| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Africa: Subsaharan | ||||
| US chose to ignore Rwandan genocide | ||||
| 2004-03-31 | ||||
Classified papers show Clinton was aware of 'final solution' to eliminate Tutsis
Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president had been told 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 an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers. The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his senior officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings. "It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide. The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington DC, went to court to obtain the material. It discovered that the CIA's national intelligence daily, a secret briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, the then vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of senior officials, included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which ... is spreading south". Three days later the state department's intelligence briefing for former secretary of state Warren Christopher and other officials noted "genocide and partition" and reported declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis". However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide". Ms Des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act. It was a very The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of US intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.
Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other western capitals not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed UN peacekeepers but for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter. Some of the Hutu extremists orchestrating events might have heeded such warnings, they have suggested.
On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide. 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."
| ||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #14 Jews lied to President Bush about WMD and now they say that he lied. BTW, Rantburg is a Zionist propaganda BBS that censors truth while Americans die in Iraq on basis of Jewish lies. |
| Posted by: Jackson TROLL 2004-03-31 7:11:57 AM |
| #13 Another one for his "legacy." |
| Posted by: Anonymous2u 2004-04-01 12:09:05 AM |
| #12 I want everyone to carefully consider their thoughts here. The United States is just one major terror strike away from the most significant genocidal strike in world history. Before anybody starts ganging up on me, let me say IT'S TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY, UNDENYABLY NECESSARY, but we're going to have to wipe out 2/3 or more of a whole RELIGION, if we ever want to live in peace as free men. Rwanda was an attrocity. The destruction of Wahabbi Islam (and maybe a few other sects as well) will ALSO be an attrocity - but absolutely nececessary. Both have the same root cause - one group thought(thinks) they had the right to force their rules onto others, while denying the other side any choice but to surrender or die. "Equal coexistance" is (and was) not an available option. The real problems started in Rwanda 70 years ago, and got worse every year. They finally reached a head, and people lost theirs. Some things could have been done to hold the carnage down a bit, but the blow-up was inevitable, knowing the situation. Too bad the Saudi princes don't read Rantburg, and are too insulated to understand the link between this thread and their situation. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-03-31 3:12:42 PM |
| #11 Here is why I give Clinton a pass on this one.I will concede the US could and should have done something differ;that Clinton didn't ok US intervention partly because of domestic politics;that it's hypocritical of left not to have cared after making human rights such a major issue of theirs;and that if Clinton had acted,the Republican Party would have attacked Clinton for acting in a country that was of no vital interest to US.However,the Clinton Administration believed strongly in the UN.Rwanda was UN responsibility,and if the US intervened every time the UN got in trouble,the UN would become irrelevant.Thus the Clintons left Rwanda alone in the belief/hope UN would be able to stand on its own.(Suggesting that the theory of US intervention bailing out International Org.s,ends up rendering them useless is valid may be seen w/Clinton intervening in Balkans,after NATO dithered around.Since then NATO has been irrelevant.If you say Afghanistan proves NATO is still important,I say look at recent comments by Spanish PM,stating he's going to double Spanish troops there-w/NO request from NATO that he do so.Afghanistan has become conveniant way for a Euro country to say it's really a friend of US,no matter what else). Clinton gave the UN the opportunity to become the world's policeman,and the UN failed. Of course,the true responsibility for Rwanda lies w/those who killed and ruined their country. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-03-31 3:10:15 PM |
| #10 Why was the suffering of the Rwandan people beneath consideration? Unfortunately, nobody gives a shit about Africa. Unfortunately because, unlike S. Africa and Nigeria, there was no political mileage or monetary inducement in Rwanda for the professionally-outraged to get worked up about. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-03-31 12:40:57 PM |
| #9 yeap typical Bill-boy! Saw a news clip :3 guys beating the crap out of a fourth.When they were finished they threw the man off bridge,then one of them leaned over the edge and emptyed a 30-round magizine in into the victim. Bastards Just another indication of the complete uselessness of the U.N. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-03-31 9:58:26 AM |
| #8 Is there anything he hasn't apologized for? Lax visa procedures that let the 9/11 hijackers into the country? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-03-31 9:10:08 AM |
| #7 While I agree that the UN et al. had the prime responsibility, the US could have done something. One of the main rationales for Iraq is the extent of suffering of the Iraqi people under Sammy. Why was the suffering of the Rwandan people beneath consideration? Unfortunately, nobody gives a shit about Africa. BTW - Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures Is there anything he hasn't apologized for? |
| Posted by: Spot 2004-03-31 8:53:35 AM |
| #6 But in light of what the Clarke babblings are revealing about the WOT, hasn't President Bush shown that, given America's role as the lone superpower, the POTUS almost *owes* it to the rest of the world to do something when there is a power and leadership vacuum and people are being slaughtered somewhere in the world? Clearly, if Clinton had gone to the UN aggressively to confront the Rwandan problem (as Bush did on 10/12/02 about Iraq), wouldn't that have moved them to do something? And if the UN had failed to take action (or the Belgians thereafter), couldn't we have sent even a small military force, as we did in Liberia and Haiti, in hopes of ending the massacre? Clinton did his usual--gabbed and gassed and did nothing. Oh, but he offered a heartfelt apology later. Clinton lied and lots of people died. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-03-31 5:30:06 AM |
| #5 No defense of Clinton, but this was not his bag. This was a UN job all the way. They're the one's that should come clean, but don't hold your breath. Yet another reason we need to cut ourselves loose. Hell, we get blamed when the UN screws the pooch. Forget about it...we're outta there. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2004-03-31 2:36:26 AM |
| #4 Dr. White, I was reviewing what was posted late yesterday. This last comment is sort of disturbing (like a guy who is under the control of his talking cockerspaniel.) Here is a link. Maybe he is just joking. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-03-31 2:25:24 AM |
| #3 See post "Kofis Pandora" for real responsibility. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-03-31 2:21:08 AM |
| #2 Have to agree,this wasn't Clinton's fault. InstaPundit has link to story(look for 3/30 LOTS MORE DIRTY LAUNDRY...). Short summary,Kofi was in charge of UN Rwandan mission and Canadian general in charge of 3000 peacekeepers asked for 2000 more.Instead UN cut force to 500.When President of Rwanda's plane went down,the black box ended up in UN HQ-w/out ever being examined. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-03-31 2:17:42 AM |
| #1 The headline should read France/Brussels/UN Chose to ignore Rwanda genocide. Since they were the ones involved in the country and the UN/Belgium were the colonial power. Rwanda was a United Nations Trust Territory and Belgium was the Administrator. AFAIAA The US never had any significant involvement there. Otherwise the article is typical left wing garbage. Its the USA's fault when they do something and its the USA's when they don't do something. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-03-31 1:24:06 AM |