It’s time to do something about it

By Elizabeth Meyer, The Daily Barometer

May 16, 2005 — In 1994, in the span of 100 days, almost 1,000,000 people were killed in Rwanda. Armed Hutu militias slaughtered the Tutsis and moderate Hutus, often with nothing more than machetes. Yet the United States, and the world, simply stood by and watched.

This conflict was recently the subject of the movie “Hotel Rwanda.” The movie features the story of Paul Rusesabagina, who, in real life was the manager of a hotel in Rwanda. While Rusesabagina was a Hutu, his wife was Tutsi. In the movie, Rusesabagina is speaking with an American reporter. The reporter has just shot footage of the massacre, going on less than half a mile from the luxury hotel where Rusesabagina, his family, and several hundred Tutsis are taking shelter. Rusesabagina insists that once Americans and the world see the footage, they will have no choice but to intervene.

But the reporter knows that they will see the genocide differently.

“They’ll say ‘that’s horrible,’ and go back to eating their dinner,” he tells Rusesabagina.

And that’s just what we did.

Although Rusesabagina was able to save more than 1,000 people through bribes, connections and pure luck, more than 900,000 Rwandans weren’t as lucky. The world stood by and watched as Hutu extremists systematically murdered men, women and children. We said, “Oh, that’s horrible.”

Then the United Nations withdrew many of its peacekeeping troops, leaving less than 300 for the entire nation.

The French sent in troops — and promptly left once the French citizens were safely out of the country.

Some believe the United States didn’t go in because we were still gun-shy from Vietnam, a view only intensified by our recent debacle in Somalia. Others claim that the Congressional elections that would bring Newt Gingrich, with his “Contract for America,” into power, kept the nation’s focus on domestic issues. Perhaps the most inflammatory reason suggested is that of race.

Africans are just savages, our subconscious told us. And, despite the fact that people were dying, that made it easier to stomach, easier to justify.

But a million African bodies are just as horrific as a million European or American bodies. That’s what we realized as it became obvious what had happened, right under our noses. What the international community was unwilling to even call genocide, killed more than 900,000 people, all on the basis of ethnicity. If targeting a group of people for extermination based on its ethnicity isn’t genocide, I’m not really sure what is.

Yet, it seems that we haven’t learned from that mistake. For a similar conflict is playing out in front of us, all over again, in the Darfur region of Sudan.

You’ve probably heard of Darfur; you might have even heard that the United Nations estimates that close to 200,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. You’ve probably heard that the well-armed government militia has been torching villages, raping women, and killing everyone in its sight.

And you’ve probably said, “That’s horrible.”

I won’t lie. I’m guilty of it, too. And while the United States is more than happy to pass resolution after resolution that says we don’t like what’s going on, we’re not actually willing to do anything about it.

The United States is not alone in this attitude. The United Nations is willing to label the activities in Darfur, “acts of genocide.” But they will not go so far as to label it “genocide.” The instant that happens, the United Nations is obligated to take action. And many of the permanent members of the Security Council would rather not see that happen, either because of their business deals in Sudan, or because, if Darfur were labeled a genocide, it would set a precedent that would call into question the policies of the permanent members.

I’m not going to go into the human rights problems coming out of Russia and China. But regardless of the geopolitical implications of labeling the atrocities “genocide,” the United Nations, the United States and the world ought to take action. Whether it is genocide, acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or whatever they want to call it, it needs to be stopped.

The African Union has sent troops into Darfur, but it will be the first to admit it doesn’t have enough troops to keep the situation under control.

Many of you are probably thinking how hypocritical I sound. After all, I’ve taken stances against the Iraqi war, yet I’m advocating military intervention in Darfur. But I never said that I liked Saddam Hussein. I’m not sad that he’s out of power. My problem with the war in Iraq is how it’s been handled. I don’t think it was planned well, and the main justification turned out to be a lie. I might have even gotten behind the war effort if Bush had just told the truth — that Hussein was a really, really bad man that was murdering his people. In fact, in one speech by Tony Blair, I was almost convinced.

But Bush never billed this as a humanitarian intervention. The human rights issues were secondary, and poor planning on the part of the Americans actually has more Iraqi children starving than before the war, according to The New York Times.

So there you have it. I believe in military intervention to stop “acts of genocide.” After all, whether the international community wants to admit it or not, eventually, you get enough “acts of genocide,” to constitute a real genocide.Eventually, Bush’s mission of spreading democracy will have to extend beyond oil rich nations.

And eventually the world has to say “that’s horrible,” and actually do something about it

Elizabeth Meyer is a junior in environmental science.