Similarities and Differences Between the Conflicts in Sierra Leone and Rwanda

In Rwanda during 1994 Genocide happened between the Hutus and Tutsis. Hutus and Tutsis had disagreements on who will have power which effected the whole population of Rwanda. This leads to the question why there is Genocide in Rwanda? Genocide happened by two clans who caused mass causalities. Others did little to help which caused Genocide to happen in Rwanda.

In chapter two of the order of genocide, the author, Scott Straus, evaluates the course of commentary on the Rwandan genocide, by exploring already existing literature by other authors that tries to elucidate the reasons that led to genocide in the first place.

Discuss and Analyze the similarities and differences between the genocide committed in Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

It is important to study the immediate and gradual causes of the genocide. A good understanding of the devastating Rwandan genocide can help prevent a repeat of such violent events. There were numerous situations that led to the murders, but some could have had a greater impact than others. Two of the biggest causes of the genocide were the assassination of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and the hostility between the Hutus and Tutsis. The animosity between the two groups was built up over hundreds of years, while Habyarimana’s assassination was an incident that took place within hours of the beginning of the genocide. Habyarimana’s death seemed to be a trigger for the genocide, but the conflicts between the Hutus and Tutsis could have played an even larger role in the mass murders of thousands of Rwandans. The past relationship between the two groups must be studied in order to understand how they were able to reach a genocide.

The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on

Twenty years ago in the small east African country of Rwanda, eight hundred thousand people, mostly those of the Tutsi tribe, were slaughtered by their own government. The Hutu and the Tutsi tribes followed the same traditions and inhabited the same territory for over a thousand years. The rise of conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutu dates back to 1918, when the Germans lost their colonies following World War I, and the Belgians took control of Rwanda. In 1933, the Belgians establish the superiority of the "Tutsi" over the "Hutu" which lead to a great divide between these two groups (Admin of PBS.org). When the Belgians handed over power to the Hutu majority, a deep resentment of

The primary and secondary information gives distinction between both a first hand view and a secondary view of genocide, not only in Rwanda but also in Bosnia. In both cases, thousands of people were slaughtered or brutally beaten including women and children by rebel groups. In “Back to Rwanda”, the first hand telling of how effective the genocide was, showed it was influenced by Bosnia and how the impact was felt not only on a federal government level but on a personal level as well. In both Bosnia and Rwanda, cultural independence played a major role in the attempt and succession of genocide. The populations of both countries, separated into two different minorities, were both willing to be redistributed to surrounding countries and far away villages where they could be safe from a purge like massacre. The Tutsis’ and Hutu’s were the aggressors in Rwanda with the Tutsis in control until the Rwandan President was gunned down in mid day. This event triggered the aggression between both of the groups. In Bosnia the Catholic Croats and Eastern Orthodox Serbs fought against each other after the death of pro- unionized demonstrators. These two main events triggered the beginning of the genocides. Both articles mentioned that the UN did not intervene to stop the genocides but rather end it with bloodshed and that the targets were of multiple races, mainly those who were African American, as well as those of different economic background. Over 100 days, close to 1 million Rwandans and 7000 Bosnians were massacred. Together, Bosnia and Rwanda were in fear of manipulation by the superior race and were in fear of mistrust amongst the nations as well as the possibility of more

Sierra Leone gained its independence in 1961 but it’s not as independent as it seems. Known as the Blood Diamond of Africa is said to be one of the most dangerous places in the world. Of its top exports, diamonds are number one. Who knew one diamond could cause so much chaos especially in the land of peace and harmony, causing its own people to kill one another. Blood diamonds are infamous and play a dangerous role in the lives of many people.

When mentioning countries within West Africa, Rwanda and “Congo” stand out as conflict prone countries when compared to Kenya in regards to internal issues. Rwanda is known for its genocidal level of internal conflict that occurred in 1994. The genocide occurred between the Hutu, ethnic majority, and the Tutsi, ethnic minority, resulting in upwards of 800,000 Tutsi dead. Eventually “the Tutsi-led Rwandese Patriotic Front gained control of the country through a military offensive in early July, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were dead and many more displaced from their homes. The RPF victory created 2 million more refugees (mainly Hutus) from Rwanda, exacerbating what had already become a full-blown humanitarian crisis.” The vast majority of the Rwandan refugees fled to The Democratic Republic of Congo, among them were many of the militiamen responsible for the genocide. These “refugees” soon aligned themselves with the Democratic Republic of Congo’s government and soon began attacking local Tutsi

The United Nations efforts in peace-keeping operations in Rwanda had many setbacks and was considered to be a failure for many reasons. One of the reasons being the International community’s failure to make a distinction between a civil war and genocide in Rwanda. (Khan, 196) This meant that the little effort presented by the UN department of peacekeeping operations was often too late. In previous years the world has witnessed countless civil wars which have taken place in Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, Georgia and Angola. However, genocide was not present in these wars and was uncommon. (Khan, 196) According to Alain Destexhe, Rwanda was only the third experience of genocide in this century. Thus, with the ongoing tensions and unrest, dating back to 1990, between the Hutu-led government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) it was evident that Rwanda was on course for a civil war but what was failed to realise was that a genocide was also taking place. (Khan, 197)

Rwanda Throughout Rwanda’s history, power struggles have prevailed, and with this arose conflicts within the nation. Prior to European invasion, Rwanda lived in harmony for the most part, and in the 1800’s European powers heightened these divides between the ethnic people, and it affected how the modern day institutions and power structures are set up. These conflicts then led to a large-scale genocide which tore the nation and its people apart. Thesis Statement: Throughout Rwanda’s history of existence power struggles and ethnic issues have arose, many of which being caused by foreign European powers, this affected the country for years in aspects such as ethnic division, internal conflicts, power distribution, politics, and genocide.

With this conceded class distinction came the fight for reigning ability, and amidst this power vacuum, Rwandans fell victim to conflicting groups and crime, the eventual building blocks that lead to the massacre of 800,000 civilians. The origins of this ethnic loathing and in turn ethnic genocide can be secured to European colonialism, where those who arrived to colonize and yield the wealth of western knowledge, instead carried racist beliefs. Through this haunting event in history, when foreign governments unfittingly place their ideologies in unknown territory, revealed is how uninvited nations can destabilize a state by stimulating ethnic warfare, causing it to collapse and crumble through conflict.

Is there a difference between genocide and war? The idea and concepts of conflict are often misunderstood. To many, any form of conflict is war. War can be defined as a direct violent encounter between two or more opposing parties with a view to gaining access to an object of their mutual interests. It is usually accompanied by the use of weapons such as guns, bows and arrows, machetes, sticks, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. (Insert bibliography #1). Genocide has been described as a specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against particular groups, with the intent to destroy the existence of such groups (insert bibliography #1). Having said that, one common factor often exhibited by genocide perpetrators is to destroy a group perceived to be a threat to the ruling power. The purpose of this paper is to take a look at both the historic and political causes for the Rwanda Genocide, and to distinguish whether ethnicity was the cause or was it the aspect of the conflict.

At a first glance, these two grisly genocides may seem to be extremely alike. However the deeper one looks into the gruesome details, the more differences are revealed. No matter how brutal a death or how painless a death might be, there is no difference between if it’s right or wrong, because the final result is always death. In contrast to the regimented slaughter of Jews, Rwandan killings were very messy although still just as cold-blooded. This was

A number of incomplete explanations that attempt to account for the involvement have been posited, normally detailing purely political and demographic trends, and solely considering sociocultural features of Rwandan society. A common thread among political commenters is the role of the Rwandan elite in the fomentation of violence, emphasizing their struggles to stay in power. Whether this includes analyses detailing the effects of the economic crisis in the late 1980s, the Rwandan Civil War, or the internationally mediated peace negotiations, it normally implicates the political elite, those people being the Akazu, a small group of people around Habyarimana (Uvin). Scholars here attempt to look at the political consequences of events such as the RPF invasion and economic events such as the adjustments based on the fall in coffee prices, and connect them with the Akazu. These analyses are distinctly flawed in that they are not able to examine underlying social processes. They simply look at an exclusive group of people, who do happen to be extremely important, without fully understanding the entire picture. This occurs because it is simpler to pinpoint individuals rather than persistent social processes. With crimes that elicit such an emotional response, it is natural to spontaneously find a person or group to blame. Other explanations cite resource scarcity coupled with the country’s high population density and growth rate. Some parties dogmatically claim, through