Introduction
Conflict is usually defined in many dimensions such as those that occur along perceptions, behavior or along the emotions. These three points of view are very crucial because they enable us comprehend clearly conflict complexities as well as the way conflicts sometimes appear to advance in contradictory courses (Uvin, 1994 p 496).
Conflict in its definition in terms of perception usually refers to an understanding or belief that an individual’s needs, wants, interests and the values are ill-assorted with those of other people. This is a cognitive outlook which has both objective and subjective basics. Many scholars who follow this perspective contends that when one believe that they have irreconcilable values and interests and take action accordingly, then he/she is engaging in a process of conflict irrespective of whether they share the same perspective or not.
Defining conflict in terms of feelings entails involvement of reaction to circumstances or an interaction that portrays some degree of disagreement. Emotions exhibited include bitterness, hopelessness, sadness and fear among others. These are sometimes the sources of conflicts. Conflicts of behavior or actions on the other hand are usually undertaken in order to express emotions, articulate people’s perception as well as getting their needs met through various ways that have probable potentials to interfere with other’s ability to meet their need as well (Rothman, 1997 p 59). Comprehensively, conflict refers to adversarial association or a discrepancy between two or more individuals, religions, between various groups and countries resulting from their differences in interests and perceptions. The disagreement may be intra-personal due to internal discrepancy within an individual (Lewis W.A., 1965 p 64).
Many nations in the African continent are diverse and have different cultures, history as well as geography. They also exhibit different international relations as well as embracing various diverse internal policies. Complexities as well as diversities in many nations are reflected in the sources of the conflicts. In some countries, conflicts arise due to religion differences, various internal factors, while others may be due to other vital international dimensions. It is very common to find conflicts that have their origin in the history of the country. Other conflicts arises from cyclical aspects which might be connected to hostility which may be due to lack of fulfillment of ontological needs. It is however worth noting that the major cause revolves around leadership or rather political endeavors (Fisher, 1983 p 33).
In this paper, an outlook is made on conflict in Rwanda. Many causes are examined as well as circumstances that led to the development of conflict or rather genocide that took place in 1994 which led to loss of hundred of thousands of lives, displacement of people and the whole country being left in turmoil. Rwanda is one of the countries in Africa that has experienced one of the major conflicts of the 20th century.
An Outlook of Conflict in Rwanda
Various approaches have been developed to explain the Rwandese conflict. The divergences in the definition portray how people comprehend the Rwandan society as well as its components. Rwanda has three main communities, that is, Tutsi, Hutu and as well as Twa. The three communities have some disparities and the people discriminate each other. This tends to divert along tribal lines as well as exhibiting high social disparities. Many scholars believe that the idea of social status and social classes clearly attempts to artificially demarcate Tutsis from the Hutus (Mayer, 2000).
Many of the noble families came from the Hutus tribe. Power was hereditary in the Hutu aristocratic families. Tutsi on the other hand did not belong to the noble families and in addition the two communities were organized into economic and social hierarchies (Prunier, 1994). Due to this, the two communities were not in good terms.
The three Rwandan communities had made allegiances to the monarch during the pre-colonial epoch, that is, Umwami, which made them stick together on the same territory for a long time. During that time, clan was taken as the reference of their identity irrespective of the tribe one was in. People belonging in the same clan meant that everyone had a common origin as well as having the same distant ancestors as the other. The togetherness placed the three communities in the same family and enabled them to live together. It is worth noting that this happened before colonization (Rothman, 1997).
In the real sense, conflict in Rwanda was of a unique kind since it underwent a high tribulation in a very short time period. Around one million people were exterminated during that horrendous genocide. This happened between the month of April and July in 1994. The massacre was structured by extremist political groups and they were mainly directed chiefly towards the Tutsis who were the minority in Rwanda as well as towards the Hutus who were against the killing of the Tutsis. The killings came to a stop when the rebel forces of the Rwandese Patriotic Front succeeded to overthrow the genocidal government. It is worth noting that the interminable political tensions, immense refugee activities as well as the welfare of the guerrilla were unrelenting to instill political volatility in Rwanda as well as bringing about civilized predicament throughout the immense lake region which include Burundi as well as the Democratic Republic of Congo (Percival, 1998).
The Rwandese Patriotic Front was steered by the Tutsis and it was victorious and thus formed the new government. However, countless refugees escaped from Rwanda. Close to two and a half million refugees are said to have migrated to DRC, five hundred thousands went to the neighboring Tanzania, and around two hundred thousand went to Burundi. A great number drifted to Uganda (Mayer, 2000).
The militia that massacred the Tutsi and some Hutus during the genocide continued to spread hatred even after the war ended. They carried out campaigns that aimed at ethnic exterminations. Those insurgents in a vast way sullied human rights including killing Tutsis who had endured the genocide, the Hutus who were against their plan and religious people as well as those staffs who provided humanitarian aids in the country. The militia encompassed the members of the army that was defeated, the previous Rwandan Armed Forces as well as the interahamwe squad. They made regular attacks on people in the public service institutions as well as the government offices. Those deeds aggravated resistance between the Hutu community and the peacekeeping force, a situation that caused uncertainty to occur on the Rwandan roads. The rebel militias were made of the former refugees, ex-FAR (Forces Armees Rwandaises) members and Interhamwe squad committed much carnage due to political reasons as well as in the verge of pursuing their genocidal policy. The militia also sought to instill panic as well as weaken confidence in the government’s capability in offering protection to the whole population (May, 1995).
Brief violence history
In October 1990, the Rwandan Patriotic Front invaded Rwanda from the Ugandan base. The revolutionary force in Rwanda which was made of tribal Tutsis made allegations that the government had failed to provide democracy as well as resolve the predicaments of close to five hundred thousands Tutsis who went to seek refuge to other countries. There was continuation of war until July 1992 when the cease-fire accord was signed in Tanzania which fixed the date when the war was proposed to end. The idea of power sharing was included in the peace accord and there was to be set a neutral military force who would act as an observer group under the umbrella of Organization for African Unity. It was not long before the cease fire came into operation in 31st July, 1992. Political bargains started in August the same year (Magnarella, 2002).
However, it wasn’t long since the chaos started again in April 1994 when an airplane was shot down as it prepared to touch down. That airplane carried Habyarimana who was the Rwandan president together with the president of Burundi, both presidents died. What followed was that mercenaries and the military groups were formed and they exterminated all the political leaders as well as the Tutsis. The civil society played was in favor of the conflict as well. The civil society started to go against the government and they urged everyone to support the uprooting of the political regime that was there by then. The war spread from Kigali to every part of Rwanda. Surprisingly, the leaders as well as the radio stations that were funded by the government urged people to kill their neighbors.
How conflict developed
Conflict actors and the generating factors of the conflict
War in Rwanda was steered by various interest groups and international community had a stake in it as well. Among the actors we can include the Tutsis, Hutus, Militia groups, media house, and the Rwandese Political Front.
Among the international contributors, France was more responsible for instigating the conflict in Rwanda. The UN in a way could have made effective intervention but it seems there was a conflict of interest. This is because, they did not want the troops they had deployed to perish and that was the reason as to why they did not allow them to continue when the war intensified. The western countries and especially the United States of America failed to intervene and stop the conflict (Andréand, 1998 p 46).
International community contribution to the conflict
Western world
Western countries, USA for instance was to blame too for failing to prevent the conflict in Rwanda from intensifying. When bill Clinton visited Rwanda after the genocide, he regretted that they didn’t know that the conflict was that serious. This shows that they were in favor of one side since the whole world knew about the seriousness of the conflict. What is not clearly understood is whether those actions meant that they favored one side. As a super power, USA could have been more concerned as well as get more involved in lessening the conflict (SIDA, 2003 p 1).
United nation (UN)
UN is also to blame for heightening the conflict. When the conflict began in Rwanda, the UN sent 2500 troops to Rwanda. General Dallaire of UNIMAR’s pleaded for more battalion so that they could put an end to the conflict. However, UN ordered its forces to stop protecting the civilians and called for withdrawal of 270 troops arguing that their chief goal was to keep peace and not protect the civilians (Magnarella, 2002 p 30).
Colonization and missionaries
Missionaries and colonizers can be blamed for setting pace for the conflict that occurred in Rwanda. This has developed along three major factors, that is, ideological factors which mainly focused on myths and theoretical perspectives concerning Rwanda, institutional lines that relate to dishonesty of the demarcation of borders of the states that were inherited from the colonization as well as the political based issues that are the common features that depicts colonial policies which were later taken as the grounds for the political engrossment of ethnicity in Africa and especially in Rwanda (May , 1995 p 326).
The colonial power brought to Rwanda antagonisms of identity that significantly contributed to conflict that lead to great destruction of the country. This is attributed to their introduction of racial theories, mythology, segregation judgments which they practiced as well as their colonial powers. Consequently, missionaries and the colonizers in a way managed to inculcate their values to the minds of Rwanda people which destroyed the cohesion they enjoyed for a long time. Surprisingly France contributed to instigate the conflict even after Rwanda became an independent country (SIDA, 2003).
How France perpetrated conflict
France was in close relationship with the elites who perpetrated the genocide. In addition, France was capable of mediating the militia group and the government; however, they did nothing to help Rwandans resolve their conflict. In addition, France was funding the perpetrators of violence in Rwanda, providing them economic and political support as well as giving the perpetrators military support. France military officials who had been given ranks in the military were training Rwandans army and giving them advisory services on how to concur the war. These officers gave them advisory services so that they could retain their regime. France also supplied arms to the Rwandese forces as well as training the police.
Relationship between missionaries and colonizers with the violence instigators
Colonizers brought about ethnic aspects in the political scene by spreading ideological beliefs that allowed segregation especially in the schools as well as the political divide and rule principle since the Rwandan communities were organized into racial hierarchies. The Tutsi group was seen to be the superior one and due to this, Tutsis were targeted by the colonizers to assist them in their course. Hutus on the other hands were condemned since they were seen as an inferior group. The colonial system selected intermediaries from the Tutsi tribe. For instance, excluding all the Hutu chiefs from the traditional structures of politics in both Rwanda and Burundi was significantly based on the racial thinking. In addition, the missionaries supported the colonizers, a situation which led to replacement of Hutu leaders with the Tutsis (Mamdani, 2001).
For instance, excluding all the Hutu chiefs from the traditional structures of politics in both Rwanda and Burundi was significantly based on the racial thinking. In addition, the missionaries supported the colonizers, a situation which led to replacement of Hutu leaders with the Tutsis (ibid).
The ideas inculcated in people concerning racial inequalities as well as genetic significantly planted a seed of social injustice. The effects were seen when those ideas were applied in the local administration in Rwanda where by they continued to erode the social system; some people were more favored than others and this resulted in frustrations for those that were oppressed.
Rwandan conflict as a deep-rooted and identity-based conflict
Identity based needs usually arise far ahead of the interests in individuals as well as in groups. By definition, identity –based needs are the needs that people uphold in order to maintain the sense of belonging to a community as well as their position or rather their place in the world. It is vital to analyze the four needs in any society which includes the need for independence, meaning, intimacy as well as community (Berry and Pott, 1999). In short, the needs for meaning are those that individuals have that seek to create a purpose for a person’s life, actions, existence as well as efforts. In some cases, pushing for a conflict is construed as a major source of acquiring meaning for people’s existence (Kapuscinski, 2002 p 119).
In such circumstances, resolution of conflict may bring about major loss of meaning. Therefore, people always find other sources of conflict to accomplish the need for establishing their meaning as a community. Such circumstances arise especially when one community is undermined by the others and being set apart as an inferior community either due to lack of resources or being less in number (Alexandaratos, 1995 p 123)
Rwandan conflict is evidently seen as a conflict that was identity based. In the actual sense, conflict is identity based when a particular human group becomes convinced that it is under threats from another group which is considered as an enemy group. Such type of conflict in many cases breaks out between communities that live together and especially if they have continued to live together for a long time and in addition, when the communities have set up various frontlines along identity differences be it in material form or other things (Berry and Pott, 1999). Usually, identity based is a kind of conflict whereby many narcissistic individuals or communities brazen out one another. They come together on the basis of their sense of belonging to their ethnic group, language culture, according to their territory or even on the basis of religion (Burton, 1990 p 34). In the Rwandan context, the Hutus versus Tutsi’s conflict was significantly grounded on the basis of political affiliations and ideological construction. At the beginning of identity-based conflict, there was fear as well as contradiction of the two commonalities’ history. During that time identity movements embraced some degree of timeless reasoning that sought to determine the history of the two communities (Andre and Platteau, 1998)
Gnostic myth is one of the mechanisms used to demonstrate identity mechanism functions. It demonstrates that at the beginning, a perfect identity exists which is followed by a disturbing feature that could act as a conqueror to a religion which is a rival, be a dominating ethnic group. To be able to reintegrate as well as restore the original state it is necessary for a community which is already jeopardized to be in a position to free itself and destroy the people that threaten it (Kapuscinski, 2002).
On the other hand, some people argue that conflict in Rwanda was not embedded on the ancient hatred between the Tutsis and the Hutus. It was purely due to manipulative activities which were being carried out by the political actors, who in many instances are referred to as conflict entrepreneurs. These actors used different ways to inculcate the identity between the two communities in order to mobilize the tribal conflict (Espen, 1997 p 43). The instigated internal war of position was aimed at changing the government that was there and replacing it with a new one while maintaining the same territory. However, the fact is that the war was grounded on the identity based issues. Apparently, the conflict appeared to be a planned ethnic cleansing. The Tutsis portrayed strong desire to change the population of Hutus through ethnic cleansing. There were those individuals from both communities who ignited the violence. These were the conflict entrepreneurs. Their purpose was to achieve political powers. They mobilized the groups by convincing them that it was for the common good of the communities they represented (Espen, 1997 p 44).
Conflict management instruments used in Rwanda
Several approaches ware put in place to put to an end conflict in Rwanda. Some of those approaches include:
Participatory Evaluation
This method worked effectively since the Hutu government that conquered their counterparts and the international community came to an agreement that every stakeholder to the conflict needed to be participate in the peace keeping missions as well as in the enactment of various policies and laws that would ensure that peace prevails in future.
Utilization Focused evaluation
This is a method whereby all the stakeholders have been actively involved in the evaluation process to asses whether deals that they made are being successfully achieved. Both Tutsi and Hutu community have actively taken various roles including participating in various peace forums that educate them on measures they should take in order to ensure harmonious living with each other.
Impact evaluation
After the forums, the various parties have been engaging in close evaluations to find out the impacts of the forum in terms of educating people on how to live in peace.
Action evaluation
Various stakeholders have been intensively involved in many seminars that aim at strengthening the programs they have in order to ensure that peace is maintained in all parts of Rwanda.
Conclusion
Conflict is a very common phenomenon that usually happens in many nations all around the world. In many cases, it occurs due to disparities between individuals or groups that have varied perceptions, interests and points of views. The effects of war are very usually very devastating such as leading to loss of lives, destruction of properties as well as establishing detestation which is very difficult to stump out. In essence, conflict is usually defined in various means. For instance, it could be defined in terms of having resulted from disagreements that are brought about when people have different perceptions, when people have different feelings about something as well as conflict that arise due to a certain behavior or actions.
The most outstanding feature of the Rwandan conflict is that it took the form of civil war. It was surprising that even the members of the government were highly involved in the conflict. The war appeared to be deep rooted as well as oriented towards identity issues; however, a thorough analysis reveals that the conflict was spearheaded by conflict entrepreneurs who disguised people about fighting for their rights whereas they had a hidden political agenda that was embedded on the conflict. The conflict entrepreneurs mobilized the people to start the war. What followed was a massacre that appeared to be an ethnic cleansing.
There is a dire need to stop conflict as well as avoid future conflict especially in less developed countries in Africa. It is worth to note that settlement of the conflict is indispensable if the countries want to enhance sustainability in their developments. Sustainability of development in Rwanda as well as other countries in Africa should be a central focus and must always be grounded on human element. If sustainable developments ensue, the human beings living in those countries will be the major beneficiaries. It is therefore paramount for Rwanda and other countries that have gone through such conflicts put up structures that would ensure that such ordeal won’t be repeated for the benefit of all the individuals. Rwanda has started using various strategies such as putting up Gacaca which is established by the law aimed at restoring harmony among the citizens.
Reference list
André, C. and J.P. Platteau, Land relations under unbearable stress: Rwanda caught in the Malthusian trap, Journal of Economic ‘Behavior and Organization, Vol 34, 1998, pp. 1-47.
Berry, J. and Pott, Berry C, 1999, Genocide in Rwanda: A Collective Memory, Howard University Press, Washington.
Burton W. 1990, Conflit: Human Needs Theory, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Espen Barth Eide, “Conflict entrepreneurship: on the art of waging civil war” PRIO Report, Vol 4, 1997, pp. 41-69.
Fisher, R. U, 1983, William: Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books, New York, NY.
Kapuscinski, R. 2002, The Shadow of the Sun, My African Life, Penguin Books.
Lewis W.A., 1965, Politics in West Africa. London: George Allen and Unwin, p. 64-65.
Mamdani, Mahmood, 2001, When victims become killers: colonialism, nativism, and the genocide in Rwanda, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
Mayer, B, 2000, The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioner’s Guide. Assefa, Izkias, 1993. Peace and Reconciliation as a Paradigm: A philosophy of peace and its implications on conflict, governance, and economic growth in Africa, ACIS, Nairobi.
Magnarella, P., Explaining Rwanda’s genocide, Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol 2 (1), 2002, pp. 25-34.
May J, Policies on population, land use and environment in Rwanda, Population and Environment, Vol 16 (4), 1995, pp 321-334.
Percival, V. and T. Homer-Dixon, 1998. The case of Rwanda, In: T. Homer- Dixon and J. Blitt (eds), Ecoviolence: Links Among Environment, Population and Security, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.
Prunier, G, The Rwanda Crisis: 1959-1994. London: Hurst. Uvin, P. Violence and UN population data, Nature, Vol 372, 1994, pp 495-496.
Rothman, J., 1997, Resolving Identity-Based Conflict In Nations, Organizations, and Communities, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
SIDA, 2003.Reconciliation- Theory and Practice for Development Cooperation. Karen Brouneus: Stockholm, Wenger, Andreas and Daniel Mockli.2003. Conflict Prevention: The untapped potential of the Business Sector, Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder.
Uvin, P. Violence and UN population data, Nature, Vol 372, 1994, pp. 495-496.