Almost ten years after the Rwandan genocide, representatives of hundreds of countries and nongovernmental organizations gathered in Stockholm, Sweden, to discuss how to prevent a tragedy like the genocide from happening again.

The Stockholm International Conference was the largest gathering of state leaders to discuss this topic since 1948 when world leaders came together to write the Convention on Genocide. At that time, the Holocaust and the international failure to respond was fresh on the minds of convention representatives. But there was also a spirit of hopefulness-that such an international convention could play an important role in preventing future genocides.

Fifty-six years later, when leaders gathered in Stockholm, many wondered aloud if the Genocide Convention had made a difference. Was the work of the convention a worthless experiment if state leaders are now afraid to utter the word genocide, as they were during the months of the Rwandan genocide and a year later during the killings at Srebenica? Does the Genocide Convention matter if states are not obligated to honor the terms of the historic document? Does it matter if people feel powerless to uphold it?

Several important proposals emerged in those few days in Stockholm. Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, called for the creation of a UN Committee for the prevention of genocide. The Committee would track developments around the world where their was risk for ethnic violence and mass crimes against human rights. The Committee would then propose to the UN what actions should be taken. In addition, the UN would appoint a Special Rapporteur who had the responsibility to monitor the risks of genocide and who would report directly to the Security Council.

Some speakers called for an independent army that responds to genocide around the world. Another proposal included the collaboration of governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to form a network that worked together against genocide. Still others called out to the media for more effective coverage, to governments to respond to early warnings, to the International Criminal Court to investigate and prosecute, and to the world's citizens to "make noise" when human rights crimes were taking place---anywhere.

• The drafting of the Genocide Convention in 1948 was an honorable task and an excellent example of nations working together for the common good. Nevertheless, there have been several genocides in the years since. Why do you think the convention did not have more of an impact on preventing genocide? Conversely, why were the Genocide Convention and the Stockholm International Conference such important events? (For more information which might help you address these questions, go to the reading, The Crime of Genocide.)

• In the midst of one of the sessions at the Stockholm International Conference, a Rwandan woman named Esther Mujawayo-Keiner stood up.

  When we survived ten years ago, we thought we were lucky to survive. Now we are not so sure. Women are dying in Rwanda today from the genocide. They have AIDS and were purposely infected by men-who wanted them to suffer, not to die right away. Those men are receiving treatment while they are in prison while these women are dying without the proper medicine. When we went to the UN to ask for help, they said we are not a "dispensary." So what do we do? Was our survival a mistake?¹

  Mujawayo-Keiner asks some difficult questions. In your journal, write down your reflections and reactions to the dilemma and questions she poses. Then discuss your thoughts with your classmates.

  Mujawayo-Keiner is a co-founder of AVEGA, an organization created to support the widows and orphans of the genocide. AVEGA research shows that over 60% of Rwanda's population are women and nearly 50% are widows. Most of these women were raped during the genocide; many of them are HIV+ or have full blown AIDS.
  
  AVEGA provides counseling, medications when possible, support for economic development and preparation for testifying at the international tribunals and the gacaca hearings. Because of AVEGA, many argue, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has become more sensitive and alert to the crime of rape. Prosecutors, judges, investigators and defense attorneys are learning to be more responsive to the needs of women and to the implications of these crimes.

• James Smith, a doctor who now dedicates his time to the development of the Aegis Trust and who has been working on the Kigali-based memorial museum for Rwanda, argues that a medical model is an appropriate tool to use for thinking about genocide prevention. He says there are three stages:
  
  
  • The first stage is the kind of prevention that includes taking vitamins, exercise, visiting a doctor and eating right. In terms of genocide prevention, it means attending to human rights violations at early stages, supporting economic development, health care crises, and other factors that contribute to the escalation of violence.
  • The second stage of prevention is the intervention-when the patient has had a heart attack or a stroke and needs immediate, emergency care. In the case of genocide, this might mean military intervention.
  • The third stage involves the aftercare-but it is still prevention. In this stage, the patient is not just recovering from the health crisis, but ideally also taking steps to prevent such a crisis from happening again. For Smith, this is the most important stage and the stage we are in as an international community following the genocide in Rwanda. It is the stage where comprehensive action must be taken and sustained.
  
  Do you think Dr. Smith's model is a useful one? As a research project, look at some of the case study examples of genocide on this website, as well as other instances of genocide throughout the twentieth century and in the news today. For each case study, try to identify the stages Dr. Smith outlines above. Give specific examples of what action was taken--or might have been taken--at each phase.

¹ Esther Mujawayo-Keiner speaking at the 2004 Stockholm International Forum, transcribed by Karen Murphy.