The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict? The cultural and colonial
background to the Rwandan Genocide of 1994
Key questions: Does ethnic conflict cause genocide? What are the varying
interpretations?
Introduction
To what extent are ethnic conflicts inevitable? Are they based on age old conflicts and is
it only strong nation states that can contain them?
This is probably a myth: we need to understand the origin of conflicts more carefully to
see if they are really ‘ethnic’. More often than not, they will involve getting more power,
land or other resources. They do not result from ethnic diversity.
“In speaking about local group conflicts we then to make three assumptions: first, that
ethnic identities are ancient and unchanging; second, that these identities motivate
people to persecute and kill; and third, that ethnic diversity itself inevitably leads to
violence. All three are mistaken.” (John R. Bowen, The Myth of Ethnic Conflict)
Ethnicity is a product of modern politics – identities formed during colonialism and statebuilding.
The Legacy of Colonialism
Our view of conflict in Africa is clouded by the vision of ‘ancient tribal warfare’ e.g.
journalist during the Genocide wants to discuss the ancient tribal hatreds that are
fuelling the conflict – African UN official reminds journalist that mass conflict only began
when the Belgians gave Tutsis a monopoly of state power.
Before the modern era, Rwandans did consider themselves Hutu or Tutsi, for example,
but these were not the main source of everyday ethnic identity. This came from where
you were born, lineage, and wealth. Tribal or ethnic identity was rarely important and
could change as people moved around.
Colonial powers gave everyone “ethnic identities” to determine their place within the
colonial or postcolonial system. Colonisers needed local ‘partners’ due to their small
numbers and therefore separated ‘partners’ from the mainstream, creating a privileged
group.
In Rwanda and Burundi, the Belgians admired the taller people called Tutsis (a minority
in both colonies) – therefore privileged rights to jobs and education (minimum height
requirement for college entrance). They also required identity cards with tribal labels.
BUT much intermarriage so people could not be forced into neat categories – same
language and religious beliefs. They became economic labels – could change between
them depending on fortune.
This created what had not existed before: a sense of Hutu collective identity / a cause.
Late 1950s – Hutus began to rebel against Tutsi rule (encouraged by outgoing
colonisers) and then created an independent, Hutu dominated state
This created Tutsi response – RPF – rebel army. Independence 1962 then 3 year civil
war.
Fear from the Top
To what extent do people commit atrocities in response to manipulation / preparation
from leaders?
“It is fear and hate generated from the top, and not ethnic differences, that finally push
people to commit acts of violence”. Bowen
Juvenal Habyarimana – attempts to wipe out political opposition (Hutu and Tutsi) –
massacres 1990-1
Armed gangs of militia – Interahamwe – masscres 1992-3 of Hutu moderates and Tutsis
Plane crash April 1994 – Habyarimana killed – presidential guard began killing Hutu
opposition leaders, human rights activists, journalists, others critical of state, most of
them Hutus.
Then mass killings in countryside focused on Tutsis – why did people obey the order to
kill?
Radio broadcasts prepared them for it – Tutsis portrayed as bloodthirsty killers who
would kill if they were not killed. Land promised. Hutus organised into killing squads and
those who would not join in were killed. Personal scores settled. Not random mob
violence, though influenced by mob psychology.
One party state that had practised mass indoctrination.
Conclusion
“What the myth of ethnic conflict would say are ever-present tensions are in fact the
products of political choices. Negative stereotyping, fear of another group, killing lest
one be killed – these are the doings of so-called leaders, and can be undone by them
as well.”