Genocide In Rwanda example essay topic

In Priestley's "Wrong Ism", he claims that nationalism is not the strength that binds a country together, but rather all of the small local areas we are all accustomed to growing up in that gives us strength. Priestley considers nationalistic ideas and movements to be headed by people who have a love of power and who have left out their regional ties. They no longer have feelings for the areas they came from and any loyalty developed over their lifetime is watered down. Priestley feels regionalism needs to be given more credit. He assumes it provides us with roots and a sense of attachment to our community which affect people's lives in such a way that it creates a unique bond that can be very hard to break.

So in a sense, regionalism shapes our identities and I agree with his assumption that people view themselves more as part of their region rather than a part of their nation. Loyalty to one's region can be compromised when individuals allow national power and greed to destroy their roots. There are many examples of how nationalism tries to take over a region to destroy its people. For instance genocide, in nearly all examples, has been started by a power-hungry national figure who has an agenda in mind that never takes into account what a local area's wish might be for their future. Hitler is an example of this type of authoritarian oppressor who had a very complex national strategy in place to exterminate the Jews. He certainly did not consider or recognize regional differences in Europe, but rather put forth his own agenda.

Genocide is on a whole different level than all other crimes against humanity. The circumstance I will describe shows how Priestley's concept of internationalism also comes into play showing how our global watchdog agencies, such as the UN, can be slow to respond to an atrocity. For the most part, the UN has avoided and has not responded to many genocidal conflicts. Every time subjects of genocide or other similar crimes against humanity have come up, debate was intense.

This probably occurred because of the many different world perspectives and ideas concerning human suffering. In addition, the punishment of genocide deals with the crime after the annihilation of people occurs. The real problem to be dealt with is that of prevention of such crimes. It seems that a large percentage of every population are ready to obey national authority and be controlled, especially when many of the people are suffering from oppression and mistreatment. An example supporting Priestley's statements is seen in the chronology of genocide in Rwanda that started in 1918. This atrocity continued through the 100-day slaughter in 1994, with hundreds of thousands in refugee camps many years later.

When Belgium governed Rwanda, ethnic identity cards were introduced to separate the two different Tutsi monarchs: the Hutus and the Tutsis. When the Tutsi king died in 1959 the Hutu majority was led to kill hundreds of thousands of Tutsi minority to gain power. Experts say that genocide in Rwanda was not simple hatred between two tribes, but was planned in advance by high-ranking corrupt Hutu politicians together with Belgium influences who did not want to share power with the Tutsi minority. Many people believe that there was much brainwashing by these leaders before the genocide even began. Mr. Boutros-G hali, the Secretary General of the UN at the time, called for swift action on the Rwandan genocide. This council, under America's leadership, procrastinated.

The U.S. wanted to avoid the situation because of the controversy, which occurred in the 1993 Somalia operation. The U.S. made the argument that not all of the murders that occurred in Rwanda were genocidal in nature. Over half of the Tutsi tribe was murdered in one form or another, mostly from being hacked to death with machetes. This was clearly an excuse to avoid the resolution made in the 1948 international convention which makes it mandatory to take immediate action if any acts of genocide are identified. If the UN had acted faster and more professional who knows how many more people would be alive today. This shows how nations can sometimes worry more about their reputations than about doing the right thing.

The countries being accused for the Rwandan genocide are Belgium, France, and the United States. Belgium is being blamed because for the most part, they created the hatred between the Hutus and the Tutsis when they segregated the two tribes. The U.S. is accused of not taking up its moral responsibility as the major world power because we limited our involvement only to humanitarian assistance. These two groups of people may have coexisted in some form of peace if the outside government leaders and the radio hadn't spread propaganda. This example clearly shows that J.B. Priestley is correct in his claims that one's national government is something that always needs its citizens to be vigilant.

On reason genocide occurred was because of Belgium politicians tried to influence and control part of Africa and weren't affected by history, concerns or lifestyles of these two local tribes. They tried to force their own form of nationalism to eventually take control this area of the world for their own benefit. Unfortunately, many areas of the world can be easily influenced by promises that nationalism will better their existence. Sometimes these outside influences are so strong that they will cause the inhabitants to believe the cause is more important than their regionalism ideals.

Priestley was right when he said "we need internationalism to save the world and to broaden and heighten our civilization" and that "we hear far too little from UN special agencies". This is apparent when looking at the slow response made by the UN in the ongoing Rwandan case. In conclusion, even in modern day society, regionalism is what gives us a sense of community, but that can be tainted.