“If you knew yourself and really knew me you would never have killed me”
(Inscribed on a board outside the genocide memorial site at Nyamata, Rwanda)

The Three Phases of Genocide Prevention
There are three distinct phases in which differing forms of preventative process are necessary. Primary prevention deals with root causes. It promotes healthy societies through structural means such as promoting democracy, influencing ideology, developing culture, education, media, equality of opportunity and other stabilising factors.
Secondary Prevention intervenes diplomatically, economically or militarily, to prevent or avert an imminent genocide. Tertiary Prevention recognises that there are ongoing consequences of the genocide long after the killing has stopped. It describes rehabilitation of the victims and society.1
This option recognises that after genocide, tertiary prevention that is rebuilding, is also linked to primary prevention.

The Problem
Long term consequences of genocide are complex, sensitive and critical to rehabilitation. Societies and communities face insurmountable challenges rebuilding as all normal modes of life are either disrupted or destroyed. Individuals are left with physical and psychological scars. Wider society is traumatised socially and politically.
Political psychology after genocide is sometimes difficult to understand. Deep seated fear and mistrust have real consequences with local, national and international relationships. Balancing the need for justice, retribution, grief and memory with the need to avoid revenge, division, destructive myths and hatred is still not sufficiently understood within the policy community. This is particularly true of the role that memory and education can play in promoting constructive engagement during the rebuilding process.
Breaking the ”cycle of hatred and violence” does not begin with externally imposed values, but must emerge from within the society fostered through dialogue and engagement. There is a danger that the roles of perpetrators and victims become reversed in the struggle for new identity and personal security. Equally, and historicallymore likely, the original victim group may be targeted again. Dealing with memory is a crucial part of avoiding either outcome.
Memory is deep, necessary and inescapable. Memory can be manipulated. The politics of memory are fraught with pitfalls and sensitivities. Memory takes time to heal. Memory is not an observer, but an actor. Memory does not respect superficial structures. Memory hurts. Memory reacts, particularly if it perceives injustice continues. Memory is trans-generational, as are its consequences. Memory does alter over time, but it always takes time. Memory must be respected, or it will not respect in return. To date, the consequence or significance that traumatic memory plays in post-genocidal societies or the role it can play in the prevention of future violence is not fully understood.
The policy community has yet to fully appreciate the full significance and complexity of the tertiary phase of genocide prevention and still overlooks important mechanisms and opportunities that can play a significant role in preventing future violence.

Power of Memory
A survivor of genocide does not forget the memory of their family, the horror of being raped, of witnessing countless cruel murders, of running, hiding and fearing. The memory is a fact, not a fiction.With such memories, fear and mistrust are reasonable, justified outcomes. Reconciliation comes with constraints – the past must be admitted, the guilty punished and dignity restored, otherwise reconciliation is an unreasonable demand. Reconciliation is conditional on rehumanisation. Survivors of genocide should not be expected to forget the past or even ‘move on’2. That they will do naturally with time, when conditions are right for them to do so.
The failure to recognise their suffering by the wider community, insults victims and implies an unwillingness to learn from the past. It drives memory underground and survivors into a bitter struggle for recognition on the margins of society.

Justice, Memory and Education
The presence of ICTR and ICTY and the creation of Gacaca and the ICC demonstrate both the national and international determination to create effective justice processes in post-genocidal situations. If ending impunity is understood to contribute to preventing future violations, it is neither logical nor justified to ask victim communities to ‘put the past behind you and move on’ Justice will only prevent further violations if people remember what the problem is and learn why a perpetrator is prosecuted. Memory and education in country therefore should go hand in hand with international judicial process. The commitment to the one, recognises the need for the other.

Removing Barriers to Reconciliation
Two generations after the Nazi Holocaust, its traumatic impact is still felt by survivors. Whatever the pathology of this memory, it should not be considered misguided or wrong. It becomes the central part of the survivors’ identity. Desiring justice, resenting the murder of family and loved ones, feeling betrayed and abandoned is a natural human response to trauma of this scale. Desiring to forgive, becoming reconciled with the perpetrator community or restoring any normative relationships is abnormal. One of the greatest barriers to reconciliation therefore is the ongoing sense of fear, mistrust and insecurity, which have to be addressed if reconciliation is to be more than superficial and temporary. Projects and programmes that build trust such as the ‘Solidarity Camps’ in Rwanda should be supported by governments, where perpetrators, bystanders and victims learn about civic education together on a sustained and visible programme.

Education is not a panacea, but a tool. While there is little evidence to support the role of education in prevention, the reverse has been shown to be effective. In Germany in the 1930’s and Rwanda in the 1980’s and early 1990’s negative stereotypes were taught and hatred incited towards Jews and Tutsis respectively. Within ten years many pupils were actively implementing the genocidal regimes. Therefore while research is on-going it has been deduced that teaching positive values is a valuable contribution to primary prevention. Students must also be taught why genocide occurred and their responsibility in preventing its recurrence. This must happen at school, but supported by the context and environment.

History contributes to how groups or society perceive their identity; where they fit, how secure they and their children are and who their perceived friends may be. History never has one interpretation; dialogue and debate is healthy and important to prevent further myths or narrow histories that could be damaging. However there is a fine line between pluralism, revisionism, and denial. The narrative of genocide has particularly sensitive forms, which need to be handled with extreme care. Citizenship education takes the appropriate learning of history one step further: beyond shaping national identity it encourages students to demand a society from which no-one is excluded.

Context plays a significant role in achieving reconciliation. Two important pre-requisites for reconciliation are security and visible justice.Without them, efforts for reconciliation are being undermined; with them, there will be a ready audience.

Security is a fundamental part of readjustment. Terror, almost by definition makes people fear and governments react strongly.A low sense of personal security breeds mistrust and fear and underscores old resentments and concerns. Education will not be effective in insecure environments. Fear and mistrust will not go away by teaching people, it has to happen in practice.

Justice is always inadequate after genocide. But if its effects are ‘to reach the people’3 greater attempts must be made to make justice seen to be done by the people. Many people in Rwanda feel disengaged from the proceedings in Arusha and this is a warning for the ICC. If ending impunity is to contribute to breaking cycles of violence, then governments should support more justice efforts that engage people at a national or community level. Gacaca in Rwanda is a good example of this yet is grossly under-funded with a budget a fraction of ICTR.

Memorials have the potential to divide and exclude, they also have the power to acknowledge the past and provide a means of moving forward. They may provide a focus where memory, history, civic education and reconciliation combine. In Holocaust Centres around the world, history and its implications are presented and debated, memory is given space, the victims dignified and while Holocaust survivors today may continue to feel bitter, they play a significant role in educating younger people about positive values. In Rwanda projects such as the Kigali Genocide Memorial Centre 4 and the Murambi Genocide Centre 5 are structured to:

– Acknowledge survivors’ experience,
– Provide a resource for civic education
– Help to shape the collective memory
– Proved inclusive and non-threatening environment for confronting the past.

Memorials should not accuse the children of perpetrators, but the ideology that leads to genocide 6. They should be dignified non-threatening places, which recognise the immense suffering and provide an environment for practical dialogue and exchange of ideas. History and identity should reflect the past accurately and find a way to explore the problems without resulting in collective blame or guilt.

Conclusions
When the killing stops the genocide is not over 7. Its consequences are severe, long term and complex. Governments engaged in reconstruction, justice, reconciliation and development need to pay more attention to the process of memory and education as an integral part of the rebuilding process. Ignoring the long term trauma of victim communities contributes toward maintaining mistrust. To break the cycle of violence and hate, the past has to be recognised and a constructive way forward formulated. Memorials are not static, but dynamic. They need not divide society or form negative histories, but require a structured policy in conjunction with a broad representation of civil society.

Recommendations
– Recognition of genocide and its consequences should be acknowledged with tangible means through constructive projects at memorial sites.
– Implementation of education programmes at genocide sites as a part of long term sustainable policies.
– Support for programmes that build trust should be prioritised.
– Justice should be assessed on how it reaches and engages the affected communities, especially the victims.
– Active promotion of the long term consequences and dangers of genocide within the policy community.
– Training for diplomats and field professionals in the issues of victim trauma, memory, education and reconciliation processes.
– Direct support for governments and civil society organisations attempting to make sense of the past whether through commemoration, museums, historiography or education projects.

1 This model is described and adopted by the Aegis Trust in its genocide prevention programme
2 Or as one international development worker stated to me in a professional conversation: ”Can’t someone ask these survivors to stop wailing and move on…”
3 Comments of Richard Prosper, US Ambassador at Large for War Crimes speaking at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2002.
4 Funded and supported by SIDA, William Jefferson Clinton Foundation and Government of Belgium
5 Supported by the Dutch Embassy in Kigali and GTZ
6 Francois Ngarambe, Executive Secretary Rwandan Patriotic Front
7 Stephen D. Smith