PDA

View Full Version : As genocide raged, general's pleas for help ignored



Kampfbaer
12-04-2008, 08:04 AM
By Ken Shiffman
CNN Senior Producer

(CNN) -- In 1993, Romeo Dallaire was full of hope for the future of Rwanda

The Canadian lieutenant general and son of a soldier was about to take up the biggest command of his career -- leading United Nations peacekeepers in the central African nation.

A year later he left Rwanda a broken man, having watched helplessly as more than 800,000 people perished in Rwanda's genocide despite his pleas for more troops to stop the massacre.

"We could have actually saved hundreds of thousands," Dallaire told CNN's Christiane Amanpour for "Scream Bloody Murder."

"Nobody was interested."

Dallaire's mission was to monitor a peace deal between two warring ethnic groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis. But the agreement was just a façade. Hutu extremists within the government were stockpiling weapons, and Tutsi refugees had formed a rebel army. Watch Dallaire describe how he could have stopped the genocide »

The Tutsis were a minority in Rwanda, and their plight was personal for Dallaire. His Dutch mother had watched friends die in the Holocaust, and he had been raised on stories of heroic Canadian soldiers who brought hope to war-torn Europe.

A French Canadian raised in Montreal, Dallaire had experienced discrimination first-hand and was determined to protect the Tutsi minority. But he soon found his was a lone voice.

On January 20, 1994, Dallaire made a chilling discovery: An informant warned him that Hutu government agents were planning bloodshed.

"They were going to conduct an outright slaughter and elimination of the opposition," Dallaire said.

Dallaire cabled his bosses in New York, warning that his informant "has been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination."

The informant described a major weapons cache, which Dallaire said he planned to raid in the next 36 hours. Watch Dallaire describe the warnings from the informant »

Kofi Annan, then head of the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations, was concerned about the safety of Dallaire's limited U.N. force. Annan's office told Dallaire: "We cannot agree to the operation contemplated ... as it clearly goes beyond the mandate."

Dallaire tried to change Annan's mind, repeatedly exchanging faxes with New York through the rest of January and into February.

"Ultimately I got authority. It took two months, and by then it was far too late," Dallaire said.

In an interview with CNN, Annan explained his reasoning:

"When you're operating in that sort of context with limited troops and facilities, you have to be careful what sort of risks they take, where everybody may even have to leave, and place a people at greater risk. And in a way, this is what happened," Annan said.

"Dallaire as a soldier, he's a very good man, he's a friend, and I respect his professional acumen. One had to take all these factors into consideration before you take a decision. Do the troops take this risk? Do they have the mandate? Do they have the resources?

"Dallaire himself said, 'If I had had a brigade, which is 5,000, I could have done a lot.' He had a fraction that number."

Asked why a brigade wasn't sent, Annan said: "The brigade was not available. The [Security] Council did not augment the troops. In fact, they went the other way.

"We would have liked to see a larger force in. I had had situations where I called 82 member states together, trying to get troops. I got zilch."

On April 6, 1994, a plane carrying the presidents of Rwanda and neighboring Burundi was shot down. It was the moment the Hutu plotters had been waiting for -- the spark that ignited the genocide. Watch as Dallaire describes how the genocide began »

Col. Theoneste Bagosora, a Hutu extremist, immediately declared the army was in charge. Within hours, government troops and civilian death squads began slaughtering Tutsis.

"We saw the extremists, the presidential guard and militias, going to specific houses ... and killing people or hauling people off," Dallaire said.

He described the horror of getting phone calls from people he knew while they were under attack.

"As they were busting down the door and opening fire," he said, "we would literally hear people dying at the end of the phone as they were trying to get through to us and we had literally nothing to send them."

Dallaire also heard the Hutu government-run radio tell listeners that Tutsis were "nothing but cockroaches," broadcasting names of people to be murdered and instructions on how to mutilate and kill them. Watch Dallaire describe the radio instructions on mutilation and murder »

It was an echo of past genocides. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge called their victims "worms." To the Nazis, Jews were "vermin."

Dallaire says he and his troops moved through entire villages of dead, sometimes clearing paths through corpses with their bare hands.

"With my own hands I carried them," he said. "We carried them in our arms, we carried kids in our arms, and adults. We were picking the bodies and moving them aside. ...There would be piles of bodies."

Dallaire's troops were also targets: 10 were killed in the first days of the genocide. He was desperate for help, on the phone with New York several times a day, asking when reinforcements were coming.

Five days into the killing, some U.S. officials began to fear the worst. A top Pentagon official wrote about the potential for "hundreds of thousands of deaths." A day later, a State Department memo warned of "a bloodbath."

But instead of reinforcements, the United States joined a chorus of countries calling for withdrawal. Washington's taste for foreign intervention had soured.

Just months earlier in Somalia, two dozen Pakistani peacekeepers had been murdered. United States commandos on the hunt for the killers had their Black Hawk helicopter shot down. Eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed.

Americans were anxious to extricate themselves from Africa -- just as they had been in Southeast Asia decades before.

"The U.S. troops had been killed and dragged through the streets and humiliated," Annan said. "The governments were not prepared to take another risk and go into Rwanda."

After two weeks of debate, Washington compromised and agreed to a token U.N. presence. The result: The U.N. Security Council voted to reduce Dallaire's already small force by 90 percent.

"In essence, they voted to allow the killers to continue," said Michael Barnett, a professor who was on a fellowship at the U.N. at the time and studied its response to the genocide.

"The moment that the U.N. votes to withdraw, that's when we see a real spike in the violence," Barnett said. "Because at that point it's clear to the Rwandans ... that there will not be any cavalry over the horizon."

In the fourth week of the killing, then U.N. Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Gali concluded that the mission was hopeless. He ordered a pullout of all U.N. troops. Dallaire refused.

"I refused a legal order," Dallaire said. "But it was immoral."

Dallaire and his few hundred peacekeepers could do little except help humanitarian efforts and protect a small number of people, while he repeatedly and futilely attempted to negotiate a cease-fire.

As the United States and the United Nations stood by, the rebel Tutsi army fought back against the Hutu government. In mid-July, 100 days of hell came to an end when Tutsi forces declared victory.

Weeks later, Dallaire asked to be relieved of his command. The horrors of the genocide had taken its toll. He was guilt-ridden, believing he should have done more to prevent the genocide.

In his book, "Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda," Dallaire wrote: "Death became a desired option. I hoped I would hit a mine or run into an ambush and just end it all. I think some part of me wanted to join the legions of the dead, whom I had failed."

Those thoughts of suicide followed him home to Canada. Watch Dallaire describe how he dealt with thoughts of suicide »


In the preface of his book, Dallaire summed up his Rwanda experience, writing, "I know there is a God because in Rwanda I shook hands with the devil. I have seen him, I have smelled him and I have touched him. I know the devil exists, and therefore I know there is a God."

Today Dallaire is a senator in the Canadian parliament and dedicates much of his time to an initiative to eradicate the use of child soldiers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/11/13/sbm.dallaire.profile/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

El Diablo Rojo
12-04-2008, 08:18 AM
This is why I love the UN and have so much respect for Bill Clinton.



Seriously though, terrible. So many things could've been done to stop it, and nobody stood up.

Shadowstorm
12-04-2008, 08:26 AM
Yep and it left a black mark for the UN because of that major issue.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 09:39 AM
please stop posting articles about Romeo fcking Dallaire...
the man is no hero, he made a choice to follow orders and protect his career rather than do the right thing. I can not stomach hearing his name anymore please stop.

SoSo
12-04-2008, 09:44 AM
General Dallaire has nothing to be ashamed of. He and his men did all that one could do, and more than some might have attempted. The ones who should feel guilt are Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the UN members, including the leaders of my own country, who refused to give the general's force the troops, weapons, and political support they needed to stop the genocide, out of timidity. I hope they all burn in Hell for it, sharing a furnace with Colonel Bagosora and his genocidaires.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 10:01 AM
he may not have anything to be ashamed of, he followed orders after all, but he certainly did not do all he could have.
of course had he done all he could have he would have faced military justice and possibly lost his life. But as it is he now must live with his choices. personally I find his lack of moral fortitude disappointing.

either way he is no hero, just a guy who did what he was told to do which is nothing. please do not put him up on any pillars, name schools after him or otherwise fawn over him he has not earned it.

and Read General Mackenzie's book

tyovan
12-04-2008, 10:04 AM
So what do you propose he should have done??
Let's have at it - what would your plan have been?

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 10:12 AM
simple, use the assets he had and fight, not stand around while troops under his command were hacked to death by machete wielding mobs

Deaner
12-04-2008, 12:04 PM
simple, use the assets he had and fight, not stand around while troops under his command were hacked to death by machete wielding mobs

Agreed. I've never understood how he went from zero to hero so quickly. Now his life is pure sh*t, as he was suicidal, had a mental breakdown and will be in councelling for life. He had some well trained soldiers at his disposal (although with limited ammo) that he could have ordered to shoot anyone attempting to attack the people under UN "protection". Better to go down in a blaze of glory than come back a shell of a man. My 2 cents.

Laworkerbee
12-04-2008, 01:19 PM
Better to go down in a blaze of glory than come back a shell of a man. My 2 cents.

I hope you're kidding.

Dispatcher
12-04-2008, 01:25 PM
Agreed. I've never understood how he went from zero to hero so quickly. Now his life is pure sh*t, as he was suicidal, had a mental breakdown and will be in councelling for life. He had some well trained soldiers at his disposal (although with limited ammo) that he could have ordered to shoot anyone attempting to attack the people under UN "protection". Better to go down in a blaze of glory than come back a shell of a man. My 2 cents.


Let me guess.... Never served a day in your life, never been under that kind of pressure, never ever talked to someone who was actually there.. Am i warm?


Keep your 2 cents.

EDIT; just read your profile. You were kidding right?? RIGHT??

Deaner
12-04-2008, 05:05 PM
just read your profile. You were kidding right?? RIGHT??

I may have come accross a bit harsh, but I can't imagine standing by as a spectator soldier while murder is happening all around me. Sometimes you have to say screw the orders and do what you know is right. I was part of the Medak Pocket UN Operation in Croatia where we had to wedge our 300 man unit between 2 brigades of Serbs and Croats, while under fire the entire time. Dangerous as hell when you're outnumbered 20 to 1 and you have no support to call in, but sometimes the most dangerous thing to do is also the most right thing to do.

tyovan
12-04-2008, 05:05 PM
simple, use the assets he had and fight, not stand around while troops under his command were hacked to death by machete wielding mobs

Glorious plan..
He was screaming for help, and nobody listened. He didn't have nearly enough soldiers, and he was low on ammunition.
Losing the Belgians was a tragedy - but if he had chosen to fight full-scale, hundreds of soldiers would have been killed with the same end result.
The man was in a very difficult situation. He didn't have the resources to fight, and he was ordered to withdraw. He chose to stay, protect the few people he could, and bear witness to what was going on in hopes of bringing the perpetrators to justice in the future.

He could have left.
He could have fought and invited a massacre for no tangible results what so ever.
He stayed, did what he could, and gathered evidence so the people who did this wouldn't get away with it.


I really hope you weren't an officer in the Canadian Forces - you would have lead your men into the 20th century's Little Bighorn.

pascalywood
12-04-2008, 05:12 PM
simple, use the assets he had and fight, not stand around while troops under his command were hacked to death by machete wielding mobs

I doubt he had much at hand to do anything, especially after the Belgians left. But of course, he was the man in charge so the blame falls on him.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 05:39 PM
Glorious plan..
He was screaming for help, and nobody listened. He didn't have nearly enough soldiers, and he was low on ammunition.
Losing the Belgians was a tragedy - but if he had chosen to fight full-scale, hundreds of soldiers would have been killed with the same end result.
The man was in a very difficult situation. He didn't have the resources to fight, and he was ordered to withdraw. He chose to stay, protect the few people he could, and bear witness to what was going on in hopes of bringing the perpetrators to justice in the future.

He could have left.
He could have fought and invited a massacre for no tangible results what so ever.
He stayed, did what he could, and gathered evidence so the people who did this wouldn't get away with it.


I really hope you weren't an officer in the Canadian Forces - you would have lead your men into the 20th century's Little Bighorn.

Glorious plan eh?
it has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with following your conscious.
He had assets he could have put together to at least make the attempt. I would put 100 Belgian paratroopers up against those murdering scumbags.

and now your taking a shot at me eh?
I hope you never lead troops into combat, because by the time you have figured out if it is safe and no ROE's are being broken the fight will be over.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 05:39 PM
I doubt he had much at hand to do anything, especially after the Belgians left. But of course, he was the man in charge so the blame falls on him.

After the Belgians left it was too late for a lot of things

tyovan
12-04-2008, 08:42 PM
Glorious plan eh?
it has nothing to do with glory and everything to do with following your conscious.
He had assets he could have put together to at least make the attempt. I would put 100 Belgian paratroopers up against those murdering scumbags.

and now your taking a shot at me eh?
I hope you never lead troops into combat, because by the time you have figured out if it is safe and no ROE's are being broken the fight will be over.

I only have one stripe, so I doubt I'll be leading troops in combat for the much foreseeable future.

However I have enough common sense to know there is a vast difference between 'figuring out if it is safe' and suicidally ordering my command to its slaughter - not only getting them all killed. If the command is killed, not only is there the human tragedy but there is also the fact that you have no more military resources (in this case personnel) to complete the mission's objective.

Regarding ROE's please peruse through the threads on the Somali pirates. You will find I am quite in favor of lighting those guys up and leaving them to drown.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 09:41 PM
I only have one stripe, so I doubt I'll be leading troops in combat for the much foreseeable future.

However I have enough common sense to know there is a vast difference between 'figuring out if it is safe' and suicidally ordering my command to its slaughter - not only getting them all killed. If the command is killed, not only is there the human tragedy but there is also the fact that you have no more military resources (in this case personnel) to complete the mission's objective.

Regarding ROE's please peruse through the threads on the Somali pirates. You will find I am quite in favor of lighting those guys up and leaving them to drown.

what you fail utterly to grasp here is the circumstances of that operation, it was not a matter of charging off blindly into a suicidal charge, where you get that from my post I have no idea.
He forbade the Belgians from mounting a rescue of their own to save their comrades from being executed, He was still trying to operate under his mandate and his mandate ceased to exist the minute civil war broke out. He no longer had a UN mandate to keep a peace that no longer existed yet he chose to continue as if it did.
he could have organised his troops, and mounted a well planned operation but he fell back on the bureaucracy in New York and failed to do anything. then after it was too late to act he asked for help.
the biggest problem with all UN peacekeeping operations is the unwieldy chain of command and the fact the commanders on the ground are handicapped by it. Some have found ways around it, General Mackenzie for instance, others let it bind them.
either way. in my mind he made the wrong choice and although he is not a villian, he is certainly no hero.

tyovan
12-04-2008, 09:50 PM
Roger that, I understand your point better now.
Losing the Belgians, particularly after he saw them being held prisoner, was one of the low points of the mission. Mounting an operation to get those guys back would have been understandable, for sure. That could have been a reason to disobey New York and the stated ROE.

I thought you were saying he should have used his very limited resources to try to stop the entire genocide.

It appears we may actually agree.

ex Strathcona
12-04-2008, 09:55 PM
I should have been more specific, I was referring to the Belgians the entire time.