Group+11

​​Essential question: -why did the U.S. (president clinton) deny that what was going on in rwanda was genocide?

[] (CAT) [] <--** MIA!!!!!!! this is the one i told you about for recognizing and understanding genocide. ** [] <--- **Nicole!!!!!!! this might help you with the genocide today section. for example how people dealt with it or remembered it????** [] <---pictures
 * [] <--- NICOLE!!! this could help with the human rights part. **



Why did the United States or President Clinton in particular, deny that what was going on in Rwanda was genocide? We chose the topic of genocide and our essential question because we feel it is an important issue that as the future generation, we need to learn about so if it happens when we become the leaders of our country, we know how to spot it and can try to prevent it from occurring. We could have chosen the Darfur genocide, but decided against it since we knew more about the Rwandan genocide, and have developed a stronger passion towards it that has been ongoing from last year’s class with Mrs. Watson.
 * PROPOSAL **
 * __ Essential Question __**

To start off the project, we have mostly looked at websites that have to do with our essential question. Here is a list of some of the sites we have looked at: · "Lying About Rwanda's Genocide." //The Nation | Unconventional Wisdom Since 1865//. Web. 25 Jan. 2010. . · "Now Is the Time to Tell the Truth About Rwanda." //Global Policy Forum//. Web. 25 Jan. 2010. . · "Why the US didn't intervene in the Rwandan genocide /." //The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com//. Web. 26 Jan. 2010. .
 * __Preliminary Research__**

As for other sources, we have all read either //Left to Tell// or //An Ordinary Man//, and have watched the movie //Sometimes In April// last year, and are currently watching //Hotel Rwanda//. Although all of these sources are not specifically aimed at our essential question, they will give us background information needed for all of the minor details. Throughout the entire project, we plan to continue using internet sources, as well as books and movies. We will also search for videos that show proof of the U.S. and President Clinton denying that Rwanda was genocide, and will hopefully find videos of interviews of government officials, or others, who share their opinions on the matter.

This project will help us to improve our teamwork, research, communication, and social skills. These skills are all important to our future because they will be needed and used often when we go to college and enter the workforce.
 * __Skills and Thinking__**

Proposal due January 28: done by January 27 Outline of paper due February 19: done by February 15 1st Draft due March 31: done by March 28 Final draft due April 27: done by April 25 Power Point: start February 20 finish May 04 Presentation Day May 14: have everything ready by May 12
 * __Timeline__**

**​** ​ OUTLINE

Carroll, Rory. "Papers prove US knew of genocide in Rwanda.“ //Sydney Morning Herald - Business & World News Australia | smh.com.au//. 2004. Web. <[]>. Recently, documents proving President Clinton and his administration’s knowledge of the Rwandan genocide and their choice to stay inactive during the time, have been released. Although officials knew what was occurring in Rwanda was genocide, and called it that privately, they chose not to do so publicly because the choice had already been made. The documents that have been released show that the Clinton administration and even Clinton himself knew of the planned Tutsi elimination. Throughout a three month period, Hutu killers murdered about 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu-moderates, and during this time, all of the killings were being reported to U.S. officials. The documents reveal that private CIA updates to president Clinton, and the vice-president, Al Gore, were received daily. One report from April 23, 1994 even stated that the Hutu rebels would “continue fighting to stop the genocide, which…is spreading south”. On April 26, the secretary of state was informed of the plan to murder all Tutsi’s. Despite that though, the government did not publicly use the word genocide until May 25, and even then weakened the word by calling it “acts of genocide”. Officials did not want a reoccurrence of what happened in Somalia to take place again. Also, Rwanda was useless to the U.S., with no important resources that needed to be saved. Many people blame officials for not backing up the U.N., and for not publicly speaking out against the genocide taking place. President Clinton did apologize in 1998 during a trip to Kigali for not acknowledging the genocide, but the released documents prove that there was no meaning behind the apology.
 * CAT:** February 2, 2010

Lauria, Joe. "U.S. Backs Implementing U.N. Doctrine Against Genocide - WSJ.com." //Business News & Financial News - The Wall Street Journal - WSJ.com//. Dow Jones & Company, Inc., 30 July 2009. Web. 01 Feb. 2010. <[]>. The Obama administration is trying to apply a new policy in which the military can actively step in and stop genocides. Next on the to do list would be to make sure the countries in favor of this policy would actually back it up if a new genocide were to arise. This new policy would not make the countries legally obligated to back up their word, even if they did sign to it. This policy, called the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, was talked over by the U.S. and most of the U.N. countries. It will be put into action in four different circumstances: genocide, elimination of a certain ethnicity, war offenses, and crimes against humanity. Natural disasters and global warming will be excluded from the list. The policy requests that governments first try to settle internal disputes to prevent genocide from taking place, and if that is not possible, then the U.N. or other countries may get involved. If international forces do get involved their options include the U.N. Security Council voting for restrictions, the International Criminal Court threatening trials, the secretary-general sending out representatives, or lastly, the Security Council sending out international forces. The latter of the options has been done before, but some of the smaller countries are now worried that this new policy would be used to get in the way of larger countries goals. Supporters of the policy disagree and say that the Security Council’s decision would be used as desperate option. This policy was approved back in 2005 by 150 government officials, including President George W. Bush. Although it does have its supporters, some may not have the same views on different parts of the policy. And then there are those who totally disagree with the policy due to the military aspect of it. Gareth Evans, a man who had put together many of this policy’s details has said that “colonial motives wouldn't taint a humanitarian military mission because the world had changed after the "shame" of not responding to mass killings in Rwanda and former Yugoslavia”.

Fisher, Sherry. "Stopping Genocide Not A U.S. Priority, Says Speaker - March 10, 2003." //The UConn Advance//. University of Connecticut, 10 Mar. 2003. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. .