Because it happened so fast that there was no chance to raise public outcry against it. And when the public doesn't oppose something, governments will only act if it benefits their country, which it didn't. It would have turned into a large war considering some neighboring nations supported it.
Because it happened so fast that there was no chance to raise public outcry against it.
Errr....no, it happened over a course of a hundred days, during which American officials knew exactly what was happening.
A National Security Archive report points out five ways in which decisions made by the U.S. government contributed to the slow U.S. and worldwide response to the genocide:
-The U.S. lobbied the U.N. for a total withdrawal of U.N. (UNAMIR) forces in Rwanda in April 1994;
-Secretary of State Warren Christopher did not authorize officials to use the term ''genocide'' until May 21, and even then, U.S. officials waited another three weeks before using the term in public;
-Bureaucratic infighting slowed the U.S. response to the genocide in general;
-The U.S. refused to jam extremist radio broadcasts inciting the killing, citing costs and concern with international law;
-U.S. officials knew exactly who was leading the genocide, and actually spoke with those leaders to urge an end to the violence but did not follow up with concrete action.
But yes, the latter reason is the more valid reason; a country will not intervene unless it majorly affected their own interests. Welcome to the realist world.
Errr....no, it happened over a course of a hundred days, during which American officials knew exactly what was happening.
I know they did, i said "ublic outcry". Them knowing doesn't mean the people know, and if they people don't know they can't complain. 100 days is not a long time.
Because it happened so fast that there was no chance to raise public outcry against it. And when the public doesn't oppose something, governments will only act if it benefits their country, which it didn't. It would have turned into a large war considering some neighboring nations supported it.
Like Nichodemus said, it wasn't "short". Compared to other genocides, yes, but not very short to the point where we didn't know what was going on. Bill Clinton made a statement once basically saying that had he sent around 5,000 American troops (not UN, because their "soldiers" were virtually powerless and could not provoke the Hutu attackers unless they were directly attacked themselves...even if the Hutus were butchering people right before their eyes), those horrible events may not have occurred. However, he hesitated to send troops in the first place after what happened in the humanitarian effort in Somalia. It is very unfortunate and if you have ever seen footage of this terrible moment in history (or even Hotel Rwanda for that matter) you would be disgusted at some of the terrible things that humanity has done.
you would be disgusted at some of the terrible things that humanity has done.
Not really. I don't give a crap about all that, not because I'm cruel and heartless, but because I know I can't do anyhting and it's useless to get worked up about it.
