Uncharted Territory


RSS     Archives



日曜日に放映される政治番組This Weekにサマンサ・パワーさんが登場していました。ルワンダについて書かれたものをいくつか読んできましたが、彼女の影響力の大きさを至る所に感じ取ることができます。ルワンダの件に興味がある方はアトランティックの下記の記事は必読と言えるかもしれません。

Bystanders to Genocide
The author's exclusive interviews with scores of the participants in the decision-making, together with her analysis of newly declassified documents, yield a chilling narrative of self-serving caution and flaccid will—and countless missed opportunities to mitigate a colossal crime
SEP 1 2001, 12:00 PM ET

"acts of genocide" や"genocide"などと、genocideの言葉の定義を巡って争ったことは、ルワンダの対応の失敗例を端的に示すものとして今では有名なものとなってしまいました。4分40秒あたりにパワーさんの紹介した国務省のスポークスマンのやり取りがあります。

Christine Shelly, a State Department spokesperson, had long been charged with publicly articulating the U.S. position on whether events in Rwanda counted as genocide. For two months she had avoided the term, and as her June 10 exchange with the Reuters correspondent Alan Elsner reveals, her semantic dance continued.
Elsner: How would you describe the events taking place in Rwanda?

Shelly: Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda.

Elsner: What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide"?

Shelly: Well, I think the—as you know, there's a legal definition of this ... clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label ... But as to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.

Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?

Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer.

記事ではその前に紹介されていますが、"acts of genocide" や"genocide"と苦しい言い逃れをしようとしたのは"genocide"を認めると1948 Genocide Conventionにより行動に出なくてはいけなくなるからでした。当時はソマリア出兵の失敗から米国は慎重になっていたようです。

Even after the reality of genocide in Rwanda had become irrefutable, when bodies were shown choking the Kagera River on the nightly news, the brute fact of the slaughter failed to influence U.S. policy except in a negative way. American officials, for a variety of reasons, shunned the use of what became known as "the g-word." They felt that using it would have obliged the United States to act, under the terms of the 1948 Genocide Convention. They also believed, understandably, that it would harm U.S. credibility to name the crime and then do nothing to stop it. A discussion paper on Rwanda, prepared by an official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and dated May 1, testifies to the nature of official thinking. Regarding issues that might be brought up at the next interagency working group, it stated,

Genocide Investigation: Language that calls for an international investigation of human rights abuses and possible violations of the genocide convention. Be Careful. Legal at State was worried about this yesterday—Genocide finding could commit [the U.S. government] to actually "do something." [Emphasis added.]


Posted at 2013.04.28