Comments on: On Demographics, Part 4: The Rwanda Domino Effect

By: random african

random african — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 15:59:43 +0000

well, even if the genocide happened in 94, there has been large massacres before, when the population was smaller.. so i guess it’s not as simple as a “bigger population = bigger risk” formula.

but as far as peace in Rwanda since 94, there are a certain number of explanation around:
- the FPR won, went as far as chasing its enemies on the other side of border and rules over the country in an authoritarian way. basically, no more genocide because the Hutus has been thoroughly defeated (of course, Tutsis can’t be genocidal, they just want serfs).
- even if there’s 1 more million of people, there’s a gender imbalance, a large one. and young men who have such a large pool of women to choose from have better things to do than fight wars.
- the FPR does a very good job of keeping the memory of the genocide alive and of building a new idea of Rwanda. In modern Rwanda, the words Hutus and Tutsis are only heard in the context of Memorials.

but here’s one that may interest you:

- the government of Rwanda decided that the ressources/population imbalance was an important factor. therefore they did over the last 10 years tried their best to increase the ressource part of the equation. they massively invested in education and support urbanization to build an industrial and services sector, they oriented agriculture towards tea, coffee, flowers (way more productive than rice), they’re making serious efforts in the tourism sector… basically they’re making the pie bigger and land less important.

and as far as your question, i don’t think so. Rwanda and Darfur have/had real ressource problems, vital things, water and land. Others fight over the distribution of rare ressources that are only vital as far as it provides foreign currency. And on the other hand, Burkina Faso, Mali have survived severe droughts and population booms without wars, genocides and conflicts. probably because they were more solidary societies.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 04:47:07 +0000

I would not be too quick to accept the conclusions of Jared Diamond. I don't feel like repeating what I already said here, but he tries to shove far too much under one explanation, refuses to consider certain evidence if its implications are uncomfortable, and is just plain wrong about the history of places like Easter Island and Iceland. That being said, Guns Germs & Steel is quite a good read, even if it does not actually succeed in its attempt to answer "Yali's Question".

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:23:44 +0000

All very, very true. Thanks for the comment.

Beyond geopolitics and resources, will growing populations with dwindling resources lead to more Rwandas and Darfurs?

A colleague pointed out that Diamond’s perception of the Rwanda Genocide is convincing and may be true, but the population is one million more today than it was just before the genocide, so demographics may be overrated in this respect.

By: random african

random african — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:42:15 +0000

well, you forgot Republic of Congo 1997 (with a relapse in 98), C.A.R. 1997 with yearly relapse, the war fought by the acholi in Uganda since 84, Chad, Angola, Cabinda, Somalia, the on-going low intensity conflict in Ogaden, the Tuareg rebellions in Mali and Niger, the Casamance insurgency in Senegal and the Niger Delta in Niger.

the weird thing too is you fail to mention how most of those conflict are inter-connected. Sierra-Leone/Liberia/Ivory Coast is really the same war. as Darfur and Chad, CAR (and to an extend Niger) or the giant interconnected conflict that “links” Rwanda, DRC, Congo, Angola, Cabinda, CAR (yes it’s involved in two clusters), Burundi, Uganda..

i also have reservations about using Rwanda, Darfur and Niger Delta conflicts, which are ressource based on a “grassroots” level as template for all african conflicts.
there is also a geopolitics element and a fight for ressources that are not vital to the people..