Thursday, April 22, 2004

Ten Years After: Rwanda and the G Word

By Mickey Z.

Read full article...

Posted 04/22 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. Great for all of us to be reminded about what we’re doing, if anything, to affect change...in the light of the above abomination...one of many perpetuated by us.  On another note, I hope that readers will approach Hentoff and Powers with extreme caution, to say the least.  The latter, as many probably know, is often an apologist of sorts for Washington, D.C. once you get past the obligatory criticism of the basic complicity.  Specifically, on the question of humanitarian intervention...she does not assign blame to the extent that the 10th Anniversary Report on Rwanda did...givng much more slack to the cast of characters always associated with the genocide. And that’s putting it mildly. She lets members of the UN and OAU off the hook, as I remember.  Her work is flawed in that respect, but the book presented in the “visual” attached to Mick’s article...A PROBLEM FROM HELL...is noteworthy for its fine description of what Lemkin went through to establish genocide as genocide worldwide.  His was a personal HELL of its own.  Finally, for now, Gourevitch’s quote is a bit misleading as the Rwandan genocide followed others the followed WWII.  Glad Mickey ended on a Ward Churchill note as it serves to remind one and all that we’ve yet to deal with the ongoing genocide being waged against Native Americans.  Failure to do so...will surely be our undoing.  Love, Ox P.S.  Special hugs to Mickey for caring and making this palatable to concerned citizens...and those “on the fringe.”

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/22  at  08:08 PM

  2. Thanks for the article…

    I guess my only question to Mickey specifically would be regaurding essentially what he thinks the proper face of ‘humanitarian intervention’ and ‘peacekeeping’ should look like – seeing as these terms have become hugely loaded in the past decade in particular (bearing in mind Somalia, Kosovo.) While undoubtably the ‘setup’ for the genocidal scenario in Rwanda 1994 is fairly extensive and complicated and of course directely linked to deep/ongoing scars of colonialism, if we could solely focus on that point you have mentioned in the spring of 1993 (not to remove the event from a historical context but rather to emphasize a particular ‘moment’ where the sins of the past are irreversible, the ‘setup’ complete and the massive killing imminent, but still perhaps very much avoidable.)

    And please don’t interpret my raising of these ‘procedural’ questions as negating the most important emphasis of you you article – namely that of the last few paragraphs.

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/23  at  01:05 AM

  3. BruceA, if I may chime in…

    America needs to stop all humanitarian aid immediately. Stop. Over. Finite. Countries have been messing with Africa for far too long. They don’t want our “help.” They don’t need our “help.” Done. We need to get over this notion that America holds the moral high ground regarding health, societies, & technology. Of course, there is no doubt America ignored the warnings of a genocide. However, there is also no doubt that America was meddling. Hate is a universal. It doesn’t just pop up in Rwanda or Germany devoid of outside influence. 1994, of course, was also the year of the first suicide bomber in Palestine (after 45 years of occupation....why 1994?). 1994 saw the beginning of NAFTA. 1994 was OJ. 1994 was William J. Perry’s year. So to say the U.S. should all the suddenly act “moral” is missing the point. The United States has been trying to eliminate Africans via “medicine” and vaccines for years. A genocide is EXACTLY what we wanted. Ask yourself: Do I believe in population control? If you answer yes, then you supported this genocide.

    Posted by Kap from  on  04/23  at  02:21 AM

  4. I’d like to know whether my “Nader And His Two Black Marks Amidst America’s Acne” address any of your questions, your concerns expressed here. Essentially, we have no business intervening abroad as we have done; we have exacerbated the problems in each overseas locale...each time.  The only place we have (at this point) re humanitarian support...maybe...is to provide more than one-tenth of one percent in foreign aid...with no strings attached.  However, as Devinder Sharma of India says when asked what the U.S. can do...he says something along the lines of what I believe Kap is saying: “Leave us alone...just leave us alone.” Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/23  at  02:54 AM

  5. Ox and Kap have addressed Bruce’s query well so I’ll just add this: Any discussion of foreign aid is littered with land mines (and not just figuratively). In a world dominated by military violence and World Bank/IMF intervention, the term “foreign aid” has an ever-evolving definition and will be exploited for propaganda reasons. Perhaps the starting point should be this: The way things are currently set up, no government gets involved in another nation’s business for altruistic reasons.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/23  at  06:03 AM

  6. I think it’s fair to say the U.S. is responsible for at least one genocide (Native Americans), the 250-year enslavement of huge numbers of Africans, murder sprees around the world that have killed millions and millions of people, and many other henious acts that should have resulted in the perpetrators paying with their lives.

    But to blame the U.S. and U.S. President Bill Clinton for not stopping the Rwandan genocide is a major stretch. ... Leaders of African nations, just like the U.S., easily could have sent 5,000-strong military contingents to stop the slaughter, if in fact that was all it would have taken to have slowed the genocide. Even with the terrible scars of colonialism, the real guilty parties in Rwanda were the Hutus, as in Iraq those guilty of murder and plunder are the Americans. We could blame Russia, Germany and France for not dispatching armies to protect the Iraqis from the U.S. slaughter but don’t you think we should keep the spotlight on the real guilty party.

    Posted by Simon from  on  04/23  at  08:53 AM

  7. If you look at my article posted on this site...and noted above in a comment...you will find a reference to a 10th Anniversary Report on the Rwandan Genocide which clearly dismisses the Hutus as THE GUILTY PARTY. They were NOT the guilty party.  Of course --obviously-- the Clinton administration is not the ONLY guilty party...but your statements have been proven incorrect with definitive documentation.  I have a fascinating article also that appeared in World Watch...which is cited in a footnote of my article on “Naders Two Black Marks” (noted in my above comment)...which touches upon how usually neglected factors contributed to the slaughter also.  Loving regards in solidarity, Richard

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/23  at  10:45 AM

  8. Actually I’m not ‘missing the point’ - Kap and Richard have not answered my query at all - much of what they have said is obvious. Since in fact much of Mickey’s article focuses on that specific ‘moment’ in 1993 when Clinton/US/International Community and the failed to take any ‘preventative active’, which may still have averted genocide - the article opened the door to this question, not me - so what does this action look like, at that moment in 1993?)

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/23  at  11:38 AM

  9. I must add that there is a tendency to go on and on about our crimes of the past.  If we think about how little difference that will make --except to get us sick-- without doing something to stop our atrocities...we have a clearer picture, perhaps, of what our obligation now is.  It’s very interesting how Simon words his first paragraph, and if the reader thinks about the avoidance of any mention --directly-- of present-day Iraq (Afghanistan, Columbia, etc.) in his retort...it’s possible that we can see how these horrors are allowed to continue.  The time for choice is now.  If you want to be an historian detached from current events...so be it.  If you want to write literature on such topics devoid of direct action...so be it.  And if you want to go back and forth on who did what...when...no one can stop you.  But, for me, there is insufficient value...and a huge price to pay...in dwelling exclusively (for all practical purposes) in the safe, sanitized realm of the word.  Don’t tell me what YOU’RE doing.  I trust it’s something that cannot be shared in public.  Loving best in solidarity, RO

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/23  at  11:39 AM

  10. Bruce, you’re asking a tactical question. The point of my article was to expose the fact that the US (and Clinton specifically) knew what was happening and played semantic games in order to avoid responsibility.

    Conversely, when US interests are at stake, the powers-that-be will manufacture atrocities whole cloth to use as a pretext to bomb and/or invade.

    I don’t have a tactical answer in terms of what the US (or anyone) could have precisely done at that “moment” but I do want to point out that the US ignored genocide.

    Posted by Mickey Z. from  on  04/23  at  11:50 AM

  11. Fair enough Mickey…

    I just suppose though I’m still having troubling reconciling how you can both be critical of Clinton playing ‘semantic games in order to avoid responsibility’ (implying a a belief in some sort of governmental level accountability - and your subsequent quoting of Morris that a “UN Assistance Mission claimed that 5,000 men and a mandate to act would have been sufficient to stop the killing,” while simultaneously seemingly being in tacit agreement with claims made by Kap that America needs to stop all means of humanitarian aid, intervention, etc., immediately.  Clearly these ideas seem to be at great odds…

    Thanks again for the article and response.

    Posted by BruceA from  on  04/23  at  12:59 PM

  12. Kap; Don’t read anything more into this question than face-value; but I’m curious as to your comment about birth-control.  Don’t you think it true that 6 billion on the planet is too many, burgeoning toward 9 billion by 2050, and if not, semantically, population control, something needs to be done to check this astronomical growth in the population?  Or do you believe we can grow the population more and more?  If so, do you see somewhere where there might be a cap necessary to check that population?  Or do you think it could grow unconditionally as far as can be seen?

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from  on  04/23  at  05:17 PM

  13. Mickey will, perhaps, answer for himself.  But I can’t restrain myself from providing a response to Bruce’s intelligent puzzlement.  Clinton WAS playing games, there WAS goverment level accountability (as per the 10th Anniversary Report plus), and Morris’ quote is not at variance with any of that. Regarding reference to Kap’s comments, the Morris quote is not relevant ‘cause “what can be expected in terms of precedent” is that the U.S. --even if it had provided the troop numbers noted by Morris-- would have somehow found a self-serving street to go down...making the “contribution” a huge negative...as it always has.  I hope that makes absolutely clear sense ‘cause Bruce’s inquiry deserves definitive clarity.  Best, Ox

    Posted by Richard Oxman from  on  04/23  at  05:17 PM

  14. Tracy, I view “population control” as nothing more than an unintentional scare tactic. Projections can never take into account “natural disaster.” Thus, projections (AIDS and population control) mean very little except a way for people to be classified, and thus controlled.

    Posted by Kap Fulton from  on  04/23  at  07:03 PM
    15. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Why Don't Iraqis Appreciate American Generosity?

    Previous entry: My What Would Chomsky Do? Penpals

    [ads]

    Support Press Action