Although the UN took a more active role in recognizing the atrocities in Darfur, it had little impact in either case.
The UN actually feigned an interest in Sudan (the incidents actually occurred in what is now South Sudan - Darfur is the Sudanese capital, is located in the northern part of the country, is predominantly Muslim, and was not a place where any of the actions of the Sudanese government and Janjaweed militias took place) and sent observers, although they didn't do much in terms of action to prevent it from happening. The UN flat out turned a blind eye to the situation in Rwanda, and at no UN council meetings was the situation in Rwanda ever referred to as genocide - they went out of their way to avoid using the word "genocide"... otherwise, they'd have been compelled to take action.
Although the UN took a more active role in recognizing the atrocities in Darfur, it had little impact in either case.
Although the UN took a more active role in recognizing the atrocities in Darfur, it had little impact in either case.
Although the UN took a more active role in recognizing the atrocities in Darfur, it had little impact in either case.
Both were formed in response to a major war.
Both were formed in response to a major war.
industrialized nations use more energy
yes
How did WHAT compare?
rwanada had the UN involved more people died and lasted 100 days
..................
A stimulus is any event or input that evokes a response, while a response is the reaction or behavior triggered by the stimulus. Stimuli can be internal or external, while responses are the observable reactions to stimuli. In summary, stimuli initiate responses, and responses are the reactions to stimuli.
The Armenian Genocide, Oliver Cromwell's prodestant "crusade" in Ireland The spanish inqusition various communist massacres (Mao and Stalin)