‘Our’ Shame: International Responsibility for the Rwandan Genocide

Feminist Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect

“…86 Nesam McMillan has shown how the discourse of the 'horrors' of the failure of the international community to rescue the Tutsis has created an image of Western responsibility for global order in the face of the brutal, atrocious behaviour of non-Western peoples. 87 Th is image is both masculinised and racialised, in that it produce[s] a mode of thinking about the response [to the Rwandan genocide] that both fi gures the West as the global actor and calls upon this global actor to have the will to intervene in non-Western countries around the world on the basis of its relative superiority. 88 Th e deployment of gendered images in the responsibility to protect doctrine makes it appear a logical, strong and appropriate response to violence.…”

Regret, Remorse and the Work of Remembrance: Official Responses to the Rwandan Genocide

“…As I have noted, Clinton, Annan and Verhofstadt all delivered their speeches not only in the wake of the genocide, but also in the presence of vociferous public criticism of their government's or institution's response to the genocide (see McMillan, 2008). As such, their speeches function to address both of these 'events'.…”

“…That is, they operate as a means for these governmental and institutional leaders to acknowledge societal controversies regarding the international failure, thereby re-establishing their legitimacy and authority by demonstrating that they can now appreciate the errors of their past ways. Accordingly, in striking contrast to his public attitude to the genocide at the time that it was occurring -that '[w]e cannot solve every such outburst actions in Rwanda post-genocide, the speeches of Clinton, Annan and Verhofstadt actively promote an image of their respective countries and institutions as global saviours (see also McMillan, 2008), Meanwhile, Clinton's reference to the fact that his government should have intervened militarily to save the Rwandan Tutsis from the genocidal violence they were facing functions to legitimate a particular policy and practice, by framing armed humanitarian intervention as the best response to global suffering (see more generally Orford, 2003). It is in this sense that their narration of the past and present is based not only on the knowledge of the present (see above), but also on the needs and imperatives of their present governance.…”

“…For the existing speeches are not focused on a relation between those Rwandans who died or survived during the genocide and those non-Rwandans who failed to respond to their persecution. Rather, they are concerned with the relation between certain leaders and their communities, between particular nations and institutions and their members (see also McMillan, 2008). As such, despite all attempts to evince their enlightenment through such speeches, these political leaders ultimately display the same lack of interest in the persecution of the Rwandan Tutsis as signified by the international failure itself.…”

“…Bell (2006) and Edkins (2003) highlight the way in which official forms of memorialization can produce certain identities and operate to legitimate certain government practices and policies. Similarly, through the emphasis on their 'benevolent' MCMILLAN: REGRET, REMORSE AND THE WORK OF REMEMBRANCE 99 actions in Rwanda post-genocide, the speeches of Clinton, Annan and Verhofstadt actively promote an image of their respective countries and institutions as global saviours (see also McMillan, 2008), Meanwhile, Clinton's reference to the fact that his government should have intervened militarily to save the Rwandan Tutsis from the genocidal violence they were facing functions to legitimate a particular policy and practice, by framing armed humanitarian intervention as the best response to global suffering (see more generally Orford, 2003). It is in this sense that their narration of the past and present is based not only on the knowledge of the present (see above), but also on the needs and imperatives of their present governance.…”