Stuff

To me the most interesting feature of the Rwandan case is that the ethnic distinctions were almost nonexistent before European colonization. Although the Tutsi, Hutu and Twa apparently differed in appearance, they did not emphasize those distinctions within their culture and the only major distinction for them was their place in the social structure. And although each group had a regular place in that structure, no solid boundaries prevented any group from crossing into another. The Europeans emphasized the physical distinctions--height, size, facial features--and the conflict grew from those distinctions.

Another feature of the conflict that interested me is that the West failed in its attempt to make peace and in some cases even worsened the disagreement. The Arusha Accords turned out to be a complete failure in ending the conflict. The civil war appeared to end with the agreement, but the Hutu government thought that the agreement was meaningless. I read in another book that Habyarimana considered it a meaningless peace of paper that he signed to appease the commission. Another problem with the agreement was that it supported the Rwandan army--RPF--but excluded what the Hutus believed to be their equivalent army. Although the Hutu army that was excluded was actually more radical than the RPF, the Hutus believed that their power was under threat.

Then as tension built, all of the peace-keeping forces failed to recognize warnings that the Hutu government was planning genocide. UNAMIR, among other groups, received warning, but no action was taken.

My view of the ethnic conflict in Rwanda and Burundi is that European colonists created the problem and that they were unable to handle the situation when it got out of hand. The question is, now that the ethnic distinction exists, is their any way to eliminate it.