There wasn’t even a term for war crimes like genocide until 1948, after World War II. The word genocide describes “any … acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”[i]. The world did not even acknowledge that genocides happened until after the Holocaust killed approximately six million Jews between 1933 and 1945.[ii] So why is it that almost exactly 50 years later, when over 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis were killed in another genocide, the world never stepped in and tried to stop it?[iii]
Why was there any more genocide at all, considering the traumatic effect the Holocaust had on all nations involved in and affected by it? How could any nation allow the murder of their own citizens? Well for one thing, Rwanda was never directly involved in the Holocaust, and they were never invaded by the German Nazis. The Rwandan people were never personally affected by the Holocaust, so they had no history to fear repeating.
Rwanda has had a long history of tension between the Hutus and the Tutsis. It all started when the Tutsis invaded the Hutu land and took over. They established a sort of feudal system where the Hutus worked on land owned by Tutsi farmers. This led to further differences when the Belgians colonized Rwanda and used to Tutsis to be the intermediaries between themselves and the Hutus. The Tutsis were given more important jobs, more access to jobs, as well as more education opportunities because they had lighter skin, which made them seem closer to Europeans. This created huge resentment among the Hutu people as they were seen a lower class by the Belgians. All Rwandans were forced to carry identification cards with their ethnicity printed on them which later helped the Hutu rebels identify Tutsis during the genocide.[iv]
This leads to the first difference between the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. The Holocaust was caused by the German Nazis who were trying to expel a state-less and rightless people from their nation, while the Rwandan Genocide was more of a rebellion. The Hutus wanted to expel the Tutsis from Rwanda for oppressing them for centuries. While the Tutsis were still the minority group in Rwanda, they had more power than the Hutus. The Tutsis became a stateless people during the Genocide when they fled to the neighboring countries of Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Although these two genocides started in different ways, the UN should have recognized the signs of genocide and reacted quickly to prevent another event like the Holocaust. The United Nations was created in 1945, just after the Holocaust ended. It was meant to replace the League of Nations as an international peace keeping force that would prevent wars from ever happening in the future. The founders of the UN were the victorious allied nations of World War II. Those same nations that were so traumatized by war in 1945 forgot their original purpose in 1994, when they pulled almost all of their troops from Rwanda when the genocide started. After the death of ten Belgian soldiers, the UN withdrew almost all of their 2,500 peace keeping forces in fear for their safety.
How is it that first world nations who claimed “never again” to stand by and allow a genocide, or any other war crime, to occur would let 800,000 people die in a span of 100 days? Mr. Booh-Booh, a Cambodian UN mediator in Rwanda, claimed that, “We came to assist Rwanda, but we cannot impose any solution on the Rwandan people, who have to help us to help them.”[v] While this could hold some legitimacy, this should not be something that stops aid from entering a country. The International community cannot simply do nothing when they are being faced with genocide. While the United Nations has apologized for their lack of aid during the genocide, this shows a fatal flaw in the UN system. The UN was established to prevent all violence and war, so why is it that they can pick and choose which countries they want to help? The leaders of the UN, the P5 countries of France, Great Britain, China, Russia, and the United States, have all the power. They are the only countries to have veto power in the Security Council, which is the only body that can send peace keeping forces into another nation. Why are the five wealthiest, and most powerful nations the ones that get to decide whether or not we help the poorest and least powerful nations?
The United States has always upheld an image of helping any nation that is being oppressed. We pride ourselves on bringing democracy to nations that want it. So why is it that we created a museum dedicated to showing Americans the horrors of genocide and encourage people to “confront hatred, promote human dignity, and prevent genocide”[vi], when a year later we did nothing to aid the Tutsi people of Rwanda?
The only explanation I can think of is that nations like the United States had nothing to gain from helping Rwanda. While the wealthy nations of the UN could have sent forces into Rwanda, they would gain nothing and were likely to lose lives and money in the war. The Rwandan genocide was not a sporadic event, but a well-planned and preconceived act of war.
This is a fundamental problem within the United Nations; every nation will look out for their interests first. Nations are willing to help, as long as they have the extra resources to give to the relief efforts. Take the current situation with the European Union’s financial crisis. While the EU was once enthusiastic about creating a universal currency, now, as the economies of Greece and possibly Italy are on the brink of collapse, France and Germany are starting to doubt whether or not they want to continue this agreement. It is no longer in their interest to use the common Euro because they are being forced to pay for the debts of other member states.
The European Union is a lot like the United Nations. They are both a collaborative effort, and in order to run smoothly all member states have to truly be on board with giving what they can to help each country in need of UN aid. They can’t pick and choose which human beings are more valuable or more important to help when we are talking about war crimes like genocide. This complete commitment made to prevent all war is almost unreasonable considering the selfish human nature of the governments involved.
The United Nations has now created a protocol for when to determine that a genocide is about to happen, or is currently in progress. They have created a new UN special advisor for the prevention of genocide. This person is responsible for reporting to the UN when genocide appears to be happening, as well as suggest solutions to prevent or solve the war crime in question.[vii]
It is good to know that the United Nations has accepted their mistake, and hopefully this will result in a change in policy and a change in resolution outcomes in the future. Maybe after seeing what happens when the world stands by and lets a group of people die to genocide, the United Nations and individual nations will make the right decision to send troops and supplies to war-stricken areas of the world. While it is good that the UN has taken steps to prevent intolerance and human rights violation, which are the root cause of genocide, only time will tell if this new program will be influential. The founders of the UN need to remember why they formed this organization in the first place, and carry through those morals and values into the coming years. The United Nations supports human rights of all people, both state and stateless people, and until every person on this earth has access to food, shelter, and medicine, the UN will always have a need to exist.
Now that the leading powers of the world are shifting from the United States and Western Europe to countries like Brazil, China, and India, how will this affect the UN? Will these developing nations one day take veto power from the current P5 nations? Should we always give veto power to the five most powerful nations, and if so, how can we determine who those nations are? Or should we respect the original countries that were given veto power, even if some of them aren’t so powerful anymore? These questions can only be answered with time as nations grow and progress and a new world order is established. If Brazil and India start giving more money and military aid to third world countries, will they gain the respect and alliance of more influential nations? While I hope the United States can continue to keep their role as one of the most powerful nations, I am worried for the future.
[i] "Preventing Genocide - What Is Genocide?" United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 06 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/take_action/genocide>.
[ii] "Introduction to the Holocaust." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 06 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005143>.
[iii] "Genocide in Rwanda | United Human Rights Council." The United Human Rights Council | Educate Yourself & Others to Bring Change in the World. Armenian Youth Federation - Western United States. Web. 05 Sept. 2011. <http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm>.
[iv] Jones, Adam. "Gendercide Watch: Rwanda." Gendercide Watch - Main Page. Gendercide Watch. Web. 06 Sept. 2011. <http://www.gendercide.org/case_rwanda.html>.
[v] "Terrified UN Soldiers Pull out of Rwanda - World, News - The Independent." The Independent. The Independant, 21 Apr. 1994. Web. 05 Sept. 2011. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/terrified-un-soldiers-pull-out-of-rwanda-1371425.html>.
[vi] "About the Museum." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Web. 05 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ushmm.org/museum/about/>.
[vii] Harsch, Ernest. "The World Reflects on Rwanda Genocide." Africa Recovery. United Nations. Web. 05 Sept. 2011. <http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/newrels/rwanda.htm>.
You bring up a lot of interesting in this article. In particular, how you present how the five most wealthiest nations are in the the Security Council. These nations are placed in the security council for two main reason. The first of which is that they were instrumental in the founding of the organization. The second, is because of their wealth. With their wealth, comes influence which is exactly why they are placed in the major decision making body of the UN. It is in the best interest for the general member nations of the UN to go along with Security Council decrees in order to gain better standing with members of the SC. So these nations continue to be members in the SC in the name of better enforcing UN declarations.
ReplyDeleteBut in the end of day, as you pointed out in the article, the UN only has as much power as the general members give it. So if member nations were still shocked my the US military disaster in Mogadishu, Somalia (which occurred in 1993), chances are they would not be willing to send military assistance to the Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. After the costly battle American special forces fought against Somali militias in the streets of Mogadishu, I highly doubt any nation would want to send their troops to fight Hutu militias in the jungles of Rwanda.
Countries have a duty to their own citizens first, and if they do not deem it appropriate to assist in an international operation, then that is just how it will have to be.
I am just curious, you had mentioned that the UN has now established new standards to recognize "Genocide in the works", what are these steps to recognizing genocide? If these steps were implemented prior to the genocide in Rwanda do you think the UN would have recognized what was going on? In other words was the progression to genocide in Rwanda following these standards, or would it have still taken thousands of deaths for recognition?
ReplyDeleteFrom Shannon who was unable to post because of technical difficulties:
ReplyDeleteEmma, you bring up a lot of interesting points throughout this blog post. The Security Council's five permanent members are the five most powerful nations in the world. The problem is, is that some of these nations are losing power while others are gaining strength in the world, such as Brazil and India.
So what does the United Nations do? There have been talks about increasing the number of permanent seats in the Security Council so that these growing nations could have the veto power of the original five. But would this be the best decision for the Security Council? With more permanent members with veto power, the possibility of a resolution not getting through grows.
The other possibility is to eventually change who the five permanent members of the Security Council are. But, of course, that would cause conflicts between the old and new powers in the world. So what is the world to do? How can we create a strong United Nations so that we can work to stop violations against humanity?
This article brings up several extremely interesting points, one about the rising powers of India, China and Brazil. Do you think they will be able to keep up their current rate of growth, and will this exactly be a deciding factor for internationalism. I bring this up because I have read articles illustrating how the Brazilian Economy is a bubble, not just because of that their is a rapid increase in inflation, but also because of the large rich-poor gap. This is also the same in India, because lately and historically they have had a large amount of corruption and an extremely large population. The Chinese economy has showed signs of a slowing economy due to shortages from a growing population. Does this affect their growing power.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments,
ReplyDeletePatrick:
I think you definitely have a point about why the US didn’t send troops to Rwanda. I wasn’t aware of the military issue in Somalia, and that certainly explains why the US wouldn’t want to send troops to prevent genocide when they were just involved in Somalia keeping peace on trade routes. It sounds like President Bush had good intentions when he planned to enter Somalia, but when his plan failed and President Clinton took office, I could see how he would not want to get involved as it could affect his popularity with the American people and cost the lives of many US soldiers.
I also see your point about the United Nations Security Council members. While there are only five nations that have veto power, these nations are the ones who are going to be forced to pay the most and send the most troops into any peace-keeping mission the UN signs. The general assembly and member states will want to comply with the policies and resolutions made by the P5 countries to put them in better standing within the international community.
Frank:
In the Office of the UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide’s Analysis Framework, (http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf) they look at inter-group relations within a nation state, their ability to prevent a genocide, the presence of arms and other weapons, the willingness of the state to combat any genocide violence, and the beginnings of genocide such as building up the military or new legislature which takes away the rights of a group.
The Un also mentions that information is usually not a problem, there are many credible sources that will warn of war crimes in advance, the more difficult task is getting UN aid into the nation that is in danger. I don’t believe that it would have made the difference whether or not the UN previously defined the warning signs of genocide because I am sure most nations knew there was a war crime occurring. The UN was alerted in January of 1994 that there was going to be a mass killing in Rwanda, and they still chose to ignore it when it happened three months later. (http://www.un.org/preventgenocide/rwanda/neveragain.shtml) The problem was more of an ethical dilemma because states acted in their own interest instead of helping the state-less people of another. I believe that policies like the “Responsibility to Protect”, which was established in 2009 and identifies the steps the UN has to take once a genocide is confirmed, are more effective in forcing states to act because it clearly defines the actions that the UN must take when they receive knowledge of genocide. This new coalition with hopefully do a better job of encouraging states to send aid in the event of a crisis like genocide.
Shannon:
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up good points about the realistic effects of changing the P5 nations. Surely these nations would be deeply insulted if their veto power was taken away, as that would be a clear sign to their diminishing power. And adding more nations to the Security Council could also have negative effects because it could create new alliances and split the more powerful nations until they are as uncooperative as our two party system. It may be better to keep the P5 nations as they are under the reasoning that they created the United Nations, and if this can be accepted by the international community, that might work. I worry; however, that these up and coming nations, if they continue to rise in the political and economic world, will not be satisfied with their status in the UN, and this could affect their voting choices in other UN councils.
Kevin:
You bring up a good point, and we kind of touched upon this in class today. China is certainly the next biggest threat to becoming the largest world power, but they currently have veto power in the Security Council. The problem then becomes nations like Brazil and India, who do not have this power and are rising in economic power. I agree with what you said about the economies of these two nations being questionable as they are run on a system that greatly divides the rich and the poor. Whenever the middle class of a nation begins to disappear, conflicts begin to arise. I also found an article that agrees with you that Brazil and India, while they survived the recession and are growing, they are nowhere near the rate of growth that China is having. (http://www.nextglobaleconomy.com/?p=298) The author believes that Brazil, India, and Russia aren’t going to have any major effect on the global economy for some time, but it seems like all the news networks are still talking about them. I would agree with that, I would hope that the United States never loses its place as the biggest world power, but I do believe China could surpass us in the next 20 years.