Shake Hands with the Devil

April 12, 2005 12:10 AM

There was no honour to be had in Rwanda.
11 years ago this week, the Rwandan Genocide began and didn't end until almost a million Rwandans, mostly Tutsis, were dead - killed by their own countrymen in the span of 100 days.

Romeo Dallaire was the Force Commander of the UN troops in Rwanda at the time. Increasing unrest and killings along with intelligence obtained from an informant led him to conclude that the genocide was coming and that it could be stopped if action was taken quickly and decisively enough. He requested 2000 additional troops and the authority to plan and execute an operation to halt the genocide before it began.

The UN Security Council denied both requests, and reduced the UN force in Rwanda to 260 troops. One million Rwandans died. Romeo Dallaire and 260 Canadian, Ghanian, and Dutch soldiers are directly credited with saving over 20,000 Tutsis that would have died.

Dallaire's career as a soldier is over. But he knows that if the effort is not made, another genocide like Rwanda will happen. It may already be too late to stop the next one.
posted by Dipsomaniac (41 comments total)

It appears that the movie Hotel Rwanda was released today.
posted by Vicarious at 12:21 AM on April 12, 2005

Africa scares me. Bad, bad shit goes down there (Congo, Sudan, Rwanda, South Africa . . .), the history and reasons of that bad shit appears horribly complex and between a huge number of factions, there doesn't seem to be a solution to these conflicts, and the worst part is even if one is possible it won't be implemented any time soon because no countries with influence give a damn about anything south of Egypt unless someone's trying to blow up a plane of white tourists.

Dellaire is pretty cool for being so straight up about the reasons: pure racism and the fact that any natural resources that come out of the region flow whether half the population's being killed or not.
posted by schroedinger at 2:48 AM on April 12, 2005

([more inside])

I wasn't aware until very recently what part Brussels had to play in the tragedy, by switching it's support and playing the previously subordinate Hutu caste against the ruling Tutsis. It was attempting to smother the Tutsi cries for independence from Belgium; part of the increasingly successful chorus of African nations claiming sovereignty over themselves.

Empires in general, good or bad? Discuss.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:13 AM on April 12, 2005

the history and reasons of that bad shit appears horribly complex

They appear complex but are actually very simple - European expansion into Africa created these problems. It redrew tribal boundaries and created further division amongst the ethnic tribes.
The problems in Rwanda were caused by the Belgians. They even still sell chocolate hands in Brussels (in the congo the Belgians cut off the hands of people they shot as proof that a bullet wasn't wasted).

With history like that is it any wonder they massacre each other!
posted by twistedonion at 3:28 AM on April 12, 2005

I just watched Shake Hands with the Devil, the CBC documentary about Romeo Dallaire. Quite disturbing. And I'm quite impressed with Dallaire, and extremely unimpressed with the Belgians (before and after the fact) and the UN.

This is a sad chapter in human history.
posted by snwod at 3:50 AM on April 12, 2005

There is considerable sniping at Dallaire's own veracity as can be seen in the title of this linked article: Re-writing the History of the Rwandan Genocide: That Halo Over Romeo Dalliare's Head Has More Than One Hole in It!

The movie Hotel Rwanda was very good imho, it's an interesting preview of what the end of the world might look like. Same goes for the aforementioned Shake Hands With The Devil.

Also, I have wondered why, with the horrific memory of the holocaust and the motto of "Never Forget", why Israel didn't intervene militarily or diplomatically in the 1994 Rwandan genocide...
posted by fairmettle at 4:51 AM on April 12, 2005

fairmettle - that article is full of bias and unsupported claims. Do you have other examples that come from a more neutral writer?

An honest question...
posted by SNACKeR at 5:09 AM on April 12, 2005

How can this all be blamed on the West? It's like blaming the pope for the scourge of AIDS in Africa.

These things are due to bad government. And for all our pretense no one knows how to wave a wand and create good government anywhere, it slowly evolved in a few places while many other places haven't worked out how to do it. We can export technology, but exporting good institutions is much harder.

As for European expansion creating all these problems that too is far too harsh and simplistic. People killed each other long before the Europeans showed up. The Europeans may not have helped, but they didn't create all the problems.

In some places, like the Middle East, the West has created problems. Recreating long dead states and drawing boundaries to give Oil to small principalities was done to maintain Western control, but in Africa wasn't it more just break things up and get out? Not ideal definitely, but 50 years after most of the decolonisation surely it's time to realise that not everything that happens in Africa is the West's fault.
posted by sien at 5:18 AM on April 12, 2005

Not to completely absolve the West's past and ongoing sins in Africa, but ultimately the responsibility for genocides in that continent lies at the feet of those who picked up a machete and started hacking other people to death, and those who actively incited the violence.

There is an absolutely chilling reading (not online, unfortunately) in the new Harper's entitled "Machete Season". It's a series of first-hand accounts from the "ordinary" people who carried out the slaughter. The most disturbing thing about it is reading that it was easy to rationalize for many of the killers. Did they feel queasy, or guilty, or doubtful? Not really.
posted by The Dryyyyy Cracker at 6:00 AM on April 12, 2005

twistedonion, glad you've cleared that up. Guess I can forget all this useless junk I learned in my African History classes.

Sorry to be snarky, but I decided to learn about the situation because I got tired of hearing overly facile explanations about why Africa's the way it is now, and from what I've gathered (from a couple of undergrad classes, don't claim to be an expert by any means), is mostly that it really is complicated.

I haven't seen the documentary, but Dallaire's memoirs, which it's based on, are great.
posted by ITheCosmos at 6:14 AM on April 12, 2005

For those interested in this genocide, the book Machete Season looks quite interesting. An excerpt appeared in harpers. It's all interviews with 10 Hutu men imprisoned for killing Tutsi's. It's quite chilling. (The article that appeared in Harper's.)

LEOPORD: When the Tutsis were caught, many died without a word. In Rwanda people say "die like a lamb in the Bible." Of course in Rwanda there are no sheep, so we have never heard their cry.

It sometimes touched us painfully that they awaited death in silence. Evenings, we would ask over and over, "Why no protest from these people who are about to die? Why do they not beg for mercy?"

The organizers claimed that the Tutsis felt guilty of the sin of being Tutsi. Well, I knew that was not true. The Tutsis were not asking for anything in those fatal moments because they no longer believed in words. They had no more faith in crying out like frightened animals, howling to he heard above the mortal blows. An overpowering sorrow was carrying those people away. They felt so abandoned they did not even open their mouths.

posted by chunking express at 6:17 AM on April 12, 2005

sien writes " How can this all be blamed on the West? It's like blaming the pope for the scourge of AIDS in Africa. "

I don't think you can blame the genocide or AIDS "on the West," but you can suggest the West made mistakes that caused these situations to get considerably worse. This is very very clear in the case of AIDS, but also very clear in terms of Rwanda. The West bears some responsiblity because it sets itself up as a moral arbiter, in other words because it says that it cares about things like genocide, it says it will combat genocide, that it will intervene.

Israel really couldn't intervene without risking far too much wrath from other countries. Don't forget that Israel is essentially a pariah in terms of third world public opinion. Take a look at the voting history of the UN General Assembly. Anyway, "Never Again," mostly means: "Never again will the Germans slaughter the Jews of Europe and Russia." Sad, but in terms of the Shoah's impact on international politics, pretty much true.
posted by OmieWise at 6:27 AM on April 12, 2005

They even still sell chocolate hands in Brussels

Really? Which shop? I'll go tonight and verfiy this.

So we don't intervene in Rwanda and are the Bad Guys but do intervene in Iraq and are the Bad Guys.

I'm confused.
posted by Dagobert at 6:41 AM on April 12, 2005

Dagobert writes " So we don't intervene in Rwanda and are the Bad Guys but do intervene in Iraq and are the Bad Guys.

"I'm confused."

I'd say you'll get over it, but if you can't tell the difference then you probably never will.
posted by OmieWise at 6:54 AM on April 12, 2005

OmieWise:

Please do tell how the "West" is to blame for AIDS in Africa when, from what I understand, it originated there. What, the "West" didn't shower them with free condoms and drugs? Is/was the "West" responsbile for educating the populace? Assuming this we had a responsibility or ability, most of those countries would have consider it meddling.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 7:01 AM on April 12, 2005

Apolgies Dagobert, the hands are Antwerp Hands, not Brussels... aparently the meaning is from the coat of arms, nothing to do with Rwanda.... which is not what I learned in high school (South Africa)...

I stand corrected...

Link to chocolates here
posted by twistedonion at 7:05 AM on April 12, 2005

Is/was the "West" responsbile for educating the populace?

Considering the "West" denied these people access to meaningful education then fucked off to leave them to run their own prospective countries with a lack of educated people, I'd say yes.
posted by twistedonion at 7:07 AM on April 12, 2005

So instead of an answer I get a condescending attitude?

Sadly, this does not confuse me but rather reinforces my belief that a vague intellectual sniff passes for a riposte these days.

Twistedonion, thanks for the honesty and grace. Others could learn from you.
posted by Dagobert at 7:07 AM on April 12, 2005

Bligh-
Go back and read my post, I said specifically that one cannot blame AIDS in Africa on the West: I don't think you can blame the genocide or AIDS "on the West,"

But yes, I think that there are more than a few mistakes the West has made that can be said to have made the situation worse. Prohibitive drug prices, lack of public health development money contributions, ideologically motivated restrictions on the money that is donated, an overarching failure to take the situation seriously enough, complacency about the pilfering of development monies by dictators and elected officials. My frame for considering these serious mistakes is a sense that the epidemic is not simply a humanitarian tragedy and a public health nightmare, but also a problem of national security that could easily involve the West. Google search backing this up here. I did not list these mistakes before because this isn't a thread about AIDS in Africa. Sorry for any confusion.

On preview: Dagobert-I was serious, I'm not sure I can explain it to you so that you will see a difference if you don't already. In the case of Rwanda, a genocide was about to be or was being committed. The case for intervention rests on a set of humanitarian beliefs about what constitutes moral responsibility as it trumps national sovreignity. In Iraq there was no proximate genocide, we had previously proven indifferent to the fate of people slaughtered by the dictator there (see Kurdish history, as well as the post-Gulf War 1 Marsh Arab and Shiite slaughters), and intervention was based on a series of lies and was a completely divisive move that was almost entirely self-serving. A good book on the politics and morals of humanitarian intervention is The New Killing Fields. I just reread my comment, sorry it was so snide.
posted by OmieWise at 7:21 AM on April 12, 2005

OmieWise:

OK. I reread your post, and see my misunderstanding. However, I do disagree with at least one position that you take, and that is that the West "made" things worse. That the West did not help as much as it could have is a different issue. But I don't agree that there is/was an obligation. If there is/was an obligation, then the West would also have some rights or ability to intervene. And, in that sense, I agree with Dagobert, that there would then be no distinction between Iraq and Africa or anywhere else that the world or whomever believes the "West" (or usually, the US) has an obligation to act.
posted by Capt. Bligh at 7:40 AM on April 12, 2005

Ok, I understand your viewpoint now better (thanks for the apol) but I guess the quesiton could be stated as, is there a life anaysis in play here? He kills 1,000, we don't go; he kills 100,000 we do?

I just feel mildly bothered that intervention is a numbers game but can't really see a way around this moral dilemma.
posted by Dagobert at 7:43 AM on April 12, 2005

The history of Africa is undoubtedly littered with condescending white attitude towards balcks, if not outright virulent racism. But it's too easy a step to assign that as a sole causative factor for African tribal bloodthirstyness, twistedonion. As just one example, the king of Dahomey had his own army of Amazon wives & when he died was placed in a canoe to sail to the afterlife that was floated on the blood of his slaves & subjects - a ceremony that resulted in an orgy of bloodletting.
posted by Pressed Rat at 7:46 AM on April 12, 2005

Philip Gourevitch's book "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families:" is a very good, disturbing read.
posted by hoskala at 7:56 AM on April 12, 2005

Africa just can't get it together for some reason, and I was never fully satisfied by Jared Diamond's acrobatic attempt at explaining it.

The Western intrusion stance is accurate and terrible, but there is something much deeper than that which is wrong in Africa, something about violence, and corruption, and machetes.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:01 AM on April 12, 2005

C. Bligh-None of the interventions I mention about AIDS are military, firmly removing them from any comparision to Iraq (or even Rwanda, really, I picked up that comparison upthread) in my opinion. The US and Europe do have, and have been invited to have, the means of intervening in the public health ways that I outlined. There has been considerable intervention to date, I just don't think enough. And, I was careful to try and present a wide frame that explicitly acknowledges why self-interest might dictate a more extensive and less attenuated intervention, leaving aside any questions about humanitarian intervention (about which it is much easier to disagree).

Dagobert-Part of my point is that there was never any such analysis at work in Iraq, that the history clearly indicated that the US could care less what Saddam did to his own people. It's still unclear why we did intervene, since the justifications provided were so patently false. I'm not really trying to argue about that, although my views on the subject are, I'm sure, quite transparent. I'm just pointing out that pre-intervention humanitarian concerns were not presented as a reason, and recent history even indicated that they could not have been the reason. Post-intervention is another story, but beside the point given this discussion.

But, unfortunately, I do think that there is a numbers game at play. There are several reasons for this, but prime among them is the notion that national sovereignity should be accepted and respected. I'm not sure how one ultimately draws the line, but yes, I do think that 1000 dead do not constitute a reason to intervene, unless that 1000 looks like the tip of a genocidal iceberg. What if Europe decided to invade the US because they recognized that 930 people have been put to death by the Federal Death Penalty since 1976. Europe has rejected the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment, but the US clearly sees it as legitimate. Europe has no right to impose its view on us.
posted by OmieWise at 8:02 AM on April 12, 2005

What hoskala said. Gourevitch is required reading on the subject of Rwanda's genocide. His account is compelling.

On Africa's problems generaly, there was an interesting article in NYT's Week in Review. (Registration Required for NYT).
posted by theknacker at 8:14 AM on April 12, 2005

As far as I can rememeber (after 3 days) In the documentary Romeo Dallaire points at 2 groups who could have done something but didn't

1 UN: The troops that were flown in to help eviction in 94 were big enough in numbers to stop the killing in 3 days.
2 Catholic Church: They did bot condone the massacres.
posted by borq at 8:29 AM on April 12, 2005

But it's too easy a step to assign that as a sole causative factor for African tribal bloodthirstiness, twistedonion.

Of course, I agree completely. But it is by far the main reason imho. And the more I think about it, the more I truly believe it is pretty much the sole factor.

Look at America... successfully colonised but where are the natives?

Australia... successfully colonised but where are the natives?

middle East... not successfully colonised... the natives could be considered as having a disposition to violence and despotism?

Africa... not successfully colonised... the natives could be considered as having a disposition to violence and despotism?

Maybe I'm drawing all the wrong conclusions but I am convinced that the 'white people' of the world were directly responsible for the mess Africa and the Middle East find themselves in. I'm not saying we should feel guilty about it, I don't. But we should recognise it.

Hundreds of years of being suppressed doesn't do any group of people any favours. And it takes longer than half a century for those wounds to heal. Instead of guiding these nations to democracy, we just left them to it.
posted by twistedonion at 8:54 AM on April 12, 2005

twisted -

The history of Africa is undoubtedly littered with condescending white attitude towards [blacks], if not outright virulent racism.

Not to be snarky, but it DOES tend to be the knee jerk response to amateur analysis of a continent, and I think we can do better. People are more or less the same, wherever you go.
posted by iamck at 10:45 AM on April 12, 2005

As usual it doesn't hurt but it help to read more on the topics of

RwandaRwandan Genocide one with interesting details, expecially interesting to me a Radio Netherland link on the role played by hate speech and in particular hate-radio in the genocide.

Because one question remains : how in the hell were so many people mobilized, brainwashed to hate and turned into bloodthirsty killers in so little time ?

I guess hate-media is just the "top of the iceberg" of that despicable, hateful job of underlining differences for the purpose of anchoring hate and resentment to something otherwise harmless. Such a job is not done overnight and indeed

Belgian rule in the region was far more direct and far harsher than that of the Germans. Belgian colonizers, backed by Christian churches, mainly Catholics, used Tutsi high class over lower classes of Tutsis and Hutus, creating a social gap between social entities than had existed before. Belgian forced labour policies, stringent taxes, were mainly enforced by Tutsi high class, used as buffers against people anger, further polarising the Hutu-Tutsi situation.

(On a tangent : Smells much like of use of the word "liberal elites" by certain commentators.)

So it wasn't like racism was forgotten in the region...both world countries and religions knew exactly racism was and probably still is rampant in the region. So I guess they had all the time in the world to defuse the situation, but I guess Caesar teached divide et impera all too well.
posted by elpapacito at 11:00 AM on April 12, 2005

Look at America... successfully colonised but where are the natives?

Australia... successfully colonised but where are the natives?

middle East... not successfully colonised... the natives could be considered as having a disposition to violence and despotism?

Africa... not successfully colonised... the natives could be considered as having a disposition to violence and despotism?

Hmmmmmmm....two big differences (mainly outlined in Guns Germs and Steel).

Firstly, America and Australia were both populated by hunter gatherer societies, some closer to developing farming than others, but still with a vastly lower population density than the settled farming communities that dominated in the Middle East and Africa. Smaller population = fewer people to massacre when the continent is colonised.

Secondly, both the Americas and Australia are in the new world. When first colonised, vast tracts of the population were wiped out by diseases which had developed in the Old World (and which the colonised people in Africa and the Middle East had developed immunity to, hence no population decimation).

It's kind of turning the argument on its head - America and Australia were successfully colonised because there wasn't a whole lot of the population left. The problems in Africa and some parts of the Middle east is that there was a significant slab of the population left after colonisation, and not a whole lot left of the traditional hierarchic structures, which means everyone struggling together, and the most vicious coming out on top.
posted by middlebean at 12:54 PM on April 12, 2005

Oh, I meant complexity in the number of groups involved in the issue. I knew about the intervention of Europe causing the stuff.

Mean Mr. Bucket, I've felt the same way when wondering about the depth of depravity that goes on in many of these conflicts. Why is the level of violence so much less in the Middle East (i.e. no rebel ground running around regularly gang-raping toddlers), when it underwent a similar transformation when Western empires ran in and started drawing borders and lumping different tribes together?

I don't think it's just that those in the Middle East have a slightly similar cultural background (Islam, the Ottoman Empire). I think the greater publicity the region gets plays a large role. The fact that the outside world will pay attention when someone blows themselves up or razes a settlement likely makes a big difference in the actions of the players. There is more of a sense that you are representing your community.

But in Africa that isn't the case. Nobody pays attention, nobody really involves themselves, the colonising countries just kicked over a dozen anthills, mixed all the ants together, then blamed them for milling about and fighting with each other. People are all fighting for the same bits of land, the same power, and they know nobody gives a fuck so their darker natures start emerging. And if you get this behavior over a long enough period of time, enough of the population is traumatized that this shit becomes normal.

I think we do have an obligation to try to fix some of this shit. These regions are poor. Some of them haven't seen anything approaching peace for God knows how long, and when there has been a settled power structure they're despotic and crazy. Yelling "screw you!" and the population and telling them to go fix themselves is like kicking a homeless Vietnam vet who can't get a job because of PTSD.

Anyway, there are very clear cases where the current ethnic conflicts were not their fault. Rwanda? How can you argue the arbitrary Hutu and Tutsi designations were their creation?
posted by schroedinger at 1:33 PM on April 12, 2005

As for European expansion creating all these problems that too is far too harsh and simplistic. People killed each other long before the Europeans showed up.


How can you argue the arbitrary Hutu and Tutsi designations were their creation

This makes me so mad, I could spit.

The terms Hutu and Tutsi were not created by the Catholic church and the Belgians, but the racial and social division between the two groups was.

The Belgians created a rigid class structure that favored the Tutsi. Before this happened, the division between the two groups was mainly based on profession, whether or not someone was involved in herding or agriculture. I do not believe there was a history of conflict.

For their own reasons, Belgium decided to educate the Tutsi, and exclude the Hutu from the upper strata of Rwandan society. They even went as far as to measure people's noses to assign them an ethnic group.

When Rwanda was granted independence, the power was turned over to Hutu. The French government continued to support more extreme Hutu parties, for its own reasons.

Decolonialization as practiced by Belgium, France and Portugal, was to merely pull out and abandon former colonies, leaving only business interests and debt collectors. Both governments are still active in Africa, but only as far as it is profitable for them.

I do not think the Interahamwe are blameless, but the Catholic church, the Belgian and French governments actively pressured the U.N. and the U.S. to do nothing. The United States stood by actively fighting any attempt to challenge this status quo, because this part of Africa is considered the French and Belgium sphere of interest.

Colonialism remains. The only real change is that colonial powers no-longer pretend to take any responsibility for their actions.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 3:10 PM on April 12, 2005

With history like that is it any wonder they massacre each other!

Surely you're not implying that the Africans had never massacred each other BEFORE European colonization? There is some fairly rich history of brutal warfare throughout that continent before the white showed up in any real numbers.

We should be careful to not over romanticize colonial victimhood and think of Africa as a continent of helpless martyrs. Individual Africans choose to do these horrible things and it's individuals who are responsible.

While I believe the west has not done enough of the "right things" help Africa it has spent trillions trying with pretty much zero effect.

European governments simply refuse to recognize their bloody colonial past and instead are happy to deflect popular attention away from themselves to what the US does or doesn't do in the World.

The ball is now in Africa's court. It's obvious they are never going to shed the colonial baggage as long as they keep hoping and pandering to the west to "do the right thing".

I don't think the west is ever going to help them significantly without strings attached. So. Sadly, they are on their own.

And for the record: I take back anything bad I ever said about Dallaire.
posted by tkchrist at 5:05 PM on April 12, 2005

Surely you're not implying that the Africans had never massacred each other BEFORE European colonization?

Definitely not. No continent can say it does not have genocide, slavery or massacres in its past. There have been similar attempts at genocide in Europe, North and South American, Asia and Oceania.

To paraphrase Kundera, one looks at other continents through the lens of forgetting-- the forgetting our own pasts, and our own culpabilities. Rwanda is particularly sad because so many forces-- European, American and African-- contributed so clearly to the genocide. But it is by no means unique, either in world or African history.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 5:37 PM on April 12, 2005

I watched Hotel Rwanda for the first time this morning. I wept at the shame I felt as a WASP living in Canada, one of the very people the cameraman mentioned in the flic. I saw what was going on, thought "gee isn't that terrible," and continued to eat my dinner.

I was thinking that they needed only ten or so armed guards at the hotel to keep people safe. And they didn't have it. Disgusting.

So what can be done in the Sudan?
posted by futureproof at 6:40 PM on April 12, 2005

surprised no one has mentioned it yet but as I understand it everyone's favorite UN Secratary, Kofi Anan, was the UN official of record who prevented UN intervention at the time.
posted by acclivus at 7:31 PM on April 12, 2005

futureproof-- Glad you save Hotel Rwanda; it's a great movie. I hope more people see it.

There are many politicians speaking out about the situation in Darfur. We need to support them. The more we write and complain about Darfur, the harder it will be for the world to ignore it.

Acclivus-- I agree that Kofi Anan could have done more, but the Secretary General's hands are tied by the security council.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:02 PM on April 12, 2005

There are many politicians speaking out about the situation in Darfur. We need to support them. The more we write and complain about Darfur, the harder it will be for the world to ignore it.

Lobbying our politicians is the same as praying - just as a just God would not permit this situation, neither would a just politician (unless of course, they are doing their job, supporting their constituency, which would rather write comments on blogs then act).

The situation is a illustration of how disconnect leads to lack of empathy, and how we have a cognitive dissonance between our spoken values and daily actions. If we truly believed every human life had equal value and those dying in Darfur were as important to us as our families, we wouldn't be discussing this.

Nothing short of direct action targeting economic interests will sway the system in the direction of doing something in the face of humanitarian crises.
posted by iamck at 10:02 PM on April 12, 2005

Anyone interested in Belgium's history in Africa should find King Leopold's Ghost interesting, despite its focus on the Congo.
posted by QIbHom at 3:33 PM on April 13, 2005

gesamtkunstwerk
actually Kofi was the UN guy in Africa at the time, it was before he was elevated to Secertary General.
posted by acclivus at 7:30 PM on April 13, 2005