Kris, thanks for posting a great article. The UN is increasingly being revealed as the disgrace some of us have called it for years. For those who complain about Oil for Food and the ongoing sex scandals, to say "Annan must go," is not enough. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was Secretary General during the Rwandan genocide and tried to cover it up. Annan "apologizes" in the article below, but on behalf of the international community for "sins of omission." The bottom article I referenced has more info about Dallaire and his efforts to protect the Tutsis with links to more Rwanda articles if you're interested.
_____________________
Annan apologizes for Rwanda genocide
""The international community is guilty of sins of omission," said Annan, who was head of the United Nations peacekeeping agency at the time and had asked countries to provide troops.

"I believed at the time that I was doing my best. But I realized after the genocide that there was more that I could and should have done to sound the alarm and rally support," Annan said in a speech to open the "Memorial Conference on the Rwanda Genocide.""
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/27/content_318581.htm
____________________
The History of a Verified Genocide
"To please the United States and France the UN Secretariat deliberately withheld information on the impending genocide in Rwanda - also after it had started

By Gunnar Willum and Bjørn Willum"
http://www.willum.com/articles/information16nov1996/indexright.htm

Thanks for the links. One thing, after you learn a little about what really happened, that sticks out about the way Rwanda was covered was how the genocide was framed as some "inter-tribal conflict" with Tutsis killing Hutus and Hutus killing Tutsis. The implication being, of course, that this was just the same-old, same-old in Rwanda and we shouldn't really be alarmed. This was blatantly false. The Rwandian genocide was Hutus killing Tutsis and moderate Hutus. It was no different, in philosophy, from Hitler seeking to exterminate the Jews.

You have really studied this issue - what's your take on Darfur? Any resources to recommend?

Honestly, I haven't studied Darfur at all. And actually, I'm kind of ashamed now that I haven't. Maybe another reader has some links for us?

Hey, I thought I inspired you to read that book.

For anyone who's interested in the US role, here's a link to a site that contains 16 declassified documents:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/index.html

To give you an idea of the kind of stuff that's on here, here's a description of one of the documents:
___________
Memorandum from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East/Africa, through Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, “Talking Points On Rwanda/Burundi”, April 11, 1994. Confidential.
Source: Freedom of Information Act release by the Office of the Secretary of Defense

This document—apparently produced as a briefer for a dinner between Under Secretary Frank Wisner, the third ranking official at the Pentagon, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—shows the Pentagon’s candid assessment about events in Rwanda only five days after the shoot down of the Rwandan president’s plane. Pentagon Africa analysts conclude: if the peace process fails, “a massive bloodbath (hundreds of thousands of deaths) will ensue”; the “UN will likely withdraw all forces”; and the US will not get involved “until peace is restored”. That these shocking details are offered as dinner conversation reveals the extent to which Pentagon analysts accepted it as inevitable.
_________________

I highly recommend "We Wish to Inform You..." Besides changing my idea of the UN and humanitarian aid, it also made me think about my own responsibilities as a consumer of news, and to wonder why, if I would not have accepted a news story about Britons killing each other off by the hundreds of thousands for no real reason, I was so willing to accept it about Rwandans.

You cannot blame the United Nations alone for Rwanda. They asked for more troops from the members of the security council, but none of the governments were willing to do anything.

If you read Dallaire's wonderful book, Shake Hands with the Devil, you will see that he is very supportive of Annan, but very critical of the pentagon, of france and of belgium.

Sure, they could have done more, but no one at the time expected a well organized massacre.

Yeah, no one at the time could have expected a well-organized massacre, except for the fact that Dallaire's informant informed that, in fact, the Hutu Power factions were in fact planning (or organizing, if you will) a massacre of the Tutsis.

Good lord, what a shockinginly high level of ignorance displayed by most of the people posting messages here.

Kofi Annan has no authrotiy to send troops any where- either now- or when he was head of peacekeeping at time of Rwanda. ONLY US, UK, China, Russia and France can do that in their role as members of the security council.

I sometimes wonder how clearly educated people such as Kris et al can be so ignorant of how exactly the UN operates.

Still you seem to be enjoying selves, so feel free to carry on...

Jon,

You seem to be enjoying your smug sense of superiority so much that I almost hesitate to do this. Almost.

1. In January of 1994, months before the genocide bagan. Gen. Dalliare was told what was going to happen by his informant. Dallaire quickly faxed the UN about the plan and put together his own plan to raid major weapons caches within 36 hours. This plan did require more UN troops. There were already, under Dallaire, UN troops in Rwanda. Annan, as the head of UN peacekeeping at the time, personally replied to Dallaire's fax and not only told him to do nothing, but basically told him to sell out his source and tell Rwanda's President about it. None of this information ever made it to the UN Security Council. Annan personally stopped actions that could have prevented the genocide. One of Hutu Power's strategies was to get rid of the UN in Rwanda first. Such early moves by the UN could have changed everything.

2. While the genocide was going on, the UN's position in Rwanda was that their troops do nothing. Now, certain people like Capt. Mbaye Diagne did smuggle many Rwandians out, but it should be noted that they did so by disobeying UN orders.

3. Yes, the US wasn't going to want to go into Rwanda and France was actually arming Hutu Power. But, the UN could have still shouted genocide and tried to shame the world into action. That's what I would have done. They did nothing. They tried nothing.

4. After Tutsi forces were able to take over the country, and Hutus fled, the UN, after sitting back and letting nearly a million people be butchered saw their chance to shine. The UN and other international aid agencies couldn't do enough to help Hutu refugees. They refused to acknowledge that many, many, many of these people were not really refugees but actually murderers trying to run from their deeds.

5. When the new Rwandian government tried to bring some of the these murderers to justice, the UN actually obstructed them. The UN wanted a piece of that action. After doing NOTHING to prevent the genocide, the folks at the UN still thought that only they posessed the international authority to try these butchers.

kris

"While the genocide was going on, the UN's position in Rwanda was that their troops do nothing"

Again, the only people who can order the UN to intervene militarily are USA, UK, China, France, Russia.

"None of this information ever made it to the UN Security Council."

Its common knowledge (and confirmed by recent discovery of UK bugging transcripts) that the US/UK bug Kofi Annans office- EVERYTHING that goes on in his office is know to US UK. (Infact, the UN does not even try to remove bugs in the spirit of wanting to be an organisation open to all) Which begs the questions- why didnt the US/UK speak up when they had this information?

I also refer to a posting above that quotes from the US government documment at that time; "Pentagon Africa analysts conclude: if the peace process fails, “a massive bloodbath (hundreds of thousands of deaths) will ensue”; the “UN will likely withdraw all forces”; and the US will not get involved “until peace is restored”.

But talking about Gencoide, the US is currently refusing to allow Sudanese militia who are committing genocide in Sudan (according to US state department) to be tried at the international criminal court. It seems that the US has to decide what it hates more- Genocide or the International criminal Court.

Incidentally, the Security Council reviwed every single oil for food transaction and the US did not mention anyting about the 'scandle' at the time....which is why Fox news is the only news source still pushing this story as a means to bash the UN (and they of course, they never mention the fact that all oil-food transactions were monitored by the US, UK etc.)

Its clear that the US is more guilty than the UN of not doing anything in Rwanda- sure the UN could have 'highlighted the issue' to shame the world as you say- but the US could have STOPPED it militarily or ordered the UN to do it. And yet i am sure you and many Fox news viewers see the UN as the evil one in all this and the US as being in the right!

Its quite scary the scale of misinformation and ignorance that exists in the fly over states in the US- propogated by Fox news and people like yourself.

jon

You wrote this nice, long post but you can't actually refute anything that I said, can you? All you can do is try to blame the US too.

I'll say it again because you apparently didn't understand the first time: there were UN troops in Rwanda in January 1994. These troops, alone, could probably prevented the genocide. Dallaire's actions were personally prevented by Annan and the UN. Those actions did not have to be approved by the US and/or the Security Council.

And really Jon, if you're going to try to piss me off by mentioning "flyover states" and Fox News, you really should have thrown in some references to Halliburton and Bushhitler. What kind of liberal ARE you?

Kris

"there were UN troops in Rwanda in January 1994. These troops, alone, could probably prevented the genocide. "

I repeat again (for the third time)- only -ONLY- the US, UK , China, Russia, France can order UN troops to intervene militarily. They chose not to ask the UNto take any action.

Let me ask you a question- why did the US decide not to intervene to stop the genocide either directly themselves or by asking the UN?

I am not trying to annoy you- i am honestly curious to understand how you think. How you can look at the facts i.e. that the US chose not to intervene either themselves or by asking the UN- and still come to the conclusion that the US is squeaky clean and its all the UNs fault.

jon

1. Dallaire's actions would have been just another part of the ongoing peacekeeping mission. It's not like the Security Council needs to approve daily troop movements. Dallaire's mission would really have been no big deal. That's the whole point. We could have done something small at that point and avoided the need for any large intervention later.

2. I certainly don't think the US was squeaky clean in Rwanda. We have nothing to be proud of either. However, the mission of the US government is to serve the interests of the US people. You could argue that Rwanda had nothing to do with the US. The UN, on the other hand, was founded, in part, with the specific mission of making sure there wasn't another holocaust. They failed that mission completely.

Oil for food

Did you ever wonder why it is that its only Fox news that has 1 hour specials and daily updates on the oil for food scandle? Ever wonder why thinking people in the US administration and media kind of barely touch on this?

Well guess what- the US administration knew all all what was going on and what did they say?- why nothing.

Funny, we never hear about this tid bit of information from Fox news- i wonder why?;)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/02/iraq.oil.smuggle/

And yet you go to any right wing blog and you come across posters whipping themselves up into a frenzy about how this was a 'UN' scandle and the US is squeaky clean ditto the Rwanda issue- again- you just dont understand (or dont want to understand, i suspect) how the UN oeprates i.e. ONLY US, UK etc can order the UN to intervene militarily anywhere.

"It's not like the Security Council needs to approve daily troop movements."

They do need to approve any change to the rule of engagement of UN troops as was needed (but not given by US, Uk et al) in Rwanda.

Why did they chose not to let the UN intervene?

So, if the Security Council needed to approve Dallaire's plan (which I don't believe is the case), they why didn't it go to them? If that's the case then it really makes Annan culpable, since he denied Dallaire's request all on his own.

Kris

So do we agree: both US and UN knew genocide was underway- neither did anything about it.

So why exactly- while watching Hotel rwanda- did you 'blood boil' regarding UN behaviour and not US behavior?

It's not from watching the movie so much as it is from reading "We Wish to Inform you...".

The UN bears more responsibility in my mind because UN troops were already in Rwanda. As I've said again and again, a little action at the beginning could have prevented everything. The UN followed a do-nothing policy until the point where there was nothing they *could* do. Then, they changed gears and couldn't do enough for the murderous refugees. They were just so wrong on all accounts.

America is not innocent in this and I consider it the absolute worst of the Clinton administration's many foreign policy failures. However, I can understand where they were coming from. They had sent men into Somalia on a humanitarian mission and watched them dragged through the streets. They must have thought "never again" (ironic choice of words, I know). They must have thought "if this is what happens when we try to help, then screw you all". So screw them we did.

But what was behind the UN's inaction? Why didn't they do anything? You see to think it's all because they knew America didn't want to do anything. I think the UN would be surprised to learn that it's just another arm of American foreign policy.

I think America didn't do anything in Rwanda because of Somalia. I think the UN didn't do anything in Rwanda because it might have been hard. I can strongly disagree with both of those inactions. However, I can only understand one of them. I will never understand why the UN didn't, in the midst of the genocide, shout to the rooftops and demanded world action. I mean, my God , something like 50,000 bodies were flowing into Tanzanian lakes. No matter what the American people thought about using our military in Africa, you can't tell me we couldn't have been horrified into action.

"But what was behind the UN's inaction? "

This is getting silly- but I will say it for a fourth time anyway and hope you can udnerstand- ONLY the US,UK, China,Russia France could have ordered the UN troops in rawanda to intervene militarily.

US, UK et al. decided not to do that.

I know this reality seems impossible for you to comprehend.

The world is not as black and white as Fox news would have you believe.

Look, the US is a great country in many ways as is the Republic wing of political thought- but it is short sighted and frankly embarressing for your cause if you simply slip into denial mode about issues which dont fit into your world view. I presume other people read this thread and they have got to be wondering why you are in denial too...

In this case its a classic denial- the US chose not to oder the UN to intervene and yet you see this as the UNs fault!!

Kris you are a smart guy, just open up your mind and you will find your political view will be strengthened and will become more intelectually rigorous.

Sorry, but the US cannot unilaterally order the UN to do anything. The security council can pass resolutions, and order the deployment of troops offered by the constituents of the UN. Those troops have specific rules of engagement. In Rwanda, the commander of the troops on the ground asked for permission for a specific action, and permission was refused by Kofi Annan, not the US.

It seems to me the commander was asking for permission to do what was necessary with the troops he had to prevent foreseeable violence. Kofi Annan could have given him the classic bureaucratic hands clean answer of "Gee, what you're asking goes beyond a strict interpretation of your mission. On the other hand, if you happen to be fired upon (wink wink) and in returning fire you happen to kill a few of the trouble makers and destroy their weapons (nudge nudge) then you would be acting within the rules of engagement". This wasn't done.

Alternately, he could indeed have approved the plan of the ground commander to act immediately with the troops at hand, and then taken the matter to the UN. Or for that matter, he could simply have determined that the actions proposed by his willing ground commander were within the rules of engagement. He chose not to do so. He was unwilling to make a decision and take the responsibilty. I submit that this has proven to be characteristic of Annan (and a great many other bureaucrats). When Annan chose not to allow his ground commqander the freedom of action to do what was necessary on the ground, he took responsibilty for the consequences. There were no physical constraints whatsoever preventing Annan or his commander on the ground from taking action with troops at hand.

As for the US, of course we could have done more. We didn't because it was in Africa, and all of Africa doesn't amount to a hill of beans to the US. For that matter, any number of other countries could have intervened and chose not to for the exactly the same reasons.

BTW Kris, Superior 6, W.R. 3. Damn.

"Alternately, he could indeed have approved the plan of the ground commander to act immediately with the troops at hand, and then taken the matter to the UN. Or for that matter, he could simply have determined that the actions proposed by his willing ground commander were within the rules of engagement"

For the fifth time- Kofi annan CANNOT order UN troops to intervene militarily- ONLY US, UK, France et al. can do that.

Now what part of that do you not understand?

You really are in denial arent you.

Sorry, for being a tad abrasive- how difficult it is for you to see the world as it is as opposed to what you would wish it to be.

Sorry, but you are still wrong. Dallaire could have his troops into action, Annan could have ordered Dallaire into action. The security council could have ordered Annan into action. None of them chose to act. By your logic the chain of command consists of privates and the security council. But this is not so.

The security council could have acted, but did not. Had Annan said yes, Dallaire would have acted, but this did not happen. Dallaire could have acted without authorization, but did not. The security council did not order Annan not to act, nor did they place any physical constraints preventing him from acting. Peacekeepers are not like a missile in a silo with launch codes and keys.

Had Dallaire ordered his troops into action, they would have said "Yes sir" and gone into action. He may have been rebuked for taking action, but I think that unlikely. Similarly, had Annan ordered or even approved Dallaire's plans, Dallaire would have acted and it would have been up to the security council to say no, we have not authorized this action and we hereby order you to stop. I think this would have been unlikely. Precisely the same arguments have been made over whether force was authorized by the UN in Iraq.

Ultimately, to continue your chain of logic, the security council cannot authorize intervention, only the countries that contribute troops can, or to go further the voters of these countries, or their relevant ruling authority. Troops were already on the ground in Rwanda. The nations that contribute troops to peacekeeping missions do so with the full knowledge that the mission is open to interpretation.

Saying "I am not authorized to ..." is a cop out. The point is who do want in a crisis? Someone who acts and says "Don't worry I'll take resonsibility.", or someone who passes the buck. The buck got passed repeatedly in Rwanda by people physically capable of acting.

"Dallaire could have his troops into action, Annan could have ordered Dallaire into action."

No, for the sixth time- he could not. That would have broken international law.

Again, the US decided that genocide in rwanda was that not big a deal they therefore chose not to intervene and choose not to ask the UN to intervene ditto UK et al.

Look I understand in your eyes, the UN is evil and that nothing can make you see any different (certainly not the facts).

I bet you are also pro- life and pro-death penalty arent you;)

"Dallaire could have his troops into action, Annan could have ordered Dallaire into action."

No, for the sixth time- he could not. That would have broken international law.

Again, the US decided that genocide in rwanda was that not big a deal they therefore chose not to intervene and choose not to ask the UN to intervene ditto UK et al.

Look I understand in your eyes, the UN is evil and that nothing can make you see any different (certainly not the facts). I think its just a little sad for you, is all.

I bet you are also pro- life and pro-death penalty arent you;)

"Dallaire could have his troops into action, Annan could have ordered Dallaire into action."

lol

No, for the sixth time- he could not. That would have broken international law- only the security council i.e. US et al could have made that decision.

Again, the US decided that genocide in rwanda was that not big a deal they therefore chose not to intervene and choose not to ask the UN to intervene ditto UK et al.

Look I understand in your eyes, the UN is evil and that nothing can make you see any different (certainly not the facts). I think its just a little sad for you, is all.

I bet you are also pro- life and pro-death penalty arent you;)

Finally, we have a resolution. So Annan could have acted, but it would have broken international law. Sorry, but that is your interpretation. No court has issued a decision in the matter. In any event, even with your interpretation it simply says he chose to let hundreds of thousands die rather than break the law. The point is, by his own admission he could have acted. There are numerous others who could have acted, and we don't know what the results would have been. I don't fault anyone for the lack of results in Rwanda, I fault them for the lack of trying.

As for UN and my politics, sorry, but you are wrong again.

BV Big Bro, you are so right in regard to US interest in Africa. After I read "We Wish to Inform You..." I asked my friend Dan, who is a Lieutenant-Colonel in the National Guard and a graduate of War College, if he had ever studied what happened in Rwanda. His response was that Rwanda is of absolutely no strategic importance to anyone and that it was immaterial to the US Military if tribal conflicts caused a million people to want to kill each other off. (Which is not what happened, but that merely emphasizes my point.)

Kris, I think the UN's culpability is more rooted in their conduct in running the refugee camps than it is in their military response. Their hands WERE tied by the US, and, especially, France.

That's my comment above. I want to make it clear I mean the UN's hands were tied once the conflict started.

However, there's much they could have done beforehand without violating their mandate.

Jon, did you read the fax from Dallaire to the UN dated January 11, 1994 (three MONTHS before the start of the killings)? In it, he informs them of a highly placed informant who has described the training of paramilitary groups of Hutus, the registration of all Tutsis (which he believes is being done for the purpose of extermination), the loss of the President's control of the situation, and the plan to kill Belgian soldiers as a means to guarantee UN withdrawal from Rwanda. The informant offers to lead Dallaire to a weapons cache upon one request - that he and his family be placed under UN protection. Dallaire writes "it is recommended the informant be granted protection and evacuated out of Rwanda. This HQ does not have previous UN experience in such mattters and urgently requests guidance."

Annan's guidance consisted of ordering Dallaire not only to reject the informant's request, but to turn the information over to the President. I think it's ludicrous to pretend that Annan does not have blood on his hands.

Of course we are all talking about this in hindsight, and I don't believe for an instant Annan would have acted the same way had he known what would happen.

When I think of Rwanda and Annan, I think of Nanking and the Nazi John Rabe. The Japanese were far better trained, far better equipped, far more numerous, and far better led than anything the UN faced in Rwanda. Rabe had no authority, no troops, his own government opposed any efforts to oppose the Japanese, and his Nazism was an impediment to obtaining foreign help. He could not prevent the rape of Nanking, that was never a possibility. But he did save tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives with little but guile and subterfuge. In short, he did what he could with the resources he had availble to him. When I judge Annan and the UN by the same standard, I say no, they did not do what they could with the resources that were availble to them.

So finally after the early (republican dominated) posts on this board which basically blamed the UN for the rwanda genecide, we finally have some acknowedgment of the facts i.e the the US was culpable too i.e. the US knew what was going on and decided not to intervene either themselves or by asking the UN.

It was painful, but we got there- took half a dozen postings Kris before you finally shifted some of the blame from the evil UN to the US :)