Introduction
Genocide is the premeditated annihilation of a whole group of people based on their ethnic background, religious background, or country of origin. The 1994 Rwanda genocide that took place within the course of a hundred days was ethnic in nature as it involved a premeditated annihilation of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu government. The recent Crisis in Myanmar is about a genocide that has religious undertones. The Myanmar government, which is mostly Buddhist, instigated a military campaign that displaced seven hundred thousand Muslim ethnic minority groups known as the Rohingya (Albert & Maizland, 2020). Governments around the world led by the United States have condemned the Myanmar government of having committed Genocide against Rohingya, but the Myanmar government has refuted the accusations. The horrific 1994 Rwanda genocide that saw 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus hacked to death led world leaders to make a declaration that they would never allow Genocide to be committed again in any part of the world. Despite the declaration, the Myanmar government committed Genocide against Rohingya. This paper will look at various reasons that make it difficult for world governments to stop genocides.
Causes of Genocide
A brief overview of a video of the Genocide that took place in Rwanda courtesy of Runetek2 (2014, 13:01) reveals that the UN, under the direction of its director Kofi Annan was reluctant to seize a cache of ammunition for fear of initiating Somali 2.0. The Belgian command in charge of the UN forces in Rwanda was aware of a plan to commit Genocide. The Belgian-born commander had information from an informant who was a government insider that the government was preparing a plan to kill all Tutsis and moderate Hutus. The Rwandan government had directed its forces and militias to target the Belgian army to discourage them from intervening so the objective of committing Genocide could be achieved.
The reluctance of the US government to intervene was due to fear of repeating what happened in Somalia in 1993 during operation Gothic Serpent. The elite American troops who sought to topple the Somali government led by warlord General Mohamed Farah Aideed met fierce resistance from the warlord’s army leading to the downing of two helicopters and the deaths of the forces. The Failure of this mission weakened the standing of the US government led by Bill Clinton back at home and abroad, and the president did not want a repeat of similar incidents. Political concerns have clearly prevented able governments like the US from taking action that could avert genocides.
The slow response to tell-tale signs that something is brewing is another major cause of genocides. Governments in the developing world where most Genocides take place fail to weed out radical elements that foment negative ethnic sentiments that culminate in Genocide. The UN forces were aware of the leading Hutu extremist, Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, and yet did nothing to stop him (Runetek2 17:37). Apparently, the minority Tutsis could do nothing to stop the Colonel as the government was headed by the majority Hutus. Naturally, the US’s ability to intervene in a foreign country is limited because intervention may be interpreted as interfering with a country’s sovereignty. So, the burden lay squarely on the UN because they had the intelligence. The UN mission in Rwanda was aware that Bagosora had once vowed to launch an “apocalypse” against the Tutsis (Runetek2 17:53). Failure to act against a person in power who made such inflammatory statements can only mean that the racial divide between those who lead the UN mostly white is a major factor that leads to Genocide due to tendency to act with indifference.
A 2001 article by Samantha Power published on Atlantic website highlights the extent to which indifference exacerbates the problem of Genocide. The author is dismayed by the sheer number of missed opportunities that decision-makers fail to take action simply due to flaccid will and self-serving caution (Power, 2001). Samantha suggests that politicians in Washington are hypocritical, suggesting the turn a blind eye because the events simply do not impact people of their race of the events take place in a distant land and to people of a different faith.
Earlier, the video shows proof that Bill Clinton had been briefed about developments in Rwanda, but he was reluctant to act, citing events that took place in Somalia. A few years later, Bill Clinton tends to act in shock when details of the Rwanda genocide are brought to light in a series in The New Yorker. Clinton asks, “How did this happen?” “I want to get to the bottom of this (Power 2001).” The president seems to be angry to act with a sense of urgency after the fact. Declassified secret governments reveal that the US government had sufficient intelligence about what was happening on the ground in Rwanda and missed countless opportunities to intervene.
The US deliberately turns a blind eye to genocides that do not concern white people. Power highlights Bill Clinton’s choreographed visit to Rwanda to apologize for his government’s inaction to avert the Genocide. Power (2001) tells us that the president spoke to a small crowd assembled on the Kigali Airport tarmac. Apart from refusing to send troops to Rwanda, the US government led efforts to remove all UN peacekeepers stationed in Rwanda. Assuming the US had the goodwill as Bill Clinton would want us to believe and that the decision makers were traumatized by what took place in Somalia, then it can be said that the UN troops and US army is insufficiently prepared to deal with militias in foreign lands.
The racial hypothesis prevails over the military unpreparedness hypothesis when further evidence is analyzed. The US aggressively blocked any attempt to send other forces to Rwanda. The US government was aware that radio broadcasts were important in the perpetuation and coordination of Genocide, and yet it failed to use its superior technology to jam the signals.
The US’s blatant failure to use the word Genocide even when 8,000 Tutsis lost their lives every day meant that it avoided responsibility (Power, 2014). The policymakers in Washington deliberately painted the Genocide as wartime casualties. This implied that only combatants were getting killed on the battlefield despite the fact that no two militaries were at war. The diplomats in Rwanda reported the daily occurrence of Genocide back to Washington, but because of political considerations, no action was taken. The US was not complicit with those who planned the Genocide. The indifference with which policymakers acted only reveals that racial motives and political motives were at play.
Despite the international communities to “never again” allow Genocide to happen, the Rohingya in Myanmar have been annihilated while the international community watched (Albert & Maizland, 2020). The US is well aware of the hostile relationship between the Rohingya and the Myanmar government. Discrimination against the Rohingya has been institutionalized in full view of the world governments. The UN, with the backing of the US, had the capacity to intervene in the name of safeguarding human rights. The lightning speed with which the US and western governments reacted and widespread media coverage when Russia invaded Ukraine justifies the hypothesis that US foreign policy is skewed in favor of people who are geographically and racially closer to them.
How Genocide can be prevented
The world moved away from a state-centric universe half a century ago. Human rights have been nominated as a basic human right that all UN state members must respect. Discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and religion has been outlawed. All these positive human developments have done little to deter those who commit Genocide.
Countries have committed to punishing perpetrators of Genocide under UN-backed Genocide Convention. The US has led efforts to stop Genocide and has the higher moral ground of stopping it, given its resourcefulness.
The US has given lip service to deter Genocide. Better policies need to be implemented to help contain Genocide before it begins. The UN must pass a resolution to suspend the sovereignty of a country that commits Genocide to allow powerful countries to take action and bring perpetrators to account. Suspension of sovereignty would deter any government from even thinking about committing Genocide. The US, which has at the forefront of leading the crusade against Genocide, must revise its policies to make it mandatory for the government to act on intelligence presented to it to prevent Genocide from taking place from any part of the world.
Conclusion
The condemnation of Genocide by world leaders has done nothing to prevent the occurrence of Genocide because no proper framework was put in place. The US militarily intervenes in other places to stop terrorists, change regimes, and secure US energy interests and yet does nothing to intervene in nations whose leaders are committing Genocide. It is clear the international institutions created by the US are meant to advance its interests and interests of the conceptual western world. The world needs to set up proper institutions to replace the defunct UN that can act in the interests of the entire world, especially in preventing genocides.
References
Albert, E. and Maizland, L. (2020). The Rohingya Crisis. Web.
Power, S. (2014). Never again: The world’s most unfulfilled promise. Web.
Power, S. (2001). Bystanders to Genocide. Web.
Runetek2 (2014). Ghosts of Rwanda. Youtube.