How Does Rwanda Conflict Have Been Avoided

This essay is going to talk about how the conflict in Rwanda could have been avoided by using conflict resolution techniques. This essay will talk in detail about the origins of the conflict, the key actors, and the sources of conflict. The conflict in Rwanda has changed over time and this essay will talk about how it has changed.
Pre-colonial legacies and colonial polices played a huge part in what happened in Rwanda. The government was facing great opposition and genocide represented a last attempt at survival. The Hutu and Tutsi people have a similar past to each other. When Rwanda was settled, the Tutsi people were the people who owned most of the cattle and the rest of the people were the Hutu. It was when the Germans colonised Rwanda
The Tutsi made up ten per cent of the population in Rwanda and the Hutu made up ninety per cent of the population, but the Belgians gave all the leadership roles to the Tutsi. This displeased the Hutu people. After independency the Belgians switched the responsibility roles and gave the Hutu people the responsibility roles. The Hutu people were now in charge of the new government. The Rwanda case is a good example to show Johan Galtung’s model of how conflict arises. In the late 1960s Johan Galtung proposed an influential model of conflict that encompasses both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2011, p. 10). Johan Galtung suggested that conflict can be viewed as a triangle, which includes contradiction, attitude and behaviour (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse & Miall 2011, p. 10). This model is a good example to show what really happened in Rwanda. Here the contradiction is seen when they was a clash of interest between the tribes in Rwanda, both parties felt hard done with. This was the case when all the responsibility roles were given to the Hutu people and the Tutsi people were left with nothing. This caused a clash of