It’s a thread about genocide, so I’m not going to hold back on the Nazi comparisons. Was the Nazi genocide against the Jews a “civil war?”
The UN had armed troops and support on the ground at the time. If “a genocide is happening right now in front of our face” is not a time for those troops to act, what exactly is? Heavily armed troops, with the equipment and logistics to, at the very least, establish a safe zone and transport trapped civilians to it (remember, the arms they were up against were largely machetes), were ordered to just sit around watching. It’s as if we had armed troops hanging around a largely unarmed Auschwitz and decided to have them play Monopoly all day in front of the lines to the gas chambers.
It is important to note that even in their ineffectual role, the UN troops played a role in slowing the slaughter. The killing started off relatively slow, and increased with each step the international community took to distance themselves from the genocide. The killing began in earnest when it became clear that nobody was going to stop them. In the first month 160,000 had been killed. By the end of the second month, around 400,000 had been killed. It was when everyone pulled out that the genocidaires were able to kill the most efficiently, with another 400,000 killed by July 17th.
After the genocide, we had little logistical, military or political obstacles keeping us from setting up and protecting refugee camps that largely functioned to keep Hutu refugees safe from reprisal, despite the continued instability and violence. I’m not sure how you can argue that we could effectively provide safety and security to Rwandan people in July, but would have been completely unable to do it in May.
Rwanda was no more a “tribal war” than WWII was. I have no idea when it comes to Africa we throw all understanding of politics aside and resort to “Oh, those black people just can’t stop killing each other over their silly tribal prejudices,” as if black people are somehow motivated by different incentives than the ones that drive politics the world over.
Hutu and Tutsi were political categories, loosely based on a “tribal” affiliation that had more to do with class than anything else. Hutus and Tutsis speak the same language, practice the same religion, live intermixed on the same land, and intermarry fairly freely. The difference is not a tribal difference, but rather something more along the lines of caste. Anyway, this difference was formalized and given political power by the modern state for modern political purposes. Its like the differences between Black, White, Colored and Asian in apartheid South Africa- sure, there is some “tribal” basis, but what makes it really meaningful is the power of the politics behind these categories. Did apartheid South African hate each other from irrational prejudice? Not really. They hated each other because that hate was structured into their political power. And modern politicians used those political categories to the fullest they could be exploited.
Nor were they fighting about random tribal prejudice. The killing was largely about the same “whose political group is going to be in power” conflict that exists in every country, and on the individual level there was a land grab element, as land and food strapped people contemplated how much easier life would be in Africa’s densest country if their neighbors weren’t there. Many, many Hutus were included in the slaughter- sometimes with some weak justification of suspecting them to be “sympathizers,” but often with no real reason at all rather then bumping off the guy on the farm next to you would give you a bit a more space.
FWIW, I don’t think any western power involved has stuck to their resolve and said “You know, goddammit, we made the right choice in Rwanda.” Everyone, almost universally, agrees that they did the wrong thing. I’m surprised how many people feel free to look back and conclude it was the right thing to do, when I don’t think any of the people actually involved and who actually made those choices would agree.
