10 Years Later in Rwanda, the Dead Are Ever Present [Bill Clinton mention--sit down for this one]

NY Times ^ | February 26, 2004 | MARC LACEY

[Pharmboy]

Guillaume Bonn/Think, for The New York Times
A church in Ntarama, Rwanda is filled with the remains of some victims of the 1994 massacre.

Guillaume Bonn/Think, for The New York Times
A survivor, Emmanuel Murangira
is now the caretaker of a victims'
memorial at a technical school.

MURAMBI, Rwanda — If, for whatever reason, one has the desire to relive the horror of the Rwandan massacre of 10 years ago, Emmanuel Murangira is the man to see.

Mr. Murangira, 48, is a survivor of a schoolyard blood bath that killed tens of thousands of people seeking refuge on the hilltop campus of a technical school here that has become one of the country's many memorials to the dead. He walks soberly and silently as he guides visitors down the hallways. He unlocks classroom after classroom and pushes open the doors.

"This is genocide," he says.

Inside, the rooms are full of the partially preserved remains of hundreds of those who were killed by Hutu extremists. The stench is overpowering. The scene is worse still.

Closer inspection of the remains, which have been treated with a traditional substance to slow decomposition, reveals exactly in what manner many of them died.

A woman has her arms over her face, as if protecting herself from attack. One of her forearms has been hacked off. Another, a youngster, has a thin crack across his skull, the imprint of a machete.

All across Rwanda, there are similar scenes of butchery, preserved by survivors just as they were. But with the 10th anniversary of the mass killing approaching in April, the Rwandan authorities are working to bury the bones while still preserving the memories of the estimated 800,000 Tutsi, who make up a minority in the country, and moderate Hutus who died.

"We want the memorials to be centers for the exchange of ideas, not collections of bones," said Ildephonse Karengera, the country's director of memorials.

But just what to do with all the remains is the question. Some want the bones displayed for as long as they last as evidence of what happened, just in case doubters emerge. But Rwandans traditionally bury their dead and some people say it is disrespectful to leave so many bones and bodies exposed.

A compromise is emerging, one that calls for burying more bodies without sanitizing the horror of what occurred.

"For those who say it is undignified to show bones, we're burying them, in a sense, behind dark glass," said Dr. James Smith, who runs Beth Shalom Holocaust Memorial Center in Britain and is working with the Rwandan government to revamp some of its memorials. "For those who say it is necessary to see the death, we're accommodating them, too."

The memorials are just one part of Rwanda's attempt to recover from the events of 1994. The Tutsi-led government that now runs Rwanda has eliminated ethnicity from identity cards and made it a crime to say or do anything that can be construed as "divisionist."

As for prosecuting those who killed, an international tribunal is slowly working its way through the big fish while Rwandan courts handle the lieutenants. With too many offenders to possibly try, President Paul Kagame recently released tens of thousands of people from jail and ordered them to face community trials, known as gacacas.

Those proceedings, which will begin countrywide in the coming months, are already having one unforeseen effect. Defendants are pointing out with more specificity where the killing occurred, and more remains are being found. Some bodies were dumped into latrines. Others have spent the last decade in swamps. Mass graves are being dug up, as well.

Rwanda hopes the 10th anniversary will attract worldwide attention to the country, its past but also its attempts to recover. On the morning of April 7, the date the killing began in earnest, the government is planning a somber march through the city, followed by 10 minutes of silence. The main memorial in Kigali will officially open its doors.

The federal government intends to focus its attention on a handful of main memorials. Local jurisdictions will maintain other sites. But locals will be encouraged to begin using some properties again, despite the unimaginable things that happened there.

"Everybody wants a memorial," Mr. Karengera said. "But the whole country can't be covered with memorials. We're a small country. We can't live with that kind of chaos."

Thanks to donations from Rwanda's former colonial power, Belgium, and the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, work is under way on an education center at the school in Murabi that will tell the story of the killings without offering up so much first-hand evidence.

Mr. Murangira narrowly escaped death himself. He was shot in the head during the attack on the school. But somehow, hidden under corpses and bleeding from his head, he managed to live.

There were only three other survivors that day and Mr. Murangira, with a deep indentation in his forehead from where the bullet was removed, wants to make sure that the attack is never forgotten. The smell, the sight, he can deal with that.

"Those who smell are my relatives," he said. "How can I mind?"

All the same, Mr. Murangira is thrilled that a permanent memorial will soon take the place of his ad hoc effort to keep the victims' memories alive. "It's hard for me to be here," he said. "But I cannot leave before they put things in order."

A similar overhaul is planned for the church in Ntarama, west of Kigali, where the space between the pews is filled with human remains and bloody clothes. In the back, survivors of the massacre here have lined up skulls, reserving a special row for the children.

"I want people to see the bones," said Pacific Rutaganda, 48, who survived the church slaughter but lost his sisters, parents and in-laws inside. "I don't want them buried away. There is no way if you see this that you can say genocide never happened. Genocide happened."

He then began pointing at the skulls, indicating the weapon used to kill each person. "This is an ax," he said, noting a huge gash in the temple of one victim. "This is a bullet. Here's an arrow and here's a club."

Dancilla Nyirabanzungu said her family was somewhere in the church. She lost her husband, 2 children and 15 other relatives in April 1994.

Pregnant at the time, she survived because bodies collapsed on top of her and the killers assumed she was dead, too.

Soon afterward, though, she gave birth to a boy, whom she named Hakizimana, or Only God Can Save.

He is nearly 10 now, and he knows little about what happened in the year of his birth. He knows that his father died with all the others in the church. And he knows his mother is drawn to the place, sitting on the front step just about every day.

But for him, the church yard is a playground, one that attracts many visitors. "People keep coming," he said.

[Pharmboy]

The blame is therefore greater in the newsrooms than in the Reagan administration.

[prion]

Rwanda wants to preserve the evil evidence the same way the Jews do, because they've learned quickly how fast the world turns.

Not exactly the same way, no. I've never heard anyone suggest we should've left the inmates of Auschwitz still stacked like cordwood where we found them. Did you read the article? We aren't talking about the neat stacks of skulls in the photo. We're talking about whole, hacked up bodies left in situ, sprinkled with some marginally-effective folk remedy for decay.

Anyone who denies the Holocaust would have no problem at all denying that a stack of corpses were actually murdered, or were murdered in the way you said they were, or were the people you said they were. There is no way to convince a Holocaust denier, not even with a giant pile of corpses.

[an amused spectator]

Revived Media Shenanigans ping - The New York Times (Marc Lacey, NYT-DNC) lauds humanitarian & philanthropist Bill Clinton, hero of Rwanda

On, Off, or grab it for a Media Shenanigans/Schadenfreude ping:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~anamusedspectator/

[Remole]

A year ago I read this book: Philip Gourevich, We Wish to Inform you that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With OUr Families: Stories from Rwanda (Picador, 1999). Extremely chilling, a must read.

[January24th]

"There is no way to convince a Holocaust denier, not even with a giant pile of corpses."

I don't disagree with this point, but I believe there is a deeper understanding to be had. Having lived in a third world country where death is up close and ugly---where children play with bones dug up in a graveyard, while waiting for their grandmother's turn to be placed in the ground for a guaranteed five years' rest before she, in turn, is treated as so much soil for planting the next corpse---the acceptance of so many corpses isn't as chilling or demented as it may seem.

It is a very practical matter for people who are never shielded from death by clean hospitals, funeral directors and makeup, to accept proof of someone's state. They see it all the time and, while saddened, are rarely shocked. Sometimes the presence of superstition or magical thinking makes for the need of very practical reasoning when folks need solid proof of an incident. These decaying corpses are gruesome, but they ARE real.

Evil should be shown for what it is. It should smell like it is. It should horrify as it does. In a world of gray, we need the contrast.

However, I didn't survive such a horrific event as the Rwandan people. Let them remember it and mourn it and decry it as they may.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Listen, I'm in no way blaming President Reagan for anything. What I'm saying is that America and the rest of the world has ignored problems in Africa, UNLESS one of the "tribes" is white, since the 60's. I just want to point out the Clinton is no worse than the rest, in this matter at least.

If you care to argue that the AP and BBC knew and reported for years on what was going on in central Africa and the CIA, NSA, ASA did not, well carry on, I have no idea about that.

[dfwgator]

Bill Clinton: the guy who did NOTHING while this massacre was going on.

Oh Clinton did SOMETHING alright. Basically told the UN that it wasn't a genocide and that they should not get involved. Bet you won't see that fact displayed in his "education center."

[prion]

They see it all the time and, while saddened, are rarely shocked.

Then what's the point? If they aren't shocked by the display, there's even less reason to leave the corpses lying around rotting in place. The fact that death is common, familiar and "up close and ugly" facilitates brutal atrocities like the Rwandan massacre. The answer is not to make the sight of death even less of a big deal.

[Pharmboy]

Fair enough. Also, see dfwgator's post above.

[dfwgator]

Here is what Gourevitch had to say about Clinton and the Cleaning Lady's complicity in Rwanda. From the PBS Frontline web site:

What was the Clinton's administration's policy? How was it implemented through Madeline Albright?

Pretty much as soon as the ten Belgian blue helmets had been killed, the debate became: Should we beef up the U.N. force, or should we cut it back? The Clinton administration--and one should always remember that in the United Nations Security Council, the United States is essentially the 800-pound gorilla that sits where it wants and can bend others to its will. It's the great power. The Clinton administration's policy was, "Let's withdraw altogether. Let's get out of Rwanda. Leave it to its fate." The United States ambassador to the United Nations at that time was then Madeline Albright. And it was she who was in the wretched position of having to represent this position to the Security Council, and who did so very effectively.

Clinton and Albright have the blood of a million Rwandans on their hands.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Darn, you're not near as much fun when you're being reasonable! ;-)

[Tallguy]

I'm kind of freaked that they would keep buildings full of ten-year-old smelly corpses as a memorial. I mean, take pictures or something and then bury those people. Geez.

I think we've finally hit upon a good use for the Clinton Presidential Library...

[Remole]

Wow. I'd say thanks, but I feel sick. Doesn't get any worse than that.

[antiRepublicrat]

Clinton and Albright have the blood of a million Rwandans on their hands.

Only because Anan let it get that far. Bush is doing the same thing now in Haiti, is he right? It's hard for a president to decide when and where America will be the world's policemen, saving countries from themselves.

[January24th]

"The fact that death is common, familiar and "up close and ugly" facilitates brutal atrocities like the Rwandan massacre. The answer is not to make the sight of death even less of a big deal."

Again, I won't disagree entirely with your point, but my point is, they don't want to forget how awful it was, and this is how they choose to remember. I don't know if their culture finds it repugnant or chilling or boring. I'm completely guessing, as are you. I'm not trying to win an argument over the dead bones of victims. I'm trying to understand the living, what their motivation is, what their thinking may be.

I would think the most effective way to make life more precious is to prove how seriously we'll punish those who would deny it to others.

[dfwgator]

You missed the point, the point was that Clinton basically told Annan to not get involved, not just not getting the US involved.

[Pharmboy]

I always liked Texans...even the curmudgeonly sort!

[antiRepublicrat]

You missed the point, the point was that Clinton basically told Annan to not get involved,

Annan had already decided not to get involved long before Clinton. The death of the Belgian peacekeepers (where your Clinton involvement timeline begins) was already well into the disaster that Annan had watched unfold. It's not that Clinton is free of any blame on this, but that Annan could have nipped the problem in the bud before it grew beyond anyone's control. Of course he was promoted for his disservice both in Rwanda and Kosovo, such is the nature of the UN.

So, do you think Bush will be responsible for any massacres in Haiti?

[dfwgator]

So, do you think Bush will be responsible for any massacres in Haiti?

I believe Bush will do what is right, and if there are indications that a Rwanda-type situation in imminent we will act.

[prion]

I don't know if their culture finds it repugnant or chilling or boring.

It is repugnant, whether their culture considers it so or not. I've had cultural relativism up to my back teeth, and I have no problem at all calling this wrong. It should be obvious that normalizing the public display of corpses isn't going to make people more sensitive to death.