So, a while back, I went to a presentation by one Romeo Dallaire who was the commander of the UN force in Rwanda.
Wikipedia says "His actions are credited with directly saving the lives of 20,000 Tutsis. There is speculation that Dallaire's forces deliberately sabotaged equipment to slow their UN-mandated withdrawal from the combat zone."
Wikipedia also says "At home, Dallaire was medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces on April 22, 2000, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. At the time of his retirement he held the rank of lieutenant-general. Blaming himself for the failures of the mission, he began a spiral into depression, culminating on June 20, 2000, when he was rushed to hospital after being found under a park bench in Hull, Quebec. He was intoxicated and suffering from a reaction with his prescription anti-depressants, and the mixture almost put him into a coma."
When he came to talk to us, we had heard that his previous speeches were extremely emotions and that he was going to tone it down. We had heard almost correctly. The basic speech was one on leadership and was relatively basic. But it was during his frequent anecdotes, exclusively introduced with “let me give you an example,” that were the most shocking.
The two that I remember best:
The Rwandan army was recruiting children to fight. A UN army troop came across a church which, surprising, held a number of living tutsis. As the army went into the church to rescue the survivors, a number of child fighters appeared and opened fire. The commander had to decide then and there whether to order his soldiers to return fire. He did.
Dallaire used this story as an example for planning ahead. Like, the commander should already have known that he might encounter child soldiers and should have known whether to fire back or not. He should not have been making that decision on the field. Okay, that is a pretty heavy example for planning ahead.
The second story was also about planning ahead. Apparently, rape is used as an act of war, more to intimidate the opposing side than to get any pleasure. After raping whole villages the women, usually dead but sometimes barely alive, would be thrown into pits. Occasionaly, UN troops would come across these pits and find the dead and dying women. The first time it happened, the commander had to radio back to Dallaire to ask whether the soldiers should just move along (the women were going to die regardless) or to jump in the whole and comfort the women as they died. The HIV rate is incredibly high and the soldiers would be putting themselves at very high risk of exposure by jumping in the pit.
Dallaire said before he could make a decision, the commander called back to say it was inconsequential because the Canadian soldiers had already jumped in (afterwards, Dallaire asked all the commanders of the countries that had sent troops to Rwanda – all said that they would just move on except Canada, the Netherlands and Guyana.)
Those were the anecdotes. Now for analysis:
It was obviously terrible over there. The UN tried to help (Dallaire did not blame the UN in his speech, in fact he specifically removed blame from them - he blamed countries for not sending their mandated troops and mainly the US) but public opinion was not pro-intervention (because of Somalia).
What this comes down to, according to Dallaire said, is feelings of relative worth. As crazy as it seems, 900,000 foreigners may not be worth, according to public opinions, the lives of a few of your own citizens.
In fact, from wikipedia:
“Dallaire ordered ten Belgian soldiers (whom he considered his best men) to protect the new prime minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana. The soldiers were intercepted by Hutu extremists and taken hostage, after which Madame Agathe and her husband were killed. Later that day, the Belgian soldiers were found brutally murdered. Belgium was outraged that Dallaire had put its soldiers in such danger, and promptly withdrew its forces.”
Belgium withdrew its forces?
This is a really important topic, because this relative worth thing comes up constantly. The excess of energy we use, the toxic waste we ship to china, the farmed food we consume. All of it makes our lives a little better and make the lives of foreigners and the lives of our future generations (pseudo-foreigners – they don’t live here yet) much worse. This is not as immediately drastic as not sending troops to save lives, but it will have the same effect.
The more passive murder we can work on, and hopefully will, although I certainly like my creature comforts. The more active murder we have to deal with.
My friend Jon Cooper writes in his blog, “We are failing the “Rwanda Test”. In response to well-documented ethnic cleansing, resulting in massive human suffering and mortality, the response of the UN and the international community has been appallingly, comprehensively impotent. The AU Peace and Security Council has the “The preparedness of the Government the Sudan to accept the deployment of a UN operation in Darfur” as its first condition for a UN deployment. Given the active role of Omar Bashir’s government in instigating and perpetuating the massacre, it is unlikely this condition can be met any time soon.”
He also writes, “Even as thousands die every day, we bow to sovereignty.” He thinks, and perhaps rightly so, that this is more a policy thing, a problem dictated by laws and mandates. I think it is much worse. I think that our inability to care about those not directly linked to us is going to be our downfall. This is all economics. Externalities are not being taking into account. The suffering of other people is a big fucking externality.
Read Jon’s post.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
blah blah blah, we're fucking up. I know, let's all get jobs that have absolutely no impact on the problems that we like to bitch about. But really Matt this is not meant to be an attack on you because we are all equally guilty of it.
Wasn't JC always the definition of a shirt-and-tie conservative? Has he gone all hemp necklace on us, or has my skimming of his regurgitated news items blinded me to the right wing subtext?
On a side note, I don't think that any rape is about pleasure. Generally, it's a tool of punishment and humiliation, regardless of where it happens. If it's a frat guy showing some girl who's boss, or a group of soldiers systematically harming and humiliating a group of prisoners, it's about the demonstration of power.
Well, I actually want to get a job that does do something about it. Why do you think I am even considering law school?
I mean, I am doing atmospheric chemistry now, that was supposed to help. And originally I was going to go into landfill chemistry. This was my whole schtick about chemistry. I did it to help.
Regardless, there are not many jobs that allow one to do anything about it. Rather, it is public opinion, even by those not directly involved, that should have sway. Just like there was a public outpouring for the Tsunami victims, we should have a public outcry against this massacre. You may have noticed that my thing was more about relative worth. It was more a philisophical thing. Originally it was to be a post about the audacity of sending people off to die, but morphed. I was drunk.
Jon writes policy. There is good and bad policy. This is currently bad policy. I don't think there is anything partisan about what he is discussing.
rape: you are undoubtedly right. I guess I don't think about it very much. I assumed that, even though the subconscious desire was a demonstration of power, that, on some level, there was at least a pretense of pleasure which was non-existant in this particular event. I am probably wrong about that pretense.
dude, I was joking. HACKLES RAISED!!!
dude, you're going to law school so you can make a difference in the world? tell me that in 15 years when you have two cars, a mortgage, and kids at private school. no really, this is your life.
I know, I know.
I realise the normal trajectory. I used the words 'even considering' on purpose.
be aware I am only considering a few, top notch law schools.
Think about Azim's sister. Harvard MBA to go work in Africa. I have similar aspirations.
I do sometimes think that this altruism is a result of a general disatisfaction with what I am doing now - that if I were too discover a selfish calling I would quit volunteering, quit caring, but it seems pretty unlikely. I actually like helping and I actually do feel bad when strangers suffer. Sucks to be me.
Anyway, I still have zero set plans.
I am putting out tentacles, seeing what captures my fancy the most.
Of course, I could be convinced to become a music bookie. I have extensive knowledge about bad repetative techno ... no, no I don't.
you know, I was really happy when I was working on that clothing store. I still want to see if that has any legs.
My big problem is that I want a career. Someone convince me that I don't need to be striving for a career.
you need to be striving for a career.
look, first you gets the money, thens you makes the difference.
oh politics how enraging you are.
See, that above post is one of the big problems I have here.
People say they are enraged by politics when they are merely complacent. This whole "moral concern" that people display is nothing more than a conditioned response that helps alleviate 1st world guilt, that's me talking out of my ass, but it makes good sense. If you are shocked and dismayed by what's going on in Rwanda but go on paying into a system that allows it to happen then that's some slapface hypocrisy.
Post a Comment