After attending Susan’s talk on Thursday, it was astonishing to hear how “explicit” Rwanda is involved in the violence in eastern DRC. Of particular interest to me was her mention of the FDLR, or Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda. Based on prior research done for a class last year, I wanted to post what I have come to understand about the group:

According to María Paz Ortega Rodríguez (2011), the internal discourse of the FDLR maintains an “extreme and ethnically motivated anti-Tutsi ideology; the real objective appears to be to overthrow the current Government of Rwanda and to establish a majority Hutu government” (177). From another point of view (a Rwandan newspaper), “FDLR overall strategy is to destabilise the region in hopes of provoking another war between Rwanda and the Congo” (New Times: “External influences”, 2012). As this source further comments, this motivation appears to operate under the belief that “by rekindling hostilities between Kigali and Kinshasa, it can regain a sponsor that will enable it to continue its insurgency so that they can advance to Kigali to ‘finish off their work’, which is to complete the genocidal mania they had unleashed in 1994” (ibid.). (open for discussion – how exaggerated do you think this is?)

While the FDLR is cited by the International Crisis Group (2009) to be “the most powerful and harmful political-military rebel organisation in Congo” (1), statistics point to an otherwise incompetent force beset by insufficient manpower. Over the course of the past decade, the FDLR’s size has diminished greatly – from a force of 13,000-20,000 fighters in 2005 (Marc Lacey, NYTimes 2005) to around 6,500-7000 by the end of 2008 (ICG, 1) – a number cut by more than half in just three years time.

However, the FDLR’s diminished fighting force does not explain why Rwanda is still so heavily involved in the DRC. While certainly not the only reason, something that Susan brought up in her lecture was that Rwanda is drawn toward the economic potential found in the Kivu area. It has been made known by various sources that the FDLR has a large stake and a high level of participation “in the smuggling of minerals to neighboring countries” (Rodríguez, 180). A 2007 World Bank-funded study estimated that “the FDLR controls half of the mineral trade in the Kivus outside of the main towns, and oversees the smuggling of gold and diamonds for sale in neighbouring countries such as Uganda and Burundi” (McGreal 2008). I feel this is an important point to highlight, especially when recalling a statistic that Susan mentioned at Monday’s PCON film about how Rwanda has exported no less than $45 million in diamonds (admittedly, I forget the exact timeframe) – yet there are no diamonds to be found within Rwanda itself. This extraction, although part of the larger problem involving the Great Lakes Region, seems to be manipulated by the Rwandan government to see its own interests being played out in the area.

A question to the class: what would happen to Rwanda’s economy diamonds were not exported? Do you see any reason why Rwanda would/should not have a stake in the Kivus? Is there an actual “threat” posed by the FDLR to Rwanda?

(this is already a long post – but if you would like a works cited I would be happy to provide it!)

SHARE

I originally wanted to do a whole post on the Umutesi reading from last week; I thought her descriptions of the civil war was a poignant account of a history that isn’t talked about as much.  I don’t have the book in front of me, but Umutesi talked about friends and family members who had been killed when the RPF started to advance from Uganda–this personal aspect was really useful in understanding how the civil war contributed to the political and social landscape leading up to the genocide.

The impact of forced exile seems to be a recurring theme in the last few days’ readings; Professor Thomson talked about the impact of exile on the RPF’s singular desire to return to Rwanda. Fuji also talked about exile, although in different contexts.  Citing one of her contacts, she says that “after returning to their homes in Kimanzi [from where they had fled in the DRC], this man explained, people no longer treated one another as they did before, as friends and neighbors, because of where they spent their time in exile” (99).  Fuji is referring here more to her “logic of contamination” where the place and people a person associates with could have an impact on their tendencies.

I do want to bring up some of the logic of tweets and twitter sources as they correspond with the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission.  One of the more poignant moments of this was when Kagame’s office tweeted “President #Kagame: The definition of human rights has become politicized depending on who the person defined is #WEF” (from @UrugwiroVillage).  A recent tweet from @RwandaLatest links to an article on the Mugesera trial (it was unclear from the article whether the trial is led by Mugusera or against him but it seems as if he is leading the trial) where it details his attempt to use Rwanda scholars as evidence of RPA crimes against humanity.  Here’s the link to the article: http://focus.rw/wp/2013/02/mugesera-uses-ruzibiza-reyntjens-and-bruguiere-for-his-defense/

SHARE

I encourage everyone to check this out – this came up on my facebook newsfeed. I thought it very fitting in light of the film shown this past week, The Greatest Silence.

http://standnow.org/valentine

STAND is encouraging people to stand up “as part of the revolution against sexual and gender-based violence” in the eastern DRC. They are urging students to hold an event on their respective campuses on Valentines Day, “having participants…send a valentine to President Obama encouraging him to prioritize the crisis in the eastern DRC.”

A question to the class: what is your immediate reaction to this?  Is there anything oxymoronic about sending Valentines Day cards to Obama? What else can/should be done to tackle this issue?

Also as a side note – if you scroll down the page to where it offers suggestions for holding an event on campus, you’ll notice the 4th suggestion: “Screen The Greatest Silence”…

SHARE

This talk was very useful for filling in some of the gaps that I had in regard to Rwanda’s involvement in the DRC and what they are doing now to try to prevent future uprisings. One interesting point that was brought up was that the Rwandan government is taking refugees back onto the land, even though Kagame has stated that there is a land shortage. The reason he is doing this is to prevent those who were prevented from coming back to Rwanda from forming opposition groups outside of the country. This makes sense, and I can see how people who return would feel less resistance toward the government because they are now allowed in their country. However, as Professor Thomson noted, this creates deeper tensions between citizens who were already on the land and those returning. Yes, there is a land shortage and when people are forced onto others’ land, tensions arise. I don’t know the exact solution for this, but perhaps it could be to invest more in urban jobs.

SHARE

What struck me particularly with this week’s readings was the lack of human agency that is acknowledged when speaking about the genocide.  Especially in Straus’ chapter on the historical background, he outlines the various mechanisms that lead from ethnicity to violence, the dehumanization, an ideological commitment, antipathy… and also touches on the different relationships that surround the discourses.  That is, between deprivation and violence, social pressure and legitimation, and institutionalized practices of obedience and authoritarianism.  Further, this talk of relationships pointed me back to the social stratification game that we played last week.  I emerged from that experience very aware of the nature of relationships formed, most as being dependent upon a constant economy of exchange.  With factors such as the competition for resources, the struggle to live for one’s next meal, and the oppressive political regime that stripped one of dignity and personal power, relationships are very obviously different than ones we form within (and I’m generalizing, here) comparatively privileged backgrounds.  The network in which we found ourselves entangled was dense, and convoluted, but all based around the mechanisms that Straus refers to as the pre-conditions for genocide.

Referring back to my earlier comment on individual agency, the reason why I am surprised that is amiss in Straus’ reading is particularly due to the Skype call with Erin Jessee as well as the writings by Jefremovas and Pottier, often hinting at a notion of a ‘shame-culture.’   That is, one is so caught up in this network that isn’t necessarily representative of one’s beliefs, morals, etc, yet to remove one self is “social death” as Jessee states, complete isolation and ignominy.  So individual rights and wants become rather obsolete.  I am beginning to understand this, especially as part of a group mentality, social pressure, and mechanized process.  However, does that mean we should discount the capacity for individual choice altogether?  The question of what drives a person to kill is pressing, as we began to discuss at the end of last class, but if the ideologies surrounding the narrative are so great, is it even a relevant question to ask?  I wrestle with this because agency is one of the greatest capabilities that individuals hold, and if such is lost, it seems as though we are always capable of anything… violence, cruelty, domination…  Maybe the more pressing question is if these mechanisms actually can make rational faculties void… or if that discourse is a scapegoat for a lack of individual resistance and interpretation.

SHARE

I would like to discuss “The Greatest Silence” without echoing all of Dagan’s sentiments on the film; I too thought that the filmmaker, Lisa Jackson, had a personal focus that was unnecessary and distracting from the actual content she was attempting to portray.  It was difficult for me, because of Lisa Jackson’s bias and framing, to become as fully invested in the film as Dagan was; perhaps I have become too desensitized to violence in my four years as a PCon student, but the facts and horror that Lisa Jackson was attempting to display were nothing new to me.  I was certainly saddened and depressed by the facts on the ground, but my frustration at the way the film was made mediated empathy I felt for the victims.

In light of our course, I found the film’s portrayal of the Interhamwe forces (and not RPF) extremely limited and biased.  I do not doubt that Interhamwe forces committed mass atrocities in the Eastern Congo.  However, almost all of Lisa Jackson’s interviewees mentioned the Interhamwe as one of the sole perpetrators of the atrocities and rapes committed–this despite the fact that the two groups of “rapists” (in quotes not to deny their actions or criminality, rather to question Lisa Jackson’s singular portrayal of the groups of men as such) Jackson interviewed were all members of either the Congolese army or Congolese rebel groups.

Additionally, the film made no mention of any complicity of the RPF or M23 rebels, which I find just as suspect as a singular focus on the Interhamwe.  The aspects of the film that deal with Rwanda or Rwandan refugees only echoed the common, singular, Western view of the conflict.

Ultimately, it was clear to me that Lisa Jackson produced and wrote and filmed this documentary for Western audiences–not for Rwandan or Congolese.  Her style of filming (intense close-ups, referencing the camera, shots of children), interviews, and content produce (if anything) sympathy and pity for the victims and possible inclination to donate money.  However, the film does little to actually discuss the phenomenon of rape in the Congo effectively or to offer a useful analysis (other than “we’re in the bush so we have to”).

SHARE

Last week’s readings and activity regarding the stratification and power centers in Rwandan society really helped me better understand what life is like for the people of Rwanda.  While I initially expected this course to focus solely on the causes, genocide, and aftermath, the classes regarding culture are an extremely necessary foundation.

In examining social strata in Rwanda, I was struck by the classifications.  In Rwandan society, there are 6 total stratifications, but 4 (the majority) of these deal solely with people who could be considered extremely impoverished and have little to no upward mobility.  The vulnerable and abject poor constitute the bottom rung of Rwandan society, and any actions perceived as helping them are frowned upon in Rwandan society; which makes it nearly impossible for these members of society to do anything but steal or beg in order to get the necessary resources.  The next two categories, destitute, and poor, are considered more honorable, but still lead difficult lives.  Rwandans in these categories (typically) own some land, but the destitute and poor must rely on each other for survival.  Salaried poor qualify as self sufficient and may be appointed to local officials, but based on title and their description, they are considered the highest of the lower classes. Meanwhile, poor without money and the elites appear to be the best off in Rwandan society; however, poor without money (in spite of their educations and work) are beneath the elite.  Based on understandings of these strata and the way in which the game operated, it is extremely clear that the elites have the most control in Rwandan society, as well as the power to spread their ideas and contain the ideas of others.

Such power is clear when discussing the reconstruction effects on the elite.  There is no denying that Paul Kagame’s reconstruction efforts have improved the economic situation in Rwanda; however, the question remains: for whom? In a society where the term ‘poor’ is applied to 5 of the 6 social strata, one would hope that the economic success would assist those in extreme need, such as the men women and children who must eat rocks daily in order to stave off hunger.  Instead, the economic prosperity appears to remain in the uppermost section of society.

SHARE

Erin Jessee’s description of how to conduct research in Rwanda amazed me with how much bureaucratic mess one has to go through in order to conduct a study. It was particularly interesting to me that she notes that researchers should not use the terms Tutsi, Hutu, or Twa when talking to Rwandans because this will remind citizens of the genocide. Jessee notes that researchers are told to call all citizens Rwandans, because they are one people. I find it fascinating then, that ethnic terms are no longer legal to use but that Hutu government officials are still being fired from office or disappeared or made to leave the country. Looking back on the movie that we watched in class on Thursday, I remember one man saying that he did not want to tell the interviewer if he was Hutu or Tutsi and that he was simply Rwandan. It’s puzzling because ordinary Rwandans seem to be accepting the rule to no longer use ethnic terms to describe people, however today the whole hierarchy of power is separated by ethnicity.

SHARE

This movie was not just about breaking the silence of the women in the DRC who have often been neglected and shamed by their communities. This was also – if not more so – the story about Lisa Jackson (writer/director/producer/editor/interviewer/camerawoman/want to take all the credit kind of person) trying to break the silence of her own personal story as a victim of rape. I want to be clear – I am not dismissing Jackson’s own history, nor am I belittling it. That is something no one should ever have to go through, and for that I sympathize. However, as a viewer of the film, I was highly disturbed by what appeared to be Jackson making a movie solely so that she could relate to the women in the Congo and share her experience (who seemed to suffer far worse than Jackson herself), and being naive (in some sense) in trying to believe that the women of the DRC would magically get better and feel more at peace by playing with nail polish and soaps. Rather than empowering the women, it seemed the Jackson was just in the DRC to allow herself to come to terms with her own past. Rather than exposing the horrors of the war, she always managed to bring it back to herself. Moreover, she seemed to be oblivious to the dangers of the Congo, going into areas of conflict without much awareness of the dangers present. It would have been much more effective – in my opinion – if Jackson had shared more stories of others, or made this a movie solely about the women in the DRC. Adding her own personal account/reason for being there is fine for the viewer to understand why she is motivated by this issue – but her constant reference back was ineffective and rude.

All that being said, this was one of the most disturbing films I have ever watched – not just for Lisa Jackson’s poor shooting quality, her selfishness, and her inconsiderateness, but also (on a more serious note) for exposing the horrific stories of women who had undergone unimaginable violence against them. I almost vomited when it was stated that age range of victims was between 2 and 80 years old. That is sickening. And seeing the 4 year old who had been raped was just plain upsetting.

One of the interviewees in the film (a male) said that he would treat women normally if there was no war to be fought. I found this particularly intriguing, because by having such a vast majority of rebel fighters raping women in the Congo, the men are making rape the norm, and love/affection the abnormal. The fighters did not “need” to rape – that does not seem like it is getting them any closer to winning the war. Instead, it seems like this is only pushing the conflict into a deeper hole than it already is. What need is there to rape people who are so helpless and young like the 4 year old?

SHARE

“First Kill” is a compelling film that exposes the idea of a brutally violent side of human nature. By interviewing veteran soldiers, a photographer and a war correspondent, all whom were present at the Vietnam War, the filmmaker Coco Schrijber portrays how a man can become a numb, killer machine. Her argument with this documentary is that any individual when put under particular conditions (in this case, war) can become a murderer. Therefore, the human kind has an underlying murderous power. Not only that, but we can even enjoy and feel satisfaction in killing others, according the testimonies of a few of the veterans.

Although Schrijber, made a very interesting attempt of convincing the viewer that humans are inherent killers, I do not agree with that idea. Some abominable stories told in First Kill were very intriguing, but the ideas that were transmitted weren’t developed enough, in my opinion. One of the men collected Vietcongs’ ears as trophies. Why did he do it? What lead him to do it? What was his life like before the war? How was he brought up, what were his ideals? Most importantly, what was his training in the army like? How were they treated, what were they taught about war and the Vietnamese? I think this is a critical part that was not taken into consideration during the film production. The film tries to convey the idea of humans as natural born killers but things are much more complex than that. This oversimplification of human nature can also be seen when people attribute ‘tribalism’ and ‘ethnic hatred’ to the Rwandan genocide, something that is completely untrue as we have been seeing.

SHARE