What role did Ireland play in the Rwandan Genocide?

token101

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well you can ask that to the 60 families of Irish soldiers who have died in peacekeeping roles in the UN since 1960. :rolleyes:

No offense, but do you not think you are a bit of a muppet for writing such naive things?

The Congo is still in ****. There's been several civil wars there. Their intervention did nothing. That's the reality. All the sentimentality in the world doesn't change that.

admiralofthefleet

we did a riverdance

Batsy

Despite never being a British colony, Rwanda is the newest member of the Commonwealth, becoming its 54th member state when it joined in 2009 (there are many countries around the world, many never having been British colonies, which are queuing up to join).

The Rwandans have also, over the last ten years or so, taken up cricket, and the game is becoming hugely popular there, so it might be only a matter of time before Rwanda gets its own professional cricket team and maybe eventually become a Test nation.

So I quite like the Rwandans.

Batsy

token101 wrote: »

The UN is a f*****g sham of an organisation. They stood back and did nothing in all of this!

Yep. They also stood back and did nothing about Iraq, leaving the Americans and British having to just ignore them and do the noble thing in toppling Madman Hussein.

The UN headquarters also had the UN flag at half-mast when Daffy died.

The Waltzing Consumer

token101 wrote: »

The Congo is still in ****. There's been several civil wars there. Their intervention did nothing. That's the reality. All the sentimentality in the world doesn't change that.

Ah yes, sure the UN are really a fairy godmother and can change all aspects of a nation when they are peacekeeping. You do know what peacekeeping means right? You do know they have many limitations?

The UN is limited, but you taking the attitude of blame the peacekeepers rather then the groups declaring wars on each other?

Do you blame the bystander who intervenes in a mugging or assault if the victim is hurt, or do you blame the actual assailant because it looks from your posts that you have quite the colonial attitude where you think the natives are not capable or culpable so you are blaming the westerners.

JupiterKid

I don't think any Irish troops went into Rwanda as part of the UN force.

But it was too late in any case.:( Within a week nearly 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutu people were slaughtered. The world just looked on and numbly watched.

I remember seeing the TV news footage of the dead bodies being washed down a river.

token101

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Ah yes, sure the UN are really a fairy godmother and can change all aspects of a nation when they are peacekeeping. You do know what peacekeeping means right? You do know they have many limitations?

The UN is limited, but you taking the attitude of blame the peacekeepers rather then the groups declaring wars on each other?

Do you blame the bystander who intervenes in a mugging or assault if the victim is hurt, or do you blame the actual assailant because it looks from your posts that you have quite the colonial attitude where you think the natives are not capable or culpable so you are blaming the westerners.

Where did I say it was the UN's fault that any of these things happened? You're saying they're useful in these conflict zones, I disagree and it's their limitations make them useless. It's not peacekeeping if you allow 5000 civilians to die as you stand back and have a drink with the generals overseeing the slaughter. It's not peacekeeping when you clear off at the first sign of hassle in Rwanda and leave a million to die at the hands of barbarians. They could have stepped in directly in both cases and done something, but they were so ineffective they did nothing.

Batsy wrote: »

Yep. They also stood back and did nothing about Iraq, leaving the Americans and British having to just ignore them and do the noble thing in toppling Madman Hussein.

The UN headquarters also had the UN flag at half-mast when Daffy died.

Noble? Are you serious or is that sarcasm? 1 million people have died in that war. They didn't invade to depose Saddam, we're lead to believe they invaded due to a perceived threat, which turned out to be bull****. Their reason for invading was a sham. There were no nukes. There are many tyrants in the world and the US is in bed with them when it suits. It's almost universally accepted that the UN were right in vetoing the war, for once, but they were ignored. There was no impending genocide in Iraq, Saddam had done the damage long, long before anyone thought of invading. There are Syrians being massacred by the 100's daily. Russia and China voted not to ask Assad to step down because he's an ally. Even when there's an impending slaughter they do nothing. Does that make the entire idea of a Security Council voting on these things redundant?

The Waltzing Consumer

token101 wrote: »

Where did I say it was the UN's fault that any of these things happened? You're saying they're useful in these conflict zones, I disagree and it's their limitations make them useless. It's not peacekeeping if you allow 5000 civilians to die as you stand back and have a drink with the generals overseeing the slaughter. It's not peacekeeping when you clear off at the first sign of hassle in Rwanda and leave a million to die at the hands of barbarians. They could have stepped in directly in both cases and done something, but they were so ineffective they did nothing.

You have given very horrible examples and you are certainly right about that. But you were speaking about the UN in general and blaming them in their entirety and giving the impression they have never done anything positive.

You are wrong about that aspect but you are right about the examples you gave.

token101

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

You have given very horrible examples and you are certainly right about that. But you were speaking about the UN in general and blaming them in their entirety and giving the impression they have never done anything positive.

You are wrong about that aspect but you are right about the examples you gave.

I'm sure they have done some nice things in other places but they are horrible examples. And it's happening again, so it's not as if they've learned anything. They get involved when it suits. No one gives two f***s about anywhere in Africa. It's a desolate wasteland so they can wade in there and maybe help sometimes but they can equally cause a ****storm and no one will remember really until they make a Don Cheadle film about it. But Syria is a bit tricky politically as they're allied to Russia, so human rights don't really matter as much as they did when they invaded Iraq and Libya. I know it's not as easy and cut and dry as that, but that's essentially what it boils down to, and that makes the UN useless IMO.

steddyeddy

Broads.ie wrote: »

I've been reading all night about the genocide in Rwanda and how it was ignored by the UN.

I can't find any info on Ireland's position regarding the genocide. Did we do anything? Did we try to help the poor feckers as "Ireland" or even realize the gravity of the situation?

Btw I was 8 when it happened so don't ask me what I did to help them.

Not sure about ireland but the french government of the day has a lot to answer for over the rwandan genocide.

up for anything

Batsy wrote: »

the Americans and British having to just ignore them and do the noble thing in toppling Madman Hussein.

Hahahaha....

It's about time countries stayed out of other countries' domestics. Maybe intervene when you are asked in some official way but otherwise stay the fuck out!

steddyeddy

Batsy wrote: »

Despite never being a British colony, Rwanda is the newest member of the Commonwealth, becoming its 54th member state when it joined in 2009 (there are many countries around the world, many never having been British colonies, which are queuing up to join).

The Rwandans have also, over the last ten years or so, taken up cricket, and the game is becoming hugely popular there, so it might be only a matter of time before Rwanda gets its own professional cricket team and maybe eventually become a Test nation.

So I quite like the Rwandans.

Men women and children were hacked to death, shot, tortured to death in this genocide and you use it as an excuse to plug the fact you like britain? I genuinly expected better.

Kiwi_knock

Not really sure of Ireland's role but we really could have done nothing to prevent it, the fault lies with the UN for pursuing a non interventionist stance.

The UN sent in a under equipped and under resourced peace keeping force, the largest continent of peacekeepers the Belgians withdrew their soldiers after several of them were massacred. The UN force led by Romeo Dallaire (read his book and watch the documentary as previously recommended) were given a peace keeping mandate rather than a peace enforcing mandate. This meant that when the genocide began they could not interfere to prevent it.

The major powers were not eager to send in troops to restore order, in the early days of the genocide the leading European nations sent in troops to bring their foreign nationals home. If these troops had been allowed to stay they could of prevented the spread of the genocide. At the height of the genocide the UN decided to reduce the size of the UN peacekeeping force to less than 500 after Dallaire requested for a force of 5,000 and peace enforcement mechanism. This was largely due to the US not wanting to provide troops after what had happened in Somalia only a few months before hand.

In the end the UN finally sent troops in under French command after the French government pressed for involvement. This was due to France's links with the Hutu government. The French troops basically provided cover for the retreating Hutus and attributed to a lot of murderers escaping justice.

The case of Rwanda is really interesting as it highlights the failings of the UN, the Permanent 5 dictate the objectives and missions of the UN. While the UN can be a force for good, it depends too much on the interests of the Permanent 5 being aligned.