Of late, genocide has been quite a newsworthy topic. Consider the following:
In Kigali, Rwanda, 22 people were executed on Friday, April 24, for organizing and leading the country's 1994 genocide in which the majority Hutus, backed by the Hutu government, slaughtered at least 500,000 of the minority Tutsis over a 100 day period. Another 125,000 are awaiting trial. Human rights groups protested the executions on the grounds that the defendants were unfairly tried.
Pol Pot, the architect of Cambodia's Killing Fields, which between 1975-1979 took the lives of between one and two million people, died (supposedly) of natural causes. His death was fortuitously timed, for he was about to be turned over to an international tribunal for trial on human rights violations.
Israel, a nation born out of the Nazi Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered, is celebrating its 50th anniversary.
When confronted with a situation, any situation, one has two choices - one can do something, or one can do nothing.
When dealing with the slaughter of millions of human beings, I don't think nothing is a viable option. The fact that the rest of the world may wash its hands and look the other way in no way excuses us from doing everything in our power to prevent the deaths of so many.
In the late 1930s, the U.S. could easily have saved thousands, even millions, of German Jews prior to World War II. All we had to do was open our borders to them. But we didn't. We were very sorry about what was happening to them and very concerned about what the Nazis would do to them, but this concern did not translate into action. After all, we were going through an economic depression, and there just wasn't enough room in our borders for a bunch of Jews.
Again in 1994, when the Hutus were slaughtering the Tutsis, the United States did not intervene. Right on the heels of Somalia, we weren't about to commit troops to another African nation experiencing turmoil.
Other problems arise, however, when we try to do something. In the late '60s and early '70s, the United States was fighting a costly, pointless war with Vietnam. Our intentions were noble - we wanted to stop the spread of Communism. However, we ended up drawing neighboring Cambodia into the war, weakening an already weak nation. When Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge took over in 1975, the U.S. abandoned the leader of the Cambodian government, and covertly supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Our reason? The Khmer Rouge were sworn enemies of the Vietnamese. And an enemy of an enemy is a friend, right?
Besides, what can we do when confronted with evil dictators? The easiest thing to do is impose sanctions on the offending nation. Economic sanctions work great. Just ask Fidel Castro. We imposed sanctions on Cuba over 30 years ago, and the only noticeable effect has been an abundance of counterfeit Cuban cigars in the U.S.
Or ask Saddam Hussein, that is if you can catch him when he's not busy stockpiling chemical and biological weapons. Economic sanctions have worked well on Iraq, so well that the U.N. Security Council is considering repealing them. Many members, including France, China and Russia, feel that the sanctions imposed on Iraq have done nothing to weaken Hussein's control of the government and instead have caused perpetual suffering for millions of Iraqis. They make a good case - after all, it's hard to favor a policy that starves innocent women and children.
With all that we've done wrong, there is one nation where some good has been done - Bosnia. The U.N. peacekeeping forces have largely succeeded in keeping the peace and putting an end to the genocide being perpetrated by Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs.
But how long must these troops remain there? Just this past Friday a riot erupted in Drvar, Bosnia-Herzegovina, between the Croats and the Serbs. Obviously, these two groups are not ready to peacefully coexist, so the U.N. troops will have to stay there for a while longer. But the question remains - must the U.N. deploy troops to every place in the world where nasty people are doing nasty things and keep them there in perpetualy?
The United States will probably do what the United States has always done, and that is protect U.S. interests. Lately, there has been a renewed interest among the Clinton administration in bringing Pol Pot and other Khmer Rouge butchers, like Ta Mok and Nuon Chea, to justice. But justice delayed is justice denied. Now that Pol Pot is dead, he will never be brought to trial for crimes against humanity, crimes which the U.S. helped him to commit.
There is, among many Cambodians, a feeling that the ruthless dictator cheated justice by dying before he could be put on trial, and I understand the sentiment.
But on the other hand, until we develop the technology to kill a man two million times, there can never be any justice for the Pol Pots of the world.
Pennell is a senior English major.