Rwanda and after
This month marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. By many measures, Rwanda has rebounded remarkably in the years since mass killings left 800,000 dead. Its economy is strong and its poverty rate has declined. The government has brought order to the country and overseen a process of reconciliation involving international, national, and village trials.
On the international scene, Rwanda is a synonym for doing nothing in the face of genocide. The current U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, rose to prominence with an impassioned book lamenting world leaders’ failure to intervene in 1994. Bill Clinton, president at the time, has expressed regret about his inaction. New Zealand recently apologized for its failure to act.
After 20 years—and now with someone like Power in a leadership role—is the international community any more likely to intervene when the next Rwanda looms? It’s doubtful. Humanitarian intervention sounds good in moral theory but is frequently set aside in the political reckoning.
