For the last fourteen years, it has been a long debate to whether what happened in Rwanda was merely genocide, double genocide or just a civil unrest. The lack of a proper classification of what has exactly happened in Rwanda during their 1994 fight is spreading much confusion across the world to the way any political or civil unrest in any given country is claiming to be a genocide. At the time of the Rwandan crisis, the only measuring rob of what could be a genocide was the 1940's Jewish holocaust where the Nazis of Hitler were hunting down anyone of Jewish origin to be exterminated.
The history does not inform us much clearly why the Germans Jews were supposed to die a so horrible death. If the Rwandan crisis is compared with the Jewish holocaust together with the today's Rwandan new political development, one may probably come up with some sustainable information that may inform the world to whether the Rwandan catastrophe was exactly genocide to the same extend of what had happened earlier in 1940's.
In the recent days, however, regardless of what has happened during the 1994 Rwandan war where both Hutu and Tutsi were slaughtered, the genocide is today accepted to have been of the only Tutsi groups. In Rwanda, anyone claiming to have been victim of genocide receives all the extra rights and honours to the extent of even separating their dead bodies.
For instance during the last fourteen years a group of clergymen who were slaughtered by the army wing of the Tutsi were refused to be buried in dignity because it was said they were sided with the then Hutus. In such circumstance, one may wonder whether some groups of Rwandan population deserve much regards than others based on their ethnicity.
In the beginning of this June 2008, some of the military officers of the army wing of the then fighting Tutsi pleaded guilt of slaughtering the clergymen which may shade some lights on whether they were two groups of population fighting each other and both of them having some militias or army wing of their races.
Besides that, though the current Rwandan government has always blanketed all Hutu to have been involved in one way or another in killing their neighbours Tutsi, they have however rewarded a group of Hutu who stood by the Tutsi during the genocide, which would mean that it was not the war between Hutu and Tutsi but between some militia Hutu against Tutsi.
Whilst in regard to the Jewish holocaust, though Jewish people were in war with nobody they were being hunted down as people by people of different races. The Nazis who have massacres the Jews were neither Jewish, nor Jews.
In contrast the Rwandan genocide seems to be l'extension of the civil wars between elements of the two ethnicities who fought for power domination since 1959. In other words, Tutsis and the Hutus all are Rwandans and members of two different ethnicities fighting for their political interests. In such circumstance, though it is unfortunate that such tragedy has happened, it would probably better to re-evaluate of what has exactly happened in Rwanda to whether it was genocide, duo genocide or merely a civil war. Otherwise, a wrong diagnostic brings often wrong prescription and it may also constitute a bad precedent where any civil or political unrest in any given country would be synonymous of genocide such as in Sudan, East Timor, Zimbabwe even in Eastern Congo (RCD).
