Memoria [EN] No. 23 (08/2019) | Page 65

How can we measure where prevention may have helped to save a situation?

Ms Wosińska replied that she understands prevention “as a verb, not as a subject.” She stated the importance of observing a situation from a grassroots level, understanding local determinants and potential signs of violence. If there is concern, there should be both local public outreach and communication with the outside world. Wosińska also commented on the recording of genocide and conflict by the victims: diaries written during the Holocaust; used notebooks left behind after the genocide in Rwanda; and, more recently, people videoing atrocities on their phones in Syria. She stressed the need for people to read and listen to these, and that survivors of conflicts should be given a voice alongside politicians and others.

Ms Bardet highlighted the absence of discussion of governmental responsibility during the conference. Failures to act by organisations such as the UN come from states and governments. Bardet argued that prevention may work better if there was “a level of consciousness in everybody”, and that the key to this is through dialogue. She spoke of the divisions in the world and the eagerness with which people decide what is good and bad without considering others’ opinions. Ms Bardet disagreed with Father Desbois’ concept of people joining ISIS simply for the power, but stated the need to try and better understand why people commit such crimes. Discussion, she believes, will help nurture more positive outcomes, which is so needed when so many countries and people have already been failed.

Mr Rukesha talked about the importance of humanity: people should be encouraged to work together and identify humanity in everyone. He described some of the Kigali Memorial’s projects, such as perpetrators’ children working alongside survivors’ children and children born from rape; all students, irrespective of their background, collaborate positively with each other. Rukesha also highlighted the success of the local Gacaca courts in Rwanda; $38 million has been spent on resolving over one million cases, compared to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, where $2 billion has been spent on 55 cases “with no real impact.” Such cases show the need for action on a grassroots level.