During the wake of the unfortunate Rwandan genocide why did France, Belgium and the U.S decline to intervene?

Question

This fact is clearly stated in Wikipedia. I just read about the genocide after watching the film Sometimes in April. I feel if they intervened much earlier, thousands of lives may have been saved...

Answer 1

In brief: the US was not interested; Belgium was interested but powerless; France was interested, but the murderers were France's friends.

Here is a little more detail.

Official US reasoning for its inaction during the Rwanda genocide was summed up in this quote from a State Department officer: “The US has no friends, only interest, and the US has no interest in Rwanda. We have no incentive.” (Source 1 below)

Horrifying though that dismissive statement may sound in relation to 800,000 murders, it was true. The US had no “interest” in Rwanda and never had any involvement in that little country. Unless every other country in the world really wants the US to become The Global Cop (and pays the expenses for that activity), we’d better expect more State Department quotes like that one. (Source 2 below)

Belgium, a small country with only a small army, but with a special “interest” in Rwanda (having been the colonial power there until independence in 1962), did rather more than the US. A small Belgian contingent was present in Rwanda at the start of the killings, as part of the ridiculously inadequate UN peacekeeping force. Ten Belgian soldiers were murdered by the Hutu militia. That was the signal for the rest of the UN force (and pretty much all other foreign nationals) to evacuate Rwanda.

Pursuing its lofty vision of maintaining the French language and French culture as a rival to the English language and American culture around the world, France had ‘adopted’ Rwanda after independence. France backed the Hutus in Rwanda against the minority Tutsis. This included arming and training the Hutu militias, who led the massacres. France did eventually intervene, sending troops to establish a safe haven in Rwanda (“Operation Turquoise”). As many eyewitnesses recount, the French safe haven was not at all safe for desperate Tutsis – but was actually used to facilitate the eventual escape from Rwanda of Hutu leaders of the massacres. (Source 3 below)

I know you didn't ask about it, but be aware that the Catholic church also faces accusations that many of its priests and nuns were also complicit in the genocide. (Source 4 below)

Answer 2

First of all Manxminnjack is rather correct but about the article of the Catholic church has a lot of errors. But first the story as seen from the Belgian side

As a Belgian I've some other information that is less internationaly known.

First of all the Rwandees gouverment started a campaign of hate against the Belgians with as explication : they were the old-colonisators. Later they told the population that they should have killed the president. Now a days there is a lot of solid proof that the Tutsi rebels planned and organised the killing.
The real reason behind was that the Belgian paracommandos were the best trained troops of the UN. If they pulled out the Tutsis and Hutus could do their killing with strong intervention.

At the outbreak of the genocide 10 Belgian Paracommandos (while protecting the Rwandees prime-minister) where unharmed by the official Rwandees army (the UN command told them to hand over their arms). After that they where butchered cowardly by the Rwandees army.
An honest Rwandees officer warned the UN commander gen. Dalaire (he's not worth to be called a canadian officer) that the 10 were being murdered.
The coward commander of the UN gen. Dalaire did nothing to liberate the soldiers under his command and forbade the other paracommandos to take action.

When the world knew about the genocide, the mandate of the UN was not changed at all (see text of Manxminnjack).
After all this the Belgian gouverment, gave order to evacuate the Europeans in Rwanda and to pull out. Their was no more trust in the UN command.
Do not forget that the Belgian had no fighter airplanes and only light weapons for their UN mandate. The nations that could have provided immediate support did not support the UN (France and US).

I think if the Paras had got a better mandate and some air support they could have made a difference.
If your hands are bound, you can not do anything. Thats the reason the Belgians pulled out.

About the article of the catolic church :
a) the Belgians took over the system from the German colonisators and did not change it. So the protection of the Tutsis was no Belgian invention.
b) at independance the Belgians tried to install a democratic elected gouverment (by there majority the Hutus got the power and the troubles started).
c) There are no stories know about missionaries that helped the killing. The native priest, dominees, ... took the side of their tribe. Remember in Germany only few Protestants did protest again their goverment to protect the Jews. Here happened the same thing.

Answer 3

Good question. Why aren't they intervening in Sudan right now? The answer is that these countries don't do anything good for anyone else unless there is something in it for them. Either there is money or power to be had or they stay out of it. Unfortunate, but true.

Answer 4

The U.S. may have been told to mind-their-own-business by the United Nations. Believe me, there are a lot of Americans out there that donate their own money to private charities to support citizens of Rwanda, Sudan and Chad. God only knows if the money gets to them or if it goes to the greedy War lord that wrecks havoc on their lives.

Answer 5

Because sadly in the West human life is not valued equally. A European or American life is worth much more than an African life. Look at the Media for example....32 die at Virginia Tech and it receives weeks of coverage, when more than 300 people are killed in Darfur on average every day.

Answer 6

The United States should mind their business. Why didn't the USA help in Rwandan? Were damned if we do and if we don't.

Answer 7

There is no oil or no poppies in Rwanda. Therefore; no reason for the US or other GREEDY (self-serving) countries to be there.

See... huge goverments don't care about the people!!!
They care about getting 'HUGER'!

There's NO other reasons...

Answer 8

there was not enough financial incentive to intervene. if they find a natural resource or start producing something, then we might intervene.

Answer 9

very short answer

US had no national interest
Belgium had no means of intervene
France didnt ( and doesn't) have the courage

Answer 10

Because they had no oil.