So it's the 10th anniversary of the attempted genocide in Rwanda, wherein the Hutu underclass rose up and slaughtered thousands upon thousands of Tutsi tribespeople, and it got me thinking. Will the West ever be able to truly face how horribly fucked up it has made a great deal of the world, especially Africa? After all, the Tutsis were put in power, as were many minority ruling classes, by departing colonial governments that felt that the country was better off with a nation-state model than with the previous tribal governments and boundaries. So for a long time, the smaller Tutsi group ruled over the Hutu, until the Hutus decided that it was time to rid themselves of the Tutsis.

The reasons for the racial conflict notwithstanding, the wealthy nations of the world did nothing, and many died. There have been a number of criticisms of the west for standing by and letting the atrocities happen, but in cases where we have become involved, there has been precious little to do. After all, the USA sent troops to Somalia on a humanitarian mission, and the Somalis made their feelings abundantly clear regarding the US presence. In fact, it seems like whenever any western nation commits troops in an attempt to end tribal warfare, or any other (for lack of a better term) blood feud, they are attacked by one or both sides, and people in the west are shocked at the ungrateful locals' treatment of the foreign soldiers. However, looking at it from another perspective, do we really have any business getting involved? If I were willing to ascribe a high level of education to any of the people in these regional conflicts, I would say that they were justified in expecting the western powers who left them in the lurch at the end of the colonial period to stay away, as they have for the last 40-100 years. However, even without that education (which the leaders of the aggressive parties may or may not have, and the footsoldiers almost certainly don't, beyond the basic propaganda) the reaction of a people who are simply conducting business as they see fit to foreign soldiers trying to tell them their business is understandable.

So what do we do? There are no easy answers as Gavagirl mentioned on her blog, moral relativism is not the answer-just because they think it's right, and their culture supports it, doesn't make it right. However, do the people of the US and EU have the stomach to accept the deaths of their countrymen in the name of keeping a given group of people from wiping out another group of people for reasons no one but those involved understand? Because that's what it will take. I'm not talking about UN peacekeepers in blue helmets saying "hey, don't do that," I'm talking about going in and removing the threat of violence. Are we willing to commit the kind of resources that will entail? Remember, many of the people killed in Rwanda were killed with machetes. Are we willing to be a real police force? Because that's what it will take. Conflicts like Rwanda are not affairs like western wars are, where there is a leader, and once that leader is dead and the regular army is broken, the defeated start looking for a reasonable solution. The closest thing we've seen to this kind of war is Vietnam, where the regular army was rarely seen, and it was largely civilian combatants, including children. There are many stories from all over sub-saharan Africa in which children are conscripted and are enthusiastic participants in the fighting. So, are we willing to fight 30-40 simultaneous Vietnams every year?