home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac of the 20th Century
/
TIME, Almanac of the 20th Century.ISO
/
1990
/
94
/
05169925.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-02-15
|
4KB
|
82 lines
<text id=94TT0630>
<link 94XP0550>
<link 94TO0161>
<title>
May 16, 1994: Rwanda:Kind Words, But Not Much More
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
May 16, 1994 "There are no devils...":Rwanda
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
COVER STORY, Page 61
Kind Words, but Not Much More
</hdr>
<body>
<p> The pictures are as appalling as any that have come across
global television screens, yet no one is calling for direct
intervention to stop the month-old killing spree in Rwanda.
However troubled they might be by the scale and ferocity of
the slaughter, Western nations have offered little more than
emotional expressions of sympathy for the victims.
</p>
<p> The American appetite for such missions, even in cases of dire
human need, has been dulled by experiences like Somalia. "Lesson
No. 1," President Clinton said last week, "is, Don't go into
one of these things and say, maybe we'll be done in a month
because it's a humanitarian crisis." His reluctance mirrors
the public's: a TIME/CNN poll last week showed that only 34%
of respondents favored doing something to quell the violence,
while 51% opposed any action. Clinton confirmed that judgment
with a new presidential directive on U.S. participation in peacekeeping
abroad: those operations, it says, "should not be open-ended
commitments, but linked to concrete political solutions."
</p>
<p> Rwanda is an almost perfect example of the problem Clinton's
directive addresses. The horrifying slaughter is another explosion
in a mainly ethnically based civil war that outsiders understand
imperfectly if at all--and therefore do not know how to solve.
No one is even certain what sort of diplomatic efforts might
persuade the Rwandan factions to halt the bloodletting. The
only obvious alternative to traditional diplomacy would be for
a well-equipped army to move into Rwanda--shooting if necessary--and force a cease-fire. But no one is volunteering for such
an army.
</p>
<p> A U.N. peacekeeping force already in Rwanda to police an agreement
last August for power sharing with Tutsi rebels in the Hutu-led
government was hastily reduced from 2,600 to 470 when the massacres
began and 10 Belgian blue helmets were killed. The signal sent,
says a senior African diplomat, "was, Look, you are on your
own. You may do whatever you want."
</p>
<p> Sanctions, the response of choice at the U.N., are widely regarded
as useless in this case: Rwanda's economy is already destitute,
and people are fighting just to stay alive. As the situation
worsens, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali is looking
for about 8,000 troops to send into the country to stop the
killing. He has asked the Organization of African Unity to take
on the responsibility, but has had no response.
</p>
<p> Special envoys are in motion, and humanitarian organizations
are pleading for the creation of safe havens for refugees inside
Rwanda. But the example of Bosnia's safe areas encourages no
one, and the only aid being delivered is to the vast new camps
across Rwanda's borders in Tanzania and Burundi. At the U.N.,
there is only a vague hope for a cease-fire. "We are at a loss
to know what to do," says an Asian delegate. The butchery is
"inhuman, ghastly," says U.S. Ambassador to Rwanda David Rawson.
Still, says another State Department official, "it's not that
we have any plan." There is not likely to be one anytime soon.
"We have got to hope that these people will understand that
they are brothers," says Rawson. "They cannot kill each other
forever." The tragedy is that thousands more are likely to die
trying.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>