Papers prove US knew of genocide in Rwanda

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/31/1080544556703.html

US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president knew of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. All because he politically did not want to involve himself in a just war

This is one area I have always felt we were dead wrong about.

[aquart]

6. You tell me how American troops could land in Rwanda.

Tell me. How would YOU have done it? How would YOU have stopped it? What would YOU have done next?

Come on, let's hear the grand plan: Americans drop from the skies? They do WHAT with the machete-wielding Hutus??? WHAT? HOW do you plan to protect the Tutsis???? Airlift them to America? Is that your plan?

The only way Jews could have been protected in Europe in the 30s and 40s was to let them emigrate to other countries. WHERE were you planning to put the Tutsis? Was your plan to guard them FOREVER?

Do we shoot the Hutus? People who mostly didn't have guns? Pen them up? Forever?

When would it be safe to leave?

GIVE ME YOUR BRILLIANT ANSWERS.

[Just Me]

16. I don't claim to be brilliant, but I do wish great effort had been made,..

,...to stir the UN and international community to intervene. Moreover, I place the blame squarely upon the whole leadership which is responsible for setting priorities.

I believe what distresses me most is the fact that the Bush administration has managed to wheel and deal us into an unjust war costing hundred(s) of billions of dollars and countless, valuable lives. Less than a third of that investment could have been utilized to provide substantive, positive assistance to this broken world.

Our priorities seem so,...fractured.

[mouse7]

22. Canadian General on ground there said 5000 troops stop massacre

We could have gotten 5000 troops there. To say we couldn't isn't realistic.

Clinton has stated on the record that Rwanda was one of his biggest errors, if not the biggest error.

[snooper2]

2. that's f'ed up!

eom

[demdave]

3. Clinton knew, the U.N. knew but they both would rather look the other way.

Wring their hands and deny knowledge. The U.N. is worthless if not worse. They knew and participated in corruption of the "oil for food" program in Iraq. They need to be held accountable. If nothing else comes out of the war in Iraq, I believe paperwork detailing this corruption will.

As for Clinton, he had already shown his military expertise in Somalia. Screw up and then cut and run. I am almost thankful he did nothing in Rwanda. It would have accomplished nothing and proved deadly.

[aquart]

7. What a colonialist attitude.

AFRICA didn't see fit to intervene. AFRICA didn't give a damn. But it was AMERICA's responsibility?

You don't think that's a little bit....I dunno...ethnically condescending? A trifle smug and superior?

Let me know where I can go to hear a word about AFRICA's negligence.

Your attitude is that the nations of Africa have no importance at all. They are not to be consulted or considered.

Could that be considered arrogant nerve?

[demdave]

9. Sorry if I left out your pet group, I will continue.

Yes African nations hold their fair share of blame. For the most part, they ignore genocide, slavery and the humiliation and assault on women. They do this on a daily basis. Europe also turns a blind eye.

The truth remains, the U.S. is the most powerful country on the planet and the U.N. has been tasked with dealing with this sort of event. If you are suggesting that Africa can handle this problem by itself, please cite some examples where they have in the past.

[AP]

14. France (and the US) are responsible for the politics which allowed this to

happen.

I believe (and should probably refresh my memory) that it was the CIA-sponsored leader in Uganda at the time who was encouraging this mess.

To say that the US doesn't have some responsibility in making sure the neoliberals we support don't kill people is an idea I don't agree with.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

20. This is so obvious I can only assume you're wilfully misunderstanding.

You really don't understand that it's the fascists America supports who are committting the real atrocities, like GENOCIDE FOR FINANCIAL GAIN (in, eg, Rwanda, and in the Congo) and it's the anti-neoliberals who threaten American financial gain who we try to squeeze, and then we exaggerate predictable behaviour that we would tolerate and ingore if it were being done by a fascist.

You always line up on the other side of this issue, and I presume it's not by chance.

To summarize (ie, "Foreign Relations for Dummies"): when earlier RW governments have supported fascist governments (as we did in Uganda) and they start engaging in genocide in order to increase the profits of mining companies, subsequent Democratic US governments should step up and put a stop to what the US fascists started. When those same fascists interests -- when running the show, as they are now -- are trying to destabilize foreign governments because they won't play neoliberal ball, voters should cry foul.


An aside: you know why Mugabe agreed to a voluntary seller/voluntary buyer land transfer program? It was because the US promised to pay for the land. Of course, they never lived up to the promise, but they did give a little money that went to buying some of the crappiest land.

Isn't that a kick in the ass? The US taxpayer was the final insurer of profitability for a colonialism that slaughtered millions of people. And then we ended up only paying for crappy land (and I bet we overpayed for it).

[termo]

18. what is your advise ?

business as usual:
- exploit resources
- regime change if a leader speak about fair trade
- sell weapons
</sarcasm>

US and Europ have a neo-colonialism attitude, no official slavery or exploitation, nevertheless we call that "free market"... how many days an african leader will survive if he decide to stop some exports to US or a European contry? ...like oil?

[papau]

4. What Bull - April 6 to 25 -500,000 are killed and CIA notifies Clinton

Why is this Johannesburg fellow spinning so hard?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1182362,00.html

US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide

Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis

Rory Carroll in Johannesburg Wednesday March 31, 2004 The Guardian President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. <snip>

The source document is from a solid left site that does not spin it:

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material. ttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB117/index.htm As horrific as the killing was in Rwanda, the U.S. did not see its interests affected enough to launch unilateral intervention. President Clinton himself best articulated his Administration's calculus during D-Day commemorations in France on June 7 saying of U.S. humanitarian relief efforts on Rwanda "I think that is about all we can do at this time when we have troops in Korea, troops in Europe, the possibility of new commitments in Bosnia if we can achieve a peace agreement, and also when we are working very hard to try to put the U.N. agreement in Haiti back on track, which was broken." (Note 3) While some countries argued early for action, few actually ever brought any means to bear-the "lack of resources and political commitment" was "a failure by the United Nations system as a whole" as the Independent Inquiry on the UN noted. (Note 4) The U.S. did not encourage a UN response because it saw two potential outcomes: the authorization of a new UN force and a new mandate without the means to implement either; and worse, the very real possibility of the U.S. having to bail out a failed UN mission. For the recently-burned Clinton Administration, this looked like Somalia redux. France was also Rwanda's patron, it trained Rwanda's military, and French President Francois Mitterand and President Habyarimana had maintained close ties "

CIA's April 23 notes the TuTsi slaughter, and on April 26 NID item on Rwanda, entitled "Humanitarian Disaster Unfolding", reports "Red Cross estimates that 100,000 to 500,000 people, mostly Tutsi, have been killed in the ethnic bloodletting" and that "eyewitness accounts from areas where nearly all Tutsi residents were killed support the higher estimate."


The Guardian article goes on to say:

In what was widely seen as an attempt to diminish his responsibility, he said: "It may seem strange to you here, especially the many of you who lost members of your family, but all over the world there were people like me sitting in offices, day after day after day, who did not fully appreciate the depth and speed with which you were being engulfed by this unimaginable terror." A spokesperson for the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation in New York said the allegations would be relayed to the former president.


So the Guardian headline is truth telling - but what in hell justifies
"US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal."

[cetasika]

5. everyone knew

I remember when I was in the army, we were about to deploy to Rwanda in April 1994, but the order was given to stand down.
Nobody ever told us why we didn't go.

[aquart]

8. You mean Clinton's first impulse was to intervene and stop it?

Is that what you're saying?

Because I don't see how an underling could have just decided, Let's go to Rwanda, everybody kit up.

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Clinton apologized for not intervening in Rwanda.

And I accepted it.

[demdave]

13. How generous of you to accept an apology when it is not your place.

It is the place of the injured to accept an apology.

[Occulus]

24. If even one of those Rwandans were, say,

the next Einstein, or a real world equivalent of the fictional, say, Zephram Cochrane, then one could say we all were injured.

Thus, it could be my place to accept Clinton's apology, but we'll never know because the person who maybe had that potential is dead. And never mind the artists, musicians, and writers who maybe died there as well.

To be on the safe side with my conscience, I'll accept Clinton's apology, because by my logic I consider us all to be "injured parties."

[papau]

15. I also accept that he could not have done a great deal in the time left

Even the article notes that the first 16 days, when the 500,000 were killed and dumped in the river, was done and over before the info had worked its way up the chain.

If Clinton on 3/26 had ordered troops in, the GOP would have said what? The UN would have said what? The French would have said what?

And 300000 more died in next 3 to 5 weeks.

This was murder on a scale and at a speed not seen since WW2.

I agree Clinton's apology was a class act - I doubt the current fellow at 1600 Penn would have worried much about it.

I also agree an apology can not unring the Bell - the world failed,

But I still do not understand the desire of some folks to spin it as a "If Clinton were perfect he would have done this, he didn't - so he is scum".

[Old and In the Way]

11. It was not Clinton's finest hour, but there's plenty of blame to spread

around.

But I don't see how he could have mobilized unilateral action in the weeks it would have taken to build bi-partisan support. Surely, the Republicans weren't begging the President to take action.

There should have been a united African response, first, and followed up immediately by a UN action in which we could have been a a significant actor.

Personally, I don't know why there is not a % of troops of each UN member country that can be called on to immediately react to these types of genocidal emergencies. Sad that the UN has not developed this, in light of the Rwandan tradegy.

[AP]

12. Totally guessing: Clinton (cruelly) did this as a favor to the French.

I'm so sure that Clinton stayed out as part of some bigger deal with French over something else.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

17. Right. Let's blame the French, and Clinton's penis.

[AP]

21. I'm not blaming his penis.

I'm saying he must have been between a rock and a hard place. You just know that something was tying his hands.

I'd love to know what it was.

[Zomby Woof]

23. Some thoughts of mine

The recent events in Fallujah reflect the futility of mindless tit for tat... the Tutsis were committing genocide against the Hutus some 30 years before. Then it came around full circle in the 90's. The cycle of hatred, violence, and killing predates even that round by far more... be it ever so thus with these tribal hatreds. They have quite literally taken turns trying to kill off each other for many, many generations. Could the U.S. have done more than just apply a tourniquet? Certainly, our military isn't trained to stop ethnic hatred or be cultural therapists. That doesn't mean an abdication of intervention is justified either, but I will not too quickly condemn without some context.

I do not advocate looking the other way, but really, by that standard, the whole world, not just the U.S., was guilty. It did not help that the focus of U.S foreign policy was in flux.

A few things to consider:

Somalia was fresh in our minds as an African adventure gone awry. Rwanda had the potential for even worse failure. Somalia is the first layer underneath the paralysis and inaction. We can thank Bush Sr. for that one. His justification was also humanitarian - at first. It was rational to see how Rwanda too could have had similar consequences, for all parties.

The foreign policy of the U.S., having only been recently freed of the Cold War, was adrift and without a center, such as the containment of the Soviet sphere that held it together for 50 years.

There was much internal bickering and debate on whether U.S. foreign policy could be exclusively humanitarian. Usually that was just an accidental byproduct (if one at all) of corporation-driven foreign adventure. We quite literally couldn't muster the courage to even try. But as I said, neither could the world, so we all made some token food and medical donations, with no peacekeepers.

The horrific bloodshed played itself out. Not the first or last time in our history we failed to live up to our moral obligation as a species to take care of each other.

I won't point the finger exclusively at the U.S. We can all look in the mirror, as nations and individuals, on this one. We failed the Rwandans as surely as they failed themselves.