1. Summary
1.1. On April 6, 1994, violence erupted in the Rwandan capital of Kigali and quickly spread throughout country.
1.2. During the 100 days that followed, an estimated 800,000 citizens were slaugthered. Victimes were Tutsi or Tutsi sympathizers. Lasted until July 1994.
1.3. The international community utterly failed to prevent and stop this atrocity. Many excuses were offered and eventhough activists asked for international help, no humanitarian intervention was offered by any state nor non.governemtal organization.
1.4. Inaction was due to national interest: the United States decided not to intervene in Rwanda as there was no national interest at stake. France, which had national interests at stake, actively contributed to the genocide.
2. Development
2.1. Rwanda; developing country in a developing region. Lack of industrialization and resources, poverty
2.2. If there is a conflict, development is impossible
2.3. Human development: inequality and dscrimination, none.
2.4. No forms of development
2.4.1. Country suffered a recesion; reduced quality of life
2.4.2. Mayor inequality; structural violence
2.5. Political factors affected development
2.5.1. Poor management, the UN claims that part of the problem is caused by the poor management in which countries have been in for a long time now. They said the one of their goals is to improve the way in which states are directed.
2.5.2. Political inestability, there hasn't been stability since the genocide happened. The country has been under poor management.
2.6. Globalization
2.6.1. was never taken into account. Lack of external intervention. The UN was afraid of intervening because it could cause an even more internal conflict, but in this case people were demanding it.
2.7. Sustainability
2.7.1. With a grand-scale conflict, sustainability cannot be addressed
3. Power, sovereignty and international relations
3.1. Humanitarian intervention
3.1.1. Intervention would likely have resulted in saving hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. It is unclear what harm was avoided by the choice not to intervene.
3.1.2. Humanitarian military intervention was permissible in Rwanda, as a matter of moral obligation. The grounding for the obligation is based in the basic human right to physical security.
3.1.3. Belgian, French and US soldiers came to rescue expats The quick and effective rescue mission of foreigner sdemonstrated what would have been possible had the international community been serious about stopping the genocide.
3.1.4. Humanitarian intervention could have been legitimate
3.1.5. Responsibility to protect (R2P); UN member states had to follow this doctrine and intervene, as crimes against humanity were being done in Rwanda.
3.2. Sovereignty
3.2.1. It has become harder for the UN to make humanitarian intervention because there have been cases in which the UN had to intervene in regime changes and electoral disputes.
3.2.1.1. The UN intervened Rwanda where they failed. Since then, they have been in a position in which they cannot use violence or hard power to enter a country because then it wouldn't be a partial party that gets the problem and mediate.
3.2.2. The international community hid behind the principle of sovereignty to avoid any responsibility to intervine in the conflict, as it would violate Rwanda's sovereignty.
3.3. Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs)
3.3.1. Due to the media’s failure to report on the genocide there was no internal pressure from citizens that could have influenced policy makers.
3.3.2. Few Belgian activist went to Rwanda to aid the population.
3.4. Intergovernmetal organizations (IGOs) THE UN
3.4.1. United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR); was ill equipped to stop the killings due to constant pressure by the Security Council on them to save money, it did not have a sufficient mandate, resources, secure transport, troops, proper food or medicine.
3.4.2. The UN Secretariat passes on vital information to decision-making bodies such as the Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
3.4.2.1. The Secretariat and the Secretary General, failed to pass on information before and during the Rwandan genocide.
3.4.2.2. Non-permanent members in the Security Council, who rely on the Secretariat for information, did not come to see the killings as genocide
3.5. Power
3.5.1. Rwanda's government exercised hard power against the civilians murdered.
3.6. Realism
3.6.1. Structural realism; states didn´t intervene on the conflict because they are in an anarchy, no one forced them to, they had no intrest in it.
3.7. Liberalism
3.7.1. Interdependence: no individual actor could intervene without the international community's support.
3.7.2. Multiple actors were involved in the conflict; States, individuals, IGOs and NGOs
3.7.3. A genocide is an issue with global consecuences
3.7.4. International cooperation could have prevented the genocide.
3.8. Balance of power
3.8.1. The US possesed most of the decision making power regarding the intervention,
3.8.2. Even if any UN member wanted to intervene, they had to compell with what the Security Council had decided
3.9. Collective security
3.9.1. No country helped stop the conflict.
3.9.2. Global governance; no political cooperation to address the problem was intended.
3.10. Civil war/ intrastate war
3.11. Authorist Rwandan government
4. Human rights
4.1. HUMANITARY INTERVENTION
4.1.1. Was a legitimate moral obligation, it would have prevented the massacre. Failed
4.1.2. Genocide is a crime against humanity
4.2. Global inequality; poverty, discrimination
4.3. International humanitarian law; not respected
4.4. Massive violation of basic human rights in Rwanda due to the Genocide.
4.4.1. Right to life, freedom, security, speech, belief, equality.
4.4.1.1. Right to information; denied by the UN to non-permanent members
4.4.2. No protection towards human rights of the citizens
5. Peace and conflict
5.1. Peace
5.1.1. Negative peace existed in Rwanda prior to the conflict, positive peace was never attempted.
5.2. Violence
5.2.1. Structural violence; discrimination and resentment towards the murdered tribes. Social injustices. Cultural violence
5.2.2. Direct violence: genocide
5.3. National and international security
5.3.1. Both were threatened and the first one was lost.
5.4. Conflict
5.4.1. ideological contradictions
5.4.2. Type of conflict:
5.4.2.1. Internal conflict; no outside intervention/too much respect of sovereignity
5.4.2.2. Relationship conflict
5.4.2.3. Data conflict
5.4.2.4. Structural conflict, the discrimination affected the society creating more hate and promoting the use of hard power
5.4.2.5. Value conflict; clash between ideologies.
5.4.2.6. War: violent conflict, high intensity. Massive and continuous force against people
5.4.3. Causes
5.4.3.1. Ingroups: dissimilarity perceptions
5.4.3.2. Dehumanization: genocide
5.4.3.3. Greed and grievance: discrimination
5.4.4. Evolution: extermination, quick escalation
5.4.5. Conflict cycle
5.4.6. Negotiation state; third party involvement
5.4.6.1. peacekeepers never intervened, no mediation
5.5. Non-intervention
5.5.1. The UN used it as an excuse not to intervene