The Conflict Of The Rwandan Genocide Under The Clinton Administration

Genocides happen when ethnic divisions become apparent. Many times, these ethnic divisions were due to colonization from people of different race. These cases are especially true in Africa when Europeans colonized their territory, with clear racial divisions between them (Gavin). These genocides go on because of nations acting on ignorance and refusing to help out the nations in turmoil, allowing the genocides to continue, without wasting their own resources. These nations purposefully ignoring the slaughter of people cause the nations to also be guilty of the genocide underway (“The Heart”). The genocide occurred in Rwanda in Central Africa during 1994. The decades of Tutsi oppression of Hutus and the assassination of President Habyarimana in 1994 led to the genocide in Rwanda.

In 1994, a conflict the US couldn't understand, between clans and tribes it didn't know, in a country where there were no national interests, occurred. The Rwandan War of 1994 did not deserve US intervention. There are four contentions on why the US should not have gotten involved in this Rwandan war. The Black Hawk Down incident, how the UN was there previously there, there being no Possible Gain, and having nothing to do with us. Through the examination of the novel, An Ordinary Man by Paul Rusesabagina, it is Obvious that these key points are valid.

With over eight hundred thousand to one million deaths, the Rwandan genocide is undoubtedly one of the most sad and shocking examples of the lack of intervention by not only the US and the UN, but by other countries as well. The ongoing tensions between the Hutu, the largest population in Rwanda, and the Tutsi, the smaller and more elite population is what eventually lead to the Rwandan genocide. The killings began quickly after President Habyarimana 's plane was shot down. After hundreds of thousands of deaths, the US did not intervene in Rwanda because being a landlocked country with no natural resources to benefit the US, there was no economical benefit, and the risk of sending in troops simply outweighed the rewards. The aftermath of the genocide has not only impacted those who lived through it, but it has also impacted future generations as well. At the end of the genocide, the ICTR was formed by the UN to find justice. The Rwandan genocide has shocking similarities between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as well. Overall, the Rwandan genocide was a terrible event that escalated far beyond what it should have if there had been intervention from other countries and the UN.

[1] In her widely known call for American action in the face of genocide, A Problem From Hell, former journalist Samantha Powers wrote “’all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’ After a century of doing so little to prevent, suppress, and punish genocide, Americans must join and thereby legitimate the ranks of the unreasonable.” Her demand was that American society at large join the few in its ranks who have vehemently fought for U.S. action in the face of genocide, long considered the “unreasonable”. Power is but one member, albeit a prominent member, of a school of though called interventionism. Interventionism strongly advocated for the use of U.S. military action to put a stop to genocide. It draws strongly from language of

Some specialists at the State Department who had been monitoring Rwanda for months had understood that genocide had begun and argued for firm action. The Bill Clinton administration did not or would not hear them. Evidence that genocide was occurring was presented to the administration (“Ignoring”). In a Defense Intelligence report issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency two months after the genocide started, the news of the genocide is mentioned, proving that the Clinton administration were aware of the ethnic conflict. In one section, it is stated, “almost immediately after President Habyarimana was killed, in Kigali the Presidential Guard began the systematic execution of prominent Tutsi and moderate Hutu.” Further in the document it explains

This New York Times article covers the reasoning behind the U.N.’s failure to put an end to the Bosnian genocide. Up until 1995, the U.S. refused to intervene in the genocide taking place in Bosnia. The American government refused sending in their own troops and also vetoed Security Council draft resolutions to increase the number of UN peacekeepers. The American foreign policy toward Bosnia changed in 1995 due to new evidence of the atrocities being committed in Bosnia. This evidence was becoming common knowledge to the public and the United States’ lack of action was becoming an embarrassment. Because their inaction would make America look bad, this gave them no choice but to interfere in

In between 1930 and 1945, an event took place that changed the world in many ways. The Holocaust was a genocide that consisted of the decimation of one single race, the Jews. This solemn event is very similar (and also quite different) to another event that took place only four thousand miles away. Like the Holocaust, this event is was a genocide and it took place at Rwanda in 1994. This genocide was between the Hutus and Tutsis. These two groups have a long background with each other that consisted of civil wars, switches in power and superiority, and tension. It began when the Europeans put the Tutsis in a superior position because they were the ones that closely resembled them, the Europeans, in physical appearance. It was the death of

Terry George’s Hotel Rwanda is a terrifying tale of genocide the world simply chose to ignore, dooming innocent civilians, the Tutsis in particular, to death. As heart breaking as it was to spend every second watching this horrible massacre unfold before my eyes, I couldn’t help feel angry. Angry at the world for turning away from these people when they needed our support the most, angry at myself for not having known this terrible tragedy that took place during these ‘civilized’ times, angry that harmless Tutsis died due to our ignorance and angry that we let their deaths occur on our hands.

The United States, as a leading world power that owes much of their foundation and rise to power to colonization, holds a responsibility to recognize and prevent acts of genocide. Outside countries cannot be excused for and must be held accountable for their actions during times of crisis, for their passive (and direct) endorsement of systematic annihilation as had happened during the Rwanda Genocide. Western countries especially cannot distance themselves from such issues, cannot claim “innocence” when it is their lack of action and indifference that allowed for such atrocities to occur.

In Germany in the 1940s, 6.5 million people were killed, all either belonged to the religious group of the Jews, were handicapped, or were gypsies. Rwanda consisted of two main ethnic groups, the Tutsi and the Hutu (Stephen 43). Throughout the years the ethnic group in power switched back and forth, the genocide of 1994 occurred because one group was viewed as the lesser group and ethnic hatred was spread throughout the country. In Darfur … If you add up the casualties in each genocide the total is 7.5 million to 8 million lives lost; 6.4 million in Germany, 500,000 to 1,000,000 in Rwanda, and 600,000 in Darfur. After the tragic events in Germany during World War II, America’s failure to learn from its past is shown when America fails to help or stop the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur, the people of America need to be educated on genocide and on what needs to be done to prevent

On April 7, 1994, tragedy began. In the small country of Rwanda, a civil war between

Sometime in April 1994, during the Rwandan Genocide, Father Athanase Seromba helped lure 2,000 Tutsi men, women, and children into his church where they thought they would be safe. One day, Seromba began clearing out the Communion chalices. A refugee in the church begged him to leave the Eucharist so that they could hold a final mass. However, Seromba refused, telling the congregation that the building was no longer a church. Another refugee asked the priest if he would pray for them. He answered, “Is the God of the Tutsis still alive?” Later, Seromba would have the church bulldozed and would send the militia in to kill the survivors (Kimani, 2010). In a continent as vast as Africa, it is not uncommon to see the struggles of both Christianity and Islam play out. Just a couple years ago, the world heard about the Boko Haram Islamic extremist group kidnapping schoolgirls in Nigeria, forcing them to convert to Islam and marriage with other members of Boko Haram. Lesser known are the Christian terrorists of the African continent who attack and kill the Muslim community among them. In the last two decades, the Western world has become so fearful after news of Muslim terrorist attacks and genocides, especially after 9/11. So much so that Western citizens have turned on other citizens simply because they are Muslim, look Middle-Eastern, or have an Arabic name. Sometimes we forget that some of the worst genocides in history have been instigated or participated in by Christians –

In order to examine the Rwandan Genocide in the context of failed international intervention, I have chosen to look at the Genocide from a Realist perspective. The Realist paradigm focuses on states and their influence in the global sphere. Realists believe that states are only driven by power and that their policies therefore reflect these desires for power. States want to secure their security and the longevity of their nation and their ideologies. Waltz portrays this paradigm quite simply by stating: “Success is the ultimate test of policy and success is defined as preserving and strengthening the state. These views reign true when examining the Rwandan Genocide, therefore I believe that the international community's lack of response to

Rwanda had a civil war with two of the most known tribes fighting with one another inside the very same country. Many innocent people died in a monarchy run government, which was shortly pushed out of business when the presidential plane was shot down and caused the death of the president himself. In Rwanda, Hutsis made up the majority of the Population; although, they were not justified to take over the government and form a major genocide. Once the Hustis took over the government, the Tutsis were having difficulties with the strict laws and colonial rules; therefore, the tribe and race rebelled against the Hutsis.

Jack Nusan Porter, an Ukrainian American sociologist defined the term genocide as follows: “Genocide is the deliberate destruction, in whole or in part, by a government or its agents, of a racial, sexual, religious, tribal or political minority. It can involve not only mass murder, but also starvation, forced deportation, and political, economic and biological subjugation. Genocide involves three major components: ideology, technology, and bureaucracy/organization.” I chose to use this definition instead of the definition given by the ‘Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide’ because I think this one is incomplete, as it does not include political minorities. It is true that a genocide may not be carried out by a government or its agents, but I also believe that if not by these two groups of people, it must have their help and consent or otherwise it would not happen. The aim of this essay will be to convey and contrast the two genocide cases in Rwanda and Darfur from a US Foreign Policy perspective, to see what has been done in order to help these two regions and what else should have been done by not only a country that is one of the biggest if not the biggest power from the last century, but also a country that thinks of itself as exceptional, that feels it has the moral obligation and duty of sharing and spreading democracy in the name of human rights. Foreign policies such as ‘Exceptionalism’ and ‘Isolationism’ will be examined fully, along