Download Free The Violence Of The New Rwandan Regime 1994 1995 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online The Violence Of The New Rwandan Regime 1994 1995 and write the review.

The ‘Violence of the new Rwandan regime’ case study is describing the difficulties and dilemmas that Médecins Sans Frontières faced in 1994 and 1995 when confronted with the abuses and crimes of the new regime that had taken over in Rwanda in July 1994: Was it acceptable for MSF, having denounced the génocidaires’control over the Rwandan refugees in Zaire and Tanzania, to encourage the return of these refugees to Rwanda, given the insecurity that potentially awaited them? Did MSF have a responsibility to alert them to what was occurring in Rwanda? Could MSF – after having issued a call for an international armed intervention to put an end to the genocide – now criticise the regime that had effectively done so, thereby risking accusations of favouring the génocidaires and supporting the revisionists? Should MSF keep silent in order to continue caring for detainees who might otherwise die in the appalling prison conditions?
The “Rwandan refugee camps in Zaire -Tanzania 1994-1995” case study is describing the constraints and dilemmas met by MSF when confronted with camps under the tight control of ‘refugee leaders” responsible for the genocide of the Rwandan Tutsis from April to June 1994. The camps were transformed into rear bases from which the reconquest of Rwanda was sought, via a massive diversion of aid, violence, propaganda, and threats against refugees wishing to repatriate. Was it acceptable for MSF to assist people who had committed genocide? Should MSF accept that its aid was instrumentalised by leaders who used violence against the refugees and proclaim their intention to continue the war in order to complete the genocide they had started? For all that, could MSF renounce assisting a population in distress and on what basis should its arguments be founded?
The “Genocide of Rwandan Tutsis 1994” case study is describing the difficulties and dilemmas met by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) during the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis in April, May and June 1994. The killings occurred in spite of the presence of UN troops in Rwanda, and the members of the UN Security Council were slow to call the Tutsi extermination ‘genocide’, hence evading the obligation to intervene and stop the slaughter, as stipulated by international law. MSF met with government officials and issued public statements to try to mobilise governments out of their inertia, eventually calling to an international armed intervention. These statements and actions resulted from numerous debates, conflicts and contradictory interpretations of the Rwandan situation and of MSF’s role addressing the following dilemmas: Was it acceptable for a humanitarian organisation, to remain silent when confronted with genocide or, on the contrary, to call for armed intervention, an action that would lead to loss of human life? Could MSF call on UN member states to pursue other means of action, thereby risking giving legitimacy to ineffective responses, given the nature of genocide? Launched just as France proposed to intervene in Rwanda, was there a risk that MSF’s appeal for armed intervention would be appropriated for political gain?
""Lawfare" describes the systematic use and abuse of legal procedure for political ends which, in post-genocide Rwanda, contributed to the making of dictatorship. Jens Meierhenrich explains how and why Paul Kagame's Tutsi-led government in the period 1994-2019 learned to substitute law for war in its consolidation of authoritarian rule"--
Throughout the 1990s, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) faced challenges posed by the genocide of Rwandan Tutsis and a succession of outbreaks of political violence in Rwanda and in its neighbours. This book recounts the experiences of the MSF teams working in the field.
The ‘War crimes and politics of terror in Chechnya 1994-2004’ case study describes the constraints, questions and dilemmas experienced by MSF while speaking out during the two Russian-Chechen wars and the following years of ‘normalization’. Was speaking out the right thing to do with regard to Russia, a power with a veto at the UN Security Council and a tradition of propaganda control of the public arena? Was it realistic to rely on raising the awareness of other UN member states via their public’s opinion? In a context of terror, when dealing with a regime in denial of the reality of a conflict, was it useful and was it up to MSF to call for having this situation qualified as ‘war’? Should MSF take into account the possibility of a casual link between instances of its public speaking out and the security incidents involving its staff? When one of its staff members was taken hostage, should MSF speak out in the media to create visibility that affords him/her some protection, or conversely remain as discrete as possible so as to avoid a rise in his/her ‘market value?’ Should MSF publically point out responsibilities, negligence, or even complicity of the government on which soil the kidnapping had occurred, thereby taking active steps to secure the hostage’s release or should it refrain from such a discourse so as to avoid the opposite effect? Should MSF continue to publically denounce the violence inflicted on people in the region, at the risk of radicalising those parties to the conflict responsible for the kidnapping, and place the hostage’s life in danger?
Includes chronology of events.
The ‘MSF in North Korea 1995-1998’ case study is describing the constraints and dilemmas that lead MSF to speak out publicly while its teams were trying to bring assistance to the North Korean population on its territory between 1995 and 1998 and to the North Korean refugees in Asia in the following years: Until which limit, could MSF, in order to draw closer to a population in distress, accept to work without being able to apply the basic principles of humanitarian action: access to populations, free evaluation of needs and supervision of the destination of our assistance? Should it accept to work for a population oppressed by a totalitarian regime with the risk of its assistance serving to reinforce this oppression, support this regime? Whilst making public calls for emergency aid for the North Korean health system, was MSF not participating in reinforcing this regime?