Document(s) 30 of 37

From April to July 1994, approximately 500,000 Rwandan Tutsi, some 80 per cent of the country's Tutsi population, were exterminated in the most efficient and complete genocide of modern times. Western media blame the international community for not intervening quickly, but the media must share blame for not immediately recognizing the extent of the carnage and mobilizing world attention to it. They failed to report that a nationwide killing campaign was under way in Rwanda until almost three weeks into the violence. By that time, some 250,000 Tutsi had already been massacred.

During those first weeks, Western reporting was marred by four lapses. First, it mistook genocide for civil war. The country had been wracked by a low-level civil war from 1990 to 1993 between the government, controlled by the Hutu majority, and a rebel force comprising mainly Tutsi. Although a minority, the Tutsi had ruled until the late 1950s when the Hutu took power and forced many Tutsi to flee as refugees. In both the 1960s and 1990s Tutsi refugee rebels had launched intermittent offensives against Rwanda, so on the outbreak of genocide on 6 April 1994, Western correspondents reported the initial burst of violence in Kigali as the resumption of a bloody civil war.

On 11 April, an editorial in London's The Times pondered international calls for a ceasefire and asked rhetorically, 'Which parties would be asked to cease fire against whom?' (Times Editors 1994). A 12 April report in Belgium's De Standaard on government violence in Kigali added that 'it is absolutely certain that a large number of acts of terror were committed' as well 'in the area controlled by the rebels' (Buyse 1994). Early reports also indicated that the Tutsi rebels were winning the civil war and had rejected government offers of a nationwide ceasefire, which contradicted any notion of Tutsis as victims. By 13 April, Radio France International reported that 'the fall of Kigali seems imminent' (Anon. 1994a). On 14 April, The Times and Le Monde reported that it was now the Hutu who feared vengeance from Tutsi rebels who had gained the upper hand in Kigali (Bond and Prentice 1994; Hélène 1994a).

A second mistake by international news media was to report that violence was on the wane when in fact it was mounting. On 11 April, just four days after the fighting started, The New York Times reported that violence had 'appeared to slacken' (Schmidt 1994a), and Le Monde concurred the next day that fighting had 'diminished in intensity' (Hélène 1994b). Two days later, Le Monde said that 'a strange calm reigns in downtown' Kigali (Hélène 1994a). On 15 April, it reported this calm spreading to the capital's suburbs, allowing 'humanitarian organizations to cautiously resume their activities' (Hélène 1994c). Only on 18 April did Brussels' La Une Radio Network question this consensus by explaining that the decline in reports of violence was because 'most foreigners have left, including journalists' (Anon. 1994b). The exodus of reporters was so thorough that it virtually halted Western press coverage. European newspapers that had been providing daily coverage of the violence in Kigali stopped cold on 18 April, for four days in France's Le Monde and seven in Britain's Guardian. Ironically, this was when the slaughter reached its peak.

The third reporting error was that early published death counts were gross underestimates, sometimes by a factor of ten. On 10 April, three days into the killing, The New York Times quoted estimates of 8,000 or 'tens of thousands' dead in Kigali (McFadden 1994). During the second week, media estimates did not rise at all. On 16 April, the Guardian still reported only an 'estimated 20,000 deaths' (Hilsum 1994). Two days later, The New York Times repeated this same statistic, underestimating the actual carnage at that point by about tenfold. Not until a few days later did the scope of killing rapidly emerge (Schmidt 1994b).

Fourth, for nearly two weeks, Western news organizations focused almost exclusively on Kigali, a city that contained only 4 per cent of Rwanda's population, and did not report the far broader tragedy unfolding around them. The few reports of violence in the countryside seemed to indicate renewal of mutual communal strife or civil war, rather than genocide. On 11 April, Paris Europe No. 1 Radio reported that 'Hutus are hunting down Tutsis throughout the country,' but then added, 'and the other way round' (Giesbert 1994). Brussels' La Une Radio Network reported that killing and looting in Rwanda's southwest was targeted against the 'opposition', rather than an ethnic group (Anon. 1994c). Likewise, on 12 April, the Washington Post wrote, 'sketchy reports said fighting has spread to Rwanda's countryside,' but in a context suggesting combat between government troops and armed rebels (Parmelee 1994a). The first report of a large-scale massacre outside the capital came on 16 April (Bond 1994; Parmelee 1994b).

American newspapers failed to convey the nationwide scope of the violence until 22 April when The New York Times belatedly reported that fighting bands had reduced 'much of the country to chaos' (Lewis 1994). Still, many foreign observers could not conceive that genocide was under way. On 23 April, the Washington Post speculated that the dearth of Tutsi refugees fleeing Rwanda was because 'most of the borders have been sealed' (Parmelee 1994c). Only on 25 April was the riddle solved when the New York Times reported that violence had 'widened into what appears to be a methodical killing of Tutsi across the countryside', and that the missing refugees 'either have been killed or are trying to hide' (Lorch 1994).

At least three factors help to account for these reporting lapses. First, the evacuation of foreign nationals left few reporters in the countryside after the first few days or in the capital after the first week. Second, the situation was legitimately confusing. Tutsi rebels were winning the civil war and retaliating against suspected civilian Hutu extremists at the same time that the civilian Tutsi population was being systematically exterminated. Third, even experts were slow to appreciate what was happening. The commander of Belgian peacekeepers stated on 15 April to Radio France International that 'the fighting has ... all but stopped' (Anon. 1994d). No human rights group even suggested the possibility of genocide until 19 April (Human Rights Watch 1994).

In the wake of Rwanda's tragedy, the media harshly criticized the United Nations and its Western members for not immediately recognizing the killing campaign and reacting to prevent it. Such criticism is only partly valid. American and other Western officials did drag their feet after the genocide was reported, avoiding use of the word genocide for weeks afterward for fear of being compelled to intervene.

But the media must share the blame for failing to provide prompt notice of the genocide. In obscure parts of the world, where Western governments do not invest significant intelligence assets, the news business is relied on to serve as a surrogate early-warning system. In Rwanda, it did not fulfil this role.

Partly in reaction to this reporting failure in Rwanda, Western media have suffered from exactly the opposite problem ever since. They now exaggerate the extent of civilian atrocities in ethnic conflict. Around the world, rebels and human rights groups learned the lesson from Rwanda that they must declare 'genocide' to have any hope of Western intervention. Because the press does not want to get caught napping again, it duly reports such claims even though it cannot confirm them. Thus, Western readers were told for months that genocide was raging in Kosovo, but forensic investigators have been able to find just 5,000 corpses to date, some of whom may have been armed rebels (Garvey 2004).

Likewise, Western media reported that genocide was occurring in East Timor after its vote for independence, but now the UN estimates that only 1,000 were killed before and after the referendum (Anon. 2005). This is not to say that a few hundred or thousand deaths are unimportant. But they do not constitute genocide by any reasonable definition. The UN defines genocide as 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such' (UN 1951: Article II). The definition has been broadened in practice to include destruction of political groups.

Perhaps the main reason that Western correspondents have had difficulty reporting ethnic violence accurately is that at least one of the sides does not want them to, and reporters cannot confirm many allegations without risking their lives by visiting combat zones. There is no moral requirement for journalists to make such a personal sacrifice. But so long as reporters do not confirm the facts on the ground, they must try to do everything else possible to piece together the real story for readers – in full awareness that combatants, governments and private agencies are all trying to manipulate them.

Rwanda's Hutu government wanted reporters to think that violence was civil war rather than genocide. In a similarly manipulative way, the Kosovo Liberation Army wanted reporters to think that Yugoslav government violence prior to NATO's bombing was genocide or ethnic cleansing rather than counter-insurgency. In both cases, Western reporters were fooled. They should take a lesson from this as they continue their vital task of informing Western policymakers and publics about violent conflicts around the world.

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1994a. Kigali Reportedly About to Fall to RPF [in French]. Radio France International, Paris, 13 April, 2130 GMT. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS-AFR-94–072), 14 April 1994: 2.

—— 1994b. Soldier Comments on Military Strategies in Rwanda [in French]. La Une Radio Network, Brussels, 18 April, 1500 GMT. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS-WEU-94–075), 19 April 1994: 5.

—— 1994c. Conflict Reportedly Spreading to Zaire Border [in French]. La Une Radio Network, Brussels, 11 April, 1600 GMT. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBISAFR-940–070) 12, April 1994.

—— 1994d. Belgian UN Commander Pessimistic [in French]. Radio France International, Paris, 15 April, 1830 GMT. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS-AFR-94–074), 18 April 1994: 2.

—— 2005. Truth Commission on East Timor Killings. The Irish Times, 2 August: 8.

Bond, C. 1994. Embattled UN Clings to Hope of Rwanda Truce. The Times, 16 April: 15.

Bond, C. and E.A. Prentice. 1994. Rwandan Rebels Prepare Last Push. The Times, 14 April: 11.

Buyse, A. 1994. Chaos in Rwanda Threatens Stability of Whole Region [in Dutch]. De Standaard, 12 April. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS-AFR-94–072), 14 April 1994.

Garvey, B. 2004. Weak Case Against Milosevic has Hague in 'a Panic': Massacres in Kosovo Never Happened, Say Canadians Who Investigated Mass Graves. The Ottawa Citizen, 29 August: A1.

Giesbert, F.O. 1994. Interview with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe [in French]. Europe No.1 Radio, Paris, 11 April, 0540 GMT. Translated by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS-WEU-94–070), 12 April 1994.

Hélène, J. 1994a. Forces gouvernementales et rebelles se disputent le contrôle de la capitale. Le Monde, 14 April: 7.

—— 1994b. Le Rwanda à feu et à sang. Le Monde, 12 April: 1.

—— 1994c. Les combats continuent au Rwanda. Le Monde, 15 April: 3.

Hilsum, L. 1994. Rwandan Blood Flows as Foreign Forces Depart. Guardian, 16 April.

Human Rights Watch. 1994. Letter to UN Security Council. Human Rights Watch, New York, NY, USA, 19 April.

Lewis, P. 1994. Security Council Votes to Cut Rwanda Peacekeeping Force. The New York Times, 22 April: A1.

Lorch, D. 1994. Rwandan Refugees Describe Horrors After a Bloody Trek. The New York Times, 25 April: A1.

McFadden, R.D. 1994. Western Troops Arrive in Rwanda to Aid Foreigners. The New York Times, 10 April: 1.

Parmelee, J. 1994a. Rebels Advance in Rwanda, Vow to Take Over Capital. Washington Post, 11 April: A13.

—— 1994b. Rwandans Ever More Isolated: Reporters, Belgian Troops Pulling Out. Washington Post, 16 April: A12.

—— 1994c. Fears Mounting for Rwandans: Aid Agencies Say Pullout of U.N. Peacekeepers Endangers Refugees. Washington Post, 23 April: A14.

Schmidt, W.E. 1994a. Deaths in Rwanda Fighting Said to be 20,000 or More. The New York Times, 11 April: 12.

—— 1994b. Rwanda Puzzle: is Uganda Taking Sides? The New York Times, 18 April: A6.

Times Editors. 1994. Carnage in Africa: It Is for the Rwandans Themselves to Cure their Malaise. The Times, 11 April.

UN (United Nations). 1951. Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) of the UN General Assembly, 9 December 1948. UN Treaty Series no. 1021, vol. 78: 277. Available at <www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm> (accessed 6 September 2005).

Document(s) 30 of 37