Natural Disaster Help vs Genocide Help

On January 12th, 2010, Haiti was hit with an earthquake of a 7.0 magnitude. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed by the quake, and many who were not killed were either injured and/or homeless. The United States has been aiding the people of Haiti during the aftermath. It has been sending food, water, and medical help for the people affected by the natural disaster.

During the spring of 1994, a group of Hutus (a Central American ethnic group) some of which involved in the Interhamwe (a civilian death squad) began a vicious assault in Rwanda for one hundred days, killing approximately one million people. The United States noticed warnings for the genocide, but disregarded them. Clinton's administration did not recognize the murders as genocide, as to have a reason not to have to intervene. After the massacre had subsided, two thousand American troops were sent in to protect aid operations.

To put this in perspective, if the United States were to aid Haiti in the way that it aided Rwanda, the thousands of injured and homeless would be dead. In essence, if the timing were the same, many would have lost lives, though could have lived if help came sooner.

So what is the difference between natural disaster aid and aid that needs to be given to those that are the victims of genocide? Yes, there would be combat involved, though the Americans could have easily relieved those in Rwanda had they even tried to help (many of the weapons used were machetes, clubs, and other objects of this nature). One issue of why I think the United States does not get involved in genocide is because genocide is dealing with death, not simply providing care like in regards to natural disasters. The U.S. seems to be lazy when it comes to helping others, or even itself.

The Choices Program. Confronting Genocide: Never Again? Brown University: Choices Program, 2006.