What role did Ireland play in the Rwandan Genocide?

I Heart Internet · 06-02-2012 01:19PM

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

we has any of the aid sent out to africa over the last 30 years actually improved things out there? its still a ****hole ruined by corrupt dictators and extreme poverty for their people.

until the old guard is removed sending out aid is a pointless effort.

Some Aid does work - and has worked. But it's just one part of the solution that also includes trade, security and better laws and regional "peer pressure".

The Paul Collier school of thinking
http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_collier_shares_4_ways_to_help_the_bottom_billion.html

mikemac1 · 06-02-2012 01:22PM

Maybe Niall Mellon who robbed Irish citizens with overpriced and shoddy new builds and robbed taxpayers by entering NAMA can ease his conscience by building some houses out there
Charity begins abroad for Niall
He even brings over his own volunteers instead of paying and employing locals.

Nothingbetter2d · 06-02-2012 01:33PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

Maybe Niall Mellon who robbed Irish citizens with overpriced and shoddy new builds and robbed taxpayers by entering NAMA can ease his conscience by building some houses out there
Charity begins abroad for Niall
He even brings over his own volunteers instead of paying and employing locals.

highlighted that bit... the volunteers are not paid. A friend went over to do that for a month. he enjoyed the experience but said none of them got paid for it... they got food and shelter but the rest came out of their own pocket.

06-02-2012 01:37PM

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

highlighted that bit... the volunteers are not paid. A friend went over to do that for a month. he enjoyed the experience but said none of them got paid for it... they got food and shelter but the rest came out of their own pocket.

Volunteers aren't paid :eek:

sheesh · 06-02-2012 01:44PM

what does the op think Ireland could have done about it?

flanders1979 · 06-02-2012 01:50PM

I watched Hotel Rwanda last night. It was crap. All the african accents sounded like the Tommy Tiernan African priest pisstake.

CrazyRabbit · 06-02-2012 05:03PM

We donated plenty of aid which went towards feeding/arming the warring factions.

later12 · 06-02-2012 05:24PM

I don't know how historically accurate Hotel Rwanda was, but it is an amazing and perturbing film. For some reason, hearing the news about Syria always reminds me of it.

Specifically, there was an image in the paper the other day of a person holding up a sign saying something like "if you don't act, we will die". It isn't quite comparable, but the point is that there are many conflicts which we here in Europe completely ignore or to which we pay very little attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYwuXvA589A

buck65 · 06-02-2012 05:35PM

Actually Blur vs Oasis was the most covered conflict in these parts for ages, not forgetting Keano v Micko

Seren_ · 06-02-2012 05:39PM

I haven't seen Hotel Rwanda, but I know that the hotel siege did actually happen. Wikipedia link.

I studied the Rwandan genocide in a module last year in college, it's hugely interesting. I don't know was there much that Ireland could do at the time, seeing as the UN and media sources pretty much blacklisted anything about what was happening. Roméo Dallaire's book Shake Hands With The Devil is brilliant. He was the head of the UN mission in Rwanda during the genocide and details the mistakes that were made by the UN and international agencies, Fergal Keane has a good book about it too.

token101 · 06-02-2012 06:03PM

The UN is a f*****g sham of an organisation. They stood back and did nothing in all of this! They left whe it got slightly out of hand. They did the same in Srebrenica when they handed the keys of the town to Mladic. The Dutch generals were drinking whiskey with him before he butched 5,000 people. They'd do the same in Syria given half a chance. NATO will usually only intervene when it suits them or when there is oil involved, but at least they do something when they do get involved (Libya, Kosovo). The UN is the most useless organisation that ever existed. Have they ever stepped in somewhere and helped in meaningful way?

later12 · 06-02-2012 06:09PM

token101 wrote: »

Have they ever stepped in somewhere and helped in meaningful way?

Oh yes, certainly. The East Timor conflict of 1999 could well have erupted into a genocide if it wasn't for the UN. I'm sure there are lots of examples, but that's just one that comes foremost to mind.

token101 · 06-02-2012 06:16PM

later10 wrote: »

Oh yes, certainly. The East Timor conflict of 1999 could well have erupted into a genocide if it wasn't for the UN. I'm sure there are lots of examples, but that's just one that comes foremost to mind.

Was that not the Aussies commanding a regional force backing by USA?? I don't think that was the UN. They gave a resolution (what good is a f***ing resolution to anyone when civilians are being slaughtered???), but the Aussies stepped in and took over then afaik. There was nobody in blue helmets doing anything.

later12 · 06-02-2012 06:26PM

token101 wrote: »

Was that not the Aussies commanding a regional force backing by USA?? I don't think that was the UN. They gave a resolution (what good is a f***ing resolution to anyone when civilians are being slaughtered???), but the Aussies stepped in and took over then afaik. There was nobody in blue helmets doing anything.

Well the UN organised the referendum that brought about East Timor's independence, I checked wikipedia which says that it mandated InterfET (which as you say was largely made up of Australians) which presumably means the intervention was very much one executed by the UN... I'm not sure what else it could have done.

I agree that the UN are often slow to intervene, and that the UN is generally an ineffective organisation; but they certainly have done some useful work and I think East Timor is an example of that.

Seren_ · 06-02-2012 06:32PM

Just been thinking some more about this. I don't necessarily think the genocide could have been stopped, regardless of earlier UN intervention or not. The hatred between the Hutus and Tutsis had been bred into them from the time of Rwanda as a Belgian colony (I'm not going to go into the whole background here as it would take forever, but there's a lot about it on the internet in general), and it really was a ticking time bomb. The huge levels of propaganda, both in print form and especially radio was a huge factor as well, and that had been going on for years beforehand. It was just the death of Habyarimana that set it off. People knew about the hatred for decades, but nothing was done.

Also, Shake Hands With The Devil was made into a film too. Just after discovering that now. If anyone has access to the Human Rights Watch investigation (it should be in college libraries anyway, not sure about regular ones) it is well worth a read. It brings to light how much the genocide was ignored internationally.

John Doe1 · 06-02-2012 06:32PM

I vaguely remember daniel o donnell atop a white horse curing the dying children with his magical gayness

The Waltzing Consumer · 06-02-2012 06:41PM

token101 wrote: »

The UN is a f*****g sham of an organisation. They stood back and did nothing in all of this! They left whe it got slightly out of hand. They did the same in Srebrenica when they handed the keys of the town to Mladic. The Dutch generals were drinking whiskey with him before he butched 5,000 people. They'd do the same in Syria given half a chance. NATO will usually only intervene when it suits them or when there is oil involved, but at least they do something when they do get involved (Libya, Kosovo). The UN is the most useless organisation that ever existed. Have they ever stepped in somewhere and helped in meaningful way?

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?

Unavailable for Comment · 06-02-2012 06:45PM

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?

Ask them whether they believe the UN squandered their relatives lives?

No offense but it's naive for you to believe they'd have an unbiased view of the events that occurred or indeed the reasoning behind them.

The Waltzing Consumer · 06-02-2012 06:49PM

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

Ask them whether they believe the UN squandered their relatives lives?

No offense but it's naive for you to believe they'd have an unbiased view of the events that occurred or indeed the reasoning behind them.

Of course they are not unbiased but then again neither is the posters question where he asked if they stepped in in a meaningful way, that is not an objective way of examining the Irish role in the UN or the UN in general.

What is meaningful? Saving one life? Saving five lives but losing a few thousand?

As for squandering, we have a small army and an honorable tradition in peacekeeping which I believe is meaningful, as for what the families think, they can think whatever they wish about the UN.

token101 · 06-02-2012 06:50PM

later10 wrote: »

Well the UN organised the referendum that brought about East Timor's independence, I checked wikipedia which says that it mandated InterfET (which as you say was largely made up of Australians) which presumably means the intervention was very much one executed by the UN... I'm not sure what else it could have done.

I agree that the UN are often slow to intervene, and that the UN is generally an ineffective organisation; but they certainly have done some useful work and I think East Timor is an example of that.

It's a meaningless organisation boycotted at will by anyone with enough power. Just look at Iraq. It showed the Security Council up as a farce. Syria is clearly a case where they should intervene immediately to stop a slaughter but they can't even agree that a tyrant should step aside. It's a joke. Saying something is 'ineffective' as people die in droves is a bit of a euphemism really.

token101 · 06-02-2012 06:52PM

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 · 06-02-2012 06:56PM

we did a riverdance

Batsy · 06-02-2012 06:56PM

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 · 06-02-2012 06:58PM

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 · 06-02-2012 06:58PM

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 · 06-02-2012 07:02PM

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 · 06-02-2012 07:24PM

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 · 06-02-2012 07:26PM

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 · 06-02-2012 08:13PM

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 · 06-02-2012 08:20PM

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.

What role did Ireland play in the Rwandan Genocide?

Comments