Case study: The US response to Rwanda
Introduction
The case represents a practical application of a pluralist approach. The aim is to see how this modus operandi can be applied to a real event and the consequences it caused in the international community. The US response to Rwanda is an interesting case narrating what happened when USA refused to intervene against a clear breach of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on Genocide. Furthermore, this case raised both moral and normative issues that are not so easily solved. This case study was written by Cathinka Vik .
2.1 Humanitarian Intervention
Humanitarian Intervention is a mechanism meant to stop or prevent a breach of human rights in a state which is incapable or unwilling
…show more content…
Therefore, the power is in the hands of the state leaders who are either permanent members or have been elected as members of the council . In 1994 when the Rwandan Genocide happened, Argentina, Czech Republic, Nigeria, Oman, and Rwanda were the elected members of the Council joining the permanent (The Popular Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America) . Firstly, we shall ask ourselves: It is realistic to expect a state leader to make moral decisions independently from their national interest when confronted with situations of severe Human Rights violations abroad …show more content…
Furthermore, they used their influence to “discourage a robust UN response” (Vik, 2015, p. 53). Conversely, US officials limited their actions to publicly condemn the actions of the Hutu government and, in late July, to bring humanitarian relief to those affected by the genocide . The Clinton administration, who was in charge at the time, justified this inaction using two main arguments.
Firstly, the US had already sustained too many casualties in Somalia. Indeed, the battle of Mogadishu resulted in a disastrous military operation that led to the failure of the US mission in Somalia .
Secondly, the Clinton administration had narrowly defined national interests and minimum engagement in international humanitarian situations which was incompatible with the international commitments the USA had with their international partners. Therefore, it can be inferred that the Clinton administrations adopted a pluralist policy that privileged their national interests over the international commitments of the USA . 2.3.2 The Pluralist position of the