Written by Izi Baker
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to determine how more effective gendered responses could have been used during and after the Rwandan Genocide. To answer this question, a systematic review of the relevant literature was undertaken. The results showed the few gendered responses employed were poor and of little effect, suggesting gender was generally not considered; due to decades of neglect, the necessary actors did not know how to address gender issues when they arose. Potential responses include early warning recognition; sexual violence and rape prevention; healthcare and trauma support; international institution reform; justice and reconciliation measures; and long-term support structures. A significant limitation is that much of the research was conducted after the genocide, as in many instances, it was too dangerous to remain in Rwanda. Further research is needed to refine the gendered responses discussed in this report and determine how best to tailor them to each situation.
Introduction
The Rwandan Genocide is a hallmark for many reasons. Its brutality and the international community’s failure to act helped seal Rwanda’s place in history. Between April and July 1994, an estimated 800,000 people were killed in just 100 days. Victims were mainly Tutsi, though moderate Hutu were also murdered, killed by officials and civilians alike. Despite Rwanda’s rural population and weak information infrastructure, the killings were “highly systematic and [synchronised]”. Multiple factors caused the Rwandan genocide, and its gendered dimensions were “extraordinarily intricate and multifaceted.” Rwanda helped bring attention to the gendered aspects of conflict, particularly rape and sexual violence (SV).
It is important to acknowledge that men were also victimised; however, my scope is limited to women. Women’s experiences of conflict and violence differ from men’s and are shaped by gender. I argue that the few gendered responses had little effectiveness, as gender was a neglected dimension of the genocide. First, I give a brief historical background, then discuss the construction of women and gender’s role in propaganda and prosecution. Thirdly, I discuss gender-based violence (GBV) with reference to SV and the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Finally, I examine utilised responses, giving recommendations throughout.
Rwanda’s colonial history has shaped perceptions of ethnicity and gender in the country. A small, densely populated country, Rwanda’s population shares a common language and was historically divided into three occupation-based groups: the pastoral Tutsi (15% of the population before the genocide); the agricultural Hutu (85%); and the Twa (1%), who were potters and foragers. Post-genocide, these groupings are no longer recognised.
First colonised by the German Empire (1897), Rwanda came under Belgian control during World War I.9(p283) The latter issued the first ethnic identity cards in 1926, institutionalising the ethnic boundaries first defined by the Germans. Colonial ideology constructed the Tutsi as “racially (and intellectually) superior” to the Hutu, excluding the Hutu from political and economic centres of power. Anti-Tutsi violence occurred in 1959, 1963, and 1972, with up to 20,000 Tutsis killed during the Hutu Revolution (1959). Since Rwanda’s independence (1962), Hutu have been in power; their anti-Tutsi policies preserved the ethnic divides established during the colonial period. International organisations may have inadvertently aided the institutionalisation of anti-Tutsi sentiment by aligning with governmental policies and unwittingly reinforcing existing power relations.The contemporary dominant developmentalist ideology prioritised economic targets, neglecting social and gender issues.
After colonisation, women had little political power in Rwanda. Traditional patriarchal structures limited female agency; women could not inherent property, legally be the head of a household, keep Rwandan citizenship upon marrying a foreigner, open a bank account without their husband’s permission, and represented “just [5%] of the executive branch of government.” Religious institutions further reinforced expectations of how women were to perform their gender. However, single educated women challenged traditional gender notions, becoming more prominent in economic and public life.
Ethnic tensions increased after the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) invaded northern Rwanda in 1990. This triggered a civil war and intensified the existing anti-Tutsi sentiment. The genocide itself began on April 6, 1994, after the shooting down of President Juvenal Habyrimana’s plane. The genocide has be strongly associated with ethnic divisions ; the less apparent sex and gender components were ignored by international actors, leading to poor gendered responses. Tutsi women and girls were directly targeted and killed “in numbers equal to, if not exceeding those of men”, indicating Tutsi women were not seen as “innocent non-combatants.” This highlights the critical need for gender-specific responses during the genocide.
Constructing the Woman: Victim vs. Perpetrator
Gendered Stereotypes
Gendered stereotypes featured heavily in anti-Tutsi propaganda. Tutsi women were depicted as oversexualised figures engaging in sexually transgressive acts. The Hutu Power published the Hutu Ten Commandments (1990). These positioned Tutsi women as “non-citizen[s]” and internal enemies. Hutu women also featured in propaganda, upheld as the model woman or victims of Tutsi-perpetrated violence. Many scholars regard gendered anti-Tutsi propaganda as a significant factor behind the violence Tutsi women faced during the genocide. The gendered stereotypes in propaganda provided a window into the reality in Rwanda, highlighting the need to analyse developing situations through a gendered lens. Here, the increasing prevalence of negative stereotypes of Tutsi women could have acted as an early warning system for the violence to come. Frameworks that recognise these patterns as genocide precursors are crucial as they allow for earlier intervention and prevention strategies.
In 1994, the Rwandan population was largely illiterate and rural; radio was a key messaging medium, such as Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM). RTLM quickly gained a large audience, targeting youth gangs like the Interhamwe and using female broadcasters to mobilise Hutu women. Metzl argues radio broadcasts “clearly played a central role in inciting and implementing” the genocide; the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) also found a clear link between extremist propaganda and perpetrators’ actions. McKinney argues the easiest way to prevent the genocide was to jam radios, blocking the mass-scale spread of anti-Tutsi propaganda and mobilisation of Hutu civilians. While not a specifically gendered response, jamming RTLM and similar stations could have avoided the violence and brutality Tutsi women faced.
Female Genocidaires
A unique aspect of the genocide is the prevalence of female genocidaires. This complicates the construction of women as solely victims, a pervasive idea in many developmentalist policies and humanitarian responses. Some Tutsi women with Hutu husbands were also complicit. Most female-perpetrated violence was indirect, giving up where Tutsi were hiding, looting, or inciting violence. However, some also perpetrated direct violence, killing Tutsis themselves. Most female killers were Hutu, though there were female Tutsi resistance members. Many Tutsi women believed their children were safe with Hutu mothers, leaving them in the protection of these women; however, the Hutu women then turned these children over to be killed. These actions go against traditional constructions of Rwandan femininity, in which motherhood is a “critical social identity and esteemed status”. Women’s participation is seen as not legitimate as it challenges traditional views of violence, explaining the hesitation to charge women with genocide-related crimes.
Pauline Nyiramasuhuko ordered and supervised abductions, murder, rape, and torture carried out by the Interhamwe. The only woman tried at the ICTR, she was found guilty of genocide-related crimes in 2011. Nyiramasuhuko claimed she was incapable of the acts of which she was accused because she was a woman, highlighting why culturally-sensitive approaches to challenging entrenched gender assumptions are needed. This reemphasises the importance of a broad gender analysis framework accounting for all female experiences, allowing context-specific responses to be created. I further recommend ensuring gender and cultural awareness in justice and reconciliation processes, particularly to avoid reproducing negative gender and ethnic hierarchies when prosecuting genocide.
Sexual Violence and Rape
Rape and SV are significant aspects of the genocide. ICTR defines rape as “physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on one person” under coercive circumstances. Interestingly, pre-genocide Rwanda did not have a high incidence of rape. Victims often suffered concurrent bodily harm included genital mutilation and beatings. It is thought most murdered women were raped before death; survivors were also likely to be raped. An estimated 250,000–500,000 rapes occurred; perpetrators included peasants, educated men, soldiers, and priests. Women were raped by individuals; in gang-rapes; with objects like gun barrels or sharpened sticks; and sexually tortured. Some survived only because they were held as sexual slaves.
The ICTR found SV constituted genocide as “there was evidence of intent to destroy in whole or in part an ethnic group.” Rape carries extreme stigma in Rwanda; victims are often ostracised by their families and communities. Other consequences include continued sexual victimisation; long-term effects of physical trauma; pregnancy; illegal abortion and associated risks; and psychological issues. Horizontal intervention is key which simultaneously addresses multiple issues. Possible solutions include protecting women during the genocide to reduce SV; and providing long-term treatment for sexually transmitted infections and psychological trauma.
Recognising why and how women were targeted due to their gender is key to determining the most appropriate responses. Hutu women were also raped, because of their relationships with Tutsi; moderate political leanings; or by Tutsi as revenge. It is essential responses are intersectional and non-discriminatory to avoid reproducing exclusionary power relations. A further problem is peacekeeper-perpetrated rape, necessitating gender sensitivity training and appropriate, timely punishment for perpetrators to try and mitigate this problem
Responses were limited to ad hoc treatment for rape victims. Prevention is perhaps the best response, as it would alleviate pressure on consequential programs, such as reproductive health and medical aid, as it would reduce the caseload if fewer women experienced SV and rape. Intervention can prevent SV, though this is controversial as it violates state sovereignty. In Rwanda, safe spaces could have been created, improving security through regular patrols and more secure buildings. A limitation here is that present agencies and organisations were severely limited by resources and safety concerns; many countries were reluctant to contribute troops partly due to the extreme violence. Prevention should have continued after the genocide ended to maximise the security and safety of women.
HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS has long-term implications, including trauma, social isolation and stigma, and economic hardship. Russel et al. argue GBV and HIV played “devastating roles” in the genocide, emphasising the significance of overlooking these in responses. The HIV/AIDS crisis was exacerbated by the genocide; many survivors were deliberately infected with HIV to “[signify] the longer-term destruction of the community” including males. In the early 2000s, approximately 3% of the general Rwandan population were HIV+; women (4%) had a higher prevalence than men (2%), demonstrating the importance of gendered responses to HIV/AIDS.
Many patients are unable to access treatment. In 1998, Rwanda had just one free AIDS testing centre. An obvious solution here is to provide more free testing centres, some mobile to service the largely rural population. This could have been achieved through utilising such resources as the World Health Organisation and NGOs like Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). However, this raises associated issues like keeping aid workers safe from violence.
Due to delayed presentation, many women’s illnesses progressed to AIDS before they knew they had been infected. The nature of the disease necessitates long-term, often costly responses. Many analysts believe that had early warnings been heeded, both the genocide and AIDS pandemic could have been held to a smaller, more manageable scale. The failure to adequately respond compounded women’s suffering both during and after the genocide, illustrating the necessity of gendered responses.
The International Community: Consequences of Gender Blindness
Rwanda is regarded as a significant failure in genocide prevention. The genocide occurred in the presence of UN troops; international actors failed to act even with increasing calls from organisations like MSF. This raises the issue of sovereignty. In the aftermath of the genocide, the UN introduced the Right to Protect doctrine (R2P), allowing military intervention to protect civilian populations in extreme circumstances. If R2P had existed in 1994, it could have been used to protect women; though it did not, these women were a part of something that aims to prevent others from experiencing what they endured.
Many responses were limited to the local level, including churches sheltering refugees and Hutu men protecting their Tutsi wives. Women helped others by preparing food for those they rescued; warning those in danger where the killing groups were headed; and taking in children and babies and raising them alongside their own children. While the latter is not a specifically gendered response, it demonstrates how women utilised traditional gender roles like motherhood to help those in need. Engaging with and coordinating these gendered strategies could have strengthened the international response.
While Rwanda today has made significant improvements in healthcare, economic growth, and human assets index, the country still bears the wounds of the genocide. Women have been the majority population since the genocide, making it vital they continue to be empowered. Neglecting the gendered aspects of the genocide is part of the many failures of this time. Measures should have been taken to actively protect women while providing treatment for SV-related trauma. These should have been long-term to provide support and treatment for the chronic effects of trauma, both physical and mental.
The potential gendered responses given here are not infallible. Further research is needed to refine the gendered responses discussed here, as well as on the implications of the genocide on Rwandan women and gender relations today. Frameworks are needed that determine who is most vulnerable to genocide and why, and how to continue protecting women as different challenges arise. Areas of additional interest include how to best protect women in refugee camps; combatting intimate partner and family violence during and after conflict; and how to address and properly care for children born as the result of genocidal rape. It is critical we do not replicate the failures of Rwanda.
Bibliography
Baines, E.K. (2003). “Body Politics and the Rwandan Crisis.” Third World Quarterly, 24(3),
479-493.
Binet, L. (2014). “Genocide of Rwandan Tutsi 1994.” The MSF Speaking Out Case Studies.
Brown, S.E. (2014). “Female Perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide.” International Feminist
Journal of Politics, 16(3), 448-469. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2013.788806.
Chakravarty, A. (2007). “Inter-ethnic Marriages, the Survival of Women, and the Logics of
Genocide in Rwanda.” Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 2(3), 235-248.
Donovan, P. (2002). “Rape and HIV/AIDS in Rwanda.” The Lancet, 360, 17-18.
Holmes, G. (2008). “The Postcolonial Politics of Militarizing Rwandan Women.” Minerva
Journal of Women and War, 2(2), 44-63.
Fox, N. (2011). ““OH, DID THE WOMEN SUFFER, THEY SUFFERED SO MUCH”:Impacts of Gendered Based Violence on Kinship Networks in Rwanda.” International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 37(2), 279-305.
Jessee, E. (2020). “‘There Are No Other Options?’: Rwandan Gender Norms and Family
Planning in Historical Perspective.” Medical History, 64(2), 219-239.
Jones, A. “Gender and genocide in Rwanda.” Journal of Genocide Research, 4(1), 65-94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520120113900.
Lemarchand, R. (2006). “Genocide, Memory and Ethnic Reconciliation in Rwanda.”
L’Afrique des Grands Lacs: Annuaire 2007, 21-30.
McKinney, T. (2002). “Radio jamming: the disarmament of radio propaganda.” Small Wars and Insurgencies, 13(3), 111-144.
Médecins Sans Frontières [MSF]. (2019, April 5). Rwandan genocide 25 years on: MSF
caught in spiral of extreme violence from Rwanda to Zaire. https://www.msf.org/rwandan-genocide-25-years.
Médecins Sans Frontières [MSF]. (n.d.). Rwanda. https://msf.org.au/country-region/rwanda.
Médecins Sans Frontières [MSF]. (2004, August 18). Aiding civilians affected by genocide.
https://www.msf.org/rwanda-aiding-civilians-affected-genocide.
Metzl, J.F. (1997). “Rwandan genocide and the international law of radio jamming.”
American Journal of International Law, 91(4), 628-651.
Mullins, C.W. (2009). “‘WE ARE GOING TO RAPE YOU AND TASTE TUTSI WOMEN’:
Rape during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide.” The British Journal of Criminology, 49(6), 719-735. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp040.
Nordås, R. (2013). “Preventing Conflict-related Sexual Violence.” PRIO Policy Brief 2.
Nowrojee, (1996). Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence during the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Palmer, I., & Firmin, N. (2011). “Mental health in post-genocide Rwanda.” International Psychiatry, 8(4), 86-87.
Russell, S. G., Lim, S., Kim, P., & Morse, S. (2016). “The legacy of gender-based violence and HIV/AIDS in the postgenocide era: Stories from women in Rwanda.” Health care for women international, 37(7), 721-743.
Sharlach, L. (1999). “Gender and genocide in Rwanda: Women as agents and objects of genocide.” Journal of Genocide Research, 1(3), 387-399.
Schenk-Day, A. (2024). Gendered memory and mass violence: Rwanda, Bosnia, and the Holocaust. [Master’s thesis, Ohio State University].
Schimmel, N. (2010). “Failed aid: How development agencies are neglecting and marginalising Rwandan genocide survivors.” Development in Practice, 20(3), 407-413.
Taylor, C.C. (1999). “A Gendered Genocide: Tutsi Women and Hutu Extremism in the 1994 Rwanda Genocide.” PoLAR, 22(1), 42-54.