Genocide in Rwanda

[Felix/FFDS]

IN this, I tend to agree with Webb, and Andrew's "US/UN same thing" remark emphasized the dichotomy.

It's interesting how the "UN" is viewed.  Webb points out an article basically criticizing the UN's (and directly the US's) lack of involvement in Rwanda.  The article comes from a US organization in Washington, DC.

There is a growing feeling that the good that the UN does is far outweighed by it's inaction, and like Webb points out, many times, if the UN doesn't act, people point will point and blame the US if IT doesn't act.

[ATI_7500]

...if the UN doesn't act, people point will point and blame the US if IT doesn't act.

The USA have the reputation of a 'world police'. They acted in 1991, so why not in 1993, when the atrocities in Rwanda took place? Maybe because they were already involved in Somalia?

[Felix/FFDS]

The USA have the reputation of a 'world police'. They acted in 1991, so why not in 1993, when the atrocities in Rwanda took place? Maybe because they were already involved in Somalia?

You bring up a good point, and quite possibly, the situation in Somalia overshadowed the Rwandan situation in the press/public, etc.  Also, different administrations, different policy foci....

Also, it's one thing to call on the UN for action, but when the chips are down, then suddenly some countries "remember" that their troops are not allowed to go into operations outside their countries, etc.

The UN may not be the answer for the world's problems, but the US may not be the cause of the world's problems, either.

[WebbPA]

I'm sorry if I piss you off, Webb, but it would have helped if the US/UN (SAME THING!!:p) stayed out of it....

A.

No, you haven't pissed me off, but thanks for your concern.

[WebbPA]

The USA have the reputation of a 'world police'. They acted in 1991, so why not in 1993, when the atrocities in Rwanda took place? Maybe because they were already involved in Somalia?

The US had different presidents in 1991 (Bush) and 1993 (Clinton).  The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and makes foreign policy.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

So is it the president as in  he himself who dictates the policy or the combined efforts of the party and DFAT ?


A.

[Craig.]

actually the politicians make the policy. The president just brings it into power by signing off on it i believe.

[Felix/FFDS]

actually the politicians make the policy. The president just brings it into power by signing off on it i believe.

Naturally,  it isn't as simple as "Do as I say ...", but the president sets the tone of the foreign policy, and the legislative  branch votes the monies with which to execute the policy.  The president does have certain "executive powers" to issue and implement directives and commands.  There's a constant battle between the legislative branch (and not necessarily the just by the "opposition") to direct the president's foreign policy, and the executive branch, charged with conducting foreign policy.  And even within the executive branch, there's always a struggle between the executive office (President) and the State Dept. (aka Foreign Office) as to who best implements policy/diplomacy...

Then of course, the media (left, middle, right) and the "people" are always telling the "government" what to do....

Sort of like everywhere else, I guess.