Genocide Chat
The New York Times ,
Washington Post , and Los Angeles
Times lead with President Clinton's remark that the United States
should have done something quickly about the 1994 killings of half a million
people in Rwanda and having failed to do so, must share in the blame for them.
USA
Today goes with the developing story of the Arkansas schoolyard
shootings, which also gets a lot of coverage on the other fronts.
Clinton's acknowledgement came during an emotionally charged stop at the
Kigali airport during which he and Hillary listened to the wrenching
recollections of massacre survivors. Given the prior day's discussion of the
wrongs of slavery, Clinton's remarks about the Rwandan genocide indicate, says
the WP , that his African sojourn is becoming a "contrition tour." But, points out the Post ,
yesterday's statement was different--with it, Clinton is referring to an
episode that occurred during his own administration. The paper points out that
Clinton suggested yesterday that one obstacle to taking action at the time was
a lack of credible information about what was actually going on. The paper also
notes that some human rights activists responded that there was ample reliable
information, just not ample White House will.
The NYT reports that in his mea culpa du jour, Clinton also cited Bosnia as another example on his watch where the reaction to
ethnic killing was too slow. The Times does a good job of supplying
specifics on the U.S. inaction in Rwanda, noting that the Clinton
administration blocked a UN on-the-ground effort that "might have saved
hundreds of thousands of lives."
Both the NYT and USAT Clinton-on-Rwanda pieces note a
political factor that at the time inhibited U.S. action, but which Clinton
didn't mention: Public support for U.S. involvement in peacekeeping missions
evaporated just prior to the Rwanda situation when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed
in an ambush in Somalia.
The headline over the LAT 's Rwanda coverage is not a good model.
"Rwandans Told World Shares Guilt for Genocide" doesn't mention by whom, a
particularly oversight when the whom is the prez.
The USAT lead states that the two Arkansas suspects--age 13 and
11--will be tried as juveniles. The NYT says their extreme youth means
conviction might result in sentences of just a few years. The LAT front
carries a piece about a new category of criminal suggested by such cases--the
"fledgling psychopath."
A NYT op-ed says the incident implicates the too-ready access
young people have to guns. (They were apparently stolen from one of the boys'
grandfathers, but, notes the Times , in Arkansas it is perfectly legal
for an 11-year-old to own a rifle or shotgun.) And a WP editorial
reports, "The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less
than 15 was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25
industrialized countries combined."
According to the Wall Street Journal , Jesse Jackson, who is accompanying
President Clinton on his African trip in his role as special envoy to Africa,
may have found his niche. Some in the foreign policy community, says the
Journal , which on the whole was wary of his appointment, already feel
Jackson is proving useful. For instance, on the current trip Clinton followed
Jackson's advice and had a lengthy phone conversation with the president of
Liberia to make sure he didn't feel snubbed because Clinton wasn't visiting his
country.
Back to the Arkansas shootings for a sec: The papers, having learned the
suspects' names from school sources, opt to use them rather than invoking the
usual juvenile court practice of anonymity. "Today's Papers" would be
interested in finding out the general policy of the papers on such matters: Do
they print the names of juveniles whenever they learn them? Or only when the
crimes they're charged with are very serious?
