[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 54 (Tuesday, May 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2791-H2797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            RWANDAN GENOCIDE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, during World War II, the world stood by 
and watched as innocent men, women, and children were exterminated for 
no other reason than their ethnicity. The world said never again.
  Well, 50 years later in Rwanda, the world stood by and watched as 
innocent men, women, and children were exterminated for no other reason 
than their ethnicity. Knowing that a genocide was about to occur, the 
world turned away or said this is not my problem. During the genocide, 
many said this is bad, but they did not act. After the genocide, the 
world offered reasons and apologies for its inaction.
  Mr. Speaker, the world forgot the promise it made right after World 
War II. Indeed, the promise of ``never again'' was left tragically 
unfulfilled. In 1994, close to 1 million people were killed in a 
planned and systematic genocide.
  Today the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights 
of the Committee on International Relations held an important hearing 
to begin answering some important questions. How could the world 
tolerate such violence? Who is responsible? Why did the international 
community fail to respond? How can we stop the continuing cycle of 
violence in the Great Lakes region?
  I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, my good 
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Smith) for his courage and 
compassion for addressing this important issue. I think it is important 
that people understand the history of the relationship between the 
indigenous peoples of Rwanda.
  Prior to the 20th century colonialism, Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis were 
identified, not by their ethnicity, but by their economic status. For 
example a Tutsi was considered a wealthy and prominent person in the 
community, while Hutus were often poor. However, if a Tutsi were to 
lose his or her wealth, they would then be considered a Hutu. 
Similarly, a Hutu who had climbed an economic ladder would then be 
considered a Tutsi. Thus, a distinction was not based on ethnicity but 
by standing in the community.
  However, after centuries of living together in relative peace, 
Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis were taught to fear and mistrust one another 
because of disparaging treatment at the hands of Belgian colonialists.
  The Belgians treated Tutsis as an upper class, providing them with an 
education and important government positions, while relegating the 
majority Hutu population to agricultural work and manual labor. 
Furthermore, the Belgians began requiring Hutus and Tutsis to carry 
identification cards, further creating an atmosphere of fear and 
hatred.
  The strong animosity created by the colonialists was maintained after 
independence as extremist Hutu leaders sought to strike back at Tutsis 
by removing them from all positions of power and refraining from 
punishing those who committed acts of violence against Tutsi civilians.
  The ethnic cleansing of Tutsis in the early 1960s led to an exile 
population that was spread across Uganda, Zaire, Burundi, and Tanzania. 
Persecution and expulsion of minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus 
continued throughout the 1980s and early 1990s until the tragic events 
unfolded that led to the 1994 genocide.
  I provide this history, Mr. Speaker, to enlighten those who find it 
convenient to attribute the Rwandan genocide to the irrational, quote, 
``tribal hatred and bloodthirstiness of Africans.'' Rather, what 
subsequent investigations have revealed is that the killings

[[Page H2792]]

were not spontaneous expressions of inevitable hatred, but a well-
orchestrated, patterned genocide planned for and prepared by 
extremists, indeed, ethnic extremists to be sure, but essentially 
extremists concerned with holding on to power and wealth that they had 
come to control after 20 years in power.
  The tribal card was played by these extremists who accused any Hutu 
who did not join in their cause of betraying Hutus and using propaganda 
and fear, the twin tactics of Nazis and Fascists in Europe, to 
intimidate many to join them in killing. Those who resisted, many of 
them being moderate Hutus, were themselves murdered.
  What makes the genocide even more tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that the 
United States, United Nations as well as the United States and its 
allies, could easily have prevented this slaughter.
  After the death of 10 Belgian United Nations peacekeepers at the 
hands of extremist militias known as Interahamwe, Belgium decided to 
remove all of their troops. To keep from appearing as if they were 
acting alone, the Belgian Foreign Minister telephoned U.S. Secretary of 
State Warren Christopher and asked if the United States would call for 
the withdrawal of all UNAMIR troops.
  The United States agreed, and despite the calls for additional 
assistance from General Romeo Dallaire, the United Nation's Supreme 
Commander in Rwanda, the Security Council voted to withdraw all but a 
few of the peacekeepers.
  Most of the Interahamwe were armed with nothing more than machetes 
and clubs. Thus, a well-armed force of a few thousand strategically 
placed peacekeepers could have stopped or at least greatly reduced the 
killing.
  Regardless, eventually the truth will be known.
  It is interesting that Secretary General Kofi Annan will be in Kigali 
tomorrow. Perhaps his visit will shed some light on the reasons why the 
United Nations and the international community abdicated its 
responsibility in 1994.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a definition for the word genocide. However, 
just as the Holocaust can only be appreciated after viewing the tragic 
footage taken during and immediately after World War II, I have brought 
some visual aids that truly define the Rwandan genocide. These 
photographs are the result of the inaction of the United States, the 
United Nations, and U.S. allies.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. Speaker, I have personally seen images like the ones that I will 
show when I traveled to Rwanda. And as disturbing as these photographs 
are, I assure my colleagues that the effect in person is much greater.
  I would like to thank the witnesses that testified in our hearing 
today, some of whom traveled great distances to be with us. They came 
because of the tragedy that the world knows as Rwanda. They came 
because they viewed the hearing as an important step in informing the 
Congress and the American people of what went wrong in Rwanda and how 
we can help to make things right. But although these witnesses traveled 
great distances to be with us, I regret that the United States 
Department of State deemed the hearing investigating this tragedy, the 
death of 1 million men, women, and children, unworthy of their 
traveling just across town.
  In the weeks leading up to today, State Department officials 
telephoned my office on more than one occasion expressing their 
displeasure with the idea of this hearing. One person actually raised 
their voice at my staff, asserting that this hearing was completely 
unnecessary. All of this opposition raises the question as to whether 
certain State Department officials believe that such efforts are truly 
unworthy of their participation, or perhaps there is another reason why 
they did not want the event of today to take place.
  Mr. Speaker, I must state that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) and I, along with the other members of the committee, are not 
engaging in this exercise simply to embarrass specific leaders and 
individuals; rather, we proceed with the recognition that to change the 
future one must first recognize the mistakes of the past.
  President Clinton's historic trip to Rwanda was an important first 
step toward the United States rehabilitating itself for abdicating its 
leadership and morality in 1994. However, we must go further. We must 
begin to work in partnership with the Rwandan Government so that its 
people and the people of central Africa can begin to recover from this 
horrendous chapter in world history.
  Formulating an effective policy can only be accomplished through 
learning from previous mistakes, from rehabilitation. And so it must be 
clear that our purpose for asking how and why is not simply to condemn, 
but rather to ensure that never again really means never again.
  The Great Lakes region has vast natural and human resources, offering 
enormous economic potential. Crafting an effective partnership with 
this region will benefit the people of central Africa and the United 
States.
  And now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize a colleague of mine 
who serves on the House Committee on International Relations with 
myself, the gentleman from the great State of Alabama (Mr. Earl 
Hilliard).
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney) for yielding to me.
  I am deeply disturbed, and I have been deeply disturbed, about the 
position and the policy that our country takes as it pertains to 
certain countries. And I would like to draw a contrast between various 
countries and just look at the position that our country has taken.
  We have spent, since 1945, more than a trillion dollars in the Middle 
East dealing with the so-called peace or warring situation between 
basically four or five countries that involve perhaps less than 50 
million people. We have spent in the last 5 years more than $200 
million in Bosnia. And, once again, we are trying to participate in, I 
guess, a peace effort. If one looks at the situation as it is occurring 
now in Ireland, in England, we realize that our country has been 
involved in trying to work out a peaceful accord.
  I applaud the effort of our country in each one of those situations, 
and I am glad that my country is in a position to make an effort and to 
be so important that either we can come in and work for peace or be 
invited to come in and participate in the peace process in each one of 
those instances.
  But I recall, as a member of the Alabama House of Representatives and 
as a member of the Alabama Senate, when I had to come to Washington, 
and colleagues who were similarly situated had to come and force our 
country or to lobby our country, the State Department, and other 
governmental officials, to get involved, and I am speaking of the very 
early sixties, in the South Africa situation on the side of democracy 
and on the side of justice. It took us many years, and even then it was 
a very difficult situation.
  I also recall just recently, in the last 5 years, since I have been 
in the United States Congress, when the Congressional Black Caucus had 
to lobby our State Department and our government to get involved with a 
situation just a couple hundred miles from our shores, in Haiti, on the 
right side, on the side of democracy and on the side of justice.
  And if we look at those two situations and look at the total of five 
situations that I have mentioned, Bosnia, the Middle East, Ireland, 
South Africa, and Haiti, we could somewhat draw a contrast and 
understand why our country did not go to the aid of Rwanda; why we did 
not get involved and do the right thing.
  I will leave it to the viewers to draw what I would consider a 
logical conclusion, but any time we get involved with countries that 
are predominantly of the white race, immediately we shower them with 
all kinds of aid, assistance and money, and we get involved with our 
Army, our Air Force, and any other type of weapon we have at our 
disposal. But when it comes to countries that might have any lineage of 
an African situation, maybe like South Africa or like Haiti or like 
Rwanda, we have to, those of us who are interested, have to beg our 
country to come in, even though it might be in its interest.
  Now, there are those of us who wish to get away from the old 
situation that existed in our country a couple hundred years ago, from 
the situation of segregation that existed a few decades

[[Page H2793]]

ago, or from the situation of discrimination based on color and race 
that exists now. Unfortunately, when we have situations that recur, 
like Rwanda, like Haiti, and when we see what is happening in Bosnia 
and the Middle East, it is difficult for us to walk away without 
looking at the contrast.
  And I lay the blame on our State Department. First of all, it does 
not recruit fairly. It does not have diversity. And if we look at the 
State Department, we can understand why it discriminates continuously 
against African Americans and against any nation that may have Africa 
as a base, whether it is Haiti or Jamaica or any other country.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I would just like to draw the gentleman's attention to 
the fact that the African-American foreign service officers have filed 
a lawsuit against the State Department, because they have reached a 
point where they are frustrated with their inability to be promoted and 
the inability of the State Department to move African Americans up 
through the system and utilize all of their talents.

  As a result of that, unfortunately, rather than trying to settle this 
lawsuit, the State Department is fighting the lawsuit, is fighting 
settling the lawsuit. And so that would be one indication of an 
attitude that may exist at the State Department, that might explain why 
it is that it is so difficult for certain decisions that would benefit 
the people, the world, of people of color to be made.
  Mr. HILLIARD. The gentlewoman is very kind when she says a situation 
that ``may'' exist. I would go further and say a situation of 
discrimination and still continual segregation that does exist. But 
even so, let me go back to the Rwanda situation, because that is the 
one that we are speaking about now.
  I have here a letter of May 4, 1994, from the then chairman of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Donald 
Payne), where he invited our government as a world leader to get 
involved in the Rwanda situation. And he writes this letter as 
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus. He stated that a vote 
had been taken and that this not only was the consensus but it was the 
position of the Black Caucus that our country should intervene, and he 
outlined things that could be done.
  He received, and no other members of the Congressional Black Caucus 
received a reply. Did not receive a reply. That was May 4, 1994. June 
16, 1994 he wrote back and reminded them of the first letter he had 
sent and he outlined once again the atrocities that were taking place 
and the need for the help, and that was also cosigned by then 
Congressperson Kweise Mfume. He did not receive a letter from the State 
Department. Not even a letter saying we received your letter or any 
type of notation.
  Then, on July 20, 1994, in frustration, the Congressional Black 
Caucus sent the President a letter, and the State Department, stating 
our frustration with not being able to get an audience with the 
President or those persons at the State Department who would have 
jurisdiction over the matter dealing with Rwanda. So that there was 
total inaction as it pertained to Rwanda.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues something. I do not need people who 
profit from segregation and discrimination to come and apologize to me 
for something that was done years ago and something that is continuing 
to exist.

                              {time}  2030

  And it does not benefit the hundreds of thousands of Hutus and the 
Tutsis that were killed in Rwanda for someone to belatedly go, years 
later, and say, ``I was sorry that we did not get involved.'' We do not 
need those type expressions anymore.
  I thought that after World War II and after what had been done to the 
Jews that we were tired of apologizing and that we were interested in 
action. And we have the means and everything that is necessary to 
prevent, and we had it in 1994, to prevent genocide; and we failed to 
act. My colleagues cannot forgive and forget inaction. It was 
unnecessary.
  We should have gotten involved, and there was a request by more than 
35 Members of this body to get involved. Our country failed to do so. 
And excuses now equate to zero as far as I am concerned.
  Never again should we permit this to happen. But in order to make 
sure it does not happen again, we have got to change the policies and 
the complexion of our State Department. If they are going to be there 
and not be sensitive to a third of the world's population, then there 
is no use for them to be there. There is a need for equal treatment 
throughout this world. And if we are going to set up ourselves, this 
country, as the world's policemen, then we ought to do it fairly and 
not like it was done.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by our colleague, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). But before I yield to my 
colleague, I would like to just point to my map so that we can be clear 
as to exactly what we are talking about.
  The country of Rwanda is a very, very small, densely populated 
country in the Great Lakes region of Africa, in east central Africa, 
bordered on the north by Uganda, here on the east by Tanzania, on the 
south by Burundi, and in the west by the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  We have got an active war situation that is going on in Burundi and 
in Rwanda; and unfortunately, with the instability that is emanating 
basically from Rwanda, it is spilling over into all of these other 
countries in the region. We know that the Democratic Republic of Congo, 
formerly Zaire, sits in the heart of Africa. And, therefore, if we are 
interested in stability, rehabilitation, democratization in central 
Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo, we have got to do our 
level best to contain the instability in this region. Because it is 
this instability that caused the instability and the march westward of 
Laurent Kabila who eventually over took Mobutu in the first place.
  So I wanted to point out exactly the area that we are talking about 
and why this is so important. Because literally all of central Africa 
depends on peace, stability, rehabilitation, economic development in 
this area right here and settling this question once and for all.
  I now yield to my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Georgia 
for sharing this special order. It brings a whole lot of light to a 
situation that is still very clouded in a lot of minds. Certainly, as a 
person who does not serve on the Committee on International Affairs and 
who is not familiar with the details, I found some of her remarks that 
she made so far very enlightening.
  I am very concerned and would like for my colleague to clarify in a 
few minutes the situation with respect to the fact that when this 
conflict broke out, there were a lot of people who absolved themselves 
by saying, this is an internal matter in Rwanda. It is a matter of them 
establishing law and order. It is their business. Or they would say, it 
is a civil war between two groups. It is up to them. The sovereign 
state of Rwanda should be left to solve its own problems, people would 
say.
  But my colleague, in her opening remarks, indicated, and I read a few 
articles in the past few days, indicated there was involvement already 
by outside powers to a great extent. First of all, there was 
involvement by the French on an ongoing basis; and I would like to know 
just what their role was. There was involvement by the Belgians, as 
they were the largest part of the peacekeeping force. And the United 
Nations was there officially to carry out a certain purpose.
  This was not just a matter of letting law and order take its course 
inside the sovereign state of Rwanda. We already had involvement there, 
whereas, in the final analysis, yes, the people who went out and took 
the machetes and hacked the people to death or stabbed them to death or 
shot them to death, God will hold them guilty for that. They are the 
primary perpetrators of the murder and the genocide.
  But let us take a look at what the involvement was, because I am 
concerned about the judgment that is always passed down on Africa. My 
colleagues know, ``What happened in the Congo was all the Congolese 
fault. It is the fault of black people not being able to govern 
themselves,'' et cetera. And yet we know from history that what 
happened in the Congo was very much shaped by the interference of 
outside powers, that Mobutu was maintained by the Central Intelligence 
Agency of

[[Page H2794]]

the United States; that Lamumba was not murdered by somebody who was an 
employee of the Central Intelligence Agency; probably he was murdered 
probably by an agent of Moey Shumbi. After somebody in Washington made 
a comment that they did not care about what happened to Lamumba, they 
made it clear they wanted Lamumba out of the way.
  So in the history of these conflicts, repeatedly, even in Somalia, 
where it is said the Cold War powers were out of it, they did not care 
what happened in Somalia and there was no interest the United States 
had, particularly; it turns out Italy and some oil companies based in 
Italy had some great interest there and some oil companies in this 
country had some great interests too.
  So I think it is important, going back to Rwanda, that we get clear 
that there was involvement already by powers outside of Rwanda. If my 
colleague does not mind recapitulating some of the things she alluded 
to.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, throughout the 20th century there has been 
outside involvement on the continent of Africa; and unfortunately, the 
African peoples are dealing today with the ramifications and the 
effects of that outside intervention.
  Even the lines that are drawn that represent country boundaries are 
nothing in relation to the boundaries of the kingdoms that were 
existent before the arrival of the European colonialists. And, 
unfortunately, the history of U.S. involvement on the African continent 
has always been a nod and a wink to our European allies to allow them 
to work their will, to do whatever they wanted to do on the African 
continent; and they knew that as long as they were acting in their 
national interest that they would have the backing of the United 
States.
  That is why the United States, my friend, the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Hilliard), was at first on the wrong side in South Africa's fight. 
They were on the wrong side in Mozambique and in Angola. They were on 
the wrong side in countless example after example of interaction on the 
African continent to suppress the voices of those authentic African 
voices that were struggling for nationalism and liberalization from the 
colonial yoke and to promote those that would become mere puppets of 
the colonial empires.

  Mr. OWENS. If the gentlewoman would continue to yield for just a 
minute, the French, I admired their politics domestically, the French 
people do not let their government push them around right now. They are 
not allowing themselves to be put in a situation where large numbers of 
unemployed people are just left out there to suffer. They have got a 
lot of involvement. And the Government of France is certainly 
responsive to its people.
  How could the French do something dirty or something oppressive in 
Africa? Were the French in Rwanda responsible for any of this?
  Ms. McKINNEY. Well, absolutely. What the French are doing right now 
is having an investigation of what their role was.
  Mr. OWENS. Of their own foreign policy?
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is right. Because there were members of parliament 
who did not know, who were uninformed about what the French Government 
was actually doing on the ground.
  And then, of course, we have read in newspaper reports emanating from 
France that the attitude of the Mitterand government was that these are 
just black people killing each other and that is what black people do. 
And so then, of course, it was all right for the French to continue to 
arm the Rwandans despite the fact that this is the kind of thing that 
was happening. This is genocide.
  Mr. OWENS. The French continued to arm the Hutus after the genocide 
started?
  Ms. McKINNEY. Yes.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Continued to arm them?
  Ms. McKINNEY. They continued.
  This is an example of what was happening. Here is a baby that was 
hacked to death, as my colleagues can see, its limbs hacked off. This 
is one genocide site. And people went to seek shelter and refuge in 
churches and in schools because they were told that this was a place of 
safe haven. Even in the churches they were shot to death, macheted to 
death, hacked to death by the thousands. Here we can see the remaining 
skulls at one of these genocide sites, obviously a school or a church.
  Here is a young woman who has been hacked. This is what was happening 
on the ground while we in Washington and in Belgium and in Paris looked 
the other way. This is what was happening on the ground in Rwanda.
  Mr. OWENS. Did we really look the other way? If the French were 
continuing to arm the Hutus, did they not choose sides and consider 
that they wanted to be on the side of the victim and they really wanted 
the Hutus to succeed? I am not saying the French Government, knowingly, 
from Paris, but certainly the representatives of the French Government 
in Rwanda. And the Belgians, I think they withdrew in order to make it 
easier for the Hutus to slaughter the people they wanted to slaughter. 
So they were all choosing the Hutus as the winners, obviously.
  Ms. McKINNEY. This was a civil war as well as a genocide.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, 
this may have been a civil war. But it was also a civil war in Bosnia. 
And the European countries got involved, and this country got involved; 
and we have had troops there, and we still have got troops there.
  Mr. OWENS. If the gentlewoman would yield further, we did not just 
get involved in Rwanda. We were already involved. The United Nations 
was already there. We did not have to go get involved; we were there 
already.
  Mr. HILLIARD. We did not wait on the United Nations. We took the lead 
in Bosnia after the Europeans got involved, before the United Nations 
made a declaration. And that is what is so ironic about all this.
  But let me tell my colleagues this. The United Nations had made a 
declaration in the Rwanda situation, but yet the Western powers stood 
back except for France. And after Belgium pulled out, they just left it 
to those who were powerful. And these pictures my colleague showed, did 
she realize that they were not of soldiers, they were not of males with 
guns, that the victims were women and children?

                              {time}  2045

  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I visited Gekangordo, which is a site of 
genocide at a school. In Gekangordo, the stench of death hangs in the 
air. This is 3 years after the killing. At Gekangordo, there are 27,000 
bodies that have been unearthed thus far. There may be more there. When 
you go there and you see what happened, it is impossible to walk away 
from that and not be deeply, deeply affected. Unfortunately, at the 
hearing today, the New Yorker article that came out, the New Yorker 
article came out yesterday about the genocide facts. This article was 
written by Phillip Gorovich, who talks about the fact that General 
Dallaire, who was the United Nations representative, general on the 
ground, sent a fax up to the United Nations and said, we have got an 
informant who only requires safe haven asylum in either France, the 
United States or Belgium. This informant has told us that there are 
plans for an extermination of the Tutsi people. I am going to go in and 
remove the weapons caches within 36 hours. We now know that the chief 
of staff to Kofi Annan sent a response back to General Dallaire to not 
go, to not remove those arms caches, and instead go tell the extremist 
Rwandan government that we know what you are going to do. So the United 
Nations itself now then becomes complicit because the United Nations 
had the information.
  Mr. HILLIARD. And failed to act.
  Ms. McKINNEY. And failed to act. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. HILLIARD. If the gentlewoman will yield, I have some facts. The 
first one I am going to talk about a minute. It says genocide occurred 
primarily between April and June of 1994. If you recall, the first 
letter that the Congressional Black Caucus sent to the President and to 
the State Department was May 4. We had reported to them what was taking 
place. We continued to send letters and did not receive any answers. 
More than 1 million persons were killed. That means during the time 
that our State Department filed the letters from the Congressional 
Black Caucus in file 13 probably as many as 300,000 people were killed 
each

[[Page H2795]]

month. They failed to even acknowledge that anything was occurring. 
More than 400,000 women were raped.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Further, I would just like to add that the United 
Nations allowed a general to testify in the Senate and talk about the 
success of the United Nations in Bosnia. We for our hearing today 
requested that General Dallaire be allowed to testify at our hearing. 
General Dallaire was willing to testify at our hearing, but the United 
Nations declined an acceptance or declined permission for him to 
testify and so he did not testify at our hearing today. Nor did General 
Dallaire or Kofi Annan appear before the Belgian parliament and its own 
inquiry of what happened. They invoked diplomatic immunity.
  Mr. HILLIARD. If the gentlewoman will yield, how many more times will 
this occur? If we are going to use the resources of this Nation to 
police the world, we ought to do it fairly. If we are going to withdraw 
from that position, then we ought to do that. But we should not 
discriminate. And we should fairly participate in every situation 
whether it directly or indirectly affects us.
  There was a slogan that I did not agree with, but it says something 
that he who has power should use it. I often think that if you use it 
wisely, then perhaps you would not have to use it. Just the thought 
that you have power and that it would be used wisely and fairly would 
prevent situations like Rwanda from occurring. But if you have got it, 
if you have it and you selectively use it, then you will invite 
situations like Rwanda, because they always would calculate that we do 
not have to worry. There is not enough oil in Rwanda for them to be 
concerned. So we can do that and be successful.
  Mr. OWENS. I would just like to say that I agree with 99 percent of 
what you are saying. But the thrust of us being the policeman to the 
world, I do not think we want to make it that directly.
  Mr. HILLIARD. We have assumed that role.
  Mr. OWENS. The power of the United States should be used in concert 
with other forces, primarily in concert with the United Nations. We 
should try to strengthen and create the United Nations and create the 
world order where we do not have to always be the power that serves the 
function of policeman. We should look at public policy.
  Right now we have a United Nations arrears that this Nation owes that 
it is not paying. For the country that has the largest responsibility 
with the United Nations not to pay weakens the United Nations a great 
deal, and we do not create that world order which would send a message 
to people out there that they should not get involved in this kind of 
activity. The leaders of Rwanda probably thought they could under the 
cloak of Rwandan sovereignty get away with it and they probably would 
have gotten away with it if there had not been a guerilla war force 
that came in and took over. They may be sitting there right now and 
justifying the genocide just as Saddam Hussein is sitting there 
justifying himself in Iraq.
  Mr. HILLIARD. What the gentleman says is correct. The United States 
should react as it deals with world situations through organized 
bodies, such as the United Nations. However, even as late as one and a 
half months ago, the United States indicated if Saddam Hussein did not 
allow the inspectors to come in, it would not wait on any United 
Nations resolution or any other body. It would take it on its own to 
intervene. We did that in Korea. We did not wait on the United Nations. 
We got involved. We did it in Vietnam. We did not wait on the United 
Nations. We got involved.
  When it is in the interest of this country or when the powers to be 
at the State Department and at the very top decide that they are going 
to do something, they do not wait on the world body. What you say ought 
to be the case, that should be our policy, but in actuality it is not 
our policy.
  Mr. OWENS. We should establish a war crimes tribunal so that these 
people know that they are going to be brought to justice in the end. We 
want to send a message to people like the dictators in Nigeria right 
now that we are not going to sit by and tolerate them having sovereign 
immunity to do whatever they want to do. The whole world should have 
some kind of standard that is clear out there and we ought to move in 
the direction of supporting that kind of thing through the United 
Nations and the World Court and make it clear that you are not going to 
get away with it. By doing that, we would prevent a lot of the kind of 
genocides that are taking place, too many have taken place, we have 
this one that happens to be the biggest one, but we are leaving out 
Cambodia and Yugoslavia and Serbia. They were about to destroy one of 
the oldest cultured cities in the world, Sarajevo. So it could break 
out anywhere. We have got to send a clear message that the world will 
not tolerate it. Part of the reason that message will be accepted as 
meaningful is that the United States stands behind it, with its force 
and its power, stands behind a doctrine which says we will not tolerate 
sovereign predators wiping out whole groups of people or doing other 
kinds of things that really are just not acceptable in this 
civilization.

  Ms. McKINNEY. I would like to mention and commend other Members of 
Congress who at least spoke out on this issue at the time. We know that 
from the Congressional Black Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Payne) submitted those three letters to the President three times and 
to the State Department, and three times he received absolutely no 
response. But the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) also spoke out on 
this issue and the need for U.S. intervention to stop the genocide, to 
stop what was happening, to save those innocent lives. The gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) also spoke out against what he saw as 
inaction on the part of the administration. I would also like to thank 
the people who came to the hearing today and testified.
  Mr. Dick McCall from USAID was the only person who was given 
authorization to show up at the hearing today. And so the absence of 
the State Department then raises more questions than it answers. 
Because as we got testimony from all of the witnesses, we understand 
that there are some answers that reside within the highest levels of 
the State Department, and the American people and the Members of 
Congress and the Congressional Black Caucus and all of the people who 
did speak out and the countless Americans who were concerned at the 
time and who are now concerned deserve to know the answers.
  We also had Ambassador Shaharyar Khan travel all the way from 
Pakistan to be with us. Senator Alain Destexhe, who promoted the 
investigation in Belgium, traveled all the way from Belgium to be with 
us. Kathi Austin, Holly Burkhalter, Alison Des Forges, Jeff Drumtra and 
Mr. Francois-Xavier Nsanzuwera all came from various points around the 
globe to be with us today at today's hearing. Yet the State Department 
could not emerge from Foggy Bottom to tell us what the heck was going 
on, what did they know, and when did they know it.
  Mr. OWENS. Again, I hope that the committee that the gentlewoman sits 
on will seriously push for some remedies that would help avoid these 
situations in the future that they would never happen again with the 
United States sitting on the sideline, that we would have a clear way 
to intervene and we send a clear message that President Clinton has 
called us an indispensable Nation. One reason we are is that we have 
the economic power and the military power. We will use our power in 
concert with the rest of the world to guarantee that there will never 
be any millions of people being killed while the rest of the world sits 
by and watches without intervening.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I would just like to say that we know what happened in 
Rwanda. I have not made it through all 1,180 pages of this book, 
Rwanda, Death, Despair and Defiance, which was written by Rakiya Omaar 
at African Rights in London. I went to London to meet with Rakiya, to 
hear firsthand what she had to say as she interviewed hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of genocide survivors and of the genocide there 
in the prisons in Rwanda. We know what happened in Rwanda, thanks to 
Rakiya Omaar.

                              {time}  2100

  Thanks to Senator Alain Destexhe in Belgium we know what happened in 
Belgium. We know why the Belgian

[[Page H2796]]

troops withdrew, and he has come to the United States to help us to 
understand what happened in Belgium. Thanks to French parliamentarians 
we are beginning to understand what happened in Paris, what motivated 
Paris French behavior on the ground in Rwanda. Three governments were 
forewarned, and two of them are now asking themselves why they stood by 
and let 1 million people be slaughtered. The United States and the 
United Nations must do the same.
  Senator Destexhe delivered a letter to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Gilman) today and to our committee requesting that the United 
States hold a similar investigation; since the United States was one of 
three countries privy to the information that a genocide was about to 
take place, that the United States ought to look at it in critical 
self-examination to make sure that never again means never again.
  I yield to my colleague from Alabama.
  Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. You gave credit to those persons 
who were properly due; however, you failed to mention one, and that is 
the Congresswoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney). Let me personally thank 
you for your hard work and for your forthrightness and for your 
determination to come forth without any type of political fear of 
repercussions and let this country know what it should have been doing 
at the time and even now.
  It has been 4 years since about a million persons were killed in 90 
days when our country failed to react, and I thank you for not letting 
this country forget its inaction. Never again, I agree with you, but I 
thank you.
  And I have for the Record something that I will submit, but I would 
like to just read the last paragraph:
  I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my good friend from 
Georgia and thank her for making time for us to speak out on such a 
horrifying issue. We should not sit idly by while people are being 
slaughtered. Never ever again.
  So I thank you and I commend you for a job well done.

                      Comment on Rwandan Genocide

  Never . . . again!
  Never again!
  Those two simple words are used when referring to the Holocaust.
  However, I come to the House floor this evening with a heavy heart to 
speak on something that should have never happened again. I am here to 
speak on what is the fourth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.
  It has been four years since one million Rwandan people were 
slaughtered by their former friends and neighbors. I am talking about 
the loss of one million people in the span of just 90 days.
  One million people murdered in 90 days.
  To reach this number in 90 days required Hutus (who-toos) to butcher 
463 Tutsis (toot-sees) and moderate Hutus every hour of every day for 
90 straight days.
  The total pre-genocide population of Rwanda was about 7 million 
people. After only three months, one-seventh of Rwanda's population--
men, women and children--lay dead in the streets. To put this massacre 
in some type of perspective. . . . The killings would be the same as 
slaughtering every African-American man, woman and child--approximately 
37 million people--or one-seventh of the United States population in 
just 90 days.
  We can discuss how terrible it is that this event even took place, 
but what really must be discussed is whether it ever had to happen at 
all.
  It has been discovered that the international community, including 
the United States Government, was aware that genocide in Rwanda was 
imminent. A hearing was held just this morning in the House 
International Relations Committee on this very issue. And in that 
hearing, witnesses who were on the front lines in Rwanda reported that 
the United Nations, and the governments of the United States, France, 
United Kingdom, Belgium, and other countries, were fully apprised of 
not only escalating tension between Hutus and Tutsis, but more 
importantly, the United Nations and these governments were made aware 
of plans for mass genocide by the Hutus against the Tutsis.

  Even with knowledge of the planned genocide, the United Nations 
peace-keeping troops were reduced from 2,500 to only 270.
  I repeat . . . only 270 troops were retained, even with knowledge of 
a planned mass genocide.
  I cannot accept that the State Department and the administration 
would have knowledge of this situation and not inform members of 
Congress. I am further angered by the fact that the State Department 
failed to appear at our hearing this morning, hiding behind ridiculous 
department rules.
  The value of African lives cannot . . . and will not, be so easily 
cast aside. I will not allow the administration of this country to 
serve lip service to its commitment to African issues--but more 
importantly African lives.
  I, with other members here tonight, plan to get to the bottom of this 
issue, and determine exactly who knew what, and when they knew it. 
Belgium, France, and the United Nations are all currently going through 
some form of truth-seeking process. It is high time the United States 
did the same.
  We will find out who knew in advance that genocide was imminent. And 
where there was knowledge of any inaction, we must speak out and hold 
those people and governments accountable--even those here in the United 
States.
  I would like to acknowledge the hard work of my good friend from 
Georgia, and thank her for making time for us to speak out on such a 
horrifying issue. We should not sit idly by while people are being 
slaughtered.
  Never . . . ever . . . again!
  Ms. McKINNEY. Thank you very much.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this time to make this presentation to our 
colleagues and the Congress and to our audience, the American people.
  Never again is supposed to mean never again, and we now must demand 
that we understand fully what happened and why it happened.
  Unfortunately, the State Department chose to not show up at a very 
important hearing. They chose to duck the answers of the people who 
came to present their questions. And in response to that, then, I have 
to add my voice to the tens of other people who were at that hearing 
today who were calling for an investigation.
  I now call for an investigation of what happened so that indeed when 
we say never again the world community will know that never again means 
never again.

                                  Bruxelles, Belgium, May 5, 1998.
     Hon. Benjamin Gilman,
     Chairman, House Committee on International Relations, Rayburn 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Gilman: I am writing to recommend that the 
     United States Congress undertake an investigation into the 
     events surrounding the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. During that 
     time, I was the Secretary General of Medecins sans Frontieres 
     (Doctors without Borders). In this capacity, I visited Rwanda 
     just before and just after the genocide. In 1995, I became a 
     Member of Parliament and initiated the Belgian Senate 
     Committee of Inquiry on the Rwanda genocide.
       Our Committee of Inquiry heard testimony from 95 witnesses, 
     including Belgian Ministers, Diplomats and members of the 
     Military. The Committee also consulted all documents from 
     1993 and 1994 in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Ministries, 
     including all correspondence between Kigali and Brussels.
       Two main questions were addressed: Before the genocide, 
     were the Belgian authorities and others aware of the fact 
     that it was under preparation? After the genocide started on 
     7 April, 1994, why did the UN decide to withdraw almost all 
     its forces from Rwanda?
       Concerning the period before the genocide, our Committee 
     concluded that: ``. . . at the latest in mid-January 1994, 
     the Belgian authorities had a series of relevant information 
     regarding, if not the preparation of genocide, at least the 
     existence of the preparation of large scale massacres . . . 
     On the other hand, several actors (UN, other states . . .) 
     that had the same type of information did not give it the 
     necessary importance . . . .'' (page 506)
       Although the Committee decided not to be more specific 
     about the ``other states,'' this is clearly a reference to 
     France and the United States. We based that conclusion on 
     various evidence, in particular documents from the files of 
     the Belgian Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affairs. Among 
     others, we found 19 documents in which there is mention of a 
     Machiavellian plan of destabilization and massacres. There is 
     no reason to believe that similar information was not at the 
     disposal of the American and French Ambassadors and the UN 
     Representatives. Most important is a cable sent on January 
     11, 1994, almost three months before the genocide, by 
     General Dallaire, the Commander of the UN forces in Rwanda 
     (UNAMIR), to the UN Headquarters in New York, based on 
     information provided to him by a key informer. This cable 
     revealed a fairly detailed plan explaining how the 
     genocide was organized in Kigali. It mentions that the 
     principal aim of Interhamwe (the militia of the 
     President's party) in the past was to protect Kigali from 
     the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). He noted that a 
     campaign was under way by Interhamwe to register all Tutsi 
     in Kigali, he says he suspected that this was for their 
     extermination. He quotes an Interhamwe informant as saying 
     that in twenty minutes his personnel could kill up to 
     1,000 Tutsi.
       This cable's importance cannot be overestimated. How many 
     times has the United

[[Page H2797]]

     Nations received from its Force Commander in a country a 
     warning of a possible, even probable, extermination?
       In the cable, General Dallaire announced his intention to 
     take action within 48 hours and requested protection for his 
     informer. UN Headquarters answered that the action he had 
     planned to take was not authorized because it did not fall 
     within the UNAMIR mandate. Dallaire was instructed to contact 
     the three ambassadors from Belgium, France and the United 
     States, and ask them to intervene with President Habyarimana 
     of Rwanda. He was also instructed to request from these 
     countries protection and asylum for his informer.
       The contents of the cable shared with the American, French 
     and Belgian Ambassadors in Kigali. According to the special 
     representative of Secretary General Boutros Ghali, ``They 
     expressed serious concern and indicated that they would 
     consult with their capital and would act accordingly.'' On 
     January 13, 1994, all three ambassadors met President 
     Habyarimana and expressed their concern that the Arusha Peace 
     Agreements (which were supposed to bring a peaceful 
     transition in Rwanda) were being violated by his political 
     party and his supporters. Apart from this, very little was 
     done to stop the perpetrators of the genocide. I strongly 
     believe that if General Dallaire's cable had been widely 
     publicized at the time, the genocide could have been avoided.
       We should remember that nearly one million people were 
     killed in less than three months in Rwanda in 1994. We should 
     also recall that the Rwandan killings were an attempt to 
     eradicate an entire people, and as such constitute one of 
     very few unequivocal genocides in the twentieth century. A 
     crime of this nature and scale demands full investigation. 
     The Rwandan genocide demonstrated that the lesson of the 
     Holocaust still has not been learned. At the end of the day, 
     everyone is accountable for their actions when genocide 
     crimes against humanity are at stake.
       Belgium, France, the United States and the United Nations 
     also share a responsibility for not doing more--indeed, doing 
     almost nothing--to prevent or stop the killings. The genocide 
     of the Tutsi in Rwanda took place in a country where 2,500 UN 
     blue helmets were deployed and supposed to maintain peace and 
     protect human lives. They could have prevented the killings, 
     both before and during the genocide.
       The role of Belgium in this tragedy has been fully examined 
     by the Belgian Senate Committee. That of France is currently 
     being investigated in the French Parliament. The victims, but 
     also humanity at large, deserve to know the full truth 
     concerning the two others major international players--the 
     United States and the United Nations.
       To conclude, I would first like to note that I fully 
     welcome the initiatives of the Clinton Administration to 
     prevent further genocide and bring justice in the Great Lakes 
     region, initiatives which were taken after the presidential 
     trip to Africa.
       However, more needs to be done. A full investigation on the 
     part of the United States can help to improve the chances 
     that such suffering will not be repeated. In attempting to 
     move forward, the past must be taken in account. The 1994 
     genocide remains a central issue to understanding the 
     situation in the Great Lakes region. It also highlighted the 
     deep inadequacies in the way the international community 
     responds to signs of impending crisis. We cannot prevent 
     future tragedies if we do not come to terms with the past; in 
     the United States as in Belgium, that process must involve 
     examining the role this government played in Rwanda in 1994.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Alain Destexhe,
     Member of the Parliament of Belgium, President, International 
                                                      Crisis Group
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the 
gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McKinney, for organizing this Special 
Order. Her dedication to Africa is exemplary.
  Mr. Speaker, four years ago the people of Rwanda suffered 
unimaginable horror. Up to one million Rwandans were slaughtered by 
their countrymen in only three months. Radicals associated with the 
Government of Rwanda organized the killings of Tutsis and moderate 
Hutus. The killing only stopped when the Rwandan Patriotic Front, now 
the government of Rwanda, overthrew the genocidal regime.
  The atrocious events of 1994 will scar Rwanda for generations. 
Indeed, the entire world has become a less humane place because of 
them. Earlier today, the Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, chaired by 
our distinguished colleague, Chris Smith, held a hearing on many 
aspects of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The genocide remains relevant 
today, Mr. Speaker, because the conditions in Central Africa make 
another genocide possible.
  Ethnic and cultural rivalries are still deadly in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Burundi and Rwanda. Innocent men, women and 
children--in all three countries--are being killed today because of the 
groups to which they belong.
  The United States failed to intervene in the 1994 genocide, Mr. 
Speaker. I hope that by reflecting on the events of those horrible 
three months, we can do more to avert tragedy next time.
  Again, let me thank the gentlelady from Georgia, Ms. McKinney, for 
organizing this special order, and also the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Mr. Smith, for holding his hearing earlier today.

                          ____________________