"Rwanda was considered a second-class operation; because it was a small country, we had been able to maintain a kind of status quo. They were negotiating, they'd accepted the new peace project, so we were under the impression that everything would be solved easily"
About this Quote
Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s reflection exposes the international community’s underlying attitude toward the Rwandan crisis in the early 1990s. By calling Rwanda “a second-class operation,” Boutros-Ghali points out the troubling reality that the world’s major powers, and notably the United Nations, did not consider crises in smaller or geopolitically less significant nations to be urgent or deserving of full-scale intervention. The phrase implies a hierarchy among global conflicts, with Rwanda relegated to a lower tier. This perspective influenced how resources, attention, and diplomatic capital were allocated, translating into limited peacekeeping mandates, insufficient numbers of troops, and a lack of strong international will to prevent the impending genocide.
The description of Rwanda as “a small country” further highlights the bias in the global order, where the magnitude of response is correlated not with the potential for human suffering, but with the perceived strategic or economic importance of the nation involved. The ability to “maintain a kind of status quo” refers to the relative calm or stasis that can exist on the surface, even when tensions are simmering beneath. International actors, possibly fatigued by complicated missions elsewhere or wary of deeper involvement, were content to assume that meetings, negotiations, and the outward appearance of progress amounted to genuine stability.
Boutros-Ghali’s remarks about accepted peace agreements and ongoing negotiations suggest a dangerous complacency. The assumption that “everything would be solved easily” reveals a reliance on diplomatic agreements as a panacea, overlooking the fragility of these arrangements and the volatility of the underlying issues. The tragic irony is that the optimism was not only misplaced, but also actively contributed to the lack of urgency and decisive action. International leaders underestimated the risks and, blinded by a misplaced confidence in the peace process, failed to recognize and respond to the signs of impending mass violence, culminating in one of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century.
The description of Rwanda as “a small country” further highlights the bias in the global order, where the magnitude of response is correlated not with the potential for human suffering, but with the perceived strategic or economic importance of the nation involved. The ability to “maintain a kind of status quo” refers to the relative calm or stasis that can exist on the surface, even when tensions are simmering beneath. International actors, possibly fatigued by complicated missions elsewhere or wary of deeper involvement, were content to assume that meetings, negotiations, and the outward appearance of progress amounted to genuine stability.
Boutros-Ghali’s remarks about accepted peace agreements and ongoing negotiations suggest a dangerous complacency. The assumption that “everything would be solved easily” reveals a reliance on diplomatic agreements as a panacea, overlooking the fragility of these arrangements and the volatility of the underlying issues. The tragic irony is that the optimism was not only misplaced, but also actively contributed to the lack of urgency and decisive action. International leaders underestimated the risks and, blinded by a misplaced confidence in the peace process, failed to recognize and respond to the signs of impending mass violence, culminating in one of the worst atrocities of the twentieth century.
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by Boutros
Add to List
