Neutrality In Rwanda Genocide

1404 Words6 Pages

For several decades various cultures have been rich with history and traditions that transcended time. However these cultures go through very dark times such as genocide. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, specifically those of a particular ethnic group or nation. On one hand neutrality is a positive alternative of genocide because if a country stays neutral, that country would likely have peace. On the other hand being a bystander or being neutral is letting thousands of innocent lives die at your hands. This inaction by the decisions of a country influences people to deem their self interests more important than the unity and prosperity of the human race as a whole. Neutrality is a very hard decision and can have a number of different impacts both positive and negative, which is highly controversial but neutrality should not be used as a decision for a country. …show more content…

For instance people in a country controlled by genocide are scared to take action because they think they would be targeted. Before the genocide, there were 7 million people in Rwanda divided into three different ethnical groups. The three groups are the Hutus, Tutsis, and Twas. After the genocide the population decreased to 1.4 million people. As stated in Outreach programme Rwanda genocide and the United Nation, “Thousands died of waterborne disease and they continued to target civilian populations which caused deaths, injury and harm.” This shows that many people in Rwanda died from diseases and some died from being targeted during the genocide. This evidence is significant because it shows the population decrease in Rwanda and also shows the negative impact of genocide in Rwanda. This genocide impacted the history of Rwanda and also the people in

Show More
Open Document