Have just been going through your Rwanda pieces - excellent summaries as always!
One bit of key context that I feel is missing from this piece though: the Bosnian War and numerous other conflicts were all ongoing at the time of the genocide.
The UK for example, at the time this was going on, was already dealing with sending peacekeeping units to stop a similar genocide in Bosnia, continuing to deal with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, maintaining a No-Fly Zone over Iraq, sending humanitarian support to aid the Somalia and Sierra Leone civil wars, and was also diplomatically involved in trying to resolve conflict in Angola and Mozambique. The reason why it opposed the massacres being referred to as genocide in the UNSC wasn’t because it disagreed with the principle, but because under international law it would have required an intervention, and at this point the UK had neither the on-the-ground connections to understand the scale of what was going on, nor the capacity to spare to do anything about it.
>Exploiting widespread anti-Tutsi sentiment to bolster his reelection bid and secure Western aid, he revoked citizenship from all Banyamulenge Tutsi.
The craziest thing is just how many times their legal status has changed in such a short period.
It's really hard for me to comprehend how those changes were not opposed on consistency grounds.
It is an interesting read; I like the backdrop that the struck-through words bring.
Have just been going through your Rwanda pieces - excellent summaries as always!
One bit of key context that I feel is missing from this piece though: the Bosnian War and numerous other conflicts were all ongoing at the time of the genocide.
The UK for example, at the time this was going on, was already dealing with sending peacekeeping units to stop a similar genocide in Bosnia, continuing to deal with the Troubles in Northern Ireland, maintaining a No-Fly Zone over Iraq, sending humanitarian support to aid the Somalia and Sierra Leone civil wars, and was also diplomatically involved in trying to resolve conflict in Angola and Mozambique. The reason why it opposed the massacres being referred to as genocide in the UNSC wasn’t because it disagreed with the principle, but because under international law it would have required an intervention, and at this point the UK had neither the on-the-ground connections to understand the scale of what was going on, nor the capacity to spare to do anything about it.
Excellent point
Just in case: https://thegeopoliticalnavigator.substack.com/p/from-genocide-until-reputation-laundering
Thanks for sharing! I'll read.
Well written. Thank you.