Genocide warnigs, covering it up

Prior to the genocide, warnings were sent to many places in the western world. However, debates over whether this was really genocide or not took place instead of immediate action. When the world could have reduced the number of dead or even stopped this genocide from occurring, they chose to argue over the simplicity of the actual definition. On June 10th, 1994 at a state department briefing, spokesperson Christine Shelley was asked by a reporter “What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide?"(Frontline).

Shelley replied by saying, “As you know, there is a legal definition of this. There has been a lot of discussion about how the definition applies under the definition of "genocide" contained in the 1948 convention. If you're looking at that for your determination about genocide, clearly, not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label,” (Frontline).

US officials were also cautioned from using the word genocide. In the same state briefing Shelley was asked, “Is it true that you have specific guidance not to use the word ‘genocide’ in isolation but always to preface it with these words ‘acts of?’” (Frontline), to which she replied “: I have guidance which I try to use as best as I can.” Governments fearing that if the massacres going on in Rwanda were defined as genocide, they would be compelled to act. Therefore, governments chose to use “acts of genocide” rather than genocide. Now the question on everyone’s minds pops in “How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?”(Frontline).