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.

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...

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?

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.

__________________
Woof!

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.

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. [No. There has to be some sort of consensus among member states, and when it comes down to genocide: we go in.
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.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.

__________________
ribbet

michelemichele

Right, here it is. Before pasting it, I've concentrated on one continent here, you've probably a broader scope in mind. Should the UN have invaded Iraq when Hussein was gassing Kurds? Would be interesting to know if he would have had the audacity to do that had he not had US backing for years. A government being a dictatorship does not justify intervention -- there I agree with you.
From Gen Romeo Dallaire's Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.

Pages 519 - 522

"....What is the reason for this marche seul by the developed nations? In the last decades of the twentieth century, self-interest, sovereignty, and taking care of number one became the primary criteria for any serious provision of support or resources to the globe's trouble spots. If the country in question is of any possible strategic value to the world powers, then it seems that everything from covert operations to the outright use of overwhelming force is fair game. If it is not, indifference is the order of the day.

To imagine that these same world powers have magically leapt of ahead in this new age of humanity (as Kofi Annan named it in his seminal speech at the millennium UN general assembly in September 2000) could not be further from the truth. It will take the world's dedicated will and means to move from the twentieth century -- the century of genocide -- to the century of humanity.

Although often couched in empathetic phrases of humanitarian aid and of supporting the right of persons to be free from tyranny, ephemeral interventions and relief efforts tend to dry up as soon as CNN puts yet another disaster on prime time to capture the fickle heart of the international community. Though I too can criticize the effectiveness of the UN, the only solution to this unacceptable apathy and selective attention is a revitalized and reformed international institution charged with maintaining the world's peace and security, supported by the international community and guided by the founding principles of its Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN must undergo a renaissance if it is to be involved in conflict resolution. This is not limited to the Secretariat, its administration and bureaucrats, but must encompass the member nations, who need to rethink their roles and recommit to a renewal of purpose. Otherwise the hope that we will ever truly enter an age of humanity will die as the UN continues to decline into irrelevance.

At the Canadian Forces Peace Support Training Center, teachers use a slide to explain to Canadian soldiers the nature of our world. If the entire population of the planet is represented by one hundred people, fifty-seven live in Asia, twenty-one in Europe, fourteen in North and South America, and eight in Africa. The numbers of Asians and Africans are increasing every year while the number of Europeans and North Americans is decreasing. Fifty percent of the wealth of the world is in the hands of six people, all of whom are American. Seventy people are unable to read or write. Fifty suffer from malnutrition due to insufficient nutrition. Thirty-five do not have access to safe drinking water. Eighty live in sub-standard housing. Only one has a university or college education. Most of the population of the globe live in substantially different circumstances than those we in the First World take for granted.

But many signs point to the fact that the youth of the Third World will no longer tolerate living in circumstances that give them no hope for the future. From the young boys I met in the demobilization camps in Sierra Leone to the suicide bombers of Palestine and Chechnya, to the young terrorists who fly planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we can no longer afford to ignore them. We have to take concrete steps to remove the causes of their rage, or we have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.

The global village is deteriorating at a rapid pace, and in the children of the world the result is rage. It is the rage I saw in the eyes of the teenage Interahamwe militiamen in Rwanda, it is the rage I sensed in the hearts of the children of Sierra Leone, it is the rage I felt in the crowds of ordinary citizens in Rwanda, and it is the rage that resulted in September 11. Human beings who have no rights, no security, no future, no hope and no means to survive are a desperate group who will do desperate things to take what they believe they need and deserve.

September 11 taught us that we have to fight and win the "war on terrorism", it should also have taught us that if we do not immediately address the underlying (even if misguided) causes of those young terrorists' rage, we will not win the war. For every al-Qaeda bomber that we kill, there will be a thousand more volunteers from all over the earth to take his place. In the next decade, terrorists will acquire weapons of mass destruction. It is only a matter of time until a brilliant young chemist or smuggler obtains a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon and uses it to satisfy his rage against us.

Where does this rage come from? This book has demonstrated some of the causes. A heightened tribalism, the absence of human rights, economic collapses, brutal and corrupt military dictatorships, the AIDS pandemic, the effect of debt on nations, environmental degradation, overpopulation, poverty, hunger: the list goes on and on. Each of these and so many other reasons can lead directly to a people having no hope for the future and being forced in their poverty and despair to resort to violence just to survive. This lack of hope in the future is the root cause of rage. If we cannot provide hope for the untold masses of the world, then the future will be nothing but a repeat of Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo and September 11.

Several times in this book I have asked the question, "Are we all human, or are some more human than others?" Certainly we in the developed world act in a way that suggests we believe that our lives are worth more than the lives of other citizens of the planet. An American officer felt no shame as he informed me that the lives of 800,000 Rwandans were only worth risking the lives of ten American troops; the Belgians, after losing ten soldiers, insisted that the lives of Rwandans were not worth risking another single Belgian solider. The only conclusion I can reach is that we are in desperate need of a transfusion of humanity. If we believe that all humans are human, then how are we going to prove it? It can only be through our actions. Through the dollars we are prepared to expend to improve conditions in the Third World, through the time and energy we devote to solving devastating problems like AIDS, through the lives of our soldier,s which we are prepared to sacrifice for the sake of humanity.

As soldiers we have been used to moving mountains to protect our own sovereignty or risks to our way of life. In the future we must be prepared to move beyond national self-interest to spend our resources and spill our blood for humanity. We have lived through centuries of enlightenment, reason, revolution, industrialization, and globalization. No matter how idealistic the aim sounds, this new century must become the Century of Humanity, when we as human beings rise above race, creed, colour, religion and national self-interest and put the good of humanity above the good of our own tribe. For the sake of the children and of our future. Peux ce que veux. Allons-y."

__________________
ribbet

OldManOnFire

The current world governing body is the UN.

Full recognition means all countries are recognized and all have a vote...not just the G7...or G8...or G-spot...whatever.

I like the USA system of the House and the Senate in terms of it's representation. House members are selected based on population and Senate members are two per state...period. In the world, if every nation had 'representatives' based on their population, and this body created legislation for world citizens, and the 'senate' not only decided upon world laws, but also must ratify the legislation, I think this gives all nations a pretty good representation and vote. Once a world constitution is created, all nations live and function under one set of laws...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

BillCosby

I am assuming then that you mean these votes are all equal...... No one has a veto...........!!!!!!

A world democracy......... Uncle sam aint gonna like that...... & freedom of movement, equal opportunity...........

__________________
Preventive war is not war!!!!Counter-terror is not terror

OldManOnFire

Well they are not entirely equal...obviously a country with 1 billion people cannot be overly influenced by a nation with 10 million people. It would be unequal based on population but equal in terms of the senate-type two votes per nation. So the legislation side, or the people side of the UN send legislation to the senate side for ratification. On the senate side, every nation has either one or two votes, no one nation can veto anything, it requires half of the votes plus one to pass legislation, and there is no veto power from the president...or king...or grand-pupa.

To be honest, to create a true world governing body, the impacts on each nation can be quite different. A smaller nation with no voice today would become an equal at the table. A larger nation, such as the USA, might find themselves being over-ruled on some issues...and this would be a risk or at least a challenge to overcome.

I believe the more a nation balks at a world government, the more this nation is arrogant, elitist, and self-serving.

World order...or government...can certainly work. However, in the past and especially within the last seven years, the USA has made a mockery out of the UN. The USA needs a damned good spanking...the Paris Hilton-type of spanking! As long as the USA remains a rogue nation, and does not understand how to function in harmony with allies, and appears to be self-serving in all areas, this just ratchets up the anger towards the US, and there will be others in the near future that will make al-Qaeda look like Boy George...

__________________
Did you know both our problems and the solutions can be found simply by looking in our mirrors...and...Never confuse the extraordinary stuff I think and write with that of a well-balanced person...

chrisbb

i do hate the UN as it is. i am totally against world government, but i do think that a body with representatives from all nations could work. the biggest problem with the UN as i see it is the 5 most powerful nations doing whatever the fuck they want. the security council needs to be done away with or at least have revolving membership.

__________________
'Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.’ - David Rockefeller, 'Memoirs', Random House, New York, 2002, page 405

BillCosby

lol............

Is the concept of nation, country, race etc past it's prime??? Not that it will go away but it's usefulness to the vast majority of the billions seems pointless.....

That is it seems more a tool of the "leaders" & a divider of the ppl rather than a uniting factor or promoter of of cooperation.....

Certainly though we in the usa & the west do enjoy many advantages w/ the status quo....

__________________
Preventive war is not war!!!!Counter-terror is not terror

Malkavian

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?
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.

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?
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.

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.

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.

__________________
Woof!

michelemichele

A guess? Detailed? Bleh. Say you divide the corps you have on hand & assign each one to those places where the largest number of civilians were gathering. Then you wait, because if such a command/permission been given, with it would have been at least some the troops the UN had originally promised Dallaire. Odds are, with that kind of support behind you, you won't wait long: when the French went in (after the genocide, & to protect the Hutus), they mobilized fast.

The point of killing the Flemish soldiers had been scaring off the UN... Had they underestimated UN's commitment to its ideological principles, seeing more troops come in would've given them pause. (< understatement)

You must understand, there's an element of momentum critical to this type of situation, and they were not up to fighting both the UN & Kagami's troops.

RE Nationalized industries et al - It probably depends on the region (& industry). Remember how many of those dictators funneled $ for themselves, and still do, so it's not working out so well. OTOH, foreign owned corporations would probably also suck. Who sucks less? Don't know yet, it's an enormous subject & I've some way to go before I might know what I'm talking about.

The black market supplies some weapons, others are from shadow nations who supply them 'secretly' (sometimes, it isn't that big a secret). As far as I know, if the US has culpability now, it's far less active than a couple of others, not necessarily for the right reasons.....

...Before the European scramble is just... no comparison. Sure it did relatively well, colonial expansion was limited to the technology of the time. Africa's topography & climate made much of it a most inhospitable place to visit, much less explore & conquer...

(later) OK, maybe I see why you're not getting me at all. Before I started reading about these countries, I didn't understand how and why these strong-men kept getting control of those countries over & over again, and I didn't get how Europe's artificial borders aggravated tribal conflicts & warlords. Do you feel as if I'm coming from a school of thought that perpetuates dilhemmas like these by fostering helplessness (or something like that)? -- Because I can't make sense of this part otherwise, they don't call this planet a global village for nothing. You mean: we've already tried it all & nothing's worked so far?

I must be very tired or something
Iraq: yup. Don't know much about Chechnya or Tibet at all (mortifying). Are you giving me these examples of situations where you think UN peace-keepers - and I use the term deliberately, as that is their primary function - would have driven the stakes up into more serious events?You'd think more people would go wtf, but that didn't happen, and given the correct conditions, more people than not will go along with what they perceive as the majority. Hutu civilians who went along with it did it to save themselves, possibly a spouse or a child. Most of them have said that the first was the hardest, then it got easy, and the memory of that first kill bothered them less as they killed more.

If you're thinking large #s of Hutu complicity = very large force against the UN, nope.

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.[/quote]Mal? You've already said this RE Tutsi feeling towards the UN, and as I've said before: no, that isn't it. Kagame's ambivalence over the UN doesn't make a case against intervention, that's spin.

+Again, with Rwanda, armed confrontation was an issue when massacres began upon Pres Habyarimana's assassination half a year after Dallaire's arrival. UN troops could & would have stopped the genocide, and people who were there are convinced a small show of strength would have been enough.

__________________
ribbet