Quote:
Originally Posted by Malkavian
Well, i watched Michelle's link on Rwanda... It looks like it was UN who ordered the good general not to raid the militia's weapons stash. But after Somalia, i can't really say i can blame the UN.... If UN tried to take on militias, it would be condemned for playing politics, since it didn't it is accused of standing idly by the genocide. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even Tutsi rebels didn't want the UN present... So what can you really do? Fully engage in a civil war and attempt nation building? We are doing that in Iraq now, and look how great it is working out.
|
I've read so much on this, Mal: it's the type of thing where I wish I knew a way to compel people to read what I have so far.
Yes, the UN emasculated Dallaire - and even if he had disobeyed orders, as some say he should have, he didn't have the troops, or munitions to carry any extended engagement. BUT, he did have a plan warring factions were willing to go along with (not happily, but this is before they knew how powerless he was), and this was half a year before the genocide: the UN nixed it. Every thing he tried to do, the UN countermanded. The situation was so pathetic, a Canadian plane regularly flew in supplies -- considering our military, that's one sorry statement -- and that was thanks to Ottawa, not the UN.
Next, Somalia & Rwanda's situations were very different. Somalia was torn by warlords, remember. Rwanda's civil war had been going on and off since the fifties: 94 wasn't the first genocide, but the latest and most extreme of several purges since that country's independence. Essentially it was two sides, and the (later to be assassinated) Hutu dictator had hired Interahamwe gangs to terrorize the local population & *get them to participate in the massacres*.
Rwandan government personnel fled to UN compounds. You already know about the civilians. Most journalists and humanitarian workers who were there say that if the UN had been able to show some force, they would have been able to save tens of thousands of lives. Later I'll access the last page of Dallaire's book & post it here . It's on the desktop so I don't have it handy.
As I've read each of these books, the same thought has struck me every time. When we opt out, other options (shall we say) step in. The western part of Africa is choking with AK-47s and other assorted weaponry. Who's been supplying them? It hasn't been the US. In Sudan, it's a similar story. Pumping aid $ in isn't working, it's temporary and falls far short of doing much of anything. Propping governments isn't the answer, either, that was a Seventies stratagem that led up to mayhem throughout Africa. What about looking at it as reconstruction? Africa could sustain itself easily -- if its products was given a fair shot in the market (who owns controlling interests in all those Banana Republics -- oversimplified, but get the picture?), and if there was some kind f internal stabilization. How such stabilization's achieved I don't know, so far I've only read depressing accounts.
I can't tell you what should have happened in Somalia since I haven't read about it. Nor could I say this would all be easy with few lives lost. I don't know all the answers, but I think standing by the sidelines will cost us dearly one day. [
Quote:
All the stuff you mention is great and international law is important, but there is a question of enforcement. Do you invade any country that does something we do not like? Do we invade only the weak ones, like the states in Africa? Will UN ever have the power to invade US, China or Russia in order to intervene in their domestic squabbles? I don't think so...
|
No. There has to be some sort of consensus among member states, and when it comes down to genocide: we go in.
Quote:
How do we define acceptable conduct of war? From Western perspective? What if another culture considers certain things perfectly acceptable whereas the West does not? Since conflict takes place on their turf, does the West have the right to shove it's values down other people's throats with a gun? If yes, then what's wrong with Bush's Iraq war? If no, what exactly are the grounds for the intervention?
|
No culture is so alien from our own that it's cool to cut off tens of thousands of peoples' hands and feet, or butcher over one million civilians with machetes within three months.
Quote:
Now, don't get me wrong, i hate this "all cultures are equal" crap, no they are not, some are better than others. But even if one is better than another, that does not give the right to force it one anybody else... The sad reality is, West really has very little idea about politics and history of the places it wishes to intervene in, even when intentions are good. As a result, little good ever comes out from those interventions. Just like i oppose US bullying other countries and telling them what is best for them, i oppose the rest of the world telling US what is best for the US. Hence my non-interventionist position.
|
I don't understand where this is apt, I guess this hearkens back to your dialogue with Chris. This has nothing, nothing to do with 'being better' than anyone else. This is helping other human beings who desperately need it. We have the means they lack. That's all I'm saying.