Why didn't the United Nations reacted quickly to stop the Rwandan genocide?

Question

Why didn't the United Nations reacted quickly to stop the Rwandan genocide?

Answer 1

They don't care.

Answer 2

According to the UN, it uses Somalia as an excuse of not interfering the situation in Rwanda. Three years ago before the genocide in Rwanda the UN was embarrassed and unsuccessfully  completed a mission that failed in Somalia and left the country having lost the largest number of peace keeping troops in the history of the UN. So, they were afraid to face another Somalia in Rwanda.

Answer 3

It all boils down to World population reduction by around 80% (don't take my word for it, it's lituraly written in stone. Georgia Guidestones http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-dE1lMm... just like the aids virus. The U,N is central to the policing of the New world order agenda, proberbly explains why they get away with abusing kids. Again don't take my word for it..http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42584

Answer 4

It was really sad to see innocent victims being killed during the genocide.i guess they (UN) thought that there wasn't any real crisis going on....and all the experts and all the people who yielded power just sat on their laurels while discussing what the term genocide really meant in order for anyone to take any action......

while many innocents were being slaughtered, i guess the world was sort of immune to all the happenings in rwanda...people were unaware of the things that were happening....

Answer 5

theres nothing in it for them there evil

Answer 6

Aside from Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross, who exactly do we think is competent to go in to a sovereign nation armed, I assume, and save people involved in a civil war without making it worse? Is there an example anywhere in history of success in such an endeavor?

Look at the devastation Europe has endured before coming - kicking and screaming! - to the MIRACULOUS European Union.

Each place must come to its own decison about governance. Trade helps certainly. But people have to decide for themselves who's going to run things and in a way they choose. There is no escape.

Answer 7

You mean the UN Security Council? For many of the reasons already noted here by other posters -- namely, they had been so hugely criticized for previous interventions, and didn't want to face such criticism again. But it wasn't just the UN -- many nations, including the US, knew what was happening in Rwanda, but were reluctant to get involved because public opinion was staunchly against involvement. Also, UN staff on the ground were giving conflicting reports -- people lower in the hierarchy were seeing what was happening and calling for action, but people higher in the hierarchy were saying it wasn't that bad.

Answer 8

all that and the incapability of Boutrous Boutrous Ghali...the first "Egyptian African" Un secretary General.

He failed.

Answer 9

Pansies in control of the UN!