Best writers. Best papers. Let professionals take care of your academic papers

Order a similar paper and get 15% discount on your first order with us
Use the following coupon "FIRST15"

You should read the guidelines as follows: Then read these two chapters After that you should reorganize these PeaceBuild

You should read the guidelines as follows: Then read these two chapters After that you should reorganize these PeaceBuild

 You should read the guidelines as follows:

Then read these two chapters

After that you should reorganize these 


Peace Building and Co-existence between Hutus and Tutsis.

Student’s Name:





The civil war and the genocide that occurred in Rwanda is considered to be a manifestation of class divisions and stratifications of the society that are deeply rooted. These were later expressed and manipulated through the constructed identities of the Tutsi and the Hutu people. Among the factors that resulted in the outbreak of the conflict are socio economic class divisions, high levels of poverty, population, the scarcity of viable arable land, and the existence of a central government. On 1994, there was widespread violence throughout the country that fueled what to date is the worst case of genocide ever since the Second World War. An estimated 500,000-1,000,000 innocent civilian Tutsis and a moderate number of Hutus were murdered in the first wave of violence (Carney, 2017). The cause of the genocide is traced back to the year 1990 when President Juvenal Habyarimana who was a Hutu began using anti Tutsi rhetoric so that he could consolidate his power among the Hutu people (Carney, 2017). Already in the 1990, there were already waves of attacks against the Tutsis. The two ethnic groups were very similar and they had a shared culture and language but the government required registration based upon ethnicities. The government and army had thus begun to prepare for the elimination of the Tutsis by arming the Hutus with guns and machetes. April 6, 1994 saw the plane of President Habyarimana shot down (Carney, 2017). Whether it was by a Tutsi military organization or by Hutu extremists, it instigated the widespread massacre of the Tutsi people hours following the clash.

Main Actors in the conflict.

The two main actors in the conflict are:

1. The majority group of Hutus.

2. The minority group of Tutsis.

The split that occurred between the Hutus and the Tutsis was mostly founded upon economic reasons. The Hutus were farmers while the Tutsis were herdsmen. A majority of the people in the country however were Hutus and the economic designation of each people gradually came to stand out as divisions of class and as ethnic designations. Cattle were considered by the colonizers to be far more valuable than crops thus the Tutsis were considered by the colonizers first the Germans then the Belgians to be elite (Carney, 2017). The Belgians took over Rwanda in 1917 and by then Tutsi elite had been a ruling monarchy for a considerable length of time. The rule of the colonizers made the lines between the Hutus and the Tutsis to be even more distinct as they required all the local chieftain posts to be held by Tutsis (Carney, 2017). The minority Tutsi were thus turned into a symbol of colonial power.

Following the independence of Rwanda, the resentment that the Hutu had bred against the Tutsis turned into violence. The Hutus were a majority in the country thus they easily won the election and formed the government of Independent Rwanda. However, there were frequent cases of outbreak of violence between the two groups. The Rwandan genocide was thus a directed and pre-meditated attempt to eliminate an entire minority people for perceived errors in the colonial era (Carney, 2017).

Key Issues Resulting in Conflict.

Economic factors.

Economic factors are essential in shaping and worsening the effects and also the extent to which a genocide is carried out. There are four socio-economic factors that shaped the extent to which the genocide spread. First, there was a drop in the prices of coffee in the global market that was accompanied by the devaluation of currency and the inflation of the 1990 (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The Hutus, being farmers, were dependent upon funds that were accrued from the exporting of coffee to the global market. The drop in the prices of coffee thus resulted in poorer economic conditions. The second factor was a structural adjustment program in the sale of coffee that was accompanied by droughts in the southern region that turned into famines (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The drought thus decreased the output of coffee and the famine resulted in the lack of sufficient food supply for the entire nation. The third factor was the outbreak of the war that also drained the resources of the government and it resulted in the creation of refugee camps to the North of Kigali. Finally, there is the paradox of democratization of Africa (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The democratically elected government of the republic was facing opposition within the country though it was already embattled.

Cultural Factors

In Rwanda, the terms Hutus and Tutsis refer to more than just ethnic groups; the two terms are constructs that refer to constructed categories that represented different socio-economic position in the Rwandan society. Since the time when the two groups first settled in Rwanda, they had shared resources and engaged in intermarrying (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). It is thus uncalled for to suppose that there could be a pure divide in terms of race between them that could be a basis of war. The Belgian reform of the colonial state is what resulted in the reformation of the two tribes with the Hutus being ancient Bantus while the Tutsis were foreign Hamites. The Hamitic hypothesis is posed as a way pf explaining away every aspect of civilization in Africa as being as a result of western influence (Ordóñez-Carabaño & Prieto-Ursúa, 2021). The Hutu and the Tutsis were thus political identities to which the origin of violence can be traced. The genocide in Rwanda was not as a result of two tribes that were fighting as a result of the hatred that they harbored towards each other that would later erupt into irrational violence. It was a planned attack by a group in cahoots with the then president, Habyarimana, who was not pen to sharing his state mandates with members of Tutsi ethicality. In the case of Rwanda however, it was a class war, a conflict of classes that was minutely prepared and which later escalated along the pre-prepared lines.

Environmental Factors.

Environmental factors also contributed towards the eventual outbreak of the genocide in the country. Rwanda is a small country whose population grew from 1.887 million in the year 1948 to more than 7.5 million in the year 1992 (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). It was among the most densely populated locations in the entire continent with 300-400 people per square kilometer. The challenge of overpopulation and the challenge of poverty were escalating the problems of ethnic tensions. Growth in population resulted in an increased number of subdivision of land among the members of the family thus the amount that was sufficient for subsistence farming decreased (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). A majority of the people were left landless and unemployed; they had no source of income. It was easy to call for the killing of the Tutsis with the main incentive being that the Hutus would acquire their land and property. Land was thus a primary factor that was to contribute to the breakout of violence as the Hutus attempted to be rewarded through land for the slaughter of their neighbors the Tutsis (Moodley, Gahima & Munien, 2018). Other factors that contributed to the violence but which are bound to land include government limiting the sale of land, freedom of movement, labor opportunities and mismanagement of conflict.

Social political factors.

The focus of the project is upon the social political factors that contributed to the outbreak of the genocide. The interest of the Tutsis and the Hutus is to live together in harmony in the same land. They want to prioritize the coexistence. They want to continue sharing their culture. It is what they have been doing for hundreds of years prior to colonization and prior to the formation of any sort of centralized government (Taylor, 2019). The Hutu farmers were as dependent on the Tutsi traders as much as the traders’ dependence on them is portrayed. Prior to division by the white people and the establishment of the Tutsi as Hamites, the two communities shared culture and intermarriages were common. The language of the two is also not very distinct showing a people that were united. The interest of both communities would thus be to return their relations to the state in which they were prior to colonization.

There is no common cause that is recognized as resulting in cases of genocide; all instances are dependent upon the background of each country. It is also dependent upon the perpetrator’s definition of the group and the people that are attributed with a certain group. On the Asian Continent, the context upon which genocide occurred was dependent upon communism as a sociopolitical and also as an economic doctrine (Taylor, 2019). It was mostly evident in Cambodia and China. The leaders if the Khmer Lounge in Cambodia combined a mix of extremist ideology and ethnic animosity resulting in disregard of the life of humanity which led to wanton killings on a large scale and misery. In Africa, the strategies of dividing people and the use of genocide in colonies was applied so as to gain economic and political power by the colonialists.

The genocide in Rwanda was carefully orchestrated so that so that the Hutu and the Tutsi could annihilate each other and especially the members of the population disagreeing with extreme politics. Genocide was rooted much more deeply to be just attributed to ethnic differences between two people that had previously coexisted in peace (Taylor, 2019). The main cause are viewed as being socio-political; the manipulation of the people both during and after the colonialists had left the country. Genocide was as a result of internal and external forces that were at play to take advantage of the country. Prior to independence, the history of the country was manipulated by Western colonizers and after independence, the formation of a weak government as well as the failing of democracy within the country. The genocide was further facilitated by the indifference of the international community and westerners who were backing different fighting factions.

Goal of the project.

The goal is to manage peace achievement between Hutus and Tutsi in order to co-exist and cohabit together by promoting tolerance, forgiveness and better understanding. In this way to avoid another conflict. Conflicts eventually lead to destruction but also, conflict is an inescapable reality of human life, an aspect of our humanity. In the first half of the 20th century, Europe is an example of a continent that was boiled in never ending conflict as it experienced two world wars and was made up of totalitarian regimes. However, in the second half of the century, there was the creation of continental trade blocs such as the European Economic Community and the European Union (Ibreck, 2017). The result has been a continent that is far more prosperous and far more advanced in spite of the amount of destruction that they inflicted upon each other.

The Rwandan conflict too is an example of an embittered conflict between two people; between two social groups found within a country. In line with the Hamitic theory, the Rwanda political social and economic organization were all based upon the Tutsis (Ibreck, 2017). Though the minority group, the Tutsis are seen as the well-off invaders whose distant relatives claim a Eurasian origin. The Hutus thus submitted to the Tutsis who though they were few in number were rulers and were well off. The conflict in Rwanda is thus mostly an identity conflict whereby there is a group of people that are utterly convinced that the existence of another group threatens their existence (Ibreck, 2017). It is a sort of conflict that breaks out between communities that have previously coexisted but then differences are sowed between them along distinctions of their identity. The discord in Rwanda was sowed along the lines of ethnicities, territories, languages, religions and culture. The last decade of the 20th century was the most turbulent Rwanda has ever experienced in its history. The country was ravaged by civil war, genocide, mass migration, economic crisis, diseases, return of refugees and environmental destruction. Rwandan families were affected and are still dealing with impacts such as death, disease, disability, poverty, loss of dignity and rather need coexistence and cohabitation. In working on this project, the goal is thus to research how peace can be established between the two different factions (Ibreck, 2017). The goal is to come up with a way that can be applied that would acknowledge the difference between the two classes while at the same time making for a society that would be ultimately more peaceful.

Second-Track/Citizen Diplomacy initiatives

In the resolution of conflicts, there are intermediaries; people who become involved in the conflict. They are not considered to be part of the dispute but rather, they are people who are attempting to work with the disputing parties so that they can help them to resolve the conflict successfully and to transform it and to overall lessen the negative impact. At times, these intermediaries make formal efforts and are officially termed as professional meditators, arbitrators, judges, or negotiators (Dayton, 2021). In most cases however, the negotiators are people who are unofficially appointed and who hold the negotiations outside of the official tracks. They are unofficial third parties who intervene to help the arguing parties to work out their differences. When viewed on the international or the communal scale the term that is used to define this approach to conflict resolution is track two democracy or citizen diplomacy. Other terms that are used in describing this approach to conflict resolution is multitrack diplomacy, supplemental diplomacy, interactive conflict democracy, and back channel diplomacy.

The goal of citizen democracy initiatives is the creation of a low key environment that is non-biased and safe and which can be used to explore the ideas upon which a peaceful resolution of a disagreement can be attained. The participants in the exercise are expected to feel free enough to the extent that they can express their fears and their desires and further, ideas concerning the resolution of a conflict can be aired free from the restraints of the government. As a result, citizen democracy initiatives result in the development of mutual understandings of the different needs and the perceptions of different people (Dayton, 2021). Further, new ideas are brainstormed and there is the formation of strong, problem solving relations. Informal intermediaries are non-governmental actors such as religious institutions or individuals facilitating discussions.

In using the approach of citizen diplomacy approach in Rwanda, there are a number of advantages that will be enjoyed. Overcoming discrimination and prejudice is one of the associated advantages. One of the reasons why the conflicts between the Hutus and the Tutsi still persist is as a result of discrimination and prejudice between the meditating bodies. Meditating bodies have a vested interest on the potential resources of the country (Dayton, 2021). As a result, the mediator will favor the side that they feel will best help them to achieve their ultimate goals should peace be attained. Further, the causes of the conflict have been prejudged with some people biased against the Hutus while others are against the Tutsis. These factors make it difficult for any formal negotiation to occur. An informal discussion between the two parties would however surmount these barriers.

There are certain social expectation and lines along which members of both communities are expected to formally work. Avoiding social barriers would be an advantage that would be associated with being involved in an informal discussion. Out of the public eye, there would be no façade that the representatives of each community would be expected to uphold. As a result, it becomes easier to facilitate an open discussion. Another advantage would be changing the perception and the stereotypes both community members hold about each other. Most of the issues that community members hold each other responsible for are not even existent. For example, the perception that the Tutsis are better off that the Hutus is misguided. The most significant change can thus be attributed to changing the perception of either party to viewing each other as the enemy. The enemy image is a tool used by politician to mobilize resources as well as to facilitate unwarranted and unjustified violence towards a particular group of people (Dayton, 2021). The informal approach will give parties a chance to clarify misinformation for both parties, explain perceptions and decisions and thus develop a sense of empathy for the decisions of each people.

The ground rules, structures and the venues selected also Build teamwork and communication skills for the negotiating parties. As the intermediation is unofficial, the participants are able to swap personal stories and to narrate their experiences. The conflict is analyzed from a structural point of view. There is a chance to dig deeper than the superficial positions held over the societies so as to get more in depth understanding of factors such as interests, needs, fears, priorities, and the concerns of both parties (Dayton, 2021). With communication, the participants can become aware of how their language breeds conflict and mistrust because of how it is perceived by the other parties. A de-escalating language can thus be developed and this can be applied in more effective solution of problems at hand and to overcome barriers to communication and resolution.

The transformation of attitudes is tied to establishment of deep relations and mutual trust among participants unofficially. The end outcome of this is strengthening tolerance and forgiveness between both parties. Dining with the enemy at breakfast and later hitting the same bars in the evening is an effective way of saying that they share the same problem (Dayton, 2021). Contact between the people is re-humanized upon the realization of shared fears, needs and concerns. The formation of these personal relationships is important in the process of getting the leaders to develop tolerance towards each other and come up with ways of dealing with hurdles in other aspects of their relationships.

The final advantage of citizen advocacy is finding commonalties among the participants. In all the advantages that have been listed, what has been key is bringing the two parties together in an informal setting so that they can air out their grievances to each other. The advantage that is accrued from this is that it becomes easier to find common ground between the two parties that are in conflict (Dayton, 2021). With the establishment of common ground, it is easier to negotiate terms upon which peace shall be founded and to which both parties will agree. Citizen democracy will result in solid and viable solutions upon which the government can found its policies and ensure that the progresses that will be made in terms of peace will never be reversed. These initiatives can be the way of ensuring that Rwanda will never sink into a genocide again.

Actions Constituting Project Activities.

Psychological help of concerns

There are many psychological issues that underlie the cases of violence between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Any attempt to address the discord between the Hutu and the Tutsis would be rendered moot if the underlying psychological factors were not to be addressed. As a result, one of the appropriate courses of actions is seeking out psychological help for those afflicted by the conflict. Psychological help would be the first in the healing process of the nation (Ibreck, 2017).

Trust building activities.

For the people to be able to peacefully co-exist again, there will require to be rebuilding of trust between them. The people need to know that they can trust each other again. These will be achieved through participation in joint activities for both parties. Teams should be created whose members will be from across the racial divide. The goal is to re-establish the feelings of trust that exist between the two parties with the interest of fostering and growing it.

Mediation training

The leaders that attend the events should be trained in mediation of conflicts. The leaders should become adept at mediation so that they can deal with conflicts that occur at the community level. Training should be done through offering seminars and workshops that are focused upon conflict resolution. The goal is to avoid further outbreak in conflict but where conflict breaks out, it is important to have the skills to resolve it. Upon solving the qualms between community leaders, it is essential to ensure that they will be able to solve any qualms that may exist between the members of their communities. By so doing, there will be strictures in place to address future conflict outbreak.

Training on intercultural, communication and co-existence

The two fighting groups have to be taught how to co-exist and how to relate inter-culturally and communicate. Both of these ethnicities are citizens of Rwanda and they need to learn how to live and communicate together. As a result, the leaders will be trained on how to teach them the skills of co-existence and communication (Ibreck, 2017). There is the need to establish a national language that can be used by all parties without necessarily escalating conflict or which all people will identify with. It will be the basis of the formation of a national identity that citizens of the can then use as a basis of their intercultural communication and existence.

Lectures on conflict escalation and de-escalation

In the case of a breakout, the leaders will be taught the necessary language to use so as to de-escalate it. Language is an important tool in conflict resolution especially where heated arguments are occurring. The rights words at the right time make the difference between blows and the wrong words would only make issues worse (Ibreck, 2017). A one week seminar with both groups outside Kigali would be essential in teaching these skills.

There is nothing that drives the message home more than knowing what the fight is against. A visit to the Kigali Genocide Museum would be a reminder of the darkness the country went through and what it is attempting to prevent from ever occurring again.


Carney, J. J. (2017). Beyond tribalism: The Hutu-Tutsi question and Catholic rhetoric in colonial Rwanda. Journal of Religion in Africa42(2), 172-202.

Dayton, B. W. (2021). Track Two Diplomacy and the Transfer of Peacebuilding Capacity. In Transnational Transfers and Global Development (pp. 167-181). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Ibreck, R. (2017). The politics of mourning: Survivor contributions to memorials in post-genocide Rwanda. Memory Studies3(4), 330-343.

Moodley, V., Gahima, A., & Munien, S. (2018). Environmental causes and impacts of the genocide in Rwanda: Case studies of the towns of Butare and Cyangugu. African Journal on Conflict Resolution10(2).

Ordóñez-Carabaño, Á., & Prieto-Ursúa, M. (2021). Forgiving a genocide: Reconciliation processes between Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology52(5), 427-448.

Taylor, C. C. (2019). A gendered genocide: Tutsi women and Hutu extremists in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. PoLAR22, 42.




1. Which conflict I would like to deal with in my final project?

The paper will deal with the civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi in Rwanda.

The title of my project is:

Peace building and co-existence between Hutus and Tutsis

2. Who are the main actors in the conflict? What are their perception of each other?

The main actors in the conflict are:

I. The majority group of Hutus

II. The minority group of Tutsis

3.What are the key issues of the conflict?

· Social-political

· Economy

· Environmental factors

· Cultural

4.Which of them my project is going to deal with?

I want to deal in my project with the Social-political

5.What are the interests of the sides regarding the chosen issues?

The interest of the Tutsis and the Hutus is to live together in harmony in the same land. They want to prioritize the coexistence. They want to continue sharing their culture.

6.Why my project is necessary/important? Answering this question, formulate the goal of your project.

The last decade of the 20th century was the most turbulent Rwanda has ever experienced in its history. The country was ravaged by civil war, genocide, mass migration, economic crisis, diseases, return of refugees and environmental destruction. Rwandan families were affected and are still dealing with impacts such as death, disease, disability, poverty, loss of dignity and rather need coexistence and cohabitation.

The goal is to manage peace achievement between Hutus and Tutsi in order to co-exist and cohabit together by promoting tolerance, forgiveness and better understanding. In this way to avoid another conflict.

7.How, using Second-Track/Citizen Diplomacy initiatives, my project is going to achieve the goal?

The second track/citizen diplomacy in this project will achieve the goal of:

· Overcoming discrimination and prejudice,

· Avoiding social barriers’

· Changing perception and stereotype,

· Building teamwork and communication skills,

· Strengthening tolerance and forgiveness

· Finding commonalties among the participants

8.What are the actual steps/actions that will constitute the project activities?

· Psychological help of concerns

· Trust building activities

· Mediation training

· Seminar and lectures on conflict resolution

· Training on intercultural, communication and co-existence

· Team building on mediation

· Lectures on conflict escalation and de-escalation

· Trip to the Kigali genocide memorial museum

· One week seminar with both groups out of Rwanda


258 Edy Kaufman

Toward Innovative Solutions 259


Edy Kaufman

Searching for Common Ground

In chapter 9, the focus was on preparing the Partners for applying principles and methods of collaborative problem solving. Only in the last two days did the Partners begin to address their own conflicts. Building on the trust and insights gained in the previous days, the Partners should now be ready to look for common ground and innovative solutions. We shall illustrate several consensus exercises on Day 6 and then focus in more depth on our preferred methodology, developed from Rothman’s (1997) “ARIA” approach.

The final phase of the workshop is concerned with preparations for the Partners’ reentry into their own communities; it covers some of the first post-workshop steps that are best done while participants are still together. By this time, they will have accumulated enough experience and skills to conduct an IPSW on their own and to involve themselves in conflict resolution in general.

Day 6: Consensus Exercises

Collaborative problem solving is based on the search for consensus as an alternative to enforced solutions or poor compromises. Consensus implies decision making that is based not on majority rule but rather on ensuring that everyone’s concerns are heard and dealt with before decisions are made. This means that all participants’ opinions must be given equal weight and consideration. Below are several types of consensus-seeking exercises that can be used to illustrate the approach.

Some Illustrations

Exercise 1: TOWS/FODA

TOWS/FODA (external Threats and Opportunities, internal Weaknesses and Strengths) is an instrument adapted at the University of Costa Rica for corporate training (FODA is the Spanish acronym). Participants are asked to brainstorm on a particular theme of shared concern (e.g., occupational career prospects for Costa Rican businesswomen), each person coming up with a list of difficulties and opportunities. They are then asked to prioritize the listed items according to their importance either as maximizing positive factors (opportunities and strengths) or as minimizing negative factors (threats and weaknesses). Each person turns to the participant on his/her right, takes his or her list and eliminates all but the top three choices. The same is done for those on the left. These choices are compiled, and the resulting shared list is the group’s consensus.

Exercise 2: Bridging the Gap

A current controversial issue that divides the group fairly evenly but not by community membership (such as capital punishment) is identified. Partners are asked to wear a tag corresponding to their beliefs (blue for yes, yellow for no) and to stand in two separate groups. The individuals from each group should then spend ten minutes in close proximity, trying to persuade those on the other side to change their views. At the end of the session, people who have changed their minds are asked to change their tags accordingly. Usually in this first phase none will.

Then the Partners are asked to find possible points of agreement and move toward a “lesser evil” alternative. A third division should be added for those who agree on a new alternative (such as “no capital punishment but mandatory life imprisonment without parole for more egregious offenders”). Participants finding themselves in this group then trade their yellow or blue tags for a green tag and place themselves in the middle of the two polarized groups. Others can remain where they originally were. The “greens” (mixture of blue and yellow) should now try for ten minutes to persuade others to join them by bringing up more new proposals (such as “voluntary preference for capital punishment or life imprison-ment accepted,” or “assassination of prison mate by former assassin punishable by death”).

The point is that when people are brought to a confrontation between two opposing positions, they tend to become more polarized than when asked to come up with alternative shared solutions.

A note to facilitators: In case the result is not as expected, one can discuss with the group whether they have used the negotiation skills that they have just learned. This game can be fascinating and take up much time, so facilitators should be careful to budget plenty of time for addressing the Partners&#x201

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Fill in all the assignment paper details that are required in the order form with the standard information being the page count, deadline, academic level and type of paper. It is advisable to have this information at hand so that you can quickly fill in the necessary information needed in the form for the essay writer to be immediately assigned to your writing project. Make payment for the custom essay order to enable us to assign a suitable writer to your order. Payments are made through Paypal on a secured billing page. Finally, sit back and relax.

Source link


"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"