So true…
There are so much people asking “why didn’t they…?” or “how could they have ignored…?” when refering to WWII.
But in this case, we all knew what was going on. Almost live. We don’t have the excuse of ignorance so many people had during WWII. And what did we do? What did our governments do? Essentially nothing.
I rarely use “we” because I don’t believe in collective responsability. But in this case, I think that we’re all (at least almost all of us, except the younger ones, the really disfranchised, and the very rare ones who actually did something useful) bearing the responsability. We knew. We don’t have any excuse. We’re more guilty than our forefathers in the 40’s, more so than even those amongst them who stuck their fingers into their ears and sang “lalala”.
The genocide in Rwanda is the one thing I’m the most ashamed of.
If you think there is a moral obligation on the US, then why wouldn’t there be a moral obligation on individuals to help? What have you yourself done for the similar situation going on right now in the Sudan? Or is that a “childish” question?
hmmmm, i guess the US could have, at least, jammed the radio transmissions. I agree with the point that I originally brought up, though, that a landlocked country is a lot more dangerous to perform missions in than one with sea access. I think that really is one of the main reasons the US didnt involve itself.
As for the other things they did some people have posted, I have no clue why they would actively thwart intervention.
You’re in error on a couple of points. Due to the nature of the war we could have put troops on the ground within hours of a decision to do so. The genocide was committed using hand tools and small arms in many cases. A group of soldiers on bicycles would have been an overwhelming force.
The Belgian peace-keeping soldiers who were there left after an ambush incident. The ambush was designed to get the Belgian’s to withdraw and it was chronicled in a paper that was delivered to the UN prior to the event.
The United States and it’s allies have a good track record of regime change in wars fought to win. Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo etc… These countries survive because people will ultimately act toward their own best interest if given a chance. Afghanistan is progressing rapidly (in comparison to Japan’s restructuring). The restructuring in Iraq is in the very early stages and we won’t know how successful that is until months or years after their elections.
Your point regarding civil war is valid in cases where the causes of the war are not addressed. Stopping a civil action is different than solving the problem. But many of today’s civil wars are the end result of colonial meddling. In such cases, the country of occupation bares some responsibility toward the people under their charge.
I do feel a moral obligation to help. This is why I donate significant chunks of my income to various international humanitarian NGOs (and get nifty little membership cards in exchange). Examples of where my money goes to are refugee camps and hospitals. (I also donate domestically) I feel we are morally obligated, so I would follow the democratic process and vote for someone who would take action, if there were such a candidate (there isn’t). My goal with my academic pursuits is to gain work with the International Red Cross or another NGO and do more first hand work. I would join Peace Corps, but I currently am not medically able to.
And yes, that question was childish.
Japan, Germany, Italy, and South Korea got better because we poured insanely huge amounts of money into rebuilding their economies and industrial infrastructures.
Bosnia and Kosovo I don’t see your point with. Bosnia, Kosovo, and the general region of Yugoslavia and its neighbors is still dealing with the same problems they were dealing with previously, with some slight differences. They still face mass refugee population shifts and civil strife, if not war, over where certain ethnicities are trying to move into.
Afghanistan is progressing rapidly? News to me. Last I heard, it was mostly stable because the warlords were happy with the status quo, and they gave up trying to register everyone in the country to vote and settled with the urban regions. Their prime cash crop was opium. I don’t know how rapidly Japan progressed, but I don’t think it involved opium exports and warlords.
Years. One of the problems that we ran into is that Iraq was much more seriously degraded than we had thought going in (chalk that up to our expert intelligence agencies). Everything from water treatment to power was completely inadequate, and we (Iraq and the US) have a lot of work ahead to get it stable again. Baghdad still doesn’t even have working electricity, and they just recently celebrated the reopening of a water treatment plant.
The plus side is that we are pouring money into Iraq to rebuild it, the minus side is that we’ll have to pour a helluva lot more in, and our economy isn’t exactly gliding along smoothly.
I agree with the colonial meddling, and frankly, I am disappointed in much of Europe for not bothering to open their eyes and look at the absolute disaster they left behind (namely in Africa, but largely in the Middle East). Hell, some Europeans are still profitting off of their imperialist control coughNetherlandscough. More responsibility is needed by a lot of people to solve our global problems.
The US, as a country, does all those things and more. Why does the US still have a moral obligation beyond that but you or I (as individuals) don’t. I, like many people here, could easily afford to spend my next vacation helping out in a situation like Rwanda or the Sudan. Why am I not, as an indivual, morally obligated to do so?
If you want to put things on scale, if I saw someone down the street being murdered, I would get involved.
As to why you, as an individual, are not morally obligated to do so is because you have the power to choose how to use your time, and how to define your morality. If your morals do not lead you to… doing whatever it is you suppose someone should be doing, then that’s your morals, not mine. I don’t care about your morals; for all I know, you’re a selfish asshole who doesn’t give a flying fark about anyone in the world except himself. Not saying that is how you are, but you could very well be.
I, as an individual, do feel morally obligated to assist those in plight greater than my own, and at times those in plight less than my own.
If you choose not to spend your next vacation helping out in Rwanda or “the Sudan”, that’s free will. We don’t live in a society where you are obligated to do anything like that. Maybe I would paint our society differently, but I certainly can’t define your morals about what to do with your next vacation.
Zagadka: You have failed to give any reason why the US is morally obligated to help out Rwanda other than, to paraphrase, “I think they are”. You are, of course, welcome to think so, but you can’t state it as a fact unless you are able to prove it in some way.
How is someone morally obligated to do anything? What are morals? Can a nation have morals? If so, are they collective? What are those morals?
I morally feel obligated. You (apparently) don’t. This is a democratic country, you vote for the guy who doesn’t feel obligated, I’ll vote for someone who does feel obligated (should such a creature be found to exist).
Mr. Mace, I must go to the land of nod now, but I will conclude tonight with this: I seriously doubt I (or most other people) could convince you that the US has a moral obligation to support its own people, much less those in Rwanda. Your morals are simply different than mine, and this being a democracy, majority rules. I may find it disgusting, and I may do everything I can to work on my own, but you’re just not going to accept moral obligation to anything.
The newly-elected president says that insurgents are fighting…there is a separatist movement called Somaliland that wants to break free. Should we intervene? No way…look what happened the last time!
The US goverment has both a moral and a legal responsibility to PROTECT it’s citizens. That is what the government is designed to do and what the officials are elected to do. I wouldn’t use the term “support” as it is too vague.
Are you assuming that your idea of our moral obligation in Rwanda is the majority opinion in the US? If so, I’d like to see a cite for that.
Look, if you stop the presonal sniping we can have an actual debate here. Why don’t you outline what the source of our moral obligation is in Rwanda? I’d like to see how that differs from, say, our moral obligation to the people of Iraq under Sanddam Hussein. There was gross hardships in both instances, with many innocent people killed. How does one determine when a moral obligation exists to intervene in another country and when it does not exist?
Our intervention was a humanitarian success…at least compared to the average humanitarian effort in the world, since most famines are caused by political events and not lack of food. Those in power don’t let the aid get to the needy because they created the needy in the first place.
That’s the strongest argument for military intervention in not just situations where there is (physical) violence.
If I were president, I would look at military intervention from an American-weighted utilitarian perspective. I would calculate how many lives would be saved in the foreign country versus how many American lives lost:
– American soldiers would be worth more than a foreigners, since they are American (and having them alive would tend to increase American’s power), and they are expensive to equip and train and pay survivor benefits, and losing American casualities would have harsher political consequences for me than killing foreigners. Note that harsher political consequences IS a utilitarian factor, since if you intervene too many times, it may not be possible to do so again!
– American civilians would be worth more than American soldiers, since they did not volunteer to fight for their country, and casualties are looked at worse than those of American soldiers.
I would also, sadly, take into account how the American people would feel about an intervention. While I know that many people were of the mind that “They’ve been fighting each other for centuries, screw 'em”**, I think that we would have supported intervention in Bosnia moreso than in Rwanda.
So, versus Bosnia, Rwanda would, on my part, have:
– Lack of relative support
– Lack of a good support base
By the way, am I incorrect in wondering how the relatively few Americans we could have put into Rwanda could have prevented the violence when the Tutsi army didn’t prevent it? Weren’t they some 20,000 strong?
Again, this is just relative to Bosnia, which I thought about intervening in when it was happening 10 years ago. As in, intervening in personally. Despite language difficulties and probable use as a tool, what made me definitely not try though is what they really needed was heavy equipment, which I’m sure would be fairly difficult to enter the country with. Well, I guess I could have donated money to groups that would channel money into arms to smuggle into the country, but I’m sure a lot of that would be skimmed off into terrorist groups, not to mention get me on a list of terrorism supporters.
**yeah, and the rest of Europe has been doing what for the past 5 centuries, having a hug and tickle party?
Did any of you read what I wrote? You’re all arguing straw men, coming up with reasons why the U.S. didn’t send troops into Rwanda. The U.S. *didn’t have to.**. The U.S. didn’t just bow out of that issue - the U.S. took the lead in stopping OTHER countries from intervening. That’s what was so shameful. Sure, you can make the case that the U.S. didn’t have an interest there, and didn’t have to send soldiers. Fine.
I have yet to hear a good excuse for Madelaine Albright actively interfering in the U.N. to stop countries like Canada from going to the aid of the Tutsis. If the U.S. had just stayed out of the issue completely, I’d be fine with that.
Clearly, there was some geopolitical game going on. The U.S. was doing a favor for someone else in the U.N. in exchange for a quid pro quo. Best guess: France.
Sure, but not very hard. Two million people have died in Sudan’s civil war over the past few decades, 70,000 have died in Darfur over the past year or so, and the US is doing very little to stop it. We’ve said that the Sudanese government is engaged in acts of genocide, and we’re providing transportation for the troops of the fairly modest African Union peacekeeping force. Which isn’t nothing - logistics is always a bitch, but still.
The Sudanese army and police surrounded a couple of refugee camps in Darfur yesterday - no one allowed in or out, including aid groups or press. Most likely, they’re “relocating” refugees (technically “internally displaced persons”, since they haven’t crossed national borders) back to their villages. They fled those villages because if they stayed, the government-sponsed janjaweed militias would kill them. And our government has had precisely squat to say about this.
I fail to remember where in this thread I supported our active efforts to thwart peacekeeping efforts there – wait, I didn’t. But I also didn’t see where you wrote that our peacekeeping force was greater than that of the Tutsi Army – wait, you didn’t show that. Despite what the person you quote claims, 7,500 people seems a bit too low, IMO, to send into Central Africa.
I never said you supported it. I said that this thread seems to be arguing that the U.S. stayed out because it didn’t have a compelling interest to go in. But that’s arguing a straw man, because the real problem is that the U.S. went out of its way to prevent ANYONE from helping.
And yes, 7,500 soldiers could have been enough. The Hutu were armed with shovels and machetes. The few hundred soldiers that remained there managed to protect thousands of people.