Conflict Of Genocide In Rwanda example essay topic

Genocide According to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, this inhumane act, known as Genocide, is briefly defined as follows, .".. acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group... ". (Journal of Peace). Unfortunately, throughout history, such acts seem to be intervened upon when it is merely too late.

In the country of Rwanda, over a period of one hundred days, over 800,000 people were murdered over their ascribed race. A similar situation is currently taking place at this moment in time in Sudan, where 30,000 people have recently been killed and the numbers are still rising. However, the international community has not yet responded to prevent further killings. These two countries seem to share similar histories which may have lead to the horrifying, ethnically grounded acts of genocide and racial cleansing. In this paper, we will compare and contrast the similar historical and social-political conditions of these two countries. We will also evaluate the international community's response to the current situation in Sudan and the likelihood of a resolution.

In 1994, genocide lasted in Rwanda for merely 100 days, killing over 800,000 people. "This was the fastest, most thoroughly ruthless programme of 'racial killing' yet implemented in the world" (Journal of Peace). The victims were those who had the ascribed identity of a Tutsi. Those who belonged to Rwanda's military or were of the Hutu identity, carried out these inhumane acts of racial purification. There has been conflict between these two identity groups of Rwanda dating back to pre-colonial times. Many blame the act of genocide on Rwanda's past history between these two identity groups.

Let us now take a brief look at Rwanda's history and examine the accuracy of this argument. The pre-colonial era of Rwanda consisted of expansion of the country into neighboring areas, belonging to both Hutu and Tutsi kingdoms. Class stratification of these two groups was unclear and based largely upon social status. As Rwanda began to develop, the term Hutu and Tutsi became status terminology rather then an ethnic identity.

The Tutsi resembled those of the higher status, and within this class stratification you could even belong to bother the Hutu and the Tutsi, namely the Twa. Prior to the arrival of the European colonizers, social solidarity seemed to be much greater. As the European colonizers arrived, so did conflict. As the Belgians began to colonize Rwanda, they believed the Tutsis were superior to the Hutus and Twa. The Hutus and Twa became inferior to the Tutsis as Belgians and Tutsis excluded them from office under the system of indirect rule. Soon later, in 1933, identity cards were issued which, ascribed the racial origin of the individual, as being either Hutu or Tutsi.

This was one of the premier steps to the separation of society into two different ethnic groups. The birth of racist ideologies sprung as each group developed growing hatred and stereotypes toward one another. The majority of those killed in the 1994 genocide were the Tutsi of the south, having absolutely no difference with their Hutu neighbor except for their identity. Unfortunately, at this time, the Hutu and Tutsi characterization was embedded into their culture and the chance of having just a Rwandan identity had little hope.

So, what then, was actually the cause of Genocide? Was it really just a hatred between two mere indescribable identities placed upon the people of Rwanda? There seems to be a lot more to the scenario then just that. In the early 90's, Rwanda's economic condition started to go downhill fast. The sale of coffee, one of their major exports, was cut by two thirds in the year 1986. This seemed to be the spark of Rwanda's worsening economy.

In 1990, the national currency of Rwanda was devalued by two-thirds in one year. "According to an EIU report of early 1994, the economic situation was worsened by the government's failure to install full democratic government in like with the Arusha Accords agreed between 1991 and 1994 with international and African community" (Journal of Peace, 34). Political problems began to arise, as divisions of political parties set a split between the North and South. The Hutu of the North held most of the power over the entire country. Corruption among the Rwandan government ran vamped as the media and journalists were bought over to stay quiet.

Soon, the Rwandan Hutu was forced to believe that they had one common enemy, the Tutsi who now were a totally different enemy race. People who use to be so similar, and achieved the status of being a Tutsi or Hutu by the Belgians, were now ethnic enemies. All other political and economic conflicts were now put aside as this, somehow historically inevitable, conflict arose. Many believe that Genocide in Rwanda occurred because the Rwandan people had the tendency to do what they were told. The Rwandan government used the Hutu's collective memory to their advantage as they achieved a widespread compliance that killing the Tutsi was a civic duty of all Hutu, rather then an act of cruelty.

There arose a racist ideology that the Tutsi were traders and a threat to the Hutus and Rwanda. They even believed that women and babies, even in the womb, were corrupt and should be executed. These acts were carried out in a very efficient manner as both the Rwandan military and also the Hutu population arose against this now traitor Tutsi population, killing over 800,000 Tutsi in a matter of merely one hundred days. It seems that in times of political and economic conflict, "nothing unites a divided society so effectively as a common enemy" (Journal of Peace, 50). As these political and economic conflicts arose, it was decided that the only way out of this struggle was to eliminate the Tutsi population. Many of the Tutsi population could not be saved, only a few survived as they fled to neighboring countries or hid in ceilings or swamps.

This is a horrifying part of our history and why it wasn't stopped sooner is unknown. Unfortunately, genocide usually only ends when it is too late. As we have seen in our past history of the Holocaust, and now Rwanda, Genocide needs to be stopped before it can be categorized as Genocide. And yet, we still have not learned from our history as we begin to experience a very similar situation today in Sudan. Similarly, today in Sudan, there seems to be the occurrence of the eruption of genocide. Where Rwanda seemed to somehow have kept the international world from knowing about the murderous acts of genocide, Sudan has not.

"With the Sudanese government and its ethnic militia well along in their campaign of murder, rape, pillage, and forced displacement, and after several Security Council resolutions on the Darfur crisis, the governments of the world can no longer claim not to know" (Internet). There has currently been reports of over 30,000 deaths and millions fleeing to bordering countries. Who then, are the victims of this ethnic cleansing and why? To answer this we must take a look into a brief history of the country.

In 1956, independence was granted to the country by its British colonizers. Since then there has been a divide between the north and the south and a civil war among the two areas. This war can not be categorized as genocide because of the boundaries imposed by Britain, categorizing this as an internal problem only. The conflict presently in Sudan is primarily between the Jihad and any Christian or non-Muslim. This conflict is sponsored and encouraged by the Sudan government.

In 1983, the El Numeri, who took over the government in 1969, imposed Shar " ia law, as an effort to purify Islam. "Muslim law from the 7th century, limits the status of women, relegates non-Muslims to the second class, and calls for stoning for adultery, amputations for thefts, and death for apostasy" (Internet) The installation of this law, sparked an upheaval of a southern resistance, formulated to stop the northern aggression, and impose a free, democratic government. "Under El Tu rabi, the National Islamic Front's (NIF) stated agenda is to turn Sudan into the brotherhood's concept of a model Islamic state and use its location, agricultural lands, and mineral resources to enable the radical Islam ization of the entire continent. And they are willing to use any and all means such as deception, manipulation, corruption, exploitation, ruthless force, and genocide in their relentless confiscation of all land and the repression, conversion, or eradication of all civilians in the way" (Internet). Their efforts to purify the nation into an Islamic state is currently working. There is a degree of different genocide tactics used to purify their nation and they will be further described in the following paragraph.

Sudan has a burned earth policy which allows for food and medicine to be used as weapons of war. Aid organizations such as the UN and other organizations, who are acceptable to Khartoum, are not allowed to go near areas where famine is worst. So intern, food and medicine only help those who are committing the acts of genocide, rather then those who need the help most. Other tactics used are as follows: "Ethnic cleansing is carried out by massacre, bombing civilian schools, hospitals, and other buildings, and planting land mines around those towns that have been taken over by the NIF. The Nuba 'peace camps,' in and around the Nuba Mountains are nothing less than concentration camps where survival depends on renouncing Christianity.

Deception and misinformation by Khartoum are used to keep the international communities from knowing about or interfering in the war. They say the presence of Christian churches in Khartoum show they practice religious freedom and that all they want to do is help all the people. They deny that the slave trade exists, yet many government leaders own slaves. Slavery is endemic to the Sudan. Bag gara Muslims routinely enslaved the neighboring cattle herding Dinka before the first World War, at which time the British enforced a ban on slavery. Since 1990, however, the NIF has rearmed and supplied the tribesmen with horses and other equipment so that they will carry on a holy war against the southern villages.

Their battle pay consists of captured booty and slaves" (Internet). Christianity and any other religions, besides Islam, have been totally destroyed in the north, and any remaining religious groups of the south are currently being destroyed. Their racial cleansing practices are even going as far as taking any non-Muslim children and changing their names to Arabic, and creating new lives for these easily influenced children, forcing upon them their Arabic ways. Rwanda and Sudan seem to share somewhat similar histories.

Both have been colonized by European countries and when they were granted independence, many problems arose. Rwanda's problems resulted from economic and political adversary, which it's government felt the only way out was to place the blame on the Tutsi population which lead to genocide. Similarly, Sudan's problems resulted from political leaders enforcing the Islamic laws and religion upon its nation and any non-converters or other religious groups were, and still are, victims of genocide. So why then, after learning from the Nazi Holocaust, and even more recently the conflict of genocide in Rwanda, why does this problem still exist? How are thousands of people dying everyday in Sudan? This is a problem that is now recognized world-wide and it still has not been stopped.

What then, is the response of the international community and is there any likelihood or resolution? The international community has had little to no response regarding efforts to stop this genocide. Because genocide is apparently a very difficult crime to prove, most foreign powers have stayed out of the situation. It seems that the few allegations that have described the situation as genocide, are far too little and do not provide enough proof for the international community to stop this obvious case of genocide. There has been absolutely no meaningful international forces deployed that could have any affect on stopping the massacre. The little response of the international community is disheartening.

Because many feel there is no other way to categorize these acts, of no other then, civil conflict is outrageous. Genocide is a act that is extremely difficult to prove. Since there are multiple groups of ethnicity's and religions affected by these acts, it is nearly impossible to prove genocide, because in order to do so, it must affect one specific group. This is why, many believe this to be an act of ethnic cleansing, a civil conflict, one the international law can not stop. Throughout our history there have been numerous accusations of genocide, namely the Nazi Holocaust and the Rwanda situation in 1994.

It is very insignificant that we have not learned from our past, that these acts must be stopped and prevented. Apparently, what must be done is a change in international law. Allowing such acts as the one presently occurring to be stopped before it is too late..