on Saturday. He said the government had not yet seen the

report, but insisted that any attempt to deny genocide took place would be to deny