factfinder

During the Bosna War an American journalist was alarming the editorial staff of the Washington Post warning that a massacre of the Srebrenica Muslims might happen and her boss replied by the well-known wisecrack :" If Srebrenica falls, we will be able to report on the history ...
Washington´s attitude towards the Nazi genocide of Jews in Europe in the sea of indifference of the American public was not much helpful as well ... The American consulates ,and esp. in marseille shortly before the Nazi occupation of the Vichy when getting or not getting an American visa meant life or death, were issuing visas either to the rich jews or those who were of a significant importance to Washington ... The consular officers mostly kept to the State Deptt. ´s policy any by refusing the visas they sent thousands of Jewish families to the extermination camps ... The US did not admit the ships crowded with thousands of ordinary Jewish families (not rich) into the American ports and drove them away back at the large sea where they were sank down if they met a German battleship ..
(however, not to do injustice to the US , see the problem of the Jewwish Question in prewar Poland, esp. the Warsaw ghetto ... )
Nor the genocides of the Armenians by the Turks (1895-7 and 1915), or the genocide of the Camboddgians by the PolPot´s Khmers Rouge or the "discreet" chemical extermination of the Iraq´s Kurds by Saddam evocated much emotions in Washington.
Naturally, there were personalities wwho did their best to save those on the run, e.g. the American ambassador in Turkey Henry Morgenthau who actively fought against the genocide of Armenians or an American of Polish-Jewish roots lawyer Rafael Lemkin who lost all his family in the extermination camp and coined the new word (for an old crime) genocide as early as in 1943
... The most instructive is the Washington´s approach to the Rwanda tribal genocide in 94 when Washington even tried to prevent the word genocide to be used for the tribal slaughtering because Rwanda is not a strategical location , nor it has oil so Washington was not interested in a peace-keeping mission of the UN here because it costs money and Washington is the main bearer of the UN´s expenses ... ( The Rwanda genocide must be studied in a broader connections with the political situation in Burundi and Uganda where the Tutsi minority was fleeing to, and Congo/RDC - the Rwanda genocide has one striking particularity - it is the only genocide in which the murderers AND THEIR VICTIMS melted into a compact mass killing one another , i.e. the stiking feature is the mass participations of the population in this genocide ... )

misalign

I think it is a mistake to think of politics as a moral exercise. Politics falls more along the lines of self preservation. Human rights need the test of time in order to function properly. It took thousands of years for slavery to finally fade into the shadows. War and killing have a way to go I'm afraid.

cmconzett

Human rights is a relatively new concept, even the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights was chartered in 1948, sponsored in part by Eleanor Roosevelt.

As far as the Yugoslavian conflict, many countries have declared independence and fought long and hard civil wars with the UN's assistance.

Ethnic conflicts are very difficult to seek a solution to as the beginnings sometimes stretch back thousands of years.

Majority powers have oppressed minority groups for periods of time, and when the minority groups take back the power, they feel the need to assert their newly won rights, and many times this leftover anger from old regimes spills over into violence, as seen in the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Sudan.

As far as Washington's attitude towards Jews in Europe, at the start of WWII, the whole world was broken, destitute, and tired after WWI. Noone wanted (or could afford) another war. All of Europe placated Hitler for a number of years, even giving him the Sudatenland to try and appease him to avoid war. WWII also came at the heels of the Depression, and there were little jobs to spare for US citizens, who were afraid that a high influx of immigrants would take away their jobs (changed, much?)

However, the US allowed many Jewish refugees safe haven in the US during and after WWII. Visa allocation was given to rich people and those of importance, but that still happens today, in any country, during peace and wartime. However, thousands of Jews found new places to live in the US and throughout Europe. It wasn't enough, but look around even today with the harsh reality of immigration. Many flee political or economic hardship to be sent back home.

As far as genocide goes, there seems to be a far-reaching ideology in politics that believes in self-autonomy and not to interfere with the politics of another country. However, many a dollar has been transferred via the CIA and other operative groups to fund opposition groups. However, blantant overt funding is usually met with condemnation from the international community.

In the one country that swayed public opinion enough to muster political intervention, in Somalia in the early 1990s, the attack on our forces brought a swift subsequent withdrawl.

To conclude, many ask Why put our soldiers in danger for another country's war? Shouldn't the internal factions work it out via negotiation (almost 99% ineffective). UN sanctions do not and will not work with a huge black market and covert funding from major countries such as Russia, China, Iran, and yours truely, the US.

Effective change needs to come from within, but given strict boundaries from the international community joined against a common threat.

Otherwise, human rights is a yardstick that is constantly moved and re-negotiated to fit the prevailing perspective.