The genocide in Rwanda has been studied countless of times but the approach that I will be taking is the least focused part of the genocide: what has happened to the people after the atrocity. The focus will be on the humanitarian aid that is provided to the refugees from Rwanda in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The humanitarian aid has been usually distributed by Western non-governmental organizations to needed populations. The question that I am asking is whether or not the distribution of humanitarian aid should be based on the fact of humanity or impartiality. The countries that I will be focusing on will most likely be, but not limited to, Rwanda and the DRC.
 
        The reason that I am interested in this topic is because this past summer I was enrolled in two classes, International Human Rights and Terrorism in World Politics. I think that these two classes helped me to gather substantial sources on the topic. The Human Rights class has introduced me to the history of the Rwandan Genocide and who the key players were. The Terrorism class helped me to understand the reasons behind attacks and the resulting fear that is resonated afterwards. Since both classes were political science classes, I was able to see the political aspect of both. The paper that I am preparing to write will be battling a political argument. The thesis that I have formulated, which is most likely subject to change, will ask the question “Should humanitarian aid organizations look at the political aspect of the population when distributing aid or should they only bare in mind that humanitarian aid should be subject to everyone due to ‘humanness’ clause?” The topic is dense in vocabulary, so I will spent needed time on defining them in the paper to make sure that my reader can follow what I am trying to say.
 
        I was reading the chapter and I came across the “So what?” question. The question can then arise to say why am I focusing on Rwanda especially as opposed to the Yugoslavia or Sudan case. The reason that I chose this topic is because it seems like people are disenchanted with it. My Firefox home screen is set to the New York Times website. Everyday, I skim the major story on the front page and then click on the world page, to see what is going on internationally. I am interested in international politics more than domestic ones, which are usually very repetitive. The Rwanda situation has stopped coming up in the pages in the last two years, it seems to be buried under the masses of international natural disasters. I want to bring it back to light, because it might not be known but the affects of the actually genocide has resonated for decades. More people have suffered from the aftermath of the genocide than the genocide itself. The aftermath might not be as interesting to some people, but it is important to shine light upon it. Hopefully, with my paper I can bring this back on the front page (for our class at least).
 
        Since this research paper is in fact a research paper, I will not address only the Zeppelin Club but also the Zeppo University’s Department of Lighter-than-Air Studies, as the book puts it. Since the paper will be a through study of the topic in hand, it will try to explain the progression of the genocide by first providing a historical narrative of the events that has perspired. The paper will not be focused entirely on the “expert reader.” The paper will be for both the general reader and the expert reader. The terms and vocabulary that will be used will be clearly stated and defined. The prior knowledge that will be expected of the reader will be minimal. The research might be dense because of the specificity of the topic, but general readers will be able to follow the progression of the paper. Expert readers will embrace the density of the topic because they are familiar with it, or it might be a general review for them.
 
        The connection to the readers will hopefully take more of an easy-to-follow structure because after all the paper that I will be writing will not be read only by experts. The paper will is not meant to entertain the reader because it is a research paper, it is supposed to provide factual information. This does not mean that the paper has to be boring and mundane, it means that the information that is stated can be presented in an interesting way without losing its’ integrity. The reaction that I want to have from the reader will be opinionated because the paper will be based on an argument that I am trying to make. The paper will do its best in presented as much evidence to support my thesis. The reader can choose to agree or disagree, but hopefully agree if the evidence is convincing. If the argument that I try to make in the paper is not convincing then the reader will most likely make “arguments against the solution” that is proposed.
 
        The paper will try to answer the question of why this topic is important and how it has affected the way we see it in international relations. Since that topic of the paper is specific, it will not focus on compare and contrast because then the paper will become too broad. But this is not to say that other case studies will not be mentioned. Case studies of distribution of humanitarian aid will be essential to the paper. This paper will also answer the question of why Rwanda is a unique case and how other cases have not been dealt with the same way. The concluding section will answer the “So what?” question. The answer of this question is still in progress but it will most likely be a probable solution to the problem on hand. The effectiveness of the answer will be dependent on the strength, quantity, quality, and structure of the evidence presented.