Portrayal of Rusesabagina: Testimonial Narrative or Self-Promotion

The figure of Rusesabagina is an interesting one. It is jarring to arrive in Rwanda and find not a single person with anything good to say about him. It is also jarring to meet a survivor who stayed at the Milles Collines with similarly little good to say of Rusesabagina. These are based on a mix of things though: questions about his business practices during the genocide, the requests by genocide planners to subpoena him as a defense witness of sorts to their trials, his comments regarding the current state of Rwanda, his lack of experience with contemporary Rwanda (which may be due to the debated potential for him to return permanently). The most frequent criticism that is troubling are questions regarding the placement of his fund’s money. Supposedly it goes to Rwanda, but Rwanda denies that said money has ever touched Rwandan soil. This suggestion is to imply that either he and his family keep it, or that it goes to people outside the state who are implied to have some participation in genocide.
This is the rather abysmal story one gets when arriving in Rwanda after being exposed to movies such as Hotel Rwanda. It was not a complete surprise to me after reading supporting and opposing accounts of Rusesabagina. Other disturbing claims I had read before going to Rwanda was that he was on his way to Gitarama to serve with the genocidal government when he stumbled on the Milles Collines opportunity, that he not only charged but harassed refugees in the hotel, and that he kept himself in the nicest of suites during the genocide. Many of these sorts of complaints have been around for some time, but have recently been summarized in Hotel Rwanda or the Tutsi Genocide as seen by Hollywood by Alfred Ndahiro and Privat Rutazibwa. One lecture given during our study abroad was by Privat Rutazibwa, and for U.S. students who had not researched the controversy surrounding Rusesabagina, such comments were shocking.
I bring these up in order to confront the controversy directly. The Rwandan government charges that movies like Hotel Rwanda and articles such as Kohen’s (though not directly cited) accept Rusesabagina’s story of heroism without questioning what actually happened in Rwanda or trying to learn more and instead take Rusesabagina’s current words at face value when invited to speak without taking Rwandan context into account. So there are several questions embedded in this discussion. One is whose word to take, the Rwandan government or Rusesabagina and his supporters. The next question, based on the answer to the first, is whether Rusesabagina ought to be portrayed as a hero. The final question, bringing Kohen’s article explicitly into question, is how much of this controversy ought to be taken into account when looking for examples of heroism that will motivate individuals to behave in moral ways to respond to or prevent human rights abuses.
The question of whose word to take is a difficult one. There are many factors involved in the discussion as insider/outsider arguments fly. The Rwandan government points out that Rusesabagina’s words about Rwanda are taken at face value because of a fancy Hollywood movie without noticing that Rusesabagina cannot speak authoritatively about Rwanda after his longstanding absence from the state. Paul replies that there are challenges to his return and charges the Rwandan government with attempting to arrest him should he return. This interchange is connected to larger discussions of revisionism and who gets to tell the authoritative tale of the genocide. It is these larger discussions that make deciding a victor in the debate difficult. The Rwandan governments points out its role in ending genocide when no one else would. The resultant logic is compelling for many: who are we outsiders to question the official Rwandan genocide narrative when we did not even care enough to stop such genocide, let alone prevent it when we had clear knowledge that it was being orchestrated. If we as outsiders feel particular guilt, then it is not too difficult to transfer similar doubt regarding Rusesabagina’s ability to tell the current status of his homeland when he has not been there for extended time in fifteen years. On the other hand though, there seem to be many groups that question the current Rwandan government policies, particularly regarding speech issues in the state. Perhaps like many cases, the truth may lie somewhere in the middle, or perhaps there is a clear victor. Rather than deciding whose word to take as authoritative, it seems best to allow for an ongoing cross-cultural discourse regarding this and other controversies surrounding Rwanda’s past and present. The Rwandan government emphasizes the need for partnership relationships, and I do not think they are wrong in this, but I know that this is very complicated. At best though, in finding inspirational models to instill desirable human rights respecting behavior, I do not think this controversy has to stop our exploration of Rusesabagina as a potential hero.
This then leads directly into the answer for the second question regarding how Rusesabagina ought to be portrayed. The case of Rusesabagina stands out regardless of claims against him because he did something to prevent more deaths at a time when few were doing so. He may or may not have used unscrupulous methods during his endeavor, but no one who stayed at the Milles Collines was killed during the genocide. Also, it seemed that many Rwandans, including Rutazibwa, still saw positive in Hotel Rwanda and even said they would encourage people to watch the film. Their plea was not to prevent people from seeing the movie. They noted that many outsiders are brought to a concern for Rwanda after popular movies like Hotel Rwanda. Part of this comes from a realization that certain audiences will never be moved by documentaries. Hollywood style movies appeal to a larger group of people, which increases awareness of genocide in Rwanda or the genocide against the Tutsi (as the government prefers it to be termed). The story itself though of someone doing something in an extremely hostile climate to protect others can be the sort of sentimental education that individuals need to encourage mimicking moral behavior. Given this behavior, it seems permissible to consider Rusesabagina a hero during this time. There may be questions regarding his more recent statements about Rwanda or his purported connections with questionable, but it seems that his actions during the time of the genocide against the Tutsi still resulted in the saving of lives. This does not have to lead to an unquestioned acceptance of his behavior or comments since the genocide or even some of his activities used to secure the Milles Collines. The possibility for debate still exists. This debate does not have to negate the result of whatever Rusesabagina’s activities were: the saving of lives in a time when many lives were taken. Perhaps there was unscrupulous behavior during or since the genocide against the Tutsi, but it is notable that people were able to survive the genocide through their stay at the Milles Collines.
This finally leads to a discussion of Kohen’s portrayal of Rusesabagina as a moral hero. Some criticisms of Rusesabagina may come into direct confrontation with Kohen’s moral heroism. For example, if Rusesabagina was motivated by monetary or political gain as some of his most stringent critics argue, then it would blur the line between his position as a moral or a mortal hero. Similarly if he was motivated by a desire to save those closest to them and had to save others physically close in order to do so, then he may not have been inspired by a pure desire to save the lives of others. It is important to separate the types of heroism for the reasons that Kohen argues. It does matter whether the motivation was self-centered or personal, or whether it was focused on the needs of others. Does proximity to victims diminish the care? Singer stated it shouldn’t make a difference but Kohen argues that starting with the closest allowed people like Wilkens to expand his circle. Similarly, even if Rusesabagina did begin just with protecting his closest friends and family, perhaps he was able to truly expand his circle to more people at the Milles Collines. I am not saying this is the particular path he did or did not take, but simply trying to allow for the greatest doubt in the story to show that there still may be some use in the idea of citing particular actions of Rusesabagina as heroic.
The reason Rusesabagina’s story is powerful is due to a lack of response to incredible human rights violations in Rwanda. Close to a million (if not a million) people died as the international community bartered over legalistic terms and silliness such as the shipment of outdated, ill-functioning (at best) equipment. There was a duty to respond in some meaningful way to genocide in Rwanda. I focus though on whether Rusesabagina was a hero, and what can be learned of this case. Part of the reason Rusesabagina is focused on is that few others were able or willing to save more than a handful. There was a real danger in harboring Tutsis, and Rusesabagina did it in the open. Perhaps he did so with an unscrupulous relationship with genocide participants or perhaps he did it though a concern for others. Either way people were saved under him. It seems that even taking some of these examples on face value, there is still a case to be made about the positive nature at least of Rusesabagina’s protective behavior during the genocide while still leaving open room for discussion and even criticism about the particularities of that behavior and his behavior since.