'How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?'
A few days ago I heard from journalist and author Alan Elsner. Now, if I was handing out journalism Oscars, which would carry much more weight in the grand scheme of things than the movie ones, Alan would be a shoo-in for Best Question Posed At A Press Conference. You may recall his famous 1994 exchange as a Reuters correspondent with State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly as the Clinton administration toyed with semantics in the face of the Rwandan genocide (which fittingly was featured in the movie "Hotel Rwanda"):
- Elsner: How would you describe the events taking place in Rwanda?
Shelly: Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda.
Elsner: What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide"?
Shelly: Well, I think ... as you know, there's a legal definition of this ... clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label ... But as to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.
Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?
Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer.
Comments
His questioning of the most obvious truth should serve as a warning for any administration and shake the very foundation on which foreign policies are made.