"Whether UNAMIR [United Nations Assistance Mission In Rwanda] can prevent a new outbreak of fighting is questionable, and recent violence in Burundi indicates that the region is far from stable. . .Can 2,500 blue-helmeted troops stop people from hacking each other up with machetes? We shall see." --Global Safari, Nov. 5, 1994.
Six months later, Rwanda has descended into hell and UNAMIR troops are confined to barracks after 10 Belgian peacekeepers were killed. Some 2,500 U.N. troops cannot stop people from hacking each other up with machetes. Of course, 25,000 U.N. troops could not do the job. Because the U.N. is worthless. More than 10,000 corpses litter the streets of Kigali, while another 10,000 are dead in the countryside. Rwandan Patriotic Front rebels are poised to capture the capital city, threatening more violence. The Rwandan government has already gone into hiding. What good did the U.N. do? Why are U.N. forces in Rwanda if they a.) cannot keep the peace, and b.) cannot enforce the agreement between the Rwandan government and the RPF?
The answer is painfully obvious. Boutros-Ghali and the Security Council send blue helmets to hot spots world-wide so that they can sleep at night. Rather than attempt to solve difficult problems or use military force when it is needed, the decision-makers at the U.N. send peacekeepers so they look like they are doing something, anything, about the world's problems.
The U.N. supposedly sent troops to Rwanda to prevent just the sort of massacre that is now in progress. Ironically, the Security Council passed on the chance to deploy peacekeepers to neighboring Burundi, which was deemed too dangerous. Indeed, U.N. and Red Cross officials estimate that up to 100,000 have been killed in tribal violence in Burundi since last winter. International organizations were tipped off to the problem when mutilated bodies begin washing up down-river in Tanzania. Yet Burundi was the staging area for the recent evacuation of foreign nationals from Rwanda. Rwanda and Burundi are sadly illustrative of the sort of ethnic conflict plaguing the globe.
Ron Clark, one of the Americans who fled the violence, best summed up the Rwanda problem in comments to the New York Times. "The horror is that many of the people who are killed are killed because of the shape of their nose." Rwanda is populated by two tribes--the Tutsi minority and the Hutu majority. The Tutsis are taller and have narrower facial features than the Hutu. Thus, the Hutu have little trouble discerning who they should kill when they decide to initiate a massacre. The reverse is true in Burundi, where the minority Tutsis have traditionally maintained control over the Hutu population, often through similar massacres.
Rwanda is just one example of the U.N.'s dismal record. The Khmer Rouge is still running amuck in Cambodia, its genocidal leader Pol Pot alive and well. Somali factions are shooting at each other in Mogadishu now that the U.S. has pulled out. News accounts continue to mention the 50,000 dead in the former Yugoslavia, but the press has been using that figure for over a year. It is much higher now.
The United States, France and Belgium had to send troops and military units to Rwanda to evacuate their nationals. Meanwhile, the U.N. considered sending in 1,500 reinforcements. If 2,500 UN troops are hiding in their barracks, what good will another 1,500 do? U.N. failure is obvious when other governments see the need to send their own military forces into a troubled area.
Even Sunday's NATO attack on Serbian positions in Gorazde illustrates the U.N.'s uselessness. The United Nations finally decided that, yes, maybe it might be a good idea to defend a city which was declared a safe haven by a Security Council resolution. Actually, General Sir Michael Rose was the one who pushed for the air strikes. As a British officer and former commander of the Special Air Service, Rose knows his business. Sadly, most other U.N. officials do not. Yasushi Akashi took 25 minutes to make a decision about Rose's most recent request. Fortunately, Akashi has just been cut out of the military chain of command. Meanwhile, the killing in Bosnia continues.
People will go on killing each other in large numbers due to differences in race, religion, language, region. The United Nations cannot stop these people from killing each other. The United States would have a better chance of solving some of the world's problems, but the solutions may not be worth the risk. Several factors come into play regarding intervention in ethnic conflicts abroad. Simply put, though, both the U.S. and the U.N. should try to ask the same thing: If the country in question disappeared from the face of the earth, would it really matter? In Rwanda's case, the answer is no.
Barry Rothberg is a Trinity junior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.