Memory
Whatever the outcome of official truth, justice and reconciliation processes, memory has its own form and dynamic. Memory is both individual and collective. It is personal, communal, social, cultural and political. Memory is embedded in experience, but is expressed in the present in text and in silence. Memory is part of the life of the individual, under the influence of which the individual still suffers. It is not placated by enquiries, or satisfied by securing convictions, even if it appears ameliorated superficially. Memory does change with time, but does not leave the past behind and ‘move on’. Memory is something that individuals and communities learn to live with, particularly traumatic memory, which has its own particular dynamic.

For individuals, the memory of atrocity is based in experience carried out against the individual or a close member of their circle of family or friends. The events remembered are either re-lived in the imagination or the memory of them re-shapes the individual’s identity in such a way that their life thereafter is defined by them. Several needs develop around this memory: the need to be heard, the need to be understood, the need for compassion, the need to commemorate and arguably most pressing of all, the need for justice. Without these needs being met, memory remains raw and perpetually offensive, often tormenting the surviving victim, in some instances producing a number of negative psychological pathologies.

For communities, memory takes on a more exegetical nature. The fact that some members (or indeed all members) of its group were offended by the atrocity is seen as an offence against everyone. As such, memory takes on a dynamic in which group suffering is codified in a number of ways, including, for example, the anecdotal retelling of the experience of some of its members, which becomes a new, dark folklore within the community. When a community remembers, there are common narratives to which social, political and cultural interpretations are applied. The interpretations may be about the need to be independent, to be strong, to seek the protection of another group, or to reassert identity in some new form. This change within the community also produces certain needs, including: the need to memorialise its victim members, the need to condemn the offence against itself, the need to seek justice on behalf of the group, the need to write its own history of its suffering, and the need to redefine its political parameters in relation to other groups around it, among others.

This paper seeks to identify how the memorialisation process facilitates or otherwise reconciliation. Conversely it seeks to identify in what ways reconciliation may facilitate meeting the needs of communal and individual memory. To do this, the Shoah (the Holocaust) and the genocide in Rwanda provide important insights.

The Shoah
Following the mass murder of European Jewry, a new challenge emerged. The majority of the Jewish population of Europe had been murdered, and most of its survivors displaced. After this unprecedented set of events, there were few models on how to secure justice, care for survivors and assist the community in coming to terms with its loss. Survivors were left to deal with the consequences of their suffering, internalise their memories and cope with no family, no friends, home, education, country or place of refuge. The process of justice was limited to military tribunals that neither utilised the witness of survivors, nor addressed their brutalisation directly. The purges that did occur were largely internal affairs of formerly occupied countries, which by and large did not recognise the deportation of the Jews as a specific event. Jews as individuals were not important enough to have their case heard, and Jews as a group did not specifically figure as the reckoning took place.

There are several explanations for this. The Nuremberg Trials were largely a catchall to demonstrate that the Nazi hierarchy had been dealt with and its crimes against humanity duly punished. Justice was largely about creating due process in which retribution for the war was public and accountable to some degree. Specific claims for personal or communal injustice were not a part of the framework of the intent. This left the Shoah effectively silenced and its surviving victims’ memories ignored.

The displacement of survivors and the method of the ‘Final Solution’ meant that memorialisation in situ was virtually impossible. The emergence of the Soviet Union and associated Warsaw Pact countries made this more difficult. Reconciliation was not achieved largely due to the completeness of the task and the displacement of surviving victims. The few survivors that returned to Poland received a hostile reception; many left in 1968. German Jews were all but eradicated. Other European countries dealt with Jewish deportations along with other aspects of the occupation. The Allied governments instituted a de-nazification programme in Germany that was focussed on re-aligning the political, social and cultural parameters. However, this was not a process to establish truth, but to bury its potential reoccurrence.

Memorialisation at sites did take place. Largely instigated by local surviving Jewish communities, plaques and monuments were erected on sites of mass execution. This was particularly the case where local communities had been murdered at local sites. However, larger installations were often either ignored or redefined by the prevailing powers of the day and used for their own ideological messages. The Soviets imposed a strong anti-fascist message on their sites, subsuming the whole of Jewish life in Soviet territories under the rubric of ‘Soviet Citizens’. By and large they were deemed to have been murdered by the ‘Hitlerite Terror’. Other sites in Western Europe became significant symbols of occupation. As large-scale murder was largely confined to Eastern Territories, sites in the West were usually transit camps or deportation points. As such, their memorial value was deemed less intense, leaving the memorial function to be addressed at destinations such as Auschwitz, Treblinka and Belzec.

Tensions remain, particularly between Jewish survivors and East European Countries, where collaboration either was or is deemed to have been more endemic. Forgiveness is not an option; reconciliation is fraught with mistrust; but communication is often now more possible. The recent wave of interest in the Holocaust has significantly changed the context in which memorialisation and its associated discourse takes place. Older survivors are now listened to, their experiences heard and opportunity for their personal reflection made possible by the demise of the Soviet Union. The prevalence of museums, films, publications and national days of remembrance has had a profound effect upon the ability of survivors and their community to exercise their right to public memorialisation and hence the enrichment of dialogue within and between communities. This does not make for a satisfactory conclusion, but a more communicative environment in which the suffering which memory imposes is ameliorated and its legacy ensured. It has taken more than two generations to reach this point, during which time survivors, their communities and families have suffered immeasurable loneliness and pain. This is why understanding the dynamics of a more recent genocide such as that which happened in Rwanda is important, to see whether that time-scale can be contracted in any way.

Rwanda
The sites of the genocide in Rwanda number over 200. At each of these places people were murdered and their remains interred or destroyed. These sites form a fundamental part of the history, culture, psychology and landscape of the country. Many of the sites are currently in ill repair and are in danger of being lost as places that can honour those who died there, as places of dignity and respect for the survivors, and as places of education for Rwanda and for the international community. Without significant work being done to restore these memorial spaces, the process toward democratisation and reconciliation could be seriously undermined. Survivors will not tolerate the loss or abuse of memory, and young people, ignorant of their significance, will not know what they should avoid and why.

The genocide of 1994 continues to have a deep, if now less visible, impact upon the country. It affects the identity of its populace and the subtext of political discourse, as well as its social and cultural life. Survivors remain deeply traumatised and affected by their experiences, which shape their views. They often feel they are not being heard.
The presence of large numbers of survivors, and in particular those who are widows, orphans and HIV/AIDS victims of rape, have needs that are not insignificant in the context of long-term peace-building. Many of the memorial sites are deteriorating and are in urgent need of preservation. Increasing numbers of Rwandans do not know about the genocide, its origins or consequences, as they are too young to remember or have returned from several generations of exile since the genocide. There is not yet a museum about the genocide, although the Government is keen to establish (at least) one. Denial about the genocide is increasing.

Victims need ongoing support in an environment where perpetrators and/or their families live alongside them. It is unclear what the impact of the Gacaca courts will be upon the country and its communities associated with the genocide. The National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation has many constructive and well thought-out projects. It needs assistance with implementation, as these projects substantially effect the quality of lives.
Appropriate and meaningful education and memorialisation about the genocide in Rwanda could contribute to national unity and reconciliation. The Government of Rwanda and the survivors of the genocide are keen to disseminate information about the genocide outside the country also, as the lessons from the genocide are for the international community as much as for Rwanda. If the international community plays a role in commemorating the loss and recognising its own fault, it will have a profound effect upon survivors (and others) who still feel abandoned due to the lack of response during the genocide.

Preservation: There are several sites across the country where large quantities of human remains have been kept to demonstrate the physical evidence of mass slaughter. These remains (such as at Gisozi, Bisicero and Murambi) are currently deteriorating and will be lost without intervention to preserve them. Survivors do not wish to bury all of the remains at this time as they fear they may be ‘turned into flowerbeds, and forgotten’. A number of the memorial projects started by the Rwandan Government have made provision for remains to be incorporated into compelling memorial displays. While the appropriateness of this is still the issue of debate, if the remains are not preserved, there will shortly be little choice. These artefacts include personal effects and documents, as well as human remains. They do tell an important and visible part of the story.

Presentation: The Rwandan Government has specifically asked for assistance in working through how the genocide might be presented in Rwanda. There are several buildings in a state of semi-completion that could be powerful statements about the genocide. Lack of museological expertise and experience is proving a stumbling block to the completion of these projects. Museological presentation makes a statement about the current state of mind and makes visual the long-term commitment to cross-community public education.

Education: Hundreds of thousands of current Rwandan citizens were in the country at the time of the genocide. There are however many returnees and an increasing number of young people, for whom the memory of the genocide is not their own. Education about the genocide, its origins and consequences is becoming an increasing issue. Education about the genocide is not only of historical importance, but has serious implications for inter-ethnic understanding and stability in future years. This is pertinent to the context of national unity and peace-building in the country.

Commemoration: The national commemoration in early April is a deeply traumatic time in the country. National mourning is important and needs maintaining. Consideration needs to be given to ensure that this time of grief is inclusive, allowing all sectors of the population to share in it, particularly the majority (Hutu) group that may feel marginalised at this time.

Research: Further research is required to provide a baseline study on the exact current status of all memorial sites. The survivors’ organisation, Ibuka, has conducted some field research that needs translating into English that may be useful in this regard. Further research would be helpful to understand perceptions related to sites and the interests and needs of survivors associated with these sites. Anecdotal evidence suggests confusion around their status and the commitment to preserve and present them in a meaningful way.

Structures: The Government of Rwanda has the willingness to find an appropriate means of commemorating the genocide in an informed way. It also understands the imperative to learn lessons from it. However, structures for delivery are lacking. The National Commission for Unity and Reconciliation has significant ideas in terms of policy, but implementation at a national level could be strengthened through further structural support.

Funding: Memorialisation and education are important to the Government of Rwanda, but are clearly competing with other priorities for funding. Many of the funding priorities in Rwanda will remain urgent. There is a danger that the relative non-urgency of memory and education about the genocide in Rwanda will lead to poor appreciation of the long-term importance that it holds. At this time funding for memorial projects has ceased, leaving many incomplete. Funding needs to be associated with preserving artefacts and presenting the genocide, and could be taken up by a number of external partners. Projects need to be identified and assistance given to the authorities in presenting the case for each. Funding partners could then be identified on a project-by-project basis.

Recommendations
For combining the role of memorialisation and reconciliation, several things need to be done. These include: explicit encouragement to the Government of Rwanda in its work on commemoration and education; suggestions as to how the international community could constructively assist by providing expertise in preservation, presentation and education methodology; training of Rwandan Government officials in key areas of memorialisation and its dissemination; the commissioning of a report into the current status of memory and education related to the genocide sites, with recommendations on its future; encouragement and possibly modest financial support to assist the completion of the museum and memorial started at Gisozi; concepts on how to make use of the Gacaca trials for anchoring the future of genocide memorialisation; encouraging governments and institutions to partner Rwanda in its international duty to preserve and tell the story of the genocide, within and without Rwandan national territory.

Conclusions
Instances of genocide are different in execution, but leaves its victims with similar dilemmas. The two generations of struggle which surviving victims of the Shoah went through eventually provide some form of solace to the individuals concerned and vehicles for appropriate narrative and memorial forms. However, the outcome was not inevitable. A more concerted focus earlier would have lightened the load considerably.
Atrocity leaves scars that cannot be healed by truth commissions. Reconciliation is not a demand that can be made of survivors, as their role is to commemorate their dead and to rebuild their lives after their trauma. These scars have to heal with time, and generally benefit from openness and visible, competent attempts to deal with issues of justice and a communal memory; both of which are seen to lend dignity to victims’ lives. It should facilitate surviving victims’ coming to terms with their own grief and assist in helping them create their own desired forms of memorialisation. Surviving victims should not be patronised with overbearing policy, but included and given some form of autonomy in the types of memorial culture they choose to develop.

Appropriate memorialisation should bring people together in common grief, give voice to victims and provide educational structures for post-atrocity societies. They should be shared and allow for dynamic narrative rather than closed exegesis. Justice is important for survivors; memorialisation is essential. Most of all, public recognition of the victims’ lives is essential, as without this neither reconciliation, education nor even basic communication between survivors and the society in which they live is ever going to be meaningful.