 Yeah, we're back on a given Monday. I'm Jay Fiedel. This is Think Tech, and we're doing a series called Transitional Justice, organized by Project Expedite Justice here in Hawaii. And our guest today is Tony Tate, and he is going to tell us about his connection with and his experience and lessons in justice in post-genocide Rwanda, a very important and informative subject in our time. Welcome to the show, Tony. Thanks so much, Jay. It's such a pleasure to be here with you today. Well, let's talk about Rwanda. In my recollection, Rwanda was really an awful time. There were atrocities galore. Half a million people were killed in the space of 90 days. And it's hard to really look back and figure out exactly why. Do we know why half a million people were killed there in 90 days? Well, what we know is that the regime in power was desperate to hold on to power, because they were faced with the Rwandan patriotic front that was coming in from neighboring Uganda. So the regime was actively in a civil war and was very concerned about losing their hold on power. So what they did, what they orchestrated, was to create a hate campaign against the Tutsi people in Rwanda. So just to take a step back, Jay, Rwanda is made up largely of two groups of people, the Hutus, which are the vast majority, about 85% of the population, and the Tutsis, about 15%. So this group of Tutsis who lived in Rwanda prior and during the genocide were vilified by the government. And they stirred up all kinds of claims of these people are going to take over. They're going to take your land. They're going to kill you unless you kill them first. So you had a media campaign that was going on. You had a government that was training militias to kill. And you had people in the government who had imported some firearms, but mostly machetes and knives for people to use to commit the genocide. So this was all leading up to April 6, which is when the genocide, April 6, 1994, excuse me, when the genocide officially began. Can you give us a little background on the two groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis? How did they get organized? How did they get started? What did they arise from? Sure. So historically, and this is prior to Belgian colonialization, German and Belgian colonialization, pardon. There was a way of identifying people mostly on what they did in their lives. So anyone that did agriculture was known as a Hutu. And persons that had cattle, or cattle herders, were known as Tutsi. And in pre-colonial times, it was possible for one person to move with relative ease from one category to the other, based on your socioeconomic status, perhaps based on your marriage, et cetera, et cetera. What happened was, when the Germans first came in, but really it was the Belgians after World War I, they really made these very rigid categories. And they favored the Tutsi over the Hutus, because they believed that the Tutsis were superior in intellect, but also they could use this small minority to use indirect rule, as many colonial powers did in Africa and elsewhere. And this created a great deal of unrest and feelings of unfairness in the country, particularly because they made it almost impossible for you to change your ethnicity from, at that now it became an ethnicity from Hutu to Tutsi. Even though it wasn't an ethnicity at all. That's right, it was not. You're a product division human. So the other thing that comes to mind about this, Tony, is that it was a movie made, maybe 20 years ago. The movie was Hotel Rwanda. And it was the story of the failure of the United Nations, who wore nice uniforms and blue hats and whatnot, and who did nothing. They left the country to its own devices. This is awful. And then of course, the violence swept in like the Red Sea. So why was the United Nations interested in why did the United Nations fail to be some sort of bulwark against the violence? Yeah, so as I alluded to a bit earlier, at the same time the genocide was going on, there was a civil war. And that civil war had started in 1990. And then in 1992, there was a rough fruits, I would say, between the two parties that was ironed out with the help of the international community. And so part of that agreement was that the United Nations would spend in peacekeepers in Rwanda to try to help maintaining the peace. So leading up to the genocide, there were peacekeepers on the ground. Then as you rightly pointed out, Jay, instead of actually doing something to try to prevent the genocide or stop some of the worst acts from happening, the United Nations took the decision to pull all but a few of the peacekeepers out of the country. I think that was an internal decision by the United Nations. I think they were under immense pressure by the United States government who had been smarted rather badly by Somalia in 1993. So they didn't want another Black Hawk Down situation as you might remember. France also did not want peacekeepers there. They wanted their nationals evacuated. And Belgium as well, Belgium had peacekeepers that were killed. I believe on April 7th or April 8th, 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed trying to defend the prime minister. And so I think they also didn't want to spill blood in a place like Rwanda where they didn't feel like it was of strategic interest. So the international community really turned their back on Rwanda instead of being involved instead of doing something which might have made a big difference. They basically gave carte blanche to the genocide leaders to go ahead. And what about the diplomatic representatives from these various countries who were in Rwanda at the time? Were they part of the genocide? Were they killed? Were they at risk? Or did they all leave? The vast majority of them left. There was a big evacuation that was organized by the Belgians, by the French and by the UN themselves to get the diplomatic staffs out, international aid workers, anyone that was in the country to get them out. And that's how they spent their resources in the first, let's say, week, 10 days. After that, there were very few foreigners who stayed in Rwanda and left. And I think the diplomatic community in the beginning basically denied what was going on or said, there's nothing we can do. This is ancient tribal hatred. And it's not as bad as it's being portrayed. Of course, those became quickly lies. Why do I feel, why, Tony? Do I feel that this is relevant right now? Relevant in the context of Afghanistan. This is all a kind of replay of what's going on in Afghanistan, is it? Well, yes and no. I mean, I hope to God that what happens in Afghanistan doesn't turn out to be a genocide or to have the kinds of killings that you saw in Rwanda in the first hundred days of the genocide. Nonetheless, I think it's true that, it's often when the going gets tough, powers like the United States don't want to stick it out and actually do the right thing. I mean, I would point out in Rwanda, there were some things that could have been done very early on that quite possibly could have made a difference. So one thing that was done was there were two main radio stations in the country operating at the time, the National Radio Station and a radio station called Free Television and Radio of Thousand Hills, The Rough Translation. And they both broadcast messages day and night about telling people where to go, how to kill them, go finish the work. A lot of it was an euphemisms, but just basically telling people where the Tutsis were and how to go kill them in a what time to report. So what was advocated, especially in Washington, is that you could have blocked those two radio channels immediately and stop them from broadcasting. And with something supposedly those in the US government considered doing, but ultimately did not. And so I think, I bring up this example because that's not something that requires US troops. It's not something that cries dead UN peacekeepers. It's simply using a little technology to block hate radio that was really driving genocide. Hate radio with disinformation calling for violence. Why do I feel this is not a strange concept in these United States? Anyway, let's go back to the main point. So how was the killing done? Whether it was sophisticated weapons or was this by machete? The vast majority of it was done by byte with hand weapons, so by machetes and knives. And often, and especially in the beginning, the government then in power, the genocidal government would call tootsies and tell them to go hide, for example, for their own security in churches, in community halls to go to stadiums and that they would be protected by the government there. And so the government would send a small, usually a couple of soldiers and a few police persons, quote unquote, to protect them but also to prevent them from leaving. And then once a large mass of militia members, so these would be mostly young men who came in with machetes and knives and et cetera, those same police and military would turn on the crowds of people and use guns and grenades to shoot at them. But then what was called cleanup work, these large groups of militia members were then called in to just hack the people to death. Men, women, and children. Yes, yes, indiscriminate, lots of children and many women and girls were also victims of rape and sexual violence as well. Often they were raped repeatedly before they were killed. A state of nature, the complete dissolution of civilization, what tragedy? So, okay, so first I guess, how is Rwanda today? How is the Congo today? Is it a restored to civilized condition or what? In many ways it is, and it's a remarkable story. I think that the Rwanda and patriotic front, which was the force that took over after the genocide and installed Paul Kagame as the president has done a remarkable little job to rebuild the country. And the country is largely at peace. Infrastructure has been rebuilt. It's improved greatly, electricity and running water are found almost throughout the entire country. So considering it's been less than 25 years, the progress is simply remarkable. And I think Rwanda, in many ways, is the darling of the international development community because there's little corruption, you can projects get finished. There's a sense of this can be done. I think on the flip side, it's come at a price. The ability to talk about human rights abuses committed by those in power now is not tolerated. Political dissent is not tolerated. Certain subjects are not, you're not allowed to speak about in public. And if you do, if you dare do so, you may be tried and accused of genocidal ideology, but more likely you might just be disappeared and killed. So it's a very strange situation if you go to Rwanda today. So we couldn't be having this conversation in public in Rwanda right now? Absolutely not. Is the hotel still standing, the hotel Rwanda? Yes, so the hotel, it's actually called the hotel in real life, it's called the Hotel of a Thousand Hills as Rwanda is known because it's such a hilly country. And the hotel is right in the middle of the city. Got refurbished obviously after the genocide and it's still a functioning hotel today. Oh, interesting. Yeah, and you were telling me before the show that in the course of the genocide and the civil war, the country was virtually destroyed so that the rebuild that took place after what, 1994 is really miraculous because of how little was left after the civil war and the genocide were finished. Yeah. Yeah, no, it's amazing. And I think if you compare Rwanda to its neighbor, the Democratic Republic of Hong Kong, almost now all of the roads in Rwanda are paved and are comparable, let's say, to roads in the United States. You only have to cross the border into Congo where you're back on dirt roads, you're on asphalt, it's all torn up, potholes everywhere, it's just incredible night and day situation. What's the international presence there now? You said it was a darling. That sort of implies to me that the international community who essentially abandoned it or actually exacerbated the problem had a, I don't know, some kind of reaction to come back and try help them. I guess there's been foreign investment, I guess there's been NGOs all around to try to help them rebuild. And so what's the presence today? Yeah, it really was, I think that a number of countries including the United States felt terribly guilty about abandoning Rwanda and so came back in force. And it wasn't just the United States, obviously it was many European countries. And so, but the presence has changed over time. I think that in the early years, you had a great number of humanitarian personnel who were helping with food delivery, who were helping with medical, basic humanitarian assistance in a time of, after the genocide and after the civil war. That's really switched now, that humanitarian machine as I call it is gone because it's no longer needed. And it was replaced by a more classic development workers, including the World Bank, the IMF. And I think that to Rwanda's credit, they've done quite a good job of managing foreign direct investments, but also grants and loans that have been offered by Western powers. So, you often hear about bilateral assistance that goes missing in African country X or African country Y, but Rwanda has been diligent and quite successful in accounting for much of the foreign direct aid that's been given, which then encourages of course more direct aid. The same time, you know, it sort of puts a hole if you will in the country to have lost half a million people that way in tragic and atrocious circumstances. And I wonder how that affects, you know, if you look at Laos, for example, how that affects Southeast Asia, how that affects the people there. How does it affect, you know, the average person? You know, they say that history is told by the survivors. Well, half a million people didn't survive. So what do the survivors think about, you know, what happened? It's, that's also, it's a very complicated question, obviously, but I think part of what makes it so complicated is that what is able to be talked about publicly in Rwanda today is very one-sided. So it is true that the previous regime that was a genocidal regime and committed a vast majority of crimes and killings. However, as is often the case in times of war and when two parties are fighting, the other side is not completely innocent either. And the RPF was responsible for killings. Again, much reduced number. But all those things are not, you're not allowed to talk about in Rwanda. So for many people, it feels like one-sided justice and that they can't come out and talk about, you know, what really happened to them because it might run afoul of what the regime accepts as the narrative. But don't you need to have that? Yeah, I take your point. Don't you need to have that kind of cleanse yourself of all the trouble and hatred and, you know, and what do I call it, concern, sadness about the killing of all those people? Don't you have to have a, like in other countries in Africa, a truth commission, you know, Project Expedite Justice has participated and encouraged truth commissions in other places. But there hasn't been one in Rwanda and it doesn't sound like there's gonna be one. And so the view of the average person is kind of skewed. He doesn't really or she doesn't really understand, can't really process what happened and build it into the future of the country. Am I right? Well, I would completely agree with what you're saying. And I think that's one of the tragedies of, you know, translational justice in Rwanda, post genocide in that you had and have a great deal of resources that was put into the country, which we can go to in a minute to, you know, establish justice for the genocide, but also to create reconciliation, to create a historical record of what actually happened. And while there has been some justice, I wouldn't, you know, disagree with that. Obviously, I don't think that the vast majority of people were given the space to really heal because they were unable to talk openly about what happened and to try to find some sort of reconciliation. And one of the criticisms of especially the national trials where people could get reduced sentences if they confessed and apologized, is that they didn't mean it. And they were only doing this to get, you know, less sentences or maybe not get the death penalty, but there was no real sense of culpability or, you know, feelings behind the apologies. And I think that also has led to resentment by those who are victims. Well, but you say victims. It sounded, from your description of what happened, it sounds like there were very few victims. They were all killed. They were all burned and rather, they were shot and hacked to death. Who were the victims who were still alive? Well, I mean, not all the two teams were killed. The numbers in Rwanda are very controversial and I'm not wanting to wade in too much because the regime has tried to, in my opinion, has tried to inflate the number of Titsis killed in particular, but you know, there was roughly about 25% of Titsis who survived. Either they managed to escape before the genocide came to their areas of the country or they hid or they were hidden actually by Hutus, which is another topic you can get into and when you think about trying to account for justice. But don't forget, there were a number of moderate Hutus that were killed as well. So one of the first things the regime did when they took over the genocidal regime is they killed any moderate Hutu politician who they thought might be able to sway the public from not going along with the genocide. And that was politicians at the national level, but right down to the very local province, Commune Hill. And so those people, all their family members, for example, I would call our survivors as well. So there was a great regular people who were looking for justice and didn't get it. How about the two groups today? Is there enmity between them? Is there bias, prejudice, hatred? How do they get along right now today? It's very, very hard to say because one of the things the RPF, the new government has done is they've forbidden the use of the terms Hutu and Tutsi and refuse to allow them on identity cards, for example, or documentation of any kind. So on the one hand, that's a good thing, I think, because what was so successful in the genocide is everyone's ethnicity, either Hutu or Tutsi, was printed on their national ID card. So it was very easy to determine who was a Hutu or Hutu. On the other hand, it's made it very hard because there's like an official knowledge that almost everyone in the present regime is a Tutsi. It's not, you can't openly say that. And there's no way of proving it because there's no documentation that says it. So that has, I believe, has created a great deal of resentment, but because you can't talk about ethnicity in Rwanda today, it's hard to know what, quote unquote, ordinary citizens, how they feel about it. Are they conscious of it? Do they characterize you? So you meet somebody, say on a business deal, socially, is the average person looking to identify, identity card or not, looking to identify the other person as one or the other? I think so, I think that's true. Yeah, well, let's talk about the trials. So there has been, of sorts, justice with at least three separate tribunals. Can you talk about the criminal justice tribunals that have investigated? And I guess you were involved for a time, investigated these matters and taken prosecution and trial and conviction and punishment. Can you talk about what's been going on? Yeah, I'd be happy to. So I mean, I think the first one is the, probably the one that our listeners know best, which is the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. So this was set up by the UN Security Council in 1994, specifically to go after and try the ring leaders of the genocide. This was not gonna be justice for ordinary Rwandans, but those who really were led and responsible for the genocide. In the end, the court convicted 85 persons, the majority of whom were leaders of the genocide. They got the former minister of defense, they got the interim president, they got the head of one of the radio stations I alluded to earlier, et cetera. But the cost was roughly $1.3 billion and it lasted about 15 years. So I mean, I think for what it did, it was effective, but I mean, it's been criticized of course, both for the cost, the slowness, and it took especially to get the trials going in the beginning, you know, and also because Rwanda was considered unstable in 1994, the UN took the decision that the tribunal should sit in Arusha, Tanzania. So the Rwanda's neighbor. So what that meant was, especially in the beginning, very, very little information about what was happening in the trials and the tribunal actually made it to Rwanda, as well as logistical nightmares for having, you know, witnesses coming from Rwanda, et cetera, et cetera. But I think that was one of the big drawbacks. The UN got better at it over time in trying to, they had a media liaison officer now, office, sorry, working in Rwanda after a couple of years and tried to really use the media in Rwanda to, you know, get more information out about what the tribunal was doing. Was it hard to prove those cases, hard to find people who would actually testify? So I worked on two trials and I can at least speak to the ones I worked on. No, I mean, there were witnesses who really wanted to come forward and talk about what had happened and be part of the process. I think that they didn't always understand fully what that would mean, what that would look like when they signed up for it. But that was, you know, how, you know, from my perspective, it was part of a process where they felt like maybe for the first time in their lives, they would be able to, we would be listened to and their testimony would bring down, you know, one of the big players in Rwanda. Were they intimidated? No, not to my, you know, not to my knowledge and not as far as what I saw. I really think that, you know, they were able to testify in Kenya Rwanda, which is the local language of Rwanda. So I think that helped. And I, you know, again, most of the witnesses that I dealt with were, you know, simple farmers who didn't have a lot of education, both men and women. And the fact that you have a room full of international persons, including three judges and, you know, the former governor of your province all sitting there listening to you. I mean, for many of these people, that was the first time in their lives that anyone really cared what they had to say. There was a piece on 60 Minutes yesterday, a very interesting piece about actually what country was it. It was another Kenya, Kenya. And there's a fellow who talks about justice and he lectures to people in jail. And they talk about how they represent themselves as lawyers or would be lawyers in front of judges. And it was the first time in their whole lives that anybody ever actually listened to them. Well, I think that's remarkable, you know, and it's very powerful. I think that it was emotional for a lot of those witnesses, especially because, you know, they were brought on, they were left Rwanda, they were put on a plane for the first time in their life. They were put in a safe house, you know, that was up, quote unquote, up to Western standards, et cetera. I do want to share one vignette that I had. We had a witness. So I was in charge of getting a lot of the witnesses, not the logistics part, but just getting them to a rooftop. You were there in Rwanda at the time? I was settling back and forth between Rwanda and Arusha. And we had a group of four or five on the UN plane and the woman got quite upset. And through translation, the story was, we were flying at night when she was upset because she thought for the first time in her life, she'd be able to see God if she was flying during the day. That just thought was so cute, you know. Well, we live in transitional times, transformational times. Well, what kind of punishment came out of that series of trials? The 85, as you mentioned. Some people got some of the accused, got life in prison. Others got sentences ending, to my knowledge, the largest one was 30 years and the smallest one was 10, but I have to check some of those figures. So, you know, roughly between 10 and 30 years and life for some of the ring leaders. And I think that was very, that was considered controversial as well, at least because initially in Rwanda, they had the death penalty. And a number of, I would say, much lesser responsible persons got, you know, put to death in Rwanda, including in public executions. So that was one of the big sticking points, I think for Rwanda. Now it's true that Rwanda has since repealed the death penalty. And so that's no longer, you know, a sentence for people accused of genocide or anything else. Well, that's a good development. So what about the, so that was one trial you mentioned, the criminal court in Rwanda, but there were other courts. Can you talk about the other courts that were addressing these atrocities? And can you tell me why this was spread amongst all these courts when, you know, one would ask, why not have only one court? Nuremberg, for example. Right, right. Well, I think that the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda had very specifically said from the beginning, they were only gonna go after ringleaders and they didn't have the capacity or, I guess, the willingness to, you know, to take on the number of people accused of genocide. So there were two things that were happening soon after in Rwanda. The first thing is, you know, there were the rebuilding of the national court system. So think very much along the lines of the criminal justice system in the United States. You have prosecutors, you have eventually defense lawyers, you have judges. And Rwanda tried, I think it's up to now 10,000 persons accused of genocide through these, what I call, you know, traditional law courts. But what happened was, I think the largest number was in 1998, you had over 130,000 people in prison accused of genocide in Rwanda. And at that point, you had just a little over 1,000 trials that had gone forward. So I think one of the things that the government realized quickly on is there was no way they would be able to try all those people who were in prison and accused. The prisons themselves were hopelessly overcrowded and a lot of prisoners were dying of communicable disease. So what the government did is this third system of justice is they created what it's called Gatchacha. So Gatchacha was traditionally, you know, a reconciliation method that was done very locally at the hill level, at the people's homes and their communities, for minor offenses, for insults. This was just basically a reconciliation tool. But what the government did is they sort of re-imagined this that now all communities across Rwanda could come together and try genocide suspects, which is what they did. And it was just, you know, what they would do is they would elect judges, I quote unquote judges, these were people who may or may not have any legal skill at all, but were respected by the community to come forward and act as judges. And then a different accused from that community would be brought out of jail and everyone was asked to come forward and talk about what they knew about that person, whether they're guilt or innocence. So the scope was unbelievable. This happened everywhere across the country over a period of a number of years. They heard something like two million cases. You know, they were able to, for some people to get justice as they were accused, you know, were rightly accused of genocide and might otherwise have a trial. Justice is punishing the fellow who is accused of the crime. It's not a money damage thing, is it? No, it was not, there was no reparations ever given. Yeah. So, I mean, there were lots of positive things about it, but I think, you know, because of the way it was done, some people were falsely accused and, you know, I take the point of what you were saying earlier when 500,000 people have been killed and another two million have fled the country, you know, the community that's left may or may not even be the people that were there during the genocide and that's what happened in some places where you had a lot of people who were like, we're not from here, we don't know what happened. And yet a lot of people were convicted on hearsay and, you know, someone that may or may not have, you know, an ax to grind with that person or their family. So there were a lot of cases of abuse as well. It wasn't a perfect system, but I think it did, in a way, obviously depopulate the prisons and the places of incarceration. And it did provide justice for some people. This is so interesting, especially in the context of what's going on now. I mean, not only in Afghanistan, but in other places too. So I guess one more question, then I'd like to ask you a larger question. And that is why my last question at this point is, why didn't the criminal court of justice and the Hague get involved? If you have war crimes and atrocities, usually somebody goes to the Hague and we have cases there. Is there a reason that didn't happen here? Yes, actually there is, because at the time of the creation of the Rwanda Tribunal, the international criminal court didn't exist. So you'll remember they were called ad hoc tribunals that were set up. There was one in Yugoslavia, the ICTY. There was one in Rwanda, the ICTR. And it was through this realization, I think, by parties to the UN and to the Rome Statue, which eventually created the international criminal court, that it was bureaucratic, it was wasteful to keep having ad hoc tribunals better to have a permanent international criminal court in the Hague. So in a way, the ICTR and the ICTY predated the ICC, which I think came into force in 1999 or 2000, I can't remember. Are we done with these trials? Are we done with various prosecutions in various courts against people who committed these murders? We're pretty much done. The ICTR has upholded their work. They're no longer functioning. The Katacha, this was the community justice I spoke about. That was finished in 2012. That's no longer happening. Occasionally, there will be, for example, a genocide suspect that's uncovered in the third country. So perhaps, let's say, hiding in the Congo, that gets arrested in the Congo and then is turned over to Rwanda. So there is still the possibilities for some trials in the national courts in Rwanda, but it's basically over. And I think that you have to think I was, I mean, just an anecdote to share. I was on a bus in Rwanda, not that long ago, maybe two years ago, just before COVID. And I was kind of looking around and I was like, I think almost everyone on this bus was born after the genocide. So it was a little shocking to me, but Rwanda, like so many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the vast majority of the population is under the age of 20. So it's just the country itself has kind of moved on as well in terms of just the population. Now, sometimes you don't appreciate that. Like the point is made about Afghanistan. We've been in the United States, it's been there 20 years. Well, most of the country was born after the United States got there. We don't realize how young people are and that changes the way you look at things. And that's my last question, my 50,000 foot question here. This is really an awful experience. It's not unique, but it is unique in some ways for sure, in the numbers and the strange origin of the contention. And the strange steps that followed it and the fact that it's being muzzled right now for reasons that are not completely clear to me. But my question to you, Tony, is what have we learned from what happened here? You know, the world has to be a better place. We have to find ways to avoid this, but also to heal after it happens because it's still happening. What would you leave with our viewers on the lessons from Wanda, from the genocide, from the courts that followed the genocide, from the country that emerges from all of that now? What can we apply in other circumstances, other countries, other atrocities? Yeah, well, I think at least two things come to mind. I mean, the first is that, you know, as I alluded to earlier, there were some simple steps the international community could have done to at least mitigate some of the worst atrocities if not stop the genocide altogether. And that was, like I said, blocking the radio broadcasts that were sending out daily hate messages and telling people where to go and get killed. So it's not always that easy, and it's sometimes in hindsight, but I think the lesson learned there is simply that you can't just abandon a country in its time of need when clearly a genocide is unfolding and wash your hands of it. The morally is incorrect, it's ethically wrong, but it's also, and it doesn't mean I'm advocating for armed intervention, but I think there are steps that states can do to send a strong signal that, you know, such action is not acceptable and one will be accountable for it after the fact at the very least. So I would start there. I think the other thing that's been both apparent but still problematic in post-genocide justice in Rwanda is the one-sided nature of the narrative. And so what I alluded to earlier is the crimes committed by the RPF much smaller in scale. I'm not comparing them to the genocidal acts of the previous regime, but crimes committed nonetheless need to be accounted for. And the ICTR never touched a case of the crimes committed by the RPF, all that they could have. National courts never have, excuse me, a few military courts have, but they're very small number of cases. And the Katacha, they were not allowed to talk about it as well. If you tried to talk about it, you were shut down immediately and sometimes imprisoned. So, you know, there's a gaping hole there. If you're thinking about healing, if you're thinking about true reconciliation, to me, you've got to have a full accountability of what happened. And you can't have that if part of the narrative is suppressed and left out. One last point you mentioned just a minute ago is there's a question and it exists today, certainly even right now in connection with, you know, Afghanistan. So what do you think the nature of the obligation of the international community is to step into a deteriorating situation, one which could very well lead to genocide. Is there an obligation? Should, you know, the world get together and take action of some kind to affirmatively avoid the total deterioration of the state of some countries? No, I think there is an obligation. And I think that, you know, if you look at the ideals of what the United Nations is supposed to be and our basic obligation as human beings, you know, you just can't leave a country in its time of need because it doesn't have geopolitical importance to you or it doesn't have oil reserves or whatever the reason that, you know, the country may or may not be interested to a third party. I think that if it's clear what there are steps that can be taken to mitigate a looming disaster, then I think the burden is on all of us to do something about it. Nation states, but individuals. So yeah, I think that's clear. Thank you, Tony. Tony Tate, Project Expedite Justice. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you for your comments and thank you for teaching us what happened there. Thank you, Jay. I really appreciate it this time and I've enjoyed the conversation. Same here. Aloha. Take care.