https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9458-5326
![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Abstract
By critically examining atrocity reports as a ‘genocide genre’, the authors seek to demonstrate how the combination of political, legal, historical, and other narratives enables these reports to become an important advocacy tool for international human rights organisations. Employing critical discourse analysis, and qualitative and quantitative content-analysis, the article proceeds with the examination of atrocity reports on Rwandan genocide, in order to uncover the representation of such categories as victim/perpetrator/international community, as well as ‘the colonial question’. We also look into the topics not properly explored by the reports’ authors, namely, social and economic inequalities that enable genocide. Contrary to the assumption that NGO reports are objective, politically impartial, and emotionally neutral, our conclusions point to the strategies of politicisation, sensationalism, and emotivity to manipulate a broad (international) audience. By drawing these conclusions, we seek to contribute to the emerging field of critical research that re-examines the role of ‘international norm entrepreneurs’ in African conflicts, and in world politics more generally.
En examinant de manière critique les rapports sur les atrocités en tant que « genre de génocide », les auteurs cherchent à démontrer comment la combinaison de récits politiques, juridiques, historiques et autres permet à ces rapports de devenir un outil de plaidoyer important pour les organisations internationales de défense des droits humains. L'article s'appuie sur une analyse critique du discours et une analyse qualitative et quantitative du contenu, pour procéder à l'examen des rapports d'atrocités concernant le génocide rwandais, ce afin de découvrir les représentations de catégories de victime/auteur/communauté internationale, ainsi que « la question coloniale ». Nous nous penchons également sur les sujets peu explorés par les auteurs des rapports, à savoir les inégalités sociales et économiques qui permettent le génocide. Contrairement à l'hypothèse selon laquelle les rapports des ONG sont objectifs, politiquement impartiaux et émotionnellement neutres, nos conclusions mettent en évidence les stratégies de politisation, de sensationnalisme et d'émotivité visant à manipuler un large public (international). En tirant ces conclusions, nous cherchons à contribuer au domaine émergent de la recherche critique qui réexamine le rôle des « entrepreneurs de normes internationales » dans les conflits africains et dans la politique mondiale en général.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Statement of Ethics
At the time this study was conducted, the authors' institutions did not require ethical approval to be sought for this type of research.
Notes
1 Moon (Citation2012, 877) argues that the discursive codes (legal, statistical, and testimonial) ‘that seem, now, indigenous to human rights reports are what drive the knowledge into action principle and distinguish reports as genre’. ‘Law is the final point of reference because reports make recommendations with respect to international law’ (Moon Citation2012, 880).
2 Fact-finding is defined as ‘descriptive and explanatory inferences about rights violations and responsible actors based on empirical investigation’ (Satterthwaite and Simeone Citation2016, 331).
3 See, for instance, Duclert, Vincent. La France, le Rwanda et le génocide des Tutsi (1990-1994). Rapport remis au Président de la République. March 26, 2021. https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/279186-rapport-duclert-la-france-le-rwanda-et-le-genocide-des-tutsi-1990-1994; Sarr, Felvine and Savoy, Bénédicte. Rapport sur la restitution du patrimoine culturel africain - Vers une nouvelle éthique relationnelle. November 29, 2018. https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/38563-la-restitution-du-patrimoine-culturel-africain; Report of findings by the Slavery History Dialogue Group Advisory Board. July 20, 2023. https://www.government.nl/documents/reports/2023/07/20/chains-of-the-past---report-of-findings; Stora, Benjamin. Les questions mémorielles portant sur la colonisation et la guerre d'Algérie. Janvier 20, 2021. https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/278186-rapport-stora-memoire-sur-la-colonisation-et-la-guerre-dalgerie
4 For instance, Ruiz and Bernasconi maintain that, ‘[…] NGOs can contribute to make visible the ontology of the repressive event and the construction of victimhood as a form of social recognition and a communicative process […], that is, by naming, describing, classifying and typifying; the reports created conditions for enunciability […] necessary for comprehending the political violence and resisting the distorted explanations offered by dictatorship authorities (Ruiz and Bernasconi Citation2019, 46).
5 See, for instance, the case Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. Republic of Rwanda. African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights. 24.11.2017. http://www.african-court.org/en/images/Cases/Judgment/003-2014-Ingabire%20Victoire%20Umuhoza%20V%20Rwanda%20-%20Judgement%2024%20November%202017.pdf
6 Though, of course, political, legal and ethical controversies surrounding NGO activities on the ground and their reporting are not limited to Rwanda, or to HRW, for that matter. See, for instance Ratcliffe, Rebecca and Quinn, Ben. Oxfam: fresh claims that staff used prostitutes in Chad. The Guardian. February 11, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/10/oxfam-faces-allegations-staff-paid-prostitutes-in-chad; Rothmyer, Karen. Hiding the Real Africa. Why NGOs prefer bad news. Columbia Journalism Review. March-April 2011. https://archives.cjr.org/reports/hiding_the_real_africa.php?page=all
7 Lemmas are vocabulary entries in their initial forms (without affixes); word tokens are actual occurrences of phonological forms in the corpus (also called lexemes or words); lemma types are the unique lemmas of the corpus.
8 It was mentioned that ‘the U.N. staff as well as the three foreign governments principally involved in Rwanda bear added responsibility: the U.N. staff for having failed to provide adequate information and guidance to members of the Security Council; Belgium, for having withdrawn its troops precipitately and for having championed total withdrawal of the U.N. force; the U.S. for having put saving money ahead of saving lives and for slowing the sending of a relief force; and France, for having continued its support of a government engaged in genocide’ (HRW, Citation1999, 13).
9 ‘As a result of these circumstances, many victims feel that the entire process has little to do with them and their suffering. Rwandans are accustomed to a court case being heard in one or two days, with few or no witnesses, and being decided soon after. The lengthy presentation of evidence, complicated by the need to observe extensive safeguards for the rights of the accused, is foreign to them. Since neither the tribunal itself nor Rwandan authorities have successfully explained such aspects of tribunal procedure, most Rwandans see the slow pace of trials as simply one more proof of the inefficiency of the U.N., or worse still, of its indifference to Rwandan needs’ (HRW, Citation1999, 508).
10 ‘These lessons learned in turn generate a fair amount of uniformity in recommended policy solutions and delivery systems’ (Verdeja Citation2019, 121).
11 ‘Reliable accounts describe the heroism of some Rwandan authorities, both civilian and military, who have sought to prevent or halt the slaughter in their regions. In some regions, local government officials, known as burgomasters (bourgmestres), have done their best to protect the targeted populations and to guarantee security within their communes. Unfortunately, in some cases, they have eventually been forced to yield and permit the massacres. Military officers who have tried to maintain order or to aid the threatened to escape have later suffered reprisals for their human conduct’ (HRW, Citation1994, 7).
12 ‘Many Tutsi and those Hutu associated with them fought to save their lives. We know of their heroic resistance, usually armed only with sticks and stones, at such places as the hills of Bisesero, the swamps of Bugesera, and the church at Cyahinda, but we have no way of knowing about the countless small encounters where targeted people struggled to defend themselves and their families in their homes, on dusty paths, and in the fields of sorghum. Some tens of thousands fled to neighbouring countries and others hid within Rwanda, in the ceilings of houses, in holes in the ground, in the forest, in the swamps. Some bought their lives once, others paid repeatedly for their safety over a period of weeks, either with money or with sexual services’ (HRW, Citation1999, 10).
13 Dudai (Citation2008, 252) states that there are ‘four types of truths: factual or forensic truth; personal narrative truth; social truth; and healing truth’ – the first type is dominant in human rights reports.