posts 16 - 25 of 25
Avatar
purplellama19
Posts: 20

Post: 800,000 People in 100 Days: How Did the World Ignore Rwanda?

After a year of learning about how easily personal motives can dehumanize large groups of people, it is no surprise the United States government wanted nothing to do with helping the people of Rwanda. The warning signs were there, we heard them, but were reluctant to act. A scenario not unique to the Rwandan genocide. The opportunities for intervention were plentiful, yet time and time again the US government, along with everyone else on the UN security council in 1994 chose to be a bystander.

Two of the key ingredients to a genocide are propaganda and the normalization of hate speech. In the context of Rwanda this was achieved via the Radio Millie Collins station. This station broadcasted anti Tutsi propaganda throughout the country before the initial killings, and after the genocide began the radio station exposed the locations of Tutsis and moderate Hutus that were targets of the killings. As described in Samantha Power’s book, “A Problem from Hell:” America in the Age of Genocide, the US government had full capability of stopping this radio station from continuing to spread their message that undoubtedly inspired hateful ideology that quickly turned to murder. Despite their capability to do something, the US government chose to be passive, and not interfere with the country’s “free speech.” While Power acknowledges that by doing so the genocide would not halt overnight, it would have slowed down the killings and decreased the numbers dramatically. A suitable first step it seems to me.

Just like the guise of protecting free speech, countries on the UN security council used pitiful excuses to justify their reasons for not allowing the peacekeepers to remain in Rwanda throughout the entire course of the genocide. The video we watched in class in which the UN blue helmets and Italian, French, Belgian, etc. soldiers were sent in to claim their own citizens out of masses of innocent people that would face inevitable murder was one of the most disturbing things I have ever seen. That moment of the documentary was the physical embodiment of white privilege. These countries had the means to put an end to a large majority of killings, of course it would not have been effortless, but they absolutely could have done more. Despite having the means to do more, the peacekeeping forces that were sent to Rwanda and those supposed to be sent to Rwanda, were there as almost a formality. The mandate that said 5,000 peacekeepers would be sent to Rwanda held promise for some genuine aid. The truth of the matter, however, was very different. No more peacekeepers were sent to Rwanda, and the ones they sent to Africa at all went to Uganda. It was simply all a facade.

The facade that was depicting America and other nations as upstanding states that did everything in their power to aid in the genocide is one that required lots of upkeep. Another example in addition to teasing the addition of peacekeepers to Rwanda, governments internationally, particularly the United States, chose their words incredibly carefully when discussing the conflict. This served as a means of deception that the US was not ignoring a genocide, when in fact they were. The video showing an American diplomat talking in circles about the word is simply a contribution to this facade. All together, there was no real efforts to help the people of Rwanda, but there sure was great effort in helping the image of the United States.

Avatar
fluffybunny03
Posts: 17

America ignored Rwanda

Although the world shares responsibility for the Rwandan genocide, as an American I feel particular shame about how this country decided to ignore the killings and fulfill what was beneficial to their own agenda instead. We are a country with so many resources, yet time and time again, we show just how selfish we are. I just had a debate with my own brothers about whether or not we should have intervened. Although they believe that we should have taken refugees, they are of the strong opinion that intervening would have led to war and killed more people. This shocked me to my core. What could have been worse than what happened? How many more people could have been killed in war if there were barely any people left? The issue is that sadly, even people today suffer from a lack of compassion for people that threaten the comfort of American life and stability.

The first issue is that not only did the U.S. know about exactly what was happening in Rwanda, they had the resources and means to prevent a lot of what happened. For example, the Radio Mille Collines. Samantha Power said it herself, the U.S. had the ability to intervene in these radio messages and stop them. They knew exactly what these messages were doing, and that they were egging on the genocide even more. Shutting down the radio wouldn’t have required any military or even that much effort, but it would have made some difference. It’s unfathomable to me that we deemed the genocide unworthy of even the slightest bit of attention or effort.

The UN Peacekeeping forces were given orders, but they are also people with their own voices. Ideally, they would have spoken up. But, I think that the Peacekeepers had an obligation to keep the peace. What is the point of having them in Rwanda at all if they are just there to defend themselves and not fight against any violence or genocide? They could have remained at home and been safe there without wasting money, resources, and giving false hope to the people who trusted them. How can the UN work when it doesn’t support its countries in times of need? When it turns back on its promises? Additionally, the UN refusing to call the event a genocide bewilders me. Samantha Powers even talks about it when she says that the reason the Peacekeepers came to Rwanda was because of how many deaths had occurred, but they came there only to act as sitting ducks. It’s devastating that people were so close to the violence with the resources strapped to their back to defend human life, and yet they acted as sheep. UN officers even admitted that they could’ve saved lives if they had sent more peacekeepers and allowed them to do their jobs! They were more than capable of this, yet for some reason they were hesitant. It is sad to see the world not know how to act and become cowards when people just like them are dying. I wonder if one of the reasons we did not act was because the people were African, and still racist sentiments determine the degree to which we value a person’s life. Calling it a genocide is a crucial step to acknowledging that we see what is happening, and we know that it is wrong. The UN’s delay in admitting it was a genocide showed that they did not believe the event was worthy of attention or action. Just like how you’re not supposed to name animals if you will eat them one day, giving an official name and label to the killings of hundreds of thousands of people would make the UN look bad and feel bad when it came time to point fingers for the consequences of the event. And yet, here we are. We know exactly who went wrong in the genocide anyway.

The fact that the killings were completed by Hutus with machetes is haunting to me -- an image that I will never be able to remove from my mind. It is difficult to understand how one could kill in such a violent and purposeful manner to people one had once known intimately (neighbors and friends). These people should have been stopped. It was easily a result of peer pressure and resentment building up, but this did not have to be vented through murder. Especially murder with no mercy. Reading the testimonies about how it was basically impossible to survive without sheer luck, I am amazed at the world for its ability to ignore something until the end.


Do you think the US has learned their lesson? Has the UN? What does our future against genocides look like?

Avatar
goldfish.mcpancakes
Posts: 25

In Rwanda, it would be an understatement to say that Radio Mille Collines was the principle method of propaganda. Not only that but it was a vocal manifestation of the intricate planning that had gone on before the genocide actually took place. The book talked about the 10 commandments that made it illegal for people to have contact with Tutsis and was the Rwandan equicalent of the Nuremburg Laws.


Until learning about Rwanda, I was never truly familiar with the UN having military power. I thought that they were solely a diplomatic organization but the inaction from these forces proved that they were useless. To me, the UN only evacuating foreigners (aka white people), was one of the cruelest things possible. In Powers book, she quotes Rwandans begging the soldiers not to abandon them or else they would die. She also accounts for when the foreigners were finally evacuated and foreign troops had left, the Hutus immediately drove into the camps and mowed down the Tutsis. One incident that was particularly jarring was when the troops decided to use their guns to fire above the heads of the Tutsis to clear a path for escape. I shocked me that the only time they fired their weapons wasn’t to stop the Tutsi murderers but rather scare Tutsis away. It is their duty to protect these people not as a soldier but as a fellow human who can actually make a difference. Powers book was also mentioned how the Hutus were less inclined to kill Tutsi if foreigners were present.

The “G” Word, as Power puts it, was consciously avoided. In the beginning, Dellaire says that he didn’t think that he was in a Genocide because that was unimaginable but after doing his research he eventually came to terms with the severity of this situation. When he began informing the UN about what was happening and started using the word genocide, the other nations still failed to publicly acknowledge it as so. This was not only disgusting irresponsible and soulless, but it speaks to the level of racism that still persisted in the 90s. When breaking down the term genocide, the prefix gens means people. I think in the eyes of the white onlookers, they themselves really didn’t see the Tutsis as people in the same way they viewed whites. I think that because these people were from Africa, they deemed the worthiness of their situation has inferior to any action that requires mandatory action. I think the avoidance of the word genocide also led to the lacking and faulty coverage of what was really going on. Power writes


The Hutus killing strategies were very methodical. Not only were able they able to slaughter Tutsis but they were able to do it with such rapidity. The speed at which Tutsis were hacked to death was far quicker than the Jews in the Holocaust and this can only be attributed to the planning and training that was done to do this. Im class, when learned about the perpetrator accounts, it was disturbing to see how quickly they were able to recruit young hutu boys and even convince children to turn on one another. The accounts also displayed the Hutu training methods and the fact that they taught how to properly hack into a Tutsi head to kill them

Avatar
Applesauce
Posts: 29

Watching the documentary in class, it was extremely disturbing to see UN officials completely ignore the begging citizens of Rwanda as they helped to evacuate foreign white people that were in Rwanda. As I watched this, I soon after wondered whether videos like this were public and widespread at the time, and if they were, how US citizens did not keep the government more accountable for doing nothing. While it is clear from reading this portion of Power’s book that there were many individuals in the US advocating strongly for the US to help people in Rwanda, after asking people who were alive at the time, it does not seem as though there were significant movements in the US supporting US intervention/ involvement. Had citizens been more active and vocal about what they demanded, maybe the government/ administration would have responded with a little bit more care and concern to the genocide in Rwanda.


In response to the Radio Mille Collines, Power wrote that “Lists of victims had been prepared ahead of time” (333). As they read the names of these victims before they had actually been killed, the Rwandan people at risk listened. If they heard their name, they knew they had to attempt to flee. With this public information, the United States and other countries could have established a program in which they helped evacuate/ protect the people whose names were called. Information about who would be killed was publicly broadcasted, and yet there weren’t efforts to help these people. Even if the US and other countries truly felt that they could not support thousands and thousands of Rwandan refugees, they could have helped specifically those at immediate risk.


Also, there were many early warnings of the genocide that countries including the US should have responded in a more responsible and caring manner. For example, many were hostile about the Arusha government agreement and feared that the Tutsi, if given the chance, would be extremely harsh rulers that suppressed and potentially harmed Hutu people (337). This alone reveals the tensions that existed between the two groups of people because of the struggle for control in the country. Furthermore, in 1990 the Hutu “Ten Commandments” were written and published, known as the Kangura, and these clearly outlined Hutu intentions (338). Specifically, #6 of these commandments stated that “the education sector must be majority Hutu.” This reminds me of the discrimination in schools during the Holocaust, specifically when Jews and Roma and Sinti were banned from German schools. These should have all acted as clear warnings to the US and other countries that there was clear tension and evidence of genocide based on resemblances to a past genocide. Furthermore, by 1992 there were 581,000 machetes in Rwanda. Not only was there dangerous tension in the country, but there was the clear potential for action to be taken in a way that killed thousands of people. Considering these pre-warnings, I don’t think it is right for the US or other countries to try to settle these ethnic disputes because they do not fully understand them and would likely only make them worse. However, they could have acted to try to remove power from the Hutu that were responsible for the Ten Commandments. Also, even if the US was not able to actively prevent the tensions and as a result the genocide, it could have recognized these warnings and begun to prepare for actions against the Interhamwe once the killings began. It also could have begun to prepare to take in refugees.


Something that stuck out to me as I read this portion of the book was that a major argument supporting the removal of UN troops from Rwanda was that people did not want another failed UN mission like those in Bosnia, Somalia, and Haiti (340). I can understand the logic in avoiding risking people’s lives for an effort that could likely fail considering the failure of the UN in the past. However, the US could have acted independently of the UN. If the Rwandan genocide was of true concern in the US, it should have taken initiative and established efforts to help the Rwandan people independently of the mission they believed would be a failure. The UN mission was not the only option and I think it was a strategic excuse for the US to act as if it was in order to get away with avoiding conflict.


Additionally, in the book I read about Dallaire's use of the word genocide and how he began to use it a lot once he realized that it was genocide occurring. He did this because he believed that “unless the international community acts, it may find it is unable to defend itself against accusations of doing nothing to stop genocide” (358). This stood out to me because looking at the genocide and the international response now, I know that the US and other countries have not faced true consequences for their inaction. Therefore, Dallaire’s point about defense against this inaction was essentially pointless after the genocide ended because the US and other countries seemed to pretty easily get away with what they did (didn’t do). Also, this makes me think of the section of reading from Power’s book from the last post in which we learned about the initial creation of the word genocide after the Holocaust and the clear definition of the word in order to force the international community to have a greater responsibility the next time people were victims of genocide. Despite these huge efforts, it seems as though countries have just continued to find loopholes to be inactive and selfish by not outwardly calling the acts in Rwanda and other placed genocide. In the video we watched in class, we watched the woman of the Clinton administration clearly attempting to avoid mention of the word genocide because the moment the US acknowledges the atrocities as genocide, they would be forced to act. To me, this is clear evidence that the US had a strong understanding of what was happening in Rwanda, knew that they should help and had the ability to help, and yet chose to be inactive and selfish. The US and other inactive countries should have faced international punishments for this to avoid it from happening again.


As I reflect on this as a whole, it is obvious to me that the US had a responsibility to help the people in Rwanda. Seeing images of the mass amounts of people killed and reading the witnesses of survivors, it is clear that it came to a point where the Tutsi could not protect themselves, and thus other countries should have helped to protect them. It is hard to say what the best action would have been. Removing the weapons of the Hutu would have helped to prevent this violence and the 800,000 deaths, but it also hard to say that the US has the power to do this in another country that they have had little involvement with otherwise. I think a main thing the US should have done would have been to stop the glorification of the killings. This could have included efforts to stop the Hutu radio announcements, which only encouraged Hutu to kill more people. Finally, there were already UN troops in Rwanda but their assignments were to protect themselves not the Rwandan people. This makes no sense to me because their lives were at little risk compared to the people in Rwanda. If they were truly trying to keep peace, the UN forces should have helped those who were actually the victims of violence. Because the UN continues to fail in situations like this, I do think that the US could have tried to help independently of the UN. If it did, I think it is likely that other countries would have followed their lead and collaborated without the restrictions from the UN.

Avatar
Applesauce
Posts: 29

Originally posted by canelathedoe1010 on April 24, 2019 22:24

Avoiding calling something that was so obviously genocide by its rightful name is appalling. Doing this improves nothing and only devalues what happened to the victims in Rwanda. 800,000 Rwandans were killed in 100 days and yet the United States government still refuses to call it genocide. Out of all things this is firstly disrespectful. What is the point in avoiding calling the genocide what it is? To try to cover up all of the things that the US government didn’t do? Instead of disregarding what the victims of Rwanda faced they should be apologizing for what they didn’t do. I remember watching the woman from the US government dance around saying that there was a genocide as long as she could, it was purely ill-mannered and shocking. There were obviously major flaws in what the United Nations did and what the United States did, but the solution should not be to avoiding the subject matter, it should be actively trying to apologize and reconcile for what they did.

I agree. I think it is especially appalling because the UN went through such a great effort to officially name and define genocide in order to prevent countries from being able to avoid getting away with doing or allowing it in the future. However, in the Rwandan genocide the UN and its countries did exactly this. By not officially calling it genocide, they were able to avoid helping the Rwandan people. Furthermore, it is very disrespectful because it implies that the atrocities that were happening were not sever eough to be considered genocide, and thus it devalues the experiences of the victims.

Avatar
purplefish2
Posts: 11

The events leading up to and during the Rwandan Genocide were not handled well, and not enough was done on the part of foreign governments especially the U.S. to ensure the safety of the civilians in Rwanda. As you said, in hindsight it is so easy to point out where things went wrong and how the U.S. and the UN could have handled their ‘intervention’ in a more effective way, however there is no denying that there were completely right and wrong calls made on how to prevent what was going on. All of the instances mentioned in the post could have been integral parts of easing the destruction of the Tutsi citizens and other civilian victims of this genocide.

The racial hostility that was magnified during the Rwandan Genocide, of course, had its history before 1995, starting with colonialism. Tensions between Hutu and Tutsi were especially high, however, at this time due to the shift in power that had recently occurred. Because of the government then being controlled by Hutus, the media was able to be controlled in favor of their agenda, and Radio Mille Collines is a good example of that. The radio played a big role in keeping the situation in Rwanda hostile by reporting with racially charged propaganda against the Tutsi, etc. The U.S. would have been able to shut down the radio, which makes you ask why they didn’t, because it wouldn’t have been a violent or hostile act towards Rwanda, but it would have been able to cut out a part of the information going around about Tutsis and would have saved lives.

In addition to the government and media being so anti Tutsi and rallying all of the Hutu to feel the same, a third of the male Hutus could have been armed with machetes in order to kill Tutsi. Civilians were hacking their neighbors to death with machetes and if that doesn’t seem urgent enough to other countries like the U.S. to try to put an end to it, then what else would have to happen to cause us to care.

The United Nations prevented the peacekeepers from any physical intervention. That is unfortunate because, though no one knows of what exactly could have been the outcome, there is always the possibility that it could have saved lives, had they been able to intervene. Similarly, the fact that their focus shifted to solely getting foreigners out of the country is problematic too. While it does make sense for foreigners to get themselves to safety if they had the option, they were not that target of the racial hostility and violence that was taking place. The hundreds of thousands of Tutsi who were being slaughtered could have and should have been more seriously protected the the “peace keepers” there. If no peace was made then they, to me, did not serve any purpose other than as a political move to make it seem as if we were trying to help.

Because in the end, the United States tried to avoid calling the Rwandan Genocide a ‘genocide’ , it allowed them to not have to feel any responsibility for what was allowed to happen. Of course, now we know how to identify all of the signs and steps that occur leading up to a genocide, but we still allow them to happen. Not calling this a genocide relieves the U.S. of their responsibility at the time, however it wasn’t the first time they were delayed and refused to take action. The signs and patterns were there, so there is honestly know excuse for the lack of effective intervention and support that the U.S. provided.



Avatar
Powpowkablow
Posts: 17

The Rwandan genocide is a frustrating and horrifying event to think about for many who were alive during the time, not only because they most likely didn’t even know about it, but also because of the shear speed and brutality with which the population of Tutsis was extinguished. Eventually, when the press came around to reporting on the genocide and various parties began to apologize for inaction, one thing was made very clear: somebody had failed Rwanda.

Obviously, the Hutus who went out day after day 100 times to hack their Tutsi neighbors to death deserve to face the consequences of their immorality, but that isn’t the end of it. There were many other parties that enabled or actively pushed forward their killing mission, most importantly the radio station in Kigali, Radio Mille Collines and the UN Peacekeeping forces.

Radio Mille Collines was essentially the Hutu voice of the killing sprees, spreading the names of prominent Tutsis and encouraging their murders. Without this propaganda service, there would not have been as much access to motivation to kill and the Hutus would have been much less organized. One thing I have been noticing about the motivations for the perpetrators is that the Hutus that kill often aren’t extremely ideologically on-board with what they are doing, but they join in killing because of the fear of what would happen if they didn’t. The fact that there was a widespread system of communication that could essentially put a death-warrant on their head if they didn’t kill probably caused many Hutus to be too scared to not kill. This obviously doesn’t excuse what they did, it more just provides a reason.

While Radio Mille Collines was actively driving forward the message to kill as many Tutsis as possible, the UN may have done just as much to keep the genocide going by just doing nothing at all. As we saw in the PBS film, the United Nations security council repeatedly chose to keep the peacekeepers from intervening in the conflict in any way. It was terrifying to hear about the soldiers depart from the school which had been serving as a pop-up refugee camp for Tutsis because almost immediately once they were gone the Hutus came in and killed the vast majority of the Tutsis there. I can put little of the blame for these actions on the peacekeepers themselves. They had orders, and strict ones at that. Their job is to follow their orders and to have faith that they were right. This time they absolutely were not. They made all the efforts they could to explain to the higher-ups that something had to be dones, but they wouldn’t listen and therefore I would have to put the blame on them because they essentially failed to do their jobs and caused thousands of innocent people to die.

There were so, so many simple things that could have been done to at least make killing harder, many of which didn’t put any lives or really anything at all in jeopardy, but nothing was done. They could have blocked Radio Mille Collines on the radio waves, but that brought up concerns about the possible infringement of freedom of speech and the press. That makes absolutely no sense because it is preaching violence and literally naming people to be slaughtered, but it happened anyways. The UN could have helped save civilians without combating Hutus, but didn’t. They could have done something to reduce the amount of weapons in the country, but who knows how effective that would have been considering how creative the Hutu got with their killing devices.

To say what I think should have been done is to say everything that the outside world decided not to do, quite frankly. I feel like I can usually look at things in hindsight and understand the reasons why people decided to do nothing, but I just can’t seem to do that in this case. The first thing that should have been done is that refugee camps that were secured by UN Peacekeepers should have been set up and defended if encroached upon by Hutu killing squads. This is why the UN peacekeeping force was established and it is basically their one purpose at the end of the day, and the fact that they didn’t deliver in Rwanda is extremely disappointing. Secondly, those who knew exactly the scope and gravity of the genocide in Rwanda should have let the world know and the world should have listened. I don’t believe either of those things happened to their fullest capacity.

The more I write about this, the more I realize how utterly infuriating the whole thing is. I can almost always understand where people are coming from and try to make sense of why people stay silent in other events like this like the Holocaust, but this time I just can’t. This is probably the most disheartening thing we’ve learned about all year, in my opinion because when we can’t understand why people do wrong, it is hard to prevent it in the future, and right now I just don’t get it at all.


Avatar
Broccolibabe
Posts: 15

Before this year all I knew about the Rwandan genocide was that there was one. This unit definitely affected me emotionally more than any other unit this year. I don’t think I will ever forget the image and the story of french soldiers playing volleyball over the bodies of dead tutsis. I will never understand how anyone to could rationalize that in their head.

The idea that this many people could go out and kill this brutally and this consistently is so insane to me. When we read the perpetrators accounts there are a couple of things that stand out to me. One of those things are the amount of people that said they took part in the genocide because they felt no other options. The idea that people are inherently evil or inherently good came up in my conversation which intrigued me because though I don’t believe people are inherently evil I do believe that people are inherently sheep. We follow the heard more than we would ever like to admit. We follow social norms like they are laws and let them control our lives. The people who were killing tutsis in Rwanda don’t have a different brain structure than us, we can’t pinpoint something that shows us what they did and that we could never do that. I think it’s hard to ever know what any of this would’ve ever done in a situation like that. When people are telling you if you didn’t kill anyone that you would be killed yourself or shunned from your family people felt like they had to.

Thinking about that though I also think about those who didn’t feel like they had to do it, but instead felt like they were correct and justified in what they were doing. Both of these subsets scare me equally because the leaders of the killing are scary because of their intentions but the followers are scary because of our ability to relate to them.
Avatar
Mark Cuban
Posts: 16

My first introduction to the Rwandan genocide came over the summer when a read a biography by Romeo Dallaire, the UN officer stationed in Rwanda. I was shocked learning about how massive this genocide was and how quick it happened. I was also very surprised how little I knew about it given its severity and how recent it actually occurred. Looking at it now I believe that not nearly enough was done to try to prevent or at least slow down what happened. In my opinion next to nothing was done to save the Tutsi people and the world just left them to die.

What the world should have done was take action. At first I assumed that there were more legal reasons that would have made it unable for them to act, but the more I learned about the genocide I realized that this wasn't the case. In reality the world turned a blind eye to Rwanda, when there were so many signs that it was going to happen. Instead of ignoring these signs the UN and countries involved should have took immediate action. Within Rwanda, they should have made refugee camps that actually were willing to protect they citizens at all costs. If necessary the UN should have been willing to take up arms to protect the Tutsi against the onslaught of the Hutu. Also they should have done something to prevent the spread of the genocide, which the Hutu communicated over the radio. The UN should have prohibited this way of communication by destroying signal from the radio.

Overall, the way the world handled the Rwandan genocide was full of very few positive actions and lots of flaws. They failed to take action when possible. Then after the world once again failed, by not explaining the reality and severity of what happened. In Rwanda nothing was done to help the people who lost there family members, and the Hutu murderers were able to go back to living there daily lives. In the media they did not express what happened, so in turn the world knows very little about this genocide that killed faster than the Holocaust. The Rwanda genocide is one the world needs to know about, and it still lies on the UN to give all those who suffer the recognition and help that they deserved.


Avatar
Dexter
Posts: 15

It is extremely concerning how preventable Rwanda was and how absolutely no one tried to stop it. It baffles me that America didn’t wake up after what happened during World War 2. All the vows of never staying silent again were broken as soon as the US decided that they wanted to turn a blind eye to the Rwandan people.

In all facets of the Rwandan genocide, the easiest to address is Radio Milles Collines, the radio station that broadcasted the kill orders and names of the Hutu people in order to encourage people to kill them. With the technology that we had back then, it was more than possible to jam the stations that were spreading those kill orders. Something that absolutely shocked me was when Powers said that “radios don’t kill people, people do”. I was baffled that anyone could let that be released to the public because it is completely disregarding a major factor of the genocide. Powers was wrong because every name that was announced over the radio ended up being slaughtered. This stint of verbal gymnastics was purely used for the US to place a barrier between what was happening in Rwanda and our country. If they said that the radio wasn’t affecting anyone, they would’ve have no reason to interfere. Jamming the radio was the least the UN could do for Rwanda if nothing else.

Powers also mentioned that the threat of extracting the UN “peacemonitors” if they engaged in gunfire, were what the Hutu’s wanted to happen. Because of this, the Hutus were allowed to kill at freewill, since they knew the “peacemonitors” weren’t going to do anything to stop them. The UN should have intervened immediately since there was an active genocide taking place right under their noses. This will ultimately go down as one, if not the biggest, foreign affairs debacle of our time.

The UN commander of peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, Romeo Dallaire, said that if the soldiers sent from the evacuation team were to join his mission with the help of 300 more US marines on standby, he would have had the chance to “stage rescue operations and confront the killers.” His words on what could have been if those evacuation troops were there to fight instead of just rescuing people, is just heartbreaking. This whole situation makes me question the legitimacy of the UN and if their policies are bogus or not.

posts 16 - 25 of 25