What is it if not Genocide?

The two articles I read for this post are: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/10/world/officials-told-to-avoid-calling-rwanda-killings-genocide.html?scp=9&sq=rwandan%20genocide&st=cse which talks about the reluctance of calling the events in Rwanda a genocide. I also looked at: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/29/world/un-commission-recommends-rwanda-genocide-tribunal.html?scp=25&sq=rwandan%20genocide&st=cse which was about the UN Commission calling for a genocide tribunal. However, even in the second article, genocide is written in quotes.

I take issue with the reluctance of the US and global community calling Rwanda a genocide. To me, it was a genocide. Masses of people were killed based on ethnic classifications. Though the conflict also included political aspects, the basis for who was to be killed was ethnic. Though the killings may not have been carried out primarily for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, the way the murders were committed looks like genocide to me. Furthermore, I don't understand how people don't want to label it as a genocide when the UN Commission is urging it to be addressed as such.

People who had things to say on the matter point to the danger in using the word genocide. I see more danger in not using the word. If it is not looked at as genocide, no real insight can be gained as to the causes of the massacre. If you do not outright address the ethnic aspect of Rwanda, there is not way you can examine the effects of their ethnic system. You are left with an incomplete view, one that only suggests the killings were the result of ancient notions of tribalism. The deaths of all those people, often at the hands of friends or neighbors, just looks like random and senseless acts of violence if the word genocide is left out. In not succumbing to the fear of the word genocide, one can begin to look at the events that occurred critically. They do not just become another case of a savage and lawless Africa.

In my opinion, based on what I've read, I feel that people don't want to label it as genocide because then it can remain outside of their responsibility. Once it is labeled as genocide, the issue of whether or not to intervene arises. I believe that people do not want to get involved. They do not want to accept any fault for what occurs overseas. Though the US was not directly involved in the killings, this country is a major player in the world history of colonialism. I believe colonialism played a role in what occurred in Rwanda. Once the massacre is labeled as a genocide, it also calls in question other countries' rights violations. No one wants to call it genocide lest the finger be pointed at them. An example of this is China's reluctance to be a part of the tribunal. China did not want their own practices to be called under fire.

I think it is dangerous to not be honest about what goes on in the world. If thousands upon thousands are killed because of who they are ethnically, is it not genocide? An inability to correctly identify what Rwanda was in 94' will only allow it be swept under the rug and potentially happen again there, or elsewhere.

Avoidance of the Issue

In reading newspaper articles published during the Rwandan genocide, one thing is very clear. During the time that the genocide actually occurred, it was not officially recognized as genocide from Western countries with the power to prevent the acts. There was no newspaper articles about what should or could be done, but rather only talk about whether the killings were acts of genocide or genocide.

Maybe this is easier to say looking back, but this seems completely ridiculous to me. It is as if outside countries were looking for any excuse not to get involved. I understand that there are many complications and consequences that can happen when an outside country gets involved in foreign territories, but the US, as well as others, vowed at the 1948 international convention, to never allow genocide to occur in the world. During the genocide though, our government, "side-stepped" the issue as Thomas Lippman from the Washington Post put it.

What makes this such an issue to me, is the contrast that can be found in articles written in the late 90's, after the genocide was over. None of them argue - the genocide that happened in Rwanda is absolute, there is no more dodging talk about 'acts of genocide. Instead they talk about the abundance of signs that pointed towards the event, as well as the extremity of the genocide. Lisa Melvern writes, in an article provokingly titled, "The record for killing by machete was 1,000 every 20 minutes", about the development of the Interhamwe in Rwanda. This group seems to be something comparable to the Nazi SS, but at the same times has its own unique, cruel and twisted methods of killing. Melvern shatters the argument that this was a civil war, explaining how the Interhamwe created training camps for speed killing. In these camps, the record set for killing with a machete was 1,000 people in 20 minutes, which is a rate that is 5 times faster than methods used by the Nazis (Melvern 1999). Soldiers were trained to cut the achilles tendon of people so that they could not escape. During the early 90's, the Interhamwe formed these training camps in all of Rwanda's 146 communes.

People were trained to target not soldiers, but an ethnic group of people, the Tutsi. To 'prepare' the country for this event, a radio station, the RTLMC, began broadcasting about 6 months before the genocide. They gradually, but surely increased the openness of there disdain for the Tutsi, and when the genocide began, they supported and encouraged the event over the radio waves in Rwanda. It is reported that even two years before the genocide, Western countries received intelligence that the Hutu in Rwanda were moving towards an attempt to eliminate the Tutsi population and political competition, and that the moves towards democracy in the country was propelling the Hutu towards the event.

It seems foolish to think that Western governments were ignorant of the true nature of the genocide while it was happening, and probably even before. I have a real problem with this. If we as a country do not want to stop these things from happening, that's fine, it is our choice; but when we make the vows, treaties, and claims to the American people and world at large, that we will always do everything in our power to stop the events, we are obligated to do something meaningful to stop the situation. Instead though, our governments response was to provide $68 million dollars in aid, that went primarily to refugees already outside Rwanda. That's a good thing to do, but it doesn't solve the problems in Rwanda itself. When our country falls short of living up to its promises of the past, it really creates a lack of faith in my mind about our future. Is our country really founded on moral values and committed to the spread of democracy and the freedom of people? Are we really the bringers of peace around the world that we have claimed to be in this last century? Or are we a country that is only concerned about our best interests? If so, do we really think that is going to work out for us in the long run?