Why did the UN intervene in libya but not ruanda?

There are a number of reasons why the United Nations intervened in Libya but not Rwanda.

The level of violence in Libya

The violence in Libya was much more widespread and intense than in Rwanda. In Libya, there was a full-scale civil war taking place, with two sides fighting for control of the country. In Rwanda, the genocide was carried out by the government against a specific group of people, the Tutsi. As a result, the UN felt that there was a greater need to intervene in Libya to protect civilians.

The threat to international peace and security

The violence in Libya was spilling over into neighboring countries and threatening the stability of the entire region. In Rwanda, the genocide was largely contained within the country's borders and did not pose a threat to international peace and security.

The political climate

At the time of the Rwandan genocide, the UN was dealing with a number of other crises around the world, including the Yugoslav Wars. As a result, there was less political will to intervene in Rwanda. By the time the Libyan civil war broke out, the UN had resolved many of these other crises and was better able to focus on Libya.

The support of regional actors

In the case of Libya, the United Nations was able to secure support for intervention from regional actors, such as the Arab League and the African Union. This support helped to legitimize the intervention and make it more difficult for the Libyan government to resist. In Rwanda, the UN did not have the support of regional actors and was unable to intervene effectively.

It is important to note that the decision of whether or not to intervene in a conflict is a complex one and there is no easy answer. In the case of Libya, the UN felt that the factors listed above justified intervention. However, in the case of Rwanda, the UN decided that intervention was not necessary or feasible.