Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian icon, who knows more about the “worst of humanity” than anyone should, penned yet another deeply personal, meaningful and, at times, even poetic account of not only his experience in Rwanda, but his personal transformation and renewed sense of hope. Published on April 2^nd, 2024, or mere days before “Kwibuka 30”Footnote ¹, or the 30^th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide in Rwanda, this account is about the author's journey of rediscovering his own “humanness.” As he notes, “the warrior in me had to give way to the human” (pg. 173). His original “intention was to come up with … a new conceptual framework for conflict prevention …” but that the journey “has become a spiritual quest” (pg. 231-2).

Armed with a plethora of insights, the author offers vivid glimpses into the dynamics of statecraft, global North-South relations, military leadership and affairs and the effects of institutional permanence and change in global affairs. The key premise of the book is that since the dawn of contemporary global relations—or since the end of the Second World War, but more specifically the end of the Cold War—global relations have become, and are still becoming, more and more complex. Yet, humanity is “mired in the same vices … using the same tools that” (pg. 101) perpetuate age-old realities, such as wars. What really is the culprit, in the author's mind, is unbridled self-interest.

In this very accessible book, organized into short chapters, the author uses imagery from Dante's Divine Comedy to chart his personal transformation. In the first section, the author recounts the dynamics through which the genocide took place in Rwanda, and the ways in which it was enabled to take place due to institutional failures—domestically and internationally. In part two, Dallaire shows why humanity has not embraced change. At times he even strikes a poetic tone borrowing a line from Macbeth for example, when noting that some of the “multilateral” tools used in the 1990s “were merely sounds and fury, signifying nothing” (pg. 106). In this very vivid, descriptive and analytical account of stagnation, or “purgatory,” poeticism is very much warranted. Dallaire shows that at times of personal but also global “upheaval” and rapid change, in an age of geostrategic and diplomatic “polycrises,” one must reach beyond the conventional—language, even—to “understand.” In the final section, the author notes, “if I can find peace, anyone—maybe everyone—can” (pg. 179). The key “ingredients” of lasting peace are “leadership,” “responsibility,” a changed notion of security, “coordination, co-operation, collaboration,” (pg. 204) and justice. At the very end of the book, Dallaire defines “the peace” by noting that “it is the as-yet-indescribable place from which we can begin to recon without true potential in the universe” (pg. 231).

Time and time again, the author wrestles with the question of what the proper role of the international community is in peace-making, and what is the impact of domestic initiatives (pg. 84, 85). The example of Rwanda shows that extraordinary transformation is possible, when a delicate balance is struck between domestic initiatives, will, leadership and international involvement. The author also underscores the notion that genocide does not occur due to some “mystical” forces, or because it foments some mystical, or “other-worldly” power, but because of very specific, precise and intentional sequence of acts perpetrated by ordinary human beings (pg. 90).

Finally, the author further highlights the dangers of factionalism within the neatly labelled groups—“Hutu” versus “Tutsi,” for example—which give the illusion that all Hutus were of the same thinking and intent, and all Tutsis were the same (pg. 84). Labelling and categorizing people into “neat” groupings simplifies issues and conflicts. The opposite is needed, however, as human attributes with their complexities cannot be neatly categorized into sterile silos. Labels, for example, such as “the right” and “the left” sound clear, but those who are grouped into these categories hold very different views.

Confusing the International Criminal Court with the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda on page 80 and again on pages 225 and 226 certainly seem more like typos as opposed to clear deficiencies of the work. Further, the “twa,”Footnote ² an Indigenous ethnic group, or the “third” group in Rwanda, could have been mentioned. Members of this group did not receive much attention during, nor after the genocide, yet they were, and are, exposed to the very same conditions. These shortcomings in the book do not cloak the intent behind the work, nor the insights, nor the evidence of the need to come to terms with what most members of humanity will never experience in their lifetime.

In the final analysis, perhaps other societies and regions of the world could use Rwanda as a template. Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently on its way to join the EUFootnote ³. Yet, the issue of whether genocide was committed in Srebrenica during the war in 1992-1995 is still intensely debatedFootnote ⁴. Rwandans have shown, however, time and time again that radical reconciliation is possible. And if anyone is looking for a clear and concise description of how radical transformation and change may be possible—on an individual level in particular—look no further than The Peace.