Have we Learned from Rwanda?
The Rwandan Genocide was a serious genocide that did not receive the attention it deserved. Realists argue, in general, that humanitarian intervention does not make sense because it is not in the best interest of the state. However, in times of death and serious crime, it is essential in order to save lives and protect the integrity of the international community. The international community has a role and responsibility to aid in times of great despair. Great powers have no excuse but to intervene and self-interest is meaningless.
In Rwanda, after the shooting down of the plane of the Hutu president, Hutus grew angry with the Tutsis and wished for them to be eliminated as a race. The hatred grew, and announcements of slaughter for the Tutsi people were made through radio. The United States heard about these announcements but still did not intervene. Reasons for not intervening included the events of Somalia where U.S. rangers died, lack of “national interest” in Rwanda, and reluctance to deem the Rwandan killings acts of genocide (Rwandan Genocide: Failure of the International Community?). These are not reasons, these are merely excuses. The United States simply watched as thousands of innocent people died. There is no justification for that. Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist, said: “The US and the UK refused aid at this crucial time in February 1994 for reasons of economy. This failure, I think, sent a message to those planning the genocide that they could continue, knowing that the world would fail to react” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). When perpetrators are given the green light, their actions will only get worse. The U.S. and UK let this happen. Let that sink in for a second.
The United States claimed that the events of Somalia damaged them and they did not want to enter a similar conflict where their soldiers would be at great risk. Also, the United States was reluctant to use the term genocide. If the term genocide was used at any point, then the U.S. had an international responsibility to intervene because of the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention (Bystanders to Genocide). Thus, the U.S. avoided the word at all costs, trying to avoid intervention as much as possible. Yes, the United States, the supposed “greatest” country on Earth avoided saving thousands of innocent lives. That is the sign of a selfish country. It is frustrating how the United States, a nation that prides itself on promotion of human rights and freedom, denied any genocide. To be honest, it is sickening. The U.S. had no excuse not to act. Thousands of innocent Tutsis died and still face oppression today. If the U.S. did something, just something, that would be different. What sickens me the most about our inaction is our denial. We don’t think our inaction was all that bad. We don’t realize the positive impacts we could have made and we don’t realize the negative impacts our inaction had.
While people such as realists may argue that the United States had to worry about self-interests, there is nothing that trumps the attention a genocide deserves. To not pay attention to a genocide not only hurts the people affected, but also leaves an embarrassing mark on the international community. Self-interest is never more important than a genocide. Never. UN members even acknowledge their failure. Kofi Annan, who was the UN Secretary General at the time, said that “We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenseless men, women, children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago. We must acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide” (Rwanda: Why the international community looked away). The UN at least made some effort, unlike the United States. This is not a nature of simply accepting our failures. We must learn from this terrible mistake, admit to it, and never let it happen again.
The genocide in Darfur is still occurring and although we have helped provide troops, promoted democracy, and tried to end human rights issues, we cannot lean back. We must continue to save innocent lives because that is our role as the most powerful nation on Earth. We have the power to end genocides such as the one in Darfur. We must use that power to our advantage and never stop trying to aid human rights across the globe.
The question becomes, have we learned from our mistakes? Do we realize how much of an effect our lack of intervention had? Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is a nation that doesn’t like to admit to failure, and the U.S. never really admitted to failure during the Rwandan Genocide. If the United States can’t fully admit to such a brutal mistake, then how can the U.S. be trusted as the most powerful nation on earth in the future?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlex, I agree that intervention in Rwanda would have been incredible helpful and saved countless lives. But is it the US's job to step in, or that of the whole international community. In this blog post, you are very critical of the US. And while the anger is justified, is it misplaced? Was it solely the United States job to step and, and if so why. Clearly it was not in their interest. But if its not a matter of self interest, shouldn't every nation also have contributed? Or is it because the US is the "most powerful nation on earth"? Is this claim still true? will it no longer be our responsibility if we are eclipsed by another nation?
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't solely the job of the U.S. to step in; other nations failed in this regard as well, except for France who actually cared. We will always have responsibility to intervene because our country values democracy, freedom, and civil rights. And here's the thing, we could have helped in Rwanda. We had the resources to end that genocide, but instead we didn't want our country to be hurt as a result of intervention. What frustrates me most is our reluctance to coin this a genocide. I mean, we knew it was a genocide, but we tried to pretend we didn't because we didn't want to intervene. This has gotten me thinking a little, and it's been a little under two weeks since this post. If we can hide something we know from the international community, then the whole system is messed up. Based on this theory, with genocides going on now, if we didn't want to intervene, technically our claim would be justified if we determined it wasn't a genocide, even if we knew it was. I'm getting a little off point here, but I'm just saying we'll always have the resources to intervene. I mean, come on. But sometimes we just don't want to help even though we should, and we make an excuse as a result of it.
DeleteAccording to Lecture 14, the "Responsibility to Protect" says intervention is a responsibility in cases of mass atrocities. There you go. We just need to be honest with our intentions as a nation. If we don't want to intervene, which should be condemned, we at least have to be honest about it with the international community. What we're doing now in Darfur is great - we're actually doing something. We have the resources to help. Rwanda was a failure on our part. Other nations failed too. It was an international disaster, it really was.
Hi, Alex, awesome post! I think it is absolutely critical to call ourselves out on our mistakes in order to learn from them, like you said. Why do you think the U.N. was more able to admit the mistake while the U.S. was not?
ReplyDeleteHey Katherine, thanks for your feedback. Well I mean, the UN kind of relies on countries like the U.S. during times of genocide. In that quote I included from the UN Secretary General, he's also calling out the U.S. and other countries for not intervening. He's saying that the UN could have done more, but it still wouldn't have been enough, unless world superpowers stepped in. The UN actually tried, and while they could have done a little more, they still needed the help of the U.S. and the UN did far more than the U.S. did. Also, the U.S. doesn't want to admit failure, because they're afraid their reputation will dip.
DeleteAlex, Great post!
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you, that as compassionate human beings, it is our job and moral obligation, to protect the rights of those being mistreated. However, I must also pose Will’s question: is it the United States’ job to intervene? Or the entire international community’s? I believe it is the job of the International community, however, like you said, many times genocides will not be labeled as genocides because countries do not want to intervene. I think the underlying issue is the definition of what constitutes a mass killing as a genocide. Once we are able to clearly define what constitutes as a genocide, the next issue we must address is who and how we, the global community, will take action. It is so easy for an outsider watching a genocide occur across the world say it: isn’t my problem because it isn’t happening to me or my people. I think this is the attitude the U.S. takes on until they have no choice but to step in, and most often the point where the U.S. is willing to intervene, is too little too late. So while I completely agree with you, it is our moral obligation as human beings to help others who are in need, I am not sure if it is the United States’ job (or if they have the ability) to come to the aid of every country that seeks refuge.
Hey Emily, thanks for your comments and questions. Like I said in my reply to Will's comment, every nation, according to "The Responsibility to Protect" (see Lecture 14) has the responsibility to step in during times of mass atrocities. I really think we didn't have an excuse to not intervene. I do think that we had the resources to help - there have been many instances where we have stepped in during conflicts, but Rwanda we elected not to. And I think you bring up a key point about the genocide. I think deep down, we (as an international community) understand what a genocide is, but are reluctant to call it a genocide because we don't want to intervene. We knew Rwanda was a genocide but we made an excuse saying it wasn't a genocide. We put our countries' needs before the international community's needs. Rwanda had a damaging effect on the world as a whole and as a result of the whole situation some trust was lost. So, we should always intervene during times of genocide in order to save lives, defeat the enemy, and restore faith and trust in the international community.
DeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that countries with the power to help save lives in other struggling countries should, I wonder what would've made the US act. Sadly, unlike the Middle East, Rwanda does not have some huge resource that the US depends on. Nor like Somalia was their turmoil starting to effect us. This doesn't excuse our failure to act, but does perhaps expose our selfishness or desire of preservation of self interests. Are big countries like the US entitled to such selfishness? And where do we draw the line when we allow fellow human beings to sink to such horrifying lows? Your post did a good job of pointing out these big moral questions. Hopefully the US, UN, and others will find the courage to stand up for basic human decency.
Hey Amanda, thanks for your feedback. While Rwanda does not have resources wanted by the U.S., we should understand that our actions (or inactions) can have a backlash on the international community. I mean, we hurt ourselves and our reputation through this whole thing. Trust was lost in the world, and there's no way for the world to function properly if countries don't have trust with one another. I also think that the U.S. builds themselves up as a nation with such high moral values that we have to act. If the U.S. doesn't want to intervene, they really don't have a choice because their values speak of democracy, freedom, civil rights, and morality. If we really cared about these values, we would have intervened. However, our self-interests got in the way and there's really no excuse for it, at least in my opinion. Lecture 14 says, based on "The Responsibility to Protect" we have to intervene in times of mass atrocities. We=international community as a whole. If countries don't want to intervene, then let's just be honest about it. We need to talk together in the world. Let's just gather all the nations one day and go get a cup of coffee and have a chat. I wish it could be that easy.
Delete