The Hutus and Tutsis were not traditionally different, and ethnicity in Rwanda only became important during Belgium colonization when the more European-looking Tutsis were chosen as the aristocracy to rule over the Hutus. After Rwanda's independence in 1961 the Hutu majority, comprising roughly 85% of the population, ruled the country. Between 1961 and the outbreak of genocide in 1994 many Tutsis fled the regime due to its discriminatory practices and anti-Tutsi policies. Even after gaining control of the country, however, Hutus had been scared of a Tutsi coup or an invasion from the Tutsi refugees in neighboring Uganda. The regime of president Habyarimana played on these fears in order to distract Rwandans from failing policies and keep their declining party in power. It was the assassination of the president that precipitated the implementation of ethnic cleansing, although not the cause; plans for such an event had been planned out by Colonel Bogasata the previous year, the assassination of the country's Hutu leader just happened to be a convenient event for his clique of extremist Hutus to exploit.
In October of 1993 the UN Security Council authorized the UN Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) following a period of strife between the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the Hutu regime of Rwanda. When the government ordered assassinations were carried out in Kigali on April 6, 1994 there were about 2,500 UNIMAR peacekeepers in Rwanda. Soon after the violent outbreak Hutu government forces executed ten Belgian UNIMAR peacekeepers. On April 14 Belgium announced that it would be withdrawing its UNIMAR battalion, an action that unnerved other involved states and led the U.N. Security Council to cut the number of troops to a mere 270 the following week. Only after a month of vacillation did the UNSC vote to send 5,500 troops back into Rwanda, but it still dragged its feet and as of July only 10% of the promised force had been deployed (Economist, 1994). The RPF, meanwhile, had launched into Rwanda and by mid-July, it had ousted the genocidal regime from Rwanda.
Preceding the Rwandan genocide, numerous western states made claims of their willingness to intervene in a humanitarian crisis, and this kind of rhetoric has proved counterproductive in the past by encouraging insecure regimes to act hastily. Alan Kuperman said ?If the West is unwilling to deploy such robust for...
... middle of paper ...
...city in the genocide. This has further damaged relations between the ethnic groups, and has deepened the preexisting cleavages. The presence of a peacekeeping force to maintain order and accountability of the new regime could have hampered such atrocities. The Rwandan situation highlights the limits of intervention, and unfortunately as long as the duty of intervening lies in the hands of slow-responding multinational bodies and democracies too scared of a plummeting public opinion to risk troops for less central or non-state interests, it appears that humanitarian crises run the risk of progressing unacceptably far before the situation can be brought back under control.
Works Cited
The Economist. Learning from Rwanda (U.N. Peacekeeping Operations). April, 1994.
Alison Des Forges, Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (New York:
Human Rights Watch/FIDH, 1999).
Kuperman, Alan J. Rwanda in Retrospect. Foreign Affairs 79, no. 1 pp. 94-118 Jan/Feb,
2000.
Report of the Independent Inquiry Into the Actions of the United Nations During the 1994
Genocide in Rwanda, 15 December 1999, accessed December 17, 1999 at
http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/rwanda.htm.
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
“The Rwandan Genocide represents one of the worst human security failures, and the consequences still reverberate through the Great Lakes region of Africa nearly ten years later”, writes the Commission on Human Security in 2003. “Therefore, realizing human rights lies at the core of protecting and empowering people” (Bodelier, 2011). Canada's lack of response to the Rwandan Genocide was unfortunate, and it allowed for questioning of Canada's continued strength in peacekeeping operations, something Canada had been instrumental in creating merely 40 years prior. It is necessary to examine Canada's role within the international community's failure, to understand what external factors can still influence Canada's foreign policy, and to therefore
(Countries at Risk). The genocide in Rwanda began when the tension between the Hutus tribe and the Tutsis tribe steadily increased. After the European country, Belgium, colonized Rwanda, they gave more power to
Rwanda was a German colony but then was given to Belgium “who favored the minority Tutsis over the Hutus, exacerbated[exacerbating] the tendency of the few to oppress the many”(History.com). This created a feeling of anger towards the Tutsis, because they had much more power than Hutus. The RPF decided to create a government consisting of a Hutu and a Tutsi holding the highest government positions. As the RPF took control of the government, “some two million Hutus – both civilians and some of those involved in the genocide – then fled across the border into DR Congo.
Africa has been an interesting location of conflicts. From the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the revolutionary conflict in Libya and Egypt, one of the greatest conflicts is the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide included two tribes in Rwanda: Tutsis and Hutus. Upon revenge, the Hutus massacred many Tutsis and other Hutus that supported the Tutsis. This gruesome war lasted for a 100 days. Up to this date, there have been many devastating effects on Rwanda and the global community. In addition, many people have not had many acknowledgements for the genocide but from this genocide many lessons have been learned around the world.
When the Belgian colonizers entered Rwanda in 1924, they created an ethnic classification between the Hutu and the Tutsi, two tribes who used to live together as one. After independence in 1962, there was a constant power struggle between the two tribes. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Chrétien described the situation as “tribalism without tribes.” (Destexhe, 1995) There were many signs leading towards genocide, yet the nations in power chose to ignore them. From April 6, 1994 until mid-July, a time spanning approximately of 100 days, 800,000 people were murdered when the Hutu attacked the Tutsi. No foreign aid came to the rescue until it was too late. Ten years after the genocide the United Nations was still involved in Rwanda, cleaning up the mess that was left behind because of man’s sinful nature. Could the Rwandan Genocide have been prevented, or is it simply a fact of life? Even though the international community is monitoring every country and race, such an event as the Rwandan Genocide could occur again because the European colonizers introduced ethnic classification where it did not exist and the nations in power chose to ignore the blatant signs of genocide.
As the news reported that Islamic State committed genocide against Christians and other minorities had suffered serious defeats from recent battles against the allied forces, the images of piles of dead bodies shown to the world in Rwanda about a couple decades ago emerge once again and triggers an interesting puzzle: why did the Rwandan Genocide happen in one of the smallest nations in the African Continent? The documentary film, Rwanda-Do Scars Ever Fade?, upon which this film analysis is based provides an answer to the puzzle.
Although we often use race to classify, interact, and identify with various communities, there is a general consensus among scientists that racial differences do not exist. Indeed, biologists such as Joseph Graves state, "the measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small." Although we often ascribe genetics to the notion of race, there are no significant genetic differences between racial groups. Thus, there is no genetic basis for race. Our insistence and belief in the idea of race as biology, though, underlines the socially constructed nature of race. Racial groupings of people are based on perceived physical similarities (skin color, hair structure, physique, etc.), not genetic similarities. Nevertheless, we are inclined to equate physical similarities with genetics. Sociologists also use a temporality to argue that race is a social construct. The notion of race results from patterns from the signification of certain traits to different groups of people. However, these patterns (and societal notions of race) change over time. For example, the 20th century belief that "In vital capacity… the tendency of the Negro race has been downward" is certainly not commonplace among individuals today. Notions of race also differ across societies. Racial attitudes towards blacks, for example, are inherently different between the United States and Nigeria. These arguments all suggest that race is socially constructed. The lack of a universal notion of race means that it is not a natural, inherent, or scientific human trait. Rather, different societies use race to ordain their respective social
Entities that are developed and perpetuated by people based on mutual beliefs concerning reality are known as social constructs. In Sociology there is a theory of knowledge known as Social Constructionism. Sociologists that agree with this theory argue that race is a social construction. These sociologists explain that in our formative years our social constructs are created and bolstered through a recitation of stories concerning such things as race, gender, and class. People then mentally absorb these stories in order to form there reality which will allow them to make sense of the world around them. Because there is no single gene or collection of genes that is common to all white people or all black people sociologists contend that
Race is a social construct that has continued through time despite evidence that there is not a difference between those of different races. While there is evidence that there is no biological difference between different races society still places people in different race categories and people are required to identify with different races. This social requirement to associate with a race is seen on many forms that a person fills out regularly, including the forms for the SAT and college applications. The forms have boxes that one must check based on the race that the person identifies with. The race that I associate with is White or Caucasian that is also the race that I believe society places me in. When speaking of race one must speak
Various schools of thought exist as to why genocide continues at this deplorable rate and what must be done in order to uphold our promise. There are those who believe it is inaction by the international community which allows for massacres and tragedies to occur - equating apathy or neutrality with complicity to evil. Although other nations may play a part in the solution to genocide, the absolute reliance on others is part of the problem. No one nation or group of nations can be given such a respo...
The Rwandan genocide occurred due to the extreme divide between two main groups that were prevalent in Rwanda, the Hutu and the Tutsi. When Rwanda was first settled, the term Tutsi was used to describe those people who owned the most livestock. After the Germans lost control over their colonies after World War I, the Belgians took over and the terms Hutu and Tutsi took on a racial role (Desforges). It soon became mandatory to have an identification card that specified whether or not an individual was a Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa (a minority group in Rwanda). The Tutsi soon gained power through the grant of leadership positions by the Belgians. Later on when Rwanda was tying to gain indepe...
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
In 1994 many people were murdered . From April to July of 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority .About 85% of the population was Hutu, the rest were Tutsi along with a small number of Twa. The Tutsis were favored and felt superior to the Hutu and Twa. This caused much tension and jealousy between the two groups.The greater half of Rwanda, known as the Hutu, are a big part of the social issues that took place in 1994 as they overthrew the Tutsi power. The Hutu were located in both Rwanda and Burundi and while they wanted to gain power in both countries, the Hutu of Rwanda forcefully took over the Tutsi ruler. The Rwandan Hutu were in command until 1994 when they were invaded by the Tutsi. Tutsi are people who live in Rwanda. The Tutsi people had dominance over the Hutu in
Baldauf, S. (2009). Why the US didn't intervene in the Rwandan genocide. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0407/p06s14-woaf.html [Accessed: 21 Feb 2014].