Papers prove US knew of genocide in Rwanda (x42 admin buried info to justify inaction)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 4/1/04 | Rory Carroll

[NormsRevenge]

US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal.

Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene.

Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president knew of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak.

It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington policymakers.

The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings.

"It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide.

The National Security Archive, an independent non-governmental research institute based in Washington, went to court to obtain the material.

It discovered that a secret CIA briefing circulated to Mr Clinton, his vice-president, Al Gore, and hundreds of officials included almost daily reports on Rwanda. One, dated April 23, 1994, said rebels would continue fighting to "stop the genocide, which . . . is spreading south".

Three days later the secretary of state, Warren Christopher, and other officials were told of "genocide and partition" and of declarations of a "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis".

However, the administration did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25 and even then diluted its impact by saying "acts of genocide".

Ms des Forges said: "They feared this word would generate public opinion which would demand some sort of action and they didn't want to act."

The administration did not want to repeat the fiasco of intervention in Somalia, where US troops became sucked into fighting. It also felt the US had no interests in Rwanda, a small central African country with no minerals or strategic value.

Many analysts and historians fault Washington and other Western countries not just for failing to support the token force of overwhelmed United Nations peacekeepers but also for failing to speak out more forcefully during the slaughter.

Mr Clinton has apologised for those failures but the declassified documents undermine his defence of ignorance.

On a visit to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in 1998 Mr Clinton apologised for not acting quickly enough or immediately calling the crimes genocide.

[The G Man]

How's the legacy coming, Bill?

[smiley]

....okay, media...where is YOUR outrage????

....if this had been President Bush......

[Maceman]

I do not think the US should have intervened in Rwanda, in the absence of a threat to our security and interests. I do not believe we should have intervened in Bosnia and Serbia for the same reasons.

I do, however, support what we did in Iraq because I believe that the US had a real interest in seeing Saddam deposed.

[tall_tex]

And just think, he was our first black president.

[NativeSon]

I do not think the US should have intervened in Rwanda, in the absence of a threat to our security and interests. I do not believe we should have intervened in Bosnia and Serbia for the same reasons.

I agree but more importantly, how will the Left-O-Crats blame President Bush for this?

Because we all know the racist-Republicans (tm) made this happen.

[BMC1]

Did Clarke know? He's the one who talked Clinton into going into Somalia.

Another screw up by Clinton and Clarke?

[Paradox]

I can understand his aversion to intervention, but what about the bully pulpit? I understand not going in, but to all but hide it?

[Arpege92]

"Another screw up by Clinton and Clarke?"

It's amazing how one simple word like "Screw" can define the Clinton administration!

[Badeye]

I knew from the moment I first heard him speak exactly what Bill Clinton was, and voted against him twice when the opportunity came to do so. I fully supported his Impeachment, and believe his inaction, along with Jimmy Carter's abysmal performance relating to the Iranian Hostage crisis led us directly to September 11th, 2001.

That said.....I will always be thankful, no matter what the real reason was, that Bill Clinton did not send our troops into Rwanda. It would have been a disaster that would have made Somalia, Afghanistan AND Iraq combined look "tame" in my opinion.

Feel the same way about Bush not going into Liberia last year, btw. No national security issues involved in either case, no threat to us, no involvement required or desired.

[cripplecreek]

If you want to touch a sore nerve with democrats, toss that story out there for them. I posted it in a liberal group and got the ole BCIP (bill clinton isnt president) routine.

[NormsRevenge]

The more important point is the UN also knew what was happening and did nothing.

Clinton was and is a political toad and a pacifist who was advised by fools and buffoons.

What the UN's excuse then and now is beyond comprehension.

Of course, the fact that Maddie was our Ambassador to the UN and admitted she was not forceful enough either is just more salt in the Clinton Legacy's wounds on humanity, irrespective of skin color or race or belief system involved.

[eureka!]

You mentioned Clarke. You might find this interesting. Here's some tidbits from Rich Lowry's NRO yesterday on Clarke and the Grifting Sink Emperor:

RWANDA--CLARKE OBSTRUCTED ACTION [Rich Lowry] The Clinton administration's conduct during the Rwandan genocide was one of the more shameful episodes in recent American history, and Dick Clarke was in the middle of it--playing politics, at least according to this passage from Samantha Power's excellent book A Problem from Hell: “At the NSC the person who managed Rwanda policy was not [Tony] Lake but Richard Clarke, who oversaw peacekeeping policy and for whom the news from Rwanda only confirmed a deep skepticism about the viability of UN deployments. Clarke believed that another UN failure could doom relations between Congress and the United Nations. He also sought to shield the president from congressional and public criticism. Donald Steinberg managed the Africa portfolio at the NSC and tried to look out for the dying Rwandans, but he was not an experienced in-fighter, and, colleagues say, he ‘never won a single argument’ with Clarke.” Posted at 04:51 PM

CLINTON KNEW... [Rich Lowry] ... about the Rwandan genocide, at least according to this story in the Guardian: Papers prove US knew of genocide in Rwanda By Rory Carroll April 1, 2004 US president Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, classified documents made available for the first time reveal. Senior officials privately used the word genocide within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly because the president had already decided not to intervene. Intelligence reports obtained using the US Freedom of Information Act show the cabinet and almost certainly the president knew of a planned "final solution to eliminate all Tutsis" before the slaughter reached its peak. It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington policymakers. The documents undermine claims by Mr Clinton and his officials that they did not fully appreciate the scale and speed of the killings. "It's powerful proof that they knew," said Alison des Forges, a Human Rights Watch researcher and authority on the genocide. Posted at 04:22 PM

Just a little more legacy...

[Remole]

Actually, the indictment against the UN in NYC is even worse. The UN in Rwanda knew what was going on; and by the late summer of 1994 knew very well what was going on in the UNHCR camps that were hastily built in the eastern part of Zaire (now Congo). The tragedy was that Kofi Annan, under-secy of UN, refused to let the UN troops to go to live fire and refused to send more UN troops to the area; as a result, the UN commander in Rwanda, a Canadian named Romeo Delaire (spelling?)could only watch the carnage happen in front of his eyes. The horror of it nearly caused him full mental breakdown. Lesson learned: never rely on the UN to handle a war zone (e.g., Iraq).

[Badeye]

Agree with your points. I'm just glad we "didn't go there". It would have been a disaster on so many levels, its hard to catagorize them all.

[breakem]

keep it going

[Darksheare]

I haven't checked the Downside Legacy yet for this info, but it should be there.

[EQAndyBuzz]

" Lake but Richard Clarke, who oversaw peacekeeping policy and for whom the news from Rwanda only confirmed a deep skepticism about the viability of UN deployments."

Between this and his hatred of Condi Rice I would say that Clarke is a racist and should be labeled as such.

[alloysteel]

And you can see, in action, how Democrats avoid quagmires. The simple and incontrovertible fact is, Democrats don't KNOW how to fight a war. Now the regime of the "Former Occupant of the Oval Office, 1993-2001", known to have bemoaned the fact that 9/11 didn't happen on their watch (for which they would have been showered with great glory), had no CLUE how they may have inserted any effectual fighting force into the region. Risky scheme, doncha know.

This way, they avoided an ignoble retreat, probably much more massive that the black eye they got in Somalia, and they preserved some credibility for being "prudent". The thing about Somalia, they could get out pretty quickly. In Central Africa, they would have been without an exit strategy of any kind.

[Monkey King]

"Papers prove US knew..."

Another example of media bias. Not "Clinton knew" which is actually the damning point in the article, but the "US knew" which attempts, in the eyes of the scanning reader, to absolve any one person of culpability.

When it's a Republican at fault, let's go after him - because we don't like what Republicans stand for. When it's a Democrat at fault, let's go after the US - because we don't like what the US stands for.

Almost a million lives snuffed out. The least Clinton, Gore, Albright et al could have done was bear honest witness.

Will the US stand by while a "final solution" is enacted against the Taiwanese by the Chinese? The Hindus by the Muslims? The Jews by the Arabs?

The Jews by the secular Europeans? Oh, wait, been there...

Probably not. But the betting gets iffy when a liberal is in the Oval Office.