Clinton and genocide

Peter K. peterk at
Thu Jul 27 21:31:22 PDT 2000

>After the end of the Cold War, the US government figured that it
>wanted a new set of African leaders (like Kagame & Kabila) to replace
>the old set (Habyarimana & Mobutu), whilst diminishing the influence
>of Belgium & France in Africa. The U.N is to be used to create a
>fictional "guilt of appeasement" and hence a great pretext for future
>wars (in case more explicit interventions are necessary).

Maybe I'm missing something, but to me the U.S./U.N.'s inaction doesn't create "a fictional 'guilt of appeasement' and hence a great pretext for future wars", rather it provides a rather stark demonstration of the Clinton adminstration's moral corruption and hypocrisy. In other words, instead of "pre-" legitimatizing some future intervention, it delegitimatizes the Clinton administration. This is the post-Cold War world and the U.S. is the lone superpower and it did nothing. I'm not saying there was giant paradigm shift between the Cold War and the post-Cold War Worlds - especially not in the ruling class's thinking - but this certainly is bloody stain on Clinton's "legacy."

I'm curious to hear what you think of the Organization for African Unity and the seven notables on the commission -- including the past chiefs of state of Botswana and Mali, the chairwoman of the Swedish Committee for UNICEF, a former chief justice of India's Supreme Court, and a former Canadian ambassador to the UN -- who were asked by the OAU to review the 1994 genocide. I wonder if the report includes a detailed history of the West's complicity in creating the conditions for genocide. That is, I wonder why the report didn't (did it?) portray events in the manner you, Carrol, and Gordon did, i.e., it only would have been shocking had the U.N. actually done something to stop/prevent the genocide.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list