United Nations Could Have Done

¶ … United Nations could have done to prevent the genocide in Rwanda. Assess this view

The Rwanda genocide, unprecedented in magnitude since the Second World War, happened in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. The deliberate killings of the minority ethnic group Tutsis was unleashed with such viciousness that even its perpetrators could not gauge its gigantic dimension. With a span of 100 days about more than 8, 00,000 Rwandans lost their lives. The Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed in two surface-to-air missiles which opened the floodgates for the brutal killings of Tutsis and Hutu moderates in Kigali. Apart from that, 10 Belgian paratroopers, part of the group of the UN force, were defused and murdered by the Rwandan government troops as they looked forward to safeguard the Rwandan Prime Minister who was killed. In the next three months that followed, the genocide spread over the nation as countless Tutsis and the political detractors faced carnage at the hands of Hutu controlled militias, the Interahamwe as also the gendarmerie, the Presidential guard included. (Dorn; Matloff; Matthews, 2000, p. 37)

The international community were shocked while the UN did precious little as the situation went beyond its control. Facts demonstrate that a reinforced intelligence capacity within the UN could have uncovered the unholy nexus for this carnage. Moreover, if the UN were prudent enough to implement preventive diplomacy or afterwards, preventive positioning of armies, it might have been capable of preventing a lot of mindless murders that followed. Gathering of intelligence data especially sensitive areas could have given a distinct and enough inkling regarding the impending genocide prior to several months. Information like illegal influx of arms, insider information on the plots about genocide, the training activities of the Interahamwe, the handiwork and standing of the plotters themselves and a venerable pattern of human rights violation that had ethic overtones. Regrettably, the UN failed to evaluate or synthesize these vital pieces of proof nor did it acted in a proactive manner to look forward for additional information which could have substantiated and deepened the present information. (Dorn; Matloff; Matthews, 2000, p. 41)

The Carlson Report examined the letdown of UN in implementing the 1993 Arusha accords and its abject failure in averting state-organized genocide in Rwanda during 1994. The greatest regret is that it all happened with the complete knowledge of the UN peacekeepers. It took the UN in excess of five years to complete this vital move of self-criticism. Lasting for period of 6 months, the 3-member team inquired into the worst ever UN failure in a peacekeeping operations. Quite several extremely destructive types of interaction between the states and national groups have not yet been subject to organized investigation and for which the international community is yet to develop any regular policy. This was proven with overwhelming clarity in the instance of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. (Scherrer, 2001, p. 375)

Why there was no control

The important lesson we learn from history is that 'decolonization is always a violent phenomenon' as stated by Frantz Fanon. The logic behind it is that decolonization is the sudden replacement of one type of system with another and this replacement in Rwanda and Burundi, are violent and still incomplete. The problem could have been anticipated before hand. The Hamitic Hypothesis as far as Rwanda and Burundi are concerned predictably provides for large scale uprising and violence that is a consequence of decolonization. The problem stems from the process of lingering colonialism and sudden vacuum that is generated at the pull out. The victimization occurs within the freed population with the colonizers having minimal or no role. The racial segregation that happens after liberation could have been foreseen by the colonial masters and they could have taken steps to prevent a large scale violence and segregation. The apparent unity between the groups break the moment the power over them is lifted and the spirit of the clans or the feeling of 'difference' was bound to surface. (Taylor, 1999, p. 55)

We can also point out that the Indian struggle fro freedom was in unity. The Hindu- Muslim Clashes that rocked the region and caused the split could have also been foreseen. The lessons from history are largely forgotten. Could the UN presence and a middle power avoid the blood shed and brought in normalcy? That is a question that is to be answered and if the withdrawal of the colonizer is to be replaced by the authority of the UN, then is not the UN merely taking on the mantle of the colonizer? What will happen when the UN pulls out after things appear calm? The same situation will again arise and we see that there cannot be any specific formula for quelling the differences unless it takes a long time and adjustments within the ethnic groups. Today we can agree that there are many diverse groups as there are humans. There are no single set of civilization attributes that are in common for all mankind. Individualism comes to play where freedom is allowed and this necessitates multiple approaches to the issues of analysis and anthropologists agree that there are more deep factors than that can be conventionally predicted. A culture as it gets to be defined, can be "the sum total of individuals choices. (Taylor, 1999, p. 99)

This diversity always will pit one ethnic set of people against the other and the analysis of history was bound to reveal that this type of strife is bound to surface. There was no actual help for it and the Carlson Report blaming the UN of the "worst ever UN failure in a peacekeeping operations." The question we wish to ask here is if the UN could have checked the genocide considering that the clashes between the groups will continue until the groups themselves stabilize and come to an order with some internal mechanism. Primarily the genocide in Rwanda that was witnessed in the 1994 has a base that extends far into history and the root causes of the genocidal instinct has to be analyzed first and the shortcomings that the UN forces had in the situation also ought to be seen in an impartial light. In the Rwandan genocide, a greater majority of a population was mobilized by the state to become the willing executioners of a minority. (Scherrer, 2001, p. 375)

Genesis of genocide

The history of all places is replete with this phenomenon. In the later twenty first century we have been as a global community paying more attention to the process of inter-rivalry between the ethnic communities and the ways to deal with them. Positive approaches have evolved by common consensus and these are often taken up in international forums. Douglas W. Simon says that the "international community's willingness and ability to deal with genocide are characterized by a depressing tone of frustration, cynicism, and pessimism. The primary reason for these dismal assessments is to be found in the power and persistence of the realist paradigm in international affairs." (Riemer, 2000, p. 41)

The concern of individual nations about power, and their own economic needs coupled with the need protection and the respect for sovereignty, with motives of self-interest has made nations which can help turn a blind eye to the affairs of the lesser endowed nations. This coupled with the common feeling of inadequacy with regard to an international agency or authority and the willingness to bend or disregard the international law wherever it suits the big powers have all made a mockery of the organizations and international law, which has caused the deterioration of the value of human rights and consequently leads to the type of inter-conflicts which is not amenable t6 the control of any agency. (Riemer, 2000, p. 41)

The Rwanda genocide, in Kigali, aimed at wiping out the minority ethnic group Tutsis consisted of a hundred days of death dance. Eight hundred thousand people died. It was well-known that the Tutsi community was targeted by the government. The only reason why the UN or other big powers did not interfere is because the country has nothing to offer to the world community. While the Oil rich Kuwait and Iraq were in the eyes of the world community which chose to make the Kurdish massacres an issue and send troops to bring down Saddam Hussein, who was tried and executed for the massacre of the Kurds, no individual government bothered with this small country even when they were making noises about it was because there was no trade interests in the country. Therefore we cannot ignore the fact of the realist paradigm. (Gellately; Kieman, 2003, p. 325)

In 1994 the facts and issues about mass graves of women, and children from Rwanda made news headlines. "The slaughter was so extensive that the bodies threatened to clog the rivers and pollute the lakes. It soon became clear that the world community was once more confronted with genocide. Indeed, what happened in Rwanda was no limited massacre or even what the United Nations calls genocide- in-part." (Gellately; Kieman, 2003, p. 325) This was the real thing: more than a half-million Tutsi murdered- three-quarters of the population -- and the attempt by the Rwandan state and the Hutu majority to exterminate every last Tutsi." (Gellately; Kieman, 2003, p. 325)

The question is if this can be compared to the general holocaust and the Armenian genocide, which the world watched helplessly, could the massacre have been prevented? The question is more academic. Having seen that the clashes between ethnic groups, and those who are opposed to share the natural bounties with a community they regard as unnecessary probably the total prevention of the genocide design is not possible. Can an action by the authority like the UN then have mitigated it? The answer to that question lies in the way the nations view the sovereignty and the need for intervention form the UN. It is impossible to decide at what point of time in the course of the event the intervention is called for, and when it becomes the destruction of the nation's sovereignty. The destruction in Rwanda is a case of "total domestic genocide" (Gellately; Kieman, 2003, p. 325) in reality the Rwandan genocide is a state-sponsored mass murder based on ideology and is a hallmark of this century. (Gellately; Kieman, 2003, p. 325)

Can genocide be prevented? Is that event in anyway our problem? This becomes important to any country when the interests of the country are affected in someway by the instability in the strife torn nation. Similarly the need to do so and the popularity or unpopularity it might lead to and the economic costs are the concern of nations. The nebulous international community is an assumed entity and therefore organizations that are created with such an entity also are incompetent in the wake of a crisis. While scientific systems warn us of natural disasters some social monitoring must be in place to warn the world before hand of a rogue governments plan so that the community can be prepared. (Riemer, 2000, p. 43)

The reality:

The face of reality which if uncovered and has been literally uncovered by a number of investigators show the correctness of the theory that there does not exist an independent entity like the UN security. In fact the researchers have cone to show that it is nothing but the creation of western powers to suit their interests. The Security Council for example is in the power of the veto wielding nations who have put it to good use. Linda Melvern argues that "The U.N. commander in Rwanda had informed the Security Council early on that he could quickly halt the genocide with a mere 2,500 well-equipped troops." (Confessore, 2000, p. 8) However the U.S. was unwilling to support and only Ghana volunteered soldiers. The argument advanced by the investigative journalist shows how the arms dealers and the nation that supplied arms effectively sabotaged any operation by the force. The enquiry has brought about the startling discovery that officials of the French and Egyptian governments and especially the French government supplied arms to the "genocide planners before, during, and even after the massacres. Worse, French troops intervened decisively on behalf of the killers at least twice: once in 1993 to halt an incursion by the Paul Kagame-led Rwandan Patriotic Front, which might have prevented the genocide entirely, and again in 1994, allowing the Hutu leaders to escape to France and their foot soldiers to Zaire" (Confessore, 2000, p. 8)