EN
EUROPEA COU CIL
THE PRESIDE T
Mechelen, 4 April 2014
EUCO 93/14
PRESSE 212
PR PCE 83
President of the European Council
Herman Van Rompuy
Kazerne Dossin Europa Lecture 2014
on the occasion of the commemoration of
the twentieth anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide
Twenty years ago this Sunday, a rocket brought down the plane that was carrying the
Rwandan and Burundian presidents. It proved to be a spark that lit a flame which engulfed
the country of Rwanda.
I remember the very beginning also personally. I was acting Prime Minister the first week
of April 1994, replacing my friend Prime Minister Dehaene. I was informed that ten
Belgian soldiers were killed that day. It was a tragedy in itself, and a prelude for the
upcoming horror.
For the next one hundred days, a carefully-planned genocide was perpetrated against
Rwanda’s civilian population, primarily those of Tutsi ethnicity, but not only them. When
the dust settled up to 800,000 men, women and children had been brutally murdered. A
society was destroyed. Millions more were widowed, orphaned or permanently scarred,
and a nation was left to pick up the pieces in a state of deep post-traumatic stress.
What happened at the time in Rwanda was not merely devastating for those that lived
through it, it was also a global tragedy. It forced the world to examine its conscience and to
dwell on the questions: “how could this have happened? Why did we not do more to stop
it? What does that mean, "a human being", if he can embody evil? "
PRESS
Dirk De Backer - Spokesperson of the President - ( +32 (0)2 281 9768 - +32 (0)497 59 99 19
Preben Aamann - Deputy Spokesperson of the President - ( +32 (0)2 281 2060 - +32 (0)476 85 05 43
[email protected] http://www.european-council.europa.eu/the-president
EUCO 93/14
1
E
The word “genocide” is relatively new – it was only coined in 1944 –, but sadly the act
itself hardly is. The twentieth century however took it to new levels. This "calamitous"
twentieth century. In Europe alone, from massacres in Armenia, to the gas chambers of
Auschwitz, and the mass graves of Srebrenica, our continent is scarred with too many
reminders of humanity’s potential for inhumanity.
But even compared to such horrific events, the genocide in Rwanda surpassed others in the
twentieth century in terms of speed and intensity. It was conducted mostly by ordinary
people against their neighbours and, in many cases, former friends. No weapons of mass
destruction were needed: Simple machetes were enough.
It is incumbent upon us today to remember the victims and to honour them. But we also
have another duty. As the international community, if we could not prevent this tragedy,
we should at least learn from its lessons. Each tragedy is of course unique. The road that
led to the Rwandan genocide was not the same as the one that led to the Cambodian killing
fields, nor ethnic cleansing in Darfur. It is not even exactly the same path that led to the
murder of over a hundred thousand people, mostly Hutus, in neighbouring Burundi in
1972. Yet there are common features shared by virtually all such tragedies, that enable
them to happen.
These include a lack of democracy, of human rights, and of the rule of law; a population
trapped by deep poverty and inequality; and the existence of a self-serving elite,
determined to monopolise wealth and power, and to keep it all 'cost'. People can be
manipulated, brainwashed, even rendered mad by unscrupulous, conscienceless so-called
"leaders". Hate can be inflamed. Fear can bring normal people to kill. "I kill you.
Otherwise I will be killed by you".
This year in July, European leaders will commemorate another anniversary, one hundred
years since the start of the First World War. It too began with an unexpected assassination
of crown prince, quickly escalated to an extent beyond anyone’s imagining, and, due to its
shocking ferocity, came be to known at as “the war to end all wars”. We know now of
course that that was premature.
When one talks about the Rwandan genocide it has also become customary to utter the
words “never again”. Yet violence has not been halted. It is enough to look to massacres in
Syria, or in the Central African Republic, to see that. In these countries communities lived
side by side in peace. The poison of hatred was infiltrated in the minds. The answer to
killing is killing. The vicious spiral destroys societies and perverts men.
In Europe it took us not one, but two World Wars, to learn the lessons of history. Only
after our continent was reduced to rubble for the second time, was the desire for peace and
reconciliation strong enough to overcome centuries of zero sum rhetoric and of nationally
and ethnically defined politics.
The experience of Europe over the course of my lifetime however gives me huge faith in
our collective capacity for reconciliation. The European Union, for me, is a testament to
what can be achieved when nations choose to put aside their differences and work together
– valuing diversity, taking strength from it.
EUCO 93/14
2
E
But while our Union may have arisen out of a desire for reconciliation, it was built, stepby-step, on concrete actions, enshrined in institutions and rules that delivered tangible
results. Irreversible bonds were created, especially economic and monetary, so that going
back would mean such a high cost that nobody would want to pay any more. It is this
combination of idealism and pragmatism that lies at the heart of what our Union is about.
Reconciliation must come in the first place from the leaders. They have to show that they
can raise above vengeance and resentment. They have a crucial role in changing the mindset, also since some leaders are often at the root of nationalism or ethnicism too.
The European Union always has been, and perhaps always will be, a work in progress. We
should not take the achievements of the past as a reason for complacency. The potential to
slip into old ways is ever present and as we have seen time and time again, history has an
enduring capacity to repeat itself. It is not a fatality, but a possibility. Especially at times of
crisis, there is a tendency to revert to being inward-looking, to enemy-thinking, to erecting
boundaries between peoples. Fear of the other, fear of the future fuel antagonism,
polarisation and eventually extremism.
But I do believe that, to a large extent, we have indeed become a Europe of values. Our
Union is bound by the Treaty to ensure that, and I quote: "the Union's action on the
international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired its own creation,
development and enlargement, and which it seeks to advance in the wider world:
democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and
fundamental freedoms, respect for human dignity, the principles of equality and solidarity,
and respect for the principles of the United ations Charter and international law."
In this spirit of reconciliation, Belgrade and Pristina normalized their relations. This is the
true European spirit. The Western Balkans drew the lessons of last civil war on the
European continent. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union equally
provides safeguards that no EU legislation infringes on these values. However, one of the
most important drivers behind this evolution from interest-based to value-based politics in
Europe pre-dates the European Union and remains entirely separate from it. The European
Convention on Human Rights was, and remains, one of the most significant advances in
the cause of human rights protection that the world has seen.
It is a testament to the principle that core values must be adhered to not only when it is
convenient to do so, but always. A pick-and-choose approach to human rights smacks of
hypocrisy. It is only because all member states continue to accept to be bound by the
values enshrined in the Convention, that the European Union is able to speak with
authority and integrity on the world stage.
Democracy has been on the rise these last three decades, especially in Africa, in Latin
America in some Asian countries. The Arab Spring sparked hope, but until now only
Tunisia has a positive story to tell. But the spirit of freedom will not disappear.
The European Convention on Human Rights was largely a result of the horrors of the
Second World War and a condemnation of steps taken in the thirties that led eventually to
the Holocaust. Likewise, out of Rwanda’s tragedy came a growing international realisation
that it was not enough to hold states responsible for international human rights
commitments but also, if we are serious about stopping war crimes and crimes against
humanity, individuals must be held accountable. There can be no impunity. And also not in
Syria and in the Central African Republic.
EUCO 93/14
3
E
EUCO 93/14
4
E
The International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda led the way in this
respect. The creation of the International Criminal Court is a direct result of what happened
in these countries – and we will hear more about that from Prosecutor Brammerz. The idea
that certain crimes are so shocking to the conscience of mankind that no-one, not even a
Head of State, is immune from prosecution was, and for some remains, a ground-breaking
one. But accountability is a necessary part of reconciliation. It is important to face the
events of the past head on, rather than attempting the impossible of pretending that they
never happened.
Reconciliation is not 'forgiving and forgetting'. "Guilt and punishment"' is indispensable.
But thereafter communities and nations have to open a new chapter in their history
together. Reconciliation is also difficult in private life. But once done, it gives new energy,
a feeling of being reborn!
Looking to the future, wherever in the world, no-one will ever be able to guarantee that
genocide is a thing of the past. Yet there are things that we can all do to make it less likely.
Resisting extremism and its seductive "softer" policies of division and blame is something
that I have long championed. Ideologies of 'we' and 'they' never stop at the borders. They
undermine the European idea. Learning from the past, rather than repeating it, also means
managing within ourselves to forgive, while not sacrificing the equally important need for
accountability.
As I said in Oslo in December 2012, upon collecting in the name of the Union its Nobel
Prize for Peace: reconciliation goes beyond forgiveness. It implies a concerted effort to
bridge divides, to move forward.
For a country like Rwanda, and for many others around the world – even on our Continent
here in Europe – , reconciliation and dialogue are difficult and courageous steps for the
next generation to take. From Kigali to Kiev, the future of these countries, like all our
countries, are in the hands of its youth. On Maidan, the European flags were waved not as
symbol of the institutions but as a longing for European values – actually universal values.
It was and is a cultural revolution: democracy, human rights, the rule of law versus
manipulation, blackmail and violence. The youth of Maidan was overwhelmingly inspired
by those ideals. They want 'change', not only of leadership but of their society. Moral
change, not ideological change. We cannot forget this.
Sometimes I have doubts, sometimes I wonder if mankind is capable of moral progress, but
despite precedents and against logic, I am a man of hope, trying to make that hope true.
Step by step, day after day.
To quote the words of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg: "It is rather for us, the living, we
here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that, from these honored dead we
take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of
devotion – that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the
nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the
people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." I am confident today and
tomorrow's generations will not make the same mistakes as those that came before them.
EUCO 93/14
5
E