Call me Jacques Derrida...

Because I'm writing another post about the use of language regarding another loaded term; genocide. Watching the documentary on the Rwanda genocide, the moments that struck me as most absurd were watching the woman from the Clinton administration dodge every question regarding whether or not the situtation had deteriorated to the point where it could be called genocide. In the second instance, she was explicitly asked whether she was ordered not to use "genocide" without it being prefaced with "acts of" or other mitigating phrases. It raises the question of the political ramifications of this term's use. The administration did not want to be percieved as "complicit in genocide." If the vast public opinion is opposed to inaction in the face of genocide, however, why would the administration not simply deploy the term to describe the situation in Rwanda, and then have domestic political support for intervention. Assuming that this wasn't just an option no one in the Clinton administration was smart enough to think of, their inaction demonstrates that the international norm in favor of stopping "genocide" isn't as strong as we would like to think. Constructivists would like to point to genocide, weapons of mass destruction use, and torture as the "big three" in terms of taboos in international relations. Excluding weapons of mass destruction, however, it is rare that this categorical condemnation of torture and genocide actually translates into action. Unlike the use of nuclear weapons, human rights violations don't directly threaten the existence or interests of major powers like the United States. Without this threat, intervening to prevent genocide is a no-win proposition. Best case scenario, nothing happens. Worst case scenario, either the genocide happens, or the intervening actor loses the lives of its soldiers and exhausts some amount of financial and military resources, possibly leaving the nation vulnerable to attack in another area. The Clinton Administration never intended to intervene in Rwanda, regardless of if people called it a genocide or a birthday party. This tendency to default to self interest proves to be evidence against a constructivist and domestic liberal theories for evaluating international relations, and supports the realist interpretation thats states will act in their own self interest regardless of domestic public opinion or international norms promoting human rights.