Why did the United States fail to prevent and stop genocide in the past?

Essay from the year 2013 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 1,0, University of Richmond, language: English, abstract: Only several weeks ago former U.S. president Bill Clinton admitted again in an interview with CNBC that swift action taken by the U.S. after the start of the genocide in Rwanda "could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost" (2013, cnbc.com). Already years earlier president Clinton characterized the inaction of the U.S. during the 100 day period where over 800,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda as the "biggest regret" of his presidency (2005, washingtonpost.com). This raises the question why the U.S., as well as other nations, did not act during the Rwandan genocide. This paper argues that the lack of action displayed during the Rwandan and Bosnian genocide is not merely due to a lack of political will, but rather due to the collision of economic, political, social and legal interests of the state. Firstly, this paper will look at the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and argue that while it lacks some specificity it is adequate to identify genocide. Secondly this paper will look at the reasons why the U.S. talked more about legal formalities than actually about ending occurring genocides. It will particularly analyze the influence of realpolitik, economic interests and public perception in the decision making process whether the U.S. should intervene or not. Thirdly this paper will argue that additionally to national interests the international interest in stopping genocides lacks a clear coordination and focus so to pressure the largest nations to meet their moral and legal responsibility, but is continuing to change. This argument shall be supported by the apparent attempt of the U.S. government to introduce a change in the public approach toward crimes against humanity.