International Call to Act?

John's mother gave me a book called A Thousand Hills, which is the account of Rwanda (And Kagame) from pre-colonialism through post-genocide, and it is fascinating and heart-wrenching to read while I am over here.

As I am reading about how the events of the 1994 genocide unfolded, I literally have been reading whole chapters with my jaw dropped at the systematic planning that happened to execute this genocide. It was not just "mob mentality," it was a systematic effort planned long in advance, and the seeds of hatred were planted in the 1959 ethnic violence against Tutsis, where organized violence first broke out against the Tutsis under the Belgian colonizers.

Secondly, the unbelievable and seemingly endless accounts of willful ignorance at the hands of the UN and Western countries is unbelievable. When Clinton's aides were confronted with evidence of genocide, they merely reverted to calling it "Acts of genocide," which would free them from a responsibility and a moral obligation (1948 Genocide Convention) to act if it were a full outbreak of genocide. I have to recount one particular exchange between a State Department spokeswoman named Christine Shelly and Alan Elsner, a journalist from Reuters that was included in this book:

Elsner: How would you describe the events taking place in Rwanda?

Shelly: Based on evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have been committed in Rwanda.

Elsner: WHat's the difference between " acts of gencode," and "Genocide?"'

Shelly: As you know, there is a legal definition of this. There has been a lot of discussion about how the definition applied under the degition of the genocide contained in the 1948 convention. if you're looking at that for your determination about genocide, clearly not all the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label...

Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?

Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question I'm prepared to answer.

Elsner: Well, is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word "Genocide" in isolation, but always to preface it with these words "Acts of"?

Shelly: I have guidance which, which, to which I- which I try to use as best I can. I'm not - I have - there are formulations that we are using that we are trying to be consistent in our use of. I don't have an absolute categorical prescription against something, but I have definintions. I have phraseology which has been carefully examined and arrived at as best we can apply to exactly the situation and the actions which have taken place.


The utter inaction of Western nations allowed the genocide to take place, and it was the RPF rebel army led by today's Rwandan President Paul Kagame that ended the war through military force -- if this did not happen, there would be no more Tutsis left in Rwanda. In light of this, I'm led to consider the use of external military force (for it is not every country that has the makings of RPF) in ending injustices that are supported by the government. In a recent BBC article, Obama is said to "offer incentives" to Sudan if the situation improves, and if not then he will "increase pressure." In the case of genocide, I am starting to believe it is not a matter of discussion that will bring about change... Hillary Clinton says, "we are looking to acheive results through broad engagement and frank dialogue." But, when has dialogue in Khartoum proved effective in halting any "acts" of genocide in the Darfur region? In the Bush and Obama administration, faith is being put into a government to "Crack down" of the Janjaweed when there is outrageous evidence that the Khartoum government is not doing anything at all to discourage the Janjaweed, and even may be supplying them with resources.

So, if the lives and basic dignities of a human being are being stripped and it is the very same country that is promoting or turning a willing "blind eye" to the dehumanization of their citizens, what is the role of the international community... is "verbal pressure" enough?