Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

Rwandan Genoice and the West Stands Idly By.

Today the National Security Archive publishes on the World Wide Web sixteen declassified US government documents detailing how US policymakers chose to be “bystanders” during the genocide that decimated Rwanda in 1994.

The documents published today show that:

Contrary to later public statements, the US lobbied the UN for a total withdrawal of UN forces in Rwanda in April 1994;

Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term “genocide” until May 21, and even then, US officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;

Bureaucratic infighting slowed the US response to the genocide;

The US refused to “jam” extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing because of costs and concern with international law;

US officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence.

------------------------------------------

A sad state of affairs. I await the release of the UK documents that show us to be guilty of the same appeasement to genocide. We should all be ashamed of our inaction.


------------------
sp00ky
---------------------------
There's nothing nice in my head. The adult world took it all away. Wake up with same spit in my mouth. Cannot tell if it is real or not. I try and walk in a straight line. An imitation of dignity. From despair to where.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 168

I am just curios, I’m not saying that I disagree with you that this is a disgrace but, why do you think that the “west” should police the rest of the world. It seems to me (as Devil’s advocate) that the west shouldn’t be imposing its morals or values on anybody else. I want to know what you think.

------------------------
If I'm going to die for a word, my word is poon-tang

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Sedona, Arizona
Posts: 18823

I think it is more the hypocrisy of how we pick and choose which atrocities we are for or against or are going to act upon or not.
If a country wishes to be the moral watchdog, it should have a little consistancy.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1010

quote:

---

Originally posted by wonderaz:
I think it is more the hypocrisy of how we pick and choose which atrocities we are for or against or are going to act upon or not.
If a country wishes to be the moral watchdog, it should have a little consistancy.

---

The only thing that makes the US jump up to intervene in situations in other countries is money. The perfect example in that is the Persian Gulf War. If Kuwait hadn't had the oil supplies that they do, America would have done nothing.

In my opinion America should not be counted on as the world police. I don't think we should get involved in situations in other countries at all. We should try and solve our own problems before trying to help others.

------------------------
I stopped being sexist because bitches hate that shit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: Elysian Fields, TX, USA
Posts: 2618

Okay

------------------------
Do me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

I guess the problem in steeping into an internal situation (a la US in Somalia and not entirely unlike the British army in Northern Ireland) is that you run the risk of simply providing a new and exciting target for everyone to shoot at. When a President, Prime Minister, etc., decides to take his country into this, he probably wants to come out
1 quickly
2 without too many white bodies
3 looking great because it all worked.

This was easier to achieve in the gulf war (driving one set of guys out of a well-defined area with its own infrastructure) than going into a country and forcing people to be nice to each other, possibly at the expense of the infrastructure (ie, one tribe in power, or running army, etc.).

Was there not also some problem in that the French considered this to be within their 'sphere of indluence'?

I think Wonder's comment is true and only because the United States CLAIM to be on a moral crusade; if they were a little more honest, i.e.'we're protecting our interests, don't fuck with us', I for one would understand a little better.

------------------------
I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged