Thursday, February 7, 2013
Traditions, Theories, and Potential Responses to Rwanda
During the past week we've considered a number of different traditions of American Foreign Policy and three different approaches to international relations (Realism, Liberalism and the Just War Theory). Which traditions do you identify with and why? Please use your approach to justify how you believe the United States should have responded to the crisis in Rwanda. Please complete your response in AT LEAST 10 THOUGHTFUL AND WELL-CONSTRUCTED SENTENCES. Thanks and looking forward to reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even though I said I tend to lean toward the Realism perspective, I found the Just War theory rather interesting. I agree with all of the post and in war theories. I am still somewhat confuse with some components of the before-war theory but one particular part, in my opinion, fits perfectly with my perspective. The part of this theory that involve the just cause plays a large role on what I think the US should have done. I believe that the US should have done something. I understand that the repercussions of theirs acts could have been great if they would have acted but the most minimal intervention could have saved the life of many. I think that the fact that many innocent people were slaughter is a just cause for which the US should have intervene. I understand that the US did not have any interest in Rwanda, but the morality of the issue demanded help from somebody, anybody. I believe that the US could have done many things, like simply sending peacekeepers or urge the UN to send peacekeepers, that would have save that lives of many. Saving one life was already improving the situation.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most morally correct approach to international relations is the Just War Theory, because it makes the nations entering war put lots of thought into what they're actually doing. I know that at the moment nations don't use this policy and that it would be very difficult to persuade nations into doing so. I think that in the situation in Rwanda the United States should have gotten involved, because the Tutsi people were obviously out-numbered and the situation was not just a war, but a genocide. The United States did nothing to help the situation in Rwanda, because we were to afraid of the consequences. The Just War Theory allows a nation to do the morally correct thing by taking time to figure out what is truly morally correct, which is why I think it is a good option in international affairs.
ReplyDeleteI generally believe that people are good at heart, and therefore identify with Liberalism. Although there is still corruption and disputes over power, I like to think that people are generally good, have good intentions, and try their hardest to follow through with these. I know that there is a huge hole in my argument, and that anyone could easily shoot it down by pointing out human rights violations throughout history, but I think that it is imperative to understand that not everyone is going to follow through with what I consider to be the general flow. In addition, I think you could extend this to say that a few rotten people have spoiled many people's opinions. Many of my classmates have argued that there is no way Liberalism can exist, because there are bad people out there who only care about power. But I think that generally, the number of good people overwhelm the number of evil people, and the only reason it doesn't seem this way is because if I (hypothetically) go every weekend to feed the hungry, I'm not going to get as much attention as the person who kills 5 people. Since people are inherently good, evil is more noticeable and interesting, which is why it appears to be taking over.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I believe the descriptive Realist approach to International policy is the most used policy today. I believe that power is the main pursuit of the state, although I wish that peace and harmony were the most important aspects (as it is in Liberalism). I appreciate the Just War tradition because it seems the most rational because of the three categories of rational thought. I believe that the US should have intervened much, much more using this approach. I believe much more could have been done, and the people of Rwanda should not have been viewed simply as collateral in a civil war. The US would have been able to if not prevent, alleviate the amount of genocide that occurred. America was more interested in its own well-being as a country than that of people. If there had been constant intervention rather than gradual to immediate pull-out of troops, the carnage would have been significantly less. The Just War doctrine uses steps and and well placed thoughts to aid the efforts in peace keeping and help the Tutsi people from the oppressive ethnic cleansing carried out by the Hutu in 1994.
ReplyDeletethe article made me hate America. Although I see the world and the U.S as using Realism, I would like to see it the other way. I mean, who isn’t power hungry? Everyday we are striving to beat our classmates in school, to be the best, go to the best college, have the best job, and gain power whatsoever. Therefor, I established that I didn’t like Americas involvement in the Rwanda’s genocide. I didn’t like the involvement because they were too scared to fail, (WHICH THEY DID). I think that the US should have sent loads of troops and stopped the killing of innocent people( like come on, are we that selfish we cannot afford to loose some money to stop innocent killings because we need to be the top power in the world?) We should have used the Just War chart to help us realize that the US is the main power in the world and instead of trying to keep that position, we should use it to our advantage and help people( make a good reputation).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not know firsthand the political climate of the United States in the early nineties, I do know that throughout the first Bush administration, the US was on its way to a budget surplus, even in the wake of the Gulf War. Considering this prosperity, I think a Liberalist argument would have held water back then. Although the US may not have had a clear enough incentive to satisfy Realists wary of intervention, the US had the resources to intervene effectively and so was morally obligated to lend a hand in some way. Moreover, if I recall correctly, the US violated international codes regarding genocide via vague language. I'm reminded of my research for my final project, specifically the "Santa Fe" case; the UNITED STATES Supreme Court ultimately condemned the practice of deliberately excluding a word from a document or speech in order to create distance from that word (whether it be "prayer," as in the Santa Fe case, or "genocide"). I do not mean to use national precedents to settle international matters, but I think this verdict reflects American merit better than isolationist sympathies. Ideally, there would have existed a privately--but abundantly--funded organization to answer Rwanda's cry for help without regard for Just War conventions or Realist views. I do not call for the creation of such an organization; I remember the article's mention of an "international 9-1-1" or the like. However, I recognize how political the situation was, and lives could have been saved by an organization that wasn't politically motivated. The US should help those in need when possible, and we could possibly have helped Rwanda.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shelby and Noa in their observations the US and most of the world has more of an idealist approach. I think that once people have enough power, they become blind to the needs or wants of the less powerful. This being said, although I see the world as a very cynical place, if I were to act I would not have a cynical approach. Often I am blunt in seeing that, such as in the case of Rwanda, any option would have casualties and bring destruction and discourse. However, I think that something needed to happen even though there is no US stake in the African country.
ReplyDeleteFor me, it comes down to the simple rule we are all taught as children: treat others the way you would like to be treated. Although I know I am not always the most pleasant person, when it comes to life and death situations, rape, torture and the like, I believe that nobody deserves these treatments no matter how heinous the action. If it were happening to the US, I would hope that another country would have the decency to intervene.
This is where I face a very slippery slope, because I honestly believe that if everyone shared my outlook of pacifism that the world would be a much better place. If everyone agrees to not go to war, can these situations even happen? However, what do you do when the hostile party obviously does not take to pacifism? If I were making the calls, I would flood the country with aid. As seen in the documentary, Rwanda did not want to kill non hostile participants and embarrass itself further. So I see if enough aid and refugee camps are set up the fighting essentially has to stop. I would encourage peace negotiations, and have armed troops ready at the camps for security, but I think that fighting a war would only lead to more deaths for us and them. Part of being mainly unarmed is in showing that one is not scared, and it also shifts the fault directly to whoever is wielding the gun.
I identify with the Liberalism approach to international relations, because both of the other traditions seem flawed. Realism fails to take into account human emotion and moral behavior, and it assumes that all states and all people within states work unilaterally towards the goal of ultimate power. That just doesn’t make sense; on an individual level, I think that all people would say that morality influences their actions in some form. States are nothing more than many individuals, and I don’t believe that when a group of people influenced by morality come together, that morality just disappears. The Just War tradition takes morality into account, but I’m not sure that it’s entirely practical. I’m not sure taking all those rules into account for each step of war is feasible. It also promotes these rules as the primary consideration for war while liberalism seems to promote morality and international cooperation. I think those two concepts are the most important when considering warfare.
ReplyDeleteI’m not going to go through every single thing the US got wrong in handling the Rwanda genocide, but I will say that the United State’s actions should have gone in line with the liberal philosophy. From reading the article and watching the movie, it seemed like the United States was following a very realist approach: protect the US, and forget about everyone else. That approach ended in hundreds of thousands of murders. I think the United States should have sent as much aid as they possibly could. Especially considering the fact that the Red Cross was able to stay safely, there was nothing stopping the United States from helping. The one thing that made me angry was the way people were sent to rescue Americans and the way they just left Rwandan people to their deaths. I think they should have seen put a priority on individual people, as opposed to Americas, and rescued as many as they could.
The Just War Theory would be a lovely way to go about things if it were not so exceedingly subjective and easily manipulated. The 7 points for each section certainly outline the essentials for ethical warfare (if there is such a thing) *given* that the people consulting it have a genuine desire for caution and morality. What are intended to be guidelines for justice also give anyone and everyone a platform through which to slyly justify their deeds. Any one of the points could be stretched to fit the distorted ideals of a war/power-hungry user.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of sending US troops to Rwanda is a convoluted one that carries a lot of controversy with it - supposedly America not only refrained from action themselves but also actively campaigned against the use of military force in Rwanda from other countries as well. The US ultimately didn't have enough incentive to put the lives of their own at risk. That's an extremely truncated and rough summary of our reluctance to send in troops.
Obviously it's immoral to stand by while a genocide takes place. That's certainly the essence of the appalling tragedy that occurred - thousands of innocent people massacred. But what I find even more disturbing is the implications that our withdrawal had on the concept of genocide in general. The Holocaust is probably the most prominent genocide to have taken place - "never again" is something of a tagline that's resulted from the world's grief. The juxtaposition of our continual mourning for the 6 million dead and the deliberate ignorance of the Tutsis (not to mention the other genocides that have taken place in recent years - Sudan, Darfur, etc.) suggests the terrifying possibility that we learned nothing from WWII. We have let history repeat itself time and time again - I don't know where down the line after the Holocaust we went wrong and became desensitized to mass murder. The "never again" slogan that is plastered to every Holocaust memorial is more of a horrible mockery than anything else in light of our repeated inactivity.
Ultimately, I identify with Realism. I appreciate that it has too many flaws to be adequately defended; it doesn’t take religion or morality into account. But I don’t think Realism’s flaws make Liberalism or the Just War Theory more correct, and so I have to choose the theory that best explains how a nation can sit back while genocide occurs. Obviously, it would be nice if Liberalism dominated international relations, but it doesn’t. And what makes Liberalism so difficult is that having morals doesn’t make a person good. Each person’s definition of what is “morally correct” will differ; one person might think killing for the sake of the greater good is morally correct, etc. The Just War Theory presents challenges in that it allows for differing opinions but does nothing to appease them. What would happen if a nation was being attacked and a group must decide, in an hour, if it will act? So, I think Realism, even with its flaws, is the most common practiced theory, and the most likely to be practiced again. What happened in Rwanda isn’t excusable, acceptable, or understandable. But it happened because, at that time, America decided to forget its promise after the Holocaust and stay blind. As Rachel L. pointed out, the outrage years later is almost a form of mockery. And while I do identify with Realism, I’m glad that not everybody does. I don’t think it’s a theory that any country should practice, but rather the natural response of disappointed citizens. In Rwanda, we should have intervened—not because it was the right thing to do, but because we promised to help in a genocide situation.
ReplyDeleteFor the time being, I still believe that I am a descriptive realist. The atrocities that went under-rated in Rwanda are plain proof. The United States saw a problem going on in a country that our country (whether people choose to agree with/believe this or not) has subconsciously swept under the rug. I firmly believe that the location and the people have a lot to do with the response (or lack thereof) of the United States. I truly believe that, often, a country’s façade of wanting “peace” or helping a struggling country boils down to their gluttonous hunger for power. The United States wanted praise and a pat on the back for addressing the issue, and later on addressing its mistakes, but there never seemed to be some burning, passionate, legitimate concern for the lives being lost in Rwanda, because it is so removed from our culture. Africa is so far away.
ReplyDeleteI was very interested in the Just War Ethic. I find it interesting, first of all, that is called “an Ethic” because literally stands as a code for the whole process of war – the tensions leading up to war, the war itself, and the days after war, as well. I’ve always heard the term, “All’s fair in love and war.” but I never was able to put a concrete understanding to both aspects (love AND war). The idea of a code of “ethics” in a war zone, where people are supposed to die, is very interesting to me, and it poses the question of whether there is a “time to kill.” Are there people who are TOO “bad,” or less deserving of life? How are we to judge these things? Who gets the final say? Is it the person giving orders or the person holding the gun? I thought all the different factors within the Just War Ethic made a lot of sense, but it further adds to my own personal theories on war and the effects of war on the mental state of the participants.
So many decisions have to be made, and even though, as Moriah stated in class, history is, without a doubt, shaped by the “winners,” the losers face psychological torment and regret as well. It’s a difficult task to try to think of “better” solutions than the code of the Just War Ethic. I’m firmly against war, but the Realist in me understands that when it happens, there has to be a code and specifically boundaries set in place. I never really knew that “war crimes” were legitimate, but now I realize how many people enter a state of war and resort to animalistic qualities, which is why the Just War Ethic needs to be there. When I think about the situation in Rwanda, in relation to this, I wonder what would have happened if more troops had been sent or more countries had gotten involved. I feel awful saying this, but I wonder how the Hutu people could have been handled – were they a group that was “too bad”? Should they have been exterminated as they were trying to do to the Tutsis? Could they be reasoned with? These are all questions that plague my reasoning process. I know each state of war is unique, but I still wonder to myself, when will enough truly be enough?
I consider myself a descriptive realist but in an ideal world we would act according to the Just War ethic. I agree with Realists when they say humans are innately selfish in nature and that power is our main goal. I do not however believe that this is the ideal path for humans to continue down. Considering the situation in Rwanda, I definitely think the U.S. did not respond well. I believe we should have sent troops in NOT to just clear out the white people but help protect and potentially "relocate" Tutsi's to a refugee camp in some other country. Although Rwanda is not close to the U.S. I still think we should have intervened because the Belgians were our allies, therefore, our allies were being killed. I do understand why the U.S. did not intervene but I think they could have at least sent a small force of troops to help out. The genocide in Rwanda was a horrific event in history and we can learn from our actions, or lack thereof, to help aid us in making future decisions when it comes to aiding other countries when war outbreaks.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of descriptively, I believe I'm halfway between realist and liberal and normatively, I think concepts in both liberalism and the Just War Ethic should be combined. Ideally. I think it's impossible to for Realism to be the only way to describe the world because the world isn't anarchic and it isn't completely without morals. There are those who are anarchic and those who don't have morals but the world, as a group of people, as a system, doesn't work that way. However, I cannot ignore that fact that when multiple people are involved, there is a higher chance that there will be some sort of group mindset, and people will follow whoever is the best at getting their point across and getting people to follow them, or whoever was chosen to be in power. Not for a lack of morals or anarchy, but because with a situation like Rwanda it's hard to know what to do, and it's nice to have someone decide what's going to happen and it's easy to sit back and convince yourself it'll be okay. I believe I understand how and why we reacted the way we did with Rwanda. As Samantha Powers points out in the article, it's easy to use dehumanizing language and avoid trigger words like genocide to make it seem less than it is. People don't want to consider people being brutally murdered in droves, and they prefer not to think about it. They didn't do what they could have, but it doesn't make them evil. I believe the US should have responded to Rwanda using the cooperation and aim towards peace and justice of liberalism, and perhaps tried to find a way to intervene without bringing in soldiers and guns, like that woman in the documentary who tried to get Rwandans outside where all the fighting was happening and believed if she could save one life it would at least do something. We should have done more. And, as Courtney says, we should learn from that.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the United States should have responded to Rwanda because the US gives an impression of not caring if it does not benefit them. I agree that the United States has no business being in there because of the little to none ties we have with Rwanda, but I feel like helping is the correct thing to do. It is the moral thing to do, because what example would you set for other countries if you watched hundreds of thousands of people getting slayed because of their race. I also feel that the US is the example setter, so if we jumped in and helped, other countries would jump in and help, maybe not because its the right thing to do, but because the US is doing it. The US always talks about being peaceful and trying to attain peace with other countries.. This would have been a good time to show how you want to shape the world if you are talking about peace. There is no doubt in my mind that helping would be the "morally" correct thing to do and I do not think that this is arguable, but what I do think is up for discussion is how the US can help and why the US can help. I look at the US as the most popular kid in the school; if we do something, other countries try to do it because of the success we have had and continue to have, but not helping out here left other countries to think it was okay NOT to help because the US wasn't helping. I learned alot about the Rwandan Genocide in 8th grade and we had this discussion in RCG and I stated the same ideas that I did today. I believe the US was morally obligated to help.
ReplyDeleteI would generally consider myself to be a realist. Any action taken by a country's government should only be to better themselves. Even in intervening in other's problems, trying to help, is only done to improve relations with the powers involved. Having said that, I feel that many people in these positions of power attempt to be more liberal. Even though we may know what is in our own best interest, most people do not want to view themselves as immoral or calloused. These sentiments lead to people being more interested in liberalism because they will be inclined to do well for others, feeling obligated to do good. But this is not practical. In the Rwanda case, for example, people expected the U.S. to come in and help because of this so-called "city on a hill" mentality. And it was not only other countries but the U.S. government who fell for this facade. Whether or not we have the power to, we are not in any way obligated to get involved in others' conflicts. While it is good for individual people to be moral, morality should not be a part of politics.
ReplyDelete