Each year Rwanda commemorates the 1994 Genocide
Against the Tutsi. The commemoration boosts and reinforces Rwanda’s mantras for
itself and the world, “Never Forget!” and “Never Again!” As everyone in Rwanda
knows and feels, we are presently within the 100 days during which the genocide
occurred 19 years ago.
I am not the judge of the facts of what is
occurring in Syria. But the facts matter, and President Obama knows them,
whatever they are. The facts may be very “inconvenient.” But certain facts give
rise to legal obligations that simplify the arguments that insist that our
moral obligations are “complicated” and multi-faceted, with competing concerns.
No one is more horrified than me by the thought of U.S. military engagement in
Syria. But I am even more horrified by the thought that the U.S. could again
stand idly by, impotent, deaf, dumb, and blind, as genocide occurs, breaching
our legal obligation under the Genocide Convention of 1948, when we too swore
“Never Again!”
 |
| "Please, never forget." |
Please read Anne-Marie Slaughter’s Opinion in
today’s Washington Post, and be alert to the facts and our legal (and moral)
obligations,… and be prepared to be vocal and courageous whenever, wherever
genocide occurs. Slaughter writes:
The Rwanda genocide began in April 1994; within a
few weeks, nongovernmental organizations there were estimating that 100,000
Tutsis and moderate Hutus had been massacred. Yet two months later, Reuters
correspondent Alan Elsner and State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly had
an infamous exchange:
Elsner: “How would you describe the events taking
place in Rwanda?”
Shelly: “Based on the evidence we have seen from
observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of
genocide have occurred in Rwanda.”
Elsner: “What’s the difference between ‘acts of
genocide’ and ‘genocide’?”
Shelly: “Well, I think the — as you know, there’s
a legal definition of this. . . .
Clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to
which you might apply that label. . . . But as to the distinctions between the words,
we’re trying to call what we have so far as best as we can; and based, again,
on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have
occurred.”
Elsner: “How many acts of genocide does it take
to make genocide?”
Shelly: “Alan, that’s just not a question that
I’m in a position to answer.”
As President Obama and his advisers look for
“more conclusive evidence” that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical
weapons against his people, he would do well to remember this
shameful moment. The evidence Obama is reviewing first surfaced in December,
when the U.S. consul in Istanbul sent a cable detailing interviews with victims
and observers of an attack in Homs just before Christmas and concluding that it
was likely that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.
The reported evidence was of paralysis, muscle
spasms, seizures, blindness, hallucinations and disorientation. Victims reportedly
responded well to atropine, a drug used to treat people exposed to the nerve
gas sarin. This was very inconvenient for an administration determined not to
get more involved in Syria, however, so U.S. officials said in early January
that the Syrian government had used a “riot control agent.” Similar evidence
has been squelched again and again, until finally our allies — the British, the
French and even the Israelis — forced our hand.
The Clinton administration did not want to
acknowledge that genocide was taking place in Rwanda because the United States
would have been legally bound by the Genocide Convention of 1948 to intervene
to stop the killing. The reason the Obama administration does not want to
recognize that chemical weapons are being used in Syria is because Obama warned
the Syrian regime clearly and sharply in August against using such weapons. “There would be enormous consequences if we
start seeing movement on the chemical-weapons front or the use of chemical
weapons,” he said. “That would change my calculations significantly.”
Unfortunately, changing the game is hard.
Moreover, even against the reported recommendations of his advisers, Obama has
shown little interest in intervention in Syria beyond nonlethal assistance to
some opposition forces, diplomatic efforts with Russia and the United Nations,
and political maneuvering to try to unify the opposition.
But the White House must recognize that the game
has already changed. U.S. credibility is on the line. For all the temptation to
hide behind the decision to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence about
weapons of mass destruction, Obama must realize the tremendous damage he will
do to the United States and to his legacy if he fails to act. He should
understand the deep and lasting damage done when the gap between words and
deeds becomes too great to ignore, when those who wield power are exposed as
not saying what they mean or meaning what they say.
The distrust, cynicism and hatred with which the
United States is regarded in much of the world, particularly among Muslims
across the Middle East and North Africa, is already a cancer. Standing by while
Assad gasses his people will guarantee that, whatever else Obama may achieve,
he will be remembered as a president who proclaimed a new beginning with the
Muslim world but presided over a deadly chapter in the same old story.
The world does not see the complex calculations
inside the White House — the difficulty of achieving any positive outcomes in
Syria even with intervention, the possible harm to Obama’s domestic agenda if
he plunges into the morass of another conflict in the Middle East. The world
would see Syrian civilians rolling on the ground, foaming at the mouth, dying
by the thousands while the United States stands by.
Mr. President, how many uses of chemical weapons
does it take to cross a red line against the use of chemical weapons? That is a
question you must be in a position to answer.
 |
| May there never again be cries from the grave: "We thought you would come as you said you would." |
Posts
