<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV>This is also a corrective to our alleged "inaction" in Rwanda.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/100501herman-peterson.php">http://www.monthlyreview.org/100501herman-peterson.php</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P>"In the Rwanda “genocide” case, the “human rights” community played an unusually active role in supporting the real aggressors and killers, in close parallel with their own governments’ perspectives and policies. As in the case of the Western aggressions against Yugoslavia (1999) and Iraq (2003), Human Rights Watch and other nongovernmental organizations simply ignored the “supreme international crime” (or “act of aggression by Uganda,” in Herman Cohen’s phrase), while conveniently, and in hugely biased fashion, paying attention to lesser human rights violations.<A id=n13 href="#en13"><FONT color=#0000ff>48</FONT></A> They downplayed or ignored entirely the refugee crisis created by the Ugandan-RPF invasion and occupation of northern Rwanda and the armed penetration and <EM>de facto</EM> subversion of the rest of the country by the RPF. Every response to these by the Habyarimana government, from October 1990 on, was scrutinized for
“human rights” violations and framed as evidence of unlawful state repression. The NGOs systematically evaded the massive evidence of RPF responsibility for the April 6, 1994, shoot-down, surely because the finding conflicts with their deep commitment to the model of a preplanned Hutu genocide and the RPF’s self-defensive rescue of Rwanda—the twin components of the established perpetrator-victim line. We believe that their biases played an important role in supporting the RPF’s aggression, its penetration of the country, and the execution of its final assault on power. Above all, we believe that their biases and propaganda contributed substantially to the mass killings that followed—all in accord with the needs of actual U.S. policy."</P><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT size=2 face=Tahoma>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> C. G. Estabrook <galliher@illinois.edu><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Peace-discuss <peace-discuss@anti-war.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Sun, March 6, 2011 4:00:57 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Peace-discuss] Humanitarian imperialism<BR></FONT><BR>
<META content=off http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control>Clinton's attack on Serbia is the model for "humanitarian intervention," and it was a lie from the beginning. 78 days of NATO bombing in 1999 did not prevent Serbian reprisals but caused them. Even Clinton administration officials now admit
<STYLE type=text/css>p {}</STYLE>
t that it was Yugoslavia’s resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform - not the plight of Kosovar Albanians - that best explains NATO’s war. The real reason for the bombing was that Yugoslavia was a lone holdout in Europe to the political and economic programs of the Clinton administration and its allies. <BR><BR><BR>On 3/6/11 3:33 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">[If you're US foreign policy planners named "Power" and "Slaughter," you may be disposed from that reason alone to recommend killing - "from the best possible motives." Or maybe it's simply female sympathy for (some) victims - that happens to serve US imperial interests...] <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">From <A class=moz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06protect.html?_r=1&hp" rel=nofollow target=_blank><http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/weekinreview/06protect.html?_r=1&hp></A>:<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>...Mr. Obama has told his staff to study previous uprisings in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia for lessons about how they unfolded and what role the United States played. He won’t lack for impassioned advice: Among his staff members is Samantha Power, a human-rights expert who won a Pulitzer Prize for a book chronicling American foreign-policy responses to genocide. <BR><BR>Former officials are also taking up the call. Anne-Marie Slaughter, who recently resigned as the State Department’s director of policy planning, said in a tweet: “The international community cannot stand by and watch the massacre of Libyan protesters. In Rwanda we watched. In Kosovo we
acted.” <BR><BR>Ms. Slaughter, a former dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, said winning support for a no-flight zone in the United Nations Security Council would be tricky, given Russian and Chinese resistance. Instead, she favors a request by a provisional government in Libya, endorsed by the African Union and the Arab League. <BR><BR>The trouble is figuring out who might make up such a government... <BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________ <BR>Peace-discuss mailing list <BR><A class=moz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net" rel=nofollow target=_blank ymailto="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</A> <BR><A class=moz-txt-link-freetext href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss" rel=nofollow target=_blank>http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</A> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<META content=on http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control></DIV></DIV></div><br>
</body></html>