I recently attended a conference that was co-hosted by the East Africa Law Society and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The conference was held to discuss the legacy of the ICTR court. Established by the UN in 1994 in order to prosecute those responsible for genocide in Rwanda, the court’s mandate is up in two years, after which the court will close. The conference topics ranged from how to apply the decisions in international cases, the future of international law in Africa, and how to transfer ICTR jurisprudence to Rwandan courts and/or hear cases in East African Regional Courts.
One topic that I found particularly interesting was the issue of where to house the massive archive collection that the ICTR has compiled after the court is closed. These materials include case files, appeals, exhibits, audio cassettes, video cassettes, transcripts, confidential records, etc.
According to one speaker, one of the unique aspects of the ICTR court is the fact that all evidence has been electronically recorded. Rather than bringing in a photo or an artifact for evidence, lawyers refer to a large electronic screen where the evidence is shown to the entire court. As a result, in some sense the archives can have multiple ‘houses’.
While this is true, there is apparently a movement by some to remove the physical archives from Africa and house them in the Hague. As one speaker, Yitiha Simbeye, a law professor in Tanzania pointed out in her presentation, “countless Africans will be virtually denied access if the Tribunal’s archives are relocated outside the continent and in particular to a Western country as Visa requirements and cost of travel will curtail access.”
She also goes on to say that “The importance for unfettered access for Africans is based on the fact that it is part of their heritage and it is of utmost importance that they preserve such archives for future generations. Preserving the continent’s historical records of a particularly catastrophic occurrence will act as a tribute to those who suffered; their plight will not be forgotten.”
Some argue that there is not a space here in Arusha where the archives are currently located. I personally believe that Africans could raise the funds to build a space for them, particularly in light of the fact that the new ‘Human and Peoples’ Rights Court’ has been established here in Arusha. More importantly, I believe that as these artifacts are from Rwanda and belong to Rwanda, they should be left in East Africa.
While the UN has been responsible for collecting, housing, and using these artifacts to obtain justice for the people of Rwanda, this does not mean the collection therefore belongs to them. I think it is highly problematic that because of the UN’s power they will most likely get their way and this history will be removed from the very people who created it. As I have now heard several people express opinions that this same massacre will happen in Rwanda again, simply given the time, I believe it is extremely important that the physical remains of the genocide remain so as to provide people with a reminder of the horror and a reason not to commit the same crimes again.
Is this maybe a matter of security? Perhaps someone is afraid that if the archives remain in Africa, a hostile regime might some to power and seek to “sanitize” the record by destroying evidence.
If Western or Western-dominated orgs want copies, why can’t they make copies … at their own cost? That would have the dual advantage of providing broader scholarly access to the documents, and securing copies against alteration.
As the post says, all or substantially all of it is already in electronic form. How many terabytes could it be? Throw it on a few drives, ship one to the Hague, one to the Library of Congress; is there a Chinese or Japanese org that wants one? South Asian? Major universities? Anywhere else? Send a check for the duplication, copies in ten to sixteen weeks.
There is no good argument for removing the physical archives from the country whose history it is.
[...] http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/12/10/the-archives-of-a-genocide-where-do-they-stay/ [...]
The one that popped instantly to mind is that someone would come to power in the future who would destroy them. But Bitter Scribe beat me to it.
Still, the benefits of leaving them on site are probably worth the risk. And in the end, it’s not our call to make, it’s the Rwandans’ call.
Thank you, Anne, for posting about this.
I’m an archivist who’s long been interested in issues of where community records should ‘live.’ It’s very common practice to remove records from their home community under the argument that they’d be safer/better preserved elsewhere. It’s an argument I rarely buy – I agree with the other posters here. Unfortunately, many archivists do not.
Fortunately, your post points out a potential solution – physical ownership of the record in Rwanda with virtual access to digital copies which can be maintained by The Hague. I’ve posted a response on a blog to which I contribute, Social Justice Librarian: http://sjlibrarian.wordpress.com/2007/12/10/housing-and-accessing-the-record-of-a-genocide/
Gonna agree with Sailorman. The Rwandans need to decide, not the UN.
The removal of the artifacts from Africa would just be a a case of international organization sanctioned colonialism. They have no right to take those documents. They rightly belong to Rwanda, and the rest of Africa. Now, I do think that the archives should stay in Arusha, simply because of the genocide cycle in Rwanda.
What most people don’t know is that there were several genocides in Rwanda, not just the 1994 one. There were genocides in the 1950s against the Tutsi in Rwanda and the 1970s there was a genocide against the Hutu in Burundi that triggered another genocide against the Tutsi. Placing the archives in Kigali risks all the documents.
The ICJ SHOULD have electronic copies of all pictures and, electrnic and hard copies of all paper documents just in case.
Why can’t they put all this online, so that the world can see it? If there is just too much to house online, maybe a smaller selection can be placed online?
I don’t know too much of the current political climate over there, but if there is a danger at leaving it in Africa, then take it to a country with little danger, make copies (I have no idea how long this would take) and then bring it back. Museum exhibits travel all the time- it doesn’t seem unreasonable to do that in this case, with permission.
It seems to me that the “better preserved elsewhere”/”what if a tyrannical government took power” arguments are the same arguments that were used for the wholesale plundering of other cultures committed by Western European powers in the 18th and 19th centuries.
As has been pointed out, the evidence has been recorded in electronic form and can be copied easily: those copies could be placed with disparate organisations around the world so that the likelihood of tampering is much decreased.
I firmly believe (as others have already commented) that the history belongs to the people of Rwanda, and the physical evidence of that history needs to be theirs to deal with as they wish. The UN has played its part in dealing with the aftermath from a legal standpoint, but the only way that Rwanda can move forwards is if the Rwandans are allowed to be self-determining. This seems to start with them having the final say over what happens to the evidence of the recent past.
The UN should ask the Rwandans for permission to make multiple electronic copies, make them, and then make those copies available to interested parties and organizations all over the world.
To take the originals out is not too far removed from Western Colonialists of the past and present who plundered non-Western civilizations of their cultural heritage artifacts.
As someone who is currently working at an archive, that made me flinch a little. Technology changes, and hopefully someone has thought about moving at least a portion of it to low-tech formats. Just ask the Library of Congress, which is stuck with optical drives full of information that they can’t access because the operating system that ran them no longer exists.
What say all of the countries who forgot about the Rwandans DURING the genocide and sat back and did nothing, but later came in to pay their respects after it was over, should be held responsible for funding Rwandans to house these artifacts in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide was so recent and has impacted every person’s life who lives there. How could anyone possibly want to deny them these artifacts? I just see it as a continuation of a single trend. First Rwandans are denied any assistance to stop the genocide and then their objects to help them remember/heal are also denied from them. What. The. Fuck.
Here’s a photo of what survives of all the local court records for Southwestern Nigeria, 1900-1960.
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jef33/research_files/image002.jpg
That the documents would be better preserved elsewhere isn’t necessarily true, but they won’t preserve themselves either.
-James