PRESS BRIEFING ON DPI/NGO CONFERENCE

Speaking at a press briefing today, Gerald Gahima, Prosecutor General of the Rwandan Supreme Court, stressed that justice was the most important thing needed by societies emerging from conflict, as justice was necessary for reconciliation, and reconciliation needed to happen before a country could return to peace and stability.  It was not always easy, however, to achieve justice where large numbers of people in the society had participated in the atrocities committed during the conflict.

The response to such situations, while focusing on accountability, should also help provide stability for the future, he said.  The Rwandan court's response had been crafted to meet the challenges of such a situation.  While the leaders were to be punished, perpetrators from the rank-and-file were to be shown leniency.  Also, as the Rwandan courts had been overflowing with cases relating to the genocide, an alternative court structure had been developed from the traditional court structure of times past, whose purpose was more to reconcile than to punish -- to help communities confront their past and establish the truth, which would contribute to healing.

Speaking also of the assistance provided by the United Nations and the international community in dealing with the conflict in Rwanda, Mr. Gahima asked whether the actions of the international community had been appropriate and/or adequate.  In his opinion, there had been positive development in the last generation, in the sense that human rights issues had come to the forefront of world politics.  However, the international community's response had left something to be desired.  He noted that the international community seemed content to pick up the pieces after the conflict was over, instead of preventing conflict and terrible abuses of human rights.  Too much stress and resources were spent on international mechanisms for monitoring conflict and not enough on the promotion of human rights education, the growth of democratic institutions, and the development of an impartial judiciary.

Also present at the press briefing, Vincent Lelei, a director of Oxfam's emergency operations in the Horn of Africa and East and Central Africa, spoke of how conflicts were routed in people's hearts in the form of deep-seated hatred, but were strengthened by structural mechanisms from community to national levels.  Oxfam had looked at the ideas and beliefs communities held relevant to each other, as well as the policies at provincial and national levels that reinforced hatreds on the ground.  Oxfam had also found that the supply of armaments by their very nature created incentives to kill and generated conflict.  Where there might have been communities, which otherwise would have resolved their conflicts by other means, one side's access to armaments could set the conflict upon a spiral of major escalation.  These conflicts then required other resources to manage them. 

Mr. Lelei also noted that the populations of poor countries had a very restricted view of the world, due to their lack of access to education.  The governments of these countries did not provide enough resources for education.  Oxfam had brought to this conference the perception that injustice and unequal relations were the root cause of conflicts.  They exacerbated conflict beyond anyone's ability to manage and control it.

Responding to a question about the quality of the international media's coverage of the conflict situation in Rwanda, and in Africa in general, Mr. Lelei compared the coverage given to one child's death in the arms of his father in Israel with the lack of coverage given to the death of 200 people in the Sudan.  Turning the question back on the media, he questioned the criteria used by the media to determine whether a story would be covered or not.  He also acknowledged that the mass media had been very critical and had demanded action for change, accountability and justice.

 Responding to the same question, Mr. Gahima said that while the media's coverage was not a total failure, they could have done more.  He alluded to a distinction between the media's coverage of conflict in Africa in contrast to other places.  He said that, in the former Yugoslavia, the media took a combative role and made it difficult for countries to ignore what was happening, whereas during the Rwandan genocide, when he was in the United States, he noted that there were few strong op-ed pieces that demanded action from governments.  He also criticized the nature of coverage and noted that, after a conflict was over, the media disappeared to cover new conflicts, even though challenges faced by countries emerging from conflict were even greater afterwards.

In response to the final question about how attention was drawn to specific conflicts and whether non-governmental organizations (NGOs) determined coverage of conflicts by providing information to media sources, Mr. Lelei said that NGOs did not generally go out proactively looking for press to do something about what they had witnessed.  Their purpose was to relieve the suffering of populations whose lives were at stake and to invest in areas perceived as essential for growth to happen.  While it was not the role of NGOs to be part of mass information generation, they would speak out when interviewed directly.

* *** *