Due to this, we are unlikely to live in a conflict-free world due to the different interests of nation-states. (TB) If not all, many nation-states only pursue actions with their own national interests at heart. These national-interests are based on the relationships certain nation-states have with others as well as the economic and political benefits nation-states will gain from intervention. One reason why the international response to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was ineffective was because of the limited national-interests involved in intervention, particularly that of the United States. (Bachman) The lack of public support and political pressure of peacekeeping missions in the USA is part of the reason for a lack of intervention. The genocide did not directly affect the US socially or economically, even though it had and moral and political obligation to do so. (Ebelshäuser) When referring to the genocide the US avoided naming it a Genocide as that would mean it was obligated to act under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. The delayed/inactive response in Rwanda and of other genocides cannot however be blamed entirely on the failure of the international community. The poor international response in Rwanda is also due to the nature of Genocide and the difficulties and ambiguity in its definition. Genocides are carefully planned and so for long amounts of time, the violent acts involved in Genocide are concealed from the media, and so international response is therefore
Due to this, we are unlikely to live in a conflict-free world due to the different interests of nation-states. (TB) If not all, many nation-states only pursue actions with their own national interests at heart. These national-interests are based on the relationships certain nation-states have with others as well as the economic and political benefits nation-states will gain from intervention. One reason why the international response to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 was ineffective was because of the limited national-interests involved in intervention, particularly that of the United States. (Bachman) The lack of public support and political pressure of peacekeeping missions in the USA is part of the reason for a lack of intervention. The genocide did not directly affect the US socially or economically, even though it had and moral and political obligation to do so. (Ebelshäuser) When referring to the genocide the US avoided naming it a Genocide as that would mean it was obligated to act under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. The delayed/inactive response in Rwanda and of other genocides cannot however be blamed entirely on the failure of the international community. The poor international response in Rwanda is also due to the nature of Genocide and the difficulties and ambiguity in its definition. Genocides are carefully planned and so for long amounts of time, the violent acts involved in Genocide are concealed from the media, and so international response is therefore