ROOTS OF GENOCIDE

By ANDREW PURVIS/BUJUMBURA

Images of women and children with their heads split open, of babies stacked in heaps, of limp corpses sprawled in doorways have become almost routine in this part of the world in the past two years. The July 20 massacre of 330 Tutsi civilians in Burundi and subsequent Tutsi-led army coup are just the latest turns in a horrifying spiral of violence that has engulfed Rwanda, Burundi and eastern Zaire in a conflict that often seems to defy explanation. Yet, like most wars, the struggle between Hutu and Tutsi is the product of unique influences that beat in the heart of each combatant as he sets about his deadly work.

When Belgium assumed control of the region in 1916, it was called Ruanda-Urundi, two kingdoms of similar ethnic makeup--some 85% Hutu, 14% Tutsi and 1% Twa. Under the rule of a godlike Tutsi King, unquestioned by all ethnic groups, each nation had achieved a measure of cohesion rare in Africa at the time. While Tutsi dominated society, intermarriage was common, Hutu and Tutsi spoke the same language, and each fought side by side in wars against neighboring kingdoms.

Like other colonists in Africa, the Belgians singled out one group to serve as their proxy. By independence, they had not only installed the Tutsi as an administrative overclass but also, thanks to the pseudoscientific theories favored at the time in the West, led them to believe they were biologically superior as well. This engendered a level of resentment previously unseen in the region. "Tutsi and Hutu have killed each other more to upbraid a vision they have of themselves and the others than for material interests," historian Gerard Prunier wrote in his account of the 1994 Rwandan holocaust. "That is what makes the killing so relentless."

Independence ushered in a new, bloodier era. With the dissolution of the monarchies and removal of an external Belgian military force, the struggle for power became more overtly ethnic at all levels of society. At this point, Rwanda and Burundi took different paths. In 1959 Rwandan Hutu launched a murderous uprising and forced the creation of a majority-controlled republic, which survived until 1994. In Burundi, by contrast, the Tutsi remained in control. Both armies were dominated by the ruling tribe and did not hesitate to suppress uprisings by the opposing ethnic group. Peasant revolts in Burundi in 1965, 1972 and 1988 were ruthlessly put down, in one case leading to the loss of 200,000 lives.

Ironically, diplomatic intervention in both countries in the early 1990s triggered the bloodiest massacres to date. A U.N.-backed campaign to secure power sharing for Rwanda's Tutsi minority provoked Hutu extremist politicians to conceive a plan that would rid the country of all Tutsi, even the young. To incite peasants into murdering their neighbors, Hutu leaders played on historical fears of a return to Tutsi hegemony and capitalized on a uniquely hierarchical social structure, in which peasants obey their chiefs however chilling the command. Competition for land in what has traditionally been Africa's most densely populated region further egged on the would-be killers. In three months of 1994, nearly a million civilians were butchered.

Burundi's current war has similarly tragic origins. In June 1993, the Tutsi government acceded to international pressure and held the country's first multiparty presidential elections. Hutu turned out in force and elected their first head of state, Melchior Ndadaye. Four months later, elements of the Tutsi military reacted by launching a coup, killing Ndadaye and triggering a bloodbath in which some 50,000 Hutu and Tutsi were slain.

The lesson learned throughout the region from the staggering death tolls, sums up one senior U.S. diplomat, is "if you don't strike first, you risk annihilation." That belief led to last week's military coup in Burundi. When the coalition government designed to protect the interests of both sides invited foreign military intervention last month to impose security as a prelude to all party talks, government figures were denounced as traitors at home by Hutu and Tutsi extremists alike. Both groups feared that the outside forces would help their enemies to victory and endanger their very existence.

Given those sentiments, the cycle of Hutu-Tutsi massacre and revenge seems unbreakable. Perhaps in time separate homelands can be created or power-sharing negotiations can once again take place. Until then, so long as Hutu and Tutsi are left to themselves, the killing will continue.