Rwanda weighs in on genocide prevention

UNITED NATIONS - Rwanda's foreign minister on Sunday questioned whether world leaders would ever make good on new promise to act in times of genocide like the one that devastated his nation 11 years ago.

One of the most lauded elements of a document that came out of a three-day summit that ended Friday was world leaders' recognition of a collective responsibility to protect people from genocide, war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

Rwanda's Foreign Minister, Charles Murigande, told the annual U.N. General Assembly debate that his country would wait to declare that responsibility a success until nations again confront such a crisis.

"Action, not words, would be the measure of our success or failure," Murigande said. "Will there be lengthy academic or legal debates on what constitutes genocide or crimes against humanity while people die?"

Rwanda's 1994 genocide saw more than 500,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus massacred over three months. The powerful U.N. Security Council largely stood by as the killing took place.

Murigande said few countries in the world were more interested in U.N. reform than Rwanda because there is no other nation where the United Nations has "consistently neglected to learn from its mistakes, resulting in massive loss of life and untold misery."

He accused the United Nations of again failing to live up to its promises because Rwandan appeals for the arrest of those who perpetrated the genocide had gone unanswered. Many of them fled to lawless east of neighboring Congo, where they have become a destabilizing force against that country's government as well.

Murigande demanded that neighboring countries turn over Rwanda genocide suspects, and if they don't, that the Security Council take action.

"We find it inexplicable that while some States profess commitment to the Charter, human rights and international law, they allow known suspects of the Rwanda genocide to live in their countries," he said.

Here's are two questions for you, Mr. Murigande:

Your mass killings were instituted approximately 10 years ago. In 10 years' time, you, YOU have done nothing to improve the situation; indeed, you -- and your counterparts in the other tribe -- have continued to exacerbate matters, via your actions, your speech, and your bizarrely stupid governmental policies.

1) Why is any nation anywhere somehow responsible to commit huge amounts of resources to keep two primitive, and more importantly, primitively tribal cultures from killing each other?

2) You -- or at least your nation -- could stop this slaughter in short order by abandoning your ridiculous notions of tribalism and reaching (effectively) an internal non-aggression pact with your fellow citizens of your nation of the opposing tribe, yet you don't. You don't even try. Would civilised peoples not be, would the world at large not be, net bottom line and no 'human rights' BS (which concept eludes BOTH your tribes), well better off by letting you lot mutually slaughter each other into extinction or near-extinction?

Absent hard evidence to the contrary, and given your nation's history since independence, I would tend to say, very simply, have a nice trip to hell.

what are you talking about?

it's a late hour, but your comments make no sense at all.

such as:

In 10 years' time, you, YOU have done nothing to improve the situation; indeed, you -- and your counterparts in the other tribe -- have continued to exacerbate matters, via your actions, your speech, and your bizarrely stupid governmental policies.

are you saying that trying to bring mass murderers to justice is a stupid policy?

Would civilised peoples not be, would the world at large not be, net bottom line and no 'human rights' BS (which concept eludes BOTH your tribes), well better off by letting you lot mutually slaughter each other into extinction or near-extinction?

Civilized people do not allow people to be slaughtered into extinction.

Absent hard evidence to the contrary, and given your nation's history since independence, I would tend to say, very simply, have a nice trip to hell.

Absent hard evidence of your knowledge of Rwandan history and politics, please do some research before you post on this topic.

Civilized people do not allow people to be slaughtered into extinction.

Arguably the most stupid comment ever posted. By direct implication, this statement asserts that there are no civilised peoples on earth, because various peoples have been doing exactly this to various other peoples, or attempting to, for all of recorded history, and very likely for all of history, period.

''Do not allow'', forsooth? What rubbish. What would you have, say, Norway, Germany, Japan, Australia, India, Chile, or the US do here? Issue a stern reprimand from the UN? Dispatch legions of lawyers in aid of your wonted ''prosecution of mass murderers''? Invade?

The point is here that there is exactly no external way to prevent, or halt once in progress, such slaughter in most cases. Further, there is no external way to prevent future retaliation, aka payback, generation on generation. For further details, see the Balkans.

As to policy, see the famous prayer of St. Francis.

"Arguably the most stupid comment ever posted. "

i beg to differ. it's only the SECOND most stupid comment ever posted.

"By direct implication, this statement asserts that there are no civilised peoples on earth, because various peoples have been doing exactly this to various other peoples, or attempting to, for all of recorded history, and very likely for all of history, period."

my statement was meant to rebuke yours, which effectively posed the question "what's in it for us whether or not these africans live?" asking such a question put you outside the pale of civilization. it's been done before and it will be done again, but despite your protests, it's not what civilized people do. period.

". What would you have, say, Norway, Germany, Japan, Australia, India, Chile, or the US do here? Issue a stern reprimand from the UN? Dispatch legions of lawyers in aid of your wonted ''prosecution of mass murderers''? Invade?"

deal with the genocidaires of 1994 as we dealt with the genocidal nazis of 1944 when they slipped across the borders and went into hiding: hunt them, catch them, bring them to justice.

Africans, Shmafricans. I wasn't talking about Africa AT ALL, but about barbarism in general, of which evil this moron quoted in the article is a clear result. 'Justice', my butt; this chap is in the game for payback.

Barbarians -- as judged by their behaviour -- live on all continents and come in all colours. North Korea is barbaric by any man's standards, as are several other governments/nations. Stalin's USSR and Mao's China, not to forget Pol Pot's Cambodia, were likely more barbaric still.

Hunt down the genocidists? Fine w/me, but somewhat easier said than done. The remnants of the Nazi regime fled mostly to South America, which fact made locating considerable numbers of them much easier. So, where today are the Rwandan genocidists of the previous decade, where have they run to? Equitorial Guinea? Sierra Leone? Mozambique (itself the home of a rather considerable attempt at genocide, as you'll recall)? Zimbabwe, even; Mugabe would shield them in a heartbeat if he thought they could serve his purposes? The Sudan? Who knows?

Hunting down these vermin will have to be a piecemeal and unfortunately very slow process; the Nazis were meticulous record-keepers, which fact made their pursuit vastly easier. These swine likely, most of them, can't even write, there's little if any documentation of their foreign connections, and they can relatively easily vanish into any of a dozen or so anarchic or near-anarchic environments -- Somalia, for an easy example.

Hunting them down does sound nice, as policy, but the execution of such policy is way the devil more difficult than merely typing the words.

"Africans, Shmafricans. I wasn't talking about Africa AT ALL, but about barbarism in general, of which evil this moron quoted in the article is a clear result. 'Justice', my butt; this chap is in the game for payback."

Where is the evidence to support this claim? He's trying to bring killers to justice, just like Simon Wiesenthal did in the preceding decades. Is there something wrong with that?

And I think you were talking about Africa, Rwanda specifically, when you wrote, as a question to Mr. Murigande:

"Would civilised peoples not be, would the world at large not be, net bottom line and no 'human rights' BS (which concept eludes BOTH your tribes), well better off by letting you lot mutually slaughter each other into extinction or near-extinction?"

". So, where today are the Rwandan genocidists of the previous decade, where have they run to? Equitorial Guinea? Sierra Leone? Mozambique (itself the home of a rather considerable attempt at genocide, as you'll recall)? Zimbabwe, even; Mugabe would shield them in a heartbeat if he thought they could serve his purposes? The Sudan? Who knows?"

====

It's common knowledge where most of them went. The second paragraph from the last:

"He accused the United Nations of again failing to live up to its promises because Rwandan appeals for the arrest of those who perpetrated the genocide had gone unanswered. Many of them fled to lawless east of neighboring Congo, where they have become a destabilizing force against that country's government as well."

"These swine likely, most of them, can't even write,"

Rwanda's literacy rate is 70.4% and among men, who made up most of the killers, it is 76.3%.

"they can relatively easily vanish into any of a dozen or so anarchic or near-anarchic environments -- Somalia, for an easy example."

Somalia is an easy example of an anarchic environment, but completely different from Rwanda in climate, religion, lifestyle, language, society, etc. A Rwandan genocidaire trying to hide in Somalia would have about as much success as a Nazi would.

Simon Wiesenthal passed away earlier today.
======
Wiesenthal is often asked to explain his motives for becoming a Nazi hunter. According to Clyde Farnsworth in the New York Times Magazine (February 2, 1964), Wiesenthal once spent the Sabbath at the home of a former Mauthausen inmate, now a well-to-do jewelry manufacturer. After dinner his host said, "Simon, if you had gone back to building houses, you'd be a millionaire. Why didn't you?" "You're a religious man," replied Wiesenthal. "You believe in God and life after death. I also believe. When we come to the other world and meet the millions of Jews who died in the camps and they ask us, 'What have you done?', there will be many answers. You will say, 'I became a jeweler', Another will say, I have smuggled coffee and American cigarettes', Another will say, 'I built houses', But I will say, 'I didn't forget you.'"

We won't forget you, Simon. Rest in peace.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.