Should the U.S. act to stop Genocide?

[SOIL]

I am just now getting around to re-reading some of that transcript at the Carnegie Council on ethics and International Affairs website.

 

And here is something I think is germane to the position which I am more in favor of, at this point anyway.

 

The Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker, is quoted in that transcript as follows:

 

...

In January 1994, General Dallaire sent out the alarm with credible information of an impending catastrophe. The United Nations and the membership of the Security Council failed General Dallaire, it failed the people of Rwanda, and it failed humanity. “Never again” was what we had all said. General Dallaire told us that “never again” was happening again, and the Security Council played word games with the Genocide Treaty. It was one of the darker moments of history.

 

Secretary General Kofi Annan, on behalf of the Secretariat, took responsibility for their part of this failure. But it took the countries of the Security Council, particularly the Permanent Members of the Security Council until April 2000 before they had a public discussion of what happened in Rwanda and made their own gestures of regret for what had happened.

 

General Dallaire is here to talk to you today about his experiences and about “never again.” Please join me in welcoming this extraordinary speaker.

 

...

(I added the bold emphasis)

 

I seems to appear as if I am not the only one who thinks at least some nation (or better yet, the United Nations) should have intervened to stop the Rwandan genocide.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Just one more quick post, then I must be off to my work-day.

 

I just located something that I think is important at (what I suspect) is the site from whence chefRanden copied that Chapter 7 of U.N. Charter.

 

From Article 2 of Chapter 1 of the U.N. Charter :

...

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll. 

(I added the bold emphasis)

 

I wont re-quote all of Chapter 7 of U.N. Charter - but, as I mentioned above - the U.N. currently has 5,500 troops in neighboring Burundi - and interestingly enough - I am pretty sure that is no more than what General Dallaire was requesting in advance of the fateful plane crash which commenced the time of genocide.

 

-Dennis

[Kay]

I never intended to put much of an argument against intervention in genocide, but I was wondering if you had any reason to think this way other than because you were hopelessly swept away by sensationalist articles.

 

Still unanswered.

 

Quote me all the transcripts you want. Yes. People regret, but that's still not answering why they should have interfered.

 

And now you're quoting law at me and saying how it isn't always applied? How many people are given verbal warnings for a breach of law? Is everyone who jay-walks prosecuted? Does every kid who beats up another kid in the playground get arrested?

 

At the end of the day, you have to confront the dogged question of how you're going to expend your country's resources, how you're going to justify it, and where you're going to get it from. I've finally got the link to work from the first article you posted. I'd like to say it was a whole heap of bollocks, because the 'solution' that Mr. Haugen presented is not a solution at all. He seems to be of the opinion that the US should send in an inadequate force for a limited amount of time - a hopelessly tragic band-aid solution - and then he seems to think that he can then wash his hands clean of Rwanda for having sent in an ineffective contingent and he can sleep better at night because of it.

 

Rwanda would have struggled with continuing ethnic violence for sure....

 

which seems to suggest that the death toll at the end of the ethnic violence could also possibly have been the same as the genocide. So in fact, Haugen is only shocked by the immediacy of the killings and seems quite indifferent to killings over time.

 

Wow - what deep thought that man's given to Rwanda's situation.

 

Had you acquainted yourself with more on international law and organizations, you would have realized that there are dozens of UN peace keeping groups around the world. And they're posted at those stations for years, decades. But Haugen thinks that intimidating some "drunken bad-boys of Rwanda" back into their huts for a couple of months is enough to satiate a guilty conscience.

 

Honestly, that's pure irresponsibility. If you're going to commit yourself to a task, you go all the way. If, as you would do what Haugen suggests, send in a small force, hold down the lid for a couple of weeks, then pull out and pat yourself on the back whilst the violence continues in the background, you are the last person deserving of any praise.

[Vixentrox]

Real Xtians should love genocide. The biblical heros and thier god seemed to enjoy practicing genocide. Genocide for Jesus!

[SOIL]

...

...I've finally got the link to work from the first article you posted. ...

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kay,

 

Sorry about that - I probably should have just copied that small editorial (from the Washington Post?) into a quote box - I just tried to get back to that link myself - as I was thinking you must have read something different than I did, based on your comments -- but I think they have completely redone their web-site, and I can't even find that page anymore.

 

I just now got an idea to see if I can find the original editorial on the newspaper's site.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Hmm. Interesting - As I was just now trying to search through the letters to the editor at the Washington Post site - I noticed this one from yesterday:

 

From What Happened in Rwanda :

washingtonpost.com

What Happened in Rwanda

 

Post

Thursday, June 30, 2005; A22

 

A June 17 Style review of the film "Shake Hands With the Devil" said of the downing of Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana's plane, "There was a guy, and he did a stupid thing." This assassination, the review continued, "was the match that set off an explosive 100 days of brutal killing."

 

Although the details have never been fully ascertained, it is likely that allies of Habyarimana's own extremist faction shot down his plane to have an excuse to begin the genocide. The genocide itself was planned months in advance -- as human rights organizations and Lt. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, commander of the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, warned at the time -- and was not a spontaneous outburst of revenge, as such phrases imply.

 

Similarly, a Metro article of the same day about Paul Rusesabagina's speech to elementary school students said that the students "learned that there was a conflict between ethnic groups in Rwanda."

 

Another sentence would have served to inform readers that this "conflict" in its genocidal form was engineered by Hutu extremists as a strategy to stay in power and that moderate Hutus in government were the first victims of the death squads.

 

CLAIRE EAGER

 

 

Potomac

 

Nota lot to it (but I put it in the quote box only because you might be required to give an email address in order to view it - I had to - before I could start doing searches anyway).

 

The interesting part (to me) is that someone is still thinking and talking about it.

 

...

 

I had read an article entitled Activity at war crimes tribunal for Rwanda at an 'all time high' – Registrar today at the U.N. news site .... but I didn't really think many other people (here in the U.S) would still be thinking about that part of the world.

 

(I am really glad I was wrong!)

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

....

Interesting thing about the net - is that you can turn up all kinds of stuff when you do a google search.

 

When I couldn't find the piece on the Washington Post site, I entered these keywords in google "Gary Haugen Rwanda Yugoslavia bad boys" and one of the thigns that popped up was an interesting PDF.

 

From Justice Awareness Guide :

...

• Be aware of universal values. In our Post-modern world, the trend is to say that there are no universal truths in this world, that there is no absolute right or wrong. The popular response to many issues is often, “I don’t want to judge anyone else’s culture.” But, the reality is that there are many issues that go beyond culture. There are basic truths that make certain actions - such as bonded slavery, female genital mutilation, and selling children for sex - completely wrong, no matter what the individual cultural values may be. There are things that are universally “right” and “wrong.” These universal standards come from two places, 1) scriptural truth and 2) international law (such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

...

 

I was just thinking that is an interesting thing to read - in light of some of the threads I have seen discussed on this site.

 

(maybe a bit off-topic again - but hey, I'm outa control)

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

I would rather see my tax dollars going to prevent something like what you read about in the below quote box - verses making better interstate roads, etc... - heck, I might even volunteer for the service myself, if I thought I would be helping to prevent what I just read about, in this Unicef article :

NEW YORK (April 6, 2004) —"Ten years later, the children of Rwanda are still suffering the consequences of a conflict caused entirely by adults," said UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy. "For them, the genocide is not just a historical event but an inescapable part of daily life today and tomorrow."

 

By the end of the genocide in 1994, 95,000 children had been orphaned.

 

"The children of Rwanda witnessed unspeakable violence," Bellamy said. "Tens of thousands lost their mothers and fathers. Thousands were victims of horrific brutality and rape. Many were forced to commit atrocities. The impact of the tragedy simply cannot be overstated."

 

Today, Rwanda's children face extreme challenges:

 

- Rwanda is home to one of the world's largest proportions of child-headed households, with an estimated 101,000 children living in 42,000 households. These children are on-their-own either because their parents were killed in the genocide, have died from AIDS, or have been imprisoned for genocide-related crimes.

 

-- Two thousand women, many of whom were survivors of rape, were tested for HIV during the five years following the 1994 genocide. Of them 80 percent were found to be HIV positive, and many were not sexually active prior to the genocide.

 

-- By 2001, an estimated 264,000 children had lost one or both parents to AIDS, representing 43 percent of all orphans. This figure is expected to grow to over 350,000 by 2010.

 

-- More than 400,000 children are out of school.

 

-- Rwanda has one of the world's worst child mortality rates - 1 in 5 Rwandan children die before their fifth birthday.

...

 

Even more important, Bellamy said, is to meet this anniversary with a renewed commitment to ensure that the world never again allows such a catastrophe to go unchecked.

...

(I was thinking about using bold for emphasis - but what could I choose not to hi-light?)

 

I am certain it is not only Christians (John 11:35) who weep - maybe if tears (at least for the children) would flow from the eyes of every person in the world, the saying: "NEVER AGAIN" would be correct?

 

Hard to say I guess .... (I'm still waiting for tears to flow out of my eyes).

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

heck, I might even volunteer for the service myself, if I thought I would be helping to prevent what I just read about,

 

 

Cerise will believe this when she sees it.

[Kay]

Give me an honest answer, Dennis - will I be waiting in vain for a remotely relevant response from you, or do you hope to cover up your arrogant attempt at dishing out judgement by deliberately flooding the thread with your crocodile tears?

 

You say you're busy, but from what I can tell, you've certainly got more than enough time on your hands to formulate a coherent position on what you think America's foreign policy should be with regards to the deployment of armed forces in another nation's internal affairs.

 

Post #118 is a shameless red herring - that is, if you want to start another thread to discuss how un-universal your scriptural truths are.

[chefranden]

Quote me all the transcripts you want. Yes. People regret, but that's still not answering why they should have interfered.

 

What would qualify as reason to interfere for you? How about if the country had some nice natural resources?'

 

International law allows such interference and supplies the multi-lateral means to do so if we (The US) don't stop it as we usually do. Unfortunately international law does not compel interference.

 

Nevertheless, is not compassion a good enough reason?

 

What is so sacred about sovereignty?

 

And now you're quoting law at me and saying how it isn't always applied? How many people are given verbal warnings for a breach of law? Is everyone who jay-walks prosecuted? Does every kid who beats up another kid in the playground get arrested?

 

Are people usually given verbal warnings for murder. "Hey you stop that or we are going to get mad." "Jeffery, please don't drill holes in people's head so that you can fuck with their minds. Ok? Now, there's a good boy."

 

At the end of the day, you have to confront the dogged question of how you're going to expend your country's resources, how you're going to justify it, and where you're going to get it from.

It's kinda funny how it is that so many of our resources are located in other countries , isn't it? Sovereignty only applies when the crazy people don't have oil, right?

 

But you are probably right, we should invest our resources in stopping underarm perspiration, a new crappy Star Wars series, and other useful things.

 

I've finally got the link to work from the first article you posted. I'd like to say it was a whole heap of bollocks, because the 'solution' that Mr. Haugen presented is not a solution at all. He seems to be of the opinion that the US should send in an inadequate force for a limited amount of time - a hopelessly tragic band-aid solution - and then he seems to think that he can then wash his hands clean of Rwanda for having sent in an ineffective contingent and he can sleep better at night because of it.

 

I do agree with you that the US shouldn’t do this, but only because it's forces don't know how do humanitarian work. Instead we should lend our troops to Canadian Generals who are less national interestingly challenged. I'm afraid that if we had interfered in Rwanda we would have tortured the victims -- just for their own good though.

[Kay]

What would qualify as reason to interfere for you? How about if the country had some nice natural resources?'

 

I can hear your disillusionment with your country's (?) foreign policy. It doesn't sound unreasonable that you should get something in return for your efforts, however. I mean, if Dennis is going to be 'Christian' about this, we're all self-serving. Doesn't the Christian believe in god and accept Jesus as their saviour because they don't want to go to hell, and want to get into heaven?

 

Furthermore, where does charity stand, if at all, in the global community? Is one uncharitable foreign policy a damning indictment against a country? Sometimes, I think not. I look at my own country for instance, and I think: "how the hell can we afford to give Indonesia $2 billion in aid for the tsunami crisis when WE have people living on the streets, foraging through rubbish bins, and anyone earning over $60,000 is being taxed at a ridiculous 48.5%!

 

You country's government has its citizens to look after as well.

 

I've asked Dennis this question a number of times - toss up some factors that should be put into consideration when deciding whether one should impinge upon another nation's soverignty. Then we'll thrash it out and see if these factors are reasonable or not.

 

Nevertheless, is not compassion a good enough reason?

 

Not really - especially if my brother or father or uncle is going to be killed because of it. Think about it this way - whenever you deploy troops, some of them will die. I think that people would require a better reason other than 'compassion' to test if there is an afterlife.

 

What is so sacred about sovereignty?

 

Sovereignty and nation state is about identity and self-determination. You are master of your house, and likewise, you will not tolerate some guy from down the street trespassing onto your property and telling you that you should be changing your job and that your wife should get some botox injections.

 

But you are probably right, we should invest our resources in stopping underarm perspiration, a new crappy Star Wars series, and other useful things.

 

When every armed expedition overseas is likely to run into the billions to fund, perhaps you wouldn't be approaching this issue so frivolously.

 

When China first announced that they were successful in launching a man into space, I thought - what an incredible waste of money. We have hundreds of people die in floods each year because the infrastructure is crap, and people in the Fujian province get AIDS because they have to sell their blood to earn some more money on top of their pitiful earnings. Then and again, if China didn't show the world that it was technologically advanced and modernizing, we could easily be preyed upon or taken advantage of and whatnot. And we all remember how the western powers carved up China at the turn of the century. So what's it going to be? Look strong, to deter attack, or feed the poor, but make ourselves look vulnerable?

 

The bottom line is - I don't think the answer is as easy as Dennis would like to see it.

 

I do agree with you that the US shouldn’t do this, but only because it's forces don't know how do humanitarian work.

 

Genocide is but a symptom or a polarized and unstable state. Have you ever tried sorting out the problems of another family? If you thought that was hard, try sorting out the problems of another country. I stand by my previous post - if one were to try and sort out another country's mess, I believe you would have to spend at least half a century - because people don't just forget about their vendettas over night. With or without Mao, look how long it has taken China to grasp onto modernity - and even then, the one-party system isn't such a giant leap from the absolute monarchy we had for a couple of thousands of years.

 

Instead we should lend our troops to Canadian Generals who are less national interestingly challenged.

 

I honestly can't visualize a country's people standing back whilst another race determines their affairs for them.

 

Do stop me if I'm going off topic Chef.

[chefranden]

Kay,

 

Dennis will have to decide if we are going off topic. But this is wonderful thinking!

 

I can hear your disillusionment with your country's (?) foreign policy. It doesn't sound unreasonable that you should get something in return for your efforts, however. I mean, if Dennis is going to be 'Christian' about this, we're all self-serving. Doesn't the Christian believe in god and accept Jesus as their saviour because they don't want to go to hell, and want to get into heaven?

Yes Christians are as self serving as others. Dennis is like Martin Luther before he nailed his theises to the Wittenburg Door. That is he is intensly concerned with his own sin and his participation in the sin of the world.

 

I am aware that my wanting to prevent more Rwanda's is self serving, because I don't want my guts all twisted up in a knot all the time. I hate that. I'm am more dissolusioned with my country than most, perhaps because I was once more idealistic about it then most.

 

1. Furthermore, where does charity stand, if at all, in the global community?

2. Is one uncharitable foreign policy a damning indictment against a country? Sometimes, I think not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I look at my own country for instance, and I think: "how the hell can we afford to give Indonesia $2 billion in aid for the tsunami crisis when WE have people living on the streets, foraging through rubbish bins, and anyone earning over $60,000 is being taxed at a ridiculous 48.5%!

1. I have a theory about this but it would take the tread too far astray I think.

 

2. It is a damning indictment against a country's government which I don't consider to be the same as "the country". A government that has failed like this should step down and let someone else have a go. Of course, that is just one of my pipe dreams.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are getting something for your taxes it is not a bad thing. In the US we get bombs and bullets, Corporate Welfare, Social Insecurity, and $10,000 rebates for buying the most fuel inefficient vehicle on the road, a Hummer. If you are getting schools, and bridges, and mass transit, and medical care, and help starting small businesses, and the like maybe 48% is ok.

 

You country's government has its citizens to look after as well.

That is funny. Only the top 2% of the wealthy really get looked after here.

 

I've asked Dennis this question a number of times - toss up some factors that should be put into consideration when deciding whether one should impinge upon another nation's soverignty. Then we'll thrash it out and see if these factors are reasonable or not.

As a anarchist, I'm not much in favor of sovereignty of any kind. Sovereignty is about the powerful maintaining their power. When I was in Vietnam it didn't take me very long to see that the local farmer or shop keeper was just as pissed off over my or a communist's interference in his life. He wasn't any happier if I killed his son or if the NVA killed his son. He just wanted to be left alone to do his business, raise his crop, and giggle at his grandkids. Therefore, I don't see that it makes much difference if my government is telling me what to do or if your government is telling me what to do. If my government goes berserk, I guess it would be my job to fix it, but I certainly wouldn't mind a little help from you especially if we could get rid of the damn things altogether.

 

I have mostly challenged you in this thread based on the self interest I have in Dennis being my friend. The problem is actually unsolvable as it stands, because we are locked into an insane system of Global Civilization. My hope is that Peak Oil is true. If it is Globalization will subside, and the sovereigns will have to be more local.

 

Not really - especially if my brother or father or uncle is going to be killed because of it. Think about it this way - whenever you deploy troops, some of them will die. I think that people would require a better reason other than 'compassion' to test if there is an afterlife.

I can't argue with this really. I think of myself as the soldier rather than my brother. I wouldn't mind soldiering if it was about separating feuding brothers long enough for them to come to their senses. However, I'm now to old and fat for the job, so I should start thinking more about how it effects the young people that have to go. I'm irate over their deaths in Iraq, perhaps I should be just as irate if they died in Rwanda, but I wouldn't be.

 

Sovereignty and nation state is about identity and self-determination. You are master of your house, and likewise, you will not tolerate some guy from down the street trespassing onto your property and telling you that you should be changing your job and that your wife should get some botox injections.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When every armed expedition overseas is likely to run into the billions to fund, perhaps you wouldn't be approaching this issue so frivolously.

If sovereignty were about being master of my own house, I'd be for it. However, sovereignty is more about someone else being the master of my house. Sometimes it is about someone else chopping me and mine to bits. I wouldn't mind aid in bringing that to a halt.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the moment this country has the billions. And I'm not being frivolous. Joe average American would be much angrier over not having toilet paper or deoderant on the shelf then he would over people being chopped up elsewhere in the world.

 

When China first announced that they were successful in launching a man into space, I thought - what an incredible waste of money. We have hundreds of people die in floods each year because the infrastructure is crap, and people in the Fujian province get AIDS because they have to sell their blood to earn some more money on top of their pitiful earnings. Then and again, if China didn't show the world that it was technologically advanced and modernizing, we could easily be preyed upon or taken advantage of and whatnot. And we all remember how the western powers carved up China at the turn of the century. So what's it going to be? Look strong, to deter attack, or feed the poor, but make ourselves look vulnerable?

 

It is a common trait among primates to make one's self and one's troop look meaner and stronger than the other guy or troop. That is probably ok if you are talking about tribe vs tribe, but on a global scale it's crazy.

 

The bottom line is - I don't think the answer is as easy as Dennis would like to see it.

Genocide is but a symptom or a polarized and unstable state. Have you ever tried sorting out the problems of another family? If you thought that was hard, try sorting out the problems of another country.  I stand by my previous post - if one were to try and sort out another country's mess, I believe you would have to spend at least half a century - because people don't just forget about their vendettas over night.

 

Of course you are right. In my zeal to interfere on behalf of Dennis, note he didn't ask me to, I did not think deeply enough. Genocide is a symptom. My brother-in-law is one of the mercenaries keeping the people of Kosovo in check. He tells me that the moment the peace keepers leave the people well be right back at carving each other up.

 

With or without Mao, look how long it has taken China to grasp onto modernity - and even then, the one-party system isn't such a giant leap from the absolute monarchy we had for a couple of thousands of years.

I honestly can't visualize a country's people standing back whilst another race determines their affairs for them.

 

Again you are right. Iraq is evidence a plenty for your argument.

[Cerise]

Here you go Dennis. Wanna say "never again" and mean it? Take a look at Darfur and see what you can uncover.

 

I'll make it easy for you. Here is a website. It contains many suggestions, many lists, many areas where even someone such as yourself can find some way to contribute to stopping genocide. It even has a special "faiths" section, although I think the suggestion of helping through donations might be more effective then helping through prayers.

 

Unless God sends donations. Which, so far, I can't say that he has.

 

Here. Darfur. Save it. Knock yourself out.

 

http://www.savedarfur.org/

[SOIL]

Wow, a fella goes away to spend a day at the Nascar truck races and just look at what he can miss!

 

I have never understood what it is that so many people find to like about auto racing. My son-in-law was kind enough to invite me to come along with him and my young grandson today, and I never like to pass up an opportunity to giggle at my grandkids (like the guys Chef was referring to), so away I went. You know something, I never have understood what it is that so many people find to like about auto racing.

 

(It is fun to giggle at one's grandkids though!)

 

We sat in the stands (in the sun, throughout the hottest part of the day) as our bodies vibrated and our ears winced (even with the earplugs firmly in place) with somewhere close to 80,000 other "fans". Concerning car racing, the most interesting thing I remember thinking was about the fact that a woman got the fastest time qualifying for the formula-1 race scheduled for tomorrow. So much for the snide remarks about "women drivers"!

 

However, that was not the most interesting thing. The single most interesting thing I remember about today was the feeling I got when I looked at the amazingly large number of people all there in one place where I could "see" them. As I looked over that giant crowd the thing that kept returning through my sun-baked mind, was the relationship of the massive number my fellow human beings sitting in those stands - to another number I kept coming across in my reading yesterday. (As we were parking amidst the sea of automobiles, my son-in-law mentioned he had read the speedway facilities could seat 80,000 people - and when I viewed the crowd the seats looked mostly filled to me). I kept thinking about the comparison of the numbers '80,000' and '800,000'.

 

Yesterday, as I was reading the various documents (at the U.N. site - and BBC news sites mostly) - I kept seeing the number '800,000' cited as the approximate number of people killed in Rwanda in 1994.

 

When I was looking at the census data about the population in this county, just before I moved here - I read there were approx. 8,300 people here. That was about 7 years ago - now we have grown to over 10,000! I live 4 miles (as the crow flies) from the closest village - it is the "city" I use in my mailing address, (and where the nearest grocery store is). The population of my "town" is less than 200. So it was unusual - and pretty impressive - for me to be in the midst of such a large group (close to 80,000 people).

 

The articles I was reading yesterday kept mentioning two numbers actually: 800,000 (people) - and 100 (days). A mean average number killed per day would be 8,000 people. I thought the number of people I was looking at represented probably somewhere close to the number of people killed during perhaps one of the worst weeks during the genocide activities in Rwanda in 1994, yet the number of people I was looking at today, is less than 10 times less than the number of people who died in 100 days, at the hands of their neighbors.

 

(Just thinking out loud, yet again)

 

-Dennis

[Cerise]

Your post requires a big _____________ after the end.

 

As in "I just realized a bunch of people were brutally mudered. And I think we should __________"

 

Are you ever going to get to the ____________ of your "thinking out loud" Dennis?

[SOIL]

...

As in "I just realized a bunch of people were brutally mudered.  And I think we should __________"

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cerise,

 

Maybe at this point I can only just stick with what I mentioned in an earlier post:

...

I am certain it is not only Christians (John 11:35) who weep - maybe if tears (at least for the children) would flow from the eyes of every person in the world, the saying: "NEVER AGAIN" would be correct?

 

Hard to say I guess .... (I'm still waiting for tears to flow out of my eyes).

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(I added the bold emphasis - because I don't understand Kay's comment about "crocodile tears" - I haven't shed any yet - at least I don't remember shedding any tears at all for any of those 800,000 people in Rwanda.

 

I know there is something wrong with me.

 

I think I am starting to understand why Gary Haugen talked about how he didn't really seem to be all that distracted in 1994 when the various news stories (about far away Rwanda) were appearing on TV sometimes in the evening. He was interested in other things. So am I.

 

I want to share what is going through my mind now - and this is where I have been spending my time lately. You are hearing my thoughts - I don't do the blog thing - I am typing my thoughts here. Maybe I have in the past been trying to say Christians are better than non-Christians.

 

Now I'm just sharing thoughts.

 

Many Catholic Christians in Rwanda assisted by using their own machetes.

 

I realize I need to cry. I am sad that I am not crying though.

 

 

-Dennis

[♦ nivek ♦]

Dennis,

 

Here is another possible genocide in the making... Keep your browser eye open and watch events unfold...

 

kL

****************

 

 

 

ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP

America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization

 

July 2, 2005

 

JPFO Alert: Breaking News -- Zimbabwe Gun Confiscation Ordered!

 

What more proof do you need?

 

So-called sensible gun laws, such as national registration

of firearms and licensing of owners, pave the way for gun

confiscation. We've said it for over 15 years.

 

We described the process in detail in the book _Death by

"Gun Control"_ (http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm) and our

documentary video _Innocents Betrayed_

(http://www.jpfo.org/ib.htm).

 

We provided copies of the key provisions of the laws that

set up "gun control" that later enabled genocide.

 

In our book we even provided copies of the provisions of

the gun laws in Zimbabwe. (See pages 190-193).

 

Breaking News -- July 2, 2005: The Zimbabwe government has

ordered confiscation of civilian firearms.

 

Read the news item:

 

http://www.zwnews.com/issuefull.cfm?ArticleID=12207

 

The news report begins:

 

"Zimbabwe police have ordered all civilians to surrender

firearms in what insiders said was a precautionary measure

in a charged country after the government demolished

thousands of homes and informal businesses in a

controversial urban clean-up exercise.

 

"Police at the weekend said they were revoking licences for

all automatic rifles and some types of pistols and said

civilians owning such weapons had until today to surrender

them.

 

"The law enforcement agency did not give reasons for the

action but warned Zimbabweans that they could be prosecuted

for failing to hand in their guns."

 

This is no trivial matter. On June 7, 2005, the

International Association of Genocide Scholars published a

warning about the looming danger of mass murder by

government in Zimbabwe.

 

Read the scholars' declaration:

 

http://www.genocidewatch.org/ZimbabweIAGSResolution7June200

5.htm

 

Notice that the genocide scholars do see the danger -- but

they fail to point out that "gun control" with follow-up

gun confiscation are two key elements to making the

Zimbabwe persecution and genocide possible. The scholars

calmly call for various international agencies to "exert

diplomatic pressure" on Zimbabwe.

 

If the Rwanda genocide provides any example, then hoping

for international help for persecuted Zimbabweans is beyond

foolish, it's fatally stupid.

 

People who want to protect their lives and their families

and their communities must commit to taking care of the job

themselves. Civilian disarmament laws work against people

protecting themselves and their families. Those laws (when

obeyed) leave the disarmed people subject to persecution

and destruction.

 

The genocide scholars don't get it. The civilian

disarmament ("gun control") advocates and lobbyists don't

get it.

 

What will it take for American gun owners and pro-rights

citizens to unify against "gun control" and proclaim the

vicious injustice that "gun control" laws impose upon

innocent people?

 

Action items: read these articles (above) and forward this

Alert to every gun owner you know.

 

Stay tuned via our Alert system.

 

(Sign up for Alerts at http://www.jpfo.org/email.htm )

 

The Liberty Crew

 

 

============================================================

 

JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net

 

============================================================

 

LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts!

Just send a blank e-mail to jpfo_alerts-subscribe@topica.com

 

=============================================================

 

Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today!

http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html

 

=============================================================

 

Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc.

Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long

as the following JPFO contact information is included:

 

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

PO Box 270143

Hartford, Wisconsin 53027

 

Phone: 1-262-673-9745

Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!)

Fax: 1-262-673-9746

Web: http://www.jpfo.org/

=============================================================

[SOIL]

Thanks Nivek.

 

I appreciate both what you have pointed about concerning Zimbabwe and also that Cerise has brought up Sudan.

 

I don't know much about either actually. I was somewhat taken aback when I listened to how Gary Haugen responded to a question (asked him in 2000 at a seminary in St. Louis) concerning whether the U.S. or U.N. and/or IJM was trying to do anything much in Sudan. If I understood his response correctly (and it is very possible that I may not have), it seemed to me like he was saying that there are so many guns available (in the hands of mostly the "bad guys"), that he was thinking a much greater intervention force would be required (as opposed to what he thought would have been needed to at least stop the short-term specific plans for genocide actions which the U.N was made aware of shortly before the Rwandan episode started). Then concerning why IJM is not active in Sudan - I was thinking he is of the opinion that the laws that are in place simply do not provide the framework under which IJM's techniques could work. IJM tries to help local police and judges to see that the existing laws are enforced - but if there are no good laws currently even "on the books" - then IJM is just not setup to work in that type of environment.

 

 

-Dennis

[♦ nivek ♦]

Dennis,

 

I can't do anything about genocide save make it harder for the bad_actors to commit it on those they want to do it to.

 

As I have stated prior, you can have as much paper, government, religion, and assorted faith as you desire.

 

However when it comes down to the machete on the neck time, an AkM or even a single shot shotgun beats fuckouta all the legal workings and good words and thoughts, hands down, period, end of argument..

 

I can't do anything for the Dead. I can help the Living stay that way.

 

May appear to be crude, callous, and even evile to suggest everyone arm up and be prepared to shove muzzle of a loaded firearm in someone elses face....

 

The big however is this, given choice, most of the assembled would prefer Life by self protection than Death because some fool desired our lives taken..

 

Having no skIe DaDiE to go to, no extra-this life plan to worry about, this time around is the one in which I'll strive to protect and make as best as I can for the most possible..

 

RAH penned "An Armed Society is a Polite Society".

 

Self Defence is the Ultimate Civil Right

 

kL

[Kay]

I want to share what is going through my mind now

 

You've been saying that for quite some time now. When are we going to see any of it? I mean, apart from your melodramatic sap that is.

 

Give me an honest answer, Dennis - will I be waiting in vain for a remotely relevant response from you, or do you hope to cover up your arrogant attempt at dishing out judgement by deliberately flooding the thread with your crocodile tears?

 

Please answer this question Dennis. I've asked for you to put up some sort proposal in my past four posts. You can impress the members of this forum with your ability to make sensationalist headlines and imagery....but you're still not addressing the issue. How was your post #128 an answer to Cerise's question?

 

We should stop genocide because: I feel upset?

 

Well whoop dee doo! I feel upset about putting down animals at the vet. I feel upset about the appallingly miserable lives battery hens live through. I'm upset Japanese people hunt and eat whales. Maybe we should put a stop to all things that make us upset?

 

What's so horrific about the Rwandan genocide? If you just flip through your history book, you'll see how millions of Jews died in concentration camps, how 900,000 lives were spent to hold Stalingrad, how 300,000 civilians were slaughtered within 21 days in Nanjing, how 1.5 million Vietnamese died in the Vietnam war along with over 58,000 Americans. Does Rwanda's plight only hit you because it happened so fast? So are you trying to say you'll not be affected by it if the 800,000 people were killed over five years of civil war?

 

I don't wish to discredit Haugen without being familiar with his works, but from what you've presented to me, Dennis, all I see is some knee-jerk reaction not catered to provide a long term solution. Why bother preventing genocide when the continued ethnic violence within a country over a long period of time is going to produce the same number of casulties?

[Kay]

Yes Christians are as self serving as others. Dennis is like Martin Luther before he nailed his theises to the Wittenburg Door. That is he is intensly concerned with his own sin and his participation in the sin of the world.

 

If we are all self-serving people, it's a bit unfair to hate a foreign policy that reflects our own motivations. If Christians are inherently self-serving because of the fundamentals of their belief, how are they in any better position to judge the selfish nature of a country's foreign policy? It appears to be the case of pot calling kettle black when the author of the original article, Mr. Haugen, says it's dubious of us to fashion our foreign policy on 'national interest' when 'being our brother's keeper' is to ensure our personal ticket to heaven.

 

2. It is a damning indictment against a country's government which I don't consider to be the same as "the country". A government that has failed like this should step down and let someone else have a go. Of course, that is just one of my pipe dreams.

 

I have no arguments with you on this point. Look at your country's recent election - 49% of people voted against Bush - so whatever actions your current administration takes, how are the people who voted against him to be blamed? That's why I thought the article originally linked by Dennis is a whole heap of rubbish (as blaming the entire country for the goverment's actions were Haugen's exact words), yet Dennis clings to this writer and repeatedly quotes him like he's some intelligent moral crusader.

 

If you are getting schools, and bridges, and mass transit, and medical care, and help starting small businesses, and the like maybe 48% is ok.

 

Chef, when you are the one who's starting to pay 48c out of every dollar you earn, you will see that it won't be ok - especially if you'll send your kids to private school, you have private health cover and work full time. You'll see your money being handed out to families who irresponsibly have children they know they cannot afford, individuals who can't be bothered working and sneer at 'rich' people and their hard-earned luxuries, and teachers demanding pay rises even though they get at least 8 weeks of holiday a year.

 

Even if 48% was all right - it kicks in at 60,000 here in Australia. In American, that kind of taxation rate doesn't kick in until you're starting to earn half a million.

 

Sorry - I get upset at tax.

 

That is funny. Only the top 2% of the wealthy really get looked after here.

 

So you believe that the government, by enforcing tighter security at airports, is only looking after the top 2% of the wealthy. You believe that rooting out terrorists from blowing up your train stations, like they did in Spain, is to only look after the top 2% of the wealthy?

 

He just wanted to be left alone to do his business, raise his crop, and giggle at his grandkids. Therefore, I don't see that it makes much difference if my government is telling me what to do or if your government is telling me what to do.

 

Would you agree that sovereignty and nation state go hand in hand? That hypothetical farmer of yours is going to be upset when he sees people of a different race and culture walk into his backyard and tell him he can't continue to live the way he does. What's interesting however, is that the resentment wasn't too overt during the British rule of Hong Kong. China most probably could not have made Hong Kong as attractive or prosperous as the Brits did, but at the end of the day, they were foreigners, and they were lauding over us, and it was shameful and humiliating fact of life.

 

You'll probably say I'm racist, but why else does the word 'race' exist? Or put it another way - I don't mind my own parents telling me off and controlling my life, but I'd feel a strong surge of resentment if it was somebody else's parents trying to tell me what to do. Even if you give me a couple of days, I don't know whether I'll be able to adequately explain these sentiments.

 

If my government goes berserk, I guess it would be my job to fix it, but I certainly wouldn't mind a little help from you especially if we could get rid of the damn things altogether.

 

There are only two problems with your proposition, otherwise I'd agree:

 

1) There's a likelihood that foreigners will bring as much assistance as strife. Cultural conflicts and clashes more often than not produce an even uglier face to racism. Sometimes, you just can't trust your soldiers to keep their pants up when they're overseas. I mean - the American soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to be viewed as heroes - after all, isn't their presence a deterrence against North Korea from invading and installing their evil little communist dictatorship? So why are there just as many people who dislike them as there are people who like them? Could it be because there are always stories of impropriety (aka rapes that are never properly investigated), or young girls going to a birthday party being run-over by tanks? And South Korea is supposed to be a strong ally of the US - but quite a number of people are largely hostile to the US troop presence nonetheless.

 

2) The other problem being - most of the time, we're solving the problem for them, and not letting them work things out for themselves. Are there not supposed to be numerous democratic countries in Africa that resemble nothing but shit holes? Sure, the US and/or the UN got rid of the bad guys, drove them into hiding, and installed a democratic system, but guess what? It turns out to be just as incompetent and corrupt as the previous regime. If a country cannot produce some people who can steer their country into modernization and prosperity after a civil war that costs 800,000 lives, sometimes, I think they're not fit to rule themselves. But then, that conflicts with the idea of self-determination, so maybe we should just stand back and watch a country bleed itself of its people until it either dies, or it realizes there is a problem and rights itself and doesn't have to rely on other nations ever again.

 

I look at Australia's participation in the birth of East Timor, and I think to myself - what an incredible waste of time. We've established a country with no viable economy, one that cannot sustain itself without foreign aid and is constantly under threat from Indonesia next door. It is a country that will constantly need to be propped up by the graces of other countries. Honestly, what's the point?

 

If it is Globalization will subside, and the sovereigns will have to be more local.

 

Isn't globalization about eroding boundaries and borders, therefore compatible with anarchism? If you don't like lines separating nations, why would you wish for globalization to subside?

 

If all lands on earth were part of one nation-state and under one government, then all sovereignty is local.

 

I can't argue with this really. I think of myself as the soldier rather than my brother. I wouldn't mind soldiering if it was about separating feuding brothers long enough for them to come to their senses.

 

Sorry, I'm of the cynical assumption that joining the armed forces was just another employment opportunity. Some may join the army with high ideals of protecting their country from external threat. It didn't really occur to me that some people would join the army so they could get sent overseas, away from the succour of their family and friends, so that they could die on foreign soil over some strangers' feud.

 

However, sovereignty is more about someone else being the master of my house. Sometimes it is about someone else chopping me and mine to bits. I wouldn't mind aid in bringing that to a halt.

 

Hmm.....interesting. Allow me to frame it up as another analogy.

 

You're in an abusive relationship with your partner. You're physically weaker, so you call in external aid - the police. When the police presence arrives, you're glad, because you feel safe as the police has authority. However:

 

1) the police has authority because society and the law has given it to them. The police is an authority that both parties in the house respect and are subject to. Can that be said of a foreign army?

 

2) What kind of role would you envisage the policeman having? The police follows Haugen's advice - he puts up a show of force (i.e. waves his badge), gives your partner a few stern words, and the policeman leaves, satisfied he's stopped the violence. It resumes the next week, and the policeman is called back even though he was in the middle of a family barbeque. The policeman's not so happy to help this time, because it's the same problem, and your partner aint happy the policeman's here to manhandle him again. Rinse and repeat this scenario for five times, and everyone is going to end up being annoyed at everyone.

 

Let's talk about the aid - I don't mind foreign aid, but exactly what should it look like?

 

For the moment this country has the billions. And I'm not being frivolous. Joe average American would be much angrier over not having toilet paper or deoderant on the shelf then he would over people being chopped up elsewhere in the world.

 

Your country has billions...so why do we always get stories of how crap your public schools are, and how old and outdated the books in your libraries are?

 

Furthermore, I thought it was private enterprise that supplied the toilet paper and deoderant in supermarkets. I think Joe Average has a right to be angry if his government decided to close down the local primary school his daughter attends, or cut back funding from the hospital that his grandmother is currently receiving treatment. What right does anyone have to force Joe Average to make these sacrifices?

 

Hold it right there - I just had a bizzare idea. I'm thinking of some "International Mercenaries Corps" wherein people who feel like parting with their savings to stop massacres on the other side of the world may donate to this particular organization. This organization in turn recruits anyone who wants to be sent into another country to put a lid on the violence. That way, everything is voluntary, and the people who want to help and make the sacrifices can! -- feeling a little like a child here.

 

It is a common trait among primates to make one's self and one's troop look meaner and stronger than the other guy or troop. That is probably ok if you are talking about tribe vs tribe, but on a global scale it's crazy.

 

But that's how it is. China's not being paranoid. If it surrenders Tibet, and the Tibetans allow American to have a military base, the US will be able to launch ICBMs capable of striking Beijing. Likewise inner Mongolia. And let's not mention the spy aircraft and reconnaisance that's being conducted in the south-east, or the heavy US presence in Japan and South Korea.

 

China got the short end of the stick at the beginning of the 1900s when every western power semi-colonized its provinces. There's no guarantee it won't happen again - especially if one country stands to make a lot of money selling the arms to both parties - so "looking tough" is not such a waste of money as I first thought. You can spend millions, up to billions, maintaining an army that's only ever used once, and even then, people will consider that money well spent.

 

All I'm trying to argue is, any particular action cannot be easily labelled as 'should' and 'should not' - as the title of this thread naively suggests. I just disagree with Dennis that a country should deploy troops to stop a massacre in someone else's back yard just because it 'upsets' us and 'overwhelms' us to see graphic images of violence and death.

 

Otherwise, I find myself largely in agreement or understanding with your points.

 

Cheers.

[SOIL]

...

I talked with a guy on a plane not too long back - Eric ??? - who works for Berkely - and researches and teaches and writes about genocide -- he said he had personally been there and seen the skeletons of many, many murdered bodies still lying in one of the church buildings (the skeletons had been left there as a memorial, I suppose).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I just located the following article - and it looks like the fellow who I briefly met on the plane ( I remember his name now: Eric Stover, might have been telling me about the same chuch (in Nyamata?) which Ambassador Robert Seiple mentions briefly in this article:

By Robert A. Seiple

 

October 29, 2004

 

We are approaching the end of the presidential election year. All of the political oxygen has been expended. The rhetoric has sunk to new lows. The trivialization of truth and the dumbing down of the electorate have made us all a little weary. There is one issue, however, where both President George Bush and Senator John Kerry seem to be in agreement. This unlikely point of consensus is that we will never allow our national security to be held hostage by the United Nations.

When one looks at how and why the UN came into existence over 50 years ago, this obligation to distance ourselves from an international body designed to foster peace in a troubled world seems strange indeed. What terrible things has the UN done to produce an agreement between two political parties that seemingly agree on nothing?

 

A short story and a memorable metaphor will begin to answer this question. As president of World Vision I made a number of trips into Rwanda during and after the genocide that began in April 1994. A million individuals perished in a few short weeks in what has since been called the most efficient killing since Nagasaki. Prior to the start of this carnage the UN had a military presence in Rwanda. The commanding officer begged his superiors at the UN Headquarters in New York City for authority to intervene. Other church and government officials made the same request. Where else could they go?

 

But these requests were in vain. One of the reasons that the UN was founded in the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust was to ensure that the pledge "never again" had strength and meaning in a world threatened by evil. Genocide would never again carry the day, anywhere in the world — except in Rwanda (and later in Bosnia and Sudan).

 

I was visiting a church in Nyamata where a major massacre had taken place. The new Rwandan government decided to allow the human remains to simply lie where individuals had fallen, grotesque markers of what must have been thousands of horrifying moments. The UN had not intervened. The will did not match the rhetoric and the vulnerable people of Rwanda could not count on international help during their time of deepest need.

 

But I did encounter a UN "presence" — of a sort — at the church; a blue UN tarp had been donated to provide a roof over the hundreds of children's skulls. The UN was unprepared to protect the living, but it was prepared to keep the bleaching skulls of the most vulnerable protected from the sun.

 

I remember how I felt at the time as I pondered the despicable irony of it all. Anger welled within me when I thought of the impotence of this multi-national body, unable to lift a finger to stop humanity's worst assault on human dignity. As if to attempt to cover its own shame, the UN offered a blue plastic covering so that bones from victims of incompetence and lack of courage would not be exposed to the natural elements.

 

In 1995 this image was still fresh in my mind when Srebrenica, the so called "safe" city in Bosnia — so designated by the UN and guarded by armed, blue-helmeted troops — was allowed to be emptied of virtually all of its men and boys. The Serbian Army took control of upwards of 7,000 Muslims that day. Every single one of them was taken outside the city and executed. So much for a UN "safe" city!

 

Today we have a genocide being perpetrated on innocent people in Darfur, Sudan. The same UN officials who have had time to reflect on Rwanda are leading the organization today. Sadly, the will and courage necessary for providing leadership is still absent, missing, or silent in those places where the most vulnerable are crying out for help.

 

Our cynicism grows further when we look at the UN record in Iraq. We now know that the "oil for food" program, initially designed to provide humanitarian relief for Iraq's most vulnerable, became a major skimming operation with UN officials collaborating with Sadam Hussein for their share of a corrupted pie. Is it any wonder that there seems to be such little will for taking a stand on Iraq? Too many hands in the till diminish the will to do what is right. And so, when the first shot was fired in anger at the UN mission, the UN made a hasty and premature retreat out of Iraq, thereby giving encouragement to the brutish underside of Iraqi society. Not surprisingly, the UN now has even refused to help in providing guidance to a nascent judicial system in this beleaguered country.

 

Why this lack of backbone? Why this impotence to the point of irrelevance? Very simply, the world has changed dramatically in the last few years. Americans know this better since 9/11. We now know what it means to be attacked. We now know what it means to be vulnerable. We now have a better idea of what it means to suffer.

 

The world has changed, but the UN has not. When something of importance is on the line, from protecting a values-based civil society to stopping genocide, the UN is not a reliable partner. At points of crisis, the UN demonstrates paralyzing indecision. Unless a major country provides the leadership to stiffen its multinational backbone, the UN will only be a spectator to world events.

 

The ugliness of a major election is almost over. But while the presidential candidates finish sparring over the nature of the "global test" that U.S. action must "pass" in the world, we should not forget that the UN has long been failing the most important global test — the test of bold and effective leadership in times of crisis. The UN is riddled with institutional weaknesses and official failings that prevent it from being what it can and should be. One of the challenges for whoever wins the presidential election will be to lead a constructive but uncompromising reform effort in New York. We do need an effective coalition of the willing to properly address the common needs of the world. The UN has to be a player.

 

At its inception, the entire world looked at this entity full of hope and promise. It is not too late to fulfill that promise and to make hope credible again in our world. May the courage exist to make this a reality.

 

 

© 2004 The Institute for Global Engagement

(I added the bold and red colored emphasis)

 

 

I personally think it would be much better for a multi-national organization to be the one to step in to protect the weak - but unfortunately the U.N. does not have a very good track record.

 

I'm not so sure that Ambassador Seiple did a very good job of saying exactly what he was suggesting (in the article above) - and I'm not so sure exactly what I am suggesting.

 

I do like the idea of "Never Again" though - and I recognize it's not easy to make that hope become reality.

 

-Dennis

 

Edited in P.S.:

 

I just read this collaborating "testimony" Survivors - Beatha

[SOIL]

Hooray!

 

I finally have re-located that original article (the one I posted only the link to, in the opening post of this thread).

 

Like I mentioned earlier, it looks like IJM has redone their web-site recently, and I don't think they link to that article now - the old link is dead - (actually I don't think the content ever really had much to do with the purpose or function of the organization - it was simply something that was written by one of the org's co-founders).

 

I have located it in Google's "cache" here :

 

"Kosovo and Rwanda, Studies in Genocide"

 

 

Washington Times, June 25, 1999

By: Gary Haugen

 

 

I can't help but wonder how history will judge our actions this spring – as well as our fatal inaction five years previous in Rwanda. Does President Kennedy's standard of responsibility change from one continent to another? Why did we fail to act to prevent the deaths of 500,000 Rwandans,but throw the full weight of U.S. air power against Serbia when the death toll in Kosovo was so much lower? Why did we refer to "acts of genocide" in Rwanda, but "forces of genocide" in Kosovo?

 

We employed semantics with Rwanda in a futile attempt to disguise our failure of JFK's test. Now our policy makers struggle not to repeat that failure in Kosovo, fearing that history could find piles of mutilated civilians and burned-out villages when Slobadon Milosevic lets civilization back into an ethnically cleansed Kosovo.

 

I have seen and smelled the remains of an ethnic war. In a matter of a few short months in spring 1994, hundreds of thousands of Tutsi mothers, daughters, grandfathers and grandchildren were hacked to death by their Hutu neighbors in a hysteria of genocidal violence. I showed up a few months later, detailed from my job with the U.S. Department of Justice to direct the United Nations' genocide investigation in Rwanda.

 

When I came upon thousands of corpses lying dull and lifeless in the mud or piled knee-high in churches, I knew I had arrived lamely and late. The fact is, together you and I sat out one of the greatest decimations of humankind. Five years later, the high court of history has come forward with an early, unequivocal, summary judgment on the matter.

 

We could have stopped it, but we chose not to. As journalists and human rights workers have since documented, U.S. policymakers knew more than enough about the genocide in Rwanda in those early weeks to understand the consequences of inaction, and doggedly pursued a determination to do nothing in the very face of what they knew. In fact, State Department spokespeople had to be instructed not to use the word "genocide" when answering reporters' questions; not because they doubted that genocidal acts were taking place, but because they didn't want to trigger the international obligations and political liabilities that accompany the admission of genocide.

 

If our leaders fail to act, the public shares the blame. John Schenk, a relief worker for the Christian humanitarian organization World Vision, has spent much of the past six months trying to alert the public to ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Five years ago, Schenk's graphic video images of bodies in a Rwandan church were broadcast on U.S. television. He compares the two crises with a good deal of frustration: "Words don't move people. Knowledge fails to influence politicians. The West is unwilling to respond unless human tragedy reaches biblical proportions and is as obvious as an afternoon soap opera," he says.

 

As the U.S. sinks deeper into the Balkan tar pit, the contrast with Rwanda becomes even more stark. It is beyond dispute that the Rwandan genocide could have been brought to a quick end with the deployment of a relatively modest international force – a tiny fraction of the men and materiel that already have been deployed in the Balkans. At the first sight of seriously armed soldiers, the drunken bad-boys of Rwanda would have quickly dropped their machetes and nail-studded clubs and crawled back under the rocks from which they had come. Rwanda would have struggled with continuing ethnic violence for sure; but I would not have needed a bulldozer to test the dimensions of a mass grave outside a soccer stadium, or found myself repeating thousands of times into the genocide log: Woman-Machete. Woman-Machete. Child-Machete. Child-Machete. Woman-Machete.

 

In the face of genocide, when do we choose to do nothing – and when do we choose to do all that we can?

 

It depends on where – on which continent – the genocide takes place. Perhaps geography rightly matters when it comes to assessing "national interest," "strategic alliances" and "economic necessities." But the American commitment to Never again is derived from different values – from an ancient and sacred notion that we are indeed our brother's keepers no matter where he lives or what he looks like.

 

The high court of history – convened by our children and grandchildren – will hold us to an exacting and straightforward standard. By all means, let us acquit ourselves before their eyes in the immediate Balkan crisis. But when – not if – the next leader advocating genocidal evil stares us down, I pray we are better prepared to respond when our children ask, "Where were you? What did you do?"

 

[Gary A. Haugen worked in the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice and was director of the United Nations genocide investigation in Rwanda.]

 

Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.

If someone who can - would like to move this post up close to the front of this thread (maybe just after the opening post) - that might be a good idea (for the benefit of any late arrivers into this thread).

 

-Dennis

[Kay]

I do like the idea of "Never Again" though - and I recognize it's not easy to make that hope become reality.

 

Still dreaming of childish absolutes? There is no guarantee that something will 'never' happen again. We are flawed, remember?

 

So the better question to ask, and I have yet to hear a proper reply from you, is how much/how far should we try to ensure that we get as close as possible to 'never' again.

 

When am I going to get something substantial and intelligent from you, Dennis? Do you think your extracts are remotely close to answering your own proposition?

 

You've been a terrible disappointment in your own topic, Dennis.