This article aims to analyze the Rwandan genocide by using two conflict analysis tools. The conflict analysis is crucial for systematically understanding what the conflict is about and the possible interventions to conflict. The article presents the conflict wheel, a ‘meta’ tool that explains six dimensions of conflict as its first conflict analysis tool.
The Conflict Wheel
a) Actors
As the historical background of Rwanda presents, there are two main ethnic groups in Rwanda: Hutus and Tutsis, and there were a strict hierarchy and unequal distribution of resources between them. Throughout history, the sense of inequality led to many low scaled issues before the genocide between the groups. Although there were some regulations and agreements to diminish the problems such as economic, social, and political, the unmet expectations grow to be grievance among the groups that, at one point, it becomes a violent inter-group conflict. In 1987, Tutsi refugees in Uganda formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front to overthrown the president of Rwanda, which he failed to address their issues (“Rwanda: How the genocide happened,” 2019). The Government of Rwanda was a Hutu-dominated government, and RPF was Tutsi origin rebellion party. The Government of Rwanda and RPF were the primary parties of the conflict.
Due to the long-lasting features and outspread rebellion force (RPF) of the conflict, neighbouring countries of Rwanda, such as Uganda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic Of Congo, and Tanzania, were secondary parties. Before the genocide in 1994 began, Tutsis, who were political refugees in Uganda, has an interest in conflict. Also, when the plane carrying presidents of Burundi and Rwanda was shot down, Burundi became a party in the conflict. Besides, the rest of the neighbours took side with one party, whichever they have interests during the genocide.
In 1993, the United Nations formed the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance. Within this mission, forty-one countries sent troops to Rwanda. UN was a third party in the conflict due to its aim in transforming the conflict.
b) Issues
The topic of the conflict was the perception of unequal distribution of resources, both material and unmaterial such as financial, recognition, class distinction, and power share between the groups. For instance, as a political issue, Tutsis were the favoured ethnic group in politics during colonial times. However, in post-colonial times, when a Hutu leader was in power, he favoured Hutus and provided initiatives for his followers to kill Tutsis. As social issues, Tutsis were “superior,” and Hutu were “inferior” in social class during colonial times. These were some of the determinant motivations of the genocide.
- Dynamics
The level of violence and the intensity was at their maximum. One of the conflict dynamics is the radicalization of different ethnic groups. The high level of uncertainty and insecurity of Tutsi refugees motivated them to form armed groups/militias. As a result, their unmet expectations and the initiator of the genocide was the Assassination of the Rwandan president. During the killings, the media’s role was massive. Especially the radio broadcasts encouraged the ordinary Tutsi citizens to take part in the mass killings.
Moreover, sexual violence, including gang rape, was the instrument for ethnic cleansing. Through rape, FRP aimed to humiliate, weaken, and destroy the women of the specific ethnic group. The violence stopped around the 100th day when FRP took the government. After that point, the de-escalation started.
- Context/Structures
The historical background is one of the structural factors in the conflict because long before the genocide, these two ethnic groups were already killing each other. In 1994, a plane carrying Rwandan president and Burundian president was shot down. This Assassination counted as the initiator of the genocide, but there is a historical background of the event. In explaining the historical background of the conflict, it is essential to clarify that the hatred and status issues between the groups go way back to the 1800s. Hence, it is impossible to explain all the details due to the word limit and less data known to the academy. As Uvin (1999) explains, Tutsi and Hutu have many things in common, such as sharing the same language, religion, culture, and history. However, their hierarchy and status within the society were different. In 1919 under Belgium colonization, Tutsis favoured society; positions in life, social, political, and economic, became bias, unequal, and unfair against Hutu. This ruling did not last long, and in December 1959, a peasant revolt evolved and overthrown the Tutsi ruler by the Hutu rebels. In early 1962, a bloody revolution occurred, most of the Tutsi fled to Burundi and many other places to escape from mass killing. After the domestic turbulence, Belgium withdrawn from Rwanda and with the fled of Tutsis, Hutus become the majority. They started to rule, but Tutsis were not satisfied with the result and formed FRP. The competition for state power become brutal. Thus, until the genocide, revenge kills were performed by both parties.
In short, structures are economic inequality, weak state structures, repressive state against minorities.
e) Causation
Since “the first action” came from Tutsis, there was an injustice in their perspective. They aimed to claim power and to be recognized again within Rwanda. To achieve these aims, they formed RFP with the group identity of Tutsis. The identity umbrella included ethnic background, and immigrant life concluded in solidarity. The genocide was pre-planned and full of dedicated people.
There were some political causations for RPF to move on violence. For instance, in 1990, RPF demanded a share in power and invaded Rwanda (“Constitutional history of Rwanda,” 2019). Thus, the government was in a position to do so and introduced reforms. Moreover, in 1991, separation of power, multiparty systems, and the rule of law were introduced. However, due to the ongoing civil war, these planned reforms were never implemented.
f) Options/Strategies
The UN applied political and military strategies. Cease-fire agreements such as the Arusha agreement signed in 1992 between RFP and the Rwanda government with the assistance of the UN. However, both parties were politically and socially unsatisfied. In 1993, UNAMIR troops got involved in the area to; observe and assist the cease-fire agreement, contribute to the security with the weapons-secure area, monitor the safety, monitor the Rwandese refugees, assist in the coordination of humanitarian assistance and report back to the UN (“The Genocide | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda”, 2019). However, the plane crash occurred while the presidents were returning from the peace talks. The Assassination followed by the attacks against the UN soldiers. For that UN drawback, many of its troops and almost left Rwanda civilians by themselves. During the genocide, the UN was not in the picture, and around 100 days, killings moved on. In the final situation, the UN accepted its failure in the region.
In 1995, post-genocide trials of the UN aimed at delivering justice in the area. The trials were both on domestic courts and community-based courts. The courts mainly prosecuted high-ranking military personnel, government officials, politicians, militia, and media leaders (“The ICTR, in Brief, | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,” 2019).
Begüm Ateşsaçan
References
Constitutional history of Rwanda. (2019). Retrieved 20 October 2019, from http://constitutionnet.org/country/constitutional-history-rwanda
Outreach Programme on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations. (2019). Retrieved 20 October 2019, from https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/historical-background.shtml
Rwanda: How the genocide happened. (2019). Retrieved 19 October 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13431486
Straus, S. (2013). The Order of Genocide. Cornell University Press.
The Genocide | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. (2019). Retrieved from http://unictr.irmct.org/en/genocide
The ICTR in Brief | United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. (2019). Retrieved 20 October 2019, from https://unictr.irmct.org/en/tribunal
Uvin, P. (1999). Ethnicity and Power in Burundi and Rwanda: Different Paths to Mass
Violence. Comparative Politics, 31(3), 253-271. doi:10.2307/422339
