Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rwanda: Why the international community looked away

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rwanda: Why the international community looked away

    07.04.2009

    Rwanda: Why the international community looked away

    On April 7, 2009, Rwandans commemorate the 15th anniversary of the genocide against the Tutsi minority. The United Nations now acknowledges its failure to intervene. DW-WORLD looks back at this international scandal.

    When the streets in Rwanda began to fill with corpses 15 years ago, the world stood by and did nothing, despite the fact that the United Nations already had peacekeepers deployed in the country. The UN Security Council prevented its troops from getting involved. Over the course of 100 days during that spring, 800,000 Rwandans - mainly minority Tutsis - were murdered by Hutu militias.

    Since the end of the genocide, experts have been investigating the actions of the international community. It's now clear that there were sufficient warnings to have prevented the genocide - or to have at least reduced the number of victims.

    Two months before the outbreak of the genocide in Rwanda, Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, head of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), sent a cable to UN headquarters in New York. He wrote that the security situation was deteriorating on a daily basis, and reported "increasingly violent demonstrations, nightly grenade attacks, assassination attempts, political and ethnic killings."

    "We are receiving more and more reliable and confirmed information that the armed militias of the parties are stockpiling and may possibly be preparing to distribute arms to their supporters. If this distribution takes place, it will worsen the security situation even further and create a significant danger to the safety and security of UN military and civilian personnel and the population at large," he continued.

    His telegram was just one of many indications that a catastrophe was brewing in Rwanda. The UN mission had been on the ground there since the end of 1993. Its soldiers delivered reports of attacks on Tutsis, weapons stockpiling by Hutu extremists and secret training camps for militias. UN staff weren't the only sources of such information, says Linda Melvern, an investigative journalist from Britain and the author of two books on the Rwandan genocide.

    "The Belgian government was well aware of the risks in Rwanda, and, in the weeks beforehand, pleaded with the US and UK diplomats at the United Nations to reinforce the pathetic, ineffectual peacekeeping mission they'd mandated for Rwanda," said Melvern. "The US and the UK refused aid at this crucial time in February 1994 for reasons of economy. This failure, I think, sent a message to those planning the genocide that they could continue, knowing that the world would fail to react."

    Bankruptcy of humanity

    When the genocide broke out on April 7, 1994, the UN peacekeepers stood by powerlessly. Around 3,000 Tutsis sought safety at the base of a Belgian contingent in Kigali. But after 10 commandos were killed by forces from Rwanda's regular army, Belgium decided to pull its troops out. The Tutsis were left with no protection, and thousand were slaughtered on April 11 on a hillside called Nyanza.

    It's on this hillside that Rwanda is holding ceremonies to mark the 15th anniversary of the genocide.

    "Nyanza is the failure of the international community, it's the bankruptcy of the whole of humanity," said Benoit Kaboyi, executive secretary of Ibuka, the country's main organization of genocide survivors.

    For Melvern, the failure to prevent the killings was also attributable to the lack of media coverage.

    "The whole focus at the time was on the former Yugoslavia," she said. "When the genocide began 15 years ago, the Balkans were being bombed and the whole focus of the [UN] Security Council was on the former Yugoslavia, as was the focus of the Western press. For the Security Council and for journalists, Rwanda was not at the top of the agenda. Even when genocide was determined on April 29, 1994 by Oxfam in a press release, [British] newspapers hardly covered that story at all. So it's a media failure as well as a political one."

    The international troops in Rwanda were only authorized to evacuate foreigners. The force commander of UNAMIR, Canadian Lt. General Romeo Dallaire pushed repeatedly for permission to deploy troops to stop the killing, but he was consistently refused. At the time, Western politicians even refrained from describing events in Rwanda as genocide. Then US President Bill Clinton instead called it a "tribal war."

    Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 1994 was serving as the head of UN peacekeeping operations, issued a statement 10 years after the genocide saying he should have done more to stop it.

    "We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenseless men, women, children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago," Annan said. "We must acknowledge our responsibility for not having done more to prevent or stop the genocide."

    Wounds still not healed

    Fifteen years on, the wounds many Rwandans suffered have still not healed. One issue for survivors is giving the dead a fitting burial. At the height of the genocide, the bodies of up to 20,000 victims floated downriver to southern Uganda, where they were hurriedly buried in mass graves. Now, they will be exhumed and re-buried in a ceremony, the Kampala-based Central Broadcasting Service radio quoted Rwandan diplomats as saying.

    Then there is the issue of the perpetrators of the genocide, many of whom are still at large in Africa, Europe and North America. Hundreds of suspects sought for their involvement in the killings by the Tanzania-based International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda (ICTR) are living either under false identities or, sometimes in the open, as political refugees. The government in Kigali, which has been led by President Paul Kagame since his Tutsi rebel group took over in the aftermath of the genocide, says foreign governments often don't respond to extradition requests.

    The governments of France and Canada, for example, have refused to extradite suspects to Kigali because they believe the Rwandan courts that convicted them failed to meet international standards.

    "That sends the wrong message to criminals," Paulin Nteziryayo of PAGE-Rwanda, an organization formed to aid genocide survivors, told the AFP news agency.

    While the survivors try to move on with their lives and deal with the trauma inflicted by those 100 days in the spring of 1994, survivor associations claim that, for many, the terror still hasn't ended. In parts of the country, Tutsis continue to suffer intimidation or are killed by their former foes says Ibuka head Benoit Kaboyi.

    "Genocide survivors are still being massacred in Rwandan interior regions," Kaboyi told AFP. "You cannot hush up these killings by attributing them to the settling of scores within clans."

    As for the international community, some observers say it still hasn't learned from Rwanda. General Dallaire, for example, is one of many voices accusing Western countries of once again watching as the next genocide in Africa unfolds - namely, the conflict in Darfur.

    Daniel Pelz/Deanne Corbett/afp
    Editor: Nancy Isenson


    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...-1893-xml-atom
    Last edited by Oscar; 07 Apr 09,, 13:58.

  • #2
    this type of thing would be dealt with much better via internal trial/truth & reconciliation than via international court.

    the top perps may go on trial, but the numbers involved and the exclusively tribal sort of killing means at least thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people were involved in the killing business. it takes some numbers to kill 800,000 with machetes.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Oscar View Post
      As for the international community, some observers say it still hasn't learned from Rwanda. General Dallaire, for example, is one of many voices accusing Western countries of once again watching as the next genocide in Africa unfolds - namely, the conflict in Darfur.
      Africa for Africans.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by astralis View Post
        this type of thing would be dealt with much better via internal trial/truth & reconciliation than via international court.

        the top perps may go on trial, but the numbers involved and the exclusively tribal sort of killing means at least thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people were involved in the killing business. it takes some numbers to kill 800,000 with machetes.
        The problem is that tensions remain. I stumbled upon a book written in the seventies that already warned of the possible danger of a bloody confrontation between Hutus and Tutsis. The Belgians completely screwed it up with their "master race" and all that. ;)

        IMHO it will not abait. Hutus make up 85% of the population. 85% of possible génocidaires for the Tutsis who developped a siege mentality.

        And you forget that after the 1994 genocide, massacres continued as payback, and theres the civil war in ex zaire (4 million dead), plunders and so on...Paul Kagame is no angel, thats an understatement. ;)
        Last edited by Oscar; 07 Apr 09,, 15:26.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
          Africa for Africans.
          Europeans didn't rise up to the challenge of the civil war in ex yugoslavia so why would one expect the Africans to do better?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Oscar View Post
            Europeans didn't rise up to the challenge of the civil war in ex yugoslavia so why would one expect the Africans to do better?
            Well, there you go. You just answered your own question. Why would you expect the international community to do anything if they can't even take care of business on their own continent?
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Oscar View Post
              Europeans didn't rise up to the challenge of the civil war in ex yugoslavia so why would one expect the Africans to do better?
              That's not my point. My point is that it's their mess. It's their responsibility. The White Man's Guilt is done and over.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                Africa for Africans.
                Hear, hear!

                Comment


                • #9
                  UN had always been for spineless bureaucrats' glamour ramp! Until USA, Russia or some other power steps in, others can't do anything.

                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Africa for Africans.
                  That's the thing I don't understand, why nobody seems to care about Africa? Only because it is economically poor country? But it has good natural resources. Or does it have to do with skin color?? Don't mean to offend anyone, but from Somalia, Siera Leon, Congo, Uganda - name a country and there's unrest and mayhem, often massacre and genocide thrown in between. Why don't anybody care?????? UN?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                    That's not my point. My point is that it's their mess. It's their responsibility. The White Man's Guilt is done and over.
                    International community does not equal white man. The top 9 troop contributors for feb 2009 to UN missions are all non white nations.
                    "Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jackprince View Post
                      That's the thing I don't understand, why nobody seems to care about Africa? Only because it is economically poor country? But it has good natural resources. Or does it have to do with skin color?? Don't mean to offend anyone, but from Somalia, Siera Leon, Congo, Uganda - name a country and there's unrest and mayhem, often massacre and genocide thrown in between. Why don't anybody care?????? UN?
                      Why would anyone want to get involved? The western powers are afraid of being called "colonialists."

                      Resources? Remember what happened when Bush got rid of Saddam? He was accused of launching a war to enrich his oil buddies.

                      Africans, not all, but most, still use the concept of tribes and clans rather than nations. Whoever is in charge will oppress those not of his clan/tribe. That's just the way it is.

                      Any outside force will be opposed by all the tribes/clans within the area. They unite to expel the outsiders just so they can go back to fighting each other.

                      Until the national boundaries are redrawn according to tribe/clan structure, or they ditch the concept, Africa will be a mess.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by chankya View Post
                        International community does not equal white man. The top 9 troop contributors for feb 2009 to UN missions are all non white nations.
                        Let them deal with Africa then.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                          Let them deal with Africa then.
                          They are. The UNSC however makes them relatively toothless. From your tone though one would think the West regularly deploys troops there. Save for Canada(which operates afaik under the UN flag) I don't actually know of any others who operate there in any significant numbers. Do you?
                          "Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by chankya View Post
                            They are. The UNSC however makes them relatively toothless. From your tone though one would think the West regularly deploys troops there. Save for Canada(which operates afaik under the UN flag) I don't actually know of any others who operate there in any significant numbers. Do you?
                            Nope. I never said the western power should get involved in Africa. It's their mess.

                            I'm not surprised that UN gives them toothless mandates. UN is useless in keeping or enforcing any kind of peace. UN is like a treehugging hippie who protests a lot and rants about police brutality all day. Have him face to face with a mugger and he's likely to piss his pants and yell mommy. We need a bully to deal with bullies. UN is no bully. We make sure of that.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              Nope. I never said the western power should get involved in Africa. It's their mess.

                              I'm not surprised that UN gives them toothless mandates. UN is useless in keeping or enforcing any kind of peace. UN is like a treehugging hippie who protests a lot and rants about police brutality all day. Have him face to face with a mugger and he's likely to piss his pants and yell mommy. We need a bully to deal with bullies. UN is no bully. We make sure of that.
                              That is I think insulting to the men on the ground. In this instance Lt. Gen Dallaire did what he could with what men he had in spite of the lousy mandate.

                              UN in New York on the other hand are all bastards. Living cushy lives with little or no care about what really happens.
                              "Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X