International intervention failures in Rwanda and Syria: comparative analysis

Rwanda Genocide and Stories

The majority of richer, stronger countries in the world failed to intervene during the genocide in Rwanda because they were part of the United Nations. While the UN does get involved in genocide issues, it is forbidden for other countries to get involved in internal disputes if there is no genocide taking place (Nyankanzi, 1998). Because the UN was not completely clear on what was taking place in Rwanda, and because it failed to act quickly, it later stated that its response (or lack of response, more accurately), was a complete failure (Nyankanzi, 1998). Many countries spoke out and wanted something done about the genocide that was taking place, and Rwanda was asked to end that aspect of the conflict. However, very little was done and the requests to stop the violence and killing were refused or simply ignored (Nyankanzi, 1998). While other countries could have done a lot to stop the genocide, the massive failure of the UN prevented any real value from occurring when it came to protection of the Rwandan citizens (Nyankanzi, 1998). There is little difference between the Rwandan genocide and what is taking place today in Syria, where people are being slaughtered. However, other countries were already involved in Syria, so they were not kept away in the same way that they were in Rwanda. That allowed them to move forward with attempts to stop the violence. Unfortunately, violence and massacres continue in Syria today.

In the stoning of Soraya M, the idea of stoning a person because she was not what she "should have been" comes to light. Soraya is asked for a divorce by her husband because he wants to marry a 14-year-old girl (Cannon, 2009). She refuses, so he finds a way to make it look as though she was being unfaithful to him. Even though she is innocent, women have very little say in anything in Iran (Simons, 2009). She is convicted, and she is stoned to death as punishment for cheating on her husband. The truth does come out later, and the man with whom she supposedly cheated admits that he was coerced and that he lied about the affair (Simons, 2009). Of course, it is too late for Soraya. In the end, her husband also does not get to marry the 14-year-old, so the entire set-up, as well as the death of Soraya, is for nothing.

A gut reaction to this is difficult to discuss, because the entire issue is sickening. Women are treated as nothing more than property - as if they are really not even human. Additionally, they are not allowed to speak for themselves or have any kind of say if they are accused of something. Stoning someone to death is also very barbaric, and should not be practiced anywhere. Even if someone is sentenced to death (and deserves it), that person can still be killed in a way that is more humane.

It does appear that stoning is a widely accepted practice in Islam and in the Koran, although that is open to interpretation (Cannon, 2009). Like the Bible and other holy books, the Koran has people who believe is says one thing and people who believe it says something else. That is simply because of human nature, and not likely to change in the future. Stoning appears to be allowed if the wife has been unfaithful, but what of the trial the wife should actually get? What of any evidence, other than one person's word against another? This is the biggest problem with the idea of stoning, because the woman has no opportunity to defend herself.