APCJ_1528_Win2010_00i_122_4 12/30/10 3:22 PM Page 63 Rediscovering Indigenous Peacebuilding Techniques 63 age every conflict in a similar fashion is an effect of the results-oriented culture of the West. Experimental approaches that endeavor to learn about and apply unique cultural methods are often unpredictable and time consuming, so they are rarely widely supported or implemented across an entire conflict zone. Such interventions and institutions as international tribunals have met with only limited success when it comes to stable peacebuilding within post-conflict countries. The international community is slowly approaching a point where various indigenous methods are being considered as potential alternatives. In 2004 UN secretary-general Kofi Annan stated in a report to the Security Council that ‘due regard must be given to indigenous and informal traditions for administering justice or settling disputes, to help them continue their often vital role and to do so in conformity with both international standards and local tradition’.5 As the case studies below demonstrate, the international community remains far from perfecting any methods, whether western, traditional, or hybrid, but nonetheless, attempts continue to be made. Africa—the continent with the largest number of peacekeeping missions—provides interesting examples of these efforts.6 RWANDA Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the government sought the assistance of the United Nations in establishing a system of retributive justice.7 This is especially interesting because Rwanda is a deeply Christian country, but church involvement in the genocide likely discredited its teachings on forgiveness and reconciliation.8 UN Security Council Resolution 955 established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in 1994 to prosecute those responsible for the genocide and other serious offenses of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda and neighboring states from January through December 1994. Although Rwanda initiated the establishment of the court, it had a number of objections to Resolution 955 and voted against it. The government opposed the time limit imposed on the tribunal to only prosecute acts that occurred in 1994. It also argued for the seat of the tribunal to be in Rwanda (instead of Arusha, Tanzania) and opposed the rejection of capital punishment, the imprisonment of detainees after conviction in third countries, and the participation of nations that supported the genocide in the nomination of judges, among other factors.9 Despite voting against the creation of the tribunal, Rwanda remained willing to support its activities as necessary. Arusha was selected as the site of the ICTR because of the unstable environment in Rwanda. However, the physical distance of the court from Rwanda, the lack of Rwandan influence over its work and detainees, and other problems, such as un5. United Nations, ‘The rule of law and transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies: Report of the secretary-general’, S/2004/616, 23 August 2004. 6. Doe, ‘Indigenizing post-conflict state reconstuction in Africa’. 7. Lyn Graybill and Kimberly Lanegran, ‘Truth, justice, and reconciliation in Africa: Issues and cases’, African Studies Quarterly, 8:1 (2004), http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v8/v8i1a1.htm. 8. Lyn Graybill, ‘Pardon, punishment, and amnesia: Three African post-conflict methods’, Third World Quarterly 25:6 (2004), 1117–30. 9. Olivier DuBois, ‘Rwanda’s national criminal courts and the international tribunal’, International Review of the Red Cross, 321 (1997), 717–31.