Hutu/Tutsi conflict case study

1. A breakdown in cultural understanding: A
Hutu/Tutsi conflict case study

2. The Problem:
Rwanda (1994)
 Could a better understanding of culture and the implementation of a SCA
(Sociocultural Analysis) have changed the outcomes in Rwanda (auditing
arms distribution, displaced people, genocide)?
 What applications / lessons learned can be applied to the SOF community?

3. Key terms:
Genocide
Non-combatant
Warrior-diplomat
Arms deals
Reintegration / Repatriation

4. Genocide: The deliberate killing of a large group of people especially those
of a particular ethnic group or nation ~ 800,000 people were slaughtered over a 100 day period in
1994 including Tutsi and other dissenters irrespective of ethnicity.

5. Non-combatant

6. Warrior-diplomat
Paul KAGAME (warrior)

8. Boutros Boutros GHALI diplomat
1923-2016

9. Arms deals

10. Reintegration / Repatriation
Tutsi and Hutu moderate refugees return to Rwanda

11. Twa
Hutu
Tutsi

12. Mwami Rule
circa 1910

13. Colonial period
German East Africa

14. Colonial period
Belgian Mandate
Ruanda-Urundi

21. Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF)

22. Arusha Peace Accords

46. Yonathan NETANYAHU
1939-1969

47. CROP VIDEO

70. Allison DES FORGES
1942-2009

73. Linda MELVERN

75. What went wrong?
 Foreign parties were culturally engineering divisions among the peoples that
were exacerbated by limited resources and the struggle for power in a failed
state.
 Unable to process accurate information and receive appropriate feedback and
authority from the U.N.
 The U.N. was overtaxed and ill-prepared to be on the ground maintaining
peace.
 The U.N. did not believe the Rwandan people could commit such annihilation
with machetes and expected throwing small arms at them would fix the
problem.
 Small arms movements and armament on both sides were not being
scrutinized.
 Radio communication was being used as a weapon
 Inefficient judiciary

76. Corrective Actions:
 Implementation of SCA (Sociocultural Analysis)
 Clear authority to act as situations develop
 Mediating / training / aid for reintegration/repatriation (tolerance and
sharing of resources)
 Regulating movement of small arms
 Maintaining integrity of communication/radio control
 Protecting the leadership

77. Conclusions:
 Could a better understanding of culture and the implementation of a SCA (Sociocultural
Analysis) have changed the outcomes in Rwanda (auditing arms distribution, displaced
people, genocide)?
 We may never know if better sociocultural analysis and communication would have prevented the genocide in
Rwanda altogether, but it absolutely would have benefitted the situation and would have alleviated many of the
contributing factors.
 What applications / lessons learned can be applied to the SOF community?
 Understanding the history and culture of a conflict will help keep SOF prepared for conflict that is likely to occur and
when necessary will aid in taking appropriate and non-escalating action when contingencies become necessary
(protecting leadership, rescuing hostages, interrupting/maintaining communications, providing security for access
points like the airport, reporting back accurate and RELEVANT information)
 Providing training, mediation or security during reintegration/repatriation may alleviate tensions.
 Helping to ensure integrity, relevance and delivery of humanitarian efforts