Why did the U.N. leave Rwanda in its hour of need in the 90s?

Question

Should they be considered as the ones responsible for the atrocities that ensued because of their failure to stand up to the Hutus?

Answer 1

The UN can - on several accounts - be held responsible for the atrocities in Rwanda. When the UN mission arrived in Rwanda in 1993 - to watch over the fragile peace process that was established after 2 years of civil strife - the commander in Chief had some serious suspicions (with proof!) that a genocide was being planned in Rwanda. he wanted to take measures, but the Dept of Peacekeeping Operations withheld him from doing that.

That was in Jan 1994.

In April 1994, the genocide started. Instead of sending more troops and changing the mandate, most of the mission was withdrawn except for 250 men. They didn't have arms, artillery, helis or other patrol vehicles. They had to follow mandate that told them they could only act as a monitoring force. This mandate was not changed for months, and the UN forces had their hands bound.

It is such a long, complex and coiimplicated story, which I am not able to explain in a few paragraphs. Maybe you should read to book "Shaking hands with the devil" by Romeo dallaire. He was commander in chiefm and this book brought me to tears. The UN screwed up badly, and let Rwanda - where I grew up - rot in hell.

By the UN, I by the way mean: the HQ in USA and several member states represented in the UN including USA, Belgium and France. Apart from letttting 1 million rwandese die, they let rwanda be one of the temporary members of the security council, eventhough it was pretty much a fact that this person briefed his superiors about what was talked about within the security council. And these superiors ... well, they used this info in their strategy to hinder the peacekeeper and to kill more people.

I do not - by all means - blame the troops present. They did what ever they could, despite having their hands tied.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

Answer 2

On the contrary the UN takes sides quite often--depending on when there is some gain involved for the countries that have most power over the UN Council. But aside from Rwanda not having anything to supply those countries, and not having resources with which to bribe those countries... well, as soon as the UN no longer has popular support it pulls out unless the stakes are great (by ITS way of thinking). This is easy because if the UN action is protecting cheap oil prices (for example) to the more powerful UN countries, then the businesses etc. will support the action. But if people in the US are losing their "sons" to the cause in a foreign country (as UN peacekeeping forces, for example), they will begin to object. If the businesses and governments have no concrete reason to fight this popular protest, the UN forces vote to pull out. That's what happened in Rwanda.

Answer 3

The UN can be held responsible for much thats wrong in the world.

Why?

Simply because of the fact that 4 of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council are the largest suppliers/sellers of arms in the world.

Having those states as the permanent members of the security council is like having Jesse James at the head of your bank!

"cool, in denial, were the cool regulators smoking cigaro cigaro cigaro"-System of a Down

Answer 4

The information of MIR77 is correct.

The mandate did not foresee such troubles and the weapons by the UN troops were not heavy enough (no airplanes, no artillery, no antitank material, no armored component) and not enough troops. Only personal weapons and light machineguns.
The rules of engagement were only prepared for a police action, not for this kind of organised outbreak of atrocities.

As a Belgian I can give some information about the Belgian attitude.
Belgian liaison officers had already warned about the possibility of a genocide (but the UN would not believe it, like nobody could belive what the nazis planned with the Jews).

Some officers were not of high quality like the commander in chief (Canadian general Dallaire) who let 10 Belgian UN-soldiers perish without trying to help them (he washed later on his hands like Pontius Pillatus, a fact which is still not forgiven by the Belgians). In fact these soldiers died because they tried to protect a minister. The error they made was to trust the Rwanda army by giving in their weapons after receiving orders to do so from the UN headquarters.

The UN-troops were of unequal quality, thought the Belgian para-commandos were of high quality, they where seen as old-colonial forces which made working not easy. A fact that the Belgian government had pointed out when they were asked to support with troops.
Other troops did not even speak French (like the troops of Bangladesh) and which stayed in their army barracks once the troubles started.

The French, who had the military potential nearby (French Legion Etranger and airplanes) did not support the UN-troops.
The official radio that had launched a hate campaign against the Belgian (because they tried to be neutral to both parties), made working without heavy military support impossible once the riots started.

Due to all these facts the Belgian government gave orders to evacuate the Belgians (also Rwandees with dual nationality) and Europeans and retreat their small UN-continent. Without heavy support (or even support by their superior Dallaire) and other rules of engagement, they could only save as much lives as possible by evacuating people.
For more details, please contact me on my email.

Answer 5

you're actually a greater conscientious canines proprietor. the human beings who leave their canines out in spite of the indisputable fact that, would possibly no longer understand they bark continuously. additionally, they do no longer bounce the fence even although they'd have the capacity to doing it. The proprietors probable understand they do no longer bounce out so as that they experience they're secure. If the proprietors artwork 8 hour days and characteristic a visit and that they left their canines interior, they'd experience it quite is merciless with the aid of fact the canines does not be waiting to relish the mild or bypass to the bathing room every time throughout that long day. they'd destroy some thing contained in the abode the proprietors care approximately or chew some thing that would desire to injure the canines. they'd want the canines exterior to discourage burglars. maximum police departments record fewer robberies in properties with canines or next to canines who bark. of path if canines bark for all time, this would possibly not rather alert all and sundry to annoy. in the event that they'd no longer leave the canines exterior, they'd be confronted with taking the canines to a guard and that would desire to imply they do no longer care approximately their canines in any respect so needless to say they do attempt to furnish the main suitable they'd. certainly one of my canines prefers to be contained in the backyard all day no remember if i'm out or no longer. i'm abode so I regularly leave the door open so the different canines can come out and in. they opt to be the place i'm. it quite is a threat those proprietors understand that their canines could extremely be out than in. They do take the prospect that somebody will tease or scouse borrow the canines in spite of the indisputable fact that it is not common. they'd also have a secure practices digital camera to guard the canines. yet while they do they'd desire to appreciate the canines are continuously barking and furnish some toys or hire a canines walker to maintain the canines from being a nuisance or turning out to be hectic for all time.

Answer 6

The U.S. exerts an enormous amount of influence over the U.N., and the States didn't care about Rwanda because it is not an oil producing country. The Bush administration will not risk American lives if they do not have anything to gain.

Answer 7

Early on the UN had a third its present membership and was only marginally useful, especially with communications as they were. Now the UN is bloated and non-directional. It almost never takes sides, and peackeeping forces, not allowed to take sides, tend to laager up and do no good because they have no sense of direction or useful rules of engagement.

Answer 8

Oh my god! do all these people think the US has all that influence over the UN? gee that explains the mad rush by the UN to support he war in Iraq... grow a brain stem.

The reason is because the UN is useless. They took a few casualties in Rwanda and ran because they were afraid of losing support.

It is, was and always will be politics.

and the politics of the UN is to pick on and insult people doing something and run from a real fight.

that's why they haven't done anything in dafur. they are afraid of getting hurt.

Answer 9

Short answer: it's easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk. For all of his shortcomings and personal corruption, Kofi Annan should hang his head in shame and never ever point another finger in self-righteous indignation again.

Answer 10

UN is about as corrupt as you can get. Gadafi is a member. What a joke. Kofi Annan and his son should be in JAIL. Thank God he is gone. But I have no hope of any change. What a world.