Genocide is an intentional and purposeful extermination of a nation, religious group or race, which is directed to its total destruction. In point of fact, genocide may involve systematic humiliation of honor and dignity, that is, a psychological killing that leads to the break of spirit rather than just physical actions of violence and deprivation of life. The events that occurred in the first half of 1994 in Rwanda are considered as one of the severest crimes against the humanity of the 20th century. A country that was divided into 2 camps began to destroy itself. In terms of the rate of killing, the Rwandan Genocide surpassed German extermination camps during World War II, and many other massacres: according to various data, during 3 three months of the genocide there were killed from 800 thousand to 1 million people (Moghalu 192). Although there existed many differences between the representatives of the Tutsi and Hutu, this could not be enough for them to be considered enemies (Gourevitch, 1998). Therefore, here comes the question: what exactly happened between the people of virtually the same blood that made them mercilessly kill each other?
Rwanda is a small country in East Africa, the population of which is represented by the tribes of the Hutu, which currently composes the majority, and the Tutsi, constituting only 1,5% of the total population. Presently, there exist no special anthropomorphic and linguistic differences between the two tribes, mainly because of mixed marriage; however, when in the 15th century the people of the Tutsi who arrived from the north subjugated the other ethnicities that lived in this territory, certain controversies took place. The Hutu were involved in agriculture, while the Tutsie practiced cattle breeding. As a whole, both ethnicities were the closest to each other from the points of view of both anthropomorphic and linguistic factors. The Tutsie constituted the ruling aristocratic elite of society, were better off in comparison with the other inhabitants of Rwanda.
On April 6, the aircraft with Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, the president of Burundi, was shot down, which was immediately followed by mass killing of the Tutsi (Moghalu 84). During the entailed military coup, radio and newspapers actively maintained nationalistic and fascist moods, and called to the eradication of the Tutsi, with even Théodore Sindikubwabo, the head of Rwanda's provisional government, urging to kill the enemies.
At the same time, the role of the UN in this conflict was limited to the position of an observer, which provokes different suggestions. With constant awareness of the events happening in Rwanda, the UN made no attempts to restore peace, and the solution of the problems was constantly postponed and protracted. The members of the Rwandan Patriotic Front were merciless in their massacres, avenged their killed relatives, and executed entire families of the Hutu, which later contributed to the proof of their guilt of a number of crimes against humanity. It were the 1990s when the events occurring in Rwanda entailed in the concept of Responsibility to Protect. In his report in 2000, Kofi Annan, emphasizing the inability of the UN to resort to drastic measures regarding the events in Rwanda, turned to the country-members with a call to react on the situation happened in Rwanda as on the harsh and systematic violation of human rights that contradict the very testaments of human-being. As stated by Annan, since humanitarian intervention proved an unacceptable blow to Rwanda's sovereignty, the entire set of UN principles would have to be reviewed due to the fact that it allows the world to disregard the evident crimes against humanity (Gourevitch, 1998).
Furthermore, the passive position of the UN was strongly and justly criticized by social and remedial organizations. Thus, the actions of the Security Council were limited to the discussion of the issue regarding the introduction of troops immediately from the beginning of the massacre. With that, however, the members of the Council could not reach a unanimous decision. Thus, every day the UN was bombarded with new messages about the death of thousands of people, brutal massacres, deaths from hunger cholera, but it still provided no contribution to the introduction of troops in the territory of Rwanda. Moreover, the subsequent actions of the UN were mostly reduced to providing humanitarian assistance to the local population of the region.
Therefore, the question is: can the reason for this conflict be ascribed to an ethnic conflict, and could it be prevented at all? Indeed, this could be prevented with the timely interference of the UN troops, which did not happen, though. The Rwandan genocide also witnessed the eradication the Hutu who did not want to take part in the conflict. Hence, this was either under the influence of anger that pushed the alleged fighters for justice to kill the ones who actually were not their enemies, or the very conflict had much deeper idea than simply a nationalistic misconception. With that, more than one million of people involved in the Rwandan genocide were sentenced to life imprisonment, with many of them executed. However, a lot of direct and active participants of the massacre are still alive and free, and completely deny their involvement in the eradication of the two nations. Therefore, it turns out that wrong people foolishly became butchers, though it appear an insufficient proof of their repentance.
Those who were either the clients or the connecting link are still hiding in a neutral country pretending to be usual and undistinguished citizens, and deny every accusation they hear, which is stated in a documentary film about the Rwandan Genocide that they do not even seem to think about those three months of their lives, and they just erased this time from their memories and live as if nothing had happened.
Works Cited
Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1998. Print.
Moghalu, Kingsley Chiedu. Rwanda's Genocide: The Politics of Global Justice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 84, 192. Print.
