Eighteen U.S. dead in Mogadishu, Somalia on 10/03/1993 produced Clinton's 10/07/1993 order to leave Somalia by 03/31/1994 — weeks before Habyarimana's plane fell. That incident, dramatized in "Black Hawk Down" made Washington casualty-averse toward exactly Rwanda's kind of operation.
Note however, that PDD-25's restrictive draft predated Mogadishu (September 1993), so Somalia hardened an existing reluctance rather than creating it. And among the damning choices were those that carried zero American risk: the peacekeepers gutted from UNAMIR were Belgian and Ghanaian, not American; jamming "radio genocide" needed no troops.
To borrow BB's words, this is the defining failure of the Clinton administration, but critics would prefer to remember him well or damn him for an affair with an intern.
America's callous disregard for Africa continues to this day, most recently exemplified by Trump's and Musk's deadly cutbacks at USAID. The only debate left on that issue is what exact form of killing this was and how many people died. Like Clinton's, this administration is left with no ground to stand on.
Talk about the white man’s burden. It really is extraordinary. Africans kill Africans, white people to blame.
You devote what, a sentence, to saying that other African nations were unable to intervene, and leave it at that. You really think there was nothing they could have done and that they had no moral responsibility towards their immediate neighbors?
Also, while America was and is the world’s strongest military force, does that really excuse every other nation on earth from any responsibility? Russia, China, India, and several other Asian and South American nations likely possessed sufficient military power to stop the conflict, but yeah, it’s all on Bill Clinton.
I think other nations should have intervened as well. This article was primarily about U.S. blameworthiness, but that wasn't because I think the U.S. is the only entity to blame.
That’s fair, and I appreciate the response. Perhaps I was too harsh in my characterization, but I find the excessive blaming of white Western nations for the world’s ills tiresome.
I’m not an isolationist opposed to any foreign intervention, but I think when assessing the morality of issues like this one, context is essential. The Clinton administration’s response could have been better, but when you ask yourself “compared to what?” I think it’s clear that the US was, at minimum, no worse than any other nation.
No worse than any other nation? Surely there were some nations it was worse than?
I agree that the U.S.'s behavior was less bad than many other nations' behavior: France, probably Belgium, and certainly the Rwandan genocidaires themselves.
The delayed response and obfuscation of the facts were bad, but which country was beating the drum at the time about it being an atrocity or offering to intervene?
Ultimately the US sent millions is aid to the survivors.
Clinton's first error was pressuring Kagame to sign the ceasefire and the Arusha Accords, naively handing Tutsis over to the mercies of a government and population which clearly hated them.
Dear Mr. Bulldog, the missing context is Somalia. After the Black Hawk Down episode in October 1993, the Clinton administration was terrified of another African peacekeeping mission with dead US soldiers dragged through the streets. Those were powerful images; they evoked US impotence in a faraway political event of no relevance to immediate US interests. It was still fresh in the minds of both Clinton advisers and public. I am older than you and remember the sense of disbelief we would get involved in something like that. That does not excuse the Rwanda decision on moral grounds but it does explain Washington’s genuine reluctance to get involved. If you were president you would have acted quite differently. But then someone as a passionate as you would not be electable. You went to New York to ring doorbells for a candidate. Would your passion extend to volunteering to use a weapon in Rwanda? For what it’s worth, his failure to react to the genocide undoubtedly helped spur the intervention against Serbia soon after. Read Conrad for the psychology of Clinton’s inaction.
Unfortunately the administration did worse than nothing: they pressured Kagame into a ceasefire while he was rapidly advancing in 92-93. Then they helped set up a 'democratic' government (still led by a party which discriminated against Tutsis and whose youth militias had already massacred Tutsis). It was almost a good faith effort but there's nothing good faith about disarming an endangered minority because you've had a good chat about liberalism with their genociders.
Fine. You stop the genocide. What's your next move? Stay there for the next 50 years trying to get the two factions to get along? As you noted Rwanda is now a dictatorship of the Tutsi minority and when that gets overthrown we will probably get a repeat.
The first Congo war was two years later. And intervening there would have been a lot costlier and less likely to work. There weren't the same kinds of broad-scale massacres. But yeah maybe we should have sent some troops to stop the civilian massacres of Kagame's army.
I consider myself generally under-informed on foreign conflicts in general, but what about the current situation in Sudan? I know it's not an either/or sort of thing, but if the same resources we've blown on Iran right recently were somehow used there would it be possible to somehow bring about at least a temporary peace between the groups that are fighting to save countless civilian lives?
I guess maybe that would take boots on the ground rather than just lobbing million-dollar munitions all over the place. If the US is dead set on engaging in military conflicts it just seems like maybe instead of starting/perpetuating them we could try to stop some ongoing ones instead. (Maybe this is an extremely stupid suggestion, I really don't know.)
>Stay there for the next 50 years trying to get the two factions to get along? As you noted Rwanda is now a dictatorship of the Tutsi minority and when that gets overthrown we will probably get a repeat.
Dictatorships are common. Genocides are rare. So if you nip one in the bud, it's likely you've flat out prevented it.
Especially because of the conditions before the genocide - a mass economic contraction that was decimating the Rwandan middle classes. The IMF structural adjustments would have run their course, and the country would have returned to growth, making the conditions less fertile for genocide.
And speaking of economy, the Rwandan one is growing fast. 50 years is way more than would be needed to move Rwanda to at least a middle economy country, which further reduces the risks quite significantly.
Well, there's a decent chance we might have halted or ameliorated the Rwandan civil war, and probably the Congo wars as well. And the deterrence might have helped in other conflicts as well.
This is context, not exoneration:
Eighteen U.S. dead in Mogadishu, Somalia on 10/03/1993 produced Clinton's 10/07/1993 order to leave Somalia by 03/31/1994 — weeks before Habyarimana's plane fell. That incident, dramatized in "Black Hawk Down" made Washington casualty-averse toward exactly Rwanda's kind of operation.
Note however, that PDD-25's restrictive draft predated Mogadishu (September 1993), so Somalia hardened an existing reluctance rather than creating it. And among the damning choices were those that carried zero American risk: the peacekeepers gutted from UNAMIR were Belgian and Ghanaian, not American; jamming "radio genocide" needed no troops.
To borrow BB's words, this is the defining failure of the Clinton administration, but critics would prefer to remember him well or damn him for an affair with an intern.
America's callous disregard for Africa continues to this day, most recently exemplified by Trump's and Musk's deadly cutbacks at USAID. The only debate left on that issue is what exact form of killing this was and how many people died. Like Clinton's, this administration is left with no ground to stand on.
if America's callous disregard for Africa continues to this day
how were USAID and PEPFAR ever funded in the first place?
in fact America has long cared about Africa and George Bush loves Black people
Annual US spending per citizen, 2024
Social Security: $4,555
Net interest on the national debt: $2,987
National defense: $2,787
Medicare: $2,737
Medicaid: $1,944
Veterans benefits & services: $1,023
Federal civilian & military retirement: $663
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): $313
Affordable Care Act premium tax credits: $292
Supplemental Security Income (SSI): $191
Federal unemployment compensation: $104
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): $53
Global humanitarian foreign aid: $44
"Only saved 75,000 lives"
Only 75,000 human lives saved, imagine that. Scope neglect is insane. How much money did we spend on stretching for Titan submersible again?
Based Matthew
Talk about the white man’s burden. It really is extraordinary. Africans kill Africans, white people to blame.
You devote what, a sentence, to saying that other African nations were unable to intervene, and leave it at that. You really think there was nothing they could have done and that they had no moral responsibility towards their immediate neighbors?
Also, while America was and is the world’s strongest military force, does that really excuse every other nation on earth from any responsibility? Russia, China, India, and several other Asian and South American nations likely possessed sufficient military power to stop the conflict, but yeah, it’s all on Bill Clinton.
I think other nations should have intervened as well. This article was primarily about U.S. blameworthiness, but that wasn't because I think the U.S. is the only entity to blame.
That’s fair, and I appreciate the response. Perhaps I was too harsh in my characterization, but I find the excessive blaming of white Western nations for the world’s ills tiresome.
I’m not an isolationist opposed to any foreign intervention, but I think when assessing the morality of issues like this one, context is essential. The Clinton administration’s response could have been better, but when you ask yourself “compared to what?” I think it’s clear that the US was, at minimum, no worse than any other nation.
No worse than any other nation? Surely there were some nations it was worse than?
I agree that the U.S.'s behavior was less bad than many other nations' behavior: France, probably Belgium, and certainly the Rwandan genocidaires themselves.
What nations acted better than the US?
The delayed response and obfuscation of the facts were bad, but which country was beating the drum at the time about it being an atrocity or offering to intervene?
Ultimately the US sent millions is aid to the survivors.
Well eg Luxembourg. I’m talking about during the genocide not after
Clinton's first error was pressuring Kagame to sign the ceasefire and the Arusha Accords, naively handing Tutsis over to the mercies of a government and population which clearly hated them.
Dear Mr. Bulldog, the missing context is Somalia. After the Black Hawk Down episode in October 1993, the Clinton administration was terrified of another African peacekeeping mission with dead US soldiers dragged through the streets. Those were powerful images; they evoked US impotence in a faraway political event of no relevance to immediate US interests. It was still fresh in the minds of both Clinton advisers and public. I am older than you and remember the sense of disbelief we would get involved in something like that. That does not excuse the Rwanda decision on moral grounds but it does explain Washington’s genuine reluctance to get involved. If you were president you would have acted quite differently. But then someone as a passionate as you would not be electable. You went to New York to ring doorbells for a candidate. Would your passion extend to volunteering to use a weapon in Rwanda? For what it’s worth, his failure to react to the genocide undoubtedly helped spur the intervention against Serbia soon after. Read Conrad for the psychology of Clinton’s inaction.
Unfortunately the administration did worse than nothing: they pressured Kagame into a ceasefire while he was rapidly advancing in 92-93. Then they helped set up a 'democratic' government (still led by a party which discriminated against Tutsis and whose youth militias had already massacred Tutsis). It was almost a good faith effort but there's nothing good faith about disarming an endangered minority because you've had a good chat about liberalism with their genociders.
Fine. You stop the genocide. What's your next move? Stay there for the next 50 years trying to get the two factions to get along? As you noted Rwanda is now a dictatorship of the Tutsi minority and when that gets overthrown we will probably get a repeat.
The immediate proposal would be to send in a large number of peacekeepers to protect civilians. Then, when Kagame takes control, you remove them.
And then we send those peacekeepers into Congo to protect civilians there from Kagame who we've just put in place?
The first Congo war was two years later. And intervening there would have been a lot costlier and less likely to work. There weren't the same kinds of broad-scale massacres. But yeah maybe we should have sent some troops to stop the civilian massacres of Kagame's army.
Should we have sent troops into Iraq to stop Saddam? One lesson of that war is that theaters which look easy can get surprisingly sticky.
I consider myself generally under-informed on foreign conflicts in general, but what about the current situation in Sudan? I know it's not an either/or sort of thing, but if the same resources we've blown on Iran right recently were somehow used there would it be possible to somehow bring about at least a temporary peace between the groups that are fighting to save countless civilian lives?
I guess maybe that would take boots on the ground rather than just lobbing million-dollar munitions all over the place. If the US is dead set on engaging in military conflicts it just seems like maybe instead of starting/perpetuating them we could try to stop some ongoing ones instead. (Maybe this is an extremely stupid suggestion, I really don't know.)
>Stay there for the next 50 years trying to get the two factions to get along? As you noted Rwanda is now a dictatorship of the Tutsi minority and when that gets overthrown we will probably get a repeat.
Dictatorships are common. Genocides are rare. So if you nip one in the bud, it's likely you've flat out prevented it.
Especially because of the conditions before the genocide - a mass economic contraction that was decimating the Rwandan middle classes. The IMF structural adjustments would have run their course, and the country would have returned to growth, making the conditions less fertile for genocide.
And speaking of economy, the Rwandan one is growing fast. 50 years is way more than would be needed to move Rwanda to at least a middle economy country, which further reduces the risks quite significantly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Rwanda#/media/File:GDP_per_capita_development_of_Rwanda.png
>Fine. You stop the genocide.
Yay!
>What's your next move?
Well, there's a decent chance we might have halted or ameliorated the Rwandan civil war, and probably the Congo wars as well. And the deterrence might have helped in other conflicts as well.