Categorizing Political Violence: Rwanda

Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

Political violence is a prevalent part of history. This violence, defined as the use of force to achieve goals by states or non-state actors (Samuels 2012, 258) can be difficult to categorize, as each situation can vary greatly from others. In categorizing political violence, a number of factors must be taken into consideration, including the constraints and motives of the particular state involved. To determine the validity of different means of categorizing violence and test the theories presented in our text, I will evaluate the well-known Rwandan Genocide.

Because the term “Rwandan Genocide” has been used for years, it is often assumed that Genocide is an appropriate title to attach to this conflict. However, for purposes of this paper, I will seek to determine if the definition presented in Comparative Politics is appropriate.

In Rwanda, the minority Tutsis had maintained power over the country for centuries, often with tension between them and the majority Hutus. In 1952-1962 there was a rebellion and the Hutus came into power. Tensions continued to rise until 1990 when the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which contained a large number of Tutsi refugees, invaded Rwanda to defeat the Hutus. This began the Rwandan civil war until 1993. A cease-fire was implemented, but an assassination in 1994 began a mass killing of Tutsis by the Hutus, an event planned by many in top leadership positions in the government (Human 1999).

                

According to the Human Rights Watch, over 500,000 people were killed throughout the conflict that lasted until July (Human 1999). Does this qualify as genocide? According to Samuels, the UN discourages usage of the term loosely because of the “high demand for international intervention”; does this situation fit the definition (Samuels 2012, 280)?

                

Genocide is defined as “a coordinated plan seeking to eliminate all members of particular ethnic, religious, or national groups, through mass murder” (Samuels 2012, 279). To be considered genocide, ethnic divisions must exist between the two groups. This is not enough however, as evidenced by the fact that Rwanda had deep ethnic divisions but had lived in peace for much of its history. Ongoing civil war is a contributing factor, because it leads to fear and panic—often resulting in an increase in killing as people try to protect themselves. The third factor is the unwillingness of the international community to intervene. The US and the UN were very ineffective in their response to Rwandan genocide, largely leaving the conflict to work itself out.

                

The most important factor, according to our textbook author, is the pressure from government leaders. This is most definitely the case in Rwanda. Prime Minister Jean Kambanda even admitted that the genocide was open discussed in cabinet meetings and that getting rid of the Tutsis was viewed as a solution to Rwandan problems (Doyle 2004). The government organized the militia, purchased the weapons, and gave the orders.

                

One challenge to the legitimacy of this definition is the fine line between genocide and civil war. In civil war, two insurgent groups fight each other (Samuels 2012, 269). Civil war is defined by Samuels as “armed combat within the boundaries of a sovereign state between parties that are subject to common authority at the start of the hostilities” (Samuels 2012, 259). Civil wars also last typically over a year and result in a thousand deaths. Civil war is often the result of a spillover effect. All of these definitions provide credence to the argument that the Rwandan Genocide may also be considered a civil war. Both parties were subject to common authority at the start of the hostilities, they had been in a period of civil war just before the “genocide” began and attacks from groups in Uganda led to the spillover effect.

                

This shows that while the definition of Genocide is a good definition, the line between genocide and civil war is fine, and they may often be intertwined with one another. It seems that more specific designations need to be given to differentiate the two, at least in the case of Rwanda. Samuels seems to downplay the role of ethnic conflict, though it seems that in the case of Rwanda it may be that the ethnic hatred and ethnic cleansing is the differentiating factor between genocide and civil war.

REFERENCES

Doyle, Mark. Ex-Rwandan PM Reveals Genocide Planning. 2004. BBC News. Retrieved from                 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3572887.stm on November 8, 2012.

Human Rights Watch. Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. 1999. Human Rights Watch.     Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-02.htm#P21_7273 on            November 8, 2012.

Samuels, David. Comparative Politics. 2012. New York: Pearson Education. 257-84.