What arrangement had been made between the RPF (Tutsi) and the government (Hutu) as a result of UN talks?

Page # 1
After watching the video, Ghost of Rwanda, discuss the following questions with your classmates. There are a lot of questions for this discussion, so read through these questions, and respond to the items that you are the most interested in.

Why were the UN Peacekeepers in Rwanda in 1993?
What arrangement had been made between the RPF (Tutsi) and the government (Hutu) as a result of UN talks?
Share power
And UN forces’ role?
As the genocide began, what was the goal of the Hutu radicals toward the UN force?Why didn’t Kofi Annan (then head of UN peacekeeping section) not allow Gen. Dallaire to take a pre-emptive strike against the radicals (by raiding arms caches)? Did not want another Mogadishu
Kill some peacekeepers to encourage Belgians and other UN forces to leave?
What were the Clinton administration’s views? Its motives?
After the presidential plane was shot down, why didn’t the UN allow its forces to take action?
How is it that the UN forces and US intelligence didn’t seem to know what was going to happen? That even, to this day, they don’t know who shot down the presidential plane on which President Habyarimana (Rwanda) and President Ntaryamira (Burundi) were killed?
What was the US response to the murder of Belgian peacekeepers and the beginning of the genocide? Why?
Was Laura Lane (young US foreign service officer) right to want to stay and stand up to the Hutu extremists? What did UN forces do after the outbreak of the genocide? Rescue foreigners Why?
Why did the French and Belgians send paratroopers early in the conflict? Why were none of these forces used to evacuate ordinary Rwandans? NB: All Americans were evacuated in three days How did journalists respond?
Why did the Belgians want to leave Rwanda? –both peacekeeping force and paratroopers
Why did US support the Belgian wish?
Why was the Red Cross director the only outsider to really stand up to the Hutu extremists? What did the congressman who told Monique (the Rwandan activist who came to Washington to lobby for intervention) that the “US has no friends, just interests” mean?
Anthony Lake (NSA) said Rwanda never became a serious issue for President Clinton and himself. Why not?
How can senior administrators simply follow instructions in the face of a moral crisis like this one? Consider the statements of Prudence Bushnell, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for African affairs
What did the UN decision to not intervene (or further support the remaining peacekeepers) mean for Gen. Dallaire? Contrast to Red Cross
What was the explanation for not intervening? Not wanting to be involved in a civil war The RPF did not want the UN there; why not? How were safe sites secured? How could the world really “not know”?
Once the UN decided to send 5,000 more troops, why were none sent? Has anything changed since then? What about Darfur? How could the Hutus do such a thing to the Tutsis?

Page # 2
RESPOND substantially to at least TWO other students’ postings. To respond “substantially” means to actually enter into conversation with the person. You may include a variety of the following: your own opinions, your own observations, a different perspective on the same topic, questions you have for the writer, facts you have uncovered through research, comments on the value of what the person wrote. However, simply agreeing or saying you like something doesn’t count! You have to explain why and introduce new ideas into the conversation. DO NOT ATTACK. DO NOT BE MEAN. BE RESPECTFUL EVEN WHEN YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH WHAT THEY SAY.
post # 1 Jaret
Looking through all of these questions, the one that I found to be perhaps the most interesting was regarding the Clinton administration’s response to the atrocities in Rwanda. As a leading superpower on the world stage, it is shocking that the United States took such a neutral stance on such a horrific tragedy. The main reason for the Clinton administration’s silence on Rwanda was its apprehensiveness to intervene in African affairs after the strong criticism that they received in light of the United States’ military intervention in Somalia. In 1993, the United States became involved in a UN effort to resetablish a government in the civil war torn Somalia and during their involvement several helicopters were shot down causing a major controversy that weakened the Clinton administration politically. Because of this, Clinton did little to intervene in Rwanda, fearing another unpopular and chaotic foreign police misadventure. This is perhaps the biggest failure of Clinton’s entire presidency as it allowed countless suffering in Rwanda (when the United States certainly could’ve intervened at least diplomatically if not through direct humanitarian means) and poked major holes in the United States’ reputation as a safeguard and protector of human rights around the world. It makes me wonder if Clinton’s inaction led subsequent administrations (such as the Bush administration) to be more willing to intervene (although obviously the situations in Afghanistan and Iraq were far different than Rwanda, not to mention the Bush administration did little to help in Darfur). I also wonder what the United States’ protocol is now to prevent another Rwanda type tragedy from occurring. Or are we becoming more and more detached from human rights abuses throughout the world? What does the United States’ own human rights abuses say about its inability and inaction in stopping these types of atrocities? Hopefully, more can be done to prevent anything like this from happening again.

post # 2 Anthony
Based on the documentary, Frontline Ghosts of Rwanda, the Clinton administration was very apprehensive about making statements that would allude to a genocide taking place in Rwanda. Due to the killing of American soldiers during the Blackhawk incident in Somalia a few years earlier, the US government was very weary about intervening in another African conflict. I think one of the most powerful statements in the documentary about the lack of action on the United States part, was what a congressional official told to the Rwandan activist Monique Mujawamariya. The statement goes – “Listen, Monique, the United States has no friends. The United States has interests. And in the United States, there is no interest in Rwanda. And we are not interested in sending young American Marines to bring them back in coffins. We have no incentive…”(Ghosts of Rwanda). These statements are later echoed by president Clinton when he says – “Whether we get involved in any of the world’s ethnic conflicts in the end must depend on the cumulative weight of the American interests at stake…”(Ghosts of Rwanda). This situation seems to be exactly like the Darfur conflict, with lack of action from both the UN and the United States. After the Holocaust, initiatives were put in place to ensure that ethnic cleansing’s, or genocides, never happen again. Instead, the only thing that seems to have happened, was more bureaucratic tape was put up to define a genocide situation. The fact that the UN didn’t get involved, gave the Hutu extremist the opportunity to carry out the genocide. If it wasn’t for the peace keepers, Mbaye Diagne, and those westerners who stayed back to try and help, we might have seen far worse outcomes. Even though you could tell throughout the documentary how hopeless they felt. I would like to think that in the future the UN and the US would be more inclined to set aside their interests and intervene in genocides, but unfortunately, this most likely wouldn’t be the case.

“Ghosts of Rwanda.” , directed by Darren Kemp, and Greg Barker. , produced by Darren Kemp,
and Greg Barker. , Public Broadcasting Service, 2004. Alexander Street, https://
search.alexanderstreet.com/view/workbibliographic_entity%7Cvideo_work%7C3227852.

Last Completed Projects