Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda

[FHwku]

The PBS story marks the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide of 800,000. Watching it, you hear the term "in retrospect," more than once, but i got the feeling that hindsight was still far from 20/20 for most of the people involved.

1. What are yall's thoughts on the current administration's foreign policy stands on the US's responsibilites to the world, particularly in the Middle East?

2. Can there be an acceptable blend of American interest-based involvement, isolation, and ethics in world situations?


There's always anti-war sentiment, but it seems like most conflicts, in my lifetime at least, have been riddled by a diatribe against any kind of action--anywhere. a sense of "what are we doing there/why are we fighting for them?" "this is just like Vietnam." i'm trying to express some late-night frustration and confusion, and i'm not sure if it's translating clearly onto the page.

[PhiPsiRuss]

It was a very good program, but I believe that the lack of 20/20 hindsight was from Clinton officials who are trying to preserve their legacy. We didn't go into Rwanda because of Mogadeshu. If Bill Clinton was a real leader, he would have committed the US to Rwanda, but he had his reelection to worry about.

Originally posted by FHwku
2. Can there be an acceptable blend of American interest-based involvement, isolation, and ethics in world situations?

Yes. IMO, the US should be interventionist when it comes to genocidal regimes, state sponsors of terror who do not already posess nuclear weapons (Dr. Riker lives), against transnational terrorist organizations, and as part of UN coalitions for extremely rare instances when the UN acts competently, as well as when US security is directly threatened.

We should not be interventionist for the sake of business interests, such as pursuing United Fruit's agenda in the 1950s.

[Kevin]

I think 9/11 proved that if we don't go after the terrorists where they are, they will come after us. It's unfortunate, and I don't personally enjoy the role as the world policeman. However, America has earned a reputation worldwide as being able to solve everyone's problems.

In Africa, I think much of the AIDS epidemic is blamed on the USA. In the middle east, they blame the entire Israel/Palestine thing on us -- and many of them simply hate us for religious reasons. Anywhere there's a problem in the world, people think the US is capable of helping them. If we don't, there's always that fringe element that's going to want revenge.

9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. It was the reminder that the US is looked to for action. The UN has failed in its peacekeeping mission due to corruption and cowardice (see: Rwanda). The UN can no longer be looked to for military solutions to global problems. In fact, the UN really can't even be trusted to administer human aide programs (see: Iraq oil for food program).

If as America, we want to survive, often, we'll have to stick our necks out where it appears we don't belong -- just in case for some reason unbeknownst to us, our necks and interests do belong there.

[FHwku]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
... U.S. should be interventionist when it come to...rare instances when the UN acts competently, as well as when US security is directly threatened.

i agree. the UN is rarely competent.

Originally posted by ktsnake
...The UN has failed in its peacekeeping mission due to corruption and cowardice (see: Rwanda). The UN can no longer be looked to for military solutions to global problems. In fact, the UN really can't even be trusted to administer human aide programs (see: Iraq oil for food program).

The UN has proved itself ineffective on more than one occassion. How do you think the U.S. handles foreign public opinion when making any decision contradicting a U.N. "decision?"

do you forsee any U.S. action to redirect millions of impressionable children left orphaned by AIDS and manipulated by warlords?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The UN has failed in its peacekeeping mission due to corruption and cowardice (see: Rwanda). The UN can no longer be looked to for military solutions to global problems.

The UN unfortunately is at the mecry of it's members when it comes to the enacting of resolutions and intervention, and when petty politics or domestic politics of a security council member come into play the whole suffers....

I remeber hearing through the grapevine about Gen. Delaire's concerns and fears about an impending genocide, but him being stymied at the UN because of politics. I also remember being ready to be deployed to Rwanda if we could get the go ahead from the UN. Unfortunately the US blocked or delayed repeatedly action regarding Rwanda most likely because of fears of another Somalia (which is why the term Genocide wasn't allowed to be used in any of the governmental meetings or memos because then legally the US has to act). Finally it came down to negotations were the US would provide logistical support and air transport, but in the end that also fell through....

[madmax]

You are damned if you do and damned if you dont. I wouldn't be the main peacekeeper in any of the countries. It just makes us a target. I would let the UN and and some of the pussy European countries like France solve the problem and we could give our share of support. Then those countries will have to put their asses on the line. Let's see how the French react when a terrorist blows up the Eiffel tower or wipes out a couple thousand of their people. The only time I would take control is if someone F'ed with us like 9/11 and we knew for sure who did it. Then I would nuke them.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by FHwku
i agree. the UN is rarely competent.

do you forsee any U.S. action to redirect millions of impressionable children left orphaned by AIDS and manipulated by warlords?

The crystal ball is cloudy.

I doubt it though. We simply do not have the manpower to do something like this. No one really does.

This is one of the problems with our current foreign diplomacy (or lack thereof sometimes). We exchange a peaceful present for a questionable tomorrow. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there are strong efforts underway to establish a strong public school system.

Will they be sufficient?

Only time will tell.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
The crystal ball is cloudy.

I doubt it though. We simply do not have the manpower to do something like this. No one really does.

This is one of the problems with our current foreign diplomacy (or lack thereof sometimes). We exchange a peaceful present for a questionable tomorrow. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there are strong efforts underway to establish a strong public school system.

Will they be sufficient?

Only time will tell.

Okay this I agree with.... an all to often truth is that foreign policy is dictated my domestic politics (thinking baout the next election), when in a lot of cases it is long term planning that is need....

In the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, pulling out after a year or three is short sighted to say the least. People love to use Japan or Germany as an example, but even then forces were in place for close to a decade as "occupiers", to ensure a compentent reconstruction effort was made.

[Taualumna]

<hijack>I'm not really an expert at this, but I do think that Germany and Japan are very different situations compared to say, Iraq. Germany is a European country, and have a culture that is much closer to ours, and Japan opened its doors to the west back in the 1800s. They are, therefore, at least somewhat comfortable with our views and culture and are more willing to cooperate. On the other hand, middle eastern and African countries are constantly in conflict not just with the west, but with themselves. </hijack>

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Taualumna
<hijack>I'm not really an expert at this, but I do think that Germany and Japan are very different situations compared to say, Iraq. Germany is a European country, and have a culture that is much closer to ours, and Japan opened its doors to the west back in the 1800s. They are, therefore, at least somewhat comfortable with our views and culture and are more willing to cooperate. On the other hand, middle eastern and African countries are constantly in conflict not just with the west, but with themselves. </hijack>

You have got to be kidding me...wow.

-Rudey

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by Rudey
You have got to be kidding me...wow.

-Rudey

If you mean my writing skills, then yes, I should have done a check. If you mean my comment, I did say that I didn't know too much about the situation!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Taualumna
If you mean my writing skills, then yes, I should have done a check. If you mean my comment, I did say that I didn't know too much about the situation!

Your comment.

-Rudey

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by Rudey
Your comment.

-Rudey

I did say that I didn't know too much about the sitituation originally posted. I was just giving info that I did know, and many CAN say that Japan is more "westernized" culturally than say, parts of Africa and the Middle East.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Taualumna
I did say that I didn't know too much about the sitituation originally posted. I was just giving info that I did know, and many CAN say that Japan is more "westernized" culturally than say, parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Except that Africa and the Middle East were carved up and owned by Europeans. Japan never was.

-Rudey

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by Rudey
Except that Africa and the Middle East were carved up and owned by Europeans. Japan never was.

-Rudey

Let's stick with Asia for a while. Hong Kong was a British Colony, yet its current problems with mainland China are nowhere near that of the middle east or Africa. In fact, you can say that it being a British colony actually allowed its conditions to improve, especially post WWII.