genocide
...ing control over military commanders, they profited enormously from the first demonstration of international timidity. U.N. troops, in Rwanda under the terms of the peace accords, tried for a few hours to keep the peace during the initial outbreak, then withdrew to their posts—as ordered by superiors in New York—leaving the local population at the mercy of Bagosora and his assailants. Suspecting the kind of horror to come, the foreigners had already packed their bags. An experienced and well-equipped force of French, Belgian, and Italian troops rushed in to evacuate the foreigners, and then departed. U.S. Marines dispatched to the area stopped in neighboring Burundi once it was clear that U.S. citizens would be evacuated without their help. The first impression of international indifference to the fate of Rwandans was confirmed soon after, when the Belgians began arranging for the withdrawal of their troops from the U.N. peacekeeping force. Ten of these soldiers, a contingent different from those of the evacuation expedition, had been slain and, as the organizers of the violence had anticipated, the Belgian government did not want to risk any further casualties (hrw.org). Although these countries already had troops stationed in Rwanda they only cared for the safety of their own people and left the Rwanda citizens to helplessly defend themselves. The United Nation’s and other organizations such as the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR), pride themselves on maintaining peace in times of distress between countries and within the countries themselves. Why were these organizations along with powerful countries like the U.S. unable to support the country of Rwanda during its crisis? One fact is that many government authorities and higher powers of foreign countries had become traumatized by the collapse of the peace mission in Somalia in 1993 and did not want to see a repeat event. But what the foreign countries didn’t know was that without their help they were actually provoking the situation in Rwanda. The idea that people might die while maintaining peace in a foreign country prevented these organizations and countries from realizing the true potential for destruction in Rwanda. According to Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights under Article 1 of the United Nations Treat Series,”The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.” Under their definition genocide means “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group” (unrchr.ch). If this definition is true where was the help when 800,000 innocent people were slain? Throughout history the act of genocide has imposed a legal obligation on the world to try to stop it. The mass murder of people, or just the murder of an individual, is not acceptable anywhere in the world. The value of a persons life is too great no matter what race, religion, or lifestyle they may be. Although Rwanda is a third world country, the lives of its inhabitants are just as valuable as those anyone in the world and for their lives to be taken for granted is unacceptable on the parts of both the U.N., the U.S., France, and Belgium. According to pbs.com, the deputy to the U.S. ambassador in Rwanda told Washington officials that the killings involved not just political murders, but genocide on the civilians of Rwanda. Canadian General Romeo Dallaire, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force in Rwanda, was told by U.N. headquarters not to intervene and to avoid armed conflict. That same day the U.S. evacuated all its troops from Rwanda. After the first day an estimated 8,000 people had been killed. It is again seen here that the U.N. adamantly knew about the crisis but continued to turn their heads the other way and deny help to Rwanda. On the 10th of April General Dallaire requested a doubling of his peace keeping force in Rwanda to 5,000 but was denied as nearly 3,300 Americans, French, Italians and Belgians were evacuated by troops sent in from their countries. It is obvious that the U.N. peace keeping committee was aware of the situation but still continued to do nothing for the safety of Rwanda and its people. Again Rwanda was denied help when it was legitimately needed and asked for. By the end of day four of the genocide 32,000 people were dead. Finally, six weeks after the start of the genocide the U.N. and U.S. agreed to a version of General Dallaire's plan to stop the killing in Rwanda: nearly 5,000 African U.N. forces were sent in and the U.N. requested that the U.S. provide 50 armored personnel carriers (APCs) as well. However, bureaucratic paralysis delayed help even longer and few surrounding African countries offered their troops for the mission. The Pentagon and U.N. argued for two weeks over who would pay the costs of the APCs and who would pay for transporting them. It took a full month before the U.S. began sending the APCs to Africa. They didn't arrive until July and by that time nearly 800,000 people had been slain (pbs.org). By week eleven there was still no sign of U.N...