The arms deal with Egypt was kept secret. It came at a time when strenuous international efforts had begun to prevent a civil war between the RPF and the Rwandan government forces. The Belgium prime minister, Wilfried Martens, had flown to Nairobi on 14 October to try to open negotiations between the Rwandan government and the RPF. Peace talks had begun on 17 October with Habyarimana, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and President Ali Hassan Mwinyi of Tanzania. The talks were facilitated by Mwinyi, who feared the creation of a larger refugee crisis. On 26 October, two days before the first arms deal between Egypt and Rwanda was signed, a ceasefire was agreed between the Rwanda government and the RPF following diplomatic efforts by the Beligian government.

Ceasefire or not, from now until the genocide began in April 1994 Rwanda would become the third largest importer of weapons in Africa, ranked behind Nigeria and Angola. An estimated US$100 million was spent on arms by this tiny African country. For the next three years, among the military hardware which entered the country, there was a seemingly unstoppable flow of small arms and light weapons.

Boutros-Ghali, when later interviewed about the arms sales, described his role as that of a ‘catalyst’. He was a minister of foreign affairs, he said, and it was his job to help to sell his country’s weapons production; he would have helped any government wanting arms from Egypt. Egyptian arms were cheap and the Egyptians prided themselves on the speed of delivery. Kabanda made the approach, said Boutros-Ghali, because he would not have known who else in the Egyptian government to contact. About the wisdom of arranging an arms deal while international peace efforts were under way, Boutros-Ghali said that he did not think ‘a few thousand guns would have changed the situation’.

We may never know the full facts of the sudden Egyptian change of heart in October 1990 and the reversal of its foreign policy not to sell weapns to Rwanda. The sales would undoubtedly have helped to boost foreign earnings. One important factor must have been Rwandas’s sudden change in fortunes for, by the time Kabanda had requested Boutros-Ghali’s help, some US$216 million of international funding had been earmarked for Rwanda, some of it from the European Union with sizeable bilateral contributions from France, Germany, Belgium, the EC and the USA. Rwanda’s status had changed; the country’s economy was now in the hands of the world’s most powerful international institutions, the World Bank and the IMF. Rwanda was the subject of a structural adjustment programme (SAP) devised to try to prevent economic chaos; its perilous economy was going to be shored up and in exchange there was going to be fundamental reform – the creation of a sound, efficient financial system which envisaged low inflation.

SAPs are economic reforms involving changes in pricing and trade policies, reductions in the size of government, and the regulation of production in order to integrate countries into the international market economy. Countries are required to make these economic changes in order to achieve their objectives. Yet evidence suggests that part of the money provided was not used productively as intended to prevent Rwanda’s economic collapse, nor was it channelled to help Rwanda’s famine and war victims. It has since been discovered that sizeable portions of quick disbursing loans were diverted by the regime towards the acquisition of military hardware. And the military purchases of Kalashnikov assault rifles, field artillery – a powerful asset in the mountainous terrain – and mortars were made in addition to the bilateral military aid package provided by France.

From October 1990 the Rwandan army expanded virtually overnight from 5,000 to 28,000 men requiring, inevitably, a sizeable influx of outside money. Rwandan soldiers, who had only ever been equipped with light arms, were now to have a wide range of light arms, heavier guns, grenade launchers, landmines and long-range artillery.

Find below some words that I copied from the following site: http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm about some interesting facts surrounding the holocaust.
And so, in 1931 Thyssen joined the Nazi party, becoming one of the most powerful members of the Nazi war machine.

At that time, the magnate presided over the German Steel Trust, a steel industry consortium founded by Clarence Dillon, one of Wall Street’s most influential men. One of Dillon’s most trustworthy collaborators was Samuel Bush: Prescott’s father, George Senior’s grandfather and great-grandfather of the current U.S. president George W. Bush.

In 1923, Harriman and the Thyssens decided to set up a bank and appointed George Herbert Walker – Prescott’s father-in-law – as president. Later, in 1926, they established the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) with Prescott Bush at the helm. That same year, he was also named vice president and partner at Brown Brothers Harriman. Both firms allowed the Thyssens to send money to the United States from Germany via the Netherlands.

U.S. economist Victor Thorn has noted that although a large number of other corporations aided the Nazis (such as Standard Oil and Rockefeller’s Chase Bank, as well as U.S. automobile manufacturers) Prescott Bush’s interests were much more profound and sinister.

Thorn adds that UBC became a secret channel to protect Nazi capital leaving Germany for the United States via the Netherlands. When the Nazis needed to retrieve their funds, Brown Brothers Harriman sent them directly to Germany.

In this way, UBC received money from the Netherlands and Brown Brothers Harriman sent it back. And who was on the executive of both of these companies? Prescott Bush himself, the Nazis’ first money launderer.

In their book, Tarpley and Chaitkin explain that in this way a significant part of the Bush family’s financial base is related to supporting and aiding Adolph Hitler. Therefore, the current U.S. president, just like his father (former CIA director, vice president and president) reached the peak of the U.S. political hierarchy thanks to his great-grandfather and grandfather and generally his entire family, who financially aided and encouraged the Nazis.
other links:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_/ai_68148605

French banks, for their part, helped launder the international aid money that was used to pay for that and other arms shipments, including the purchase of some 580,000 machetes from China.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story38.html

When a small insurgency developed, Guatemala’s military used U.S. military training, weapons and money to unleash a savage wave of repression that left thousands of peasants dead. The killing continued for four decades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWh3OfNTlXc

This is a very clear movie about the genocide in Darfur and the weapons that are involved.

http://www.yale.edu/gsp/east_timor/

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/genocide_Odon.html

Both links lead to info on the sort of secret East Timor Genocide.

Although we may learn about the Holocaust and Rwanda in our history classrooms, genocide remains very apparent across the globe. It seems with every generation comes a new genocide. So my question is: who will have the courage to break the cycle? With each generation throughout history, genocide has continued to slide by as leaders neglect quick reactions and refuse to step up as the sole forces capable of stopping the madness. Time and again, the United Nations has beat around using the term “genocide” to label obvious massacres so they can avoid the necessity of getting involved. Now it is our turn. Will we let it slide? Will we refuse to face the violence, or will we call it like it is and step up to the plate to fight back against the perpetrators?

Awareness is simply the first step. Hopefully through this short video as well as the other informative articles included in this platform, you have developed some sense of awareness to a few of the genocide issues existing in our world. Action comes next. Some of the students in this video weren’t in the least bit aware of the genocides occurring today, while others were thoroughly aware. Whose to say those informed individuals will have the courage to step up and join the fight actively against genocide? We can all be fed the knowledge, whether it be through the news, protests, commercials, or clips like this. The choice now is how you will allow the information to move you, how you soak in the knowledge. Will you allow the awareness to soak into you like a sponge as you stand heavily with a burden of selfishness and watch the massacres go by? Or will you let the knowledge seep into your soul and broil within you until it explodes into action! As the great playwright Arthur Miller tells us, “Let the storm come, even from God, and yet it leaves a choice with the man in the dark. He may sit eyeless, waiting for some unknown force to return him his light, or he may seek his private flame. But the choice, the choice is there. We cannot yet be tired. There is work to be done. This is no time to go to sleep.” Our generation must strive to be men and women who always light candles in the dark.

http://www.invisiblechildren.com/theMovement/ - Invisible Children for Uganda Genocide

http://www.savedarfur.org/content?splash=yes - Save Darfur

http://www.dosomething.org/whatsyourthing/International+Human+Rights/Darfur?gclid=COrZwYvdy5YCFQsQagod9yI3wg - Take Action against Genocide in Darfur

But, if that time ever came, at least we would have history to learn from. And thus, we would not fall so easily into the tricks and traps set by our persecutors. Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Armenians who suffered and died in the Armenian Holocaust, the western world’s first historical account of genocide.

Thus, the question I would like to address and explore is a simple one: How can the victims of genocide allow such a thing to occur?

In the case of the Armenian Genocide, fellow countrymen were set against one another as the highest officials of the Ottoman Empire spewed poisonous propaganda meant to paint the Armenians in a false light. As a result, their Turkish neighbors turned against them, believing them to be not only traitors, but also the primary reason for many of the nations problems. The facilitators of this genocide used textbook tactics by dehumanizing, dispiriting, and dividing the Armenians so as to prevent them from uniting in revolt. Also, the Turks sought to weaken the wills of the Armenians even further by imprisoning many of their leaders, sending their military men to labor camps, forcefully deporting a large majority of them, and executing many others.

Similar strategies were used both in the Holocaust, where Jews were turned against one another at the labor/death camps, as well as during the colonization of the Americas by the Europeans, who spread lies among the various tribes, causing them to distrust and fight against each other.

These approaches worked because they subscribe to the widely-acknowledged stages of genocide, numbers 3 and 5 in particular. The third stage, dehumanization, focuses mainly on a psychological assault meant to infuse doubt and self-loathing into the victims. Eventually, the genocide progresses to the fifth stage, polarization, in which the perpetrators move to separate the victims both physically and psychologically in an attempt to keep them too busy being wary of one another, so that they become oblivious to the horrible genocide they face.

Now, although many people may say that a modern instance of genocide is impossible, history has contrarily proven it to be a probability. Faced with the hypothetical question of how would one react if one was a victim of genocide, many people would strongly assert that they would resist to the utmost and that the attempted genocide would fail. Regardless of whether or not those assertions would be true, I am simply thankful that we have not yet had to find out.

And I will continue to hope that that remains true.

Though April 24, 1915 is commonly referred to as the date of inception, this atrocity was not actually caused by a single catalyst but rather by a collaboration of various social, political, economic, psychological, and moral factors. Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the ensuing Turkish Revolution, and the subsequent reinstatement of Ottoman rule, Armenians struggled with inequality, poverty, and oppression. Not only that, but the entire nation as a whole faced internal issues around their economy and government.

Then, in November of 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered WWI on the side of the Central Powers, thus setting themselves against their geographic neighbor and longtime enemy, Russia. In the widely-known Battle of Sarikamis, a battle in which the Ottoman Empire attempted to regain territory previously lost to the Russians, the War minister Enver Pasha had been supremely confident in their likelihood of victory. However, in an ironic turn of events, the Russians crushed their forces. As a result, Enver Pasha became suspicious of the Armenians, especially those who openly sympathized with the Russians.

Therefore, Enver Pasha began to take actions that would eventually lead to the inevitable genocide. He stared by spreading propaganda throughout the country’s Turkish population about the supposed traitorous nature of their fellow countrymen, the Armenians. Next, the War minister ordered that all Armenian military units be demobilized, disarmed, and sent to work in labor battalions, which would later become labor camps, then eventually death camps. Also, the Ottoman military began to draft healthy, able-bodied Armenians under the guise of conscription; however, they too were killed.
Then, the Turks began making more blatant moves, such as the infamous incarceration of 250 notable Armenian individuals. Finally, the true nature of the genocide became apparent under the Tehcir Law, which mandated the “temporary” deportation of all Armenians, justified as necessary to maintain national security.

The death marches that resulted from this law left somewhere between 500,000 to 1,000,000 Armenians dead and tens of thousands more as refugees forced to seek asylum in other countries. Though the majority of deportees died en route, the few that survived the trek across the Syrian desert found no additional comfort but awaiting death as a result of lack of preparation or gathering of resources that would have been necessary in order to sustain the lives of the deportees.

To this day, the Turkish government refuses to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it was.

I had much fun, as well as despair, in writing the piece. As I was writing, I couldn’t help but think how stupid we human beings are. We live in a place we call home, and yet, we dirty it without hesitation. As we thrive in the planet, the worse it gets. One can clearly see that humans are the cause of these major problems on Earth, as if we do not take responsibility for our mistakes. Some problems are just set aside to deal with later, but then, those are all forgotten. We become blind. That’s what our major problem is.

Humans create a mess, but do not bother to clean it up. From writing and hearing what other people have to speak for about genocide, I have to conclude that it is probably one of the foremost things we have to wipe out from this planet.

This might not be as severe, but it all narrows down to this moral question: What gives another human being the right and mentality to think that it is okay to kill another person? Through this article, I want to discuss this matter of genocide in terms of moral standards. I hope that, you, being the reader, will have developed a better to conscious to what is happening in the outside world right now.

Genocide; some say it is cruel while others believe it is a normal practice that can be used often. I say not. Human beings absolutely do not have the right to kill another person for any reason at all. Stop now. I want you to pause and get your mind off bustling miniature problems in your life right now such as your phone bill or your leaking faucet. Just think hard. Who came up with this so-called brilliant idea? A mere human being. Now, that human believes that it is right to kill another human and the practice of genocide can be used. Think about it this way. If that man, or woman, or whatever vile creature of a human it is chooses to kill another of the same species, it starts a chain. This gives the victim the right to fight back, to kill the attacker. However, genocide is the killing of one group of people or persons; such a practice should not be so confusing. You’re wrong. The victim is the same as any other person on earth. They have eyes, ears, hands, legs, and the exact same organs. I wonder, what makes people so stubborn and ignorant, thinking they are better than others? Now, it comes to the bigger question.

Genocide should be allowed to continue to exist in this world, shouldn’t it? From my perspective, no. What kind of disgusting creature thought about genocide in the first place? To kill off another human or a group of them just to feel superior? Take Hitler for example. He was quite the leader, killing off the majority of the Jews so that he and the Germans could reign supreme. He did it out of fear. Excuse me? Yes, I said fear. Some might believe in a different approach, but from what I hear, and conclude, he is a loathsome coward. Fear can change anyone’s lives and such, Hitler used this against the Jews. Jews controlled the majority of the banks and businesses, as if they had the world in the palm of their hands. Hitler despised this. Imposing his own sort of fear upon the Jews, he was able to manipulate the control over to him. Now that’s a leader indeed. Despite my sarcasm, inferiority was placed upon the Jews so that they felt little of themselves. Another thing was, Hitler’s paternal grandfather was half a Jew. With your own mind, one should be able to decipher this issue. Hitler mass murdered the Jews, and if his grandfather was half a Jew, Hitler might have been killing off his own cousins. He might not know of this matter, but since he is only blinded by his own reason for living and his conceited little mind, he cannot see clearly. Cousins, Jews, Germans, they are all humans. And humans, none of them deserve to be treated unequally. From this philosophical question, one can conclude that if one human decides to wreck another individual’s life, the other, as a human being, has the right to retaliate and use your own methods.

Should genocide be allowed and if it happens in other parts of the world, should we put forth our honed efforts to try to stop the cause? There are arguments to both these causes. From my perspective, I have to say yes. Reasons why is because we are all humans. We thrive in this very planet together and should work together to create a better place for everyone to reside in. Why can’t we do that? Greed always has to intrude in the worst of times. But that’s what it means to be human right? Others say that we as living organisms on the planet thrive by competition of resources. This can be argued countless times, and same goes for my general question. Some would counter my argument, saying that we do not have the right to intervene to another country’s private affairs. One does not ram into another person’s property without their permission, and the same goes towards the countries around the globe. But if mass killings were involved and other inhuman acts were enforced, what would you do, where would you stand?

Now, I want to impose another question: Where did we come from? What is our origin? Are we creatures just born to ready be superior? Dating back to millions of years ago, our closest ancestors were the chimpanzees. Yes, you see them in the zoo as creatures in the cage. You’re mesmerized by their tricks and their stunning curiosity. You laugh and tease as they stumble upon toys or make mistakes upon a tree. They are not so different from us. What? Animals you say? Biologically speaking, we are animals. We are directly descended from the animal kingdom. Animals lived in peace and harmony, until they have all evolved completely into another species, species that learned to think for benefits for themselves. Corrupting the world with pollution, technology, and waste, the humans think so highly of themselves because of their so called “achievements.” I think that these “achievements” are more of factors that can de-evolve our community. Animals in the past never had such competitive resources to consume. It is only in our days, that we humans decided to pollute the environment solely for our goals and benefits. We humans morphed our economy to become naught but poison.

Here’s the catch! From continually shaping our government, economy and standards in the entire system, we automatically switch our mentality as if we are the ones who are dominant. This is the key thing to our survival instincts and cockiness. Conceited, we feel nothing towards the nature that we destroy. We are overcome, overpowered, OVERWHELMED, by all these dreams of riches and fame.

Wait, slow down a second here. We have moved from genocide, to the Holocaust, to animals, and now we talk about topics related to the issues of global warming. Why? Because humanity is the main cause all these problems. I could come up with so many possible explanations and guesses. I could dive deeper and analyze the many philosophical questions you have in your mind, anything that you can practically imagine in your head right now. You see? We are the cause of all this commotion upon the planet. If we don’t stop now, even by ending the genocides and hate crimes against other folks, we can better the Earth. But it will be a matter of time before this world is destroyed from constant corruption. As long as we do not listen to reason, we will perish.

A century-old dispute in Western Sudan has erupted into genocide. Knowing the nation’s violent history helps to understand how this has come about.
Sudan is a large country in the east of Africa, with major borders on the Red Sea to the east and Chad to the west. Darfur, the region in western Sudan which is wrought with conflict, has long been occupied by native African tribes, such as the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes. However, nomadic Arab tribes, traveling west into Darfur, discovered its arable lands and sought to keep them for their own. The native African tribes were not willing to give up the lands farmed by their people for centuries, and the two peoples clashed in conflict over possession of the land.
Fighting between the Arabs and natives continued on in this way without great change until the 1990’s, when an Arab man, Omar Al-Bashir, took his place as president, and proceeded to purge the government of all non-Arabs. As a result, rebel groups formed in Darfur, protesting racial discrimination. Rebels first attacked government targets in February 2003, and soon after an Arab military group called the Janjawid appeared in Darfur, attacking non-Arab villages in a planned and systematic way. The Sudanese government, claiming no link to the Janjawid, said that they have only built up militia force in self-defense against the rebels. However, it is believed that the government is tied to or even controls the Janjawid, and is behind a plot to drive out all non- Arabs from the region once and for all. The Sudanese government expelled the UN envoy from Khartoum, the capital, claiming the reports he wrote on his personal blog about the situation was “psychological war against the Sudanese army”. In August of 2006 Pulitzer Prize winning American journalist, Paul Salopek, was held in detention in Sudan before being expelled from the country, and many believe that this is meant as a warning to other foreign journalists.
Today, the Janjawid ride into Darfur villages on camels and horses to kill, steal and plunder until the village is beyond recognition, raping women and girls and burning old women alive in their homes. Although the occupants of some villages are able to flee as soon as they see the columns of smoke rising from neighboring villages, some other villages are attacked three, sometimes four times before its people can escape or are murdered. Mostly killing and terrorizing the natives of Darfur, the Janjawid also take prisoners, mostly women and girls for sex slaves, and castrating men or boys before shooting them in the head.
Because of the tragic situation, it is very difficult to say precisely how many people have been killed, but a report from Amnesty International delegates who recently went on a research mission to Darfur believe that at least 200,000 have been killed, and at least two million people have been turned into refugees, many fleeing to camps within their own country, and almost 200,000 fleeing to neighboring Chad. Although humanitarian aid groups are trying to help the homeless refugees, at least 20,000 live without access to health care and any kind of sanitation facilities.
The Sudanese government has blocked all international attempts at putting an end to the killing, but has not been able to resist the African Union (AU) from placing a force of 7,000 troops in the country, meant to “monitor” a ceasefire signed as part of the Darfur Peace Agreement made in May 2006 between the rebels and the Sudanese government. The Sudanese only signed the agreement under immense international pressure, and have made no effort to adhere to it. The UN Security Council wrote a resolution in July 2004 demanding that the Janjawid be disarmed, to no avail. The same demand was written into the Peace Agreement and the Sudanese Government agreed to disarm the Janjawid under the threat of sanctions, but has once again ignored this promise.
The government has even added troops to flesh out the number of fighters within the Janjawid, and has proceeded to bomb villages in Northern Darfur.
The UN aimed to place a peacekeepers force of 20,000 troops in Sudan, but the government denied them access and declared that the countries trying to get involved are attempting a re-colonization of Sudan, and only want control of the country.
In July 2008, a humanitarian lawyer from the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, requested an arrest warrant against President Al-Bashir for ten charges, three counts of genocide, five for crimes against humanity and two for murder. But it will be months before any decision will be made over the evidence.
It is impossible to say how best this crisis is to be ended, but it is obvious that it must be stopped immediately, and that the UN needs international support to further interfere. The Janjawid must be stopped, and if the Sudanese government is going to different tactics in the future to complete its ethnic cleansing of Darfur, it must be stopped at all costs before Sudan is a country scarred forever.

Within this four-year genocide, three waves of killing took place. The first aimed to wipe out anyone associated with the previous Lon Nol regime. The Khmer Rouge banned all institutions in order to “cleanse” the society of any ideas or ways of living that promoted individual success. Everyone was forced to work 12-14 hours a day with a diet of just watery soup to survive. In late 1975, the second wave of murder broke out against large classes of people including professionals and civil servants who had either been condemned by enemies or prisoners, or had revealed fatal details of their past through autobiographies for their new rulers. If the regime thought citizens did not work hard enough, were too educated, or showed sympathy when others were killed, they would be next. With this outbreak of massacre came the establishment of the national prison network.

The systematic process of destruction began in Tuol Sleng, a high school in Phnom Penh that had been transformed into Security Office 21, which served as headquarters for exposure and determination of enemies of the Khmer Rouge. Here the regime exhibited their precision and organization through meticulous arrest and execution records. Although Tuol Sleng was labeled as an interrogation center, as author and spectator Doug Bandow puts it, “Khmer Rouge interrogation meant torture. And torture often meant death.” In Tuol Sleng, authorities first forced confessions from their victims to justify their arrests and the omnipresence of the Communist Party. After the interrogations, members of the infamous regime did not simply kill victims of their “social revolution.” Instead, they tortured the inmates as painfully as possible. Some of these deadly weapons included wooden bathtubs where prisoners were drowned, houses of scorpions that government officers let loose on inmates, and electric shock wires. The Khmer Rouge also strung barbed wire around the cellblocks to prevent any suicide attempts. Just like every other decision and aspect of society, the Khmer Rouge believed they held the power to decide when an individual had the right to die.

The main portion of the Cambodia Genocide took place in a region called Choeng Ek, which has come to be known as the Killing Fields. Here the Khmer Rouge put their social revolution into full effect by separating all the children from the rest of society and brainwashing them with their ideals of totalitarian egalitarianism, a concept that life means nothing and the collective means everything. The young generation quickly accepted their new way of life and became brutal enforcers of the Khmer Rouge torture against the rest of society. Once loving children mercilessly beat and whipped their parents and grandparents, forcing them to dig ditches for the 20,000 people buried at the Killing Fields.

The final wave of killing began in 1976, when the brutality of the regime swept through all classes of the new society, including Khmer Rouge followers and military officials themselves. The government had become so deranged that it began to engulf its own followers as the communists began to see enemies everywhere. The chaos and destruction of the Khmer Rouge did not cease until 1979 when the Vietnamese invaded and liberated 600,000 Cambodian people who fled to Thai refugee camps. The country was in ruins, covered in land mines and the corpses of an entire generation eliminated by the Communist regime. Even after the Khmer Rouge died with their leader, Pol Pot, and the United Nations sent the largest peacekeeping expedition in history to Cambodia in 1991, the country continues to deal with the devastations of the genocide and remain slow on their journey back toward strength and unity as a nation.