What do you think?
Rate this book
Rwanda's Genocide: The Politics of Global Justice
In Rwanda's Genocide , Kingsley Moghalu provides an engrossing account and analysis of the international political brinkmanship embedded in the quest for international justice for Rwanda's genocide. He takes us behind the scenes to the political and strategic factors that shaped a path-breaking war crimes tribunal and demonstrates why the trials at Arusha, like Nuremberg, Tokyo, and the Hague, are more than just prosecutions of culprits, but also politics by other means. This is the first serious book on the politics of justice for Rwanda's genocide. Moghalu tells this gripping story with the authority of an insider, elegant and engaging writing, and intellectual mastery of the subject matter.
250 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 4, 2024
thin understanding of Rwanda, and also shockingly about genocide.
lacks insight, tonnes of incorrect assertions. Mistakes on almost every page, because they had not done the minimum amount of research. Frequent spelling mistakes of proper names.
feels like there is almost no research behind this, author has little better than a Trump-level understanding of history
the characterization of the events of 1959-1962 as genocide is unconventional, controversial and tenuous as there was no intent to wipe out the Tutsis as a race at this time
attacks against Tutsi did NOT continue for 35 years as stated in the book, but only during the Kayibanda period
Absurd to say the United States had more influence than France - how exactly? This is a bold and unconventional assertion, but the author spends no time justifying this surprising statement, just expects the reader to take it at face value. Shows a deep Americentric bias in the author.
Correct order of influence in Rwandan events is #1 France, #2 Belgium #3 Zaire and #4 USA. I think the author doesn't know about Zaire's intervention, because they didn't read deeply
implementation of Arusha faltered less because Opposition parties split into Power / Moderate wings, but because Habyarimana refused to implement it.
what you do get is a breakdown of why Security council members voted the way they did, and details about the composition of the tribunal and that kind of thing
the author never did much reading and it is painfully obvious. There is a surreal accusation that Kofi Annan wasn't so responsible but the member states were, which shows he failed to understand how Kofi Annan personally intercepted the information flow to the Security Council. This is egregious and unacceptable.
I think this book should not have been published and it should be withdrawn.
lacks insight, tonnes of incorrect assertions. Mistakes on almost every page, because they had not done the minimum amount of research. Frequent spelling mistakes of proper names.
feels like there is almost no research behind this, author has little better than a Trump-level understanding of history
the characterization of the events of 1959-1962 as genocide is unconventional, controversial and tenuous as there was no intent to wipe out the Tutsis as a race at this time
attacks against Tutsi did NOT continue for 35 years as stated in the book, but only during the Kayibanda period
Absurd to say the United States had more influence than France - how exactly? This is a bold and unconventional assertion, but the author spends no time justifying this surprising statement, just expects the reader to take it at face value. Shows a deep Americentric bias in the author.
Correct order of influence in Rwandan events is #1 France, #2 Belgium #3 Zaire and #4 USA. I think the author doesn't know about Zaire's intervention, because they didn't read deeply
implementation of Arusha faltered less because Opposition parties split into Power / Moderate wings, but because Habyarimana refused to implement it.
what you do get is a breakdown of why Security council members voted the way they did, and details about the composition of the tribunal and that kind of thing
the author never did much reading and it is painfully obvious. There is a surreal accusation that Kofi Annan wasn't so responsible but the member states were, which shows he failed to understand how Kofi Annan personally intercepted the information flow to the Security Council. This is egregious and unacceptable.
I think this book should not have been published and it should be withdrawn.
Displaying 1 of 1 review