term"coexistence"is used in general parlance, it is the "passive" form that is most often being invoked Grasping the complexity of these many conceptions of reconciliation is critical to understanding the way that this term is employed in Rwanda, in which context ideas of restoration of inter-group and inter-personal relationships, of healing, justice, cooperation and peacebuilding all come into play. This paper does not purport to privilege any of these definitions as the true" definition of reconciliation, but instead recognizes that the many explanations of reconciliation cited above are all potentially valid definitions, all of which must, to one degree or another, be part of any truly full and effective reconciliation process. Instead of focusing on these various facets of reconciliation themselves, however, this paper will seek to explore the diverse and often divergent ways that this term is understood and employed by the Rwandan government, the Rwandan people, and the various international actors who interact with post-genocide Rwanda. Nonetheless, this paper does follow the scholars cited above in recognizing an important distinction between reconciliation"and"coexistence. Thus, when using the term "coexistence, this paper intends to point to a more passive and superficial understanding of the post-conflict socio-cultural process than the process referred to when discussing reconciliation As is clear in the above discussion, reconciliation represents an extraordinarily complex project, and this intrinsic complexity is reflected in the various methods suggested as means of furthering the process of reconciliation. First, it is clear that there are many different levels of society within which the process of reconciliation must take place, including the individual, the family, the group, and the official or governmental levels.9 Structural aspects of reconciliation must be addressed (such as implementing human rights safeguards, reducing social inequities, or developing ties across groups), just as institutional projects of reconciliation must be implemented(such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, educational institutional reform, and public ceremonies or commemorations). At the same time, the interpersonal level cannot be ignored, which level 69 Louis Kriesberg, "Paths to Varieties of Intercommunal Reconciliation, "in Ho-Won Jeong, ed, Conflict Resolution: Dynamics, Process and Structure( Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 1999),106
16 term “coexistence” is used in general parlance, it is the “passive” form that is most often being invoked. Grasping the complexity of these many conceptions of reconciliation is critical to understanding the way that this term is employed in Rwanda, in which context ideas of restoration of inter-group and inter-personal relationships, of healing, justice, cooperation and peacebuilding all come into play. This paper does not purport to privilege any of these definitions as the “true” definition of reconciliation, but instead recognizes that the many explanations of reconciliation cited above are all potentially valid definitions, all of which must, to one degree or another, be part of any truly full and effective reconciliation process. Instead of focusing on these various facets of reconciliation themselves, however, this paper will seek to explore the diverse and often divergent ways that this term is understood and employed by the Rwandan government, the Rwandan people, and the various international actors who interact with post-genocide Rwanda. Nonetheless, this paper does follow the scholars cited above in recognizing an important distinction between “reconciliation” and “coexistence.” Thus, when using the term “coexistence,” this paper intends to point to a more passive and superficial understanding of the post-conflict socio-cultural process than the process referred to when discussing reconciliation. As is clear in the above discussion, reconciliation represents an extraordinarily complex project, and this intrinsic complexity is reflected in the various methods suggested as means of furthering the process of reconciliation. First, it is clear that there are many different levels of society within which the process of reconciliation must take place, including the individual, the family, the group, and the official or governmental levels.69 Structural aspects of reconciliation must be addressed (such as implementing human rights safeguards, reducing social inequities, or developing ties across groups), just as institutional projects of reconciliation must be implemented (such as Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, educational institutional reform, and public ceremonies or commemorations). At the same time, the interpersonal level cannot be ignored, which level 69 Louis Kriesberg, “Paths to Varieties of Intercommunal Reconciliation,” in Ho-Won Jeong, ed., Conflict Resolution: Dynamics, Process and Structure (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 1999), 106
encompasses such initiatives as small group workshops, post-traumatic therapy, and personal The interaction between these different structural, institutional and interpersonal levels is illustrated by conflict resolution scholar Mari Fitzduff in her examination of the case of Northern Ireland. Fitzduff outlines three approaches by which reconciliation is being tackled in this country The first she discusses is rights/equality work that addresses issues of inequality and discrimination, and that particularly seeks to redress major economic inequities at the level of state policy. The second approach she highlights is "coexistence/diversity work, which addresses issues of cultural and political inclusion, " and that includes diversity initiatives implemented both through symbolic measures such as"Irish-language street signs"as well as through practical initiatives such as those created to institute diversity in the police force. The third approach she discusses is"reconciliation-interdependence work, which addresses issues of dialogue and reconciliation. 4 Such interdependence initiatives, she notes, have included projects ranging from womens groups working in dialogue and cooperation initiatives, to community initiatives begun as a means to jointly address larger social needs. Although Fitzduff divides these different reconciliation initiatives into thematic approaches, it is clear that these measures also comprise an address to the tri-level structural, institutional, and interpersonal framework that was outlined above In addition to these different levels of reconciliation there are several different dimensions to this process. As Kriesberg discusses, these different dimensions include"()truth, in the sense of shared understandings of it and at least recognition of varying views of it, (2) justice, whether in the form of punishment of wrongdoers or of a new, more equitable system of relations, ( 3) bid,113-1 7 Mari Fitzduff, "The Challenge to History: Justice, Coexistence, and Reconciliation Work in Northern Ireland, in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed, Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD gton books,2001),257-259 Ibid,257-258 73bid.260-3 74 Ibid. 257-8 Ibid.264-6
17 encompasses such initiatives as small group workshops, post-traumatic therapy, and personal meetings.70 The interaction between these different structural, institutional and interpersonal levels is illustrated by conflict resolution scholar Mari Fitzduff in her examination of the case of Northern Ireland. Fitzduff outlines three approaches by which reconciliation is being tackled in this country. The first she discusses is rights/equality work that addresses issues of inequality and discrimination, and that particularly seeks to redress major economic inequities at the level of state policy. 71 The second approach she highlights is “coexistence/diversity work, which addresses issues of cultural and political inclusion,”72 and that includes diversity initiatives implemented both through symbolic measures such as “Irish-language street signs” as well as through practical initiatives such as those created to institute diversity in the police force.73 The third approach she discusses is “reconciliation-interdependence work, which addresses issues of dialogue and reconciliation.”74 Such interdependence initiatives, she notes, have included projects ranging from women’s groups working in dialogue and cooperation initiatives, to community initiatives begun as a means to jointly address larger social needs.75 Although Fitzduff divides these different reconciliation initiatives into thematic approaches, it is clear that these measures also comprise an address to the tri-level structural, institutional, and interpersonal framework that was outlined above. In addition to these different levels of reconciliation, there are several different dimensions to this process. As Kriesberg discusses, these different dimensions include “(1) truth, in the sense of shared understandings of it and at least recognition of varying views of it, (2) justice, whether in the form of punishment of wrongdoers or of a new, more equitable system of relations, (3) 70 Ibid., 113-118. 71 Mari Fitzduff, “The Challenge to History: Justice, Coexistence, and Reconciliation Work in Northern Ireland,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 257-259. 72 Ibid., 257-258. 73 Ibid., 260-3. 74 Ibid., 257-8. 75 Ibid., 264-6
remorse and forgiveness, either of which may be expressed independently of the other or that are carefully exchanged, and (4)person and/or group safety and security. Also important to note in this context is that while both top-down and bottom-up approaches have their place within the process of reconciliation, many scholars warn that reconciliation cannot merely be officially decreed or demanded. 78 Within this comprehensive framework, however, different scholars suggest a variety of strategies Many scholars put the acts of apology and forgiveness at the center of the reconciliation process. Other focus on group identity and the need for both sides in a conflict to"rehumanize their previously dehumanizing visions of each other. Others focus on the need to fully address and deal with trauma issues, both through "public acts of healing such as truth commissions and through more"private acts of healing. l Still others focus on the need to create a"dialogical frameworkin which"all relevant actors"can"communicate and negotiate about their perspectives, grievances, demands and so forth, especially in situations where history itself is contested 82 Justice is not absent from these considerations of reconciliation, but most scholars acknowledge that there are key limitations of criminal justice in post-conflict situations. Thus, in discussing justice in the context of post-conflict reconciliation, many scholars point to"restorative justice, a Kriesberg, "Changing Forms of Coexistence, 60 Kriesberg, "Paths to Varieties of Intercommunal Reconciliation, 119-122 Juan Mendez, "Latin American Experiences of Accountability, " in Ifi Amadiume and Abdullahi An Na'im, eds, The Politics of Memory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice(London: Zed Books, 2000), 136 Fisher, 38-9: Marc Gopin, Forgiveness as an Element of Conflict Resolution in Religious Cultures Walking the Tightrope of Reconciliation and Justice, " in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed, Reconciliation Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001),87-100 Nimer,ed. Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 1'ed Abu- Lisa Schirch, "Ritual Reconciliation: Transforming Identity/ Reframing Conflict, "in Mohamme Joseph V. Montville, "Justice and the Burdens of History, in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 133-4 Abdullahi An-Na'im and Svetlana Peshkova, ""Social Movements Revisited: Mediation of Contradictory Roles, in Ifi Amadiume and Abdullahi An Na'im, eds, The Politics of Memory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice(London: Zed Books, 2000), 7 Martha Minow, Behveen Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History affer Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), Mica Estrada-Hollenbeck, "The Attainment of Justice through Restoration, not Litigation, "in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed, Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD Lexington Books, 2001)
18 remorse and forgiveness, either of which may be expressed independently of the other or that are carefully exchanged, and (4) person and/or group safety and security.”76 Also important to note in this context is that while both top-down and bottom-up approaches have their place within the process of reconciliation,77 many scholars warn that reconciliation cannot merely be officially decreed or demanded.78 Within this comprehensive framework, however, different scholars suggest a variety of strategies. Many scholars put the acts of apology and forgiveness at the center of the reconciliation process.79 Other focus on group identity, and the need for both sides in a conflict to “rehumanize” their previously dehumanizing visions of each other.80 Others focus on the need to fully address and deal with trauma issues, both through “public acts of healing,” such as truth commissions, and through more “private acts of healing.”81 Still others focus on the need to create a “dialogical framework” in which “all relevant actors” can “communicate and negotiate about their perspectives, grievances, demands and so forth,” especially in situations where history itself is contested. 82 Justice is not absent from these considerations of reconciliation, but most scholars acknowledge that there are key limitations of criminal justice in post-conflict situations.83 Thus, in discussing justice in the context of post-conflict reconciliation, many scholars point to “restorative justice,” a 76 Kriesberg, “Changing Forms of Coexistence,” 60. 77 Kriesberg, “Paths to Varieties of Intercommunal Reconciliation,” 119-122. 78 Juan Méndez, “Latin American Experiences of Accountability,” in Ifi Amadiume and Abdullahi An Na’im, eds., The Politics of Memory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice (London: Zed Books, 2000), 136. 79 Fisher, 38-9; Marc Gopin, “Forgiveness as an Element of Conflict Resolution in Religious Cultures: Walking the Tightrope of Reconciliation and Justice,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 87-100. 80 Lisa Schirch, “Ritual Reconciliation: Transforming Identity/ Reframing Conflict,” in Mohammed AbuNimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 152. 81 Joseph V. Montville, “Justice and the Burdens of History,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 133-4. 82 Abdullahi An-Na’im and Svetlana Peshkova, “Social Movements Revisited: Mediation of Contradictory Roles,” in Ifi Amadiume and Abdullahi An Na’im, eds., The Politics of Memory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice (London: Zed Books, 2000), 77. 83 Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998); Mica Estrada-Hollenbeck, “The Attainment of Justice through Restoration, not Litigation,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001)
concept that aims to reconcile conflicting parties while repairing the injuries from the crimes. In this context, punishment, restitution and compensation are seen not as ends in themselves but as elements within a larger context of reconciliation. One example of such an attempt to grapple with the joint issues of restorative justice and reconciliation is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) set up by the post-apartheid South African government. Recalling the focus on truth in the process of reconciliation that was mentioned above, one of the principal goals of the South African tRC has been to develop shared understandings of "the reality of past and present relations, "and to thus provide"a base upon which justice, remorse/forgiveness, and peace can be gradually constructed. Problematizing the role of truth and of justice in the post conflict process, however, some scholars question whether the institutionalized"version of truth uncovered by the tRc is in fact useful to the process of reconciliation. Similar issues relating to truth and justice come up again and again in looking at the process of reconciliation in Rwanda and will be discussed at length in later chapters of this paper. In sum, reconciliation is a process that extends to every arena of society. The process of reconciliation, however, is in no sense an"easy ride, but is a process that is ridden with challenges. Difficulties that emerge in this process include"opposition from elites, backlash from rejectionists, ' persistence of incompatible goals and lack of political progress, re-politicization of peace-building initiatives, [and] lack of human and material resources. In looking Bosnia/Herzegovina(BiH), a country emerging from a genocidal conflict that is in many way similar to that of Rwanda, peacebuilding scholar Barry Hart discusses two of these challenges the potential politicization of reconciliation initiatives and the key question of resources Emphasizing that reconciliation in such an extreme situation can only achieve its goals if undergirded by financial and long-term commitment, Hart notes that obtaining time, money and local political will for reconciliation initiatives continues to be a central challenge in post-conflict 84 Estrada-Hollenbeck, 74; For a similar discussion, also see Wendy Lambourne, " Justice and Reconciliation: Postconflict Peacebuilding in Cambodia and Rwanda, in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence(Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 311-338 8>Kriesberg, "Changing Forms of Coexistence, "61 86 Mamdani, "The Truth According to the TRC, 177 87 An Na'im and Peshkova. 7
19 concept that aims “to reconcile conflicting parties while repairing the injuries from the crimes.” 84 In this context, punishment, restitution and compensation are seen not as ends in themselves but as elements within a larger context of reconciliation. One example of such an attempt to grapple with the joint issues of restorative justice and reconciliation is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) set up by the post-apartheid South African government. Recalling the focus on truth in the process of reconciliation that was mentioned above, one of the principal goals of the South African TRC has been to develop shared understandings of “the reality of past and present relations,” and to thus provide “a base upon which justice, remorse/forgiveness, and peace can be gradually constructed.”85 Problematizing the role of truth and of justice in the postconflict process, however, some scholars question whether the “institutionalized” version of truth uncovered by the TRC is in fact useful to the process of reconciliation.86 Similar issues relating to truth and justice come up again and again in looking at the process of reconciliation in Rwanda, and will be discussed at length in later chapters of this paper. In sum, reconciliation is a process that extends to every arena of society. The process of reconciliation, however, is in no sense an “easy ride,” but is a process that is ridden with challenges. Difficulties that emerge in this process include “opposition from élites, backlash from ‘rejectionists,’ persistence of incompatible goals and lack of political progress, re-politicization of peace-building initiatives, [and] lack of human and material resources.”87 In looking at Bosnia/Herzegovina (BiH), a country emerging from a genocidal conflict that is in many ways similar to that of Rwanda, peacebuilding scholar Barry Hart discusses two of these challenges, the potential politicization of reconciliation initiatives and the key question of resources. Emphasizing that reconciliation in such an extreme situation can only achieve its goals if undergirded by “financial and long-term commitment,” Hart notes that obtaining time, money and local political will for reconciliation initiatives continues to be a central challenge in post-conflict 84 Estrada-Hollenbeck, 74; For a similar discussion, also see Wendy Lambourne, “Justice and Reconciliation: Postconflict Peacebuilding in Cambodia and Rwanda,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 311-338. 85 Kriesberg, “Changing Forms of Coexistence,” 61. 86 Mamdani, “The Truth According to the TRC,” 177. 87 An Na’im and Peshkova, 77
BiH. Turning to politics, Hart also notes that "internal political blockages"present another key challenge to the successful implementation of reconciliation initiatives. These issues are not only unique to BiH, but also represent critical issues in Rwanda's own process of reconciliation In addition to these central challenges, other scholars note yet further potential stumbling blocks common to the process of post-conflict reconciliation. Discussing the question of identity so central to any consideration of ethnically-structured conflict, Fisher points out that the process of reconciliation can present a stark threat to individuals own identities. " In ethnopolitical conflict, he explains, "one group's identity often incorporates the rejection of the other's identity and legitimacy as a people. Consequently, he elaborates, the process of reconciliation, or of transforming these divisive constructions of identity, is an inherently challenging process Another such difficult revolves around the question of memory, and in relation to BiH, Hart stresses the need to prevent the memory of war from "emotionally crippling" the region,s people Finally, in addition to these concerns regarding identity and memory, Fitzduff discusses the inherent tension in the process of post-conflict reconciliation between actors who privilege structural addresses to reconciliation and those who privilege psycho-cultural perspectives. In her discussion of Northern Ireland, she maintains that the recognition of mutual complementarity between these two approaches has been vital to the effective progression of this post-conflict process As with all of these examples taken from other post-conflict societies, the process of reconciliation in Rwanda is an overwhelmingly complex undertaking. While the crux of this process in Rwanda is how to " incorporate a guilty majonity alongside al ieved and fearful minority in a single Barry Hart, ""Refugee Return in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coexistence before Reconciliation, " in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed, Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence( Lanham, MD: Lexington Books 2001),296 89 Fisher. 35 Fitzduff. 268
20 BiH. Turning to politics, Hart also notes that “internal political blockages” present another key challenge to the successful implementation of reconciliation initiatives.88 These issues are not only unique to BiH, but also represent critical issues in Rwanda’s own process of reconciliation. In addition to these central challenges, other scholars note yet further potential stumbling blocks common to the process of post-conflict reconciliation. Discussing the question of identity so central to any consideration of ethnically-structured conflict, Fisher points out that the process of reconciliation can present a stark threat to individuals’ own identities. “In ethnopolitical conflict,” he explains, “one group’s identity often incorporates the rejection of the other’s identity and legitimacy as a people.”89 Consequently, he elaborates, the process of reconciliation, or of transforming these divisive constructions of identity, is an inherently challenging process.90 Another such difficult revolves around the question of memory, and in relation to BiH, Hart stresses the need to prevent the memory of war from “emotionally crippling” the region’s people.91 Finally, in addition to these concerns regarding identity and memory, Fitzduff discusses the inherent tension in the process of post-conflict reconciliation between actors who privilege structural addresses to reconciliation and those who privilege psycho-cultural perspectives. In her discussion of Northern Ireland, she maintains that the recognition of mutual complementarity between these two approaches has been vital to the effective progression of this post-conflict process.92 As with all of these examples taken from other post-conflict societies, the process of reconciliation in Rwanda is an overwhelmingly complex undertaking. While the crux of this process in Rwanda is how to “incorporate a guilty majority alongside an aggrieved and fearful minority in a single 88 Barry Hart, “Refugee Return in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coexistence before Reconciliation,” in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, ed., Reconciliation, Justice and Coexistence (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2001), 296. 89 Fisher, 35. 90 Ibid. 91 Hart, 303-4. 92 Fitzduff, 268