![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
genocide has long been considered "too hard" - at least politically - by many u.n. member states' governments. hence, they're happy to see someone talking about the problem, but are reluctant to do much more.Saturday, April 08, 2006
UN genocide prevention adviser denounces international reluctance to stop atrocities
Alexis Unkovic at 11:07 AM ET
[JURIST] UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide Juan Mendez [official profile] said Friday that the international community remains reluctant to contribute the funds and military personnel necessary to stop genocide worldwide, as he spoke at a press conference on the 12th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda [JURIST news archive], during which some 800,000 Rwandans - mostly Tutsis - were killed over 100 days. Mendez said the ongoing conflict in Sudan's Darfur [JURIST news archive] region provides just one example of the world's lack of commitment, likening the situation there to that in Rwanda in 1994.
In a related development Friday, Belgian Minister of Development Cooperation Armand De Decker [official profile] asked the country's parliament to consider enacting a law that would prohibit citizens from denying the Rwandan genocide, perhaps modeling the new initiative after a 1995 Belgian law that prohibited citizens from denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. Rwanda is a former Belgian colony.
AP has more.
Reuters has additional coverage.
there's still argument about what constitutes "genocide". no one wants their 'scrappy little fights' to be labelled as either genocide or terrorism.
genocide is particularly awkward since, by definition, the state itself is either directly involved or is turning 'a blind eye'.
propaganda that incites genocide is part of the grab-bag of offences under the genocide convention.