Skip to main content

USA: Should critics of Syria intervention be reminded of Rwanda?

Should critics of Syria intervention be reminded of Rwanda?

Opinion

Syrian refugees fetch water in the Za'atari refugee camp on February 1, 2013 in Za'atari, Jordan. Record numbers of refugees are fleeing the violence and bombings in Syria to cross the borders to safety in northern Jordan  and overwhelming the Za'atari camp. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
Syrian refugees fetch water in the Za'atari refugee camp on February 1, 2013 in Za'atari, Jordan. Record numbers of refugees are fleeing the violence and bombings in Syria to cross the borders to safety in northern Jordan and overwhelming the Za'atari camp. (Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
The United Nations has said the current Syrian refugee crisis is the worst since Rwanda.
Nearly 2 million Syrian refugees have registered with the U.N. and fled their country across the borders into Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.
African-Americans were very outspoken in criticizing the United States for not intervening in Rwanda, but the current humanitarian crisis is not inducing that same support.
Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans oppose Syrian intervention. African-Americans, like most Americans, strongly oppose intervention in Syria. Some have even expressed sympathy for Assad, but some of those same black Americans — including members of the Congressional Black Caucus – decried our nation's lack of action during the Rwandan crisis of the mid-1990s.
There is no doubt that there is a humanitarian crisis in Syria. The question is whether military strikes are the appropriate way to respond and if so, whether Americans will support that action, in light of the past decade of wars in the middle east.
African-Americans may be more reluctant to support action in Syria after the past decade, and because the United States didn't get involved in Rwanda where nearly a million innocent civilians perished.  President Clinton later expressed remorse for not doing enough to help prevent the Rwandan genocide, but our lack of response and the tragic deaths just don't seem to hit as close to home as the myriad crises right here in Chicago and Philadelphia, as African-American children are dying and unable to get adequate educations.
Many Americans care about tragedies abroad, but do not want the United States to use our money and resources abroad, while our country is still in sequestration and congressional ineptitude doesn't allow action on jobs and infrastructure.  It's like trying to put out the fire at your neighbor's house when your house is still on fire.
The fact that there are so many domestic issues that have gone unaddressed make it much more difficult for Americans to support, particularly African-Americans who have heard repeatedly that America is "broke" and yet has plenty of money to drop bombs in the middle east.
The comparison to Rwanda is effective and one that President Obama has yet to make.  Instead of framing our response to Syria as an obligation because the president uttered the words "red line," and the media claims that since it was crossed he must act, perhaps the story about Syria should focus on the suffering of the women and children.
When the focus is on Bashar al-Assad, the entire public relations campaign to win over public and congressional support for action sounds like Iraq 2.0 with a new boogie man for Americans to fear.  Comparing this current crisis to Iraq is important, because our lack of thoughtfulness in entering that conflict was paid for with lives, limbs, and trillions.  But this comparison also helps to make the case for doing nothing in Syria.
The situation in Syria is both like Rwanda and like Iraq.  Both should inform our decision-making process and considering them could help persuade those who have no idea why anti-war President Barack Obama is asking the American people to support intervention.  Many Americans don't know why the use of chemical weapons requires swift action from the international community.  Many Americans don't know that the United States is bound by the Genocide Convention of 1948 to respond if there is a genocide taking place.
And many Americans don't understand why the rest of the international community can choose to not intervene in Syria, leaving American intervention as the only option.  Without framing this as the United States helping to curb a humanitarian disaster, Americans and particularly African-Americans may not support the president's actions.
Once it's framed properly as the United States being the global humanitarian, the next step is to convince Americans that a military strike that drops bombs and not food is actually going to help end this humanitarian disaster.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ?

Pourquoi les sanctions américaines contre le Rwanda sont-elles si importantes ? Auteur : The African Rights Campaign. Londres, Royaume-Uni Publié en : mars 2026   Introduction Lorsqu'un gouvernement est accusé d'exécutions extrajudiciaires, de déplacements massifs, de violences sexuelles, de violations des droits de l'homme et du pillage systématique des ressources naturelles d'un pays voisin, la réponse diplomatique attendue est un démenti catégorique, étayé par des preuves. Le Rwanda ne l'a pas fait. Lorsque le département américain du Trésor a imposé des sanctions aux Forces de défense rwandaises (FDR) et à quatre de leurs commandants les plus haut placés, le 2 mars 2026, la porte-parole officielle de Kigali, Yolande Makolo, a délivré une déclaration que les analystes diplomatiques étudieront attentivement pour ce qu'elle omet conspicuement. Elle a dit que les sanctions étaient « injustes », qu'elles ciblaient « uniquement...

Le Rwanda au Mozambique : qui les a placés là, pourquoi ils ne peuvent pas rester et pourquoi la SADC doit les remplacer avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents

  Qui a placé le Rwanda là-bas, pourquoi la France refuse de le remplacer, comment le déploiement est devenu un bouclier contre les sanctions, et pourquoi la SADC doit agir avant que les dégâts ne deviennent permanents Mars 2026   Résumé exécutif Les sanctions occidentales contre les Forces de Défense du Rwanda (RDF), imposées par les États-Unis le 2 mars 2026 en vertu du Global Magnitsky Act et relayées par une pression croissante de l'Union européenne, ont mis à nu une contradiction stratégique de premier ordre. La même force militaire sanctionnée pour son soutien opérationnel direct au groupe rebelle M23 en République démocratique du Congo est simultanément le principal garant sécuritaire d'un projet de gaz naturel liquéfié (GNL) de 20 milliards de dollars exploité par le géant français TotalEnergies à Cabo Delgado, dans le nord du Mozambique. Cette analyse répond à trois questions interconnectées dont les réponses définissent ...

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important

Why US Sanctions Against Rwanda Are So Important Author: The African Rights Campaign. London, UK Published: March 2026   Introduction When a government is accused of extrajudicial killings, mass displacement, sexual violence, human rights abuses, and the systematic pillage of another country's mineral resources, the expected response in international diplomacy is an unequivocal denial backed by evidence. Rwanda did not do that. When the United States Department of the Treasury imposed sanctions on the Rwanda Defence Force (RDF) and four of its most senior commanders on 2 March 2026, Kigali's official spokesperson Yolande Makolo made a statement that diplomatic analysts will study carefully for what it conspicuously omitted. She said the sanctions were 'unjust,' that they targeted 'only one party to the peace process,' and that they 'misrepresent the reality and distort the facts.' Rwanda's government, described by Bloomb...

BBC News

Africanews

UNDP - Africa Job Vacancies

How We Made It In Africa – Insight into business in Africa

Migration Policy Institute