Ten years ago...What happened in Rwanda and where was the UN then?

Supporting Survivors of the Rwandan Genocide ^

[Robert Lomax]

Statictics of the Genocide

Over the course of only 100 days, a stupefying 1,000,000 people were slaughtered.

During this terrible slaughter of the innocent, more than 6 men, women and children were murdered every 60 seconds of every hour of every day. This brutally efficient pace was kept up for more than 3 months.

An estimated 11% of all females, or approximately 535,000 women, living in Rwanda at the time of the genocide were victims of a concerted rape campaign.

During the course of the rape campaign, an average of 4 women were violently sexually assaulted, most of them by HIV+ men, every minute of every hour of every day for 100 consecutive days.

More than 67% of women who were raped in 1994 during the genocide are now facing death from AIDS.

As a direct result of the 100 days of death and violence in 1994 there are more than 60,000 widows living in Rwanda, caring for more than 200,000 orphans.

Otherwise stated, 3.25% of the total Rwandan population are orphans whose parents died from AIDS.

By the end of 2001, there were 500,000 people in Rwanda living with HIV – approximately 13% of the population.

That equates to more than 1 out of every 10 people suffering from HIV or AIDS.

[Darkwolf377]

If it meant a huge war machine (mostly US forces of course) I would have been for debate and discussion, but from all I've read there was already a sufficient force on the ground to prevent the situation BEFORE it got going, and Koffi personally ordered that the commander on the ground (Canadian?) not even threaten or simply protect--being a UN group that's probably all that had to be done. ALbright is a disgrace.

[endthematrix]

The US, unilaterally has historically held that power, but gave most of it away. We look to the international community for consensus.

[endthematrix]

"A 2,500-member United Nations force sought authorization under the United Nations charter to stop the killing. The United Nations commander in Rwanda at the time, Canadian Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, said last month that if he had had the mandate, the massacres would have ceased.

Giving Dallaire the authority and the troops that he requested "could have stopped the whole thing," said Morton Halperin, a National Security Council staff member in 1994,

But the Clinton administration opposed the move. The United Nations had to learn "when to say no," President Clinton said at the time."

(March 26, 1998 NY Times)

Any sourcing to Kofi on this?

[Dilbert56]

Must have been because we're all so stingy.

[purpleland]

Just do not forget this atrocity happened during the Clintons' presidency:

"In 1995, SPC New disobeyed what he believed to be an illegal order to wear an United Nations uniform and to deploy into Macedonia on what he believed to be an illegal deployment, under a general officer from Finland. Michael New believed those orders to be a violation of Army regulations and of his Constitutional rights as a Citizen-Soldier. Michael New was court-martialed in 1996 and given a Bad Conduct Discharge." www.michaelnew.com

http://www.unwatch.com/index

[Iconoclast2]

I dimly recall that the situation was far worse than mere incompetence. I recall that the UN man on the ground said that if they didn't give one of the two tribes weapons (locked up in the African equivalent of gun control), it was going to get massacred, and that Kofi Annan was directly involved in the decision to reject the recommendations of the man on the ground, but I can't find the article that laid it all out anywhere.

[spetznaz]

In some ways the UN should be charged with aiding and abetting crimes against humanity in Rwanda and the Sudan. It is interesting how they can raise a ruckuss over what happened in Abu Ghraib prison .....yet they find it apparently alright to turn their backs to what happened in Rwanda and what is happening in the Sudan!

After all, what is worse. A few US soldiers putting panties on the heads of susupected terrorists/enemy combatants, or a million dead and millions more maimed, raped and otherwise oppressed. Which is worse .....some soldier breaking protocol and taking pictures of naked prisoners, or thousands of children getting their arms hacked off and millions of women raped?

The UN should be more than ashamed. Especially when they can find the time to root out the earth over a few cases of a few US soldiers breaking rules in some forsaken prison yet apparently have their hands tied when real issues are happening.

[spetznaz]

Great post. I appreciate you mentioning that the US doesn't HAVE to do the things we do, but it's right we do them. The rest of the world seems to have this a bit messed up--when they want us to, we HAVE to act. One instance of not meeting this standard would be squawked about for decades.

I can tell you this. The US is appreciated more than the media would let you believe. True, there are whole regions of the earth that believe the US is evil incarnate (for example virtually all of the Arab world) due to perpetual indoctrination by the theological and political demagogues, however there are many other areas where the common man and woman appreciates the US. For example the Asian situation .....the people receiving bottled water from the US, or hot food, or urgent medication are grateful. In Indonesia for example (which is the world's largest Muslim nation) the imams may be spewing forth anti-American vitriol, and the ruling elite may be harboring views that would not put a smile on Lady Liberty, BUT you can be certain that the people afflicted by the tragedy are grateful.

And while there will always be those who say the US 'should' do more or that it 'has' to do this and that, you should be grateful for that. Why? Because such asinine statements mean that there is something irking them. It is like having your neighbors being envious about your house, spouse, car, occupation etc. It only means that you are blessed more than they are!

Such people (eg the media in the US and Europe, the elite in Europe, liberals in the US, theologues and demagogues in the Middle-East et al) will always have a bone to pick with the US (or any power that is greater than they are). Thus the very fact that they whimper and gripe is a good thing. I'd be more worried if they were to stop.

[Darkwolf377]

I see your point, but it's a litle too neat. I think there are as many reasons for their bitching as there are bitchees. If the US were flat broke they'd still be bitching.

Good observations though and thanks for posting them.

[Hildy]

I just saw the movie Hotel Rwanda and I'm still in shock that the world did nothing. Nothing.

[Billthedrill]

I heard Gen. Dallaire speak last month and was very, very impressed. His book, Shake Hands With The Devil, is one of the more disturbing treatments of an incident that I didn't know enough about. There were 350,000 dead at the point he pleaded for 5000 troops, and for two excruciating months, heard...nothing. When they did arrive they were a contingent of Ethiopians who had just been through their own civil war and were wearing uniforms for the first time. At that point 850,000 had died.

Gen. Dallaire stated that the single most fatal decision leading up to that point was the retreat from Somolia, which gave terrorists the world over the idea that the peacekeepers were a legitimate target and that they would withdraw if attacked. He then stunned the audience (it was a "Peace Conference") by (1) praising the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and (2) praising the American people for tolerating casualties there. Wasn't quite what they'd thought they were going to hear.

He ended his talk with Darfur and an admonition for the U.S. to "kick some asses" in certain prominent UN member countries in order to get them to contribute trained troops to interventions. His own country, Canada, was among them. (The Canadian consul was sitting right there, too - he took it well...)

[Hildy]

I'm talking about the whole world..the UN.