Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy on the Rwandan Genocide

Memorandum on the United States Foreign Policy on the Rwandan Genocide

TO: Secretary of State Warren Christopher

CC: Mark Shirk

FROM: Foreign Analyst Rachael Feldhausen

DATE: April 20th, 1994

SUBJECT: Foreign Policy Regarding Rwandan Crisis

2 days ago, the Human Rights watch estimated that a total of 100,000 civilians have died in Rwanda in the continuing conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis. Given the escalating events in Rwanda, the United States should take immediate military action to intervene on the behalf the Rwandan civilians with the long term goal of helping them rebuild and create a functioning democracy. It has always been the belief that the United States is the spearheader of human rights around the world, and must continue to uphold and maintain its declared devotion to the protection of these rights.

RISING CONFLICT IN RWANDA

On April 6th, 1994, an unknown source shot down a plane containing the president of Burundi and Habyarimana over Kigali, killing all passengers. The same day the Prime Minister of Rwanda and her bodyguards were killed, extremist Hutus took over the government, and Tutsis as well as moderate Hutus started being massacred. UNAMIR forces have been requested to withdraw from Rwanda. In only 12 days since the fighting began roughly 100,000 Rwandan civilians have been killed by extremists, and thousands of others have fled, seeking refuge, to neighboring countries such as Tunisia. No foreign country has stepped in to aid Rwanda.

TASK

Franklin Delano Roosevelt declared that all people around the world should have freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom of fear. It is the job of the United States to therefore protect these freedoms around the globe. The people of Rwanda do not currently have these freedoms. There may be some hesitation to intervene in Rwanda given recent failures in Somalia. However, these cases should not be viewed as one in the same. The people of Rwanda are in dire need. They are unable to combat the forces that are killing them and forcing them to flee from their homes. Given their inability to protect themselves, the United States, in conjunction with other countries and organizations, should step in to aid Rwanda. While Rwanda may be a country that does not currently have strong ties to the US, that does not mean it should be abandoned, and it does not mean that they cannot be valuable to the United States in the future.

SOLUTION/IMPLEMENTATION

Given the United State’s continued commitment to the fighting of Human Rights abuses across the globe, and the clear violations of these rights that are taking place in Rwanda currently, the United States should take actions to intercede on behalf of the Rwandan civilians in need. The United States should immediately deploy military, support to aid the Rwandan civilians in suppressing and fighting against the Hutu extremists. The first priority of these troops should be to ensure of the protection of innocent Rwandan civilians. The second priority should be to combat extremist forces and dispel them from Rwanda.

After the extremists are dispersed, the United States should work with the citizens of Rwanda to rebuild their society and create a new form of lasting democracy. Given the destruction in Rwanda, many civil institutions will need to be created. It would be best for the United States to aid the people of Rwanda in effectively building and implementing these institutions.  This will lessen the need for US intervention in future Rwandan politics. If Rwanda becomes a fully functioning, independent country, it will be less likely to need aid in the future.

Lastly the United States should encourage the rest of the international community to step in and give aid to Rwanda. The actions undertaken by the United States are often viewed as an example for the rest of the world. The United States also has great weight and influence over the actions of the United Nations and encourage the UN to send more aid to the impoverished and suffering citizens of Rwanda. This would lift some of the financial burden of support off of the US and foster international cooperation.

Rwanda is a nation in crisis that is currently experience great violations to the human rights of its citizens. It cannot fend for itself and needs the help of the international community. The United States, as the world leader in the promotion of freedom, liberty, and democracy, should send military and financial aid to Rwanda, collaborate with the rest of the international community, and work to rebuild democracy in Rwanda.


Comments

  1. UnknownFebruary 18, 2018 at 8:08 PM

    I really enjoyed reading your post, Rachael! I thought it was an interesting and very well developed memorandum! This is absolutely an important topic of discussion regarding United States foreign policy. I definitely agree with your statement that the United States is very committed to protecting the human rights of all people and spreading democracy to the countries within which they intervene. You mention that the U.S. should urge the international community to also intervene in Rwanda -- assuming that you are still writing this in 1994, which countries do you think would be most apt to join U.S. efforts to intervene during this time? Why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. UnknownFebruary 19, 2018 at 4:26 PM

      I think that it would have been important for the United Nations to approve action in Rwanda and this would have needed the support of the UN Security Council. I also believe that it was the duty of Belgium especially to help Rwanda, as it Belgium that originally colonized Rwanda and still had business ventures in the country at the time of the uprising. Other than that, Britain and France and Germany are the countries at the time that probably could have helped Rwanda the most with the help of the United States.

      Delete
  2. UnknownFebruary 27, 2018 at 9:14 AM

    Hi Rachael, you gave a very convincing proposal on what United States needed to do about the Rwandan genocide. I agree with all of your points. Since you mentioned Belgium, I believe that it were the colonizers from Belgium who were the first ones to implement a hostile division between the Hutu and Tutsi, which continued after they left. Therefore, I agree that they have the responsibility in the tragedy. It is also a shame that international community had failed to define the situation as a genocide at the time, which led to the delay of intervention. I would also want to add that United Nations should be more proactive in responding to massive human rights violations, which often are signs of a genocide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownMarch 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM

    This is a very important topic on human rights issues around the world. Your memorandum gave me enough information to know what was going on and it was formatted in a very easy to follow way. I know a little more about the issue than I did before I read this. My one point I would like to make is that although it is an important human rights issue, the U.S. does not want another scenario like Iraq and Afghanistan in which insurgencies and internal strife drag out U.S. occupation much longer than anticipated. I agree that the U.S. should intervene, but they should do so by going through the U.N so that the U.S. is not the only country involved. The U.N.'s help could aid the U.S. in this humanitarian crisis, but I am not sure the the U.S. should intervene militarily alone. Overall, I think your memorandum was very informative and interesting to read.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

U.S Foreign Policy towards Middle East

After World War II, the overriding concern of American foreign policy was finding a new way to check Soviet expansion and influence throughout the world. The Middle East, specifically, was a vulnerable target for the U.S. and Soviet Union after British and French colonialism. That said, US foreign policy towards the Middle East was not completely linear during the past century. Instead, it can be divided into two periods — during the Cold War and after the Cold War. During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was mostly a reaction to Soviet strength, position, and action. [1] After the Cold War, the Middle East — being considered as part of the Third World, was to be “exploited” for the needs of the industrial societies and to “fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market.”[2] In other words, peace and oil have been the main focus of US foreign policy in the Middle East after the Cold War.  During the Cold War, the Soviet goal was to achieve strategic pari...
Read more

Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement

TO: President Donald Trump FROM: Matt Fitzgerald DATE: April 29, 2018 SUBJECT: Memorandum on US policy on the Paris Agreement Introduction Climate change has been increasingly affecting Earth ever since the industrial revolution. Earth has been becoming warmer every month. Sea levels have been rising, and coastlines have been disappearing. Something needs to be done so that the effects of climate change do not become permanent. There have been many failed global attempts to decrease our carbon emissions, and many countries including the three largest polluters, the U.S., China, and India are reluctant to do so. Only one attempt looks promising to help start the trend towards using green energy. The Paris Accords might not be perfect, but it is a good start to the world using green energy. Option 1 Pulling out of the Accords will be a reckless long-term decision. The U.S. needs to be the leader of the free world. The U.S. is the largest polluter in terms of population. W...
Read more

Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea

Memorandum Memorandum on United States Foreign Policy Regarding North Korea To: President Donald Trump CC: Professor Shirk From: Foreign Policy Analyst, Victoria Hassan Subject: The North Korean Nuclear Arsenal Dilemma Issue: If not already, North Korea is very close to achieving nuclear armed international ballistic missile capability that is capable of reaching the United States and other regions of North America. Even to experts, North Korea’s motive and intentions for building up a nuclear arsenal have been quite unclear and unpredictable. Recently, there has been much debate as to whether or not the United States should take military action regarding North Korea’s reluctance to denuclearize the entire Korean Peninsula. However, U.S. military action and complete U.S.  inaction are not the only options for dealing with North Korea. Option 1: Trump-Kim Summit Peaceful Negotiations Avoiding military action and possibly the use of nuclear weapons agai...
Read more