Genocide In Rwanda, and US INaction

Russell Grinker grinker at
Mon Oct 23 23:17:09 PDT 2000

Speaking from Africa, whether the US (i) supported Kgame or (ii) didn't interfere enough in Rwanda, is of secondary importance. Please Leo, in plain English, tell us why the US has any right at all to interfere in any way in the affairs of this continent. I think that history tells us that, if anything, US INaction is, for the rest of us, generally the best possible course. If you could perhaps provide a few examples of the positive consequences of US intervention, I might be moved to reconsider.


>James Heartfield writes:
><< Let's hope that Leo's Herculean efforts to absolve the US of involvement
> in the destabilisation and invasion of Rwanda are well-rewarded. >>
>We were born, James, but not yesterday. The fact of the matter is that this
>entire thread began when you objected to my position that the US had been
>guilty of gross inaction in the face of genocide, and that Americans should
>hold the US government responsible for that inaction. It was you, my dear
>friend, who rushed to defend the US against this charge -- one which is
>universally accepted among the literally scores of studies done on the
>subject by international bodies and human rights organizations.
>No, I don't believe that you are "well-rewarded" for excusing the American
>inaction in the face of the genocide. I think it is simply willful,
>ideologically myopic stupidity of the sort that has put "Dead Marxism" on
>wrong side of every human rights issue of importance in Africa for the last
>Leo Casey

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list