Belgium played a significant yet often overlooked role in the Rwandan genocide, stemming from its colonial administration of Rwanda and Burundi post-World War I. Its reliance on ethnic classifications and support for Tutsis created enduring divisions with the Hutus. Belgium’s failure to recognize the brewing crisis prior to the genocide and its withdrawal from involvement during the genocide reflect significant shortcomings in its historical responsibility.
Belgium’s contribution to the 1994 Tutsi genocide in Rwanda is frequently overshadowed by the discourse surrounding France’s involvement. The roots of Belgium’s accountability can be traced back to the post-World War I era when it gained control over the former German territories of Rwanda and Burundi via a League of Nations mandate. Lacking knowledge about these regions, Belgium opted for indirect administration through existing local governance structures, primarily using a feudal system led by a mwami (sovereign).
The Belgian government displayed little interest in these impoverished territories, falling back on the assistance of Roman Catholic missionaries to further their colonial objectives. Their colonial administration adopted anthropometric principles, categorizing races, which led them to view Tutsis as a superior caste of Hamitic origin, distinct from the local Hutus and Twa. This misunderstanding of local complexities laid groundwork for the ethnic divides that would later erupt.
Colonial rule disrupted the traditional Rwandan monarchy as Belgian authorities, influenced by missionary narratives, undermined the mwami, Yuhi Musinga, who was deposed in 1931 for resisting Christian conversion. The imposition of Catholicism supplanted local religious practices and elevated Tutsi aristocracy at the expense of the Hutus, sowing deep-seated discord that would fester until the genocide.
Tutsi officials, framed as superior under Belgian rule, became instruments of colonial governance, which further fueled animosity among Hutu populations previously marginalized. The forced labor imposed on the Hutus and their systematic exclusion from educational opportunities intensified this disenfranchisement and resentment. The structure encouraged by Belgian intervention weakened traditional social cohesion and marked ethnicity in ways that forever altered Rwandan society.
As independence approached, Belgium faced a changing dynamic as Hutu crowds began to rise against Tutsi leaders. This unrest was stoked by rising Hutu political ambitions, supported by Belgium’s colonial officials paradoxically believing that a majority population deserved political representation. The 1959 revolt resulted not against colonial authorities but rather against Tutsi notables, leading to significant upheaval and exile among Tutsis.
Post-independence in 1962 did not signal an end to hostilities, as hatred persisted against Tutsis under subsequent Hutu leadership. Belgian support for Hutu leaders, of whom Juvénal Habyarimana emerged amidst rising tensions and civil unrest, underscored an overlooked reality of Rwanda’s escalating crisis. The paper trail of assistance revealed ongoing favoritism, with Belgium promoting Hutu leadership despite clear signs of brewing discontent.
However, when conflict reignited in 1990 along the Ugandan border, Belgium’s response was tepid at best. They withdrew military support at a critical juncture, ultimately shifting their external allegiances towards France as fighting escalated. Belgian efforts to facilitate peace talks failed to reflect the burgeoning capabilities of Hutu extremists, as political violence intensified and genocidal threats reached alarming levels.
When the genocide began in April 1994, the Belgian government, slow to comprehend the gravity of the situation, suffered a severe shock following the massacre of ten Belgian peacekeepers. The growing hostility towards expatriates led to a hastened evacuation, marking a stark departure from Belgium’s earlier perception of Rwanda as a friendly nation. On April 14, Belgium decided to withdraw its peacekeepers in a move that effectively abandoned Rwanda to its turmoil.
In a poignant acknowledgment of Belgium’s past responsibility, Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt visited Kigali in April 2000 to formally apologize for his country’s historical role, encapsulating the underlying consequences of colonial policies that perpetuated ethnic divisions in Rwanda.
This analysis illustrates Belgium’s deep-seated involvement in the systemic issues leading to the Rwandan Genocide, questioning the ramifications of colonial stewardship and the profound implications of historical negligence that culminated in one of the 20th century’s most tragic events.
Belgium’s involvement in Rwanda’s genocide is deeply rooted in its colonial history, characterized by a lack of understanding and respect for local complexities. The manipulation of ethnic identities and support for certain groups paved the way for long-term societal strife. Belgium’s failure to foresee the implications of its actions and its subsequent disengagement during the genocide highlight the consequences of colonial legacies, shedding light on the need for accountability and healing in post-colonial contexts.
Original Source: www.ktpress.rw
