Rwanda Genocide

The first article I looked at was http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/12/world/rwanda-says-its-army-didn-t-kill-civilians.html. The was from 1990 shortly after the violence had begun. During a rebel invasion, the Rwanda Government fought back, but in their violent attack killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Not only does the army and government claim that they did not kill innocent civilians, but when presented with the bodied they claim that the hundreds killed were only rebel fighters.

I read another article http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/world/four-nations-to-send-a-force-to-supervise-truce-in-rwanda.html in which there are peace keeping forces sent to Rwanda. The presidents of Uganda, Burundi, Zaire, and Rwanda all decided to send peace keeping forces to enforce the cease fire that had been established between Rwanda troops and the rebels. At this time, 1990, the rebel Tutsi tribe was advancing toward the capital with plans to over throw the president.

In both articles I couldn't help but notice the fact the the Tutsi were simply called rebels. In fact, when I first read them, although I had assumed the "rebels" were the Tutsi, I was confused about who the rebels were. Not once in the first article does it clarify who the rebel tribe was. I don't want to repeat what was said in another blog, but I couldn't help but notice the negative title ascribed to the Tutsi.

As a minority, the "rebel" Tutsi tribe had an issue with President Habyarimana, a Hutu. They accuse him of corruption and wanted democratic representation. It appears that the fact that the Tutsi were a minority gave a negative title. Its hard to find articles ever supporting the Tutsi. Its almost forgotten that 100s of thousands of Tutsi refugees live in exile. I found an article at one point (but can't remember where or the title or the article) claiming that the cause for the Tutsi up-rise and invasion could have been for the return of the 100s of thousands of Tutsi in exile, which isn't to hard to believe.