Mercy Global Concern - 2004

International Symposium on Inter-Ethnic Dialogue and Reconciliation

Rome, Italy April 2004

Reconciliation takes time and hard work. It requires people of different ethnicities, political persuasions, and economic standing to move toward one another in a common commitment to a future characterized by inclusivity, tolerance, and co-operation. This is not easy, given past memories, present realities, and future fears that undermine the kind of trust building, risk-taking and creative partnership that is required for viable reconciliation to be possible. As the South African Nobel Peace Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said more than once, "Reconciliation is not about being cozy; it is not about pretending that things are other than they were."
This is not an easy question to answer.

Participants at the International Symposium on 'Inter-Ethnic Dialogue and Reconciliation and the Role of the Churches' reflected upon this issue and many ideas and solutions were offered. "Reconciliation is more than the coexistence of formerly hostile groups living near each other. It is more than hostile groups interacting and working together... Reconciliation means coming to accept one another and developing mutual trust..."

The causes of Division

• Ideologies
• Ethnic and Cultural divisions

Often our choices are based more on ideology than on values. Ideologies classify, separate: those who are of my party, those who think like me and the others, those who do not think like I do. And then ideologies easily lead to fundamentalism, which is often resorted to because of the frustrations suffered or because of the situation of marginalisation. Ideology is the means used to interpret a situation that is not the product of concrete experiences, but rather a kind of distorted awareness of such experiences, which serve to hide the real situation and act as a constraint on individuals. An ideology is designed to give guidelines for individual and collective action.

Many of the conflicts raging in our world and especially the conflicts in Rwanda, Ireland, Israel, Iraq,Burundi and the DRC are based on what is called ideological apparatus manipulated to people who want power. The THEM and US complex has been created everywhere: we're Hutus, they're Tutsis, we're trueborn Congolese, they're Rwandan or whatever. Sharing the same history, the same culture, the same language and the same religion, and being united through marriage and faced with the same poverty, makes no difference whatsoever.

Local religious leaders and especially missionaries have a key role to play in preventing and combating ethnic violence. Some see this as a new form of mission (Joseph G. Bock and Clarke Mc Cauley, A call to lateral mission: Mobilizing Religious Authority Against Ethnic Violence). In Africa, for example, the church still plays a key role in education. Perhaps something could be done to revise the content of educational programmes. Most of the 'behaviors' and people that have been condemned in the Rwandan genocide were Church educated. Some were even Church personnel. Perhaps greater investment is needed in evangelization rather than on sacramentalization.

Because violence feeds on silence, it is vital to condemn and confront, by all possible legal means those who make use of ideologies to attack, exploit and humiliate. The International world, including the United Nations did nothing to silence the Free Radio and TV of the thousand Hills or Muhabura in Rwanda. The question remains: Why? When we do not challenge hatred in any form we contribute to death. At the same time we must fight poverty in all its forms and work towards its eradication. While conflicts and violence draw upon ideologies, they are nurtured by the frustration arising from poverty that afflicts 80% of Africa's population, most of whom are young. The notorious Interahamwe who carried out the genocide in Rwanda were recruited among uneducated and unemployed young people thrown unto the streets of Kigali.

The divisions between the Tutsi and Hutu peoples in Rwanda were not always as deep as those that separated them in 1994. Over the centuries the two groups lived together in relative harmony. What then are the roots of the 100 days of killing, which led to the Rwandan Genocide? The advent of colonization in the 19th century exacerbated what divisions already existed, as the colonizers favoured the Tutsis because of their more European appearance. But the West's complacency does not end with Belgium-of all African countries, Rwanda has the highest percentage of Catholics amongst its citizenry. The Churches record here is shameful. "Correct" ethnicity led to advancement in the Church. While a few bishops, nuns and priests spoke up as the genocide unfolded most were complicit in their silence. Many urged Rwandans to support the country's political leaders, who were carrying the massacres.

If reconciliation is possible, the first thing that is needed is for the Church to publically acknowledge its role in the genocide. How were the people evangelized? What of the teaching of Christ to "love one another?" Will the church cooperate with the human rights trials currently underway in Tanzania? James Ross of Human Rights Watch has indicated that some good has come out of these trials. The courts have identified rape as a weapon of war and the first to prosecute specifically for genocide. The court has also identified the national radio and media, which goaded Rwandans to kill the "vermin".

The lessons learnt:

• A local Church must never be too allied with one political party as this will often result in the loss of moral authority.
  
• The Church needs to face up to its role in promoting a doctrine of superiority.
  
• The international community needs to look at its racist response to human rights abuses.
  
• The world needs a standby international force to protect civilians in humanitarian emergencies.

If reconciliation means coming to accept another and developing trust - what of forgiveness?

The very idea of forgiving can be very offensive to victims and survivors. How can anyone forgive the perpetrators of such horrors? Still forgiveness paves the way for reconciliation and furthers healing, thereby making a better future possible.

In forgiving, people are not been asked to forget. On the contrary, it is important to remember so that such atrocities never happen again. Forgiveness is about abandoning your right to pay back. Forgiveness lifts the burden of anger and desire for revenge.
As Bishop Desmond Tutu has said "there is no future without forgiveness."

Reconciliation is about facing the truth about the past. It must find ways to deal realistically with the past, compassionately with the victims and justly with perpetrators in a way that benefits the whole. The question remains - How do we get there?

Deirdre Mullan rsm
April 2004