1. How was the international community culpable in the Rwandan genocide? What was the role of the US, the UN, France, and Belgium? What responsibilities do global actors have in preventing such atrocities?
The international community failed to dissuade, or failing that stop, the Rwandan genocide. In French arms, war, and genocide in Rwanda, McNulty lays out the evidence, both documented and anecdotal, that the French military's supply of small arms, training, and money to the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the Rwandan government facilitated the genocide. To be clear: it is possible that with no French intervention at the time, the genocide may not have happened. The Human Rights Watch arms project studies have shown that only a couple million dollars worth of small arms flowing into a conflict region is capable of sustaining violence. Many more than two millions flooded into Rwanda, delivered by the French military and its contractors.
The Rwandan and French militaries defend the arms shipments and training, pointing out that Rwanda was, at the time, defending against an incursion by Uganda. McNulty suggests that Rwanda would have lost the war without French intervention (as in, when the French intervened, Rwanda was already losing), but the light arms given to the Rwandan military were more than needed, and much better than what they were using. The tactics "taught" by "advisors" (field commanders, let's be real) to the Rwandan military by the French were later used to organize the genocide. The signs of an impending genocide were seen both by those on the ground, as well as international observers. The United Nations even placed an embargo on weapons importation into Rwanda, which parts of the French military and certain contractors curiously ignored. Not accidentally, either, they began (instead of occasionally) routing all weapons through neighboring nations and having them run across the border. The United States and France (the two largest weapons exporters in the world, France being the largest on the African continent) were the only two states to vote against the embargo.
In addition to France's direct culpability in the genocide, the United Nations failed to act. It passed an arms embargo that was too little, too late. The peacekeeping troops which were deployed, due to the rules of engagement that those troops must follow, could not engage until engaged with. If the genocideers completely ignore and refuse to interact with the UN peacekeepers, the peacekeepers can do nothing but sit. When they were finally engaged (and a few died), the public outcry was such that the troops were withdrawn, instead of sending more in.
Belgium's role in this genocide is historic in nature, but no less relevant. They, after taking Rwanda from Germany during World War 1, continued Germany's Pro-Tutsi government policies. Hutus, the historically persecuted group in Rwanda revolted in 1962, overthrowing the Tutsi government (with much bloodshed), taking over the government themselves, and ejecting Belgium as a colonial power. These colonizer-induced conflicts were never resolved.
Writ broadly, the issue here is one of responsibility. Who is responsible for genocide, and who is responsible for preventing it? We can say reasonably that the genocide would have never happened (some violence, perhaps, but not a large number of people dead) had the French not trained the Rwandan military, supplied them with small arms, helicopters, vehicles, and communications technology. On the other side of that, if they hadn't, consensus is that Rwanda would have lost the war with Uganda (and been an occupied territory). Some alternative future would have taken place. Assuming the French still took the actions they did, an alternative would have been an earlier, stricter, and Security-Council-Enforced weapons embargo against Rwanda, after repelling Uganda, to prevent the genocide many saw coming. Additionally, France could stop fueling conflicts on the African continent. That's bad for business, but it's the ethical/humanitarian thing to do. Many would also call for military intervention to stop the genocide – and while the argument behind this is well-meaning, it would ultimately backfire. For one, it treats the symptoms and not the causes, and for two you then have an additional combatant, increasing the geopolitical complexity that must be overcome to reach a solution. I do not personally support direct interventions such as that, and would reject any that are suggested – but I'm fully in support of actions that make it more difficult for genocidal groups to effect their plans. Those actions are the cases where boring bureaucracy and diplomacy prevents genocide.