Could the US Government have prevented the Rwanda Genocide Free Essay Example, 2250 words

The Clinton Administration sought to escape involvement in Rwanda by continuing to deny that genocide was occurring. By not using the "g-word", as it was referred to at the State Department, the US felt it would not be obligated to act under the terms of the Genocide Convention (Stanton 7). A June 15 New York Times editorial noted that, "What really seems to worry the Clinton team is that talk of genocide may increase clamor for doing something more to stop it, especially since the US is a party to the Genocide Convention" (New York Times 1). However, even before June 15 a number of sources were already calling the atrocities genocide. Oxfam, the British aid agency, had termed the killings genocide by April 30, while Alison Des Forges of HRW wrote an editorial in which she termed the atrocities genocide and urged President Clinton to act. In her passionate plea, she advocated that if troops were found the US and other nations should pay the costs of the mission (Des Forges 154). Des pite these determinations that genocide was occurring, it did little to sway American policy. We will write a custom essay sample on Could the US Government have prevented the Rwanda Genocide or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now While traditionally endorsing the pledge of "never again" the actions of the US and other states are incommensurate with respect to the atrocities that occurred in Rwanda in 1994, especially in light of the existence of the Genocide Convention. Though the Clinton Administration refused to label the slaughter genocide until June, there was early recognition in the US government that genocide was occurring. In fact, an April 26 intelligence estimate issued by Carl Pendorff termed the Rwandan massacres genocide (Stanton 7). Another US intelligence analyst noted in late April that, "The plan appears to have been to wipe out any RPF ally or potential ally, and thus raise the costs and limit the possibility of an RPF/Tutsi takeover†¦. No end to the unprecedented bloodshed is yet in sight" (cited in Ferroggiaro, 1). While discussions were ongoing in the State Department on how to respond to the "conflict", trepidation concentrated on the word "genocide". According to Gregory Stanton, the Legal Advisors Office in the State Department opined that officials should avoid using the word genocide because 1) the intent of the perpetrators could not be determined; and 2) doing so would oblige the US to do something (Stanton 6). Amnesty International USA reports that the decision from the Legal Advisors Office to refer to the atrocities merely as "acts of genocide" was undertaken in a bid to "first and foremost avoid negative public reactions triggered by the intervention in Somalia; but the second reason was to avoid the legal obligation to prevent genocide and to punish those responsible, as outlined in the Convention on Genocide" (cited in Cushman 328).