The Causal Factors of the Genocide in Rwanda - Term Paper Example

The Causal Factors of the Genocide in Rwanda In 1994, the entire world was shocked to learn of arguably one of the worst pogroms perpetrated after the World War II. This occurred in Rwanda where about 800,000 people were in killed from April to June 1994. In a span of just 100 days, Rwanda decimated a huge percentage of its Tutsi population, an ethnic group which was one of the two largest in the country. The event has since been considered by the international community as genocide committed particularly by the Hutus against the Tutsis. Until today, years after the massacres were halted and a sense of normalcy has finally pervaded the country with the installation of a stable government, the traumatic memory of the genocide still continues to haunt the people. Luc Chauvin, a UNICEF official based in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda, said that “because the genocide ended in 1994 it does not mean it is all over…the presence of the genocide is still here” (New York Times 1999). There are still fears Hutu and Tutsi conflicts would worsens and again result in bloodshed. The large-scale massacre began right after the country’s President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, was killed after his plane was shot down in April 6, 1994. As if on cue, Hutu militia and as well as members of the Rwandan armed forces of Hutu ethnicity, immediately embarked on killing sprees that targeted primarily the Tutsis. There were also moderate Hutus, the ones who did not believe that the Tutsis should be eliminated, who were murdered in great numbers. Years after the genocide took place, there were conclusions made that treated Habyarimana’s killing as its very cause. Even to this day, there are ideas which point out that the current President, Paul Kagame, who was then a leading Tutsi rebel while Habyarimana was in power, is to blame for the genocide because of his alleged role in assassination. The current president “denies this and says it was the work of Hutu extremists, in order to provide a pretext to carry out their well-laid plans to exterminate the Tutsi community” (BBC News 18 December 2008). However, while Habyarimana’s death spurred it, the genocide could never be attributed to it alone. The sheer number of victims of the bloodshed and the manner that the killings were conducted gave the impression that the violence was systemic, if not even instinctive of the major ethnic groups in the country. Such a concept, however, would support the idea that ethnic conflicts cannot be resolved and that it is only when one group actually eliminates the other will there be chances of peace. This may even support the idea that the only way for a country like Rwanda to achieve peace is to have a foreign power not beholden to any ethnic group dominate its economy, politics, and culture. An analysis of the causes of the intensely violent conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis would prove otherwise. It is in fact colonization that made developed the basis of the hatred between the two major ethnic groups. Before the region which is now called Rwanda became a German colony, both the Hutus and Tutsis were living in peace. They were even constantly inter-acting with each other, mostly because their economic situation prompted them to be so. There might be issues that could bring about disagreements between the two ethnic groups but these were not worse enough to result in open violent conflicts. The Tutsis did not originate from the region but from the Horn of Africa. The reason why they migrated to this part of the continent was that they were in search for grazing lands as they were basically into cattle-raising. It was the Hutus who had inhabited the land. They were making it productive through agriculture when the Tutsis arrived. However, the Hutus felt then that there was still so much fertile land in the area that they did not mind the Tutsis settling there. Besides the, the cattle-raisers that they are, the Tutsis were interested only with pasture lands and not those that are suitable for agriculture. Highlighting the fact that the line on ethnic differences were not yet drawn then are the intermarriages that occurred between the two groups. However, the Tutsis soon gained dominance in the economic sphere. They were relatively advanced in terms of technology and in taking advantage of the resources in the area. As a result, the Tutsis became more economically influential. Mahmood Mamdani notes that when this occurred, an impression arose that “to be a Tutsi was thus to be in power, near power, or simply to be identified with power - just as to be a Hutu was more and more to be a subject” (2002: 75). Despite this, the contradictions between the Hutus and the Tutsis did not yet sharpen to the extreme because, aside from the fact that the resources in the land are still plentiful, they were culturally and socially not much different from each other. What may be considered as the very first condition that sharpened the contradiction between the Tutsis and the Hutus was when the Rwabugiri, a Tutsis established a kingdom in the second half of the 1800s. Since the monarchy had a feudal political and economic structure, social stratification also began. In the set-up, the aristocracy was made up mostly of Tutsi families. Most of the Hutus, on the other hand became subjects. However, even as such unequal condition emerged, it was still not ripe enough for an open violent conflict to ensue. This could be attributed to the governmental policy that gave the impression that the Tutsis and the Huts ruled as one in the local levels. The local governments, particularly at the district level, were led equally by a Hutu and Tutsi official. The division of labour between the two was largely economic in nature. The Hutu official ensures tributes for the king coming from agriculture and from labour while the Tutsi is tasked with the collection of cattle taxes (Pottier 2002: 14). The king or the mwami ruled without distinguishing the ethnic differences. Despite being a Tutsi, he did not favour his ethnic group over the Hutus and other smaller tribes in the region. Instead, as expected of a monarchy, favour was given only to the members of the royal family, the aristocracy, and the court, which had included some influential Hutus. Under this condition, the Hutus might have acknowledged the fact that the ruling class was composed mostly of Tutsis. However, they still did not think that this is enough to spur an open revolt by them against the Tutsis in general. It was the arrival of the colonizers that caused the antagonisms between the Hutus and the Tutsis to arise. When the Germans arrived, they already saw that the Tutsis were the ones holding the reins of political power in area that is now called as Rwanda. When they colonized the area, they disregarded the fact that despite the Tutsi’s dominance, there were existing arrangements that gave a semblance of equality between the two ethnic groups. Upon the installation of a colonial regime the Germans, relied on the Tutsis aristocracy in asserting their rule over the territory. This further alienated the Hutus and what once was a bearable arrangement between them and the Tutsi aristocracy became worse under the German colonizers. The Germans also institutionalized a manner of distinguishing the Tutsis and the Hutus, giving more respect to the former while treating the latter as a much lower class. The basis was inarguably racist. Both the Germans the Belgians, who colonized Rwanda, had notions that the Tutsis are far superior to the Hutus which were primarily based on racial stereotypes. They believed that the Tutsis were destined to rule the Hutu and that since they are taller, “they were nobler and advanced then the Hutu” (Twagilimana 1998: 38). With such concepts, the Germans, who were the first colonizers, ruled Rwanda. Consequently, the policies created and implemented while ruling the colony heavily favoured the interests of Germany. However, the colonizers also saw to it that the interests of the Tutsis were also accommodated up to a certain extent if only to guarantee fealty and to prevent the possibility of an anti-colonial united front of the two ethnic groups. While this managed to appease Tutsi leaders, the Hutus became all the more conscious of their plight and alienation. Germany had to leave Rwanda after it lost World War I. However, this did not mean that the colony has been freed because the League of Nations granted Belgium the right to take over. The Orts-Milner Convention signed in 1919 allowed the Belgians to take control of the Rwanda and Burundi as reparations from Germany for occupying their neutral country during the course of the war. When the Belgians took over, they introduced certain policies that made the brewing enmity between the Tutsis and Hutus more serious. Before the Orts-Milner Convention, the Hutus already displayed opposition to the arrival of the Belgians. They attempted to block the passage of the Belgians as well as the Hutus in certain strategic areas of the colonial territory. What infuriated further the Hutus was that, upon instructions from the Belgians, King Musinga, a Tutsi sent a punitive expedition and managed to quell the rebellion through bloody fighting after a few weeks (Page 2003: 633). The previous arrangement wherein there was a semblance of joint administrative control between a Tutsi and a Hutu official over a district was abolished by the Belgians. Busozo and Bukunzi, Hutu kingdoms that were symbols of the Hutu’s sovereignty as an ethnic group were conquered by the Belgians and were put under the administrative control of the Tutsi king. While the Germans were the first to introduce racialist concepts, the Belgians were pushing the Hutus to grasp ethnocentrism, which is “the habit of seeing things only from the point of view of one’s group” (Andersen & Taylor 2008: 67). In their aim to establish a system of colonial administration that guarantees the absence of unity from among the ranks of the natives, the Belgians made sure isolate the Tutsis from the Hutus and lavished the former with superior positions in the political structure as well as economic concessions. This triggered the Hutus’ desire to wrest political and economic power not just from the Belgians but from the Tutsis as well. The Hutus no longer just wished for a free Rwanda but for one that is rid of Tutsis too. After World War II, a trend towards decolonization occurred in Africa. Belgium was also on the path of granting Rwanda its independence. At this point, the Hutus, who constituted the majority of the people, had already established a movement that struggled for Rwandan sovereignty. However, they were also preparing to end to the dominance of the Tutsis. It was in 1959 that the first acts of violence occurred. Dominique Mbonyumutwa, a Hutu sub-chief was mauled by members of a Tutsi political organization. While Mbonyumutwa mere suffered injuries, rumours were spread that he was killed and “this almost instantaneously sparked rural uprisings in several parts of the country: gangs of Hutu roamed the countryside, chasing out Tutsi inhabitants and burning houses” (Newbury 2002: 73). The killings that ensued resulted into the decimation of the ranks of the Tutsi leaders. This rendered the ethnic group’s political machinery unable to win the national election that was held in 1960. As a result, a government, dominated by the Hutus came into power, with Gregoire Kayibanda as president. Kayibanda’s government became the first to rule the Rwanda as a sovereign state. However, it did not make any effort at fostering national unity. Instead, it focused more on establishing firmer solidarity among the Hutus while at the same time alienating further the Tutsis. This later intensified into direct oppression which prompted thousands of Tutsis to flee and settle at refugee camps in countries where there are sizable populations of the ethnic group. Many of those who decided to stay met death in the hands of Hutu militiamen. Kayibanda’s regime, however, was also corrupt and this resulted in disillusionment among the ranks of some Hutu officers among in the Rwandan military. A coup d’état toppled the Kayibanda regime in 1973 and Juvenal Habyarimana took over. Despite bearing the hallmarks of a military dictatorship, the Habyarimana regime was able to lessen the gravity of the atrocities perpetrated by the Hutus against the Tutsis while it took concrete steps to improve Rwanda economically (Prunier 1995: 74-76). Although the Habyarimana regime was considerably more lenient towards the Tutsis, there were still sporadic cases of oppression and murder committed by the Hutus. The exiled Tutsis wanted to go back but were generally not allowed to do so. This prompted the Tutsis to establish the Rwandan Patriotic Front which aimed to oust the Habyarimana regime, seize political power and introduce a system in which Tutsis are granted equal rights as the Hutus. The civil war in Rwanda began. The Habyarimana regime did not only have to contend with an organized opposition from the Tutsis though. Its relatively moderate treatment of the Tutsis did not sit well with the hardliners among the Hutus. Habyarimana also faced opposition from fellow Hutus who believe that the Tutsis should not just be chased off from Rwanda but should be annihilated. The extremists further found Habyarimana as an obstacle to genocide against the Tutsis when he actively pursued peace with the RPF and signed the Arusha Accords, which clearly mandated “the RPF and the Rwandan army would integrate” and “the refugees would be allowed home” (Melvern 2000: 53). The Arusha Accords never took effect because Habyarimana was killed when his plane was shot down over Kigali Airport. Instead, the systematic and apparently planned genocide was initiated afterwards. The presentation of the chain of events leading to the genocide in Rwanda only proves that its cause is not simply because of one ethnic group’s instinctive hatred for the other. As history has shown, the Hutus and the Tutsis were not always at war with one another. Before the German and Belgian colonizers came, there was a long period of peace. However, the conflict between the two arose when the colonizers found this to be advantageous to their interest of over the territory. The genocide, therefore, can be considered as a historical consequence of the period when Rwanda was still a colony of Germany and then of Belgium. While the Hutu extremists may be blamed, it is necessary to recognize the historical factors also. List of References Andersen, M. and Taylor, H. (2008) Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth BBC News (18 December 2008) Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened [online] available from [16 August 2011] Mamdani, M. (2002) When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton: Princeton University Press Melvern, L. (2000) A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide. London: Zed Books New York Times (c. 1999) Children of Rwanda’s Genocide [online] available from [16 August 2011] Newbury, C. (2002) ed. by Lorey, D. and Beezley, W. Genocide, Collective Violence, and Popular Memory. Wilmington, DE: SR Books Page, M. (2003) Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Pottier, J. (2002) Re-imagining Rwanda: Conflict, Survival and Disinformation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Prunier, G. (1995) The Rwanda Crisis: 1959-1994; History of a Genocide. London: Hurst Twagilimana, A. (1998) Hutu and Tutsi. New York, NY: Rosen Publishing Group Read More