Thank you for this thoughtful and painful post.
Perhaps convinced that these so called tribes (the myth of their primordiality nicely criticized by you) were so bent on savage revengeful destruction that they would not respond rationally to any threats or incentives, the Western govts seem to have considered themselves powerless to do *anything* at all just as black on black violence in the inner city seemed to admit only of a fatalistic genetic explanation (the Violence Initiative was proposed in the same year after all). It is important to recognize here that racist assumptions seem to have actually determined the (quite narrow) limits of what was thought to be possible action. If this is true, Western govts--no less than the Hutu govt--cannot themselves be excused of racial genocide.
It may not have even taken the threat of intervention and ouster to convince the Hutu led govt to use the radio waves to counsel peace, instead of continuing to stoke fears of imminent organized Tutsi attack. Moreover, people in the West were not reminded at the outset of violence of historic massacres in Rwanda (early 60s for example); a proper sense of urgency could have been achieved at the earliest stages if African history had not remained in dark recesses of Western memory.
By the way, did you notice the coverage of the failed negotiations in the Congo. The splitting of the rebel groups at the table was often described in that good ole language of irrational tribalisms. The analysis has been about as superficial as imaginable.Mostly however it is has been non existent.
Yours, Rakesh