The genocide was sparked by the death of the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April 1994. The killing of the Hutu president was a final straw. For months, there had been tension between the 2 ethnic groups. Within hours of President Juvenal Habyarimana’s death, recruits were dispatched all over the country to carry out a wave of slaughter. This genocide could have been prevented, but many reasons resulted in the reason why 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered.

The United Nations assistance mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) was the United Nation’s peacekeeping troop. During the time of the Genocide, the UNAMIR was at the location. (Nations, 2004)However, several conditions led to the failure of the United Nations to prevent the genocide.

Firstly, when the west heard about the government-sanctioned murders from Rwanda, they were occupied with the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. As Yugoslavia was closer to the Europeans than Rwanda was, they felt it was much more beneficial helping to resolve the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Also, the UNAMIR did not have enough resources to prevent the genocide. There were not enough troops to rally against the strong forces of the Rwandans.

Secondly, although there were warnings given out for a possible massacre, nothing much was done to prevent it. United Nations raised awareness in key member states when the massacre started, but the Security Council voted to decrease the size of UNAMIR instead of increasing the size to help fight against the innocent and perhaps prevent more people from being killed. The size of UNAMIR troops was decreased from 2000 to 270. This happened because countries withdrew when there were casualties.

Lastly and perhaps the most important point was because America will not tolerate casualties and will retreat if American / UNOSOM soldiers are killed. (Chowning, 2009) America is not ready to have their troops killed by preventing the genocide in Africa. When Belgium troops were killed in their makeshift refugee camps, Belgium decides to pull out its troops. Not wanting another déjà vu, America too decides to pull out its troops.

In a nutshell, this proves how inefficient the structure of the United Nations is. They rely too much on the troops from different countries and they also rely too much on the opinions of the key members’ states that they deserted the people whom needed help the most – The Tutsis. Every government is only interested in saving its own people and not the Tutsis. United States officials fear the word ‘genocide’ and they refuse to accept the word ‘genocide’ when United Nations brought it up. They fear that it would encourage Council members to act, under the 1948 UN Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. (Harsch, 2004) Also, through votes, the Security Council decided to withdraw troops. This is unfair as these votes are made up of opinions of people whom think of what’s best for them, but not what’s best for the situation. Also, the United Nations was not fast enough to act when it was warned about the Genocide. Its peace keeping efforts fell through and it did not have enough troops to be sent or act in the situation.

Recommendations that I suggest to prevent another Rwanda Genocide is to recognise the problem early. The conflicts between the 2 ethnic groups have been going on for years. This is an early signal to prevent any wars alike from happening. During the massacre, United Nations was warned of a possible massacre, but did little to stop it from happening. To prevent another massacre from possibly happening, they could have recognised this problem when it was mentioned and tried to resolve it.

Secondly, the United Nations should make faster decisions when a problem this big is happening or has happened. They should be fast enough to stop the genocide from happening when they were warned of it and stop it when it has happened, not by going through layers of meeting and votes and only decide on a resolve once the genocide has happened and lives are lost.

Third, they should have a ready force of troops at all times. The UNAMIR had insufficient troops when the genocide broke out, that was one of the reasons why it failed to prevent it. Other than UNAMIR, contingency troops from countries should be readily available and activated automatically when situations like this occur.

Lastly, they should also ensure that those guilty of murder should be punished by the law. The murderers whom killed thousands of innocent Tutsis should not be left scot-free. They should be dealt with fairly by the law as a form of punishment, so that many will see the degree of solemnity committing genocide is and possibly prevent others from doing it in the future.

Works Cited

Chowning, K. (2009, September 1). Genocide in Rwanda: The International Community Failed to Act. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from www.associatedcontent.com: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/968978/genocide_in_rwanda_the_international_pg2.html?cat=9

Harsch, E. (2004, July). UN seeking to avert a 'new Rwanda'. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from www.un.org: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol18no2/182genocide.htm

Nations, U. (2004, April 7). Genocide in Rwanda. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from www.un.org: http://www.un.org/events/rwanda/backgrounder.html

news, B. (2008, December 18). Rwanda: How the genocide happened. Retrieved May 30, 2010, from news.bbc.co.uk: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm

Which is worse the natural disaster or greed?

In 2008, the last week of April, probably one of the worst natural disaster that ever hit Asia and Burma (also known as Myanmar), is the Cyclone Nargis. The cyclone was so devastating, so much so that it took more than 138, 000 lives, many more are believed to have died from the aftermath of landslides. The damages incurred also went up to a whooping US $10.1 billion. The United Nations (in short, UN) was one of the first in the scenes to provide aid and assistance to the victims of the cyclone.

The UNICEF World Food Program, that was developed to provide the basic necessity of food to people who are living in hunger and the threat of starvation was quick to respond. They raise a significant amount of money, with partners such as USAID giving them US $251, 000 to get supplies of food aid for the victims of the cyclone. Sadly, these supplies of food aid face many obstacles to reach the people. As the Junta, the military government of Burma refused to receive assistance from the international organizations.

Which is worse the natural disaster or greed?

In 2008, the last week of April, probably one of the worst natural disaster that ever hit Asia and Burma (also known as Myanmar), is the Cyclone Nargis. The cyclone was so devastating, so much so that it took more than 138, 000 lives, many more are believed to have died from the aftermath of landslides. The damages incurred also went up to a whooping US $10.1 billion. The United Nations (in short, UN) was one of the first in the scenes to provide aid and assistance to the victims of the cyclone.

The UNICEF World Food Program, that was developed to provide the basic necessity of food to people who are living in hunger and the threat of starvation was quick to respond. They raise a significant amount of money, with partners such as USAID giving them US $251, 000 to get supplies of food aid for the victims of the cyclone. Sadly, these supplies of food aid face many obstacles to reach the people. As the Junta, the military government of Burma refused to receive assistance from the international organizations.

If you watch the video above, you would understand better. The Junta stopped and confiscated many of this food aid from reaching the people. Many other international doctors, nurses and disaster relief workers were turned away too, as they were not given access and visa to help the people. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon requested to speak to the Junta directly in hopes to turn the situation around, but he was ignored and failed to do so. It is not until many days later that the Burmese Junta agreed to take money, food, medical supplies from the international organizations, but the catch is they want to handle, and distribute it themselves.

Here is a perfect example of challenges faced by the International organizations, due to the bad location of relief assistance. Instead of allowing aid to reach the people immediately the government was more concern about their pride and cease to meet the needs of their people. They were more into “what can I get out of this?” rather than “what can I give in this disaster?” Hence the people are the ones who suffered most, in the span of those days, many could have been saved.

I believe the real issue here that caused this situation is Pride and Greed. The only reason why the Junta would only take the money, food, medical supplies, and not let the international organizations distribute it themselves is because they are most probably using it for their own benefit. In truth there is no transparency of how the money was going to be used by the Junta, and how many people they really help they just show their general in one relief centre giving out a few boxes of the food aid (probably the ones from the UNICEF, WFP). This is sad but true, the location where assistance efforts are made is very important, as there are many corruption and greed all around. Sometimes, these aids never really reach the people, but the hands of corrupt officials. I dare not say that Juntas are corrupt, but why no transparency?

The exclusion of letting international relief workers into to disaster zone, by not giving them visa is also a sensitive issue. The expertise and help they could provide was dire and could have better assist the victims, as they have the experience and professionalism in this field.

I would have recommended that instead of just giving out these money and aid, there could have been more negotiations, of how they could have a more collaborative approach to aid the disaster together. Yes, the Junta had the power to confiscate the food aid. But the money (which the Junta requested for) is still in the hands of the international organizations. Instead of just giving them the handouts, they could have withheld it and use it as a carrot and stick approach. They could also have an agreement of transparency of how the money will be used, before they gave it to them.

In this way, I believe the people of Burma would have been better helped.

If you watch the video above, you would understand better. The Junta stopped and confiscated many of this food aid from reaching the people. Many other international doctors, nurses and disaster relief workers were turned away too, as they were not given access and visa to help the people. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon requested to speak to the Junta directly in hopes to turn the situation around, but he was ignored and failed to do so. It is not until many days later that the Burmese Junta agreed to take money, food, medical suppliers from the international organizations, but the catch is they want to handle, and distribute it themselves.

Here is a perfect example of challenges faced by the International organizations, due to the bad location of relief assistance. Instead of allowing aid to reach the people immediately the government was more concern about their pride and cease to meet the needs of their people. They were more into “what can I get out of this?” rather than “what can I give in this disaster?” Hence the people are the ones who suffered most, in the span of those days, many could have been saved.

I believe the real issue here that caused this situation is Pride and Greed. The only reason why the Junta would only take the money, food, medical supplies, and not let the international organizations distribute it themselves is because they are most probably using it for their own benefit. In truth there is no transparency of how the money was going to be used by the Junta, and how many people they really help they just show their general in one relief centre giving out a few boxes of the food aid (probably the ones from the UNICEF, WFP). This is sad but true, the location where assistance efforts are made is very important, as there are many corruption and greed all around. Sometimes, these aids never really reach the people, but the hands of corrupt officials. I dare not say that Juntas are corrupt, but why no transparency?

The exclusion of letting international relief workers into to disaster zone, by not giving them visa is also a sensitive issue. The expertise and help they could provide was dire and could have better assist the victims, as they have the experience and professionalism in this field.

I would have recommended that instead of just giving out these money and aid, there could have been more negotiations, of how they could have a more collaborative approach to aid the disaster together. Yes, the Junta had the power to confiscate the food aid. But the money (which the Junta requested for) is still in the hands of the international organizations. Instead of just giving them the handouts, they could have withheld it and use it as a carrot and stick approach. They could also have an agreement of transparency of how the money will be used, before they gave it to them.

In this way, I believe the people of Burma would have been better helped.

According to the United Nations (as cited in (UNGEI, 2006), over 60% of the 130 million children in developing countries, who are not in school, are girls. The low enrolment rates of girls in school are one of the consequences of girls being maltreated in those countries. Indeed, research studies conducted by ActionAid has revealed “…that the violence that girls encounter in and on the way to school constitutes a major barrier to their rights to and in education.” (ActionAid International, 2006).

In addition, it has also been discovered that violence not only negatively influences girls’ educational achievements in school but also is inversely correlated to girls’ vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases (ActionAid International, 2006).

Hence, ActionAid initiated the project called “Stop Violence Against Girls in School (VAGS)” in July 1 2008 in Ghana, Kenya and Mozambique to address the issues that prevents girls in those areas from receiving basic education. However, ActionAid does not work alone. It collaborates with research organizations which are responsible in regularly collecting data that would be used in measuring how well the project is progressing towards their targeted objectives and goals, as well as, the Governments to develop frameworks by which to address and, respond to cases of violence against girls.

Further, ActionAid also works with the communities in the countries the project operates in, to put forth several community-level initiatives such as involving local community leaders, teachers’ union and the media in their advocacy campaigns.

I personally feel that ActionAid has done well in terms of, taking the top down (in working with the governments) and also grassroots level (educating and advocacy to the public at the grassroots level) approach to addressing the issue of violence against girls in those countries. As I feel that the issue in those countries is not solely the “fault” of the government but also the cultural and societal beliefs and, attitudes towards girls. Hence, it is apt that ActionAid engages both types of approaches (top-down and bottom-up) in their project.

However, I feel that ActionAid could have done better to include programs in the project to provide help to girls in those countries who has already been abused, such as counseling or re-integration programs, and suffering from possible traumas and lost self-esteem. This is because of my personal opinion that it is not enough to merely provide a more encouraging environment for schooling for girls; to raise awareness through advocacy and campaigns; and working with the Governments but also addressing the issue by similarly placing more direct efforts in helping those closes to the issue, the girls.

By Chew Zhi Qiang

S10063045D

This report summarizes the collaborative approach in Zimbabwe.

Location: Zimbabwe

Organizations involved:

Development progress and challenges (during the post independence period):

A. Growth with equity (between1980 and 1990)

During the 1980s, Zimbabwe had a “dual economy” with a rather developed and modernized sector coupled with a relatively “poor rural sector” that accommodate approximately 80% of the total population. As such, elimination of poverty was the top priority at that period of time. In order to “revamp the economy”, the government “adopted the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP) in 1991”.

B. Economic reforms (between 1990 and 1999)

B. Especially in the 1990s, due to the persisting and rising structural problems and poverty, Zimbabwe’s economy slumped to the lowest thereby worsening its vulnerability. There are various causes that resulted in its “negative downturn”. They include “droughts and floods as well as the non-realization of the growth objectives” of the ESAP.

In addition, many companies collapsed and reduced their operations because of “stiff competition in the opened up economy” which in turn, caused the economy to shrink. Due to these factors, there were great increase in unemployment, inflation, destitution, shortage and scarcity of resources for its population.

C. Complex Socio-Economic Crisis (between 2000 and 2007)

During this period, there had been severe macroeconomic instability which led to hyperinflation. Its inflation rate was estimated at 7982 in 2007 while the “structural unemployment” was anticipated to be 63% in 2003. Besides, poverty was raging high with the “proportion of people below the Food Poverty Line (FPL)” increased by 102% from 29% to 58%. Furthermore, the Human Poverty Index (HPI) measured an increase of 9% up from 24% in 1995 to 33% in 2003.

D. Society issues (mortality rates and HIV/AIDs)

Progress in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs):

MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Albeit poverty is still prevalent in Zimbabwe, the economic system is estimated to develop and grow in 2010.

MDG 2: Achieve universal primary education
Since 2006, approximately 88% of children have been enrolled into a primary education.

MDG 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
In this area, there are almost an equal number of male and female students attending school. Hence, for those between the ages of 15 and 24, the literacy rate is relatively high and generally almost 98% “the same for both sexes”.

MDG 4: Reduce child mortality

From the nutritional statistic status, it is projected that 17% of those who are below the age of 5 are underweight and that for every 12 children of that age, one of them will die. Also, out of these children, about 40% will die in the first few months of life.

MDG 5: Improve maternal health
It is noted that for this section on health, the indicators and progress of this MDG has gone off track.

MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

Looking at its statistics, Zimbabwe is well on its way to achieve the target to combat HIV/AIDS and the like. This could be attributed to the change in patterns pertaining to sexual behaviors. However, the number of AIDS-related deaths still remain as high as 1200 per week. It is also noted that Zimbabwe has one of the “highest rate of orphans in world” where one in every four children would have lost either of their parents to AIDS.

International organizations and stakeholders (roles):

Discuss what has worked well and what has not:

As seen from the above MDGs targets and the respective roles held by the international organizations, we could do a comparison between them and conclude whether their approach for the MDGs is effective, efficient or sustainable.

Looking at Goals 2 and 3, it would be relatively safe to infer that UNESCO, UNICEF, UNIFEM and WHO have done a good job as they have brought about more enrollments of children into primary education as well as campaigned for gender equality in terms of literacy in schools.

On the contrary, Goals 4 and 5 have somehow gone off track with child mortality and maternal health issues not addressed adequately.

Suggestions/recommendations:

According to the Paris Declaration Statement, the partners are committed to making progress for building institutions and establishing governance structures that deliver effective governance, public safety, security, and equitable access to basic social services for their citizens. The suggestions listed below are in response to the “Equitable access to basic social services”.

A. Reformation in terms of water and agricultural

In Zimbabwe, one of the main factors is this area concerns the access to the supply of water. The most effective and sustainable ways is to determine the distribution of agricultural water and remove any unequal access to the water supply among land users. If proper distribution is enforced, there would be opportunities for effective cultivation and productivity. This will enhance earnings, thereby improving economic growth and relieving poverty.

B. Reformatting the Health sector

I propose that the respective agencies first, reestablish the various fundamental essentials such as immunization, obstetrics and A&E departments. In addition, a good rehabilitation system should be in check to better cater to the respective patients in need.

C. Reformation in the Education segment

Restructuring the education system is the most important factor in rebuilding Zimbabwe. It is the key to move out of poverty. It also brings about changes to the social, political and economic developments. However, in order to provide opportunities for a better future, government agencies would have to ensure the quality of education given. Here are some suggestions to improve the system:

· Provide technical and vocational training at all levels

· Instill values, principles and moral education

· Community involvement

These will lead to a better, effective, efficient and sustainable approach.