The International Response to the Rwandan Genocide

In 1994, the world witnessed the fastest genocide (about a million Rwandans died in a 3-month period, whereas Hitler only managed to kill an average of 250,000 people in the same amount of time. All of the newspaper sources that I’ve read as well as the books I’ve used have stated, without exception, that it was the fastest genocide in history) on record in the tiny African republic of Rwanda. Witnessing the genocide was really all the world did though, as the international community did essentially little to nothing to stop the genocide or help its victims. In order to fully understand the genocide and why no one bothered to help, it is necessary to understand why the genocide took place and what happened during and after it.
In Rwanda and a few of the surrounding countries, there are two main groups of people, the Hutu and Tutsi. Exactly what they are is highly debatable. Some classify them as different ethnic groups, while some classify them as originally being different social classes. It could very well be a mixture of both. Whatever the case, most Rwandans are classified as one or the other. Some Tutsis tend to be taller and thinner, and they can easily reach 7 ft in height! This suggests that there may be slight ethnic differences. What is known is that the Tutsi migrated into what is now Rwanda from northern Africa where the Hutu dwelled. Relations between the two were generally cordial throughout the centuries, but the Tutsi eventually established their own monarchy and subjugated the Hutu. Even then, relations were still calm for the most part, that is, until the Belgians came. The Belgians eventually colonized Rwanda and maintained the system of Tutsi dominance over the Hutus. It is important to note that the Hutu comprise about 85% of Rwanda and the Tutsi only 14-15%, and although this difference wasn’t always numerically the same, the Hutu were still the majority throughout Belgian rule. Despite this, the Belgians kept the Tutsi in power (with Belgian supervision) partly to avoid disturbing the population by changing the status quo, but also due to racial reasons. The Belgians claimed that the Tutsi were lighter-skinned, taller, with pointed noses, and had more elegant features and therefore more “Causasian-like.” They claimed the Hutus were of average height with squat features. Even though there may have been some truth to this, the Belgians decided to codify these differences even further. They then decided that the empowered Tutsi (who were naturally wealthier since they had the power) would be characterized as being richer cattle herders, whereas Hutus would be not-so-rich farmers. A Hutu could become a Tutsi simply by buying lots of cattle! Although all of these differences existed in one degree or another throughout Rwandan history, for the first time the Belgian colonizers codified this to their own advantage. What better way is there to keep a population docile then to keep them divided? The Belgians issued identity cards labeling all Rwandans Hutu or Tutsi and strengthened Tutsi dominance. Naturally, the majority Hutus began to feel that this arrangement was unfair. The Belgians, seeing the handwriting on the wall, decided to allow the Hutus to gain more power and eventually replaced the Tutsi with the Hutus.
After World War II, most African colonies began to become gradually independent. Belgium eventually let Rwanda become independent in 1962, but right before that there was a revolution in Rwanda that toppled the Tutsis and put a Hutu-led regime in. The Belgians decided to let this happen since the original plan was to get the majority Hutus into power anyway, as noted before. Once left to their own devices, the newly empowered Hutus wanted revenge on their puppet oppressors the Tutsis. Throughout the next 30 years, periodic massacres resulted in the exile of thousands of Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus, who eventually formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front with the goal of creating a more tolerant Rwanda. They would become important later on. Without the Belgians to keep the lid on the pot, it was only a matter of time before the simmering resentment of the Hutus against the Tutsis would explode into a major conflict. All it would take was a trigger, and that trigger did indeed come in 1994. It is important to note though that the foundations for the genocide were being laid even before 1994, so when it started, many Rwandans weren’t that shocked.
For at least a few years prior to 1994, groups of Hutu extremists known as the Interahamwe (literally means “those who stand together for a goal” in the Rwandan language) and radical Rwandan generals began to plot a way to get rid of the “Tutsi cockroaches” once and for all. The exact scope and time span of the planning for the genocide is still unknown, possibly spanning from a few months to a few years, but it was known that coordination of the killings would take place via radio broadcasts (many Rwandans didn’t own televisions), and that the killings would begin in the highest levels of the Hutu-led government. And so they waited, and finally it happened.
Rwanda’s Hutu president Juvenal Habyarimana was assassinated in April of 1994 when his airplane was shot down. Although exactly who was responsible is still unknown, the assassination was the final trigger for radical Hutus to deal with the Tutsis once and for all. The exterminators moved immediately. Within a few hours of the assassination, the Interahamwe and elements of the Hutu military began killing any and all Tutsis they could find, beginning with government officials in Kigali as planned. Via radio broadcasts, the Interahamwe coordinated what would become the quickest genocide in human history. They broadcasted the locations and names of prominent Tutsis, as well as moderate or liberal Hutus who helped hide them. They also broadcasted the names of places with high concentrations of Tutsis. The radio broadcasters also incited uncertain Hutus to take up arms, deceiving them into thinking that the Tutsis would try to kill them if they did not. When guns and bombs were in short supply, the killers simply picked up knives, machetes and clubs and started hacking and beating away. The bodies were left on the front lawns of Rwandan homes, dumped into lakes or fed to animals. Many Rwandans tried to deny the obvious carnage around them, like the world community, pretending not to see the true scope of the horrific reality that they were living in.
It is important to understand however that not all Hutus participated in this genocide. The Interahamwe and certain elements of the Rwandan military were only a minority compared to the Hutu population in general. In fact, many Hutus banded together to try to help their Tutsi family members, friends and neighbors. One such Hutu, Paul Rusesabagina, saved over 1,260 Tutsi and moderate Hutus by sheltering them in his hotel, the Milles Collines, in Kigali. His story was made into the popular film Hotel Rwanda in 2004 (which we all watched at the beginning of my freshman year). He managed to use a combination of delaying tactics, threats, bribery, etc. to keep the Interahamwe from entering the hotel and killing his refugees. He now travels throughout the world to speak about his experiences, and his recently published autobiography is one of my sources.
During this time, many countries evacuated their citizens from Rwanda, seeing the carnage. American President Bill Clinton took no action, citing that what was going on was not genocide but “acts of genocide.” Avoiding using the term genocide also meant avoiding involvement, which was a priority for the Clinton administration after his prior failure in Somalia. The UN also withdrew most of its troops from Rwanda after 10 of its troops were tortured to death by the Interahamwe, and refused to pass a resolution condemning the situation. Michael Barnett explains in his book “Eyewitness to a Genocide” that the UN felt that it was best “not to get involved” and that “nonintervention was best.” The brutal deaths of the ten UN troops didn’t help. The Interahamwe brutally murdered these troops for exactly that reason, to deter further UN interference in their genocide. The tragedy is that it worked, and the UN eventually pulled most of its troops out. The US under Clinton also refused to send any troops to Rwanda, and Clinton maintains that he didn’t know the full extent of what was going on or else he would’ve intervened. Note that President Clinton was updated by the US Embassy daily and warned by his advisors about the massacres and by the press, which showed gruesome footage.
Other countries had similar attitudes, with the French actually supplying the Hutu army and therefore contributing directly to the genocide. France also used its considerably influence in the UN to block a resolution, not wanting other countries, especially the US, to gain influence in what was traditionally a French-oriented part of Africa (France had a close relationship with the Hutu government and generals as well). China also blocked intervention, fearing that allowing foreign powers to intervene in Rwanda would set a precedent that would allow foreign powers to interfere in China whenever it massacred its own people (a not-so-infrequent occurrence). Belgium asked for a strong UN force to go into Rwanda, but was drowned out by the larger powers in the Security Council. Throughout all of this, racism was apparently not a factor. All of the aforementioned countries seemed to have their own strategic reasons, but racism was not one of them. Of course, many diplomats and officials tried to justify their non-action. “It’s not our job to interfere in a country’s internal problems.” “We have to let people fight their own battles.” “We can’t police the world.” “They’re always killing each other, so why bother to intervene now?” “If it doesn’t pose a threat to my country, why should I care?” There was a torrent of such platitudes throughout the world, all of which sought to justify letting the genocide run its course.
One important thing to remember is that Rwanda had no strategic and economic value to anyone really. There was no oil, no substantial diamond or gold reserves, nothing of any economic value (its main sources of revenue are coffee and tea, and tourism is also increasing). Why bother to intervene in a country with no value for the interveners? There was no conceivable security threat either, since Rwanda had no weapons of mass destruction or anything that could be used by terrorists to attack major powers. What was Rwanda to the world? As the slaughter continued, some countries started to find their voices, however weak. Around July of 1994, when the genocide was winding down anyway, several countries pushed through an arms embargo on Rwanda in the UN, but it was too late. The genocide ended that month. Several countries demanded that the Rwandan army halt the genocide, but demands were all that they made, and even then it was too late. Besides, an arms embargo wouldn’t have done any good since the killers would simply pick up anything they could find to kill the Tutsis. These terrorists were dead set on killing off the entire Tutsi population, and nothing short of brute force would stop them.
Given how quickly the violence was taking place, one has to wonder if it was even feasible to intervene. From New York City, one can fly to Rwanda within a few days , so it wouldn’t have taken an intervention force long to get there. It didn’t take long for the media to pick up what was going on and broadcasts of the carnage could be seen on the evening news, so no one can use the excuse “I didn’t know.” The Interahamwe was very poorly armed and disorganized (although very motivated and efficient) so it would’ve been extremely easy for our forces to stop them, and it might also have given demoralized Tutsis the will to fight back. Rwanda is a very small country (about the size of Maryland), so it wouldn’t have taken too many of our troops to stabilize the country. If there was time to debate the issue endlessly for weeks on end, then there was certainly time to send a peacekeeping force.
Since Rwanda was about 60% Catholic, Pope John Paul II called for a halt to violence especially in the face of credible reports that elements of the Catholic Church had aided the Interahamwe in the genocide. Overall, the world community showed depraved indifference toward Rwanda. The “never again” that was chanted after Hitler’s Holocaust turned out to be an empty lie.
We will never know the exact numbers of the people killed since many were never found. The Rwandan government officially cites that at the very least 937,000 were killed, whereas the UN and other sources cite 800,000, but if we factor in those who were never found and those who died later from injuries the number may easily reach a million.
The genocide ended in July 1994 when the Rwandan Patriotic Front mentioned earlier saw what was happening and finally overran the country and expelled the Interahamwe and the radical elements of the Rwandan army. Rwanda, which was in the process of development and a popular destination for foreigners, was in shambles. HIV began to rear its ugly head en masse since the Interahamwe often raped women that they chose not to kill for whatever reason. The scariest thing to think about is that the killers actually came pretty close to successfully exterminating all of the Tutsis in Rwanda. Had the Rwandan Patriotic Front not intervened in July, by the end of August all of Rwanda’s Tutsis would have been killed (Rwanda had a pre-genocide population of about 8 million, with 15 % being Tutsi. Since 900,000-1,000,000 were killed in a span of 100 days, all of the Tutsis would’ve been exterminated by the end of August if the genocide hadn’t been halted by the Rwandan Patriotic Front). The killers were only 30-40 days away from completing the genocide. The country still suffers from the hellish effects of the genocide even twelve years after the fact. I have seen pictures and read travelogues of people who have traveled to Rwanda, and they have reported some of the highest numbers of orphaned children and widowed women ever seen in modern countries.
What happened in Rwanda was a human tragedy, but what makes it worse is that it could have been stopped if the UN or other major powers had the decency to put their own interests aside and to have the courage to do the right thing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelman, Howard and Astri Suhrke, ed. The Path of a Genocide. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1999.

Barnett, Michael. Eyewitness to a Genocide. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 2002.

Des Forges, Alison. Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. New York: Human Rights Watch, 1999.

Destexhe, Alain. Rwanda and Genocide in the Twentieth Century. New York: New York University Press, 1995.

Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With our Families. New York: Picador, 1999.

Jones, Bruce. Peacemaking in Rwanda: The Dynamics of Failure. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., 2001

Keane, Fergal. Season of Blood: A Rwandan Journey. New York: Penguin Books, 1995

McCullum, Hugh. The Angels Have Left Us: The Rwanda Tragedy and the Churches. Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, 1995.

Melvern, Linda. Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide. New York: Verso, 2004

Rittner, Carol, John Roth and Wendy Whitworth, ed. Genocide in Rwanda: Complicity of the Churches? St. Paul, MN: Paragon House, 2004.

Rusesabagina, Paul. An Ordinary Man: An Autobiography. Viking Adult, 2006

Copyright © 2009 neverwalkaway.wordpress.com. All Rights Reserved.