LINCOLN SCHOOL

Learning from Rwanda

Personal Project 10th Grade - Mr. Torres
Adrian Madrigal
5/15/2015

This written work aims to review the events lapsed during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda,
and analyze the roles of different parties. It then points out what went wrong, what could
have been different, and possible lessons to retain. This work is a total of 8,161 words.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page.............................................................................................................................. 0
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 1
Part I: Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

Summary of Conflict
Ethnic Groups
Conflict Sides
Views of the International Community
Genocide Convention

Part II: Historical Antecedents ............................................................................................... 6

Ethnic Differences
Colonization
Revolutions
Habyarimana

Part III: Aftermath .................................................................................................................. 8

Effects on World Affairs

Effects on Rwanda
Appliance to Crises

Part IV: What Went Wrong .................................................................................................. 11

Propaganda
Actions of the International Community
Identity Cards
Arusha Accords
Refugees and Refugee Camps

Part V: What Could Have Been ............................................................................................ 15

Evading and Preventing Genocide

Ending Quicker
Aftermath Unification
Timing
Perfect and Ideal Conclusions

Part VI: Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 18

Result Weighing
Importance of Diplomacy and History

Appendix: Survey Responses Analysis ................................................................................ 20

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................... 27
1

Part I: Introduction
Stories hold conflict and contrast, highs and lows, life and death, and the human struggle
and all kinds of things.
-David Lynch

Throughout history, humanity has encountered a variety of crises and events which
have changed the very path we walk on. Some were for the best and some were for the
worst. In all of these though, we can learn and analyze the aspects of each situation. One
such event was the Rwandan Genocide; an extremely interesting case which brought a
small country into international light. Despite a myriad of solutions and preventions, the
conflict erupted and caused much harm to Rwanda. Many things went wrong that could
have been prevented. For the Rwandan Genocide, and history in general, it is important to
investigate what antecedents and war atrocities helped to ignite and continuously fuel the
conflict. To take an analytical approach, critical thinking skills can be employed to predict
how these could have been different if the situation had been tackled more efficiently.

Knowing what the Rwandan Genocide was is key to understanding the rest of the
paper. As its name implies, the crisis was genocide taking place in the small country of
Rwanda. The main participants in it were the most prevalent ethnic groups: the Tutsi which
constituted around 15% of the population, and the Hutu which constituted around 84%; just
to give an idea of the number gap. Various groups formed with objectives varying from
trying to stop the genocide, to fighting back, to inciting further killings. With years of
grievances behind, genocide eventually erupted in April of 1994, lasting three whole
months until July. By the end of the genocide, around three fourths of the Tutsi population
was murdered, nearly accomplishing the Hutu objective of complete extermination of the
Tutsi group; along with leaving a staggering total of 800,000 dead.

Although the Hutu and Tutsi groups were the protagonists of the genocide, there
was yet another notable ethnic group during this time: the Twa. Together, these three all
played a role in the genocide, and each had different goals. The Tutsi were the privileged

group, being regarded as smarter. The Hutu constituted the majority of the population, and
thus felt oppressed by these few with power. The Twa had been in Rwanda for possibly
longer than the other two, and were generally rejected by both groups. The Hutu were
bloodthirsty for murder, the Tutsi tried to run and hide, and the Twa went largely
unreported but many still suffered death at the hands of the other groups, even though they
had no quarrel.

Both Hutu and Tutsi hurried to form groups depending on what they wanted out of
the war. Strength in numbers was key in order to have a better chance at surviving and
retaliating. Each ethnic group formed one group which had a large amount of supporters
and members. The Hutu group was called Interhamwe, with their roots on political
organizations. Interhamwe became the main entity to direct the killings, organizing itself in
order to strike with power that would be hard to evade. The Tutsi group was the RPF, or
Rwandan Patriotic Front. Its members were mainly refugees and rebels, and thus its
beginnings were around the borders of Rwanda. This group did not wish to fight just to kill,
rather, they wanted to stop the genocide as soon as possible, without any preference for an
ethnic group. However, they would not hesitate to kill citizens or to use force if it would
help them in accomplishing their goals. A third group formed as well, though this was not
properly from Rwanda: UNAMIR. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
formed a few months prior to the genocide, and was trying to keep tensions at bay. When
conflict broke out, UNAMIR used its peacekeeping methods to organize ceasefires and
protect citizens from murders by sheltering them under their command. It was not a
fighting group since the UN code prevented them from doing anything that would worsen
the situation. Despite this, Interhamwe saw it as a threat and as an obstacle to their goals,
and attacked them in the situations where it was needed.

Despite the atrocities actively happening in Rwanda, the International Community

surprisingly did not give it the attention it deserved, or anywhere near. The views of
Rwanda itself did not help in this either. With its government collapsed but with a past of
being Hutu, government-controlled stations, buildings, and personnel promoted and aided
in the killings instead of putting an end to them, or even condemning them. USA, with such

a big influence, stayed out of the conflict without giving it much coverage or attention. This
was to avoid citizens from knowing and pushing the country into taking action. The lack of
USAs cooperation kept other countries from helping out. The only outstanding country
that tried to do something was Canada, by organizing groups and aid to halt the genocide.
Yet it was not given much support or cheer of any kind by any country, and the resources
allocated to them were scarce. Even though Canada had a huge intention of helping, they
were unable to do this without other countries moving along with them.

During all this time, the word genocide has been used pretty loosely, with its
general dictionary definition of the deliberate killing of a large group of people (Oxford
Dictionaries). But under stricter parameters, what exactly defines genocide? The
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide establishes this
definition in legal terms, and outlines what counts as acts of genocide. The CPPCG comes
from the United Nations General Assembly in an attempt to help countries identify and
prevent these acts. Article II of the CPPCG states the formal definition
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

As mentioned previously, it also states what acts are considered punishable for the
crime of genocide
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Under these parameters, there is plenty of evidence pointing towards genocide. The
argument is easily backed up by the aforementioned articles. The Hutu had slaughtered the
Tutsi due to a hate of the entire ethnicity, wishing to eliminate them completely to claim
power for themselves. They were also often mutilated and heavy psychological damage
was also caused. As will be later analyzed, all of the punishable acts were committed as
well. To anyone viewing this from the outside and hearing a summary of the conflict, it is
more than clear that the conflict indeed is genocide. Despite this, a few argue against this
and instead form an argument for Civil War, particularly those defending themselves
against accusations. The argument for civil war stems from the belief that some Tutsi rebels
initiated the conflict out of a struggle for political power and not for the elimination of an
ethnicity. Eventually, the Tutsi responded to the Hutu attacks and brought themselves into
the conflict, no longer being a purely one sided conflict. Sides like the RPF and Interhamwe
were created and it became a struggle between these groups to take control of the country.
Some also claim that the distinction between ethnicities was not crystal clear and Rwandans
were a single group, due to years of crossbreeding.

Conflict does not erupt out of the blue. The Rwandan Genocide had a history which
helped to ignite it, and carefully planned events which helped propel it into causing further
harm. The history, or even a single fight or argument can create extreme tension that drives
individuals to act. Although people often hear of a conflict breaking out, the reasons why
are seldom analyzed, which could help in the solution of that issue and prevention of other
future ones by fortifying the bases of the issue.

Part II: Historical Antecedents

Conflict grows out of ignorance and suspicion.
-Gordon B. Hinckley

These historical antecedents progressed in stages, eventually leading to further

complications. The first aspect that caused a division and upset members of the country was
not exactly an event per se, but rather a difference. These were the differences in
ethnicities. All three ethnicities were once a part of the Bantu people, who shared a
common origin and similar languages. Eventually, more distinguished differences were
shaped up and the current inhabitant ethnicities came to be. The Twa were believed to be
the original settlers, and took the role of hunters yet were largely ignored and rejected. The
Hutu focused on agriculture, maintaining an average lifestyle. The Tutsi however, had
plenty of characteristics that made them stand out from the others. Tutsi had more control
despite their small population. They were taller while Hutu were average and Twa were
pygmies. They were pastoralists and herders which allowed for a higher lifestyle. Also
physical, they were whiter and had bigger heads, thus considered stronger and smarter.
Overall, they proved to have characteristics that made them seem superior over the other
ethnicities, which would play a big role in colonization.

Rwanda has had a history of colonization by two main countries: Germany and
Belgium respectively. Germans initially started this gap between ethnicities with their
arrival in 1897. With their knowledge on anthropology, Germans took an approach which
made them favor the Tutsi due to these previously mentioned physical characteristics. Their
bigger heads made them seem smarter and being taller made them see more dominant.
Because of this, they sided with the Tutsi in order to ease their ruling there, and introduced
European elements into the country like capitalism and tax, weakening the old system of
trade. Their colonial ruling was however short-lived. World War I happened, leading to
Belgium taking over Rwanda and later imposing rightful control over it through a UN trust
territory as stated in the Treaty of Versailles, one of the treaties that came as a result of the
end of World War I. The Belgians did not look out for Rwanda like they could have, and

did not assure that Rwanda would prosper like they could have. Belgians took the system
that had been instilled by the Germans and took advantage of the territory to better their
own country. Hutu lifestyle was in a constant decrease, and Tutsi rule over the country
gradually decreased through the imposed voting system. Through quantitative factors on
property, Rwandans were provided identity cards to distinguish them as one of the three
groups. This illusion of differences was strengthened as Rwandans were educated to
identify themselves with their own ethnicity and purpose, causing great resentment to the
Hutu while the Tutsi enjoyed their high seat.

Over the following years, these tensions were sharpened instead of diffused. These
tensions reached one of its many apices in the 1959 Rwandan Revolution. The Hutu had
had enough of the Tutsi ruling, resulting in an uprising which lasted for 2 years and scared
thousands of Tutsi into exile, and turned Rwanda into a dangerous territory for the ethnic
groups to mutually interact. These exiled Tutsi eventually formed the RPF, and invaded
Rwanda and its then-current government. This would begin the Rwanda Civil War in 1990
up until 1993, when a peace agreement was implemented and a ceasefire was decided. Not
much time passed before another incident occurred. On April 6, 1994, then-president
Juvnal Habyarimana was returning home on a plane. Unexpectedly, a ground-to-air
missile was shot, destroying the plane along with Habyarimana, and destabilizing the
government. The country had nothing to stand on and Habyarimanas death had finished off
what little hope of redemption there was. The country was torn to shreds. The Rwandan
Genocide had begun.

Part III: Aftermath

A conflict begins and ends in the hearts and minds of people, not in the hilltops.
-Amos Oz

Fast-forward three months and the genocide had ended, but not without
consequences. The magnitude of Rwanda had effects that would not only come to affect the
country and people themselves but also influence other countries and figures into making
statements that stemmed from the genocide. Hutu refugees from the aftermath eventually
caused a domino effect in Zaire (present-day Democratic Republic of Congo) leading them
to invade and cause a civil war there. Lessons from genocide prevention have been applied
to territories like Burundi and Darfur, and could be applied to many others like Syria, South
Sudan, and Central African Republic. Rwanda itself was left devastated, and even though
nations did not react in time to stop they were very willing to help Rwanda on its way to
reconstruction. Financial aid and resources were steadily supplied, and dozens of countries
flocked to help mend one of the worst conflicts in history. This gesture of kindness was
moving to say the least; with the world showing it could help a country in need even if they
would not reap so much from doing so. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
was also set up to help find and trial those responsible for genocide. 20 years later and the
ICTR is just now getting close to concluding its work. With 90 accused, it has managed to
go far and carve the path for human rights and criminal justice processes, and remains a big
display of such. Finally, in the aftermath of the situation, countries started regretting the
lack of intervention and troop support that could have radically changed the path the
genocide would have taken. Big powers with the ability to help Rwanda saw calls for help
as a minor annoyance. If the Rwandan Genocide left one thing clear was that abstaining
from helping will cause a snowball effect that will lead to a worse result. This valuable but
costly lesson has taught countries the value of intervention. 1993 to 2001 USA president
Bill Clinton has stated various time throughout the years his deep regret of the situation that
he has and will carry for years to come. He has also stated how many lives could have been
saved.

If we'd gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were
lost...it had an enduring impact on me.
I do feel a lifetime responsibility, I feel like a lot of people had something to do with it.

-Bill Clinton

Although Rwanda was now able to rest after 3 months of a seemingly perpetuate
nightmare, it still had to deal with both physical and psychological chaos the killings had
left. The land itself was destroyed. Churches, offices, and houses were destroyed as killers
stopped at nothing to get to their victims. The use of armed vehicles and roadblocks left the
terrain roughed up, and the grotesque splats of blood from the slashes of the machete left
blood stains throughout the nation. Across years of struggle and with the use of the
international help, they were eventually able to overcome the main bumps of this, and their
economy, education, and social stability took a positive increase. A democratic government
has also been achieved. Though questionable since the power remains in the hands of a
select few, it continues to be an improvement and so far has been effective and maintaining
balance. A new constitution was implemented, promoting concepts like equality and taking
measures to prevent a future genocide. The ethnic boundaries and identity cards have been
eliminated to unite the people as a single population: the original goal of the RPF. It goes
without saying that many citizens now live alongside those who massacred their friends and
family just two decades ago.

As mentioned earlier, conflicts happen for a reason. All conflicts can be traced back
to their first branches, and often have a complex and extensive background of more than
one key aspect. These eventually converge into a big tension point which delivers the big
result; what we would call the actual event. Having understood all the main mechanics and
events from the genocide was pivotal to analyzing how these points connect. How does one
figure out what incited conflict, what started it, and what fueled it? How can concepts so
seemingly distinct connect with others? What exactly went so wrong that caused one of the
biggest killings in the world? It is surprising to note that all the facets that follow were

derived from the very origins of the ethnic groups and the country, causing a snowball
effect until they were able to stand by themselves with enough details surrounding them.

10

Part IV: What Went Wrong

People like to say that the conflict is between good and evil. The real conflict is between
truth and lies.
-Miguel Angel Ruiz

Often, the role of the media has a big effect on the conflict. It can completely
change the perspective of the viewers. It can keep the issue going. It can even completely
change the story. Rwanda was not saved from the corrupting effects of the media. The main
effect of the media here though, was not through the regular television channels or
newspaper articles. Rather, propaganda (particularly inside the country) was extensively
invoked and manipulated in favor of those using it. It would not be impolitic to say that
media was the main player of the Genocide. Due to the financial status of most of Africa,
radio is the best means of establishing communication. This was further simplified by the
common background and singular language spoken in the small country. In prior years, the
government of Rwanda had managed to obtain foreign aid in order to distribute radios to a
significant portion of its population. The portability and easy use of radios meant that even
if not many numerically had radios, the messages would transfer around a certain area. In
1994, citizens were filled with hatred and the situation had favored them to do something
about it. Many of them were ignorant and uneducated on their actual past, and wished to be
part of the big group of benevolent murderers. Introduce radios to them and this was a
recipe for disaster.
The mass media have three major functions in genocide: demonizing the intended victims;
undermining support for the victims among members of the dominant group; and
encouraging mass participation and acquiescence in the genocide.

-Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies

Two major stations were broadcasting at the time: Radio Rwanda (government
owned) and RTMLC (privately owned). They broadcasted the voice of hate, projecting

11

racist statements towards anything that was not Hutu. They incited listeners to get to
work, and all knew what that meant. They used their messages to twist history and blame
past conflicts on Tutsis, using simple and careful words to transmit directly to the minds of
the people. They employed fallacies and false events that portrayed the Tutsi as a violent
and hyper-rational group. With well-established land and mobile bases, these stations
streamed 24 hours a day and even warned those who neglected participation. Never was it
used for good, but it certainly kept it running.

Another strong presence of propaganda took place before the genocide, in 1990. A
pro-Hutu newspaper article was written which took the name of Hutu Ten
Commandments. These focused on the superiority of Hutu and selfishness of the Tutsi in
achieving their goals. It also reiterated the fact that any type of relationship with the Tutsi
be it friendly, romantic, or financial, was an act of treason. These ten statements were well
engrained in the minds of citizens by the time genocide happened, and used an appeal to
fear to make Hutu follow them. Third forms of propaganda were speeches and public
reunions. A particular one given by a political figure was titled Do Not Let Yourselves be
Invaded, and stressed this phrase more than a couple times. It called for outright slaughter
and prevention, as perfectly displayed in an excerpt: Know that the person whose throat
you do not cut now will be the one who will cut yours. His half-hour passionate speech
was recorded and brought up later on, tying back with the radio propaganda.

The second aspect which turned the course (for the worst, as usual) of the genocide
was the mentality of the international community. Its reaction and action were less than
optimal and conflicted morally with what individuals would see correct. Perhaps the
biggest flaw in them was the denial that genocide was taking place, even though they held
the power of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
in their hands and could easily mold events around these points. Once something is
identified as genocide, countries involved in the UN are obliged to participate in concluding
it was fast as possible. Until then, the UN cannot do much. Perhaps because of the little
interest and lucrative benefits of Rwanda, diplomats were not interested in accepting it was

12

genocide even though multiple instances were attempted. The world saw the slaughters go
by without even acknowledging the evident massacre.

Or perhaps it did not have to do with that. Maybe the world could not allocate
resources to the genocide, though a combination of the two seems more likely. Why? The
Yugoslav Wars. This was a conflict in former Yugoslavia, lasting from 1991 to 2001.
Formed back in World War I, it held a large number of small nations which also struggled
for dominance and equality. In World War II with the invasion of the Axis powers, these
tensions strengthened until when claims of independence started pouring out. The first fight
was between Croats and Slavs. It was only temporarily stopped, before the other nations
started pitting against each other as this sentiment spread. War broke out in all corners of
the country and eventually ended in genocide for each nation to have power, much like the
Rwandan Genocide.

However, by taking place in Europe, the awareness and media coverage was much
greater. NATO was carefully and strategically monitoring the conflict, and the members of
it were allocating their strength to it. When the Rwandan Genocide began, NATO wished
and encouraged efforts to be focused on the Yugoslav Wars and for attention not to be
deviated. The presence of these two conflicts in the same time period was certainly
unfortunate and only muffled the Rwandan Genocide. It put countries in a dilemma
between what to do, especially seeing how long the Yugoslav Wars were dragging on.
Once again, the UN did little with their conventional peacekeeping methods and later
received much criticism for it, while NATO intervened with a 1995 bombing and stopped
it.

A couple more events only dug Rwanda into a deeper hole. First, the presence of
identity cards was the singular but clear proof of the ethnicity of an individual. This
facilitated the killings and illusion the Belgians had placed earlier. Had these not been
present at all, Rwanda would have grown together and no side could really have been
blamed for the missile, if it would have even happened. The Arusha Accords, a peace treaty
used to end the 1990 Civil War, was also intended to prevent genocide. Its implementation

13

and the security of the country were supposed be guarded by the international community,
but it was tough to gather the troops and money needed. Neither of the sides wished for
peace and neither trusted the other. Although its intentions were good and the text was
extensive, it did nothing if parties did not wish to agree to the conditions. Because of this
distrust, they only geared up further in preparation for what would be the genocide. The
final failure was how refugee camps were established. Because the killings were being
carried out across the entire country, the Tutsi had to walk all the way to the borders of
adjacent countries to look for refugee. Because of how sudden the crisis was, refugee
camps were improvised and did not satisfy the needs of refugees. Thousands flocked to
each spot, making them overcrowded, and in turn facilitated the potential of diseases to
spread. The large and concentrated amount of Tutsi presented themselves as perfect targets
for slaughter, as not all of them could scurry off quick enough. At the end of the war, the
Hutu took shelter in these to keep fighting and plan future attacks. If refugee camps had
been well planned, especially knowing further conflict could happen, refugees would have
enjoyed more security and the conditions of living every human being deserves.

14

Part V: What Could Have Been

The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral
conflict.
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

There were faults before, during, and after that altered all future events. If these
faults had gone otherwise, how would have the genocide been affected? First, the mentality
of the strongest, wealthiest, and influential members of the UN (namely the Permanent 5)
could have uniformly accepted the obvious indicators of genocide. This would have
committed the UN to stopping the conflict and everyone would have contributed their
piece, potentially evading the whole event if countries would have seen tensions and the
potential of genocide prior to the start. Educating the ethnic groups of what really
happened, without any form of bias, would allow them to see they were not that different
and all those distinctions were merely strategic, uniting them as one sooner and gradually
easing tensions. A third way to have prevented the genocide would have been early
identification. After all the harsh past each group went through, it seemed too clear that
further conflict could happen. Be it by having countries monitoring before or intervening
the moment it began, the situation could have been diffused while a more permanent
solution was found.

As soon as the genocide began, actions had to be taken to minimize the destruction
and number of casualties. If too much time passes, it becomes increasingly harder to put an
end. When the plane was shot, it was imperative to look for the key figures and initiators:
those who shot down the plane, those who broadcasted on the radio, and those who led
Interhamwe and in part the RPF. This would have weakened each important facet of the
genocide that kept it running. Once the bases had fallen, members would scurry off since
they had no support or orders to follow. The rest of the solutions to reach a conclusion were
up to the international community, as Rwanda was too invested in its fight. The main
reason why the impact of the UN in the conflict was so little was how limited they were in
what they could do. Their code prevented them from doing anything that could worsen the

15

situation, including shooting or defending citizens if it meant clashing with someone. Had
they been given the power to, they could effectively shield the Tutsi and would not have to
see them fall like trees in front of their eyes, preventing potentially hundreds of thousands
of deaths. The other potential contributor could have been USA, who was the only one with
the technology to jam radios. Despite being offered to pay for the costs of using it, it was
too stubborn to share the technology. As analyzed previously, the voice of hate was much
of what fueled the minds of people into committing further murders, and cutting off
mediums of communication or broadcasting messages of peace would make it hard to
instill morale and give orders. China and France were supplying a constant stream of
machetes, which were also considered tools and not weapons at the time, and thus were not
banned from use. Had these countries looked at the conflict from a humanitarian side, and
the trade and use of machetes banned sooner, fewer citizens would have the means
necessary to actually murder and the killings would have been slowed greatly, with only
those few with bigger weapons able to contribute. Finally, when Canada attempted to
help through Romeo Dallaire, they found underwhelming support. Dallaire was denied
support, troops, and the approval to carry out missions. For the one actually caring, others
could not even move a finger.

After the genocide, there were various issues that needed addressing in order for the
country to emerge from the scraps. Psychological centers could have been established to aid
with the most traumatized of victims. Victims of war can be traumatized for life, and those
that this trauma affected their life and sanity should have been checked with, helping to
preserve post-war lives and enabling them to work in the rebuilding. The procedure of a fair
government was something to begin as soon as the RPF took over. Although a democratic
one was set up, it was by force and questionable in its fairness. Certain goals to strive for
should have been clearly written in order for aid to be allocated most efficiently. All these
would shorten the recovery time and seal the chance for further conflict.

Ultimately, much of the problem came due to timing. Events involving the most
powerful countries had begun and ended in nearby years. The media was big but not big
enough, and people were not aware of enough. Technology was not enough and only a few

16

held what could have been a decisive ending. Aid just could not be provided and many
countries were still measuring what was worth it and what was not, having some sort of
fear for intervention. Had this happened in recent years, the world would know in a
heartbeat, and noble countries would be able to donate an arsenal of assets to stop or even
prevent the genocide. With more experience in mass killings, countries now know what can
work and what does not. In a span of 20 years (both back and ahead), the occurrences and
conclusions would have gone completely different.

With what was available back then though, it would have been possible to create a
set of perfect endings after certain points. Implementing historical education and
identification of genocide would have had nothing but positive effects, as Rwanda deviated
from its violent past. After starting, arms trade could have stopped and technology provided
to weaken the rate of murder, and finish it off with prosecution of the key figures and
intervention to diffuse any remaining will to fight. With a perfect tackling of the aftermath,
any chance of further conflict would have been nullified, and the country would prosper in
the most democratic and fairest way possible, with healthy individuals working with each
other. A fourth conclusion would have involved every country providing troops and money
in order to carry out an operation that would bring conflict to a standstill by using education
and a positive growth of the country. Certainly, perfect conclusions are unrealistic, but just
visualizing the impact these scenarios would produce and comparing them to the actual
event can give an idea of how much could have been spared.

17

Part VI: Conclusion

This inevitability of conflict motivates us today and echoes the reminder that freedom is not
given away and our national security is not achieved without sacrifice.
-Jim Walsh

After extensive history and examining chains of events, it is possible to examine the
links that shaped and built on the conflict as a whole. The history of Rwanda is essential in
leading an analytical approach to figure out what built tensions, what unleashed them, and
what allowed the genocide to remain standing. The Rwanda Genocide involved the death of
around 800,000 people due to long-lasting ethnic tensions and deceptions. Dozens of things
went wrong, ranging from colonization, to the international community, to the actions
citizens took during the genocide. With an extremely high rate of murder per day, the
deaths were staggering for how little it lasted, and shockingly systematic for such a simple
community. Other countries did little in the way of stopping it, and all we have today are
assumptions and guesses on what could have happened had they done as much as humanly
possible.

Had the genocide never occurred, Rwanda would more than likely remain obscure
to this day and with little support from other countries. Yet this would have been arguably
better than the big sacrifice done to grant it said things. Rwanda might have been able to
prosper and grow with unity, as they had many common traits in the ways of background,
culture, and language. With each thing done to calm the genocide, it would have been
significant in increasing the potential of the country; while war takes a huge toll and
setback on these goals. No deaths, ethnic hate, destruction, blames only graze the surface of
what would distinguish each scenario from the other.

As citizens of any country, it is extremely important to be informed of world issues,

and to push governments and organizations to take action. These events can affect people
directly or leave deep remorse down the road. Looking for weak points and fragile threads
is mandatory to maintaining the peace in the world. With new generations of diplomats

18

emerging, they must be nurtured to tackle situations not only as soon as they start, but
before they even do. Fine-tuning diplomats with each superseding generation will slowly
turn the world towards a brighter future for everyone who inhabits it. The genocide was a
memorable event that will go down in history. Blames are even today thrown all across the
globe and tensions between groups and countries and far from diminished. The crisis will
be a constant reminder of what regret looks like and how inept countries and organizations
can be in times of obvious need. Yet the world seemed to have learned nothing, as we
watch scores of underdeveloped and hate-ridden countries at the border of war every day,
ready to erupt into chaos. We may have learned to watch Rwanda, but have we learned to
watch what Rwanda was?

It is not often that nations learn from the past, even rarer that they draw the correct
conclusions from it.
-Henry Kissinger

19

Appendix: Survey Responses Analysis

For the elaboration and developing of the topic, a survey addressing various aspects of
history, diplomacy, and conflicts was created. The survey consisted of 13 varied questions
and received 50 responses, allowing for whole-number results. Most of the responders were
young people, which helps to see the perspectives of the generations that will shape
conflicts and diplomacy in the future. Below is a question-by-question analysis of the
answers.
Q1: How important and needed do you consider a job in diplomacy in the current
world? With 1 being unnecessary and 10 being crucial.

With an average of 7.68, the position is regarded as being quite important. While there are
many answers between 7 and 10, the other number with many scores is 4, leaving a pretty
wide gap. In order to achieve world peace, the job of diplomacy in various areas is
essential.
Q2: How dignified and respected do you consider a job in diplomacy? With 1 being
insignificant and 10 being very esteemed.

20

With an average of 7.16, we can see a slight drop and difference between importance and
dignity. The same trend of high responses from 8-10 and then again at 4 is present,
suggesting that some people might consider importance and dignity to be directly related. If
a job is not dignified, will anyone wish to take it? Quite unlikely, and thankfully diplomacy
is barely saved of falling into the lower scores.
Q3: How much do you believe the history of a nation or community affect the
sprouting of an issue? With 1 being an extensive past and 10 being spontaneous.

With an average of 4.58, the answers here are pretty equal across all numbers, but still hold
a strong number of responders who believe that the past is extremely important to the
development of conflict. The question to consider here is the difference between causes and
the catalyst. Nations or individuals would rarely take extreme measures if the sole attack
was a sudden one. It would upset, but rarely be enough for conflict to sprout.
Q4: What do you consider are the 2 most common motivations of countries to
intervene?

21

From the presented options, it seems the two most common motivations are resources and
influence. This matches up with much of what is heard in the world, and how a country
always helps out based on their interests. The second set of common motivations are the
evasion of further conflicts and pressure. Nations are often driven to take action even if
they do not want to in order to maintain safety of the country. Sadly, and possibly quite
truly, humanitarian reasons are not believed to be very common.
Q5: How influential do you think media can be in the lives of people? With 1 being no
effect and 10 being brainwashing.

With an average of 8.5, this question holds a very high average and an even higher amount
of 10. Media has a strong effect, and there is no denial that there is at least some degree of
influence. There are some low scores present, but with the abundance of media nowadays,
it is quite hard to avoid contact and influence And although we are aware of it, history has
shown time and time again that somehow we are manipulated.
Q6: How effective would you consider the United Nations is at stopping conflicts? With
1 being useless and 10 being always effective.

22

With an average of 5.5, it is quite evident it hangs around the middle, and with an
abundance of responses in those. No one believes the UN is flawless, but there are
worryingly some very low scores. The UN has had some big fails, but it has also helped
with steps toward world peace and a higher quality of life. Is the UN perfect? By no means
is it, but the world would be worse without its formation. With hundreds of resolutions
passed, they have managed to stop conflict or at the very least keep it at bay. The sole
presence of the UN in an area brings awareness, and that extreme of 1, even 2, currently
seems both pessimistic and false. Very probably, we do not know much about the UN other
than its goal and name.
Q7: How many genocides can you name off the top of your head?

The large majority can name 1-2 or 3-4 genocides, and some could even name 5, 6, or even
more than that, which is not an easy task unless you have previous extensive research done.
The truth of this is questionable though, as people may have a twisted perception of
genocide (evident in Question 8), and believe certain conflicts to be genocides when they
are far from being so. The ability to name 1-2 or 3-4 though is a huge relief, showing that
most people are aware of the term and at least know of the most famous ones in history.
Identification and tackling of genocides is a big need to preserve culture.
Q8: Which of these would you consider acts of genocide? Select as many as you want.

23

Infanticide, adult killing, and torture dominate the charts, as some of the most obvious
inhumane acts. Curiously though, the officially, legally defined genocide acts are actually
only 7 (half) of the answers provided. The Genocide Convention, mentioned earlier in the
body, outlines the following acts to be genocidal: killing (covering both infanticide and
teen/adult killing), bodily and psychological harm, inhumane living conditions, prevention
of birth, and transferring of children. Yet many of these terms, particularly the least obvious
and brutal ones, were not as frequently picked. While genocidal rape is a thing, it is not
directly outlined in the Convention, and questionable as an act. Torture, while it sometimes
leads to death, is not really destroying the race if only torture is done. Civil war usually has
its roots in politics, rights, or power, and thus why the term genocide exists to differentiate
the types of conflicts. Some of the options are up to nature, and others are defamation but
do not bring an end to the race. Keeping in mind the definition, not even needing to know
about the Convention, is something mandatory when defining acts.
Q9: Given this map of the world, would you be able to identify the exact territory
where Rwanda is located?

The division between those who can and cannot name Rwanda is pretty equal. A
straightforward question, but not many could successfully find Rwanda. It is on the edge of
Eastern Africa, and being so small and above another similar-sized country makes it tough
to pinpoint it on the map. Most people know the continent, or general territory, but not the
exact nation. Geological and physical characteristics give great hints about the occurrence
of conflicts, and it is generally good to know where things are happening.
Q10: How much do you know about the Rwandan Genocide?

24

The majority of responders are at or beyond knowledge of the basics of the Rwandan
Genocide. With the genocide being one of the worst killings in history, and 20 years having
gone by, knowing that most people in younger generations are aware of it gives hope for
the future. Because of certain similarities in history, we can learn quite a bit and muffle
further problems. A possible reason for such awareness is the large post-genocide media
and entertainment coverage it has been given. Celebrations of anniversaries, thorough
research on the aspects, and big movies like Hotel Rwanda have helped bring it into light.
As people talk about this, it is inevitable for people to pick up on it.
Q11: How much do you know about the Yugoslav Wars/Balkan Wars?

The majority of responders know little about the Yugoslav Wars. The Rwandan Genocide
sprouted while the Yugoslav Wars were occurring. Since the latter were in Europe, it got
much more support and attention, overshadowing Rwanda. However, in the results, this is
certainly the opposite. Yugoslavia is a name heard countless times in history, but is also
quite big and complex with the presence of numerous ethnic minorities and the issue of
separation. Much less responders know the basics or more when compared to Rwanda,
while the breakup of Yugoslavia has apparently gone down in history obscurely.
Q12: How knowledgeable and up-to-date are you with current events? With 1 being
clueless and 10 being extremely aware.

25

With an average of 6.74, there is some degree of knowledge about what is happening in the
world currently. 7 and 9 have the highest amount of responses, but there are also many
people in the lower ones, albeit none with 0. The veracity of this cannot be confirmed
though, and people may believe themselves to be more informed than they really are.
Current events, while some are seemingly insignificant, can evolve and become bigger.
When current events become older news, it is useful to know what has happened and where
it stemmed from, along with has and has not worked.
Q13: In a brief word or phrase, what is one way in which learning from history can be
useful in the present and future? Due to this question being free-response, no image is
placed.
While this was a free response question, certain thoughts and similarities were shared
across the answers. The first and most common response had its lines along prevention, and
is perhaps one of the most important uses of studying Rwanda. The phrase History repeats
itself was used extensively. Another common response was to improve oneself or a nation
in order to tackle issues or make the best use of situations. The third common answer had to
do with learning about culture and a country, and to know why people do what they do. A
notable phrase and response, applicable to all of these uses, was information is power,
and quite truly it is, regardless of the type.

26

Bibliography
1. Background Information on Preventing Genocide. United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web.
28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgpreventgenocide.shtml>.
2. Bill Clinton: Could Have Saved 300,000 Lives in Rwanda. CNBC 13 Mar. 2013.
Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/100546207>.
3. Bodnarchuk, Kari. Rwanda: A Country Torn Apart. Minneapolis: Lerner Publishing
Group, 2001. Print.
4. Brown, Hayes. 20 Years Later, What Has Changed Since The Rwandan
Genocide? Think Progress. Center for American Progress Action Fund, 8 Apr.
2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/04/08/3423655/rwanda-20-years-later/>.
5. Chalk, Frank. MIGS: Occasional Paper Series: RADIO PROPAGANDA AND
GENOCIDE. Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies. N.p.,
Nov. 1999. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://migs.concordia.ca/occpapers/radio_pr.html>.
6. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 9 Dec.
1948. United Nations. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021English.pdf>.
7. Dallaire, Romeo. Romo Dallaire and the Rwandan Genocide. Romeo Dallaire.
Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.romeodallaire.com/index.php/rwanda-genocide/>.
8. Des Forges, Alison. Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. N.p., 1999.
Human Rights Watch. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/rwanda/index.htm#TopOfPage>.
9. Finke, Jens. The Bantu. Blue Gecko. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.bluegecko.org/kenya/contexts/bantu.htm>.
10. Genocide. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/genocide>.

27

11. Genocide in Rwanda, April-May 1994. Vol. 6. Human Rights Watch/Africa: N.p.,
1994. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/RWANDA945.PDF>. 4.
12. Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed
with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. New York: Holtzbrinck Publishers, 1998.
Print.
13. History of Rwanda. History World. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad24>.
14. Hughes, Dana. Bill Clinton Regrets Rwanda Now (Not So Much In 1994). ABC
News 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/bill-clinton-regrets-rwanda-nownot-so-much-in-1994/>.
15. Jones, Adam. Case Study: Genocide in Rwanda, 1994. Gendercide Watch. N.p.,
n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html>.
16. Khan, Razim. Batutsi Genetic Study. Academia. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.academia.edu/4110292/Dr_Razib_Khans_Batutsi_genetic_study>.
17. Longman, Timothy. Culture of Rwanda. Every Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr.
2015. <http://www.everyculture.com/No-Sa/Rwanda.html>.
18. Lvdal Gulseth, Hege. The Use of Propaganda in the Rwandan Genocide. Thesis.
N.p., 2004. University of Oslo. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.
<https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/13569/19095.pdf?sequence=1>.
19. M. Hintjens, Helen. Explaining the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. Thesis. Cambridge
University Press, 1999. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.fes.de/themen/menschenrechtspreis/common/pdf/Explaining_the_199
4_Genocide_in_Rwanda.pdf>. The Journal of Modern African Studies 2.
20. Mbugua, Martin. Rwandan Prof Says 1994 Killings Were Not Genocide.
University of Delaware. N.p., 25 Oct. 2006. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2007/oct/scholars102506.html>.
21. Mills, Nicolaus, and Kira Brunner. The New Killing Fields: Massacre and the
Politics of Intervention. Ed. Various. New York: Basic Books, 2003. Print.

28

22. Millwood, David, ed. The International Response to Conflict and Genocide:
Lessons from the Rwanda Experience. Steering Committee of the Joint Evaluation
of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda, 1996. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedstates/50189764.pdf>.
23. Prevention of Rwandan Genocide. Trinity College. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.trincoll.edu/~thyde2/rwanda_prevention.htm>.
24. Rwanda -- History. University of Pennsylvania. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.africa.upenn.edu/NEH/rwhistory.htm>.
25. Rwanda: A Brief History of the Country. United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr.
2015.
<http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/education/rwandagenocide.shtml>.
26. Southgate, Mandy. The Hutu Ten Commandments. A Passion to Understand. N.p.,
13 Aug. 2011. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://passiontounderstand.blogspot.com/2011/08/rwandan-genocide-hutu-tencommandments.html>.
27. Spangenburg, Ray, and Kit Moser. The Crime of Genocide: Terror Against
Humanity. Hillside, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2000. Print.
28. Staff, History.com. The Rwandan Genocide. History. A+E Networks, 2009. Web.
28 Apr. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide>.
29. UNAMIR. United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unamirS.htm>.
30. Van Damme, Wim. Do Refugees Belong in Camps? Experiences from Goma and
Guinea. The Lancet 5 Aug. 1995 : 360362. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<https://www.mcgill.ca/files/familymed/S01_Van_Damme_Do_Refugees_Belong_
in_Camps.pdf>.
31. Willard, Emily. Rwanda: The Failure of the Arusha Peace Accords. The National
Security Archive: N.p., 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
<http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB469/>.

29