Rwanda and the International Community: The Tutsi-Hutu Incident

[ChaosLord]

[split from here]

Nah, did you not listen to what the UN said? The Tutsi/Hutu incident was not genocide. Slaughtering your neighbouring tribe with machetes is not a wrong, it's a basic human right of establish living space.

I recently finished a lecture series that included the Rwanda Genocide as a topic. The Teaching Company - Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century, with Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius.

Here's a break-down of the Rwanda lecture.

Lecture Twenty-Two
Rwanda

Scope: In 1994, as the world looked on, horrific events unfolded in the central African country of Rwanda. Tension between two social groups erupted into genocide, encouraged by the state. The Hutu-dominated government organized the mass murder of the Tutsi minority. The state provided machetes for the killers, directed their movements through radio broadcasts and lists of intended victims, and enflamed them with propaganda, including hate-filled songs and quasi-religious Hutu commandments preaching the destruction of the enemy Tutsis. In the course of 100 days, 800,000 people were slaughtered, while the international community failed to intervene to prevent this recent genocide.
Outline

I. Background.

A. Hutu and Tutsi.
1. The Hutus and Tutsis of the central African country of Rwanda speak the same language and have the same religious background .
2. Traditionally, the minority Tutsis were herders and landowners, while the majority Hutus were farmers.
3. In the past, the Tutsi minority had been dominant.
4. Some scholars argue that the lines of division between the groups were initially fluid and based on class and occupation, not ethnic difference. Intermarriage was common.

B. Colonial legacies.
1. Rwanda became a German colony in 1885 and, after World War I, was transferred to Belgian rule.
2. Belgian administrators invented a “nasal index” to measure Tutsis and to scientifically categorize people on identification documents.
3. Colonial administrative division of Rwandans led to an increasingly strict separation of the groups, which had earlier intermingled.

C. Independence.
1. Rwanda became independent in 1962.
2. The majority Hutu dominated the new republic. Discrimination compelled many Tutsis to flee Rwanda.
3. Fighting continued between Tutsi rebel groups and the Hutu-led Rwandan government, which was supported by France and Belgium.
4. The Arusha Peace Accords of 1993 called for a new government to include the Tutsi rebel groups, such as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). UN peacekeepers, coordinated by Kofi Annan (later UN secretary general), were sent in to observe.

II. Unleashing “Hutu power.”

A. Origins.
1. Some Hutu political leaders, championing “Hutu power,” began to cultivate a racial hatred of the Tutsi, and their publications referred to the Tutsi as cockroaches, dehumanizing their opponents.
2. At the head of the movement was Juvenal Habyarimana, leader of the National Revolutionary Movement for Development and Democracy (MRND).
3. A clear aspect of a political religion, the official newspaper published in 1990 a document called “The Hutu Ten Commandments,” which praised Hutu ideology, Hutu purity through separation, and a merciless approach toward the Tutsis.
4. Hutu activists organized a militia called the Interahamwe (“those who work together”).
5. The militia gathered weapons and more than half a million machetes, one for every third Hutu man.

B. Inspirations.
1. A government document found after the genocide quoted Lenin and Josef Goebbels on the uses of propaganda.
2. Films about the Nazis were later found at the home of President Habyarimana.
3. In an echo of the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, local killing units were called Public Safety Committees.

C. Language.
1. A phraseology was invented to cloak preparations for massacre, referred to as “work,” in ideological terms. The genocide was called umuganda, “public work.”
2. Weapons were called “tools.” The overall killing plan was called, in imitation of the Nazis, the “final solution.”

D. Propagating the message.
1. The government used newspapers and radio to spread its message.
2. The government provided free radios to expand its reach.
3. Songs of hate against Tutsis were played on radio stations that would later relay orders for killing.
4. Weekly propaganda meetings featured arts performances with messages of hate.
5. Images of President Habyarimana were posted ubiquitously and worn as buttons.

E. The flashpoint.
1. On April 6, 1994, Hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana was assassinated under mysterious circumstances. The moderate vice president and Belgian peacekeepers were murdered immediately after.
2. The United Nations withdrew troops and observers on April 21, 1994.

III. Genocide.

A. The campaign.
1. Most killings took place in April 1994.
2. The massacres claimed 800,000 lives over the course of 100 days.
3. Although organized by the government, the killers included a remarkably broad section of Rwandan society, whether eager, enticed, or coerced. Neighbors turned on neighbors.
4. The massacres grew more radical as they continued, increasingly including women and children and even spouses.
5. Churches were not able to offer effective sanctuary. In some cases, pastors betrayed their parishioners.
6. Religious affiliation was trumped by the power of political religion.
7. Radio broadcasts coordinated the killings and read out lists of names of targets.
8. The popular singer Simon Bikindi was accused of writing songs inciting killings and participating in massacres.
9. The Rwandan minister for family and women’s affairs, Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, was accused of encouraging the rape of Tutsi women.
10. There were, however, many cases of heroic saviors who hid and sheltered intended victims.

B. Ending.
1. In July 1994, the Tutsi-led RPF took control in Rwanda.
2. Killers mixed in with the two million refugees fleeing the fighting.

IV. Aftermath.

A. International passivity.
1. Reasons for international inaction were complex, including stereotypes of Africa, lack of interest, and the remoteness of Rwanda, which meant that visual images took longer to reach an international audience.
2. While the killings were taking place, diplomats in the United Nations and in the United States deliberately avoided calling the events genocide, because doing so would obligate them to take action.
3. In November 1994, the UN Security Council approved a resolution for an international court to try crimes of genocide in Rwanda.
4. In March 1998, U.S. President Clinton visited Rwanda and apologized for international inaction.

B. Reckoning.
1. In 1995, the United Nations set up an International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania.
2. Genocide trials are still ongoing in other jurisdictions as well.

[Sigurd]

Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius.

Do I read this correctly as one of the "handful" of Lithuanian-American descendants?

2. Traditionally, the minority Tutsis were herders and landowners, while the majority Hutus were farmers.
3. In the past, the Tutsi minority had been dominant.

I know, I once looked at the issue in reasonable detail --- but is this not almost a bit like "Black proletarian emancipation" elsewhere, except that the victims of their scorn were other Blacks this time around?

1. A government document found after the genocide quoted Lenin and Josef Goebbels on the uses of propaganda.

This, however, is new to me. Interesting to see that our supposedly oh-so-evil NS leaders are used as an excuse for genocide these days.

2. Weapons were called “tools.” The overall killing plan was called, in imitation of the Nazis, the “final solution.”

See above.

2. The United Nations withdrew troops and observers on April 21, 1994.

This is well known. All the UN did was observe, but they didn't act in what turned out to be the fastest genocide in recorded history.

Then again, there is no oil nor Jews in Rwanda, so why should the UN act? Personally I couldn't care less about two differing tribes of Negroes slaughtering each other, or one slaughtering the other; these are issues far from my country and do not touch me that much --- other than that, however, it is a useful case to highlight the hypocrisy of the UN as a politically-motivated institution.

The fact that Germany has no leading voice in it is another case to highlight it, I remember reading about a reply to an inquiry even that stated that the UN was created out of political realities after WWII, though the authenticity of that document is not proven.

2. While the killings were taking place, diplomats in the United Nations and in the United States deliberately avoided calling the events genocide, because doing so would obligate them to take action.

Showing once more the double-standards in both the UN as a "peace-keeping organisation" and the US in its role as "World Police".

3. In November 1994, the UN Security Council approved a resolution for an international court to try crimes of genocide in Rwanda.
4. In March 1998, U.S. President Clinton visited Rwanda and apologized for international inaction.

After it had taken place. Obviously, those who control American external affairs and World politics, didn't care that much: Again, no oil, no Jews to be protected, and no other interests.

Not taking action is in a way what I would actually agree on - it is not our part of the world, thus not our business. However, when certain powers-that-be claim that it is our business, but do not act in such circumstances, then it is useful in highlighting some of the corruption that exists.