Should the United States (have) intervene(d) in Rwanda? (See further details below).

Awesome, I'm so excited to do this debate. I've been creating cases for my parliamentary debate league, and this is one that I have been working on. Note that the BOP in this round is obviously shared. I will argue that the United States should intervene in Rwanda. I have two reasons to present for doing this. I. The United States is obligated to prevent genocide.A. The United States is morally obligated. Right now, in the wake of the Cold War, the United States is the sole superpower in the world, the hegemon. This means that, in some way, the United States is responsible for ensuring that egregious human rights violations not take place, because it is in the unique position of being able to do so. This stems from the basic concept that killing is wrong, and killing on a massive scale is exponentially more so. Thus, not intervening amounts to a tacit condoning of the genocide, which, in any moral code, would be a horrible violation. What is important to note is that this genocide is unprecedented since World War II; no genocidal killing on such a massive and systemic scale has occurred since then. Even worse, more lives could be lost if the conflict escalates, which I will discuss later. I do not feel that this argument is particularly complex, so I will leave it there. If I need to, I will elaborate further later on. B. The United States is legally obligated. Let's note that the United States was one of the founding members of the United Nations, which was founded in response to World War II. One of the founding documents of the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, explicitly commands the UN to uphold basic human rights, which life would qualify as. Even more importantly, the UDHR requires intervention when a genocide is taking place, a reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, after which the world vowed it would never again stand idly by. However, the UN has been hamstrung by France, which, because of imperial colonial ties, refuses to agree to any intervention, other than one by France (which would likely back the genocidal government). This means that, as the hegemon, the United States ought to uphold the word and the spirit of the United Nations, since it is unable to otherwise. Again, this is fairly straightforward. II. Stability is in the best interest of the United States. A. The genocide is likely to escalate. The situation within Rwanda and neighboring countries, right now, is incredibly precarious. A genocide has begun in Rwanda, spurred by the downing of the Rwandan and Burundian presidents' plane. What is important to note is that other countries in the region have interest and ties into this conflict ongoing in Rwanda. What this means is that allowing the genocide to continue risks an escalation in the conflict, which risks evolving into a regional conflict. This is possible for two main reasons. The first is that large Hutu and Tutsi populations reside in countries like Zaire and Burundi. Animosity between these groups expands beyond Rwanda, and has spurred (albeit smaller) killings before. This leads to further civil war and instability in these countries. The second is that other African countries have stakes in the Great Lakes region. Uganda, for instance, is currently backing the RPF rebels in Rwanda, and Angola is backing anti-Tutsi groups in Zaire. Thus, any increase in stability could lead to non-humanitarian interventions on both sides, which would likely lead to an intercontinental war. B. Such an escalation will likely be detrimental. This domino effect is dangerous because the main United States allies in sub-Saharan Africa, namely Zaire, are in the direct line of fire here. Any instability in the region leads to massive losses in two forms. The first is that the United States stands to lose massive amounts of money from mining operations in the Great Lakes region, which tangibly restricts the ability of American businesses to produce basic products, like pipes. The second is that the United States stands to lose political sway in the region. The RPF has not been friendly to the West, and similar groups that could form in other groups would likely take on a similar character. Thus, the United States allies in the region, including the governments of Burundi and Zaire, are likely to fall if the genocide is allowed to continue unabated, which would lead to a complete dearth of friendly governments in one of the most resource-laden places on Earth. These two impact to a loss in American hegemony in sub-Saharan Africa, which has dire political and economic impacts.All of this is notwithstanding the massive humanitarian costs a war of this kind would result in, which would be footed, mainly, by the United Nations, with the United States paying a large portion. ConclusionWhen we compare the massive costs the United States stands to bear, from both moral and political sources, with the small cost of sending a few thousand troops, we see that the United States should intervene to stop genocide. The United States would benefit from increased international legitimacy, and increased hegemony, both of which allow the United States flourish in an increasingly-globalizing world. Thank you, and I look forward to reading Con's arguments. Note: No sources, per parliamentary style.