Ruanda’da Soykırım Siyaseti, Uzlaşma ve Uzlaşma Yaklaşımları

Yıl 2022, , 332 - 358, 01.06.2022

Ebru Çoban Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.53376/ap.2022.12

Öz

Ruanda’da halkın kitlesel katılımıyla acımasız soykırım eylemleri gerçekleşmiştir. Ülkede şiddet döngüsel olarak devam ettiğinden şiddetin tekrar yaşanmaması için çatışma çözümü ve uzlaşma süreçleri gereklidir. Ancak ülkede yürütüldüğü iddia edilen uzlaşma süreci yerini soykırım siyasetine bırakmıştır. Hükümet uluslararası toplumun da desteğiyle iktisadi ve siyasi reformlar yapmış, çatışma çözümü ve uzlaşma yaklaşımlarını da uygulamaya başlamıştır. Fakat uygulanan politikalar, uzlaşmadan uzak, otoriteryen ve soykırımı kendi meşruiyeti için araçsallaştıran bir şekle bürünmüştür. Soykırım hem diğer mağdur grupların dışlanması hem de Tutsi hükümetinin devamlılığını ve baskıcı politikalarını meşrulaştırmak için kullanılmaya başlanmıştır. Devlet tekelinde ve katılımın zorunlu olduğu soykırım anma törenleri, sadece Tutsilerin mağdur kabul edildiği seçilmiş mağduriyet temelli bir resmi tarih yazılması, etnik kimliklerin kullanımının yasaklanması, zorunlu eğitim kampları, hafif sayılabilecek suçları dahi soykırım sayan ve adaleti sağlayamayan yerel mahkemelerin varlığı uzlaşma yerine soykırım siyaseti yürütüldüğünü göstermektedir. Hükümet medyayı, siyaseti ve yerel idari birimleri kontrol altına alarak, ülkedeki yaygın idari gözetim mekanizmasının yardımıyla kendi iktidarını meşrulaştırma aracı olarak soykırımı kullanır hale gelmiş, uzlaşma politikaları hakiki anlamda uzlaşmayı engeller bir şekle bürünmüştür. Çalışmada, Ruanda’da soykırım siyasetinin nasıl yürütüldüğü, bu siyasetin toplumsal uzlaşmadaki ve şiddet döngüsünü engellemedeki olumsuz rolü aktarılacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ruanda, Çatışma Çözümü, Uzlaşma, Soykırım Siyaseti

Politics of Genocide, Reconciliation and Reconciliation Approaches in Rwanda

Öz

With the mass participation of the people in Rwanda, acts of genocide took place. Since in the history of the country, the cycle of violence repeated, conflict resolution and reconciliation processes were necessary to prevent violence. The government-initiated reconciliation with the support of the international society and achieved economic and political reforms. However, the Tutsi government’s reconciliation policies instrumentalize the genocide for its own legitimacy. The fact that the Tutsi were subjected to genocide seems to have provided a legitimate basis for the exclusion of other victim groups, the continuation of the Tutsi government. The government monopolized memorials with compulsory participation, the sole Tutsi victimization, an official history based on selected victimization, the prohibition of the use of ethnic identities, compulsory education camps, the existence of local courts considering lesser crimes as genocide mean that the government is pursuing politics of genocide rather than reconciliation. By controlling the media, politics and local administrative units, the government has started to use the genocide as a means of legitimizing its own power with the help of surveillance mechanisms. In the study, how reconciliation has become an obstacle to genuine reconciliation and politics of genocide will be discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rwanda, Conflict Resolution, Reconciliation, Politics of Genocide

Kaynakça

• Bar-Tal, Daniel (2007), “Sociopsychological Foundations of Intractable Conflicts”, American Behavioral Scientist, 50 (11): 1430-1453.
• BBC (2005), “36 Bin Soykırım Zanlısı Serbest”, https://bbc.co.uk/turkish/news/story/2005/07/050729_rwanda-prison-release.shtml (23.05.2022).
• Burton, John W. (1969), Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations (London: Macmillan).
• Chrétien, Jean-Pierre, Jean-François Dupaquier, Marcel Kabanda ve Joseph Ngarambe (1995), Rwanda: Les Médias du Génocide (Paris: Karthala).
• CIA World Factbook (2022), https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/rwanda/#economy (06.02.2022).
• Clark, Phil (2010), The Gacaca Courts, Post-Genocide Justice and Reconciliation in Rwanda: Justice without Lawyers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Collins, Barrie (1998), Obedience in Rwanda (Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University Press).
• Connerton, Paul (1989), How Societies Remember (New York: Cambridge University Press).
• Çoban Öztürk, Ebru (2016), “Uzlaşma Süreçleri ve Uluslararası Mahkemenin Sonlandırılması Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası İlişkiler, 12 (48): 37-53.
• Çoban Öztürk, Ebru (2011), “Toplumsal Yapılar ve Şiddet”, Ankara Üniversitesi Afrika Çalışmaları Dergisi, 1 (1): 67-114.
• Çoban Öztürk, Ebru (2010), Modern Devlet, Biyoiktidar ve Soykırım: Ruanda Örneği (Ankara: Adres Yayınları).
• Des Forges, Alison (1999), Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (New York: Human Rights Watch).
• Edkins, Jenny (2003), Trauma and the Memory of Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Eltringham, Nigel (2004), Accounting for Horror Post-Genocide Debates in Rwanda (London: Pluto Press).
• Gardner Feldman, Lily (2012), Germany’s Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield).
• Gourevitch, Philip (1998), We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families (New York: Picador).
• Hirsch, Herbert (1995), Genocide and the Politics of Memory: Studying Death to Preserve Life, Why Genocide Occurs and a Vision of How It can be Prevented (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press).
• Human Rights Watch (2008), “Law and Reality: Progress towards Judicial Reform in Rwanda”, https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/07/25/law-and-reality/progress-judicial-reform-rwanda (06.02.2022).
• Ibreck, Rachel (2010), “The Politics of Mourning: Survivor Contributions to Memorials in Post-Genocide Rwanda”, Memory Studies, 3 (4): 330-343.
• International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (2022), https://unictr.irmct.org/ (06.02.2022).
• Jessee, Erin (2011), “The Limits of Oral History: Ethics and Methodology amid Highly Politicized Research Settings”, Oral History Review, 38 (2): 287-307.
• Jessee, Erin (2017), Negotiating Genocide in Rwanda: The Politics of History (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Kacowicz, Arie M. ve Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov (2000), “Stable Peace: A Conceptual Framework”, Kacowicz, Arie M., Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, Ole Elgaström, Magnus Jerneck (Der.), Stable Peace among Nations (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield).
• Keane, Fergal (1996), Season of Blood (New York: Penguin).
• Kelman, Herbert C. (2008), “Reconciliation from a Social-Psychological Perspective”, Nadler, Arie, Thomas E. Malloy, Jeffrey D. Fisher (Der.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (New York: Oxford, Oxford University Press): 15-32.
• Kriesberg, Louis (2000), “Coexistence and the Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts”, Weiner, E. (Der.), The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (New York: Abraham Fund): 182-188.
• Kubik, Jan ve Michael Bernhard (2017), “A Theory of the Politics of Memory”, Oxford Scholarship Online, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199375134.003.0002, 1-40.
• Leiner, Martin (2018), “Conclusion: From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation”, Leiner, Martin, Christine Schliesser (Der.), Alternative Approaches in Conflict Resolution (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Lemarchand, Rene (2009), The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa (Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania Press).
• Longman, Timothy (2011), “Limitations to Political Reform: The Undemocratic Nature of Transition in Rwanda”, Straus, Scott ve Lars Waldorf (Der.), Remaking Rwanda: State Building and Human Rights after Mass Violence (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press): 25-47.
• Mgbako, Chi Adanna (2005), “Ingando Solidarity Camps: Reconciliation and Political Indoctrination in Post-Genocide Rwanda Note”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18: 201-224.
• Mamdani, Mahmood (2001), When Victims Become Killers (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press).
• Mannergren Selimovic, Johanna (2020), “Gender, Narrative and Affect: Top-down Politics of Commemoration in Post-Genocide Rwanda”, Memory Studies, 13 (2): 131-145.
• McDoom, Omar (2005), “The Path to Genocide in Rwanda Security, Opportunity, and Authority in an Ethnocratic State”, 1-44, doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108868839.001 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
• Mitchell, Christopher (2014), The Nature of Intractable Conflict: Resolution in the Twenty First Century (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
• Morrock, Richard (2010), The Psychology of Genocide and Violent Oppression: A Study of Mass Cruelty from Nazi Germany to Rwanda (Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company).
• Nadler, Arie ve Nurit Shnabel (2008), “Instrumental and Socioemotional Paths to Intergroup Reconciliation and the Needs-Based Model of Socioemotional Reconciliation”, Nadler, Arie, Thomas E. Malloy ve Jeffrey D. Fisher (Der.) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press): 37-56.
• Nadler, Arie, (2012), “Intergroup Reconciliation: Definitions, Processes, and Future Directions”, Troop, Linda R. (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of Intergroup Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 292-309.
• Newbury, Catherine (1992), “Rwanda: Recent Debates over Governance and Rural Development”, Hyden, G. ve M. Brattons (Der.), Governance and Politics in Africa (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers): 193-210.
• Peterson, Scott (2001), Me Against My Brother (New York: Routledge).
• Pettigrew, Thomas F. ve Linda R. Tropp, (2005), “Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence”, Dovidio, J. F., P. Glick, L. A. Rudman (Der.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing): 262-277.
• Prunier, Gérard (1995), The Rwanda Crisis (New York: Columbia University Press).
• Reyntjens, Filip (2006), “Post¬1994 Politics in Rwanda: Problematising ‘Liberation’ and ‘Democratisation’”, Third World Quarterly, 27 (6): 1103–1117.
• Purdeková, Andrea (2020), “Itinerant Nationalisms and Fracturing Narratives: Incorporating Regional Dimensions of Memory into Peacebuilding”, Memory Studies, 13 (6): 1183-1199.
• Rosoux, Valerie (2009), “Reconciliation as a Peace-Building Process: Scope and Limits”, Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor Kremenyuk ve I William Zartman (Der.), The Sage Handbook of Conflict Resolution (London: Sage Publications).
• Sherif, Muzafer, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William R. Hood ve Carolyn W. Sherif (1961), The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Cooperation and Competition (Norman, OK: University Book Exchange).
• Straus, Scott (2006), “Rwanda and Darfur: A Comparative Analysis”, Genocide Studies and Prevention, 1 (1): 41-56.
• Thomson, Susan (2018), Rwanda: From Genocide to Precarious Peace (New Haven: Yale University Press).
• Thomson, Susan (2013), Whispering Truth to Power: Everyday Resistance to Reconciliation in Postgenocide Rwanda (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press).
• Thomson, Susan (2011), “Re¬education for Reconciliation: Participant Observations on Ingando”, Straus, Scott ve Lars Waldorf (Der.), Remaking Rwanda: State Building and Human Rights after Mass Violence (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press): 311-339.
• United Nations Prevent Genocide, https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/historical-background.shtml, (06.05.2022).
• Verovšek, Peter J. (2016), “Collective Memory, Politics, and the Influence of the Past: The Politics of Memory as a Research Paradigm”, Politics, Groups, and Identities, 4 (3): 529-543.
• Waldorf, Lars (2011), “Instrumentalizing Genocide: The RPF’s Campaign against “Genocide Ideology””, Straus, Scott ve Lars Waldorf (Der.), Remaking Rwanda: State Building and Human Rights after Mass Violence (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press): 48-66.
• Worchel, Stephen ve Dawna K. Coutant (2008), “Between Conflict and Reconciliation: Toward a Theory of Peaceful Coexistence”, Nadler, Arie, Thomas E. Malloy ve Jeffrey D. Fisher (Der.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Reconciliation (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 423-446.
• World Bank Country Report (2022), “Rwanda”, https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/rwanda/overview#1 (04.05.2022).