State sovereignty versus individual Rights- By KAYUMBA DAVID

NKUMBA UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT
State sovereignty versus individual human rights in the case of the Rwandan genocide of 1994

By: Kayumba David
Supervised by: Dr. Michel Mawa
School: Humanities, Education and Social Sciences

This study entitled ‘State sovereignty versus individual human rights’ is a critical reflection of the relationship between sovereignty and (individual) human rights especially as it related to the Rwandan genocide in which about a million people perished in only 100 days. The fact that Rwanda government conducted a genocide against its citizens and continued to enjoy the benefits of sovereign rights of independent states such as the protection from foreign interference, well knowing that peoples rights were being violated, moved me to question the legitimacy of state sovereignty of an abusive government.

The purpose of this study was to find out whether the people’s sovereignty has been hijacked from the Rwandans by the state, and misused as a shield to mask violations of individual rights from international scrutiny. And further determine whether state sovereignty was made an excuse for non-intervention to stop the genocide. Therefore, the study set out to accomplish the following objectives; to establish the attitudes of the citizens about their sovereignty and independence in light of the past and present governments; to assess the role of sovereignty and international response to the1994 genocide; to examine the current level of human rights observance in the country; and make recommendations.
I employed a qualitative Ex-post facto study design since I was looking at the conditions that had already occurred. In such a case there is no manipulation of conditions i.e. the genocide had already occurred. So the design was deemed appropriate in as far as the descriptions of facts.

The study was conducted in Kigali, which was the epicentre of the genocide. Using purposive and simple random sampling techniques, a sample of 100 respondents was selected from a study population of 1000 people comprising civil servants, government officials, church leaders, civil society leaders and locals. Using self-administered questionnaires and interview guide data was collected and responses got, were organized, tabulated, and the frequencies determined.

The discussion and analysis of data collected gave the following findings; that sovereignty was not a common right in pre-genocide Rwanda and that the 1962 independence was a Hutu independence rather than Rwandan; it was found out that there was gross misuse of sovereignty by the state government, which culminated in the successive and 1994 genocide; the international community breached the 1948 Geneva Convention obligation; there is considerable observance of human rights by the current government although there are still serious human rights concerns.

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMEMDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter is based on the organized, presented and analyzed data in chapter four of the entire work which is not presented here. The conclusions below are drawn from the discussion of the findings and, in line with the objectives of the study on State sovereignty versus individual human rights. Following the conclusion, are the recommendations, which the researcher recommends to all actors on both local and international stage.
5.2 Conclusions
Attitudes of the citizens about independence/ sovereignty
Here, the study set out to establish the attitude of citizens about their independence and sovereignty in light of the past and the present government. It was found out that most Rwandans consider post-genocide Rwanda to be more independent than before, because it is more inclusive unlike the Hutu independence, which alienated Tutsi from political affairs. The RPF government is highly inclusive and well intentioned for justice and fairness. However, most Hutus could not ascend to this fact. Similarly most Tutsis agreed that sovereignty is helping in realizing national objectives citing the current regime. Offcourse, no African state is independent from foreign interferences, but the level of accountability in Rwanda seem to be impressive to most respondents. Otherwise, the Hutu regimes used sovereignty to shield the violations of human rights.

State sovereignty and international Response to the Rwanda genocide
The objective here was to assess the role of sovereignty and the international response to the 1994 Rwanda genocide. It was found out that there was gross misuse of sovereignty by the state and that the international community showed the highest level of negligence, inexcusable by any right thinking person. Sovereignty was used to shield human rights violations from the disinterested international community. Conversely, the international community pretended to respect the sovereignty of Rwanda although UN had full knowledge of the crimes against humanity ranging from apartheid to genocide and for a period spurning for decades. The silence of international community endorsed genocide, giving the perpetrators confidence to execute their plan.

Foreign intervention, to prevent or stop the genocide has never been treated as illegal any where in modern history, neither would it have been treated so had any state or body intervened in Rwanda. In the previous post-world war cases such as Cambodia under Pol Pot, the U.S. could pretend it did not know that it was happening. In Rwanda, no one could claim ignorance. The new times (2005) reports “ the U.S. did not want to act and its failure to condemn and take action to prevent genocide endorsed a more horrific precedent: flaunting an international law designed to never again allow a holocaust to happen while the world stood by”.


Current Human Rights Observance in Rwanda
The study set out to examine the current level of human rights observance in the country.
It was observed that relatively, there is of respect for human rights. Tremendous success is so far registered as regards social- economic, civil and political rights. However, this is from an on looker’s perspective and that of the government. It is observable that genocide has placed Hutus in a dilemma because as Madman (2001) argues, “ the assumption is that every living Hutu is either an active participant or a passive onlooker in the genocide (267). Morally and legally both are culpable. With this assumption, Hutus feel condemned and in weak position to bargain for their fundamental rights. It is left to the authorities to ration rights for the guilty masses. Hutus thus feel insecure and feel that rights are not being observed. The worst part of it is that, they fear to even demand for such rights. There is much fear among the citizens to the level that they can mention positive aspects of government just to please the concerned. Otherwise down deep inside their mind they portray a picture as being oppressed.
5.3 Recommendations
From the findings, discussions and conclusions above, the researcher makes the following recommendations, which if considered or addressed can help save this world any other atrocity of this kind;
Mass Education and Reconciliation Drives (Attitudinal Change)
It was realized that Rwandese have mixed, dangerous and some unjustified attitudes towards each other. Many of them are suffering from cognitive dissonance (discrepancies) as a result of the genocide and the long term Tutsi–Hutu (master- servant) legacy in the country. The Hutus who were in power, and so the perpetrators of genocide are currently in constant fear and psychological insecurity. The Tutsi on the other hand, who were the major victims still harbor anger and retaliation in one-way or another. These correlates are worsened by the master-servant relationship that existed in the past. Worse still, the government has outlawed the Hutu – Tutsi nomenclatures yet these people know each other as well as themselves. This increases the cognitive dissonance mentioned above. It is thus recommended that the new approach to
reconciliation and how the two people can co-exist be planned and implemented. The sensitization of masses on co-existence rather than pointing fingers should be adopted.

Government need not intimidate people into denying their ethnicity as a way of healing the past. It is healthy and normal to be Tutsi or Hutu. Reconstruction of Rwanda as a multi-nation state in form of a federation and on the democratic principles taking into account the fact that once up on a time, many nations lived autonomously until colonial subjugation and racism offset the arrangement should be done. This should come about by consultation, negotiation, compromise and a re-writing of people’s history. This process of self-examination and purification can lead to a peaceful co-existence rather than a forced co-existence.

Human rights education
It was observed that majority of the local s are ignorant of their rights and of the fact that government should guarantee and protect such inherent rights. It is thus recommended that human rights education be incorporated in the Rwanda’s education curriculum at all levels as a measure to inculcate human rights values and knowledge in society. This education should also target Church leadership in training and dissemination of the eternal truth (reality) that both Tutsi and Hutu nations are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny that no power on earth can break.

Unilateral and Multilateral Intervention Mechanism
It was realized that the UN and other responsible agencies neglected the plight of Rwandans in the 1994 genocide. They thus beat their importance in addressing the objectives for which they were formed. While humanitarian intervention pose both legal and moral problems i.e. legally it challenges the established norm of state sovereignty and morally it challenges the right to communal self-determination, these are subordinate to the norm of human preservation.

The UN charter and other international norms should thus, not restrict humanitarian intervention. Rather, the UN should revisit the charter and the spirit under which UN was created, because after the cold war era, the global challenges have shifted as interests of great powers shifted. So UN can no longer act as it did when it served America’s interests in opposition to USSR. It should be remodelled to suit the current needs of people, world over.

As such, UN should make its contribution by setting up new standards justifying intervention when people’s lives are in danger as was the case in Rwanda without any considerations of sovereignty. Such standards should be in the interest of the people’s rights rather than those who hold the instruments of oppression or the so-called guards of national sovereignty.

Such interventions against despotic dictatorial regimes should be a responsibility of each and every civilized nation for the purpose of alleviating or preventing suffering /threats to peace of the peoples. This is vividly seen in Benjamin Mkapa’s statement, “ we must now stop misusing the principles of sovereignty and non interference in the internal affairs of states to mask poor governance and unacceptable human rights abuses” (Eat African 2004).

So it should be left to the discretion of intervening nation to determine when to do so. After such intervention, an evaluation should follow to establish the justification instead of spending time debating the merits to warrantee intervention. Intervene and later debate the justification. This way lives are saved. Under this new order, UN will only have a limited role but zero restriction on any nation/ nations wishing to carry out humanitarian intervention. Any interference by UN or other nations in the efforts of intervening nation, which results in the loss of life, should be treated as a crime against humanity and severely punished. It is beyond doubt that UN has made hundreds of resolutions and declarations; but all these are mere rhetoric if not accompanied by effective measures.

Reprimand the Guilty Parties For Negligence
It was realized from the studies that, the international community (UN, AU and super powers) showed the highest form of negligence, which can’t just be overlooked and/ or forgiven. Reducing the numbers of peacekeepers rather than increasing them with a stronger mandate spelt doom for the people of Rwanda. There can be no justified reason to this, rather a racist attitude by a body such as UN. Although human life cannot be replaced, Rwanda deserves compensation/ reparations, and this admission of responsibility by UN would help in re-establishing its legitimacy. Other wise, these world bodies don’t deserve the heavily accorded respect.

Also, those countries (USA, Britain and china) that played a role to delay intervention in Rwanda or supplied (France and Egypt) logistics to the killer regime of genocide should be brought to accountability by all civilized peoples. This is not withstanding the fact that, almost every country in the world is guilty for having not come to the rescue of about a million Rwandans who perished.


Regional Crisis response force
It was observed from this study that, there were gross human rights violations before, during and after independence, for decades. To date, there are incidences of human rights abuses and violations all over Africa, Rwanda inclusive. Most of these abuses are not reported. From their inception, human rights bodies world over have always depended on the good will of governments to respect and protect peoples’ rights. This is the clearest evidence that governments are not pro-people who theoretically form them to protect their interests. If this were not true, the human rights bodies would have had an easy job since governments would be partners in the promotion of people’s rights. Wars, violence, and depravity of means to good life at the hands of governments and imperialists, call for a more permanent solution than merely reporting and making resolutions by human rights bodies.

Therefore, it is recommended that in order for human rights bodies to be effective, a military force should be organized at the regional level under the auspices of AU in case of Africa, EU in case of Europe etc. The regional military force should be an autonomous force free from political intrigue and commanded by human rights commission leadership. It should have capacity to respond as a deterrent measure to eminent violence. This calls for effective early warning system such as that under the IGAD. The role of AU will be advisory but cannot restrain the body from pre-emptive or any form of intervention.

Since the human rights bodies e.g. human rights watch, are in constant monitoring of violations/ observance of peoples rights, it will develop a better early warning mechanism of potential dangers. It was felt worthy because, even with limited means, human rights bodies are pro-people than governments or UN or even regional bodies e.g. AU which is more of a trade union of African heads of states than the governed.