IN APRIL, Rwanda hosted the world to the 20th commemoration of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi and as expected; the stadium was fully packed by ordinary Rwandans- some of whom were genocide survivors and guests and dignitaries from across the world.

It was rather a sombre moment to reflect on what took place in the months between April and July in 1994. 

An opportunity for everyone to pose and think of the past mistakes, but a special occasion for those in position of responsibility to chart a new course for a more peaceful future.

Twenty years after the Genocide in Rwanda, it is apparent that some world’s figures are keen to associate themselves with the new Rwanda through their genuine support while others simply want to be written in the new pages of the country’s story of renewal. 

As evidenced by numbers of international political personalities at commemoration, one could not help but think that the world now cares, naively that is.

Well, it beggars belief to imagine that almost none of the countries represented in the stadium did something to stop the Genocide except a few known countries whose voices were silenced.

The fact however is that some of the major players including those in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did fantastically well in helping Rwanda in the process of self-destruction. 

The general lack of international response to the gross human rights violations before the genocide and the actions to evacuate the blue helmets during the mayhem was an incredible move. A great reminder to Rwandans and others that the world remains a dangerous place, but also a lesson that anyone who always expect rescue might never learn to save himself. 

That was in 20th century, one could argue. But is the slogan ‘Never Again’ any more meaningful in the 21st century when the world continues to witness similar atrocities to the Rwandan genocide? The unfortunate atrocities in places like Central African Republic, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Syria speak of untold suffering for thousands of lives. Why do these innocent lives have to be taken? 

Can this simply be justified by the apparent irrational hatred and cruelty, or can this be blamed on a toxic mix of national opportunists who lack leadership and foreigners who are complicit? 

The debate could go on forever but what it is clear is that the world has failed in the battle of prevention and the "Never Again” motto risks becoming redundant. Perhaps there biggest question of all is whether we can ever give a meaning to "Never Again”. 

From the experience so far, there is nothing to indicate that the world is becoming more peaceful. The point being that the behaviours of actors in international systems are totally flawed and the patterns of conduct in foreign policy and decision making aren’t changing anytime soon. 

One’s focus should be about enquiring the international system and its set up, but also questioning its (ir) rational, organisational and bureaucratic politics decision making processes. 

Understanding the international community’s decision making is very crucial in explaining its shortcoming when it comes to preventing and resolving conflicts. Moreover, this helps to know the gap between having actionable intelligence on pending crises and ability to protect and save lives. 

As previously said, the world had prior information on the planned genocide in Rwanda. Could this behaviour of international community tell us more than we know? 

It certainly does tell us that there is a multilayered explanation which could include as many reasons  as - lack of Western public interests on what goes on around the world, lack of foreign policy direction, organisational and bureaucratic problems and total disregard to other people’s suffering.

Looking at the most common reasons, it is hard not to note the rational policy model which simply is about cost-benefit analysis in international crises, and this is where most leaders consider their interests before intervening in any major conflicts. 

Does anyone wonder why the response and political will vary from one country to another when it comes to stopping civil wars and genocides? Such explanation would remind every Rwandan why France was silent at the UNSC during 1994 and yet France and other Western countries were still able to evacuate their own citizens at the same time.

Along national interests’ model, it is not a secret that international organisations such as the UN suffer from complex organisational and bureaucratic dilemmas. These hurdles limit its operational capacity and thereby maximising its strategic mistake. For example like it happened in Rwanda, early warnings are ignored due to organisations’ internal culture and politics but at worst times, the powerful bureaucrats bend the supposedly rules of impartiality and neutrality and easily get away with no accountability whatsoever. 

Given that bureaucratic politics affect the decision making in international affairs, how can therefore anyone hope that there won’t be another genocide? Some senior officials at the UN continue to withhold accurate information on the slaughter in order to protect their jobs and let’s face it, even if the UNSC was fully and accurately briefed on a particular conflict; their dithering, delaying and dismissive tactics seem all too familiar.

If it is not about protecting their big institutions’ reputation and big salaries, then are the decision makers willing to adjust their views about other parts of the world? Can they be brave enough to adjust to new changing situations and be consistent in reporting them? 

In sum, the simple words "Never Again” promise a future without genocide, but for the slogan to have any meaning those with more influence must carry the heaviest burden and responsibility. 

A shift in priority from serving national interests toward preventing international crises is desperately needed, but no such shift is likely. Let’s keep the worsening crises in Africa and the Middle East in our minds, as they continue to be labelled civil or ethnic strife.

The author is a researcher in Diplomacy and International Law based in the United Kingdom