PART 2: Late 20th Century Genocide: Indonesia 1965, Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia/Kosovo
The Indonesian Genocide of 1965 occurred due to political conflicts in the country. Killing at least 102,800 people, the event has imposed that the unwillingness of the government to support its people’s needs could also be a source of power-controlled death among the nation’s population. Unlike the holocaust, the mass killings in Indonesia utilized ‘poverty’ as its major weapon of death. The unavailability of food made it easier for the people to get ill and later on die from hunger. The idea was focused on the extermination of the East Timorese people. Poisoning the only resources left for the people to use as a means of living or at least surviving, the East Timorese suffered from pain and death, which they thought were simply caused by the hard conditions of living.
In Cambodia, suspected rebels and ethnic groups were ordered to be killed by Pot Pot Tamok, the leader of Cambodia during the time. The people were killed to practically secure the stability of the government established under the name of Tamok. Meanwhile the Rwandan killings were because of the existence of ethnic conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis, which resulted to several killings including women and children through the hands of the militia of both groups. The Bosnian genocide on the other end was the result of the conflict between Bosnia and Serbia, which was a specific disobedience of the clauses established in the Geneva Convention.
Considering the situations that occurred in the four instances of genocide presented in this section of the discussion, it could be analyzed that the source of the situation was merely an emergence of civil unrest. People wanting to be given more opportunity tried to get what others have or at least grab the chance of living others had to survive for their own cause. In Rwanda, the militia from both groups were established to grab resources from the members of the other ethnic group due to the belief that they were getting so much than what they actually deserve. Seeing other individuals to be less than important as themselves, these civilian groups intended to create possible resolutions to control the resources offered by the government or the primary resources that their environment provides.
These instances could have been avoided if the governments of the said nations were able to seek possible resolutions that could distribute resources to the people in a far much better approach so as to avoid scarcity and grabbing of resources. The US Holocaust museum and UN specifically entail to provide suggestion in making readily available help of supplies become the source of resolution for nations that might undergo the same situation at present. Nevertheless, this approach is not enough especially if the government of the nations would not agree to cooperate. The desire of saving the life of the masses would only be recognized properly if a higher power of control would be in higher power than the government itself. It could be understood that through the years, the pages of human history specifically indicates the condition of consideration given to situations by which modern operations of dealing with civil unrest is specifically dressed by governments and intervening agencies situated around the globe. Learning from the past indicates that human individuals tend to grow out of control especially if they are given the chance to impose power over their fellowmen. Seeing this condition in the past ought to give a notable point of distinction on how human leaders should be treated and how their personal desires should be controlled apart from that of their administrative responsibilities to avoid more bloodshed in the future.