Why didn't the UN help stop the RWANDAN GENOCIDE? they had the chance!! they knew what was coming!?

Question

bill clinton said he regreted not helping. WHY DID THE WORLD STEP BACK!! was it b'coz it was an AFRICAN country?

Answer 1

As in Rwanda so Bosnia. To stop such genocides requires the use of force to overcome the murderers. In recent decades those who possess the force are reluctant to use it for purely moral reasons - the troops only go if their can be shown to be "National Interests" on the line. Now that the idea of colonialism is so reviled no nation wants to take responsibility for sorting out the problems of another country - if the US had really wanted to establish a peaceful Iraq they would have used more troops to begin, occupied any disturbed areas, and fought anybody who did not obey the law the occupation authorities laid down. Ultimately they could have adopted the Roman solution to restless places - "they made a desolation and called it peace". History shows that that was very effective, and terminated much violence which allowed peaceful societies to develop.
Now we have the situation in Darfur. The rational of non-intervention has little to do with Darfur and Rwanda being African - more that powerful states see no gain in getting involved.

Answer 2

Both you and all the other respondants seem to overlook the simple fact that the United Nations Charter does NOT provide for the UN or other countries to just invade a country to stop something people elsewhere think is bad. The UN Charter in fact says that the UN exists to PREVENT outside interference in the sovereign affairs of Member States, not to encourage or sanction it. It exists to stop states from engaging in aggression against other states -- not against their own people, which is generally regarded as being a matter for the affected people to resolve. (This is also why the UN has no authority to just tell Sudan that it's sending troops into Darfur, despite the atrocities being committed there.) The UN simply has no jurisdiction or authority for these things; otherwise, the UN could have (and arguably should have) sent troops into the southern US during the Civil Rights era; can you imagine the outcry among Americans if the UN simply announced that it is sending troops into the US no matter how Americans feel about it?

Instead of jumping to offensive conclusions, like your implicit charge of racism (which itself reveals a profound ignorance of the extremely diverse make-up of the UN's leadership), or like the facile cliche of the UN's organizational ineffectiveness offered by others here, you and the others on this question would be well advised to take a look at the UN Charter and inform yourself of some real facts before having hissy-fits over a subject you clearly do not understand.

And, by the way, it is extremely questionable whether anyone inside or outside of Rwanda "knew what was coming" -- as you wrongly suggest. I defy you to produce even one single piece of evidence that someone "knew what was coming" -- and remember that uninformed, after-the-fact statements like yours would not qualify as proof.

You probably have a very decent perspective and are justly upset by the suffering of others. However, even the best of causes can be undermined by poor arguments on its behalf, such as your implied racism charge.

Answer 3

With Koffi Annan, the first African generic Secretary of the UN, the UN did no longer some thing to strive against genocide, starvation and civil wars for the time of Africa in his 10 12 months reign. Why? there became no funds to be made in it. They positioned sanctions on Iraq because Annan, his son, and a range of of different ecu countries and agencies made funds on the Oil-For-foodstuff debacle. The were given curious about Somalia because there became funds to be made in Quat. yet when there is no monetary reason behind the UN to get entangled they are going to stay in lengthy island and suggestion the neo-liberals on American overseas affairs coverage. The UN hated Bolton because he advised them (actually) the position they could stick their suggestion on US affairs. The UN made confident their neo-leb pawns does no longer settle for Bolton's reassignment. tremendous for the UN, undesirable for ther US.

Answer 4

They were too concerned about taking sides, which would violate their neutrality. If it hadn't been an African country, yes, the world would likely have put enough pressure on the UN to do something.

Answer 5

Because good people no longer believe in fighting for what's right. Put another way they have become selfish. Most politicians are now elected by telling the voters what they want to hear even if the voters know it ain't true.

Answer 6

The UN is powerless to stop things...They were there but could not stop the violence, unless fired upon. They set up refugee camps but thats about it...

Answer 7

Sometimes when we see something coming we are incapable of stopping it. that is a reality .