If more nations could have been more proactive, the atrocities could have been easily minimized. The UN helped to negotiate peace between the warring parties, but did not authorize its peacekeepers to fire. Crack troops from other nations evacuated their fellow citizens, but abandoned the Rwandans. These are evidences of inaction.
I believe that the U.N had to be more decisive to stop the genocide. Either they intervene aggressively or they do not. If they had declared that they were not willing to help, a false sense of protection would not have been created among the Rwandans. Rwandans thought that the U.N would protect them from the militia and thus were not well prepared to retaliate. The U.N could have jammed the Rwandan genocidal radio to prevent people from spreading hate. The U.N could have responded to the many tip-offs that they received. The U.N could have authorized the troops to kill to save.
The U.N could have put diplomatic pressure on Rwanda; they could have put economic pressure on Rwanda. However, they chose to keep discussing and failed to take action. In my opinion the U.N is where all nations go to cover for inaction.
On the other hand, the U.N may have its own reasons for its inaction. The Security Council could either strengthen or remove its military presence in Rwanda. They decided to withdraw after some of its peacekeepers were killed by the militia. I believe the reason for withdrawal was because of America's vote for inaction in the Security Council. They suffered a drop in military morale when scenes of their troops being killed in Somalia were televised. Apparently, America did want history to repeat itself in Rwanda.
Finally, I do not agree that the reason for inaction was due to racial reasons. As...