"Based on your reading, what best explains the genocide in Rwanda? Is it the result of long standing (ancient) hatreds? A weak state unable to control its population? The manipulation of state organizational capacity by a faction of political elite? Or something else? Provide evidence of your explanation and discuss how your favored explanation would determine the optimal response to the genocide from international actors."
After examining all of the explanations offered in an attempt to solidify one single reasoning behind the Rwandan genocide, I have come to the conclusion that the genocide is comparable to a brick building. Each event combined together to simply build a tall wall of genocide in the African country. Several poignant steps could have been taken to stop the horrific event in progress, but the most important step to learn from it is to let it happen again.
I feel that the primary reason for the horrific conflict that took place in Rwanda occured because of a few significant contributing factors, including a lack of quality government leadership and the major differences amongst the Hutu and Tutsi classes. These forces combined for a lasting conflict that produced the genocide of the Tutsis and moderate Hutus. This differentiating of classes mainly began when German forces set the two peoples apart based on appearance, and eventually the Hutus gained totalitarian control. The Hutus assumed a role of publishing massive amounts of anti-Tutsi propaganda -- leading to a widespread negative view of the Tutsi people. However, they did not lay down. Despite making up a significantly lower part of the population, the Tutsis fought back with their own revolutionary force, the RPF, in an effort to protest the exilling of several prominent Tutsis. Evantually, the RPF led an assassination on the leader of the Hutus, which created massive outcry and violence toward the miniority Tutsi nation from the Hutus. In essence, this led directly towards the murders of hundreds of thousands Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
These events did not go without notice in the eyes of the media internationally. However, western Europe and the United States seemed to turn their back on this massive killing of innocent life. This lack of outside help -- and a desire to not interfere with other countries' interests -- led to the significant problems. Also, if Rwanda would have been led in a democratic fashion instead of the Hutus having dominant control, this crisis might have been averted. Equal leadership goes a long way. In addition, the years of propaganda put forth by the Hutu led to a civilization that didn't have accurate information about its neighbors. A better, honest education -- even if only on the social level -- would have done wonders for the situation by making it seem that Hutus murdering Tutsis was a morally wrong act, when in reality the Hutu government had propped up the fact that the Tutsis were evil and deserved their fate.
This situation could be debated for hours, but one thing is for sure. The international community simply did not put enough effort forth in trying to reconcile the differences in Rwanda.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Airstrikes Kill Insurgents, U.S. Says
By Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post Foreign Service
March 4, 2007
The US attacked al-Qaeda in Iraq members Saturday in response to their downing of two American helicopters, killing several members in two separate airstrikes. At the same time, however, three Americans were killed by a roadside bomb in central Baghdad. Insurgents claim to have shot down six US copters since January 20th, leaving the US with a new plan on how to transport troops through the air. Road travel is even more dangerous due to the increasingly complex roadside bombs. The second airstrike of the two destroyed a factory that the US claims to have been building car bombs. Obviously, the US is trying to circumvent any new attacks both on the ground and in the air with this operation. With six helicopters going down in the past 2 months, there is an obvious need to find new ways to get around the high danger that these slow flying birds produce. New tactics such as weaving and changing altitude are being used to keep a target from easily being locked.
March 4, 2007
The US attacked al-Qaeda in Iraq members Saturday in response to their downing of two American helicopters, killing several members in two separate airstrikes. At the same time, however, three Americans were killed by a roadside bomb in central Baghdad. Insurgents claim to have shot down six US copters since January 20th, leaving the US with a new plan on how to transport troops through the air. Road travel is even more dangerous due to the increasingly complex roadside bombs. The second airstrike of the two destroyed a factory that the US claims to have been building car bombs. Obviously, the US is trying to circumvent any new attacks both on the ground and in the air with this operation. With six helicopters going down in the past 2 months, there is an obvious need to find new ways to get around the high danger that these slow flying birds produce. New tactics such as weaving and changing altitude are being used to keep a target from easily being locked.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Iraqi Troops, Tribesmen Kill 50 suspected Insurgents
By Joshua Partlow, Washington Post Foreign Service
March 2, 2007
The Iraqis led an operation, in combination with Sunni tribesmen, in an especially violent movement on a Sunni insurgent stronghold in Western Iraq yesterday according to Iraqi police officials. The clash, which was unusually fierce for Iraqi-led operations, ended with around 50 suspected insurgents dead and another 80 captured. Originally, the insurgents attacked a village near Fallujah, and the battle ended 6 hours later. This all comes as part of the US military’s movement to align itself with dozens of tribal sheiks to drive out the Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq from the vast desert. In other movements, the US is also working on targeted raids, but not yet an established presence, in Sadr City where a good majority of the Mahdi Army reside. Mahdi is led by Moqtada as-Sadr, an anti-American cleric who at the same time supports al-Maliki. Also, two Marines were killed in an unrelated incident while two other service members were injured when their Army OH-58 Kiowa helicopter had a hard landing due to mechanical difficulty.
March 2, 2007
The Iraqis led an operation, in combination with Sunni tribesmen, in an especially violent movement on a Sunni insurgent stronghold in Western Iraq yesterday according to Iraqi police officials. The clash, which was unusually fierce for Iraqi-led operations, ended with around 50 suspected insurgents dead and another 80 captured. Originally, the insurgents attacked a village near Fallujah, and the battle ended 6 hours later. This all comes as part of the US military’s movement to align itself with dozens of tribal sheiks to drive out the Sunni al-Qaeda in Iraq from the vast desert. In other movements, the US is also working on targeted raids, but not yet an established presence, in Sadr City where a good majority of the Mahdi Army reside. Mahdi is led by Moqtada as-Sadr, an anti-American cleric who at the same time supports al-Maliki. Also, two Marines were killed in an unrelated incident while two other service members were injured when their Army OH-58 Kiowa helicopter had a hard landing due to mechanical difficulty.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
US Will Join Talks With Iran and Syria
By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 28, 2007
In a surprising move for a administration known to opt out of international talks – especially with countries that Bush has labeled “axis of evil” – the US announced yesterday that they would in fact join a roundtable discussion of sorts with Iraq, Syria, Iran and other regional countries. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State called it an “opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.” This is the first true realization of the progress of the Iraq Study Group, whose December results went largely ignored by Bush. It noted the importance of these type of meetings to start a face-to-face negotiation of issues. “Better late than never,” said Leon Panetta, who served on the study group. The first meeting will be in April, and is second will likely be held later in Istanbul. I couldn’t agree more with the study group and ther Democrats who have realized that these talks were long overdue. As Sen. Joseph Biden put it, both Iran and Syria are a big part of the problem right now, but they also have an overriding interest in beeoming part of the solution to prevent chaos in Iraq. However, with the Democrats threatening to shut down a $100 billion spending bill for Iraq, this could only be a ploy by the administration to gain positive reaction. The first talks will be at an Ambassador level, however, I really feel that each country should have a solid, yet independent, contingent to join the talks, so as to not stall them out on arrival.
February 28, 2007
In a surprising move for a administration known to opt out of international talks – especially with countries that Bush has labeled “axis of evil” – the US announced yesterday that they would in fact join a roundtable discussion of sorts with Iraq, Syria, Iran and other regional countries. Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State called it an “opportunity to improve the relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region.” This is the first true realization of the progress of the Iraq Study Group, whose December results went largely ignored by Bush. It noted the importance of these type of meetings to start a face-to-face negotiation of issues. “Better late than never,” said Leon Panetta, who served on the study group. The first meeting will be in April, and is second will likely be held later in Istanbul. I couldn’t agree more with the study group and ther Democrats who have realized that these talks were long overdue. As Sen. Joseph Biden put it, both Iran and Syria are a big part of the problem right now, but they also have an overriding interest in beeoming part of the solution to prevent chaos in Iraq. However, with the Democrats threatening to shut down a $100 billion spending bill for Iraq, this could only be a ploy by the administration to gain positive reaction. The first talks will be at an Ambassador level, however, I really feel that each country should have a solid, yet independent, contingent to join the talks, so as to not stall them out on arrival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)