This is a lengthy article--but you have TWO nights to finish it. When you are done, please post your reflection in the comments section. I will be reading and grading your comments.
Let me know if you have questions.
Monday, December 15, 2008
What role should foreign nations play in intervening in genocide?
Samantha Power, the author of "A Problem From Hell" (we read pieces of her work during our Armenia unit), explains the shortcomings of American foreign policy in dealing with the Rwandan Genocide in an article entitled "Bystanders to Genocide". This article originally appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
After reading this article I think
After reading this article I think that a foreign nation should intervene when a government is not stable enough or is not benefiting the people of its nation. In Rwanda the government was in crisis after the Presidents plan crashed and also some of the officials in the government were part of the systematic planning of the genocide. I believe the first role a foreign nation should take part in is aiding and saving as many people as they can. It was painful to read about people dying in Rwanda and then the some people in the US government trying to figure out who was killing who. Also it was difficult to read how the US send troops in for a humanitarian mission and then pulled them right out because they were getting wounded. I understand the US's first priority is the safety of Americans but it was awful to see lack of interest America had in Rwanda even though so many innocent people were dying. It was obvious that there were systematic killings occurring in Rwanda. The UN did send in peacekeepers but didn't really reinforce and no one else in the world seemed to want to help. A nation could have also intervened by sending military materials. The US finally was going to help Dallire by sending some supplies, but the demanded reimbursements and it was too late by the time they came to this decision. The role a foreign nation should take is one that is affective so that people are aided, saved and protected. If the countries own government can't protect their people someone needs to. Even though the innocent people are not part of the foreign nation’s immediate circle of obligations, they are still innocent people that are getting killed and action needs to be taken.
Oh my god. This article seriously made me speechless for some minutes. This inability of acting, this powerless knowledge... this anger against the blocking bureaucracy, and every time u have in mind, that this could have been prevented, well, maybe not exactly, but at least in a huge part.
Throughout this year we here the same stories, the similar reactions and mistakes. I think, this is, what annoys me most: Our human mankind is obviously not able to learn from its past. Every time we say, oh it should have gone differently, it could have been prevented. But in the end, it is the same. What is happening in Darfur right now? again huge amounts of people killed? numbers? Who is doing anything against it?
Don't they see this repetitive pattern? I mean, it is obvious for most of us, the students... And it is so cruel, always. It does not matter, if they have machetes, gas chambers, fists or machine guns. It is this level of mind, that is the same of every racist, of every perpetrator. All these horrible things. Maybe they are part of our nature. But not everything is perfect of our nature, we change our hair style, how we dress, what we believe, and we even believe in money, the most ridiculous thing ever (if u think about it, what is the worth of some paper? it is just in our heads), so why cant we change our hatred against other races? Why cant we just understand that we are all worth the same? What is the problem? Why does this mankind have the burden to have people in it, who have to be murderers?
Having this in mind, what is there left that i could blame other nations of not doing anything? perpretators as well as witnesses are just humans. I still hope for an action from other nations, but i think this hope is senseless. Morality? does this even exist? What are we? are we a collective or are we 160 different nations? are we all humans? are some of us less worth than others? u know, what i would answer, but i assume that too many powerful leaders of this world would answer differently. What is the difference, lets say even biologically, of a rwandan guy and a austrian one? haha, the average austrian is white, and the average rwandan black, but this whole nationality idea does not make any sense. i think, nations should form a higher collective (haha, nato and uno already exist) that defends morality. but can i expect them to do what they say? i doubt that.
Aaargh. The page never loaded after I submitted this the first time, so I guess I have to write it again.
This article really showed how the US actually feels about helping other countries. If it's something they can do with little to no effort, then they'll do it, but if it's something this big, no matter what they've said in the past, they won't do anything at all. After the Holocaust, the US said that it was a horrible atrocity, and that they would act differently in the future, and even helped set up an international court that could/should persecute and intervene in genocides.
Despite all that, the US showed their true colors when they did almos the same thing with Rwanda as they ad done with Germany- make up excuses as to why they couldn't help. Possibly even worse was how they withdrew the peacekeeping troops after a mere 16 men were killed. That's nothing compared to how many Rwandans were killed! (Possibly more depressing, is how the documentary that we watched today in class implied that the leader of the Hutu armed forces /knew/ that if a few peacekeepers were killed, they would leave without fighting back.)
The number of people that actually stood up for what they thought was right was miserable, too. It wasn't even a number that could effectively do much of anything to stop the killings. I think it shows their commitment to their beliefs of what they should be doing that they stuck around, even though they had no support from other countries, and had to just watch as the genocide happened.
I hope that someday, we will actually /learn/ from what's happened in the past, and /try/ to prevent at least one genocide before hundreds of thousands of people are killed.
This article highlights in a way that is impossible to ignore the profound selfishness and self-centeredness with which the US government approached the Rwandan genocide. There is absolutely no conceivable way for them to reasonably or logically claim that they were unaware of the fact that the situation in Rwanda amounted to genocide. As the memo says, they were determined not to label it as such because it would force the Us to "do something." Acknowledging it as a genocide would have forced them to make a choice that would have been unpopular at home because they would know that the international community was watching and assumed that the US, protector of freedom and liberty everywhere, would act to aid people in Rwanda. The newspapers and all forms of media in the US were reporting about the atrocities, making it obvious in their reports that much of the violence had been meticulously planned and was born from the premise of ethnic cleansing. The way that government ignored Rwanda and then tried to cover their tracks by claiming ignorance is disgusting and absolutely infuriating.
Everyone who knew of the genocide and did nothing to stop it, from Clinton to Rawson, the man from the embassy. They did nothing and then made excuses after the fact, while those who were aware and chose to fight against it, like Dallaire, maintain that there were many chances for the international community to step in and halt the genocide in its tracks, but because of selfishness, racism, and disgusting preconceptions ('Look, Pru, these people do this from time to time.') they ACTIVELY chose to do nothing.
Ahh! I apologize for my atrocious grammar. I didn't proofread...
It was very sad to read that the US did not and maybe could not take any firm actions against the Rwandan genocide. Whatever wemanaged to do was dome late, and was not enough to cope with the necessities of Rwanda.It was even worse to know that many people did not recgnize the killings as a genocide.
But I think that when foreign nations around the world can see that some other nation is facing problems which are related to lives of thousans of people, intervening is absolutely essential. Especially, super powers like the United States should provide financial aid and a lot of support. Most importantly, immediate steps should be taken to rescue as many victim as possible. And if that is not possible then military support should be provided in order to safeguard the victims and bring an end to the atrocities. America asked its troops to come back after they started getting wounded. In one way this is accepted since no nation would want to lose its militia. But it is worthy to note that our government did something to stop the genocide, athough it did not complete its task. Actions like these by nations, would save numerous amounts of life. One nation does not bear the responsibility of this protection. This should be done by all nations together. So if foreign nations come together and help the one nation in crisis, genocide or mass killings would not occur. It would take very less time to protect people and punish the perpetrators.
As I read this article, I increasingly became more and more angry. The excuses the US government made seems so insignificant and petty in comparison to the genocide. What I found interesting was that the US was so hesitant to use the word genocide. They believed that it would be harmful to the country's credibility if they called it genocide but not do anything about it. Call it whatever you want, but I find that it is a bit more disturbing that they knew what was happening in Rwanda and didn't do anything take action. Though genocide is not an easy problem to solve, Clinton had no right to justify his inaction with lack of information. We know that the administration was properly informed about the happenings in Rwanda. Even before the genocide actually began, Dallaire faxed the UN with information of the planned extermination of the Tutsis. Also after reading this article, and watching the video about Dallaire in class, I have the utmost respect for him. He did so much for Rwanda, despite the fact that the UN gave him no help. It's incredible that Dallaire holds himself responsible for the genocide. Politically, the US may have done the right thing. But everybody has that moral obligation to stand up for human rights, whether it hurts the name of their country or not. Clinton claims that "if he had known more, he would have done more." That is a pretty pathetic excuse for not taking action with saving thousands of Rwandans.
While I was reading this article, I kept getting more frustrated every page. I was shocked that America ignored the genocide for that long. Everyone knew what was going on in Rwanda and I feel the only Americans that actually did something about it were the newspaper journalists. I think a role that foreign nations should play in intervening genocide, is in any way possible. Any nation should at least send over a military force of some sort to hold up who is causing the genocide. I was upset to read that the U.S. didn't even do that, and when they finally decided to send APS' to Rwanda, and by the time they got there, the Genocide was over. When I read that, I just thought to myself, are you kidding me? I used to think Clinton was a great president but after reading this article I have less respect for him. Even if it's not some kind of military force, America could have at least sent any kind of aid, or government officials to Rwanda. Especially if Rwanda's own government can't handle the safety of their own people.
Reading this article really made me re-evaluate our country's past leaders. I feel like America makes itself out to be such a hero in so many situations, yet this article really shed a light on the irresponsible side of our country. Clinton stated that he would have done more if he had really known what was going on, but the article said that not only did the US fail to send troops, but it also made an effort to remove a lot of the UN peacekeepers. It also really shocked me how the US Secretary of State at the time didn't even know where the country was without looking at an atlas. Also, a Foreign Minister from Britain tried to discuss the situation with an American leader, who replied with "I have other responsibilities." That honestly makes me feel sort of uncomfortable with our countrys leaders. If any such atrocity were to happen in our country, I would be horrified if any leader said such a thing. Something else that really frustrated me was the US's unwillingness to acknowledge the situation in Rwanda as a genocide. They admitted there were genocidal acts, but wouldn't call it a genocide. I think that just makes America look stupid. I think America should have taken so much more action than it did to help the victims in Rwanda. Although they were not in our direct Universe of Obligation, I still feel that it is the US's duty to step in when other countries may not, to help save the lives of innocent people.
After reading the article (which I enjoyed) my opinion on foreign nations has not changed. I believe that the role of foreign nations is to intervene when they see something going on, such as genocide. These foreign governments should go to the country in crisis and should provide aid and support for all and they should also try to help create peace and try to stop the crisis from happening. In Rwanda the crisis was awful. The surrounding world powers didn't even try to help general Dalleire when he asked for aid. The world powers should have done something, it was in their power to stop what was happening but they decided to ignore it. They should be to blame for the deaths and killings that happened in Rwanda because they refused to enter the nation or provide aid. Without providing aid they allowed for many other killings and deaths to happen to the innocent people of Rwanda. It makes me mad when I read about the US not responding to the calls of help from other nations. It seems to be a pattern in their history to turn their backs on all nations that need help. I can't believe they didn't try to do anything about the genocide. It is obvious from the fax sent to the UN from Dellaire that the killings were systematic and planned. It was clearly genocide, yet the US refused to admit this. The job of the UN is to create peace, they are peacekeepers. It was their job to send in peacemakers to Rwanda but they refused. Without the UN Rwanda was unable to create peace and because of this the genocide became out of control. The fact that they didn't send in aid killed many people and left Dellaire with a great sense of depression. He feels as if he is to blame for the failed mission. I think that he shouldn't blame himself; it is clearly not his fault. He did everything in his power to try to help these innocent people. I hope that from now on when people look and read about the Rwandan genocide they see how the UN didn't respond and I hope that they will learn how important it is to respond and provide aid for the future.
Whenever a genocide becomes remotely possible, if perpetrating leaders are speculating on murder, then foriegn governments should prepare to aid. As soon as any innocent victims are abused the foriegn government should step in. Systematic murder is the first alert that intervention is neccessary.
The foriegn nations should originally try to work with and through the already established government. They should work through the systems previously in place, as opposed to simply taking complete charge and placing the conflicted country under martial law. If the government is the reason for atrocity, then foriegn nations need to promptly make their present felt and remove the party from power. Following the stripping of authority from the victimizers a new government constructed around the native people is neccessary. A country with genocide is a torn and fragmented country in need of a correction of direction. Foreign nations need to aid as best they can and intervene as soon as the word genocide is spoken.
Reading this article made me think a lot about America and the way it has responded to other nations in the past. I think that it is often hard to people who belong to a country to step outside and look at it from another point of view, especially one that has needed and asked for help from that country before. I believe that people just genreally feel a sense of nationality where they are or for where they're from. With the nationality i think comes a sense of pride, and a defense to reason whatever it was that made the country look bad. Once I started reading though, I started thinking about the US from another country's point of view. Especially on the first page when Clinton was mentioned, and how he went to Rwanda and made sure to carefully word his speech so America could sound like it had done its best. What also bothered me was reading about America sending in troops and then pulling them out almost instantly because they were injured... what did they think was going to happen? How come nobody cared how many Rwandans were dying every day? And the fact that the Secretary of State could not point of the country on an atlas?! The whole thing is ridiculous, and it just seems like a pattern of excuses of what could have been done, from the Armenian Genocide, to the Holocaust, to the Rwandan genocide, and others, it seems pretty repetitive for America to keep blubbering reasons of what could have been done. It is time to act. Time to do something, finally, for the future.
This article really showed me how little the U.S. cared for the Rwandans being perpetrated. The U.S. is seen as a nation that is willing to help anyone that needs it. So far, they haven't done a very good job; Rwanda is not the first, they stood beside while the Jews of the Holocaust were being exterminated and while the Armenians were being driven out of Turkey. America's people cared about what was happening in Rwanda, they just didn't have the power to do anything. The government, however, had the power to do something, but instead of taking Dallaire's word on what was happening and trying to help stop it, they sat around and questioned whether "genocide" was the correct terminology for the situation. The government showed no interest in Rwanda. The nations that were part of the U.N. knew what was going on in Rwanda, yet out of all of those nations, none decided to help. Even when Dallaire begged and pleaded for help, no one gave him any. The least the government could have done was acknowledge the fact that it was a genocide. The Clinton Administration knew about this, Clinton had the power to send in troops and ammunition to the soldiers already in Rwanda, but he didn't. Even when Clinton went to Rwanda to make an apology, he made it out like he had done what he could. He did no such thing. He sat around in his office knowing about what was happening and didn't do anything about it. He knew that the government of Rwanda was weak and yet he didn't even think to try and help that problem. Had the Clinton Administration done or requested to do anything, then maybe the U.N. might have done something. Sometimes all it takes is for one nation to stand up. Had the U.S. stood up and helped, maybe all the other members of the U.N. might have stood up too and the genocide wouldn't have happened.
Toward the end of the article an unnamed colleague of Donald Steinberg and Richard Clarke says that the two men represented the duality of Clinton’s presidency: the feelers and the thinkers. I found this statement to be surprisingly accurate. During the Rwandan genocide there was a constant conflict between those who acted according to their values and those who acted according to their interests. I feel as if this whole argument slowed down the decision making process considerably. When the United States government finally did come to a conclusion and its troops arrived in Rwanda, it was a month after the genocide had concluded. They might have made it in time to save hundreds of lives if silly questions about funding and where it would come from did not get in the way. Isn’t it more logical to take the early steps of action so that once a decision is reached, it can be carried out right away rather than months later?
I was also appalled by the fact that the United States government and the United Nations took an active role in ignoring the genocide when there were almost exact correlations with the Holocaust. This is especially ironic with the world’s response of “never again” to the Holocaust. Over half a decade later these same words are repeated by Bill Clinton after his administration blatantly ignored the genocide in Rwanda. There was a paragraph in the article where it conveys the story of when Bushnell speaks of the horrific violence in Rwanda in a State Department press conference. Right when she is finished the department spokesman expresses the outrage that some countries were preventing the screening of Shindler’s List. He says that “in the midst of genocide, one individual can make a difference”. It is disgusting for him to condemn other countries for not recognizing the Holocaust and speak with passion about an individual’s potential for good, when he is purposely avoiding a worsening genocide. I was also surprised that the United States did not react to the event when a plane of evacuated Rwandans is rejected from Kenya and sent back to Rwanda. I would think that the United State or UN would see the parallel between this and the S.S S. Louis during the Holocaust. Even if they did not want to become involved in Rwanda, I would think that they would want to redeem themselves and prevent other nations from making the same mistakes they did.
The most difficult part about this article was how it was obvious that the United States learned nothing from the Holocaust…which hints that they may not have learned from the Rwandan genocide either.
I think that the choice of a foreign nation to intervene in genocide or not, should not be an option, it should be a moral obligation. The nationality or ethnicity of the victims should not matter, it should not even be considered. The simple fact that fellow human beings are being murdered should be enough to drive people in the need to help. When a foreign nation in a position to help, such as the U.S., chooses not to help, then they can almost be put on the same level as the killers because of their complete disrespect and compassion for human life. What was most shocking about this article, was the extremes the U.S. government went to prevent the use of the word genocide so that they would not be obligated to intervene. At one point, Samantha Power states that "President Clinton could have known that genocide was under way, if he had wanted to know." I feel that this statement fully embodies the actions of the U.S. government. Had they wanted to help, had they cared about the thousands of lives being brutally lost, had they felt the need and moral duty to intervene, they would have had all the evidence they needed to declare genocide. It was even clear that within the first week they had the primary piece of evidence to prove that genocide was occurring: the intent of the Hutus was to completely and systematically exterminate the Tutsis. Instead, the U.S. government, as well as the U.N., danced around the term so that they would not be obligated to act because of the Genocide Convention. They did everything in their power to protect themselves first, which in itself is not an inhumane act had they only chosen to then stay afterwards and help the Rwandans. The most appalling example of this was when Belgian soldiers abandoned about 2,000 people in a UN safe house while murderous Hutus were waiting outside, leaving the Tutsis cornered and completely at their mercy. The worst part about the entire situation is that this is not the first time foreign nations have been reluctant to act. It seems to be a repeating occurrence every time genocide breaks out, always leaving people wondering: if only...
Foreign nations have a very important role in intervening in genocide. When a country's government has been corrupted or taken over by hostile forces and innocent civilians are dying everyday, it is up to the other nations in the world to step in and do something about it. The world utterly failed when it came to the Rwandan genocide, because they knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it until it was too late. Even if the country is not the most important or powerful nation in the world or doesn't provide any necessary goods to the rest of the world, that does not matter. It is up to humanity to make sure that innocent people are not being killed in huge numbers because of their ethnicity or beliefs. The whole world turned their backs on Rwanda for purely selfish reasons despite knowing what was happening, and now we all have to suffer the consequences. The United States can make excuses or try to make up for it, but nothing will ever be enough. They had clear evidence before their eyes that thousands upon thousands of people were dying each day, but chose not to intervene because it wasn't actually hurting them in any way. It may have seemed like it was just a tribal war at first, but that excuse does not hold for long. It was obvious that the Tutsis were being systematically murdered by the extremist Hutus, and if that is not genocide then nothing is. By not officially naming in genocide until it was too late, the world did not have to intervene. There really is nothing more to say other than that the world failed Rwanda, and we as people need to make sure it never happens again.
One of the things that struck me about this article was the position that the US and Belgium took on the genocide. I knew that throughout the genocide, the United States had avoided using the word "genocide" but I did not know that they had actually supported the Belgians when they said that they wanted to pull out of Rwanda, but didn't want to do it alone. The US too the side of a European country that had had less than a dozen men killed while completely ignoring an African country in which hundreds of thousands were being killed.
Another point that I thought was interesting was just how much information was available to the United States government that they simply never used. There was a woman actually in Washington, Joyce Leader, who was an expert on Rwanda, and she was very rarely asked for advice on the matter, and often when she was asked for advice, it was not taken.
One more thing that the United States could have done was to in some way counteract the radio propaganda that played a huge role in the Hutu army. There were three different possibilities for the US to either destroy or present counter-information, but they declined.
In general, I thought it was appalling how easy it would have been for the United States to help in some way, yet not only did they refuse to help, but they actually made the situation harder for the UN Peacekeepers stationed there. There are certainly some instances where it is not necessary to intervene in another nation's affairs, but the Rwandan genocide was not one of those cases. The UN saved as many lives as it could, and the Hutus avoided violent confrontation with any UN guarded place. If the United States had sent troops instead of diminishing the number of troops, it is very possible that one of the worst atrocities of it's time could have been avoided.
After reading the article "Bystanders to Genocide" by Samantha Power, I am convinced that all foreign nations who have the resources to end genocide to take action. I was surprised at the many missed opportunites that the United States had, for example, to condemn the genocide that the Hutus were instigating toward the Tutsis. In my opinion, foreign nations should be willing to offer its troops to enforce peace in the midst of genocide, regardless of national interests. Based on the article, the failure of the the international community, especially the United States, in reponding to the Rwandan genocide is based on several factors. In the United States, all levels of the federal government believed that since American interests were not threatened in Rwanda, they had no business in intervening with a country's affairs. Even if a foreign country would be unwilling to send its troops to end the genocide, the world still has an obligation to give a verbal condemnation of the particular country's actions. However, it appeared that the United States would not be willing to call the killings of the Tutsis and moderate Hutus as "genocide", but called "acts of genocide" instead. America would not even use the word genocide in order to dodge the requirement to have reinforcements come and end the genocide in Rwanda. What striked me most was that countrys such as the US, France, and Belgium would sent their troops to only save their cilivians, but be indifferent to what was happening to the Rwandans. Even the US wanted to downsize the number of Romeo Dallaire's troops all in the name of "peace to other countries in need of UN Peacekeepers." Therefore, I believe that all foreign nations a sacredly bound to stop genocide, setting aside national interests, the international racial views towards other countries, and the strength to condemn countries who commit genocide. Yet, I still have doubts that in the end, international politics and self-motives will hinder in the way that the world will respond to the Darfur genocide and any future genocides.
Throughout this article I continually thought the lack of action taken by the US was atrocious. For the US to develop a well-thought out plan and then not act on because of a lack of funding is unthinkable. Helping Rwandans escape genocide should have been on the top of the list for the US and UN, but instead it was low on their list of missions. I can't comprehend why Dallaire was not given the sources needed to successfully stop the genocide. He asked for more funding, medical supplies and for more vehicles, but was not given them. Thus, he was unsuccessful overall, but he did all he could. Other nations not adressing teh enormity of the situation in Rwanda and the fact that it was indeed a genocide is unimaginable. The fact that the US had the knowlege, but did not act is even more unimaginable. Knowing that many 1000s of people were being killed, they should have reacted in a greater way. Clinton's reaction is one that disturbs me. His apology is from the entire outside world, yet he is the leader from only one country. He doesn't haae the authority to speak for other nations. The fact that he admits that the US should have acted is a good sign and his words that we must act when there is evidence of an atrocity serves as a warning to others to speak up and act.
After first reading the article, I wasn't sure how to react. It is really bothersome that people can stand by and watch other innocent humans be murdered by the hundreds of thousands. I now think that when called upon, a foreign nation should intervene. I think that its essential when a country is in need of stable support that it recieves as much as possible. I think that large nations only think about themselves. For example, America only acts when its an immediate or direct threat to our country, or when its convient for them. If they are not gaining anything from implanting peace keeping servieces then they just stand by and watch the genocide explode in front of them. I think that Romeo Delllaire was the only person during the Rwandan genocide to take direct and helpful actions to the countries best interests. Its really hard to watch his documentary know that he blamed himself for the failure of the mission when the UN and pelnty of strong and able countries did absolutely nothing to aid or stabilize the country in anyway. I really says something to the moral codes of humans. The slight amount of aid that was sent was never reenforced, and then pulled out shortly after a few soldiers were killed. In the future, if genocide were to occur, I think that foreign nations should take a strong stand in ading and protecting countries that are in need. They should reenforce the peace keeping mission untill they are sure that the county is under stable condition.
After reading the article "Bystanders to Genocide" I now realize that the U.S. and many other wealthy countries could have stepped in to end the Rwandan slaughter before it turned into genocide. We can not forget what happened in Haiti and Somalia. In Somalia 18 U.S. Delta Special Forces died. If I remember correctly two brave snipers earned the metal of honor for risking their lives for a fellow American. They went in to try and save a downed Black Hawke pilot. I believe the pilot lived after he was captured by Mohamed Aidid’s men. This shows the U.S. peace keeping strategy at its best. If the U.S. sent in troops to Rwanda, this would have been the third attempt for a U.S. peace keeping mission. The U.S. and Bill Clinton did not want to cause more blood shed when they would be trying to keep the peace. That is what the UN was established for, to keep world peace. Plus the U.S. did not want to anger the UN a third time. So why are people blaming the U.S. for letting the atrocities in Rwanda progress? Sure the U.S. wanted to pull out the UN peace keeping force, but for a good reason. There was open killing and slaughtering in the streets of Rwanda. The U.S. cared for the lives of the peace keepers as well as the Tutsis. I do not understand why people are not blaming Russia or other countries, for not acting. Russia is part of the general assembly in the UN. Why did they not send in troops? I believe the U.S. acted appropriately when evacuating only the Americans in Rwanda. The U.S. and other countries were accused of letting the Tutsi die, when they evacuated only their countrymen. When a war or genocide starts up in a country, Nations act by pulling out their Ambassador and any other fellow countrymen to bring them home. Yet, people are angry at that action. Why? People seem to be forgetting the APR is pushing closer to Kigali, with each passing day. This is a war in Rwanda; a Civil war. The U.S. has good reason to not intervene in a Civil war. Although the U.S. should have acted better, other countries could have helped by sending in their own troops. Why is it that when a war or genocide brakes out around the world, the U.S. is the one country to act or is asked to act by other countries?
Every class I get more and more frustrated. But this is the worst, mostly because it is so specific about how many people died, how they were killed, how much Dellaire asked for help, how much we knew, and how much we pretended we didn't know once it was over with. The entire world knew what was going on. Yet we waited to call it genocide, because once we did, it meant that we had to do something about it, as opposed to letting it all pass. It's awful. And Clinton's reaction is even worse. "Is this true?!" What a jerk. He knew exactly what was going on, and couldn't deal with admitting that.
Foreign nation should contribute supplies and soldiers to aid the peacekeepers in a genocide. The Red Cross needed water, and medical supplies, as well as more doctors and nurses to help the wounded. There was a desperate need for soldiers down there. There was Dellaire down there, and he was capable of leading a mission, but he could hardly do anything at all with so few men. It was ridiculous to read about how hard the US tried to get in troops... to pull out the troops already there working for the UN. The only time any foreign nations sent in men was just to pull out other troops, are white people living in Rwanda. The Tutsi people begged to be taken with them, but they left them, while Hutu men watched and waited for the Belgian, French, American, ect troops to move out.
Foreign nations are also responsible for talking about part genocide and teaching what we did wrong, and what we should have done, so that if this happens again, we can stop it in time. We also need to recognize genocide as genocide. We did not want to because then it would mean that we could of prevented a genocide when we didn't. We can't deal with the future when we haven't dealt with the past.
Just reading the first page of the article and discovering that the U.S. had knowledge of the genocide and chose not to intervene infuriated me. For President Clinton to justify the U.S's reason as to why it did not intervene was just absolutely ridiculous. To have "no knowledge" of the genocide, when the U.S. clearly did is just disgusting. Another thing that disgusted me was the fact that many U.S. officials "were firmly convinced that they were doing all they could," but rather that they did all that they should do, which was virtually nothing. The U.S. clearly had many opportunities to help fight against the genocide, but chose not to. What I found especially amusing is how the U.S. interprets the genocide as wartime "casualties." If it were politically viewed as a genocide, only then would the U.S. intervene.
What also frustrated me was that the U.S. claims that they did as best as they could, and perhaps they did from a political perspective, but from my point of view, I felt that it was just a pathetic excuse to soften the truth of their efforts. Even after the Holocaust, the U.S. still did not make enough effort to stop a genocide. The phrase: "never again," may as well be cheap words if genocides such as this continue to exist. After reading this article as well as the video on Dallaire, I have great respect for him. Despite the fact that he had little support and was doing as best as he could, he felt immensely responsible for not being able to do more.
This article made me really disgusted with the American government. In general ignoring any kind of genocide is simply immoral, however even today most of us do nothing to stop the genocide in Darfur. Its easy to ignore a situation when you feel very separate and disconnected from it. Not to say that this is the correct in any way, however the human behavior and thinking behind the silence can be understood. However in the case of Rwanda, not only did countries ignore what was going on and refuse to help, but they actively removed what little protection they had sent to Rwanda. They went to lengths to save their own soldiers, but could have cared less about the thousands of Rwandans dying."'Mass slaughter was happening, and suddenly there in Kigali we had the forces we needed to contain it, and maybe even stop it...Yet they picked up their people and turned and walked away" I sometimes have trouble criticizing bystanders when i am well aware of the Darfur and still have not taken large strides against it, however to be in the presence of mass killings, see it, smell it, and hear it and do nothing-even act to worsen the conditions by removing soldiers- is simply unheard of in my mind. I could never have the moral capacity to live with myself after that. There is simply no excuse at all.
After reading the article, just made me more upset with the fact the U.S did not care. The U.S did not care during the Armenian Genocide, they did not care about the Holocaust, they did not care about Rwanda, and they still are continuing the trend about not caring when another nation really needs the help to stop genocides going on and starting to begin. The U.S only cares about helping itself and its people, so if the U.S does not have anything they want or their citizens at the country the crimes are being perpetrated against. If the U.S had cared and done something all of this would have shrunken the number of casualties would have went down, the days it happened would have gone down and even the number of years since the perpetrators would be punished would have gone down. The U.S. had a duty to help, the U.N had a duty to help but nobody helped. This article just provided more depth that every time a leader says never again it still happens over and over and over again in a never ending cycle.
After reading this article, I couldn't help but notice how similar the uninvolvement of the US in Rwanda was to their uninvolvement during the Holocaust. In both situations, it wasn't due to a lack of information that action was not taken, but instead a lack of interest. Although peacekeepers were sent to Rwanda, they were ill equipped, and when their help was most needed, powerful nations pulled their troops out, afraid that harm might befall their citizens, yet unconcerned with the fates of millions of Rwandans. Rwandans that, although people of a different culture and nationality, were people non the less. But when debating intervention, the UN wrote off the bloodshed as "tribal warfare"; a civil war that would work itself out. Instead of recognizing the warning signs of genocide, influential nations such as the US turned their backs on Rwanda, afraid of losing credibility by naming it a genocide and then doing nothing to stop it. And it wasn't just the US, the United Nations itself abandoned Rwanda as well, leaving them with only a handful of outnumbered peace keepers. It's outrageous to me that an organization supposedly established to maintain peace among nations so blatantly ignored an almost complete extermination of a group of people. If not with military force, intervention in Rwanda should have at least been attempted negotiations with the Rwandan government in a united front of foreign nations. Instead, the only negotiations were attempts made by head of the peacekeepers, Romeo Dellaire, who was at high risk of being killed for his opposition. In any event of genocide, it is always foreign nations' responsibility to intervene in some way, especially in cases such as Rwanda where the genocide was supported by the government. By refusing to intervene, nations such as the US left a legacy of abandonment and passivity; a legacy which we can only hope doesn't result in more genocide.
The fact that President Clinton seemed to express emotions of shock and anger in response to the Rwandan Genocide, and yet showed no interest in stopping the genocide confused me. Even though there were many excuses as to why the U.S. didn't get more involved in providing aid to Rwandan victims, most of these excuses have been proven false. For example, many people said that the U.S. didn't know enough about the genocide to get involved, but the National Archives and Clinton's speeches prove otherwise. In order to let something as atrocious as genocide happen, the U.S. had to literally ignore public reports and internal intelligence and debate. I think that the reason the U.S. didn't get involved in the Rwandan Genocide was simply because of their indifference.
After reading the article on the world's involvement, specifically the United State's, in the Rwandan Genocide, I was surprised about how little the United States did to help stop the genocide, or aid the victims. I feel like the United States was very selfish when prioritizing what was important. Although the United States definitely has an obligation to it's own people, and should definitely take into consideration the level of threat and danger to it's own people in certain situations like in Rwanda, the US still remained very selfish in it's way of thinking and chose not to help out even after they pulled their own people out. In the article, it stated how after the United State's government knew that all their citizens were safe from the violence in Rwanda, they pushed the conflict aside and did not even attempt to help. After the genocide, President Clinton made a speech acknowledging the genocide, but actively denied the wealth of knowledge he had that something so atrocious was happening. I do not think that the excuse of "I didn't know" is justifiable in any means. The United States, being a huge superpower at the time, certainly had the knowledge and the capability to lead other countries into aiding the victims of the genocide. In the reading, it also stated how the United States was extremely influenced by public opinion, which further shows it's selfishness and how conceited it was in considering the genocide. The United State's involvement seemed to be very similar to that of the Holocaust. It is amazing to see how the world has not changed it's views, even when it promised "never again." This can be seen in today's world also, as no country has really taken active involvement in Darfur. I feel like this attitude of indifference is still in our world today and probably will not leave. In the future, it can be said that Darfur will be looked at as another horrific event in which the world remained silent, and people will once again, promise the readily broken "never again."
This article brought out the heartbreaking reality of the United State's role in the Rwandan Genocide. The fact that the United States did not help the genocide in Rwanda as much as they possibly could have is very upsetting. What angered me was that the U.S. beleived they did "all they could have done" and "all they should have done". I was appalled to learn that the administration recieved a ton of information about what was happening in Rwanda and yet Clinton dismissed his country's lack of assistance for not knowing enough about the crisis.
I beleive a foreign nation should intervene in genocide when they have the facts about what is happening and can create a logical plan that will be the most efficient and clear. All it would have took was the help of nations comming together, aiding Rwanda with supplies such as military items, to help stop the killings. I felt horrible reading about the dead bodies on the side of the road, laying there as if they were nothing; as if they didn't matter. Although the U.S. did not help the way they should and could have, I believe Dallare did do as much as humanly possible to help the victims in Rwanda. His courage and determination to save the Tutsi's was remarkable. To sum it all up, a foreign nation should intervene with a genocide and become the back bone for that country; sending military aid and relief and doing as much as possible to save as many lives as they can and to put an end to the atrocity.
I think it is completely inexcusable for a country to simply ignore another country in such distress. Rwanda was experiencing a genocide, and other countries stood by fully aware and watched. The UN had peace keepers in Rwanda but they did not seem to make a difference. The killings were obviously systematic and nothing could be done without the help of other countries. Dallare begged for supplies and soldiers but nobody responded. In Darfur's situation the US reaction to the genocide truly disappointed me. By the time the US decided to help it was too late to send over supplies. The US is a major world power. I thought they would have at least given aid if they could not send over troops. America could have also taken a role in the media, informing the country (and other countries) of the happenings in Rwanda. Rather than spreading the word the US kept the knowledge of the Rwandan Genocide in, hiding it from the public. We decided to act as if we knew nothing, letting thousands of people die while people in America do nothing, unaware of the atrocities that are occurring every day. The UN also eventually gave up, pulling their back their troops. Rwanda was abandoned by other countries not willing to get involved.
In general when a country seems hopeless, for if they cannot run their country properly and protect their people another country should step in for support. The country that steps in will save lives and hopefully get the country standing on its own again; keeping its people safe and putting laws back into action.
After reading this article I think that foreign nations should play a large part in intervening in genocide when the government does not have enough control to protect its people. reading this article really brought out the true colors of past leaders like president clinton. Colors that the american people dont see becuase we are blinded by the prestigeous position of president of the United States which has been looked upon as such a heroic figure. in the case of bill clinton during the Rwandan Genocide this so called heroic figure was quickly turned into a coward. the fact that the United States and other countries knew the facts, and knew what was happening and didnt intervene is atrocious. high powered foreign nations like the U.S. should respond immidiately when they know of innocent people being killed. After watching the movie on Romeo Dallaire and seeing how he informed his men at home what was going on in Rwanda and how no help was sent when he asked for it really shows how people are truely only interested in their own best interest. My respect for Romeo Dallaire is off the charts after seeing all that he went through with no support to try and help people he had no connection to. the role that foreign nations play in intervening in genocide is an extremely important role that if done could save millions of lives.
This article provides a fairly detailed examination of the events of the Rwandan Genocide. It struck me how surprised many of the officials seemed when once the killings had begun, possibly showing that maybe many people did not actually have good understanding of the eminent events, or had dismissed them. For the officials who had a better understanding of the situation, they seemed to ignore the moral turpitude, and viewed it in only a political light, ending with a apathetic decisions and that would only serve themselves. Also that the killings were viewed a being not too abnormal and therefore were not of too much concern to stop. I can understand that, the first priority of a nations were to get their citizens out of Rwanda, but to then take out all of the forces that were there and had been brought, because of all the citizens had been evacuated shows the apparent apathy towards the Rwandan people and moral cause. The reluctance and emphasis on the labeling of genocide seems hypocritical to the original intent of acting for a moral cause, it does not matter why people are being murdered, it is not moral regardless and only acting because it is labeled as genocide defeats the purpose of the moral cause. Although not the best way of thinking about it, sacrificing hundreds of soldiers to possibly save hundred of thousands lives seems to be a worthwhile cause. Part of a soldiers job entails endangerment to their lives and not using them because they some might die makes them useless. Then to give up and say that there is no chance of peace, simply that we cannot save any of the people. And after the troops are withdrawn, I don't see a reason why the US government did not denunciate the Rwandan government.
It seems that no one wanted to step up take charge, to lead the rest into action, both internally and externally as a nation. Leading to too little much too late. Unfortunately I don't think that the policies towards genocides have changed that much since, that most policies are based with self interest as the main motivating thought.
I think any country in which a genocide is allowed to occur, the government is either too helpless to bring a stop to the killings or they are indifferent to the violation of human rights. Both cases are a clear indication that foreign intervention is required. In Rwanda, the United States and the United Nations both had a continuous flow of information from Rwanda of how the moderate government was overthrown, a hutu extremist government installed, and the active planning for the systematic annihilation of all the Tutsi. Romeo Dallaire, Prudence Bushnell, Monique Mujawamariya, Alison Des Forges, and even more experts and residents of Rwanda were warning the international community of a genocide from the moment the moderate hutu president's plane crashed. All who listened knew there were going to be killings ahead.
I firmly believe foreign nations should intervene in any country (regardless of natural resources or geographical location), but I don't think that the manner of intervening force is as black and white as the United States portrayed: Send in military operations, risking casualties, or not act at all. In Rwanda's case especially, even the smallest gesture of aid would have saved tens of thousands of lives. Jamming the Radio Mille Collines, publicly denouncing the genocide, supplying arms to Dallaire diminished troops, NOT actively working against UNAMIR and demanding that the UN peacekeepers be withdrawn, dropping food and water packages off at shelters, any of these things would have put the US at no risk to repeating the disaster at Somalia, but also would have preserved the lives of countless innocent people. It had been proven that a simple phone call to warn the hutu of consequences if they attacked a hotel full of tutsi refugees was enough to intimidate the killers. Intervening in genocide does not have to mean military action. In fact, if the UN had approved Dallaire proposal to seize a main arms cache before the president was killed, there may have been no genocide.
In think the proverb "A stitch in time saves nine" can apply to the Rwandan genocide, and indeed any genocide. If the US and UN are so determined to avoid too much financial or military strain, it would actually be most "efficient" (as odd as the term sounds) to act immediately when any word of planned systematic killings come to them. Any action immediately would be more effective than trying to frantically the murderers months into the massacres.
After reading the article I think that the United States and United Nations policy's towards the Rwandan genocide were far to passive. The UN should have recognized what was happening in Rwanda and should have been able to support the forces. When the UN peacekeeping force needed help the most the UN voted to withdraw all but a few hundred UN peacekeeper. This happened at a time when Dallaire desperately needed more support but instead the UN voted to cripple his force. This meant that Dallaire could do almost nothing to help the victims. Belgium's role was also unacceptable by withdrawing the backbone of the UN force they severely decreased the ability of the UN to stop the killings. Although it was a tragedy that the Belgian peacekeepers were killed Belgium still had a responsibility to stay and fix the situation that they pretty much caused by colonizing the area. It is similar to the US pull out from Somalia. The US role in bystanding was also unacceptable. By refusing to send troops and by not cooperating with Dallaire demands they condemned Rwanda to genocide. This are all examples of how nations shouldn't act during a genocide. The UN has a responsibility to stop genocide, and the are shirking this responsibility by labeling these massacres as tribal conflicts or civil wars. Belgium should have stayed despite losses because they were the reason that this conflict even started. Sometimes sacrifices must be made to do what's right. The United States was also selfish in this situation. By not acting because of their bad experience in Somalia they selfishly condemned Rwanda to a genocide.
This article made me feel a little ashamed about being American. How can a country blatantly turn a blind eye to these horrible atrocities and then claim that they didn’t know? I understand why the Belgian’s wanted to evacuate after 10 Belgians were killed, but I do not understand how the U.S. had any right to evacuate. About 800,000 Tutsis were killed, and the U.S. did nothing, if anything they made it harder for the UN to stop the atrocities. Dellaire was one of the few people that stayed and tried to help the Tutsis, he sent telegrams to Washington reporting what was going on and asking for support, medial supplies, troops, anything, yet the U.S. didn’t respond positively. I am ashamed to be part of a country that blatantly turned away from genocide and let 800,000 people die.
This article shows that foreign intervention is absolutely necessary when a genocide is occurring. The UN could have easily stopped the genocide had they listened to those who were informed. They simply needed to see Rwanda as just as important as any other country in the world. Foreign intervention is necessary because when a genocide happening. it is almost impossible for the persecuted people to stop it themselves, and there is no way for them to all escape. There were so many people who could have helped the targeted Rwandans, they just didn't want to turn their attention away from what they thought was more important. When a genocide is occurring foreign nations simply need to step up and stop it, and not use the excuse that "more important" things are happening, or they don't know enough to intervene. If they know that mass numbers of people are dying that should be enough for them to intervene and do all they can to stop it.
After reading this article it made me realize how much America is in it's own Universe of Obligations. It is shocking to see how America pretty much looked the other way during the Rwandan Genocide. They were given all of the information that they needed to be able to help the Rwandans even just a little bit. It was incredible to see how Dellaire was one of the only people to stay in Rwanda during the genocide, and how little help he recieved from the UN druing his stay there. It is embarassing to see how little the US helped during this time, when they did have all of the information they needed to be aware of what was going on. The United States could have provided a little more aid to Rwanda in this situation because it was that hundreds of people were dying daily during this genocide that was merely seen as a tribal feud by other world powers. It is hard to grasp the concept that other countries simply sat back and watched this genocide happen.
This article left me completely speechless. To say the United States ignored the critical situation in Rwanda would be a profound understatement. For one of the most internationally influential nations like the United States to sit back, shaking their heads as if they don't know what's going on while 800,000 people are slaughtered is sickening. It is absolutely, without question, the duty of foreign nations to step in while events such as the Rwandan genocide are going on, especially with a politically and socially unstable countries who can't take care of the situation without assistance. In the case of Rwanda, I believe that not only a peacekeeping effort was necessary from the U.S., but also a military effort, and whatever other methods that could have been needed to save those people. For the Clinton administration to pretend they didn't "appreciate" (code for care) the terror of the situation is enfuriating and this is where the line is crossed from bystander to accomplice.
Lately I have been realizing the actual ridiculousness of the United States' Foreign policy, but this article really did a good job in making it clear that the US is doing horrible things. The US can never claim that they are "not aware of" anything, because, being a world super power, they get most news from all over the world. So claiming that they didn't know the full scale of the atrocities is just crap. Also, in my opinion, the US tries to play the world's keeper. But obviously, we are doing a bad job because we only stick our noses in where there are things that benifit us. Are we such a greedy country that oil comes above human lives on a scale of importance? It certainly appears that way from the US' actions in the genocies of the past century.
A foreign nation, especially one with as much military power, money, and information as the United States, should ALWAYS interfere with acts of genocide. A government can not claim that human lives are not in the popular interest, because they rule and govern over people, meaning that OBVIOUSLY human lives are important to them. Countries such as the US are usually viewed as such heroes. But after reading this article, I can no longer view the US as a hero in any situation.
This article is very frustrating. Before i read the article, i thought it was a really bad genocide in which countries did something to help, but then they pulled out when they thought they were in danger. Each of the countries that entered Rwanda were only worried about their own safety first rather than the amount of people that were going to be killed after they left. Leaving left these people with no hope. With no hope, people started to kill themselves to try to get the easy way out. I thought even this was bad. After seeing how at least something could have been done to help, the Americans still did nothing. Less than 20 US soldiers were killed. Is losing these soldiers to save the lives of thousands worth it? I guess that just depends of a persons universe of obligation.
The way that they were being slaughtered is awful. Not only is a genocide bad, but the way that they went about the killings seems so much worse and disgusting to me. Using machete's to cut people up is just sickening and terrible to think about. Shooting people is bad, but this method is so much worse. On top of that, there were bodies and streams of blood everywhere. I can't believe how it was even possible to kill such a large number of people in a short amount of time. The numbers practically speak for themselves.
This article just shows how the world in all it's "progession" really hasn't progressed at all. Foreign nations should invervene, when a nation is hurting its nation. How could anyone ignore that? Just because ones own country isn't being hurt, humanity is being hurt. The UN was very selfish in not helping Rwanda, how could they just let thousands of people die? Let alone the fact that military aid was needed but food, water, medicine, and the basic essentials of life could've helped soo many people. If humanity is hurt (for example the Rwandan genocide)then other nations have to take a stand and help humanity, by sending in as much as possible to stop the genocide. Dallaire gave it his all and saved many lives and made a huge impact in Rwanda. But if every country did what Dellaire alone, then not many people would've died.
It is so sadly ironic that the people who had the power to change U.S. policy towards Rwanda were the ones who really didn't care. The lower officials who knew first hand of the atrocities and were in direct contact with people in Rwanda could have run naked through Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House, and still nothing would have changed. It infuriates me that the very democracy and bureaucracy that was created to protect and ensure that everyone gets a say halted all progress towards helping in Rwanda. Even a monarchy would have been better than our government, for people would have been able to directly appeal to the king or queen. Instead, lower officials had to deal with a labyrinth of people, codes, laws, conflicting problems, and desensitizing paper work, until their final message became that of numbers and America's "appearance" in regards to everyone else. It boggles my mind how the U.S. completely failed to see that this wasn't an issue of money or logistics: this was an issue of thousands of people dying. People just like Americans, who had families and friends and jobs and feelings. How could this not have American stakes? The Genocide had every human ideal at stake. Someone the U.S. did fail to see this and chose to make every attempt in thwarting plans to help people in Rwanda. We didn't want to further mess up our appearance, as we had in Somalia, and concluded that Africa would always have problems. If we had spent a fraction of the time that we took in justifying inaction, and had actually used it to figure out how to stop the killings, then the genocide would have ended very quickly. How can we say "never again" when we choose to put our own appearance in front of everyone else?
Post a Comment