Genocide can be defined as the deliberate mass slaughter of a given group of people, especially one of a particular ethnicity or nation. This act is mainly driven by the fear or in most cases hatred of foreigners, commonly referred to as xenophobia. There are some internationally known cases of genocide tracing back to the 1940s where the term was first coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to refer to the Nazi policies of destroying the existence of national and ethnic groups including the European Jews that did not conform to the German ideologies at that time. Though later on, it became a radical movement, Nazi was a political party that was found by Anton Drexler in 1920 although the self-proclaimed German dictator Adolf Hitler took over the mantra of leadership in 1921 and ran it up to mid-1940s. The party started off as fascism and showed ideologies for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. But it also integrated a great deal of fervent anti-Semitism and scientific racism which later on Hitler drove to the extreme creed of nationalism. In the long run, these drastic measures coupled with Hitler's hatred for the Jews resulted in the scariest extermination in all history of humanity, claiming millions of lives. Simply put, the Nazi movement was the first case of genocide that drew international attention leading to the United Nations in 1948 in the shadow of the Holocaust to organize the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It was this convention that established genocide as an international crime, and nations all over the world undertook to prevent and punish this crime. The conference drew a more profound definition to this crime against humanity and established severe penalties against individuals who would be found culpable, raising worldwide awareness on cases of genocide with other bodies coming up to fight genocide and preaching peace and brotherhood among peoples of different nations and tribal classes (Lippman, 2017).
However, cases of genocide across the globe were still witnessed with Rwanda recording the most bizarre case ever after the Nazi genocide in 1994 where tribal clashes broke down between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes. This case raised a lot of questions on just why the policies that were put in place by the convention in 1948 failed to stop this massacre on its initial stages, or better still help in its prevention. Because international peacekeeping bodies and other humanitarian bodies had been lightened on this matter and were better equipped to fight it, it would have been expected that they step in and contain the situation. But instead, the mass killing went on for over three months and claimed about 800,000 innocent lives. The Rwandan genocide happened in 1994 in which members of the ethnic group Hutu murdered 800,000 of their Tutsi counterparts, who happen to be the minority in the country making up only about 15% of the entire population against Hutu's 85%. This 100 days massacre ironically resulted in approximately 2 million Hutu refugees fleeing the country as the Tutsi-led Rwandese Patriotic Front finally gained control of the country through a military offensive. The genocide was heightened by the death of President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when the plane he was aboard was shot down on 6th April 1994 above the Kigali airport allegedly by the then leader of a Tutsi rebel group Paul Kagame and some of his associates.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is believed, however, that the plane crash only provided the Hutus with the perfect grounds to launch their organized campaign of violence and clearly planned strategy of exterminating the Tutsis. The Tutsis had in the recent past from as early 1990 started to create havoc for the Hutu administration as the Rwandan exiles formed a group known as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) launching an offensive against the government from their Ugandan base. The movement was gaining momentum, and the government felt threatened by RPF which was mostly comprised of Tutsis blaming the government for failing to address the Tutsi refugees. The government characterized all Tutsis in Rwanda as accomplices of RPF while at the same time deeming all Hutus in the opposition as traitors. In as much as there were attempts to reach a peace agreement in 1992, it proved almost impossible to achieve an understanding between the Tutsis and the Hutus harmoniously. The political tension only intensified and on the 6th of April 1994 president Habyarimana’s political assassination served as the breaking point. Following this crash, the then U.S Deputy Assistant Secretary of State warned of a substantial likelihood that widespread violence could break out, and true to his word, in just a matter of hours Hutu rebels had surrounded the capital and taken over the streets of Kigali. In the next one day, they had successfully swept clean Rwanda’s moderate leadership creating a political vacuum which allowed them control of the country. At around the same time, RPF was marching forward into the country, and the only way to dismantle the movement was to weaken their support system. The rebels had earlier on prepared a list of Tutsis in the country who they believed had connections with the move. As they set out to terminate them individually, the government radio stations called upon Rwandans to murder their traitorous neighbors. Rwandans, in this case, were the Hutus and the ungrateful neighbors were the Tutsis.
Since this genocide had been foreseen through the apparent tension between RPF and the government over the previous four years, there was a good chance that relevant institutions and humanitarian bodies like the United Nations had enough time to intervene and bring peace between the two divides before things fell out of place. But they did not. There is the alleged clearly coordinated and closely networked series of planning that went into the massacre way before it happened that made it virtually impossible for any attempt to intervene without causing its sudden explosion that could end up hurting more people than was initially intended. It was like a time bomb ticking in which case it would be risky to try detonating it if there was even the slightest doubt that the expertise employed may fail triggering its unplanned explosion. The relevant humanitarian bodies felt ill-equipped to handle the situation and preferred not to interfere as opposed to worsening the situation. Secondly, there was the issue of lack of common interest. It is believed that while the United States, for instance, could send military intervention, it opted not to since Rwanda was not rich in any mineral from the economic perspective. Then there was the Battle of Mogadishu the year before (1993) in which America had sent its troops to Mogadishu but had been brutally killed by Somalis and their tortured bodies dragged through the streets. America was therefore apprehensive about sending any troops to Africa. The United Nations Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), on the other hand, could not help since it had fewer soldiers and were not given the power to shoot. They were only capable of passing information about the progress of the two warring divides. In the genocide, a particular class of individuals played a more profound role than others. This has to be the rebels who fought hard to exterminate the opposition to reassure and preserve their majority power and status in the political arena (Meierhenrich, 2014).
In my opinion, the media played a vital role in the genocide. In the beginning, it warned of a looming national catastrophe. This sign provided enough room for the stakeholders to act. Then when the riots started in Kigali, the media was on the forefront of instigating the public. Local media houses were used to incite Hutus against Tutsis while international media waves took more of a monitoring role, providing lopsided and largely overdue coverage of the atrocities. In as much as there has been the awareness on genocide and people have been urged to embrace the spirit of brotherhood, in the face of an actual genocide many still prefer not to act and watch as the killings go on, mainly because they stand to gain nothing by intervening. People, organizations, and nations prefer to engage their powers where they stand to reap out of. It is the mentality of having more to lose than to gain that holds them back. But with the right to protect the international norm, this mindset could change since it now becomes more of their obligation than personal interest to offer military-based interventions. One concern that strikes every individual is the church's role. It is supposed to preach love and peaceful coexistence. But is it doing enough to avert possible future acrimonies based on such discriminating grounds as gender or race? The Rwandan administration has done its best to reconcile and unite Rwandans, but more effort still needs to be put in by other organizations and most important religious and spiritual bodies in uniting people. The church has so far been on the forefront in preaching forgiveness and healing. By encouraging participants and non-participants of the genocide to admit the roles they played in the genocide and ask for forgiveness, and forgive each other, the healing process has been achieved, eventually. It has also been on the forefront preaching positive ideologies like humanity and friendship. These positive ideologies gradually replace the negative ones that incite hatred. By learning to embrace family hood, it becomes easier to protect each other and do away with any ill intentions.
References
Lippmann, M. (2017). The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide: fifty years later. In Genocide and Human Rights (pp. 11-110). Routledge.
Meierhenrich, J. (2014). Introduction: the study and history of genocide (pp. 3-55). Oxford University Press USA.
