TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Rwanda-1994, 800,000 killed. Why/how did this happend?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Rwanda-1994, 800,000 killed. Why/how did this happend?

This, disturbingly, has been on my mind lately after some documentary I saw a few weeks ago.

They used machetes (swords) to kill this many people because they could not afford guns. 800,000 people were killed within 6-9 weeks. A very sad phase. Can't believe people are capable of this.


Clearly this is a holocaust, due to the massive amount of people killed. Why did this happen in Rwanda? Weren't they aware of the 6,000,000 Jewish Holocaust? What are your guys' thoughts?

it was actually 3 months. and it occurred because the international community was too slow to react; more precisely the US was reeling from having its dead serviceman paraded through the streets of mogadishu in somalia, and clinton was hesitant to send troops in again.

clinton says that his failure to act in rwanda was the biggest failure of his presidency.

What Would Jesus Do?

quote:

Originally posted by Orbital32 What Would Jesus Do?

probably the same thing as gandalf, the wizard of oz and yoda.

Aids...no, Blood Diamonds.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN clinton says that his failure to act in rwanda was the biggest failure of his presidency.

...true

i don't know, to me makes little sense why entire groups of people can be systematically killed and the international community be so hesitant to act. whether it be in armenia, multiple african counties (too damn mnay to count sometimes) or eastern europe...what's even more unfortunate is that some people just have no idea what's going on

quote:

Originally posted by chimera66 what's even more unfortunate is that some people just have no idea what's going on

Yes, I'd say this is the most unfortunate truth of all.

Pressure to act doesn't come from above, it comes from below.

Truly sad. And things like this are still happening. Sometimes you feel there is no hope in the world.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 And things like this are still happening.

actually, they're not. not really anyway. 800K in 3 months (with machetes no less) has its very own place in history

quote:

Originally posted by chimera66 and the international community be so hesitant to act.

well, (taken with some salt) clinton reckons that he didn't know the extent of what was happening until it was already too late.

there's a fucking awesome interview (best interview i have ever seen) with andrew denton & clinton, it delves into these issues and (more than anything) highlights the huge differences between clinton and bush.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, they're not. not really anyway. 800K in 3 months (with machetes no less) has its very own place in history well, (taken with some salt) clinton reckons that he didn't know the extent of what was happening until it was already too late. there's a fucking awesome interview (best interview i have ever seen) with andrew denton & clinton, it delves into these issues and (more than anything) highlights the huge differences between clinton and bush.

Not in those numbers, but genocide still is happening in regions of Africa. Obviously not in those numbers.

It was all started due to the belgians dividing the people when they colonized the country, into Tutsi and Hutu, due to minor physical differences. The Tutsi were typically taller, with lighter skin and longer noses.
With this sort of situation, it was only really a matter of time before something happenned...the indifference from the developed world was truly sad.
If you want to know more you should read the book by Romeo Dallaire (the General in charge of the impotent UN force sent into Rwanda). It's called 'Shake Hands with the Devil'. The film 'Shooting Dogs' is quite good too, as is 'Hotel Rwanda'.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM as is 'Hotel Rwanda'.

The name of the main actor... fuck me can he act! He is good in pretty much everything.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 The name of the main actor... fuck me can he act! He is good in pretty much everything.

Don Cheadle, yeah he was excellent in that film, the accent seemed bloody hard to pull off too.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Don Cheadle, yeah he was excellent in that film, the accent seemed bloody hard to pull off too.

He actually wrote a book about Darfur with John Prendergast. Haven't read it yet, but hear good things.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well, (taken with some salt) clinton reckons that he didn't know the extent of what was happening until it was already too late.

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAE...BB117/index.htm



cor version of the NSA Brief:

"Departments, agencies and military organizations of the U.S. government provided necessary information up to policymakers for their discussions and decisions during the Rwanda crisis. Although stated policy was that Rwanda did not affect traditional vital or national interests before or even during the genocide, considerable resources were nevertheless available and employed to ensure that policymakers had real-time information for any decision they would make. In sum, the routine-let alone crisis-performance of diplomats, intelligence officers and systems, and military and defense personnel yielded enough information for policy recommendations and decisions. That the Clinton Administration decided against intervention at any level was not for lack of knowledge of what was happening in Rwanda."

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN clinton says that his failure to act in rwanda was the biggest failure of his presidency.

Yeah, right next to jizzing in Monica Lewinski's dress... (sorry, couldn't help it)

Anyways, I recommend that you watch 'Hotel Rwanda'. It's a great movie set during the Rwandan genocide, it's kinda like an African version of 'Schindler's List'. It's one of the movies that has touched me the most.

quote:

Originally posted by chimera66 what's even more unfortunate is that some people just have no idea what's going on

Whats even more unfortunate than that is that people did know what was going on. Sadly the fact that it was an African country may have been a factor towards the general indifference by the West. One line by Colonel Oliver in Hotel Rwanda explains it perfectly:

"We [referring to the West] think you're dirt Paul...you're not even a Nigger...you're an African."

quote:

Originally posted by woscar99 Yeah, right next to jizzing in Monica Lewinski's dress... (sorry, couldn't help it) Anyways, I recommend that you watch 'Hotel Rwanda'. It's a great movie set during the Rwandan genocide, it's kinda like an African version of 'Schindler's List'. It's one of the movies that has touched me the most.

I got to spend an entire day with the man that movie is about. One of the most humbling experiences of my life.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov I got to spend an entire day with the man that movie is about. One of the most humbling experiences of my life.

Cool, how did that happen?

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Cool, how did that happen?

He came to my college campus and I got to be the university liaison.

It's interesting to note that most rich countries (well, the seven richest anyhow) never seem to leap into action whenever it's a major issue in Africa.

I've always wondered why, I read different books and what not with different explanations, some to do with racism, some that make the point of "what's in it for us?" but for the life of me I can't figure out why for any one reason why we don't try to "police" Africa quite the same way as we do the middle east/eastern europe etc.

I also can't help but feel that a large NATO presence in the worst parts of Africa would help, as the militias and militants the US + EU would be fighting would be vastly inferior to the well organized and well funded Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Not to say the African equivalents aren't funded or equipped at all, but they would probably lose a lot sooner, especially with help from the AU. Or maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

Maybe the real reason why we can't seem to turn most of Africa around is because it's just too huge a task to even fathom?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov He came to my college campus and I got to be the university liaison.

My dad went to a meeting they had with him here in atlanta for promotion for the movie. He said to hear the story from the man himself was amazing.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's interesting to note that most rich countries (well, the seven richest anyhow) never seem to leap into action whenever it's a major issue in Africa. I've always wondered why, I read different books and what not with different explanations, some to do with racism, some that make the point of "what's in it for us?" but for the life of me I can't figure out why for any one reason why we don't try to "police" Africa quite the same way as we do the middle east/eastern europe etc. I also can't help but feel that a large NATO presence in the worst parts of Africa would help, as the militias and militants the US + EU would be fighting would be vastly inferior to the well organized and well funded Taliban or Al Qaeda. Not to say the African equivalents aren't funded or equipped at all, but they would probably lose a lot sooner, especially with help from the AU. Or maybe I'm wrong, who knows. Maybe the real reason why we can't seem to turn most of Africa around is because it's just too huge a task to even fathom?

You're raising a good point there.

A cynical would say maybe this is because of the lack of resources Africa has to offer, compared to Iraq, for example.

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 Not in those numbers, but genocide still is happening in regions of Africa. Obviously not in those numbers.

try kenya at the beginning of the year. kikuyus were being burnt in churches and driven away from their homes. odinga and kibaki are in power so the fighting has stopped a bit but to pay their damn cabinet they have taken funds away from the displaced families...genoicde definitely happens to a lesser extent

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's interesting to note that most rich countries (well, the seven richest anyhow) never seem to leap into action whenever it's a major issue in Africa. I've always wondered why, I read different books and what not with different explanations, some to do with racism, some that make the point of "what's in it for us?" but for the life of me I can't figure out why for any one reason why we don't try to "police" Africa quite the same way as we do the middle east/eastern europe etc. I also can't help but feel that a large NATO presence in the worst parts of Africa would help, as the militias and militants the US + EU would be fighting would be vastly inferior to the well organized and well funded Taliban or Al Qaeda. Not to say the African equivalents aren't funded or equipped at all, but they would probably lose a lot sooner, especially with help from the AU. Or maybe I'm wrong, who knows. Maybe the real reason why we can't seem to turn most of Africa around is because it's just too huge a task to even fathom?

It's a difficult question to grapple with. Undoubtedly if the international community pooled it's resources to tackle African conflicts with any sort of determination, a lot of things would be resolved. Problems would obviously still remain, but a lot of good could be accomplished. However, this isn't going to happen anytime soon.

There are a number of reasons I can think of, and self-interest certainly isn't the least important of those. The US experience in Somalia was a proverbial slap in the face. Citizens across the country demanded to know why US Marines were dying for African welfare, and why money continued to pour into humanitarian outreach in Mogadishu even as riots burned part of LA to the ground. It also plays a large role in why we don't get involved in places like Darfur. With economic linkages to the government of Sudan, and a crucial partnership in the War on Terror tenuously established, the United States actually stands to risk it's own interest by getting involved in a heavy-handed intervention in Darfur.

But there are other reasons as well. Intervention in Africa is generally frowned upon by Africans themselves, for many of the reasons our experience in Iraq is frowned-upon. What exit strategy exists for an intervention in a place where there is no real history of transparent governance? Will we inevitably have to rebuild society from the bottom up? How is that different than colonial domination? Africans fought tooth and nail for their independence, and many of those that sacrificed are still alive today - they are not eager to be "rescued" by the West. Advocating for an African solution to African problems will certainly take a lot of time, but there are plenty of critics that would rather wait for that sort of infrastructure to develop than rely once again on Western benevolence that they don't actually trust.

The institutional framework for intervening is also not fully developed. During the 1980's not a single humanitarian intervention was launched by the United States, United Nations, or any other external actor. After the fall of the Soviet Union the United Nations Security Council was left to seek out ways in which it remained relevant. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali came up with his now-famous An Agenda For Peace, which promoted the use of the Security Council and the United Nations for peace-support operations worldwide. The establishment of the United Nations Peacekeeping Organization quickly followed, and a whole array of missions were soon approved. However, the expectations for success far outpaced the institutional capacity of the missions. Donor states lauded the idea of missions, and then failed to donate enough equipment, manpower, and money in order to fulfill mandates. Rough starts in early missions (Somalia, etc.) often led to general chastising of the entire UN system. It was immediately apparent that to not act would garner criticism, but to act insufficiently could potentially be even more damaging to the legitimacy of the Security Council. So the number of approved missions declined through the 90's.

Today more emphasis is placed on regional bodies (NATO, the AU, ASEAN, ECOWAS, etc.). However, the capacity for these organizations to undertake missions varies widely, and the pros and cons of regional missions as opposed to truly international ones are well documented. The AU has had some success in small peacekeeping missions, but to implement a peace where one does not exist and then monitor it's success in a place as large as Darfur or the DRC is highly unrealistic - especially when considering the poverty of many AU donor states (as it is right now something like 90% of the AU budget is paid by only 7 of the 53 member states). Resources also remain an issue.

So as the international system develops to address the problems it seeks to address, there is a lot of confusion over who exactly is responsible for what. I think this is a product of the whole endeavor being relatively new - any new operation has some logistical kinks that need to be worked out. Hopefully this will happen sooner rather than later.

Another thing that should be mentioned is that peacekeeping missions gain more notoriety for their successes than their failures. People know of Rwanda and Darfur of course, but they may not know of successful missions elsewhere.

So yeah, that's a fairly rambling answer to your rhetorical question.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.