The Rwandan Genocide: The Triumph of Evil and Preventing It (due Fri Apr. 29)
 

As we embark on our look at the Rwandan genocide, I would like you to read Samantha Power’s groundbreaking chapter on this, which is chapter 10 of “A Problem from Hell”: America in the Age of Genocide.

Now that you’ve read Samantha Power’s book and seen an excerpt of an interview with Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire at the US Holocaust Museum in 2003, you are in the process of learning a good deal about the tragedy of the Rwandan genocide. It is proof positive that, once again, history repeats itself. The genocide in Rwanda occurred just a few years ago—in your lifetime—and is an indication of how easily governments and people fall into the same patterns of perpetrator—victim—bystander—that we saw in Nazi Germany and elsewhere.

Are we always destined to repeat history? How could the people, governments, and organizations you saw in the video and read about in the article have acted differently to change the course of events and prevent the genocide that occurred? Is it futile to ask this question or is it indeed a legitimate question? Is it realistic to expect people, governments, and organizations to perhaps think differently? Could Dallaire have acted differently, if the “players” involved had a different approach to Rwanda? How might this be accomplished? Do you think that in the post-Iraqi war era, we might behave differently?

These are big questions, but I’d like you to consider them.

If you are interested in looking at additional material related to the genocide, take a look at the PBS site for “The Triumph of Evil” documentary (which we will be watching later this week):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/evil/

It’s a little weird saying that we are “destined to repeat history”. We have control over our choices and decisions that it seems inappropriate to say this. But how else can such occurrences be explained sometimes? From the Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust, and from the Rwandan Genocide to the crisis going on in Sudan, it does seem inevitable. I hate to say it, but I believe that this will be a true statement as time goes on. There just will always be evil in the world, and there will always be the people who wished they could have somehow stopped it.

Even though genocide is the “highest scale of crimes against humanity” there’s always been nothing done about it. No one helped the Armenians, we didn’t do much to help the victims of the Holocaust, and look what happened in Rwanda. Even now, Sudan is still not making headlines in the news like it ought to be. But I feel that things are getting a little better regarding awareness of genocide. I was really impressed by the BLS community about the whole bracelet selling thing for Sudan. I guess that is an important step.

I think that in general to avoid genocide, people need to act quickly. Worrying about the politics behind the so called “G- word” is absurd. A major reason why Rwanda didn’t get any help form the US is because of the foolishness of the Clinton Administration. They worried about the “precise legal meaning” of the word. Reading about that just made me squirm. Is the legality of the word important anyway? Is someone going to sue you for using it incorrectly? I think that in situations of genocide it’s obviously better to be safe than sorry. Even Romeo Dallaire worried about the technicality of the word: “I also knew that if I used the term too early, I’d have been accused of crying wolf and I’d have lost my credibility.” I think he was the good guy during the Rwanda genocide, but I just don’t think that he should have worried about looking bad. He was the one who was experiencing the turmoil first hand, not somebody in a suit in Washington to counter him.

How countries acted during the Rwandan genocide is disgraceful and even unbelievable. Because Rwanda was a poor and off the radar country, what happened there didn’t seem to matter. They weren’t first world or had oil, so they were ignored. As Dole said, “I don’t think we have any national interest there”. Wow, makes me even more appreciative of the fact that he lost in 1996. And to add to the mind-boggling quotes regarding Rwanda during that time: "In such countries as this, genocide is not too important." Can you believe that a former president of France said that?? I want to go to his house and punch him in the face!

What it all comes down to is attitude. Politics should be set aside and saving human lives should be a priority. Acting immediately on the suspicion of genocide is the way to go.

I agree with Joebob in saying that, however grim it may sound, history will, and is, repeating itself. Despite this, I think changes are being made and there is some hope for a future where things could be a bit better.

First off, pessimistically, just looknig at Darfur is a clear reminder of genocides that were overlooked. People are dying, yet there is the poltical game of avoiding the whole topic. I remember still during the Presedential debates, when asked about the crisis in Darfur, both first referrred to a previous question on Iran, before going on to say something about Darfur, which went along the lines. "Yes, bad things are happening in Darfur." Leaders are unwilling to intervene in something that does not hold any interest for them or their country. With Rwanda, "what does getting votes have anything to do with genocide in Rwanda?" Politicians often seem to miss the picture.

History does repeat itself, but there is definitely possiblity for improvement, learning from the past. I think what happens in Darfur will be a testament of how the world will react to future genocides. If we allow Durfur to go, "never again" will always be an empty promise: this is a time to redeem the promise.

"never again..."
 

People seem to like the phrase nevr again, but don't seem to want to actually prevent these disaters from actually happening again. The Us saw what happend in the Holocaust and Bill Clinton even dedicated a museum to the holocaust, while a Rwandan genocide was in the mists. As a very brief over view of this fact we had the Holocaust, followed by the Rwandan genocide, and now Darfur... and what are we doing to help. O we are waiting to see if it is "actually" a genocide. Don't worry about the thousands of people being killed everyday, lets jsut make sure it's actually a genocide, we wouldn't want to save people's lives if it wasn't a genocide. We devoted a museum to the Holocaust, and then Clinton offered an apology to Rwanda, what will we give Darfur...

History will and has repeated itself, and it's sad to say but I think that for a while it will. There is definetly room for improvement, but there seems to be a lack of wanting to change in this world. The thing to do is to say your going to chnage and that "it will never happen agian.." but in all reality its just bs lines that political leaders feed to the public to make us feel like we aren't in the worng. The sad truth is that these things will happen again becasue the only thing people care about is how this situation will benefit them.

Is there room for improvement... yes. Do I think that I will see it in my lifetime...no. I think the world is just too selfish right now to care about anything but itself... sad but true.

People have always and will always kill each other for no particular reason. It is how we as a species work. From Roman times to the present day humans organize themselves into groups and then decide that one group is inferior or evil and deserves to die. This means that there will most likely always be genocide.

The question is will there always be completely successful genocide. Will we as a society take a lesson from the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur and act quickly the next time a genocide begins? From what we can see from Rwanda and Darfur the answer to that question looks rather grim. Citizens don't want their soldiers dying in a conflict in another nation, politicians want to appease their citizens. There is no profit in stopping a genocide so most people are unwilling to try. The UN is pretty much useless when it comes to this type of thing, and it seems that a lack of information and/or apathy prevent people from being outraged enough to demand action.

However, since the Holocaust is so widely known and since Rwanda has become pretty widely known and essentially a pop culture reference (anyone see the movie Collateral?) and since Darfur has been talked about in the press and briefly touched on in the presidential debates, maybe people are starting to become more aware. This does not mean they care, but it is a step in the right direction.

Obviously the United States could have sent people to stop the genocide, but because of Somalia the United States citizens would have been strongly opposed to it. However, the Clinton administration could have at least given the people of the US the facts and called it a genocide or suggested that something be done. The fact that it was simply buried and purposefully ignored is shameful.

What I found most disturbing was the UN's lack of action. Had a sizeable peacekeeping group stepped in, it is likely that the machete-wielding perpetrators would have given in when staring down the barrel of an M-16. It most likely would have cost very few lives. And yet they sat there always discussing, never acting.

Terrible as this is, it is not surprising in the least. Outraged as everyone acts about the Rwanda genocide now, the fact is that if they had been asked about it in '94 they probably would have said "Well it's not our problem. If they want to kill each other let them; we shouldn't get our boys killed for something that doesn't concern them." There are probably many people in the country who do not feel bad at all about the inaction during the genocide: they feel that if one group of Africans murders 800,000 of another group of Africans it is not their problem. People are still racist in America, they just act like they aren't because it is socially unacceptable.

Dallaire probably could have acted differently had the players had different views on what was happening in Rwanda, but the fact is they didn't. If the world had come together and said "We need to stop this! Forget our own petty problems, people are dying" it would be one of the most amazing things ever to occur in history. Honestly, I think that if one nation had sent a signifigant amount of troops in, other nations would have followed. It goes back to the whole Kitty Genovese bystanderism thing. If one person helps the rest will, but because the one person never steps forward the rest sit back waiting for someone else to act.

This is why the UN was a massive failure during this crisis. They discussed and debated endlessly and actually did nothing. They even came to a decision to send 5000 peacekeeping troops. What happened to that? Maybe they would have eventually sent those troops after 1.5 million were killed but the Tutsi rebel force (a force much less powerful than that of the US) stopped the slaughter before it could get to that.

Although people are much more aware about genocides now than ever before, I still don't think that people will be willing to take that step to stop them. Look at the situation in Darfur: people have been clammoring for support to stop the genocide since it began. There has been humanitarian aid - plenty of it - but it is still not nearly enough. There are still killing squads roaming the land murdering at will. Millions of people who weren't killed are homeless and starving and will be dead if something isn't done. Where is the action here? Where are the millions who proudly say "never again"?

Maybe in the future genocides will be weathered away at a faster pace and fewer will die, but I believe that with the way things are genocide will never be fully prevented and will never be very quickly stopped. It seems like such a simple thing to do with all the weapons and money that powerful nations have but because of fear, greed, apathy, and a whole bunch of other factors, it takes way too long for people to act.

This is rather a bleak view but I feel it is a realistic one. This does not mean that people should just give up on stopping genocides. If a person can contribute even a small amount they are doing something useful. Even if our governments are not willing to step in, at least we can chip away at it, and if awareness is spread and enough citizens show their outrage, governments will feel obligated to act. I don't have enough faith in people for me to believe that this will actually happen any time in the near future, but the least I can do is try.

Like Joebob8, I don't want to say that we are destined to repeat history. It's just too frustrating and sad to admit that; but sadly it looks as if it's true. After the Holocuast, one would think world governments would learn their lesson; it is absolutely necessary to intervene in situations of genocide. Rwanda shows us quite clearly that this message was not taken to heart, as does Darfur. How many times do we have to mess up to realize that we're not doing the right thing? In my opinion, it's been too many times. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the way governments deal with genocide.

In order to change the course of events and prevent genocide, the people, governments and organizations in the movie should have simply taken real tangible action. Instead, they purposely became bogged down in red tape in order to avoid possibly embarasssing involvement in a conflict that could cause a loss in our soldier's lives, a conflict that wouldn't appeal to prospective voters.

This is definitely a legitimate question but one could say it is futile in the sense that by asking it, one must wonder if it makes a difference. I mean, didnt the same governments, people and organizations ask themselves that after the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide; didnt they ask themselves, what should we have done differently? (They may have only asked this on the surface, trying to feign regret for inaction, because as the movie points out, our government actually felt success in its avoiding involvement in the conflict). They ask themselves this question but always in hindsight; and the fact that this question even comes up in hindsight is evidence perhaps of its futility.

I can't say whether it is realistic to expect people to think differently. History seems to show that they do not. What does it take to make people think differntly?

If the players involved thought of Rwanda more as a place where hundreds of thousands were falling victim to genocide rather than a place where military involvment would garner negative feelings from the public, Dallaire could have had the force he needed. I don't know what frame of mind government officials need to be in to allow themselves to send that kind of aid, but thats what they need to do. What ellicited the huge outpour of aid for the tsunami that couldnt do the same for victims of genocide?

The Iraqi war is a strange nebulous kind of war. I don't think it would make a significant differnce in the way people deal with genocide.

That video that we watched made me extremely upset and so disguised with human beings and their actions. You know after the Holocaust which was like the “model genocide” (sorry to put it that way) but it taught us all, the world especially the leaders, what not to do and how to approach these situations. Never again… it has happened again and is occurring again as we speak which makes it so freaking frustrating. I completely agree with the guy who said that its foolish to believe in the statement, “Never Again” just because it seems like the leaders of nations just don’t care unless its their own people or of their own interest that is in danger.

I hope that history doesn’t have to repeat it self, especially in this circumstance but it seems like it is impossible to get people to care when other people’s lives are on the line. We didn’t lean from WWI because we had part deux and we surely didn’t learn from the Holocaust because it has happened several times since then. How many acts of genocide does it take to get someone to act on the problem and give a care about it?? I feel like every time a serious problem like this occurs, people just brush it off because it isn’t happening to them and they have the selfish attitude of why should I care? What ever happened to the U.S. being a policeman of the world and if America can’t do that we can surely help people who are in desperate need!

What happened in Rwanda is unacceptable because we, meaning leaders and the world/ international community, knew better and then to let it happen again is just unconceivable. Governments should have acted differently by really considering the facts and information that was put in front of them by different informants instead of saying that they would increase troops or send rafts. We wouldn’t need to send rafts to pick up dead bodies if we stopped the killing. The UN army could have put a stop to the killing and saved many lives by shutting down and eliminating the Hutu rebels in a week because machetes are no match for bullets and with different nations chipping in, we wouldn’t have a problem. It’s just so mind blowing to see how people just sat by and were so passive. What added fuel to the fire is that Clinton went to Rwanda for 3 hours and just left still not giving a care about the whole thing. I don’t even think his speech was sincere.

It seems like we are doomed to repeat history because the killing of human lives isn’t important to anyone anymore. The Holocaust was one of the worst things that happened in the world and people made a promise, a pact, on oath, a covenant not to let that happen again but they did. They not only let the murdered people down, the let themselves down as will as the rest of the world who look up to them for leadership. Sometimes we have to sacrifice oil ventures and our own economics to help others in need because saving a life is so much more important than paying $3 for a gallon of oil but I guess people don’t see this or choice not to acknowledge it.

It is amazing how the action of the United States and other countries during genocide is comparable, in every way to the idea of individual bystanderism.

The United States, as did every other nation, considered its own comparably petty interests (and even internal political agenda) before the lives of Rwandans. In a similar fashion, the bystanders watching the murder of Kitty Genovese considered their own feelings, such as potential embarassment for overreacting, for example. The amazing thing is that during huge crises, human beings are not able to see the important issues in perspective; often we consider our own, less important needs before the more important needs of others.

As the movie we saw today indicated, the United Nations was not at all indecisive, as its reputation dictates. Instead, virtually every nation had made the decision NOT to act, thus giving the collective body of the United Nations an air of indecision to cover up harsh reality.

Likewise, in the case of Kitty Genovese's death, perhaps each bystander had already made the decision NOT to save her in favor of their own safety, though they would not have been harmed by making a simple 911 call. If this theory is true, it is a very chilling realization. Perhaps, while Kitty's bystanders were panicking about the possibility of making that phone call or possibly helping her, they had already unconsciously decided to leave her to her fate.

The individual should never say never. Rather, nations should never by as flippant as to save "never again" to genocide. Although many people do not realize it, genocide is being perpetrated over again. Yes, there is more media coverage this time and more public activity. But, public awareness has not and most likely will not reach a point where politicians in the United States place Sudan on the top of their list of priorities. Much like Rwanda, in the United States, the genocide in Sudan does not even qualify as a "side show."

The question is whether public pressure will ever reach a point where politicians are edged into a corner regarding the role of industrialized/advanced countries in genocide prevention. If we dig down further, the almost nonchalant attitude of countries reflects the nonchalant attitude that we, the people take. How can we correct our feeling? How many bodies of dead Sudanese people do we have to see to push us, as a nation, to act? The odds are that most people won't act, unless they are somehow affected on a personal level, which is not a likely case.

Thus, history is most definitely destined to repeat itself because in this case, one person won't "make a difference" and neither will a collective body acting as individuals (ie - the United Nations).

:mad:
 

The phrase " history repeats itself " is frequently used and is not far from the truth. We have seen it repeat itself with the Holocaust, Rwanda, and now Darfur, just to name a few examples of the many. Government officials are over-looking many of the disasters around the world. They are clearly aware of what is happening, yet still don't like to directly address these issues. I know the US is afraid to be known as the world police and have in fact tried and failed in many situations, but they should make a good solid plan with the help of the UN and come up with a strategy to stop the killings.

One thing that really upset me was that our government was more concerned with how they used the word genocide and if in fact it was actually appropriate, instead of using those timeless minutes to help enable a plan to help the thousands of innocent people loosing their lives every second. It also upset me that Clinton could give an apology after the genocide was over, but couldn't do much to help cease the killings after finding out about them. It's ironic that he had previously dedicated a museum to the holocaust. In a way a symbol saying we should never let this happen again, yet he did. Not to say he was the only one to blame because thats far from the fact. Many nations decided that Rwanda was too small and less important compared to other issues directly relating to their country. Some ppulled out their troops and left civilians to be innocently killed. Another disturbing thing was when a candidate asked if the genocide had any influence on the up coming election. . is that all you can think about!!!! ESPECIALLY AT A TIME LIKE THIS ! how selfish . . and to think these types of people are running our country is disturbing as well.

We can prevent these types of things from happening, it's just impossible the way we are living. People are only concerned with what is happening around them and with what concerns them. If something like a genocide was happening to them, they would be concerned, but instead it's happening in far off places that are "nonexistant" to our selfish society. History doesn't have to repeat itself, unfortunately we let it.

Circle of Time?
 

Like most of my classmates, I agree that we are (as Santayana said) "doomed" to repeat history. However, the if one caveat to this rule, which is that we can escape from this fate is we learn from our ancester's mistakes (which is ofcourse, just what we are doing in this class).

I do not think that we have not tried to learn from the horrors of the Rwanadan genocide and the Holocaust, just perhaps that the world has been taking the wrong ideas from it. We declared "Never again", but did not answer the question "how?". How do we stop genocide from happening? This is the question that haunted us in Rwanda, and is haunitng us again now.

i disagree with those who would label the world "selfish", I think that this is too black and white. While I agree that nations are nearly entirely motivated by their self-interests alone, I would not characterize this as selfish. Sadly, the way the world is set up, a nation, must, first and foremost, take care of their own self interests. Right now, human rights, is not a self-interest of every nation on earth. It should be, on par with economy and military. However, in oreder for this to become a nations' self interest, the people of that nation must care about it. Ita ppears that the US to engrossed in its own scandals to care about the tiny nations of Rwanda. This allowed the government to not care as well.

What could nations have doen differently. First, they could have kicked Rwanda out of the meetings to decide on UNAMIR's fate. Rather than allow the killers to have influence in such a decision. Second, they could have followed through on their decisons. What was needed here was decisive (perhaps unitlateral) action. Just like in a group in school, people will hedge to avoid doing something bothersome or annoying. In a situtaion like this it takes one person to step up and say, fine..we're doing it this way and we're doing it know. This is often unpopular and bombastic.

You have to fight fire with fire, though. Genocides cannot be stopped with weak or passive decision making. Action must be taken with as much conviction as the murders are being done with. In the end, that is what we lacked:conviction.

After taking this class, I have become more knowledgable about the history of this world and more bitter. I remember in class one day, Ms. Freeman showed us a graph of the wars that occured during the last few centuries, and really the amount of wars that occured hasn't lessened. It's been the same all along. We created international laws but no one follows it or enforces it because no one wants to get involved.

The reason the US or any other country didn't get involved was because of money. There is no value to Rwanda. If Rwanda was exploitable, I'm sure many countries would have been interested in helping. If many citizens petition and pressure the government to do something, than the government would do something. But it wasn't well publicized, and even if it was, most people are too busy with their own lives to be concerned about others dying. Unless something directly happens, most people won't care.

I can sort of understand not rushing things, unless the information is accurate and correct, people shouldn't make assumptions. Otherwise you might go bombing another country looking for supposed "weapons of mass destruction" and find nothing and look like a complete dumbass without any credibility anymore.

Dallaire probably could have saved and protected a few thousands of people, but not everyone if he really did only get his 5,000 troops. He could help guard people, but he wouldn't be able to fight all the killers. It should be an international effort to help save people, not just the US.

Rwanda
 

Is there anything we can do to prevent history from repeating itself? Unfortunately the answer is no. Genocide will happen again and again. There will always be a country where prejudice and hatred overflow into a genocide, which they will try to cover up. There will always be leaders who will turn their backs on genocide, pretending they had no information or that they did not want to get involved in just another "civil war". Excuses will always be made and lives will always be lost. How could we ever end such a cycle. Well first of all we could actually CARE, and then maybe, being optimistic, we could prevent such atrocities.

It is obivous that we could have prevented the Rwandan genocide. Judging by the fact that the genocide only lasted 100 days, we could have easily defeated the Hutu Power forces. They had machetes, and we had guns which held back the Hutus without even being fired. The UN could have introduced more "peacekeepers" and the Hutus would have been forced to give up. Or they could have disabled the radio network which held the Hutu Power together. But of course it is a violation of freedom of speech. Who are we to stop a radio station from telling people to kill others?

Romeo Dallaire was in a position no person could imagine being in. He had few forces which were not allowed to fire their guns, and basically no support from the UN. Was he supposed to violate the UN and throw his 5,000 troops against 90% of the population of Rwanda? Dallaire can't be blamed for the faults of the UN.

What about the Belgian Soldiers who were positioned at the Don Bosco school? They could have stayed and protected the Tustsis there, because the Hutus were probably not going to attck them since they had guns. However, I can understand that they were probably extremely frightened, more than I could imagine, and were probably relieved to leave. But why couldn't they have left there guns? Surely the weapons would have given the Tutsis a better chance to survive.

On the other hand, there was nothing the Belgian reporter could have done, absolutely nothing. What was she supposed to do, save them all herself? Or convince the soldiers to save them even though they were given instructions otherwise. The only thing she could have done is alert people in Belgium to the atrocity occurring, which she was doing, being a reporter.

In the United States, if enough public pressure was put on Clinton, there is a possibility we would have went to Rwanda. Any government will cave under public pressure. I remember the article we read on our test in class about the Nazis caving. A large group of women forced the Nazi government to release their jewish husbands by rallying against the Nazis. We could have rallied here to support Rwanda...but we didn't because we either didn't know or not enough of us cared to bother.

After the war in Iraq one would hope that the world would behave differently in light of another genocide. But of course we won't. There is a genocide now and we are ignoring it. I would love to ask the president why he isn't doing the smallest thing to help Sudan, but then there would be an excuse. A terrible excuse he would make up on the spot but nevertheless an excuse.

We go forward. We come back....

Unfortunately. At least two genocides during our lifetimes. And it seems not has been done by governments to help either one. It seems we've fallen into the same trap as before. The Rwandan wasn't in our own "national interest," and it seems like the current one in Darfur isn't either. Though last I checked, I thought our president was trying to free oppressed people. Maybe they need oil first. Maybe the "mass destruction" of many innocent people just isn't that important.

I agree whole-heartedly with Douglas Adams in his Hitchhiker's books:
Anyone who wants to rule is not fit for the job.

Events like this are perfect example. The logistics, the monetary costs are more important. Or at least th priorities that make the monetary costs are more important. All the money being poured into the war in Iraq, and the US government is hardly giving any to, even in the least, bolster the AU forces that want to do something about what's going on.

It's depresseing to see "national interest" being not the interests of an entire nation, but of those of a few, or even that they don't include much interests in other people. In other lives. Mass murders are simply less important. It's hard to say if the government officials under Clinton around during thr Ruanda genocide could have acted differently. Are the ones under Bush II now doing anything different?

If the UN had more power maybe it could have actually given aid. If it wasn't subject to whims of nations as the video showed it to be, maybe Dallaire could have had the forces he needed to actually be capable of sizeable response. And if not people, maybe the supplies to make some signifigant possible.

In the Ruanda reading, wasn't there mentioned one Ruanda woman that Clinton took somne personal interest in being saved? Because he had talked to her? If only the government would be more willing to actually do something positive. But the beaurcracy and hypocracy probably isn't going to be purged anytime soon, especially in time to help with the genocide going on. It does seem to be a legitamate question, but just one that is futile to ask.

Our government won't behave differently. It isn't behaving differently. his will probably become yet another scar of human history, leaving more sites of death to be seen, to be forgotten, or try to be denied by people becuase they forget and deny what they see when something like this is happening in the world.

The Triumph of Evil.

Learning from the Past...
 

Alas, it seems that we are destined to repeat the past. Although man tries most of the time to improve the future by making decisions that positively influence the global community, the results are many times similar or the same to those recorded in history. Sometimes, the product of the choices made can direct mankind into a better, more progressive future, but other times, the consequences are calamitous and events such as genocide occur. I believe that several of the catastrophes that have occurred in the past and will occur in the future could have been and could be easily prevented if only people learned from previous situations.

Regarding the Rwanda genocide, much could have been done in order to prevent or at least immediately bring to a halt the crimes against humanity that were being committed. Indeed, the United States should have intervened immediately. The Clinton administration did have the information necessary to declare that genocide was occurring in Rwanda relatively soon, but since there were no such economic interests, then Rwanda and Burundi were placed at the bottom of the list of concerns. The film that we watched in class infuriated me because we witnessed utter hypocrisy, especially in the part during the United Nations meeting where the ambassador from Rwanda’s murderous government spoke without being interrupted or confronted about what was truly happening in that country. Every nation that was at the meeting and knew even a little bit of what was going on was a bystander. In addition, I think that France should receive more of the blame because from what I read in Power’s book, it was Rwanda’s main diplomatic ally and arms patron so it could have done a lot more to protect the innocent lives that were being slaughtered. I do understand however that essentially, the U.S.’s vote was really the course of action that the U.N. would ultimately take and since our government refused to act, the U.N. followed suit.

Dallaire should be commended for what he at least attempted to do. He tried unsuccessfully to motivate the governments of the world to act against the systematic killings, not just of political leaders, but of innocents who had absolutely no blame. His wishes for a 5,000 men coalition to at least confront the killers and ultimately stop the genocide should have been granted, but politics played a much bigger role as the human aspect was forgotten. Had the leaders of at least some countries approached this situation through the perspective of the victims or soon-to-be victims, I strongly believe that an alliance, led by Dallaire, could have been forged to impede further carnage.

Contrary to what certain individuals such as BALENCIAGAkrizi believe, I strongly think that this question about what could have been done, how the Rwanda genocide could have been approached differently by the global community is indeed a valid one because humankind must learn from mistakes and understanding how the mass murders could have been better dealt with could prevent a similar situation from occurring. It is due to the lack of analyzing this question thoroughly by our current government that nothing is being done (again) in Sudan. Because of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration has stated that troops cannot be employed in Africa to stop the killings. Nevertheless, I believe that the U.N. and the U.S. could have diverted the conflict in Rwanda from escalating to genocide by having taken measures to secure that the Arusha compromise was being fulfilled; a relatively medium military presence from the time of the very signing of the agreement should have been put into place so that the governments did not have “to fumble face first into that pile of ****” as it was so graciously stated. I hope that after the end of the war in Iraq, there will be a better response from all of the countries, especially the U.S., to address the genocide in Darfur as well as prevent all future killings, placing aside all antagonism toward our country for the sake of saving human lives. We must not allow this part of history to repeat itself and if need be, we must sacrifice it all in order to save hundreds of lives. WE MUST LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES!

Ohh History
 

The reason why I love History is because I love seeing the currents of politcs, society, culture, economics, and psychology all combine to create momentous events. For me history is one never ending story..... the question then is does it repeat itself? Are we doomed to repeat it?

Well, the reason we study history is in the hopes that we will learn form humanities errors, and gross oversights. We study history to give us insight into human nature- how do people/ governments react in the face of famine or war? - so that when faced with similair cirmcumstances we will not repeat our forfathers mistakes.

Thats all well in good in theory- but humans tend to live in the moment- caring only about their present and future well being-in the case of the Rwandan genocide- we new what was going on. We had seen the path a genocide took 50 years earlier during the Holocaust- and even before that in Armenia- we promised even to learn from our mistakes and " nver again" allow such a travesty to occur. In the case of Rwanda we turned a blind eye to the horrors of body filled rivers and machete weilding extremists because it did not fit our agenda- we feared another Somalia- our political future was more important to us than the lives of thousands of Rwandans.

So do I think we are doomed to repeat history? Obviously Rwanda had similarites to the US and others inaction during the Holocaust- other more immediate political war and day to day problems garnered attention.... meaning thta in both cases the world stood idly by. In 1994 we did not remember the Jewish refugees we turned away from America, we did not remember the gas chambers or the starving children- some how- almost unfathomable- we did not learn our lesson....

Did Rwanda teach us our lesson? We are not jumping to stop the genocide in the Darfur as we speak.... so obviously the lesson has not sunk in. Are we too dumb to get it? Do we have to be hit over the head to understand the course of genocide? Does ( God forbid) a genocide have to take place in the US to teach us the true menaing of our " never again" promise?

As an unfailing optimist and a student of history it is my hope that we are not doomed to repeat history- but inorder not to- everyone must 1. Study and understand the events of the past and 2. Recognize their prominent role in preventing other such occurnaces.

Sigh- It is really hard to be optimistic after a day in FHAO.... but I do try....

I'm going to side with BALENCIAGAkrizi from section 31 on this one. we looked at this post in class the other day and i really couldn't agree more with what was said:
Honestly, it is so easy for us to sit here and say that we "should have" and "could have" done this, that and whatever. But when it comes down to it, it didn't happen then. We can sit there and criticize what was and was not done, and while that may be all well and good it does nothing for us unless we use what we have learned from history.

IHEART4SEAT meantioned
If, after we have poured over history in its entirety, and taken a good look at it, we just critisize it and say that that's the end of it, then yes, we will forever be doomed to repeat history. When we did our targeted population projects, one thing that every single group had was a step timeline - illustrating the decline of each population. Patterns are so huge in history, and if we sit idly by and let it just happen again, that's exactly what it will do.

I think that this is an issue in which all of the bases have been covered through FHAO. If we learn of these things and STILL do nothing about them, then we're all pulling a huge "David Cash". Talk is cheap, because reading about a situation and actually experiencing it, especailly one of this magnitude - there aren't even words to describe the differences.

We have to be a smart enough group of people to recognize the critical instances in time when they happen, not days, weeks, months, years, whatever later. It's called 20/20 hindsight for a reason. It's time that we put to use what we've learned, otherwise, we will repeat history. It's much easier to be passive than to stand up for what's right - but that doesn't justify it, and it doesn't make it ok.

I don't know that it will ever be possible to stop these things from happening/. No matter how many treaties are signed or how many governments claim "Never Again" it won't do anything until action is taken. Because the world allowed Rwanda to continue we in fact are almost assurring that this will happen again. Terrorists or rascist groups saw that in this crisis most countries are unwilling to risk the lives of their own troops for a war that is happening across the border, much less across an ocean. And it's difficult to place blame on these countries because their citizens don't want to lose their fathers and husbands. People don't like war, people will do anything to avoid it. Look how far Hitler was able to go before anyone stood against him.

I know that I would never joined the armed services because the idea of being shipped around the globe to defend people I've never met in a land that I've never even heard of, scares me, terrifies me. I have nothing but respect for the people who are will to do these jobs and I don't want them out there in battle unless it s absolutely necesary.

If the United States sent out troops every time there was an injustice being commited in the world, there would be no army, or worse yet, there would be a very large draft. That's why it takes so much time to deploy troops to these areas. The entire genocide in Rwanda took place in 100 days, to be able to convince an entire country that this was a worthwhile cause would have taken months and months and then to ensure backup from other governments would ahve taken longer. It wasn't like going into Iraq, this did not support US intrests (as our government claimed Iraq did), people needed more convincing.

Groups like the UN rarely follow through with what their main objective is suggested as. Just looking back in history at the league of nations will support this. It's too hard to ask people from so far away to send their men or to take money from the budget, or raise taxes to support the effort. The UN is sort of an ideal office, but it practice it fell short of what people were expecting.l

Are we always destined to repeat history?
I don't think so. If that was so, the majority of the world would still be ules by monarchies. People can change, I think that it just takes a rather long time for them to implement a useful change.

How could the people, governments, and organizations you saw in the video and read about in the article have acted differently to change the course of events and prevent the genocide that occurred?
The could have put pressure on the governemnt for the atrocities it was supporting. Even if they went on the world media with the position "Our hands are tied, its genocide, but we aren't allowed to interfer", the people of the world would have been able to put pressure on the economy. The fact taht they chose to ignore it completely was the major problem.

Is it futile to ask this question or is it indeed a legitimate question?
I think that its a legitamate question. After events go by its necessary to review what occured during them. Not t point fingers, but so services can be streamlined in the event of a reoccurence. Evaluation is good.

Is it realistic to expect people, governments, and organizations to perhaps think differently?
Yes. Otherwise we wouldn't have the democratic and republican views towards foreign policy. No two people think exactly the same, and the likelyhood that organizations will act differently is raised when they're punished for behaving in a way the people they represent disapprove of (think Harvard)

Could Dallaire have acted differently, if the “players” involved had a different approach to Rwanda?
Yes.

How might this be accomplished?
At the very least he would have been able to protect the schoo, and he would have been able to confiscate weapons caches and protect moderate leaders. just having the moderate leaders still alive would have been better for Rwanda in the long run.


Do you think that in the post-Iraqi war era, we might behave differently?
I think that being in the Post-Iraq war era makes it even less likely that in the event of a genocide the US or the UN will do something useful. The UN is less likely to believe something that the US brings up. The US is at a worse place to moderate between warring factions.

Is the past our future?
 

The first thing I would like to point out is Darfur. This answers the questions that are being asked and what happens in Darfur will determine what will happen in the future. I think that we are destined to repeating history. We’ve been doing for as far back as time allows.

A way people could have prevented what happened and can prevent what’s happening now is to tell the government that we care as a society. One of the reasons why Rwanda happened is because the government thought that it didn’t matter and that they should be dealing with other “big” countries that are threats. I feel like the only way government will ever jump head first into something like this is if their well being and economic life are being threatened if not we’re always going to take the back seat.

I think that Dallaire could have acted differently. I’m sure being in the military he could have called in a couple favors and that if he persisted the UN would have given him more troops.

If something isn’t done about Darfur then will continue to repeat history. The phrase “never again” will be permanent in our vocabulary, because if we as a society stand by and let this happen then future “groups” will think that it’s okay and will say who helped the Rwandans and the people in Darfur.