Compare the international reactions to the Rwandan genocide and the 9/11 attacks. Which of the following statements best describes how they compare?(1 point)

Question

Responses

The 9/11 attacks did not receive international coverage until the war on terror was declared, and the Rwandan genocide was not known about until after aid workers discovered the murders.
The 9/11 attacks did not receive international coverage until the war on terror was declared, and the Rwandan genocide was not known about until after aid workers discovered the murders.

The international community immediately responded to 9/11 but did not react to Rwanda until after the genocide occurred, based largely on differences in geography, culture, and political systems.
The international community immediately responded to 9/11 but did not react to Rwanda until after the genocide occurred, based largely on differences in geography, culture, and political systems.

The international community immediately responded to both incidents because they received comparable media coverage.
The international community immediately responded to both incidents because they received comparable media coverage.

The UN intervened in the Rwandan genocide early on in order to keep it from escalating, and the international community did not anticipate the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but reacted quickly.

Answer 1

The statement that best describes how the international reactions to the Rwandan genocide and the 9/11 attacks compare is:

The international community immediately responded to 9/11 but did not react to Rwanda until after the genocide occurred, based largely on differences in geography, culture, and political systems.

This statement accurately reflects the contrasting responses: the 9/11 attacks prompted a swift and robust international response due to the immediate nature of the threat and its impacts, while the Rwandan genocide saw limited intervention and delayed action, heavily influenced by factors like the geopolitical context, the international community's understanding of the situation, and historical precedents regarding intervention in African conflicts.