Also, after extreme acts of political violence like this are recognized, there is a process of healing and recovery that the nation must go through. In Rwanda, women had, and continue to have, a prominent role in that recovery process. In bringing these criminals to justice in a country with a weak state and justice system, this can sometimes be difficult. Other countries, in this case France, can help (along with NGOs) pursue justice for the more than 800,000 victims. What do these articles say about the role of NGOs, along with women, in the healing process after such an atrocity? Here is an article from BBC about the UN's regret about their "shameful" mishandling of the Rwandan genocide.
I know this an extremely emotional and heavy subject matter, but it is important to understand the role of ethnicity, NGOs, and IGOs in recovering from, and hopefully preventing, political violence such as this.
While I feel that IGO's must respect a certain level of sovereignty within its member nations, certain extremes absolutely require international intervention. Now that it is written in the UN contract that each country must bear responsibility to protect its own citizens, it is easier for the UN to interfere. At the same time, this clause should not increase flexibility for member countries to invade other member countries at a moments notice, as is the predominant fear of those nations trying to protect their sovereignty. This is not always an easy judgment to make as is seen not only seen in history with Rwanda, but in current events such as the Ukraine crisis. NATO has been apprehensive to interfere though many individuals view the crisis as Russian aggression. While it is not always easy to judge how much violence is occurring in a country, I believe that increased ability to communicate and globalization have made this judgment easier than it was in the Rwandan genocide, as increased communications allow there to be even more information gathered by the IGO's before a decision is made.
ReplyDeleteI am honestly going to back and forth on this because the issue really reminds me of the issue with gun control. To what extent should we sacrifice our individual rights (or the sovereignty of a nation) to put a larger organization in power if it helps to guarantee security and peace?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the role of women and NGO's in aiding the recovery of Rwanda, it is evident that other countries must also have the will to participate to restore justice. Especially with France, international obstacles had to be overcome before the process can be executed effectively. When the Office of Investigation of Genocide was set up in France, this helped restore justice much more quickly and effectively, showing that much of a country's revival, despite domestic efforts, relies on international cooperation.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand that IGOs like the United Nations and NATO have to respect the sovereignty of independent states, I also think that there must be some type of moral responsibility on the part of these organizations to stop such crimes as the ones that occurred not just in Rwanda but in Bosnia, Cambodia, and other countries. If such an organization can prosecute people for committing crimes against humanity, then it should also have a duty to prevent those crimes from happening.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, on the subject of infringing on a nation's sovereignty: if a nation gets to the point where genocide is an open policy, I think that other countries would be justified to intervene. The only problem is, how far does a government have to degrade for other countries to get involved?
Despite its violent nature, this conflict reminds me of the current tug-of-war over the Crimean Peninsula- some argue that the EU ought to fight for it to be a part of Western Europe's economy, while Crimea itself supposedly wants to join Russia. It all depends on who thinks what is most beneficial to that region, which makes it difficult to argue for or against IGO intervention.
The article concerning women in Rwandan politics, while recovering from the genocide is central, made me think: did it take a genocide of 800,000 people to get to such a high percentage of women in the Rwandan government? Would they have gotten there otherwise? I don't know the answer to these questions but I do think that the issue of recovering from the 1994 genocide has given Rwandan women a chance to strengthen the family unit and gender relations in Rwanda. As for NGOs like the Collective of Civil Plaintiffs for Rwanda, the process of recovery by foreign organizations involves a lot of regret and sorrow over not having done enough at the time. Just by admitting guilt either by association or neglect, IGOs and foreign governments give evidence that there needs to be a change in the way that they handle crimes against humanity, even in sovereign states.
ReplyDeleteI feel that yes, a country's government has the responsibility to protect those persons that are citizens of that country and if an organization has given word that it will intervene when a sovereign government is not protecting it's peoples, then they are obligated to do as such. You cannot say you will do whatever you can to help someone and then back down because you got scared - it's morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteTheir duty is to serve their purpose to the fullest and part of their purpose is to help persons in need, so yes. So many genocides could have been prevented or stopped earlier when fewer lives had been lost and less damage done. If these organizations put people on trial for crimes against humanity then they should step in before these crimes reach a fuller extent.
Much like with the controversy over Crimea right now, there is a thin line between when IGOs should step into a sovereign nation to interfere with the goings on in a country.
It's all well and good to have political and legal structure among nations to ensure that sovereignty is not infringed upon between countries. We can be good little political scientists and maintain the idea that ultimately and organization such as the UN cannot intervene in a country that does not give it permission, and that there are semi-arbitrary lines that have to be made concrete to allow for this sort of intervention. We can debate whether or not it is the place of these NGO's and IGO's to intervene and whatnot and if there is legal precedent and yadda yadda yadda...
ReplyDeleteBut guys, people were dying.
We can't get so caught up in this legalese and discussion of sovereignty while ignoring the key fact: people were dying. BY the thousands. Of course it's the place for Organizations to intervene when a government is killing its OWN people. Really? We'd rather a genocide continue than make the horrid crime of "infringing on another nation's sovereignty?" Once a nation has reached that point it has lost its right to sovereignty. Is it a tricky subject? Yes, but if a leader is not morally alright with his or her decision, then it is the wrong decision.
We can't follow the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.
Article 1: I think that outside countries, along with IGOs should have a right to intervene on the infringement of civil rights, especially when the victims are civilians. I think that in many ways the world as a whole relies on these IGOs to maintain peace, because they are supposed to help humanity as a whole, not just Western interests - in theory. I think that often it we do argue self-determination and countries, and I definitely think that sovereignty is important. But when there is tangible evidence that civilians - innoncent bystanders - are being harmed physically and psychologically, I think organizations like the UN have an obligation to intervene. I mean, why else do they exist? I was really upset in Hotel Rwanda when it was OBVIOUS that mindless massacres were taking place, and the UN forces only rescued Europeans. I think that if the IGOs aren't going to help the "third world" or any country for that matter (independent of politics and race), then they should not advertise that they are helping to change the world through meaningful and universal work.
ReplyDeleteArticles 2, 3, & 4: These articles to me spoke about recovery, strength, and most importantly, independence. I think that they were each important - for instance the idea of women becoming economically strong and receiving better education. I also think that the steps taken by France were also notable - in that they were helping to facilitate justice after taken part in creating a tragedy. Finally, the last article was notable - trying to promote peace, and not have others follow Rwanda's footsteps; the article also highlighted the UN being celebrated for helping to save some lives. However, as idealistic as the articles are about the role of the UN, I can't help but doubt its capacity. It really frustrates me that Africans are not represented as strongly as Western powers, and on a global scale, these differences are not just reflected in "politics". They effect every aspect of these peoples' lives. I don't like how it took 20 YEARS for France to act. I don't like how the bullies like the IMF and World Bank can decide how to loan money to Jamaica (I sidetracked, but similar situation) and dictate how to use it. I think that it's ludicrous, really, that this is just "the way things are". I want to see some tangible, long-term investments if the IGOs are going to intervene. Otherwise, I think that large powers should recognize these countries with the same regard as the other larger powers. It's not good enough to say "I'm sorry". The genocide should have never happened, and if the UN was going to intervene, it should have been 100% dedicated until the end. Why waste time or resources if no legitimate aid is trying to be employed to see these people through the storm? It seems to me that they are doing better on their own anyway, and I hope they become a future power to be reckoned with, because obviously, they are making strides, and have the ambition to materialize a better, more fair world.
ReplyDeleteSome of these organizations are really taking charge and trying to make sure these atrocities do not go unpunished, though some seem to be quick to point the finger at other groups and countries. The role of women has been significant in rebuilding Rwanda. They have been big players in making sure there is equality and more opportunities afforded to not just males, but the female Rwandans.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, I clicked a link to an article about a specific woman who is Hutu and hid 3 Tutsi women in her home to protect them. Her husband wound up being put into prison for 12 years for being a Hutu male (just because all Hutu men were deemed suspicious after the genocide) until his wife was able to testify in court allowing him to be freed. Her family is not doing well enough economically due to her being the sole provider for all of those years, but she says she wouldn't change anything if she could go back, she would even do it twice over. Link: www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/04/08/300508669/remembering-rwandans-who-followed-their-conscience
Article 1: While watching the film Hotel Rwanda, it baffled me when I saw that the Belgian soldiers were packing up and leaving when they knew that the Hutu people were ready to massacre the Tutsis. Only after reading this article did I understand what their reasoning could have been: to maintain state sovereignty. As we have discussed in class, there is a great global debate over whether nations should partake in integration or devolution and this issue with the UN and other IGO's pertains to that debate because many feel that these organizations are encroaching on the state's sovereignty. However, despite this, what happened in Rwanda and other countries that have experienced genocide transcends politics and more deeply, becomes a moral issue. Those organizations cannot argue for something like "sovereignty" when large masses of men, women and children are being slaughtered. Politics and geographic imaginary lines have no place when lives of innocent people are at stake. Therefore, I do believe that these organizations have an obligation to protect civilians even from their own government, especially if they boast that that is what their mission is. They don't deserve to have that valiant title if they don't carry through with their responsibilities and sit idle while people are massacred.
ReplyDeleteI think that IGO’s should be respectful of a state’s sovereignty and not interfere with anything going on in the state unless human lives are in danger. Things like torture and murder of the citizens living in a state by the government should never be allowed under any circumstances. If something like this were to occur, I believe that IGO’s like the UN should intervene immediately and take control of the government in the state to stop the problem. It is their duty to make sure that no one has to suffer under their own government. A country whose government murders its own people should not have any sovereignty and must be stopped. A recent event that comes to mind is the issue in Crimea. Some people believe that an IGO should step in to stop Russia from going any further.
ReplyDeleteThe articles have shown that there were many more women than men left after the genocide. This has left them with much power to change things in their government, and they have used it. They have given themselves rights that would not have been allowed before the genocide, and they are continuing to advance today, with women making up about half of the population in the government. Having better leadership can help to ensure that another genocide does not take place. NGOs have also played a role in the process of healing. Many other countries have the desire to help out after a horrifying event. Recently in France they have started to hold hearings in an attempt to bring justice, after President Nikolas Sarkozy began the office for the investigation of genocide. Sometimes it takes time for some people to realize just how bad something was before they can bring themselves to do anything about it.
ReplyDeleteArticles 2,3 and 4: A country that has experienced such a traumatic event like genocide requires special care in order to recover from its horrific past and progress, learning from its past errors. After the genocide in Rwanda, it is good to see that progress is being made and hopefully the world will make an example out of what had happened so that it may never happen again. The tribute to those that were murdered is a good start to making the atrocities of genocide public for all the world to see, which is important in preventing any future occurrences. It is commendable that European countries are now taking responsibility and helping to prosecute those that participated in the killings and it is good to see that the UN is ashamed for its lack of initiative and hopefully will not repeat this mistake in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to women, it is very good that progress is being made to ensure women's equality in Rwanda because the stem of genocides is perceived inequality among different groups of people. By taking steps towards giving every group equal rights, hatred and prejudice can slowly be reduced and the incentive for genocide eliminated.
Article 1. Yes they do bear responsibility to protect these people because they are in a position to stop these crimes. In my opinion, a country's sovereignty should mean nothing if it's a decision to stop crimes against people such as the genocide in Rwanda. Another recent event that helps to illustrate this difficulty is Russia in Crimea. Although other nations won't interfere directly, they act against Russia by placing sanctions and isolating them.
ReplyDeleteEverything else: NGOs should take a more active part in the healing process. I think that they should at least try like in the trials against the genocide criminals to help restore Rwanda. The articles also show that women are getting more power in Rwanda. It shows that the role of women is becoming equal to that of men in Rwanda. This is good because there will be less division and repression due to this equality in leadership.
ReplyDeleteThe utilization of IGOs like the UN can among its complex structure be a type of organization that could greatly provide aid for other countries, while also interfering with the relations among a country that could sometimes be viewed as unnecessary. The obligations of IGOs seem to focus on international conflicts (or in other words, nations conflicting with other nations). Therefore when a sovereign nation is perpetrating crimes against their own people, essentially IGOs are limited to their actions. A specific example from the film Hotel Rwanda that relates to whether IGOs have the right or duty to protect the people is when the UN general continuously tells his men to not shoot because they are there to promote peace and not more violence. With that in mind, the abandonment of people that takes place among IGOs would seem completely immoral. Even if there is no requirement for there to be violent actions committed against the criminally involved party, general protection should still be a component of what IGOs are able to provide. Although the Jamaican documentary we watched in class had nothing to do with IGOs, I was reminded of how Jamaica demanded a free market from the United States and in result there is particular questionability towards how a colonized country should be influenced by its colonizer. Like the conflict with IGOs, obligations of super powers are questioned and it seems as though whether super powers interfere or not there will be some sort of disagreement among nations.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with NGO's and IGO's is that they have a reputation for being weak and ineffective when it comes to actual crises within countries, and quite frankly that reputation is not undeserved. The role of NGO's should be to make life better for the people of the world, and this should include the recovery effort after something like this. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. The articles, especially the one concerning the "Genocide Hunters" seems to suggest that there is not all that much support in the recovery effort, just talk and apologies from the nations that did nothing before and continue to do nothing. The new-found prominence of women in the recovery of Rwanda will have interesting results, and the question remains to be seen what the effects will be once the gender gap begins to level out through the next few decades.
ReplyDeleteI think IGOs have the responsibility to intervene when the abandonment of human rights leads to something as violent as genocide. A country's sovereignty is lost when it can no longer control its own people and prevent such atrocities from happening. Foreign intervention is a must in order to mediate civil wars and prevent it from becoming a genocide of a certain people. Globalization is the path that we have taken and ignoring the deletion of a group of people is unacceptable. This is a very idealistic view but we should be on this path in order to achieve what we thought would be impossible. It is hard for globalization to happen when we turn a blind eye to political violence and ignore the severity of the situation. Another event we have read about is the situation in Ukraine. The United States chooses to not send in troops but instead imposes economic sanctions which very well may be successful in the long run; however, what is to be done about those that are in the crossfire now? I know it's not reasonable to try to save everyone but these IGOs have the responsibility to preserve human rights and punish those that blatantly ignore them.
ReplyDelete1.) It is truly haunting to see such atrocities committed and I fully endorse the right of an IGO to intervene in the case of imminent bloodshed. Civil wars, especially those targeted on ethnicity, cause nothing but strife and can continue feelings of ill will between ethnicities for years. It is clear at that point, with the loss of a political leader and the evolution of vigilantes and militias that Rwanda had lost any form of political sovereignty, and it should have been the duty of IGOs to ensure that political power be restored and maintain a peaceful transition of power. I remember hearing a recent interview with Bill Clinton where he recounted that not intervening in Rwanda had been the darkest moment in his life. I also like to recall a scene from the West Wing, where a situation similar to Rwanda was unfolding. The President was pressured to not act by the public, who didn't want their sons and daughters dying. At the end of the episode,unable to do anything, the President asked a staffer, "Why is a [Rwandan] life worth less than an American life?".
ReplyDeleteDespite this horrific crime, and the haenous atrocities that will be remembered by the world for generations, I feel the need to play devil's advocate, and point out a role where IGO intervention perhaps worsened a problem. The Iraq war was not solely an American undertaking. In truth, it was a UN Coalition that went into Iraq. Though the criminal Hussein was deposed, the Coalition failed to install a strong government to replace Saddam's iron rule. Without a strong leader, militant fighting has increased, and ill will to the United States increased by a lot.
It is clear that the solution has to be the happy medium. But since each situation is unique, it is almost impossible to find out when IGOs should act.
It's important to have an optimistic view of the future after an atrocity such as the one in Rwanda. The member of the cabinet in Rwanda and minister of Gender and Family Promotion is a good example of this optimism. The opportunities for women after the genocide is an important step in recovery because it is a step towards equality. The recovery of this nation is dependent on every single citizen of the nation; it is difficult to progress as a nation when a country alienates half its population. NGOs have the responsibility to aid the countries in their recoveries because they can make such a large impact on the process. The act of prosecuting these people even if it is 20 years later has a strong effect on the attitude of the nation. It gives them hope for a just future and it allows them to stay optimistic. Foreign countries need to come to terms with their handling of the situation and adapt to future conflicts. It is a process for recovery and it is a process of learning. In time NGOs and foreign countries will be more effective in the quelling of political violence.
ReplyDeleteWomen in relation to the healing process of Rwanda have become extremely significant in the government of the country, with over 40 percent among the cabinet and 50 percent in the judiciary. One component of the article that specifically grabbed my attention was that Oda Gasinzingwa mentioned how the increase in women’s role determines that there are more economic and educational opportunities. The fact that there were far more women than men after the genocide, inclines that no matter what the circumstance, a country needs to establish a particular form of opportunities to get the country back where it needs to be. Indirectly I believe that the article was also concluding that women in some crazy way benefitted from the genocide, however, it is still premature to incline that this was the only way women would be involved. NGOs in relation to the healing process and the article presented shows that there is a gradual process that takes place for the healing of atrocities like the Rwandan genocide. The 20 years it took to gain justice from individuals responsible for the deaths of the Rwandans supports how there is a lack of responsibility associated with super powers like France when developing countries are in the mix.
ReplyDelete1. A nation can only be called a nation if it protects its people. Once it turns against them and commits heinous crimes such as genocide they lose the right to their own sovereignty. The UN and other IGO's have a moral obligation to protect people when their lives are threatened in such situations. Because this is such an extreme example of what can happen to a people, I feel it does a poor example of comparing to other world-wide situations. Ukraine and Crimea is the closest current event, but this is nothing more then a "hostile" take-over of a region, one that seems like it wanted to succeed in the first place. Individual nations can interfere as they wish, but the UN and other IGO's such as NATO should not get involved, people's lives are not being threatened.
ReplyDelete2. NGO's are portrayed as an additional way to bring people responsible for these crimes to justice. In this case, anything that helps bring closure to those affected is an important part of the healing process. In response to women, it is a shame that a genocide had to happen to change the nation's social structure. It is changing for the better now, and this new generation will be responsible for making sure something like this doesn't happen again. The final article helps point to my view of why I dislike the UN. They were there, and they refused to take a stand. They abandoned the people when they needed them most, and it is a complete tragedy that that happened. A hard line should have been adapted, and the killings should have been stopped. The UN completely failed in this effort. The idea that the French helped with the killings seems outlandish to me though, and I have trouble believing it was malicious intent. Indirectly, yes, the French and Belgians are partly responsible for what happened, however that stems from a complete and utter failure to stop something so obviously hateful, heinous, evil, and morally wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that IGOs should impose some authority into a country when the country lacks the ability to govern its people well, such as the Rwandan genocide demonstrated. Of course, the sovereignty of the country should be respected, but only to an extent. If the country neglects its citizens, I believe other countries should take up the responsibility that that said country neglected and help the citizens and prevent further harm, especially in regards to such violent acts like genocide and civil war. One current event that is relevant to this topic is Crimea and the debate on whether IGOs should prevent Russia from further aggression.
ReplyDeleteThe articles show that NGOs have a good influence on the healing process after atrocities, such as the Rwandan genocide, as the article on Rwandan women demonstrates. I think that Rwandan women gaining more freedom during this healing process is a big step towards the road to recovery for the country because it is important to have every person treated as an equal to achieve a unity among the people that will lead to progress as a nation. The country is trying to pick itself back up and I think that with a bigger proportion of women in Rwandan politics, it is heading on the right track as it is doing what it can to move past the tragedy of the genocide. The article on France and its attempt to pursue justice is also another great example of NGOs and their positive influence on the healing process and demonstrates that they will eventually have a bigger role in these healing processes.
ReplyDeleteIn my own understanding, the UN and other IGOs are inherently inept and illegitimate forces. However, since the UN is existent in present day, I believe it has a moral responsibility to protect international security and peace as it is contractually-bound by charter under Chapter VII. Furthermore, the UN's inability to control a genocide, while the IGO's charter dictates the duty of the Security Council to protect and preserve international peace and security, displays the inherent ineptitude. I believe the United States should not be involved in international crises such as Crimea, Rwanda, etc., unless there are American interests at stake in those conflict areas, as it coerces American troops and taxpayer money to serve as cannon-fodder for other nations.
ReplyDeleteDespite the appeal in certain situations (such as Rwanda) of having IGOs like the UN and EU intervene to prevent genocide, this type of supranational action must be approached extremely cautiously. To expect such IGOs to violate a state's sovereignty when they see fit is a very dangerous proposition. If today's intervention may seem justified, tomorrow's may not be. If such supranational intervention is made the norm, all countries lose sovereignty in that their laws suddenly become less important, their citizens' personal rights less inalienable (according to the standards of that particular country), and their ability to govern their own country severely impeded.
ReplyDeleteIs it really true that organizations like the UN and EU have an understanding of world events and human rights so perfect that they know precisely what's right and what's wrong in the world, that we have to give them this power to do politically and militarily what they see fit?
I do not think that NGO intervention is necessarily a violation of a state's sovereignty, but I also do not know that it is the responsibility of the NGO. On one hand, I can see that if there are people dying, it is the ethical thing to intervene to try to stop the killing. On the other hand, though, complex political ties could be put at risk, and is it really worth risking those relationships for a country that may or may not relapse into more violence due to a weak government? While NGOs are technically not affiliated with any government, their financial power and manpower obviously come from somewhere, so they are connected in some way with at least one, if not a group, of political powers. The thing that confused me the most regarding this in Hotel Rwanda was the fact that the UN was there to keep the peace, not to make it, when there really was no peace to begin with. I thought that the distinction between the two was weird, and honestly feel that not intervening at all would have been better than their halfway attempt, which created a false sense of safety that proved to be even more dangerous for those they were supposedly protecting.
ReplyDeleteNGOs certainly play an influential role around the world today, especially in developing countries. These developing countries have largely not been able to deal with a post-colonial world, and much of it is due to the fact that it was the arrival of the Europeans that brought about their modernization. Rare is the example where a non-Western country modernized--Russia and China for instance. And still, the "quality of life" in these countries pales in comparison to modern Western countries.
ReplyDeleteIn all probability, just sending some NGOs and financial aid isn't going to change much, and the question does remain of what is the best course of action in countries like Rwanda going forward.
yes I think IGO do have a responsibility becasse they are multiple countires that are trying to do what is best for the world, and may need to go into lesser developed countriers and take over the burden to help solve their horrible problem. I am not saying to have IGO rule the world, or react too fiercley to small problems, but when genocide is going on and the government is casuing it, then some more powerful body needs to step[ up. soveringyt and independence is somwthing you earn by proving you are able to function and keep people safe and secure.
ReplyDeletethe other articles demonstrate the important need for not only government to do their part, but also the people and companies that exist in their area. they need to put aside their differences and focus on peace rather than power. these other people play a crucial role in the healing process becasuse in a sense they are the ones being healed nad they need to forgive, forget and start to prosper in the new era.
Article 1: I do believe that IGOs should have some sort of duty and responsibility to protect people in need given that they are one of the largest organizations in which unity, peace, and security should be some of their goals. However, I do understand how their lack in participation during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide can be justified given that this was a situation within one country. In other words, I feel like IGOs have this mentality of what happens in Rwanda stays in Rwanda unless it affects another country (if that makes sense). However, in hindsight, this is obviously so stupid in that many people lost their lives in a cruel and grotesque act that no human being should ever experience. Now, I think that IGOs have advanced in considering not just peace between two or more countries but also within countries.
ReplyDeleteArticles 2, 3, and 4: There seems to be a strong indication that NGOs and the role of women have been crucial in the recovery of Rwanda after the 1994 genocide. The women's new role in society and politics has paved a way for the role of as a whole in the Rwandan society. This would make sense as they took a lot of the responsibility in continuing their country after the tragic genocide. Additionally, the help of NGOs, such as France in trying to persecute and serve justice to the victims of the genocide, reflects the necessary steps in the recovery process of a nation.
ReplyDeleteI think IGOs have a responsibility to the people and not the government of a nation in crisis. In instances where the government itself is an integral part of human right violations, a nation’s sovereignty becomes null. The situation is tricky because what people perceive as a crisis is difficult to standardize, and foreign intervention risks aggravating a situation and may lead to more conflict. In instances like human right violations in Chechnya, IGO involvement is impossible due to Russia’s strong sovereignty and personal pride as well. This is a situation also prevalent in Crimea, where foreign involvement is generally discouraged but unavoidable if Russia continues its “aggression.”
ReplyDeleteThe articles provided show that both women and NGOs have been integral in the recovery of Rwanda. After the genocide, women were called to action through necessity, and now dominate the political scene. Personal and emotional recovery can partially be attributed to France’s involvement in bringing perpetrators to justice. International cooperation is essential to Rwanda’s recovery.
ReplyDeleteI think that the recovery from a situation such as the one in Rwanda provides a more clear cut answer regarding the intervention of outside sources. I think that NGOs/IGOs/foreign powers should become involved in the recovery of a struggling nation only until it is strong enough to gain its sovereignty. I feel that it is the responsibility of the stronger powers to do everything in their power to ensure that an episode of violence does not happen again. I also think that in their involvement, the issues such as the inequality between genders will progress.
ReplyDelete1. Like many others, prior to reading this article, I was extremely bewildered as to why the UN Peacekeeping forces and Belgian soldiers refused to protect the Rwandans during the genocide. I had assumed that it was because their priority was to ensure the safety of their own citizens and afterwards felt the conflict was not important enough for them to devote more resources towards. The article, frames the lack of UN action in light of the question of sovereignty. Apparently the UN “didn’t see civilian protection as its job.” While sovereignty is one of the most essential rights of a country and therefore must be respected, I don’t think it should serve as a justification for not intervening in extreme situations. The fundamental purpose of the UN is to protect human rights and preserve peace around the world and the very nature of this goal entails infringing upon a level of sovereignty. In fact, by joining the UN or allowing any UN intervention in a country is technically, sacrificing its sovereignty. I think, in a sense, the fact that the UN is able to do this is what sets it apart. It is an international organization that has the right due to its international acceptance and now due to its new charter, the responsibility to protect the citizens of sovereign nations. At the end of the day, though it is easier said than done, a balance must be struck between preserving the rights of countries by avoiding the use of the UN as an excuse for powerful countries to subdue the weaker ones but also holding them responsible to upholding certain basic rights of their citizens. Most importantly, each situation should be evaluated individually and acted upon accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think grouping all the IGO’s together does not make sense in the context of intervention vs. sovereignty because the same reasoning does not apply to them. For example, while the IMF like the UN is a widely accepted international organization and is responsible for ensuring the economic viability of nations, this responsibility only arises when a country seeks the assistance of the IMF. When nations do, they accept that for the goal to be achieved their sovereignty will be diminished. Still, it is important to note that IMF’s approach has been at odds with their mission as the example in Jamaica demonstrates. NATO, on the other hand, is a much more limited organization in terms of its scope and membership. As a result, both organizations have much more defined political goals that lean in a specific direction. Thus, if these IGOs were to intervene, the likelihood that this intervention is perceived as a threat to sovereignty is much higher. This is definitely evident in the situation in Crimea where if the NATO claims that they have the right to protect people in need and decide to send forces to stop the political violence, the crisis would immediately be transformed into a direct East vs. West conflict and would undoubtedly escalate. And the main reason behind this is the presence of a political tilt and the lack of widespread international acceptance of its goals.
Should IGOs (like the UN, NATO, or the EU) bear responsibility when a sovereign nation is perpetrating these crimes against their own people? Do they have a right or duty to protect people in need, even if it means infringing upon a countries sovereignty? What other recent events have we read about in class that help to illustrate this difficulty?
ReplyDeleteIGOs should bear responsibility when a genocide is occuring. The movie Hotel Rwanda may have influenced my opinion on this matter with its use of pathos; however without the movie I would not have been able to comprehend the true realities of the genocide. The fact that the IGOs (the UN) stood by and even left in times of difficulty for the Tutsi population in Rwanda shows their failure to prevent a modern day Holocaust. I believe the UN could have garnered enough support to fend off the radical Hutus and restore some sort of government in Rwanda. Their unwillingness to do so has me bewildered. The crisis in Crimea relate most directly to this issue and is still unfolding so is even more prevalent.
I think that the NGOs can play a significant role in providing justice and somewhat of a closure to this dark chapter in Rwandan history. The groups described in the report such as the Collective of Civil Plaintiffs for Rwanda seem to be attempting to accomplish this. To me the beginning of the criminal trials for the perpetrators is almost reminiscent of the Nuremberg Trials after the Holocaust. Aside from closure, however, the NGOs, women, and other stakeholders will all have to cooperate to promote the more difficult process of healing and rebuilding after this atrocious experience. One of the pictures in the BBC Articles summarized it best with a poster from the ceremony including the phrase “remember, unite, renew.” Accomplishing all 3 tasks simultaneously is a difficult yet necessary endeavor. Difficult because remembering the ethnic tensions and its tragic consequences will be major obstacles against uniting the country and yet, honoring the victims is absolutely vital for reconciliation. But it is also necessary because all 3 objectives are essential for a country seeking to balance remembrance of the past with an eye towards the future. An interview I heard this morning on NPR’s morning edition touched on these very points and also discussed the political future of the country. It is with the foreign minister of Rwanda (a woman) and I have included the link below.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.npr.org/2014/04/08/300477889/dark-history-of-rwanda-s-genocide-makes-it-hard-to-move-on
IGOs (using the UN, specifically) should be responsible in very extreme cases, such as preventing or halting the murdering of thousands of innocent civilians. I personally do not believe that a country's leader(s) has his right to soverignty/authority if he puts his people in danger. The UN has failed to prevent other genocides, such as the Cambodian genocide in the 1970s.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict in Ukraine reminds me most of these issues. Some outside countries are calling for intervention, but others say that there isn't a legitimate reason to do so. This is a major problem. What defines extreme cases? What defines having the legitimacy to intervene in a country's issues? There will always be exceptions, but we need to figure these out.
I am relieved to know that the country has recovered quite a bit ever since the events that unfolded two decades ago. While the genocide was a catalyst for the rise of women in Rwandan politics and economics, and the increased need for an international community, it shouldn't have been. Like the President of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, says, "We did not need to experience genocide to become better people. It simply should never have happened." How many mistakes need to be made before we learn? Many atrocities were commited before the Rwandan genocide, but the West still allowed it to happen, despite the evidence given to them.
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot more awareness now. An example of an organization fighting for justice is the Collective of Civil Platiniffs for Rwanda. Before, no resources or money was available for these people to fight, but now there is, and many more cases are being solved. This shows that there is a much increased awareness for these kinds of situations.
Actually now that I think about it, the IGOs shouldnt bear the responsibility since they are not the ones that caused it; however to a degree they should have a duty to protect the people to the best of their ability (which was not shown through the pulling of troops from Rwanda). Whether they should infringe on sovereignty is a question based on circumstance. With atrocities such as genocide, yes i believe they should infringe on sovereignty; however with matters that are rather gray such as the crisis in Crimea where the population on the peninsula actually wants to be annexed to Russia, while the EU wants to maintain it as part of Ukraine and make it part of Western Europe... With situations like this it is harder to tell what should be done.
ReplyDeleteIn an ideal world, IGOs should be held responsible for not intervening. However, one must realize that we have the advantage of hindsight, and can see and learn from our mistakes. At the time, the IGOs did not have a complete picture of what was happening. Even now, we have no idea what would have happened if intervention did take place in Rwanda. It may have ended the war, and everything would have been dandy. Or, it may have ended the war, and then created more instability with resisting groups, creating a long and drawn out rebellion, such as Afghanistan. Or, we could have been in a war for years, fighting against the a sovereign government in order to stop the massacre. The point is, we have no idea what would have happened if we chose a different path, and so the IGOs can not really be held responsible for not intervening in something that they were not directly and initially involved in.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after the dust has finally settled, and now that the situation has become more stable, IGOs do have the responsibility to help the recovering country. They can not fall into the same trap as Vietnam in this case, now that the violence has ended. They can easily intervene in nonviolent activities, such as persecuting war criminals, without the same level of commitment as sending in troops, and with none of the danger. Thus, the IGOs have no reason to not help out.
Well it seems like a lot of people have a strong view on this, but I'm not sure myself. When I learn about genocides like those that took place in Cambodia and Bosnia and especially after watching "Hotel Rwanda", I strongly felt that other countries should have aided them and I grew angry with the UN for not assisting them in a more helpful way. I even thought to myself how the US (in my opinion) butts their nose where it doesn't really belong sometimes yet fails to do so for certain special events.
ReplyDeleteAlthough emotionally I felt like the UN should have helped, I do not think they have a political responsibility. They have a moral responsibility, as does EACH and every country, to help people who are suffering from genocide, yet politically, they can reasonably defend themselves for not getting involved based on their policy. I think that a big problem with IGOs getting involved with countries' internal issues is that there must be a clear difference between what is termed as a "genocide" and what is termed as a "civil war" or "revolution/rebellion" because the world "genocide" can be used for propaganda purchases.
Yes, I believe that IGOs should hold a responsibility to protect a sovereign nation against its own. Although, there should be boundaries and limitations to the IGOs power, there should be an urgency to protect the interest of innocent people being persecuted. Especially, when there is blatantly obvious iminent danger ahead. In cases like, Rwanda there was no doubt that genocide was going to be the endin result of the Hutu rebellion. Therefore, the soldiers should have never been called away. The "rewriting of the U.N. mandate in 2005, which said that states bear a responsibility to protect their own citizens," to me lends no resolution to the problem. I think that it still gives the UN the ability to abandon people; only now they habe the option to stay, if they please.
ReplyDeleteConfliction between whether or not to interfere in matters of sovereignty were evident in Crimea aswell. However, there is a difference between situations. Americans felt the need to interfere on grounds of protecting Crimeans from Russia and an outsiders opinion on how things should be done. In Rwanda, the people were crying out for help and it was not bias or opinion, but the necessity of subsiding dangers from rebels trying to kill all of the Tutsis. The situations are comparable, but no where near the same level of intensity.
These articles evoke that like the proactive Rwandan women, NGOs have the capacity to help aid in recovery and progression after tragedy. The fact is, however, that they are not obligated to help. The French are not helping prosecute these criminals because itself played an indirect part in the genocide and want to maintain any further connection to the crisis. Understandable, yet I feel that brining these people justice should surpass political standings. In a perfect world thus would be possible, but unfortunately it is not.
I believe IGOs should have the ability to help the people of a sovereign nation, if that nation abuses its people. It's useless to have organizations like the UN, which are supposed to be guarantors of international peace, if they have no real power to enforce that peace. They should definitely have boundaries; rules of engagement are necessary, and many nations prefer their own militaries over international forces like the UN and NATO.However, I personally believe that in cases like hotel Rwanda, when the national army is harming its people, international organizations should have the manpower and firepower to restore peace and safety for everyone; the UN knew they couldn't defend the hotel and so they left, illustrating that at this time they were still extremely weak as a peacekeeping organization.
ReplyDeleteIt's difficult to say whether IGOs have the responsibility to intervene or not. Situations in sovereign countries are sometimes hard to determine. To stop straight up massacre, yes it seems heartless not to try and stop this. But it very difficult and IGOs could end up in a war with the sovereign nation in order to protect the people. A war is not what we want, it's often hard to stop ideological killings. But to go in and try to calm the situation down, yes do that. Peace keepers should have more freedom to think on their feet if they feel a situation is worsening. The ability to discuss with their offers and change orders. IGOs should definitely feel a responsibility to help rebuild a country. That's what they were originally set up for. But I must stress the importance of training locals and allowing the people to govern themselves. The people know their culture and customs and forcing a universal ideal of democracy on everyone could be compared to imperialism. The very thing that destroyed many of these countries. So the women in Rwanda are very important. They help close the gap on gender discrimination and their "local" status gives them an up in dealing with specifically Rwandan problems.
ReplyDeleteI think every genocide is unique, and so the recovery process is unique as well. In this case, so many people were murdered that now the population is 70% women, so their increased role in politics is to be expected. I think this was a good change, probably one sought after by many women in the country before the genocide, but political participation is a small challenge compared to living through a genocide. I think this is why they are not afraid, they've wanted to participate and now they know how tough they can be and how important their decisions are as leaders. I think international organizations coming in to help proves that their negligence caused the problem, and now that they can help correct that problem and prevent another from happening without personal risk, they are more willing to do it. It is sad to say, but the West seemed generally unconcerned during the genocide; people would look on tv and say "wow that's so sad," then go back to their own lives. Unfortunately, at the time many governments had the same attitude. They would protect their own; send the Europeans in to save Europeans, but they would not help Rwandans until they were not at risk. Now that there is no genocide or other threat, international bodes are comfortable to meddlein the affairs of Rwanda, whether warranted or not by the people. The country is still weak politically, so they need other countries to help ensure justice is served, but this opened the door for western involvement in other areas too. Their future seems uncertain, as the country is still exploited as a tourist attraction for westerners, rather than a sovereign nation of respectable, culturally rich people.
ReplyDeleteI understand the fact that diplomacy and politics are the bulk of foreign affairs, that is a given. However, I cannot help but think: is maintaining your own interests more important than saving lives. Before watching Hotel Rwanda, I knew about the genocide, but always wondered why I could not find information of the countries that got involved (like I could find in the Holocaust or Bosnia). I now know that I could not find anything becuase they were not there. I am so dissapointed in the United Nations, the USA and other nations that turned their back on Rwanda. Yes, my opinion is mainly spurred from emotion, but there is also logic behind it.
ReplyDeleteThe issue with getting involved with Rwanda involved sovreignty, and respecting the sovreignty of the nation. In my opinion, that makes no sense what so ever, in the case of Rwanda. People were being killed for a label someone else put on them! How is letting the conflict play out protecting their sovreignty. There was no sovreignty to protect in Rwanda, and leaving them to fic their wown problems was doing them a great injustice because all that was left was chaos.
Therefore, I would say that sovreignty is important, and IGOs should never overstep their bounds to the point where they are disrespecting a power. For emxample, if the United States decided to completely take over Crimea to stop Russia from gaining more land, that PERSONALLY would be an unjust infringement on a nation's sovreignty. However, when there is a large presence of political violence that is seemingly unresolving the NEEDS to be inervention because I feel the IGOs are there to keep peace and security in nations, which DOES INVOLVE getting their hand dirty at times. If they are not willing to take charge at times, they are simply talking heads that only make real headway during times of less tension, which, in my opinion, should not not be as a important to the goal of glabalization.
I have heard people say that once you hit rock bottom, all you can go is up. For me, this statement is very true for the Rwandan survivors of the genocide and the next generation. They are living proof that political violence does not have to be the end of a society, a culture, completely if they do not let it consume them. Women seem to have taken the genocide of their men, not as a reason to give up, but as a calling to step forward and help their country heal. While the basis for women rising in power (the death of most of the male population) is not good, I am glad that women are finding their place in society as leaders. That, to me, shows that Rwandan is not just striving towards restoring normalcy in their country, but for imporvement from what once ws in regards to social barriers.
ReplyDeleteIn regards, to NGOs, I have a slightly different sentiment. While I am upset at the position foreign powers tok during the genocide, I do want then to contribute something to the mess they allowed get out of hand. Like President Paul Kagame said, "We did not need to experience genocide to become better people. It simply should never have happened". However, I belive that IGOs should take a step back, so that their priorites are never questioned, even though it would be sickening if they stopped justice from coming to Rwanda. I believe that the role of foreign powers should be strickly social and cultural, because as of now, this is the Rwandans' time to relive and heal from the atrocities they went through. To me, that experience is way tto emotional and unrelatable for foreign powers to get TOO involved in
Rest of the articles.) I do think that one of the things that should be done consistently in the case of civil turmoil in a state is NGO/IGO assistance in the aftermath. A lot of NGOs specialize in the ability to work to develop a country, and a concerted effort to help a state recover would be a great help to the state. Though many NGOs are considered somewhat ineffective due to their inability to correct problems, this is often because they are widespread across the globe. By channeling all of their forces into one country, an NGO can be highly effective.
ReplyDeleteThe movie, hotel rwanda and several other articles have somewhat surprised my view about how political violence is solved and perpetrated in the world. I do support any NGO in helping tp deliver humanitarian aid to countries who need the support. I cannot think of a country that would deny any humanitarian aid to its people but im sure there are some aweful goverments out there that deprive their citizens tostay in power. I have also learned that the UN is not the powerful figure thst I once thought it was, the indecisiveness of its actions was rather a hard pill to swallow.
ReplyDelete