Rwanda.+1994

Home Small War Project Assignment Small Wars Topics

Rwandan Genocide April - July 1994: (Operation Name) Stacy G. and Max R. Hutu rebels || Rwandan genocide ||
 * [[image:geography-of-rwanda0.gif width="350" height="284" align="center"]] || [[image:CPS.ONX73.181208134108.photo00.photo.jpg width="281" height="315" align="center"]] ||
 * [[image:Rwandan-Hutu-rebels-eastern-Congo.jpg width="368" height="242"]]

Tasks I: Explain the nature and scope of the conflict.-- Due Friday, November 18th
 * •When** did the conflict begin and end?
 * •Who** were the belligerents?
 * •What** was the problem or issue?
 * •Why** was military action necessary?
 * •Why** was the United States’ interested in the conflict?
 * •How** was the problem resolved?

Draw your information from a minimum of **two** LC e-books and databases. Organize your response in an extended power paragraph. In an appositive phrase, establish the credibility of each source the first time you reference it. Internally cite sources and place the works cited at below the last paragraph for Task I.
 * __Task I:__ **

The Rwandan genocide of 1994 was a product of conflict between two groups, the Hutus and Tutsis. The discrepancy initially began in 1962 when Belgium gave power from the Tutsis to the Hutus. According to Wyndham Whynot author on ABC-Clio, “Following a 1963 anti-Tutsi campaign launched by the Hutus, that resulted in as many as 14,000 deaths, the country became a one-party dictatorship under Hutu control” causing rivalries to begin. This launched decades of battles between the two groups leading to the genocide of 1994, where it is estimated that 800,000 Tutsis were killed. The United States recognized the conflict but continued to “postpone the inevitable judgment that genocide had occurred in Rwanda” (Thomas Patrick Melady, Columbia International Affairs Online). Rwanda was outside of U.S. interests and the U.S. was unwilling to risk American lives by sending in military personnel to help stop the genocide. Although, no American military forces were brought into Rwanda, the U.S. still helped to resolve the conflict by committing themselves to “diplomatic negotiations and humanitarian relief in non-vital interest trouble spots” (Melady, Columbia International Affairs Online) like Rwanda. America used their forces to help enforce peace between the Hutus and Tutsis as Rwanda worked to became more stable.

__Works Cited:__ Whynot, Wyndham. "Rwanda: Middle East Wars." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

Melady,Thomas Patrick. “Burundi and Rwanda: A Tragic Past, A Cloudy Future.” Columbia International Affairs Online. N.P., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. .

Task II: Analyze the U.S.’s involvement in the conflict.- Due Tuesday, November 22nd •In which one of Max Boot's categories, does this small war fit--punitive, protective, pacification, or profiteering? Justify the reasons that you selected one category over another. •Who were the most important decision-makers or leaders for belligerents and justify your choices with expert opinion? How did these leaders influence the progress and outcome of the war? •Who was the U.S. president and what were his reasons for involving the military in this conflict? •Was there precedent for the U.S. to participate in small wars of this nature? •Which presidential doctrine best fits the aim or goals of this small war?

Draw your information from a minimum of **three** LC e-books and databases--at least one primary source and one expert opinion. Organize your response in one or two extended power paragraphs. In an appositive phrase, establish the credibility of the source the first time you reference it. Internally cite sources and place the works cited at below the last paragraph for Task II. __**Task II**__ Out of author Max Boot’s categories of small wars, the Rwandan genocide would most likely fall into a war of pacification. The goal of the United States and other countries was to end fighting and violence occurring in Rwanda at the time. The goals for this war could also relate back to the Eisenhower Doctrine which states that “a country could request American Economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. Military forces if it was being threatened by arm aggression from another state” (United States Presidential Doctrines). This aims to help protect those nations undergoing hostility, therefore the goals of the Rwandan genocide would most likely fall into this Doctrine. Becoming involved in a war effort because of the Rwandan genocide would also be considered a Just War. It states in a handout given to us in class from Stanford University, that a country attempting to assist another in need would be an example of a just cause, especially in this case since there were innocent lives being taken and in danger. This would also show a right intention because there is a suffered wrong to be corrected -- the mass killing of people as a result of an evil force rising to power. Although the United States was aware of what was happening in Rwanda during it’s genocide in 1994, president Bill Clinton, U.S. president at the time, decided not to become involved in the conflict. This was because the United States had already “owed half a billion dollars in UN dues and peacekeeping costs” (Power, 341), and America was just previously involved in an effort in Somalia. Rwanda was also generally of low U.S. interest. Also, according to Wyndham Whynot from ABC-CLIO, the killing of “Rwandan president JuvÇnal Habyarimana, a moderate Hutu, marked the beginning of systematic attacks against Tutsis”. Through organization and leadership from people such as Leon Mugesera, Hutu rebels rose to power in Rwanda which began the slaughter of around 800,000 Tutsis.

__Works Cited:__ Whynot, Wyndham. "Rwanda: Middle East Wars." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 23 Nov. 2011.

United States Presidential Doctrines. Handout from class. November 2011.

“War,” Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 97/28/05. []

Power, Samantha. //A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide//. United

States of America: Basic Books, 2002. Print.

<span style="background-color: #ff002d; color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 17px;">TASK III: How did United States' Public view this conflict? <span style="background-color: #ff002d; color: #ffff00; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 20px;">Due Tuesday, Noevmber 29th •Explain why the conflict was controversial among Americans? •Describe at least two non-governmental perspectives on this conflict and identify which one was dominant. •Evaluate the importance of the publics' opinion on the duration and outcome of this small war.

Draw your information from a minimum of **three** LC e-books and databases--at least **one** primary source and **one** expert opinion. Organize your response in one or two extended power paragraphs. In an appositive phrase, establish the credibility of the source the first time you reference it. Internally cite sources and place the works cited at below the last paragraph for Task III.

**<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Task III__ **

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The Rwandan genocide was a time of great terror and fear. Although the United States did little to get involved in the conflict, it was still a controversial subject. Rwanda was a place of low interest: “Remembering Somalia and hearing no American demands for intervention, President Clinton and his advisers knew that the military and political risks of involving the United States in a bloody conflict in central Africa were great, yet there were no costs to avoiding Rwanda altogether. Thus, the United States again stood on the sidelines” (Power, 335). The American public (at least those who were aware of the genocide) had mixed feelings about the U.S. keeping its distance from Rwanda. Some believed the genocide had an urgent need for additional peacekeeping assistance and that it was a matter of maintaining human rights, while others agreed with the Clinton administration in saying that the U.S. shouldn’t jump into the effort, especially since “many nations [were] ... reluctant to ascribe the term genocide to [the] conflict” (“Genocide”). By using the term genocide to describe the conflict, the UN would have no choice but to get involved, although many people were still opposed to getting involved in the conflict. Also, according to Linda Melvern, from the <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> due to the “f <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">ailure of states to volunteer adequate numbers of troops”,in order to fulfill the thirty thousand needed to maintain peace, “UN peacekeepers were forced to stand by as helpless observers of the massacres” (Melvern). A good portion of the public and government was not in favor of going into Rwanda to help stop the genocide. Public support ultimately determined the lack of involvement from other countries including the United States in this case.

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Works Cited:__

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Genocide." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

Power, Samantha. //A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide//. United

States of America: Basic Books, 2002. Print.

<span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Melvern, Linda. "United Nations Security Council." <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Ed. Dinah L. Shelton. Vol. 3. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 1086-1092. <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 11px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Gale Virtual Reference Library <span style="background-color: transparent; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

<span style="background-color: #ff002d; color: #ffffff; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 17px;">Task IV: Did the U.S. achieve its goals? -- <span style="background-color: #ff002d; color: #ffff00; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 20px;">Due Friday, December 2nd •How did the conflict end and how was success measured? •How did the outcome affect the U.S. standing with the American public, its allies, belligerents, and enemies? •Were the U.S. decision makers and military leaders praised or vilified?

Draw your information from a minimum of **three** LC e-books and databases--at least **one** primary source and **two** expert opinions. Organize your response in one or two extended power paragraphs. In an appositive phrase, establish the credibility of the source the first time you reference it. Internally cite sources and place the works cited at below the last paragraph for Task III.


 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Task IV__ **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The genocide in Rwanda eventually winded down as time went on. Once “ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #121917; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Paul Kagame became president in 2000 … Rwanda slowly became safer and more stable [during his administration]” (Whynot). The decrease of horrifying violence in Rwanda was ultimately a sign of success. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Jean Kambanda, who was prime minister of the Republic of Rwanda, was tried and arrested for “encouraged the killing of Tutsis. [Apparently] he ordered that roadblocks be set up to identify Tutsis and moderate Hutus and eliminate them. . . distributed arms and ammunition to members of militia that were planning to kill Tutsis, [and] ignored the murders of Tutsis committed by members of the military and government civil servants” (Blackwell). In other words, Kambanda was for the mass killing of Tutsis, and enforced others to join as well. Some observers of the trial “believe that. . . [the] trial was mainly an opportunity to show a prominent public figure being punished” (Blackwell), when in all actualities, Kambanda was not as responsible for the genocide as the ICTR implied. <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #121917; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"> This way, the public could see the outcome of what happens to leaders who support violence between its people. Also, America’s allies, the United Nations, helped Rwanda establish a stabalized government as a building block for reconstruction; “ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">In November and December 1996, about 1 million refugees, most of them Hutus returned to Rwanda” (Rwandan Crisis). U.S. decision makers in general were praised for helping end the bloody conflict between the Hutis and Tutsis as well as organize their government.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline;">__Works Cited__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #121917; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Whynot, Wyndham. "Rwanda: Middle East Wars." World at War: Understanding Conflict and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Blackwell, Amy Hackney. "Jean Kambanda." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Rwandan crisis." World History: The Modern Era. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">** Rubric for Small War Wiki: **•Answers to project questions are accurate and complete. •Information and expert opinion are selected from the **required** LC resources and are cited accurately with the credibility precisely stated. <span style="background-color: #ffffff; display: block; font-family: Georgia,serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: left;">·Maps, banners and photos are caption and cited. •Project questions are answered fully in extended power paragraphs.spelling •Writing is edited for spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors. *Works cited follow each task