I believe that President Clinton should have worked more with the international community, and he should have tried to convince them to try to not trade with Rwanda. This might have made the Rwandan government think more about what they were doing to their own citizens. The international community could have also tried diplomatic ideas like, going and trying to have peace talks between the two groups. If none of that worked, then the United Nations should have sent more peacekeepers or military troops. The United Nations peacekeepers were removed because they were being killed, and could not fight back, because they did not think they had permission from the United Nations to fight back. President Clinton should have been more forceful to get the United Nations to keep trying to send troops, or to make their jobs clearer. The President also could have offered to send troops and peacekeepers from the United States. The United States was not as involved as they should have been; it was mostly other countries that were trying to keep the peace. When genocide is happening, sometimes peaceful solutions do not work. For example, in Yugoslavia, when they were committing genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croatians, the UN eventually supported bombing that helped defeat the Serbian army. A few years later, the United States went against the UN Security Council and used air power to stop the Serbian government from committing genocide against Albanians. I believe in this option, because if the whole international community goes in with force, then it sends a strong message to everyone about protecting human rights. If there were more UN peacekeepers and more soldiers going in, then the Hutu government might have been more scared, and backed away from killing people. They also would have known that the whole world was watching them kill innocent people, so they might have stopped earlier. Human rights that my option describes are life, libe