100 Days of Tragedy: Unpacking Blame for the Rwandan Genocide - Research Paper

Introduction

Within just 100 days in 1994, over 70% of the Tutsi ethnic group was killed in the Rwandan Genocide. In spite of the intensity of the tragedy, historians differ on who is to blame, and how much blame should be attributed. As with all historical accounts, a historian's background can influence their perspective on who is to blame for the cause and course of genocide. One might expect someone with personal or ancestral ties to the specific genocide to call for greater accountability for a genocide's continuation due to their emotional connection to the atrocity. On the other hand, historians disconnected from the event, while retrospecting might be more likely to look beyond questions of accountability and place blame on different or multiple factors. Over the past 70 years, the world has witnessed genocides across the globe in Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Cambodia, China, Armenia, the Balkans, and the Middle East. A survey of14 historians and journalists showcase different experiences with some of these genocides and highlight diverse perspectives on accountability. The survey shows that historians and journalists with ancestral ties to the region of the genocide, and those on the ground during the genocides typically place blame for their continuation at the feet of world powers, for their inaction. Meanwhile, those historians looking back typically look at multiple and varying factors for the start and continuation of these genocides.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Charles Murigande has ancestral ties to Rwanda, where the atrocities that took place, and this may influence him to be more critical of world powers who stood by while his nation consumed itself. Murigande was Minister of Foreign Affairs for Rwanda from 2002-2008. His family fled Rwanda, and he was a refugee to Burundi. During the Rwandan Civil War, he was the U.S. Spokesperson of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), the group fighting the genocide in Rwanda. His unsuccessful personal attempt to warn the United States reinforced his opinion that World Powers did not do enough to prevent the genocide. He wrote this article to bring awareness to the mistakes that happened prior to the Rwanda genocide and to show how the genocide could have been, if not prevented, at least minimized. Thus, Murigande's ethnic connection to the genocide inspired him to pull lessons from the Rwanda Genocide and bring awareness to prevent similar tragedies in the future.

Like Charles Murigande, Mohamed Elewa Badar has an ancestral relation to a region of the world where genocide is taking place, and this may make him more sensitive to the lack of involvement by world powers. Mohamed Elewa Badar, part of the North Umbria Law School, was signed on as a Reader in Comparative and International law. He was a Judge in Egypt from 1997-2006, as well as a Senior Prosecutor, and was an investigator of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry to report on allegations of Human Rights violations. He applies his legal background to the region of his ancestry and writes about how the Islamic State uses law, terror, and propaganda as techniques to govern and to further their political goals. His purpose is to urge national and international criminal courts to try the propaganda machine leaders for acts involved in genocide, demonstrating his view that the international community is not currently doing enough. Since he is tied so closely to Egyptian courts, he may be biased against those world powers who do not do more to stabilize his region.

Iris Chang, who also has ancestral ties to a genocide that took place in China during World War II, challenges world powers' lack of acknowledgment of the genocide after the war with Japan. It was this lack of acknowledgment by world powers that encouraged her to write the book titled The Rape of Nanking. In her book, Chang, a historian, and international bestselling author seeks to expose the Imperial Japanese Army's abuse of women and men during this time and was one the first to do so. Chang uses sources of actual victims of the Massacre, which occurred between the dates 1937-1938, and described the horrible events of rape of women and men. Chang writes with the personal knowledge of the atrocities through stories passed down from her grandparents. Therefore she has a standpoint particularly sympathetic toward the Chinese and is particularly attuned to the silence that followed after the war from world powers.

While "Disengaging from Genocide Harm-doing and Healing Together" doesn't necessarily call out world powers for their failure to intervene in Rwanda, it does push for change similar to the other authors with ancestral ties. This may be due to the fact that one of the authors of this piece not associated personally with the genocide, allowing for a more balanced perspective. Regine Uwibereyeho King, a professor at the University of Manitoba, was born in Rwanda and was able to escape the genocide attacks. Izumi Sakamoto, on the other hand, is an Associate Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at the University of Toronto. She focuses her research on anti-oppression, globalization, and empowerment. Their paper was a research study of sharing personal stories of people that went through the terrible Rwanda genocide. The goal of the study was to use interviews by both Tutsi and Hutu community members for mutual healing. The participants described themselves as "minding their own business," which enabled them to have an emotional detachment from survivors and non-survivors. Their article differs from the other pieces on the subject in that they focus on the psychology of both victims and attackers in hopes of reconciling the community. Their view is that if people became more engaged in their communities, they would have more empathy towards their neighbors suffering.

Our survey of historians with ancestral ties to genocide shows a consistent desire for world powers to have intervened on the behalf of those suffering at the hands of the perpetrators of genocide. Ancestral ties may cause a bias towards blaming world powers because inaction led to the suffering of loved ones and because such devastation often injures a historian's sense of national pride. While this may have a negative impact on the ability of the historian to act impartially, sharing the ancestral connection drives home the message of the necessity of change to the reader with great emotional impact. It portrays an important aspect of the event that another historian writing in retrospect may not be able to touch on.

Richard Curtiss was one of the men who was on the ground covering the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Serbia, a role which likely informed his belief that world powers did not do enough to prevent the tragedy. Curtiss is a retired Foreign Service officer and executive editor of the Washing Report on Middle East Affairs. His writing on the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Serbia brought to light the struggles the refugees face. Curtiss insinuates that the United States has a double standard when dealing with foreign nations in regard to how involved the country will be. He covers the division in the Republican and Democratic parties on whether to bring ground troops into the war to end the bloodshed. His experience on the ground and in reporting to bring awareness to the gridlock that can take place while people suffer on the ground.

Scott Peterson is also a writer who was on the ground during multiple genocides in Africa, which likely influenced his critique that world powers did little to intervene in the conflicts of Africa. Peterson is a Foreign Correspondent that witnessed first-hand the war in Somalia, Rwanda, and the Sudan. He wrote the book Me Against My Brother to bring awareness to the suffering he witnessed first-hand by going on the front lines of both of the religious and cultural enemies. He also explains the warning signs that were ignored by America and the World and how much of the suffering could have been prevented. The audience that he wished to address by writing this piece was the educated public, not just academics. Since Peterson was on the ground during these conflicts, his frustration at the lack of world acknowledgment clearly influences his writing. Unlike other pieces that focus solely on one conflict, this piece brings together the three atrocities that took place in a cohesive argument. Through this comparison, Peterson effectively delivers his argument that world powers did not do enough to abate these atrocities because they view Africans as insignificant relative to other races.

Filip Reyntjens, who was on the ground in Rwanda between 1976 and 1978, has a personal interest in the conflict that occurred there. Like others who were on the ground, he wished that more would have been done to stop the killing in Rwanda. He states that "he lost many former students, colleagues, friends, and acquaintances who fell victim to brutal violence." While in Rwanda, he was asked to run a law school at the University of Rwanda. Like others who were on the ground at some point in the region with no ancestral ties, Reyntjens felt that world powers did too little to stem the violence in the region. He became a human rights activist working with Amnesty International to take a position and have an impact on events. Reynjens critiques the Rwandan media on their statistics in regard to what was taking place throughout the genocide. The Rwandan media, controlled by the government, falsified information on the number of people killed and the reasons why they were killed to name a few. The BBC filmed a documentary on the genocide on what actually happened shattered the image of what was told the people of Rwanda by their government.

Those with who witnessed the genocides first hand also challenge world powers in their claims that they did not do enough. They were more open, however, to the idea that media may have a role in how the genocide is perceived in their home countries. There is a bias, however, in the fact that they witnessed these atrocities first hand. Their frustration is clear in their writing in describing their helplessness in the face of conflict. That frustration though, was not always directed to world powers. Those on the ground covering the genocide also felt that their media outlets at home did not care about the genocide as much as if it had taken place in the West. Those viewing the tragedies in hindsight and at home, strive to find other causes of the continued genocides. They dive deeper into the consciousness of the event and look for the cause, not just the intervention by world powers.

Dr. Martin Steinfeld is a researcher that views the genocide in hindsight. Since he views these genocides in hindsight, he does not have the same bias as those who witness the tragedies personally. He is able to view these conflicts in a different lens so as to try and delve deeper into the root cause of the atrocities. Steinfeld is a Visiting Lecturer in Public Law and Public International Law and a research seminar leader in European Union Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law. The purpose of this article is to look at ethnic cleansing in regard to the Croatia v Serbia ruling in the International Court of Justice. The author is writing from the standpoint of criticizing the International Court of Justice for not doing enough to recognize genocide in the former Yugoslavia. He still criticizes world powers but does so in a less bias view. Steinfeld's main argument was that the court failed to bring the status of ethnic cleansing into the realm of genocide in legal matters.

Matthew Levinger is another academic who looks beyond the world powers and into what may have caused world powers to delay their response to the Rwandan Genocide. Levinger is less critical of world po...