Today, I met a gentleman that had no idea what happened in Rwanda. I started speaking to him about it and I remembered the first time I read and commented on the Rwandan genocide…it goes as follows:

In Prunier’s chapter titled “Genocide in Rwanda”, three points are tackled. The first point of discussion is basically a description of the Hutu and Tutsi groups and the role they play in the nation-state. The second point Prunier discusses is the monoethnic state that existed from 1959 and 1963 to 1994. Lastly, Prunier evaluates the role of foreign intervention in contributing to the deterioration of the events.

The Tutsi and Hutu are not considered a tribe or an ethnic group; they can best be described as orders. Orders usually have a prestigious insinuation. The Tutsis were herders, which gave them more power at that period of time; however, they became peasants much like the Hutus when they no longer could raise cattle. Before colonial times, the Tutsis led a patron-client relationship system. “The patron was responsible for the welfare of his clients, and the client had to give allegiance and obedience.” Civil wars occurred over control of certain groups of hills. Rwanda is covered by hills, and therefore control of the hills was control of the monarchy. The rise of monarchies resulted from the fact that the region was very fertile, and there was always a surplus of grain. This caused a centralized state to take form early. In the 16^th and 17^th centuries, eastern Africa was composed of Kingdoms. This complicated the relationship between the Tutsi and Hutu regarding loyalty and allegiance. Chiefs were responsible for the hills, and each hill had three chiefs used by Tutsi overlords. Each chief had a separate role. The first chief was usually a Tutsi, and was in charge of the pasture and the grazing. The second chief was usually a Hutu, and he made sure people cultivated properly, and the third one was known as the chief of the men. His role was to oversee the administration and to prepare men for war. The chief of men could be a Hutu, but the overlord was always a Tutsi. These chiefs were chosen in a way that guaranteed power distribution based on geography.

In 1914, the Belgians attacked Rwanda and seized control. Belgium colonized Rwanda and their colonial impact was very strong. They abolished the complex system of overlords and chiefs and centralized everything. The governor assigned one chief an administrator for each hill. This chief was a Tutsi, since previously the Tutsi has always been the overlords. The Belgians rearranged the previous system, which in turned influenced the relationship between the Tutsi and the Hutu. Tensions rose between the two orders, and the only way to keep such tensions under conflict. Hutus were basically at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The Tutsi has been granted all the privileges by the Belgians. These benefits included education, prestige power, and most importantly, recognition as the elite. The Belgians did not see their plan backfire at them. It was the educated Tutsi that called for the anti-colonial movement of independence from Belgian after World War II. To get revenge, the Belgians switched their alliance to the Hutu, who were not so interested in political sovereignty. At this point the Hutu were the majority, however, they have been marginalized by the Tutsi for the longest period of time. When the situation became uncontrollable, the Belgians decided to withdraw and Rwanda gained independence in 1960.

1959 marked the first wave of killings. The Hutus felt very oppressed and had strong feelings of hatred towards the Tutsi after years of marginalization and domination. The Belgians also separated between the Tutsi and the Hutu based on looks. They declared that the Tutsi were more intelligent and had European-like features, making them more beautiful. This of course led the Hutu to feel that they were lesser, and created not only a social fracture in the society, but also physical separatism. The violence between the two groups lasted from 1959 till 1963, and the number of deaths reached approximately 50,000. A large number of Tutsis fled the country and took refuge in neighboring states. The Hutu formed a monoethnic state where Hutu made 85% of the population.  From the 1960 till 1990, so about 30 years, a system of ethnic discrimination was in tact. ID cards were issued to each citizen, stating their ethnic membership. These cards were to be carried at all times, and unfortunately, they were a major helping factor of termination when the genocide took place. During the 1990s, Rwanda was very centralized and the people were very submissive to power, much like the Belgians and the Germans. Rwanda as a state kept the Tutsi from any role of power and made sure they were kept out of politics, the army, and any administrative duties. However, since the Tutsi were highly educated, they had an economic advantage over the Hutu. 

The best jobs were either to be taxi drivers, translators, or interpreters. The Tutsis were trusted more by the foreigners and they were picked to work for them. Foreigners tended to marry Tutsi women, which lead the Hutu to believe that the Tutsi spread a false negative image of them. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda took place because there were very strong feelings of hatred and resentment between the two groups for such a long time.  Tutsis in Uganda who joined the Ugandan army years before launched an attack from the Ugandan front. These Tutsis were exiled from Rwanda by the Hutus, and the attack resembled their wish to return to their homeland. On one hand we have the Hutu with years of discrimination and resentment, and then on the other the Tutsi with cultural superiority. However, Rwanda’s economy was deteriorating with an increasing population and a failing coffee and tin export trade. This led the Hutu to start killing each other over resources. The political elite started killing each other for better jobs or for position were aid was easily looted. The tension rose as many Tutsis started returning to Rwanda with weapons.

Another issue that influenced the tensions is the fact that French existence in Rwanda created a sense of conflict with the English speaking Tutsis coming from outside, particularly from Uganda, where they felt that the English presence in Africa was threatening the French. The French sent troops to protect the Hutu government, however, this gave the wrong impression. They gave the impression that they would be there to help and protect the Rwandans, which was not the case. Therefore, the Rwandan government wanted to test the extent of the French commitment in the country. They did so by a wave of killing in 1990 and 1991 where 300 people at a time were killed. They did so to see how the French would react. He French did not really do anything, if they showed that they would not tolerate such actions, the genocide might not have occurred.

The Rwandan genocide was planned in a way that it targeted women and children the most to guarantee the annihilation of the Tutsi population.  The causes of the genocide were various and complex. Firstly, the Tutsi were made to be seen as foreign invaders who are coming back for revenge. They were made to be seen as returning to take over the land and to further exploit the Hutu population. Propaganda played a major role in mobilizing the Hutu masses against the Tutsi. The Tutsi were referred to as rats and cockroaches to be smashed. In 1994, the genocide took place, over a million innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered.  The international community did nothing. They went in Rwanda, but to pull their own people, the white, out. They left the Rwandans behind. Even the United Nations gave orders to their troops not to intervene at all and to completely stay away from the conflict. The RPF eventually took control of the situation but it was too late. The genocide has already happened. The Rwandan genocide is definitely an event that the entire international community feels ashamed from not putting enough effort in responding to the humanitarian needs of the human beings that lost their lives in vain. 

Monia Abou Ghali