Kupumbati 1
Arvin Kupumbati
Professor Wadley
PS 14, International Relations
25 April 2022
Global Genocide: Who is the True Bystander?
The world has seen no darker crime against humanity. The forcibly violent, destructive,
and truly nefarious actions to kill millions of people for one simple reason: they are different.
Ethnic groups around the world have faced horrible troubles simply trying to find freedom in a
place that they once called home. But these groups are murdered, tortured, and persecuted just
becuase they are not the same. This violent desecration of ethnic groups across the globe is what
is known as genocide. According to Peevheouse and Goldstein, genoicde is defined as “an
intentional and systematic attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, or religious group, in whole or in
part” (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 126). Citizens of the world have seen genocide happen during
World War II in Nazi Germany, in Cambodia in 1975, during the Rwandan genocides of 1994,
and also during the genocide in Myanmar which is ongoing since 2016. The world has seen all
these instances of genocide happen, but what has been done to stop it? Members of the
government, as well as world leaders claim geocide is harmful and say they will “never again”
let it happen yet it continues to go on throughout the world. A key question arises, if world
leaders truly believe that genocide is harmful, why are they not stopped? The three main reasons
that genocides are not stopped are because of the inaction of the UN, corrupt world leaders, as
well as the fact that the genocide occuring in these regions is simply too powerful to stop.
The United Nations is a world class organization that is renowned around the world, it is
also the closest thing we have to a world government today. The UN is made up of a number of
sovereign states, and through being in that organization, consequently, the UN also values and
respects the individual sovereignty of those states as well. According to Peevehouse and
Goldstein, “the basic purpose of the UN is to provide a global institutional structure through
which states can sometimes settle conflicts with less reliance on the use of force” (Pevehouse
and Goldstein, 227). With that being said, if the UN’s basic sole purpose is to make sure that
conflicts are settled with the least reliance of force, why then are the horrific genocides in
Rwanda and Myanmar being ignored or only partially catered to? The inaction of the UN plays a
large role in the proliferation of genocide in different regions of the world. Approximately
24,000 Rohingya Muslims were killed in the Myanmar in the horrific genocides, and the
Myanmar genocides were ones that were truly unsettling for the world. But the UN did not fully
dedicate themselves to solving this crises, rather their efforts were stopped, and no further
attempts were made to try and stop the genocide, “The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the
Kupumbati 2
situation of human rights in Myanmar Yanghee Lee reported to the U.N. Human Rights Council
in March 2017 that ‘All humanitarian operations and activities normally undertaken in these
areas were suspended.’” (“They Gave Them Long Swords”). The UN tried to create an effort in
order to stop the genocide in Myanmar, but these actions were stopped prematurely. But one
might ask from this: Doesn’t the UN have their own jurisdiction to determine whether they
should continue to intervene? Do they really have to bend the knee to sovereign states that claim
aiding a dying group of people is not necessary? The simple answer to those questions is no.
Though the UN has been given the task to solve the genocide crisis in Myanmar, they simply
cannot do it singlehandedly. Their inaction due to their own limited jurisdiction is what causes
these genocides to cotinue and for millions of lives to be lost. The harsh reality of the matter is
sometimes the UN succeeds, and sometimes it may fail. Peevehouse and Goldstein notes, “If
groups of states could easily solve problems such as ethnic conflicts, human rights, refugees, and
world hunger themselves, they most likely would have done so. Instead states turn many of these
difficult problems over to the UN and hope it can take care of them” (Peevhouse and Goldstein,
228). In actuality, the UN is tasked with solving many world crises, such as genocide, but it can
only do so much as the actual jurisdiction of the issue lies in the hands of higher powers. This
leads to the UN’s own inaction and a void in the place of an international organization that is
supposed to take up the reins for any critical global issue. In the place of the UN there is nobody,
and without its efforts to try and intervene genocide will continiue to go on and lives will
continue to be lost. Furthermore, another reasons why genocides are not stopped is because of
corrupt leadership. The leadership of different states is also a cause as to why there is little to no
intervention in order to stop genocides.
The Rwandan genocide began in 1994, and during this genocide an estimated number of
800,000 Tutsi people were killed by armed millitias in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide was
truly a very dreadful sight ot witness, but world leaders let the desecration go on without getting
involved. This is due to poor leadership but also why those specific governments are corrupt.
Beginning in America, in 1994, President Clinton spoke to the American people during the
Rwandan genocide, he restated his policy but the US would intervene in a humanitarian crisis
only if it were in America's national interest” (Ghosts, 1:29:45). It is clear that President Clinton
felt it was not in America’s best interest to intervene in the Rwandan genocide, yet his decision
cost the lives of many. Clinton’s decision to do this falls under the concept of neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism is the ability for states to act as individual actors pursuing their own interests
within an anarchy, essentially these states are trying to seek long term mutual gains rather than
seeking individual short term gains. According to Peevehouse and Goldstein under
Neoliberalism, “states are unitary actors rationally pursuing their self-interests in a system of
anarchy” (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 71). In this case, Clinton was pursuing America’s own
self-interest by deciding not to intervene in the Rwandan crisis. He took it upon himself to decide
that the U.S. was going to pursue its own national interest rather than the interest of others, yet
this decision cost the lives of many. Furthermore, the United States has also failed to intervene
many global conflicts, “American leaders have not merely refrained from sending GIs to combat
Kupumbati 3
genocide; when it came to atrocities in Cambodia, Iraq and Rwanda, the United States also
refrained from condemning the crimes or imposing economic sanctions; and, again in Rwanda,
the United States refused to authorize the deployment of a multinational U.N. force, and also
squabbled over who would foot the bill for American transport vehicles” (“Never Again”). In
this sense, one might start to question whether the U.S. is simply not getting involved in these
crises because of their own national self interest, or because they are simply choosing not to. The
U.S. has made a conscious choice not to get involved in these conflicts, and this is simply
because the leaders during the current time period were corrupt. They would rather see the lives
of millions being lost rather than to risk their country’s own self interest, and put themselves at
risk of drying as well. Other countries have previously provided aid, but the United States is the
only country that has chosen not to do this. The poor leadership of the United States displays
corruption, and is the reason why genocides continue to happen and are not stopped.
Furthermore, another reason why genocides are nto stopped are because of the fact that these
genocides are too powerful to stop.
When a genocide happens, at times, it can be too powerful to stop. Genocides start from
months of brewing hate setiments as well as political conflict, when one truly starts to happen in
can be similar to a snowball rolling downhill that gets exponentially largers and more dangerous
as time goes on. The genocide in Rwanda was one of those cases. Here is a description of what
happened during that genocide, this simply descirbes how dreadful it was: “If, as it appears, both
Presidents have been killed, there is a strong likelihood that widespread violence could break out
in either or both countries, particularly if it is confirmed that the plane was shot down”
(“Bystanders”). The Rwandan genocide was simply too powerful to stop, with many countries,
like Belgium, pulling out of the conflict claiming it was too hazardous o continue to stay.
Another one of the main reasons these genocides are not stopped is because they are simply too
violent to stop, a country’s intervention in one of these conflicts would only lead to an
exponentially greater number of lives being lost.
The three main reasons why genocides are not stopped are because of the inaction of the
UN, corrupt world leaders, and the fact that genoicde is too powerful to stop. Genocide is truly a
very dangeorus issue to grapple with, as it is hard to determine the fate of the suffering ethnic
groups and whether an attempt to try and help them should even be made in the first place. One
false move, and a national army will also be taken out along with the ethnic group that is also
under fire. States continue to preserve their own self interest, but in doing so millions of lives are
lost in genocidal conflicts. It is truly up to these states to ask the question no one is willing to
ask: Should we invade and risk our national interest and have millions of our soldiers die as
well? Or should we sit idle with our hands tied behind our back looking to our own self interest?
Through answering this question, it is only a matter of time before a state can make the correct
decision of saving the innocent lives of those around the globe or seeing those lives perish due to
their own self interest.
Kupumbati 4
Word Count: 1,700 words
Professor,
I am usually someone who likes writing a lot in order to convey my convictions about a certain
issue, so you can probably see why this word count was a bit restricting for me. Originally my
essay was 2,255 words, and I only managed to cut it down to 1,700 words. This was very hard
for me to do as I felt as if I was getting rid of valuable information. If I were to cut it down any
less, I feel I would be doing a disservice to my writing. If you feel that any of my body
paragraphs, especially the third one, are lacking in content just know it's because I had to cut a
lot of content out of it just to meet the word count. I hope you can kindly understand my issue.
Kind and Humble Regards,
Arvin