Research Summary

Intro

​

Ethnic tensions and conflicts, which are defined by violent struggles or disputes between different ethnic groups, affect thousands of people each year, resulting in death, displacement, food insecurity, and economic instability. Often rooted in historical grievances, power struggles, and resource competition, this has led to prolonged suffering among innocent people. Peacebuilding and conflict resolution efforts in these communities remain fragile due to weak institutions, the lack of accountability, and ineffective dialogue mechanisms, increasing the likelihood of violence recurring. With more than half of these ethnic disagreements leading to a relapse of conflict, understanding the barriers toward sustainable peace is critical in reducing the violence occurring worldwide. Through evaluating different conflict resolution methods, their success and limitations, this research seeks to identify conditions under which peacebuilding is most effective in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States.

​

Rwanda

​

The Rwandan Genocide was caused by long-standing ethnic tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi, intensified by Belgian colonial policies that favored the Tutsi. After independence in 1962, Hutus gained power, leading to widespread violence and discrimination against Tutsis. During the Rwandan Civil War, Hutu extremists aimed to eliminate Tutsis and opponents, fueling propaganda and violence. Children were especially vulnerable—many were killed, assaulted, or forced to participate in the violence. In just 100 days in 1994, over 800,000 people were killed by soldiers, police, and even neighbors. The genocide ended when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front captured Kigali and took control of the country. 

The RPF’s post-Rwandan genocide peace efforts were unique due to their authoritarian control of the state and the people, forcing peace into the country. Through intimidation, manipulation of the electoral ballots, and Rwanda’s high tolerance for government control, the RPF was able to maintain power for over 30 years. Using a top-down approach of conflict resolution, the RPF filtered all media, information, and personal experiences to better fit their own narrative of the Rwandan genocide. By rewriting the history and the truth, it forced both the Tutsi and the Hutu populations to be compliant with the government, creating a seemingly peaceful environment. When interviewing Professor Paul Williams, he mentioned the long-term instability of Rwanda due to authoritarian control. As Rwandan citizens can not express their grievances and converse about the different ethnicities, they are unable to find common ground, leading to pent up conflict and hate towards one another. While from the outside, Rwanda seems to have achieved peace, many underlying problems were left unsolved due to the lack of addressing these grievances; the issues were all swept under the rug. 

In addition, Post-Rwandan genocide, the international community established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to promote restorative justice through the Gacaca community-based traditional court system to tackle the problem of a destroyed judicial infrastructure. The communities would identify the victims and perpetrators, leading to a public trial in the villages where the crimes occurred. Both people would speak, and confessions would lead to shortened sentences. The judges, chosen by the local people, would deliver the sentence leading to a punishment of either imprisonment or community service with the goal of promoting reconciliation. The Gacaca courts aim to repair harm, heal victims, and reintegrate offenders through a community-based process to create restorative justice. In this case, success is measured through reconciliation, restitution, and reintegration. Through its completion of more than 2 million cases, the Gacaca courts convicted The Gacaca courts faced many challenges, such as concerns of the system being controlled by the Tutsis or the “winners” making this system unfair, or the slow process due to the complex process of electing a judge, finding the witness and suspect, leading to small amounts of cases advancing.

​

Bosnia and Herzegovina

​

The Bosnian War was another ethnic conflict that occurred from 1992 to 1995 after the collapse of Yugoslavia. Driven by the three ethnic groups, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), Croats, and Serbs’ nationalist efforts to create an ethnically pure country, the Serbian forces forced Bosniaks and Croats out of their homes, causing mass displacement and conducting killings. The conflict ended with the signing of the Dayton Agreement in Dayton, Ohio, which created a single state with two different entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska. 

Post-Bosnian War, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecuted many high-profile war crimes, establishing a commitment towards accountability. Although many were charged, some Bosniaks felt that early prosecutions failed to target key perpetrators. On a more local level, truth-telling initiatives were created to document war-crime atrocities to promote remembrance. During these documentations, due to competing ethnic narratives and the denial of the genocide by Bosnian Serb political leaders, reconciliation was difficult. While the judicial system largely helped towards accountability, meaningful reconciliation was difficult due to some neglect of socioeconomic grievances, such as unemployment and inequalities, which were further exacerbated by the Bosnian War.  

In addition, the NATO intervention during the Bosnian War was a military operation aimed at implementing a peace agreement between the three ethnic groups, Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. As the United Nations intervention proved inefficient, the NATO presence of 60,000 soldiers, 20,000 of whom were American, entered Bosnia and Herzegovina to stop the ongoing war. The NATO presence and its air raids for 3 years had no effect until the Serb attack against Srebrenica, a Muslim safe area protected by the UN. This mass murdering of innocent Muslim men and boys forced the West into action. Through the meeting in Dayton, Ohio, by all three parties, eventually a peace plan with specific dates and a timeline was created.

 

United States

​

The 1830-1850s Trail of Tears was the forced relocation of around 100,000 Native Americans from the “Five Civilized Tribes”, Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole, Choctaw, and Chickasaw, from their homelands to the Southeastern U.S. region, or the designated "Indian Territory", which is in current-day Oklahoma or the west of the Mississippi River. Through the passing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by then-President Andrew Jackson, the Native Americans were forced to march thousands of miles in harsh weather conditions, leading to thousands of deaths from starvation, disease, and the harsh weather.

The 2009 Native American Apology Resolution was a formal and first acknowledgment and apology for the maltreatment, violence, and broken treaties against Native American tribes. The Congress apologized on behalf of the United States people and aimed to build a positive relationship to move towards a brighter future, where everyone can live on this land in harmony. This resolution also pushed state governments to begin reconciliation efforts with Native American tribes that are residing within their state borders. Although this was an official apology admitting their wrongdoings in the past, it specifically mentioned that this can’t be used to support or settle any legal claims against the United States.

Similarly, in March 2025, Governor JB Pritzker officially signed legislation giving the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation back their land. The 1833 Treaty of Chicago, in which the Potawatami, Chippewa, and Ottawa tribes ceded 5 million acres of their land in exchange for land west of the Mississippi, did not include the 1280 acres granted to Chief Shab-eh-nay. Later on, when Chief Shab-eh-nay visited the rest of the tribes in Kansas, when he returned, he found that his land was taken over by the Illinois Land General Office and sold to the public as they declared it “abandoned”. After many years of trying to get back his land, as Congress never officially authorized the sale, the land was finally given back, making it the first official reservation in Illinois.

 

Analysis

​

I chose both Rwanda and Bosnia as my global case studies because of the contrasting methods they each used in the 1990s after the genocide. While both countries experienced genocide with mass killings of their populations, their rebuilding and peacebuilding approaches were very different. In Rwanda, through the establishment of a strong central government, a top-down approach of enforcing social cohesion through avoiding the topic of ethnic labels was implemented to form national unity, rather than emphasizing their differences. On the other hand, in Bosnia, through the creation of the Dayton Agreement, power was equally distributed between the three ethnic groups to ensure that this genocide does not occur again, and representation is given to all. The two contrasting approaches taken by both Rwanda and Bosnia are interesting as they showcase that there is no one model of peacebuilding after a conflict; each country, through its history and circumstances, is able to recover from a genocide.

Despite appearing stable, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States all continue to face post-conflict challenges with limited freedoms, ethnic divisions, and a slow process of reconciliation. Currently in Rwanda, it may seem peaceful and without conflict after Paul Kagame, the president, took over, but through his harsh rule, ethnic divisions and political freedom are limited. As the government highly discourages discussions based on ethnic identity, while it has prevented any conflict, it has also not healed the country and its people after the genocide through the limited political speech and opposition. In contrast, in Bosnia, political and ethnic identity-based discussions are accepted through the creation of the Dayton Agreement, allowing for the representation of all ethnic groups in the government. While this may be positive, through the contrasting beliefs of the groups, the government branch is slow at making decisions or passing laws, leading to a political deadlock. In the United States, in recent years, the government has been taking accountability for Native Americans' mistreatment, which is one of the first steps in reconciliation to build a better future. Efforts to include Native American perspectives in history classes, the protection of native lands, and the support of Native American rights reflect a process of healing and moving forward. 

Different policies enacted in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United States demonstrate that authoritarian control, international intervention, and formal apologies may help reduce conflict and acknowledge the wrongdoings; however, without properly addressing the root of the problem, genuine reconciliation is hard to achieve. The authoritarian and top-down control imposed on Rwanda proved effective in ending conflict, but it does not fully solve the underlying problems due to the lack of addressing these grievances. With the new administration, all issues on ethnic labels were removed, sweeping the conflict under the rug. This makes it difficult for peacebuilding to occur, as these problems are not talked about. Rwandans affected by the genocide have no closure, leading to continuing issues between the two ethnic groups. In Rwanda, there was a widespread global frustration with the international community’s lack of action to intervene during the Rwandan genocide. During my interview with Dr. Ned Lazarus, he mentioned the selectiveness of international intervention, particularly the United Nations. As the UN is controlled by the five main powers, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China, and due to their clashing views and values, the UN can not act as they need all parties to consent to a singular action. He mentioned the difficulty due to the conflicting national interests, when humanitarian aid and ceasefires are discussed, for the majority of the time, all five countries can find common ground. During the Bosnian War, NATO and UN presence was observed due to immense international pressure. The NATO intervention seen during the Bosnian War, however, was largely ineffective in peacekeeping. Although NATO presence was constant for many years, no substantial effort was made until the genocide of innocent Muslim men and boys occurred. In addition, before the arrival of the NATO forces, UN soldiers were placed in Bosnia to mediate the conflict. Due to many conflicting political views from both the United States and Russia, the UN was unable to act. In all cases, some form of apology was given to each ethnic community as a way to establish reconciliation. In the case of the United States, while apologies are often the first steps in reconciliation efforts, the acknowledgement of the Trail of Tears shifts the narrative from denial and silence to recognition of the oppression the Native American tribes have faced. While this resolution validates the historical events, by adding a legal disclaimer, the government avoids responsibility, making this a hollow apology. In addition, as this apology was not published, but rather a part of the defense appropriations spending bill, it reduces its impact as a gesture of accountability.