How did the international community react to rwandan genocide at that time?

The international community's response to the Rwandan genocide in 1994 was widely criticized
for its failure to prevent or effectively intervene in the crisis. As the genocide unfolded, where an
estimated 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were massacred in just 100 days, the response from
the international community was largely passive and marked by inaction. There were several
reasons for this:

1. Reluctance to Intervene: Many nations were hesitant to get involved due to the fear of
another entanglement like the failed mission in Somalia, where American soldiers were
killed in 1993. This led to a general reluctance to intervene in another African conflict.
2. Lack of Political Will: There was a lack of political will among powerful nations to
intervene in Rwanda. This led to a failure in mobilizing international support and taking
timely action.
3. Role of the United Nations: The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda
(UNAMIR) was already present in the country before the genocide began. However, the
mission was severely underfunded and ill-equipped, and its commander, Canadian
General Romeo Dallaire, repeatedly warned the UN about the impending violence but
was largely ignored.
4. Media Coverage: The international media also played a role. There was insufficient
media coverage and limited public awareness of the scale and intensity of the violence.
This lack of global attention further reduced pressure on world leaders to act.
5. Rwanda not a Strategic Priority: Rwanda was not considered a strategic interest for
major powers, which affected the urgency with which the international community
responded to the crisis.
6. National Interests Prevailed: In many cases, national interests took precedence over
humanitarian concerns, leading to inaction.

The failure to prevent or effectively halt the genocide in Rwanda led to significant criticism of the
international community's response and later prompted discussions on global responsibility to
protect (R2P) vulnerable populations from mass atrocities.

It also led to introspection and reforms within the United Nations regarding its peacekeeping and
conflict resolution mechanisms to prevent similar catastrophes in the future.

Is the government legitimate during the rwandan genocide?

During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the government at the time, led by President Juvénal
Habyarimana, was widely viewed as not fully legitimate. The Habyarimana regime was already
facing internal conflicts and accusations of authoritarian rule. His government was accused of
fostering ethnic tensions between the Hutu majority and Tutsi minority, which eventually erupted
into the genocide.

The legitimacy of the government was further called into question due to its role in promoting
Hutu extremism, disseminating propaganda against the Tutsis, and supporting militias that
actively participated in the genocide.

Furthermore, the assassination of President Habyarimana on April 6, 1994, was one of the key
triggers for the genocide. It's suspected that extremist Hutu elements within the government
orchestrated the assassination, which further destabilized the country and incited the genocide
against the Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
The breakdown of law and order during the genocide and the systematic targeting of Tutsis by
both state and non-state actors, including the military, government officials, and extremist Hutu
militia groups, all contributed to the loss of legitimacy of the government.

In summary, the government's failure to prevent the genocide, its role in stoking ethnic tensions,
and the active participation of its agents in the mass killings significantly undermined its
legitimacy during the Rwandan genocide.

How were the rwandans colonised?

Rwanda, like many African nations, was colonized during the "Scramble for Africa," a period of
European imperial expansion in the late 19th century. The colonization of Rwanda had significant
historical consequences for its society and the tensions between its ethnic groups, particularly the
Hutus and Tutsis.

Rwanda was originally a pre-colonial kingdom with a complex social structure. The country was
first occupied by Germany in the late 19th century and subsequently passed into Belgian control
after World War I, following the Treaty of Versailles.

The colonizers, both Germans and Belgians, employed a policy of "indirect rule" in Rwanda. They
exploited and exacerbated existing societal divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups.
Traditionally, these groups were divided based on social and economic distinctions rather than
purely ethnic ones. Tutsis were primarily pastoralists, while Hutus were mainly cultivators, but
these distinctions were not rigidly fixed.

The colonizers, particularly the Belgians, imposed a racial theory that categorized the Tutsis as
superior to the Hutus, using physical characteristics and social status as criteria. They issued
identity cards that further institutionalized this division, making ethnicity an essential part of
individual identification.

Under Belgian rule, Tutsis were favored for administrative roles and given better educational and
economic opportunities. This institutionalized discrimination and favoritism exacerbated tensions
between the two groups. The Belgians used the Tutsis as intermediaries to enforce colonial rule,
which caused resentment among the Hutus.

This policy of favoritism contributed to deep-seated animosity and tensions between the two
groups, which eventually erupted in the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

The legacy of colonialism played a significant role in shaping the dynamics of Rwandan society
and fueling the ethnic divisions that eventually led to the tragic events of the genocide. The
colonial policies of divide and rule sowed the seeds of the tensions and conflicts that erupted
many years later.

Why were the hutus and tutsis separated?

The historical separation between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups in Rwanda was not initially
based on strict ethnic differences but rather social, economic, and occupational distinctions.
Traditionally, these distinctions were fluid and based on social roles rather than strictly defined
ethnic boundaries.
The Tutsi were often identified as cattle herders and had generally occupied higher social and
economic positions within Rwandan society. They were considered to have more influence and
power due to their economic activities and ties to the monarchy. Tutsis were also often taller and
had features considered more "Nilo-Hamitic" (physically resembling groups from the Horn of
Africa), which contributed to the racial categorization imposed during the colonial period.

The Hutus, on the other hand, were primarily engaged in agriculture and farming. They made up
the majority of the population but generally held lower social status and had fewer opportunities
for education and advancement in the pre-colonial Rwandan society.

During the colonial period, especially under Belgian rule, these societal divisions were
exacerbated and rigidly defined. The Belgians, following a policy of indirect rule, emphasized
these distinctions and, importantly, codified them into a more rigid caste-like system. They issued
identity cards based on these distinctions, making ethnic identification an official part of an
individual's status.

The colonial authorities introduced a system that favored Tutsis for administrative roles,
education, and economic opportunities, which intensified the distinctions between the groups
and created tensions. This institutionalized favoritism and discrimination further entrenched the
divisions and sowed the seeds of ethnic conflict, eventually leading to the tragic events of the
Rwandan genocide in 1994.

The historical, social, and economic differences between the Hutus and Tutsis were significantly
exacerbated and solidified by colonial policies, which eventually played a substantial role in the
tensions and violence that erupted in Rwanda.

How did the people get money throughout the rwandan genocide?
During the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the economic infrastructure of the country was severely
disrupted as the violence and chaos engulfed the nation. In such a crisis, the regular means of
obtaining money or income were significantly disrupted for most people.

The genocide resulted in widespread destruction, displacement, and the breakdown of normal
societal structures. Many individuals lost their homes, livelihoods, and access to their usual
sources of income. The violence and turmoil led to a breakdown in the economy and the normal
functioning of businesses and services.

Given the dire circumstances during the genocide, people resorted to various means to acquire
money or essentials:

1. Bartering and Trade: In the absence of a stable currency or functioning economy,

people often resorted to bartering goods or services to obtain necessities.
2. Black Market and Informal Economy: Some individuals engaged in informal trading or
participated in a black market where goods and resources were exchanged outside of
formal economic systems.
3. Humanitarian Aid: International humanitarian organizations and relief efforts provided
essential goods, services, and sometimes cash or aid packages to the survivors and
refugees.
4. Illegal Means: Unfortunately, some individuals resorted to illegal activities, such as theft
or looting, to obtain money or resources.
 5. Assistance from Local Networks and Communities: Strong social networks and
community support were crucial during such times. People often relied on their
communities, families, and support networks for assistance and resources.

It's important to note that the genocide was an immensely tragic and chaotic period, and the
means by which individuals acquired money or sustenance were largely shaped by the immediate
need for survival amid the breakdown of societal structures and economic systems. The situation
varied for different individuals, and the ability to access resources often depended on factors
such as location, connections, and sheer luck in an extremely tumultuous environment.

How is the conflict of the rwandan genocide in present day?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, Rwanda has made significant strides in its
recovery and reconciliation process since the genocide in 1994. The country has undergone
remarkable transformations in various aspects, including social, economic, and political spheres.
However, while much progress has been made, the scars and the impact of the genocide
continue to linger in some ways.

Reconciliation Efforts: Rwanda has invested heavily in reconciliation and healing processes. These
efforts involve justice mechanisms such as the Gacaca courts, community-based courts aimed at
trying many of the perpetrators of the genocide. Additionally, there have been various grassroots
reconciliation initiatives, education programs, and efforts to foster unity among the Hutu and
Tutsi ethnic groups.

Economic Development: Rwanda has seen notable economic growth and development. The
government has focused on rebuilding the economy and investing in various sectors such as
technology, infrastructure, and agriculture. This has helped in improving living standards for
many Rwandans.

Political Stability: The government has aimed to establish stability and security. President Paul
Kagame has been in power since 2000 and has overseen efforts to bring about stability and
economic progress. However, there have been concerns raised about political freedoms and
human rights issues.

International Relations: Rwanda has gained attention for its active role in regional and
international affairs, working to strengthen its relationships with other countries and international
organizations.

Trauma and Healing: Despite the progress, many individuals in Rwanda still grapple with the
trauma and lasting psychological effects of the genocide. There have been ongoing efforts to
provide mental health support and counseling for survivors and the general population affected
by the genocide.

Challenges Remain: The effects of the genocide are deeply rooted in the country's history, and
there are still challenges related to reconciliation, trauma healing, and ensuring justice for all
victims. Ethnic tensions can occasionally resurface, and the need for continued efforts toward
unity and healing persists.
Please note that the situation might have evolved further since then, and for the most current
and detailed information, it's advisable to refer to recent reports or studies on Rwanda and the
aftermath of the genocide.

Why did Belgium leave the power with the Hutus after leaving before the rwandan
genocide?
Belgium's decision to transfer power to the Hutus before leaving Rwanda was influenced by
several factors, some of which were based on historical, political, and administrative reasons:

1. Colonial Policy Shift: During the later stages of colonial rule, Belgium began to shift
away from favoring the Tutsis. This shift was partly influenced by changing global political
dynamics, decolonization movements, and shifting attitudes toward colonial
administration.
2. Democratization Pressure: The international climate was changing, and there was
increased pressure globally for decolonization and the establishment of more democratic
systems. Belgium, under this pressure, encouraged political reforms in Rwanda that aimed
to transition away from the existing Tutsi monarchy towards a more inclusive political
system.
3. Ethnic Policy Reversal: Historically, Belgian colonial authorities had favored the Tutsis
and supported their rule. However, in the period leading up to Rwanda's independence,
Belgium began to reverse this policy, partly due to growing resentment among the
majority Hutus who were seeking political power and independence.
4. Nationalist Movements: The rise of Hutu nationalist movements and demands for self-
governance and an end to Tutsi domination played a role in Belgium's decision-making.
The Belgians saw the need to respond to the growing demands for self-rule from the
majority Hutu population.
5. Belgian Withdrawal and Independence: As Belgium prepared to grant independence to
Rwanda in 1962, the colonial power was aiming to facilitate a transition and avoid directly
entangling itself in post-colonial governance. Handing over power to the majority Hutus
was seen as a way to expedite the decolonization process and shift responsibility to a
local administration.

However, the hasty transition and the tensions between the Hutus and Tutsis were not
adequately addressed. The power shift to the Hutus, without proper reconciliation or a peaceful
transition plan, contributed to the resentment, ethnic divisions, and ultimately played a role in the
tragic events that led to the Rwandan genocide in 1994.

What happened to the corpses in rwandan genocide?

During and after the Rwandan genocide in 1994, the handling of the corpses was a significant
and deeply distressing issue. The scale of the genocide, with an estimated 800,000 people killed
in a span of 100 days, posed enormous challenges in managing the sheer number of deceased
individuals.

The aftermath of the genocide saw various efforts to manage and handle the corpses:
 1. Mass Graves: Many bodies were initially disposed of in mass graves or simply left where
they fell. Due to the vast number of victims and the speed at which the killings occurred,
there was often insufficient time and resources to conduct proper burials.
2. Cleanup and Collection: After the genocide, there were extensive efforts to collect and
bury the deceased in a more dignified manner. This involved the collection of bodies
from various locations, including homes, streets, and churches, and then burying them
properly to honor the dead.
3. Forensic Investigations: There were forensic efforts to document and identify the
victims, often to provide closure for families or to aid in criminal investigations.
4. Memorialization: Memorials and mass grave sites were established to honor the victims
and serve as reminders of the tragedy. Sites like the Kigali Genocide Memorial stand as a
tribute to those who lost their lives.
5. Psychological and Emotional Impact: The handling of the corpses and the aftermath of
the genocide had profound psychological and emotional effects on survivors, witnesses,
and the general population. There were long-lasting traumas associated with the horrific
scenes and experiences during that time.

The process of dealing with the corpses and the aftermath of the genocide was an immensely
challenging and emotionally taxing endeavor for the people of Rwanda. The efforts to honor the
victims and provide closure continue to this day, with ongoing efforts to remember and
commemorate those who lost their lives during the genocide.

How did the rwandan genocide end?

The Rwandan genocide ended in July 1994 after about 100 days of mass killings that resulted in
the deaths of approximately 800,000 people, mostly Tutsis, along with moderate Hutus. The
genocide came to a halt due to a combination of factors, including military and political
developments both within Rwanda and internationally.

The key events and factors that contributed to the end of the genocide were:

1. Military Advances by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF): The Rwandan Patriotic Front,
a Tutsi rebel group primarily composed of exiled Tutsi refugees, had been engaged in a
civil war against the government even before the genocide. The RPF continued to
advance militarily throughout the genocide. Their push to take control and stop the
genocide contributed significantly to its end.
2. International Pressure: The international community faced significant criticism for its
inaction during the genocide. However, as the scale of the atrocities became clearer,
there was growing pressure on world leaders to intervene. This pressure contributed to
increased diplomatic efforts and calls for an end to the violence.
3. Military Intervention: France, in particular, initiated Operation Turquoise, which was a
humanitarian intervention authorized by the United Nations Security Council. This
operation established a safe zone in southwest Rwanda, providing a degree of protection
for civilians and assisting in the evacuation of some refugees.
4. Collapses in the Government and Militia Forces: By mid-July 1994, the genocidal
government forces and the Interahamwe militia, who had been carrying out the killings,
began to disintegrate as the RPF gained control of more territory. This resulted in the
breakdown of the genocidal campaign.
 5. Declaration of Victory by RPF: On July 4, 1994, the RPF captured the capital city, Kigali,
and declared victory. This marked the turning point in the conflict and effectively put an
end to the genocide.

The genocide officially came to an end when the RPF took control of the country. However, the
aftermath of the genocide brought challenges of rebuilding, reconciliation, and justice, as well as
dealing with the enormous humanitarian crisis left in its wake. The scars of the genocide still
deeply impact Rwanda and its people, shaping the nation's efforts in reconciliation, justice, and
healing.

How were outer forces involved in the rwandan genocide?

Outer forces, such as neighboring countries and the international community, played various
roles during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Their involvement or lack thereof had a significant
impact on the events that unfolded during the genocide:

1. Belgium and Colonial Legacy: Belgium, as the former colonial power, had a historical
influence on the ethnic divisions in Rwanda. While Belgium had a role in promoting and
entrenching divisions between the Hutus and Tutsis during its colonial rule, its withdrawal
and the subsequent power shift to the Hutus before independence contributed to the
tensions that eventually erupted into the genocide.
2. France: France had a complex involvement in the Rwandan conflict. France had historical
ties with the Hut

What benefits did Paul Rusesabagina get from the genocide in rwanda?
Paul Rusesabagina is a controversial figure regarding the Rwandan genocide. While he gained
international recognition for his actions during the genocide, portrayed in the film "Hotel
Rwanda," there have been debates and criticisms about his motives and later activities. It's
important to note that my response here is based on information available up to my last update
in January 2022, and there may have been developments since then.

During the genocide, Paul Rusesabagina managed the Hôtel des Mille Collines in Kigali, providing
refuge to around 1,200 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. His efforts to shelter and save people from
the violence were widely praised, and he was hailed as a hero by many.

After the genocide, Rusesabagina faced criticism and accusations, particularly from the Rwandan
government, for various reasons, including:

1. Monetary Gain and Exploitation: Some critics argue that Rusesabagina benefited
financially from his role during the genocide. They claim that he charged those seeking
refuge at the hotel and that his actions were, in part, motivated by personal gain.
2. Political Opposition: Rusesabagina became a vocal critic of the Rwandan government
led by President Paul Kagame. He accused Kagame's government of authoritarianism and
human rights abuses. The Rwandan government, in turn, accused Rusesabagina of
supporting armed groups and engaging in subversive activities against the state.
3. Arrest and Trial: In August 2020, Paul Rusesabagina was arrested in Rwanda on charges
of terrorism, arson, and kidnap, among others. His arrest was met with international
attention and raised concerns about the fairness of the legal proceedings.
It's essential to approach discussions about Paul Rusesabagina with a nuanced perspective,
considering the complexities and controversies surrounding his actions before, during, and after
the Rwandan genocide. The issues related to Rusesabagina are politically charged and have been
the subject of considerable debate and scrutiny.

What did the owner of hôtel des mille collines benefit from the rwandan genocide?
The owner of Hôtel des Mille Collines during the Rwandan genocide was not directly involved in
the management of the hotel during that period. The hotel manager who played a significant
role in sheltering people during the genocide was Paul Rusesabagina. However, the hotel itself
and its ownership were not implicated in benefiting from the genocide.

Hôtel des Mille Collines, located in Kigali, Rwanda, gained international attention because it
served as a refuge for around 1,200 people, including both Tutsis and moderate Hutus, during
the genocide. The actions of the hotel's management, particularly Paul Rusesabagina, were
widely praised, and the hotel became a symbol of resilience and humanity in the face of the
horrific events taking place outside its doors.

Paul Rusesabagina, who was portrayed as a hero in the film "Hotel Rwanda," has faced criticism
and controversy in later years for his post-genocide activities and political stances. However, the
hotel itself did not directly benefit from the genocide; rather, it became known for providing a
place of safety for those fleeing the violence.