Genocide in Rwanda, History_Other, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - History Other

Genocide in Rwanda

Genocide in Rwanda Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in 1944. According to Lemkin, genocide signifies the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group and implies the existence of a coordinated plan, aimed at total extermination, to be put into effect against individuals chosen as victims purely, simply, and exclusively because they are members of the target group. This coordinated plan is committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. According to the United Nations’ definition of genocide in their 1948 declaration of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is a crime under international law and classified as such: 2. Causing severe bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Because a particular group is exterminated for existing on earth, genocide can also be classified as a crime against humanity. Men, women, and children are killed because of their specific bloodline. It does not matter if you are a frail elderly woman, newborn infant, or pregnant woman. All these people would be killed, and the pregnant woman would also be disemboweled to make sure that the fetus in her womb is dead as well. The idea is that anyone who carries that blood is eliminated. All in all, the specificity of genocide does not arise from the extent of the killings, nor their savagery or resulting degradation and infamy, but solely from the intention: the total destruction of a particular group. Racism, power struggles, and violence combined are all explanations for the occurrence of genocide. For instance, genocide has the tendency to occur in rural societies that are communal, divided, and in the mode of inequality and problematic issues. It also has the tendency to occur when the government says that it is okay to resolve those problematic issues using violence. An example in which there was a combination of racism, power struggles, and violence that all led to genocide is in the specific case of Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi populations. Before colonial rule, the Tutsi were herdsmen and came from the Nile Valley. They brought concepts of power, monarchy, and kingship to Rwanda. The Tutsi took grazing lands from the Hutu, who were farmers, and lived among them. Gourevitch states that this was the original inequality: cattle were a more valuable asset than produce…and the word Tutsi became synonymous with a political and economic elite (p. 48). The Tutsi, who were the powers of Rwanda, also became the protectors of the Hutu because they were armed with weapons and spears. Rwanda was certainly an unequal society, but the ethnic boundary was permeable. Overtime, some Tutsi married Hutu. Also, Hutu farmers could, and did, become wealthy Tutsi and acquired cattle as chiefs were incorporated into the ruling elite. Much authority was given to Hutu chiefs and certain obligations were imposed on Tutsi administrators as well. Colonial rule, however, transformed this pattern. The Belgians moved in and made the Tutsi the privileged group through indirect rule. The Tutsi were the privileged group because in 1932, the Belgian governor stated that the Tutsi were the master race and born to rule. This was so because the Belgians felt that the Tutsis were more “European-looking”—Tutsis were lanky and long-faced, not so dark-skinned, narrow-nosed, thin-lipped, narrow-chinned, while Hutus were stocky and round-faced, dark-skinned, flat-nosed, thick-lipped, and square-jawed (Gourevitch 50). Under the Belgians, Tutsi dominance was extended. Tutsi powers and privileges intensified, and the entire population was required to be registered as Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa. The single basis of this racial classification that the authorities were obliged to use was cattle ownership—people with ten or more cows were Tutsi, those with fewer were Hutu. A form of identification card was distributed to each person marked with his or her designated group. The identity cards made it virtually impossible for Hutus to become Tutsis, and permitted the Belgians to perfect the administration of an apartheid system rooted in the myth of Tutsi superiority (Gourevitch 56). These same identification cards would also tell modern-day killers whom to kill and whom to spare. When the Belgian missionaries went to Rwanda, they set up schools close to the Hutus and educated them. They encouraged the Hutu’s aspirations for political change. The Hutu became Western-educated and Christian-converted. They used this tool to get rich and enhance themselves socially. In the late 1950s, the Belgians reversed their preferences and inverted the hierarchy. They decided to rule through the Hutu, instead of the Tutsi, because the Hutu were more educated and made up 85% of the Rwandan population. Hutu political activists then started calling for majority rule and a social revolution. Then, in 1959, after Hutu political activist Mbonyumutwa was attacked and beaten up by Tutsi political activists, Belgian troops presided over a bloody uprising in which many Tutsi were slaughtered, had their homes torched, and/or were driven out of Rwanda by roving bands of Hutus (Gourevitch 59). Throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, and mid-90s, it was this same sort of systematic political violence used against Tutsi to maintain Hutu power. Eventually, the Hutu wanted the Tutsi out of Rwanda. The social revolution had begun. This same social revolution in Rwanda between the Hutu and Tutsi was, thus, the beginning and a key factor of the bloody genocide that took place in 1994. Another key factor that led to the Rwandan genocide was when the United Nations peacekeeping force arrived in Rwanda. The key person here was the Rwandan Hutu President Habyarimana. To him, the threat of peace was greater than the threat of war because to a certain extent, it meant a defeat. It meant that the Hutu could not have the total victory and power that they wanted. The Hutu would have had to share their power with the Tutsi, which was the one thing that they did not want to do. Even though the peacekeeping force arrived in Rwanda, the president’s men had no intention of allowing him to implement the so-called peace process (Gourevitch). Another factor that led to the genocide was when the plane that President Habyarimana and the President of Burundi was boarding was shot down. Hutu extremists believed that it was the work of the Rwandan Patriotic Force (RPF) in retaliation of President Habyarimana nonconformity with the peace deal (Gourevitch). The Hutu then decided that it was the perfect time to implement their genocidal plan to eliminate the Tutsi. The radio station in Rwanda (RTLM) was yet another factor that led to the genocide. From the time of the President’s death, the radio station became “genocide central.” It was through the radio that Hutu were instructed at times to go out and kill the Tutsi. On the other hand, the president of Burundi was also a passenger on President Habyarimana's plane, and was also killed on the night of April 6th. However, in Burundi, the army and the United Nation leaders there broadcast calls for calmness and Burundi did not explode. (Gourevitch 113). Therefore, through radio, a message of calm was sent out in Burundi, and its people responded to that, whilst a message was sent out in Rwanda to gather up the Hutu population to kill all of the Tutsi and its people responded to that. There were many ways in which the genocide in Rwanda could have been prevented. One example is that the Belgians should have never issued the identification cards to the Hutu and the Tutsi. Before the Belgians arrived in Rwanda, the Hutu and Tutsi lived among one another, married each other, and shared power. With the implementation of that Pass System, and also the specific racial classifications, the Hutu and Tutsi were forced to stick to with their own tribe and thus became much more ethnocentric. This is one of the areas in which the racism began. The genocide could also have been prevented if the Belgian government in Rwanda did not allow the Hutu to use violence against the Tutsi to maintain Hutu power. The Belgian troops led and stood by and watched as the Hutu killed the Tutsi in the massacres preceding the actual genocide. Another way in which the genocide could have been prevented was by eliminating the actions of the radio station, RTLM. The radio station could have done as the radio station in Burundi and promote calmness of its people upon hearing the news of the President’s plane being shot down. However, the Hutu extremists lost control and felt the need to implement their genocidal plan at once. The genocide in Rwanda could have also been substantially minimized. For instance, according to Gourevitch, the plan to eliminate the Tutsi was a genocide foretold. It was thoroughly scripted and thoroughly it announced, and the signs were laid plain on the surface. The announcements were also on the radio and in the newspapers. This was not a top-secret program that was coming forward. It was something that was really quite conspicuously announced. Because the genocide was so widely broadcasted, the United States could have brought their militia into Rwanda and stop the genocide altogether (along with the help of European allies as well). They would have had to intervene immediately according to the 1948 declaration of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It stated that if there is a genocide, the people who have agreed to the convention (which is the United States included) have to act to stop genocide when it is happening. In other words, if it is genocide, you must act. However, the United States had no interest in doing so, especially after its failure towards peacekeeping in Somalia, and the fact that Rwanda had no value to them in the first place. The Clinton administration conveniently did not label the events in Rwanda as genocide because then the United States would be obliged to intervene (Gourevitch). There are many lessons to be learned from the Rwandan genocide. One lesson is that racism combined with power struggles, and violence can have deadly consequences. Another lesson to be learned is that powerful and elite nations may not always have the backs of third world countries in their time of trouble unless the powerful nations have something to gain from the third world countries. One very last and important lesson to be learned is that genocide is a serious matter and this should be evident to everyone in the world. It is a deadly crime against humanity and should never be taken lightly nor ignored. Unfortunately, and tragically, genocide was a recurring theme in the 20th century (occurred three times). However, now that we are in our 21st century, it is up to all the people of the world to preserve humanity and eliminate genocide altogether by ending all the racism, power struggles, and violence that currently surrounds us all. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1858