French Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide

A lesser known controversy, but I feel I should bring it up. A lot of countries have committed genocide in their past and have never owned up and reprimanded the victims properly. These include Canada, Turkey, China, Russia, and France. Although France played a minor military role in Rwanda, the actions taken by the government are reprehensible. What makes matters worst is the ignorance of government policy at the time despite knowing of the genocide, and France's continuing policy of not paying reperations to victims of the Rwandan genocide which were personally affected by the French military intervention. I'll list the things in which France did, and we'll see if anyone would like to justify the actions like many French politicians have done since 1994.

- Funded and supported the Interahamwe controlled government until the end of the genocide

- Only took in Hutu refugees during their ex-filtration mission. Hundreds of Tutsi refugees which had fled in French convoys were turned over to the militias where they would be instantly executed.

- At the beginning of the genocide, France launched an active campaign against RPF "terrorists," which were fighting the government militias. Auxiliary support continued well into the genocides climax.

- France proposed, backed, and enacted a UN resolution allowing them to set up a French controlled military zone in Rwanda. The zone was strategically placed so that it halted RPF advances. Ironically, while the RPF militia could not pass through "Turquoise," the government militias were granted active passage, which they used with much benefit to fall back into the government heartland, or have high ranking war criminals flee the country into the Congo.

- Even though "Turquoise" was purportedly established to protect refugees after weeks of genocide, the French military did nothing to stop non-combatants from being killed. Allowing the Interahamwe into the checkpoint didn't help either. French troops established a barrier between the RPF and Interahamwe that allowed the militia to wreck havoc inside and outside the boundaries of "Turquoise." Rwanda's government, which was considered an ally and friend for years by the French administration, were allowed to illegally kill and massacre refugees as French soldiers stood by and watched the onslaught, ordered to not engage in hopes of preserving relationships with the government, who had committed nearly every atrocity imaginable.

^ Compare that to RPF soldiers. Despite being left alone by the international community to fight one of the worlds largest and most organized genocides, France continued to fight its own independent war against the RPF.

I can more easily forgive the perpetrators of the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide than I can of those who stood by and let these abominable acts happen without so much as lifting a finger. The difference is about perspective. The Nazis and the Hutu thought they were doing something for the greater good. The French and the rest of the world who didn't do anything knew better. They knew that these acts were wrong and terrible, which is why they are worse than the Imahamwe militiia morally. France was in the perfect position to possibly save up to 100,000 refugees by showing the slightest bit of compassion. Instead they chose not to show any. As a result, many people were killed, either by French negligence or by the French themselves.

Anyone disagree with what I am saying. I would LOVE to debate the resolution...
France should admit partial responsibility for the Rwandan genocide"

Blackflag: *Partial* responsibility merits too much weight of the resolution to Pro. I don't know a whole lot about the topic, but I feel it would be quite easy to prove *partial.* All that would be necessary is one card of evidence backing one irrefutable fact to *win* the resolution.

ColeTrain: Nah, there is no such thing as a weighted resolution. Like I have challenged people in the past, I will take the other end of what you might call a "weighted" debate just to show that the affirmative or negative doesn't have it easier.

Blackflag: The BoP can be more favorable to one side. For example, I could say Obama's presidency is flawless. Going con, I could point out one flaw, or unfavorable act, that would prove the resolution false. The pro would have the burden to maintain a "flawless" presidency and ward off any point con brings up. This would be infinitely easier to win on the negative side.