When a perceived human rights violation arises in a country or region, domestic and international actors have to choose whether to intervene and to what extent they should intervene. For these actors, their respective cultural and political perspectives often dictate involvement. In this essay, I argue that domestic and international actors have conflicting goals and differing strategies for the reform of perceived rights violations based on the cultural and political climates of the countries with which they are affiliated. These differences create dissonance within the human rights regime and prevent it from being as effective as it could be. I will begin with a discussion of the Rwandan genocide, in which I will examine the position of international
…show more content…
From the United States’ perspective, Rwanda was insignificant. The impoverished country had no economic power or global recognition. The U.S. had no investments in Rwanda’s economy, no interest in its natural resources, and no political incentive to protect Rwandan citizens. In fact, before the conflict began, the African Affairs Bureau requested that Rwanda be added to a list of potentially troubled areas and was denied. A Pentagon staff member replied, “if something happens in Rwanda-Burundi, we don’t care. Take it off the list. U.S. national interest is not involved…” (Power 342). Even more than having no motive to intervene, U.S. political leaders had deliberate reason to remain neutral in the conflict. Intervention in the Rwandan genocide would have been a costly endeavor, requiring both monetary funding and the committal of American soldiers’ lives. Providing any kind of humanitarian aid, intercepting radio death transmissions and deploying soldiers would have cost the American government much more than it was willing to spend in Rwanda. The only intervention U.S. officials committed to was the extraction of American citizens stationed in Rwanda. Bound by nationalistic duty, the United States successfully withdrew Rwanda-based American politicians and returned them safely to American soil. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, American …show more content…
Over the past decade, international and domestic discussion has sparked regarding the persistence of female genital cutting/mutilation (FGC/FGM) in African countries. While activists in these countries and abroad agree that the practice violates women’s rights, international and domestic strategies for eliminating the procedure are vastly different. Internationally, activists took the “naming and shaming” approach, by which they demonized the procedure and barbarized the countries where FGC is permitted. Citizens of participating countries revolted against the international actors’ strategy by continuing and, in some cases, strengthening the
From the United States’ perspective, Rwanda was insignificant. The impoverished country had no economic power or global recognition. The U.S. had no investments in Rwanda’s economy, no interest in its natural resources, and no political incentive to protect Rwandan citizens. In fact, before the conflict began, the African Affairs Bureau requested that Rwanda be added to a list of potentially troubled areas and was denied. A Pentagon staff member replied, “if something happens in Rwanda-Burundi, we don’t care. Take it off the list. U.S. national interest is not involved…” (Power 342). Even more than having no motive to intervene, U.S. political leaders had deliberate reason to remain neutral in the conflict. Intervention in the Rwandan genocide would have been a costly endeavor, requiring both monetary funding and the committal of American soldiers’ lives. Providing any kind of humanitarian aid, intercepting radio death transmissions and deploying soldiers would have cost the American government much more than it was willing to spend in Rwanda. The only intervention U.S. officials committed to was the extraction of American citizens stationed in Rwanda. Bound by nationalistic duty, the United States successfully withdrew Rwanda-based American politicians and returned them safely to American soil. In the case of the Rwandan genocide, American …show more content…
Over the past decade, international and domestic discussion has sparked regarding the persistence of female genital cutting/mutilation (FGC/FGM) in African countries. While activists in these countries and abroad agree that the practice violates women’s rights, international and domestic strategies for eliminating the procedure are vastly different. Internationally, activists took the “naming and shaming” approach, by which they demonized the procedure and barbarized the countries where FGC is permitted. Citizens of participating countries revolted against the international actors’ strategy by continuing and, in some cases, strengthening the