Quote:
Originally Posted by michelemichele
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.
|
Perhaps, but that assumes a fixed plan on the part of Hutu militias... They only killed 10 Belgians because that was their order to scare UN off.... If UN decided to stay, what if an order came through for full scale engagement?
Quote:
|
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.
|
They buy their guns on the black market nowadays, but still, we could stop selling them weapons... and stop propping up governments, and let them nationalize their industries (those that are controlled unfairly from colonial times)... Those are all fine points for non-interventionism. After all, Africa existed before West showed up, and for better or worse, they managed their own affairs and lived their own lives as they saw fit. I'm pretty sure they'll sort things out eventually, like they always have before, without much outside assistance, as long as we don't create artificial barriers for it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, they don't want us there... If we show up, they fly planes into buildings... I mean, as you mentioned before, we can keep dumping aid, but that's hardly a permanent solution... We can not do nation building for moral and political reasons, so else is left there, realistically?
Quote:
|
No. There has to be some sort of consensus among member states, and when it comes down to genocide: we go in.
|
Hmm... ok, from the countries mentioned above... US in Iraq, Russia in Chechnya, and China in Tibet... Would any of those warrant interventions? By some measures those actions would warrant genocide label... Or at least "lotsa people killed" one.
Quote:
|
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.
|
To kill a million people with machete requires a lot of people. It's very labor intensive. It wasn't one guy pushing a button in gas chamber or dropping napalm on the jungle... With machete, results are right in front of you, so you know what you are doing... Given the amount of people who must have been involved in the effort, i think they though it was cool... If i hear a radio program that tells me to pick up a knife and hack my neighbors to death, my reaction would be
... Granted, there would be a few psychos would would go out and murder, but those should be a very small minority.... Definitely not on the scale of million murders.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Well, you could establish a refugee camp in a country that actually would want to accept it... As for Rwanda, even Tutsi rebels opposed UN presence... Would a confrontation between UN and the rebels have slowed down their offensive and thus prolonged the genocide? We may have the means, but if we are not welcome, i don't think we will will succeed.