# Dallaire recalls Rwandan death threat



## Slim (19 Jan 2004)

Here‘s a bit of an eye opener.

Dallaire recalls Rwandan death threat
Canadian general tells of ‘coup‘ that followed president‘s death


SUKHDEV CHHATBAR
ASSOCIATED PRESS

ARUSHA, Tanzania â â€ Retired Canadian Lt.-Gen Romeo Dallaire, the peacekeeping commander in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, told a UN tribunal today that he was threatened with death by the former Rwandan ministry of defence chief of staff who is now on trial for crimes against humanity.

Dallaire began testifying today against four senior Rwandan military officers, including then-chief of staff Col. Theoneste Bagosora. The Hutu officers have been charged with organizing the 100 days of massacres in 1994 that left more than 500,000 people dead, most of them Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus.

"I was threatened with a pistol (by Bagosora) and was told that next time he will kill me," said Dallaire, 57.

Dallaire, dressed in a dark blue suit, recognized Bagosora in the courtroom when asked by the prosecution to point him out. Dallaire was in command of the UN Assistance Mission in Rwanda between October 1993 and August 1994. He retired in April 2000 because of post-traumatic stress and has complained of nightmares from his experiences in Rwanda.

Dallaire said he had met Bagosora and other senior Rwandan officials, seeking to stop the massacres, which began shortly after the Rwandan president‘s plane was shot down over the capital on April 6, 1994. With the minister of defence absent, Bagosora took control of the country, Dallaire said.

The prosecution alleges that Bagosora orchestrated the genocide after assuming control of the army and the political affairs of Rwanda.

Bagosora clearly looked in charge the night the plane was shot down, Dallaire said, and Bagosora rejected the authority of Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimina. Dallaire said he was surprised at Uwilingiyimina‘s absence from the crisis meeting and said the meeting was "something like planning a coup."

Rwandan troops raped Uwilingiyimina and killed her, as well as 10 Belgium peacekeepers the next day. The presidential guard started the killing in Kigali, Rwanda‘s capital, and even had a list of people to be killed and their addresses, Dallaire added.

Bagosora also chaired military meetings April 7 and 8, which led Dallaire to believe that Bagosora was behind the killings, he said.

Dallaire said he knew that genocide had been planned from a ``variety of sources" and had notified his superiors at UN headquarters in New York three months before the killing began. Instead of giving him the additional troops he requested, UN officials ordered the withdrawal of all but 270 of the peacekeepers.

Dallaire said he did not have enough troops to contain the violence and that even though the peacekeepers set up five sites to protect people, there were persistent incursions by the extremists.

Dallaire was scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow.

Bagosora, Brig. Gen. Gratien Kabiligi, Col. Anatole Nsengiyumva and Maj. Aloys Ntabakuze have pleaded not guilty to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity for their roles in the massacres, which only stopped when Tutsi-led rebels drove the Hutu extremists out of power in July 1994.

This is the second time Dallaire has testified before the UN Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In 1998, he testified at the trial of Jean-Paul Akayesu, a former mayor who was convicted of genocide and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The tribunal was set up in November 1994 and has so far convicted 16 people and acquitted one.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (19 Jan 2004)

Actually, the death toll was closer to 800,000 deaths, not 500,000. From Dallaire himself. His book is unbelievable, I‘d recommend it to anyone. Such political depth, and you get a real, realistic view of the situation in Rwanda.

Thats kinda interesting, because he published all this in his book, (including the death threats). its about time this has been finally addressed.

I just wish they‘d show Bogosora squirm as Dallaire points the finger directly at him.


----------



## Yeoman (20 Jan 2004)

I had an opportunity to meet the man, but my schedule couldn‘t work. I wish I could have met him and got him to sign my book I bought. it truly was disturbing situation in rwanada, but it also showed how the UN truly works. it‘s disgusting.
a must read book for sure.
I‘ve been attempting to follow this story ever since his book came out.
Greg


----------



## hoganshero (20 Jan 2004)

I have to admit after reading "Shake Hands with The Devil" I‘ve been waiting for thsi trial for some time. I‘ve often wondered if Dallaire had an email address which it would be possible to send some words of support to....anyone know??


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (20 Jan 2004)

I‘m sure he has one, but I doubt it‘s public. I think the best thing we can do is to post our support here and hope the word reaches him.

I remember seeing the messages regarding UNAMIR pass my desk in 94 and was shocked at the lack of humanity. Not just on the Rwnandan side, but on the part of all countries who failed to intercede. I‘ve been trying to follow the mission details ever since, and am currently reading Dallaire‘s book. It‘s an excellent read - expect a review soon.


----------



## Slim (20 Jan 2004)

Here is a bit more of todays court appearance.


Dallaire singles out genocide ‘kingpin‘
Campaign well planned, trial told
Kill list proved `ethnic war at hand‘


ALLAN THOMPSON
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

In a packed, sweltering courtroom, Gen. Roméo Dallaire â â€ dressed in a navy-blue pin-striped suit with his Order of Canada prominent on the lapel â â€ was asked by a prosecutor if he could identify the Rwandan army colonel alleged to be one of the architects of the genocide that took 800,000 lives. 

Dallaire, who led the ill-fated 1994 United Nations peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, rose to his feet, glanced around, then fixed an icy glare on his former nemesis.

"He‘s on the extreme right, in the last row,‘‘ Dallaire said, pointing at Theoneste Bagosora.

The retired Canadian general told the Rwanda genocide tribunal here yesterday he believed Bagosora was the "kingpin‘‘ in orchestrating a carefully planned campaign to exterminate minority Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus during 100 days of bloodshed in 1994.

Bagosora and three other military commanders, Anatole Nsengiyumva, Aloys Ntabakuze and Gratien Kabiligi, have all pleaded not guilty to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity.

Prosecutors regard Bagosora as one of the key players in the hours and days after the country was plunged into genocide after president Juvenal Habyarimana died in a fiery plane crash on April 6, 1994.

Dallaire yesterday recalled the last time he saw Bagosora, during a chance encounter in late June, 1994, near the end of the genocide, in the lobby of the Diplomates hotel in Kigali."Col. Bagosora threatened me with his pistol that the next time he saw me he would kill me,‘‘ he told the court.

From the witness box, Dallaire turned the tables yesterday, testifying for a total of six hours about his meetings with Bagosora and his assessment that the virulently anti-Tutsi commander put the genocide into motion.

"I had concluded that he was the kingpin,‘‘ said Dallaire, who suffers from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of his Rwanda experience.

While he showed little sign of emotion or distress during his testimony, Dallaire seemed distracted at times and kept stealing glances over to the left-hand corner of the courtroom, where Bagosora, whom he once compared with the devil, was seated. More than once, when a court clerk passed an exhibit to Dallaire for his perusal, the retired general glared at Bagosora.

Bagosora made notes in a large, blue hard-covered notebook. He also referred from time to time to a dog-eared copy of the French edition of Dallaire‘s memoir from Rwanda. Dallaire also recounted how on April 4, 1994 â â€ only days before the slaughter began â â€ Bagosora reportedly told a Belgian colonel at a diplomatic reception that the only way to solve Rwanda‘s problems was to get rid of the Tutsi.

Dallaire said Col. Luc Marchal told him a drunken Bagosora raged against Tutsis and indicated "that war was at hand and a final solution was going to happen ... clearly indicating an ethnic war was at hand.‘‘

Prosecutor Drew White, a Canadian lawyer, led off the questioning yesterday and is expected to continue all day today.

The Canadian general testified that Bagosora was in charge of a military "crisis committee‘‘ meeting that took place within hours of the Rwandan president‘s death. 

Still in civilian clothes, Bagosora "was clearly in charge‘‘ and prevailed over the officers present, Dallaire said. Bagosora, he added, rejected outright the suggestion that prime minister Agathe Uwilingimana should take power.

"Col. Bagosora said that, in essence, she had no authority.‘‘ 

Dallaire said he spoke to the prime minister on the phone that night, trying to arrange for her to make a radio address first thing in the morning. But within hours, Belgian soldiers protecting her home had been taken away and massacred and the prime minister hunted down in a nearby compound and killed, along with her husband.

Dallaire told the court he visited the spot where she had been murdered the next day.

"She had been killed right there, I mean, there was blood,‘‘ he said. "Her children ... were in another house hiding in a closet with clothes over them. They had been saved.‘‘

Referring to pictures taken at the time, Dallaire said the day after the president was killed, Bagosora abruptly switched from his civilian clothes into crisp new military fatigues.

"He in fact reverted to a (army) uniform in the rank of colonel from the morning of the 7th of April,‘‘ Dallaire said.

When he burst in uninvited on a larger meeting of the military command, again chaired by Bagosora on the morning of April 7, "it was clear that Col. Bagosora was giving instructions and direction.‘‘ 

Dallaire said he tried to get Bagosora to intervene to help the Belgian soldiers, who had been taken to nearby Camp Kigali, where he learned later they had been butchered.

But Bagosora said "the camp was in absolute chaos and none of the officers could get control,‘‘ Dallaire recounted. "He categorically refused me to go to that camp.‘‘

The Canadian general said his own situation reports told him Presidential Guard units were already "wreaking havoc in the city ... and some of them even had a list and (were) killing the people therein.‘‘ 

But Bagosora told him the guards were hard to control because they were acting out of anger at the president‘s death and rumours the Belgians were somehow involved.

Dallaire testified he left the meeting convinced Bagosara was pulling the strings.

"What I found incredible was I had never found someone so calm and so at ease with what was going on," Dallaire said. "He shuffled some papers and signed some documents."

Dallaire said he could only conclude that Bagosora was either on "another planet," oblivious to the mounting chaos, or was so calm because the carefully laid plan to exterminate the Tutsi minority and moderate Hutu, who were willing to share power, was unfolding.

"It was surreal ... (I concluded) they were implementing a plan that we had heard so much of from a variety of sources.

"It dawned on me then that the plan was moving."

Dallaire was also asked about an anonymous letter he received on Dec. 3, 1993, apparently written by moderate Hutu officers, who warned of a "Machiavellian plan‘‘ to plunge the country into chaos and exterminate specific individuals. Many of the people identified in the letter as targets were killed in the first hours of the genocide.

Looking back, Dallaire said that letter now seems like "a rough draft of what happened after April 6.‘‘

Today Dallaire is expected to testify about the secret informant who warned in January, 1994, that death squads were compiling lists and training to kill thousands of people a day.

When Dallaire told U.N. headquarters in New York he planned to raid the arms caches of the death squads, he was told not to take any military action, that he had to remain neutral.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Jan 2004)

whoa..hey slim, could you continue to stay on top of this or post links where the tribunal is being summarized? Id love to see how far this goes


----------



## Slim (20 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] whoa..hey slim, could you continue to stay on top of this or post links where the tribunal is being summarized? Id love to see how far this goes [/qb]


Hey
Thanks for the request. I‘ll do my best to keep the articles posted. Thanks for showing the interest.
Cheers Slim


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (20 Jan 2004)

great, thanx


----------



## Slim (25 Jan 2004)

This is the latest on the court proceedings.
Slim

Dallaire `holding up well‘ in court
Retired general trying to find closure on Rwanda nightmare

Keeps medication on hand but keeps his cool at genocide tribu


ALLAN THOMPSON
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

ARUSHA, Tanzaniaâ â€In a courtroom in this remote corner of Africa, Roméo Dallaire is in the witness box, testifying against one of the alleged masterminds of the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

A defence lawyer in black robes is rambling on. The crimson-clad judges scrawl notes. And through the audio system, you can hear the sound of birds chirping on the window ledge outside.

Then the retired Canadian general leans down, reaches into his briefcase and pulls out a long plastic pill box.

The orange container has little compartments marked for different times and days of the week. Dallaire sets it down next to his glasses on the table where he is seated, front and centre in Trial Chamber One of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. 

It is mid-morning on Thursday and Dallaire is being cross-examined by the lawyer for Theoneste Bagosora, the former Rwandan army colonel indicted as one of the architects of the genocide and an old nemesis for Dallaire, who commanded the United Nations force that helplessly watched the slaughter of 800,000 people.

Dallaire nonchalantly picks up the case, pops open one of the compartments and dumps a handful of pills into his hand â â€ two big orange ones, a small brown one and three little white ones.

One by one, he downs the pills.

The medication is part of Dallaire‘s daily regimen in his ongoing struggle against post-traumatic stress disorder, one measure to help him to deal with the anxiety, depression and nightmares that have plagued him since Rwanda.

But despite expectations that Dallaire might lose his composure on the stand, or even break down in tears as he did during a one-day appearance in 1998, in his first week of testimony he showed virtually no sign of emotion or distress.

In some ways, it seems as if Dallaire may finally be coming to terms with Rwanda, the cataclysm that changed his life, ruined his military career and has on several occasions, pushed him to attempt suicide.

In his first hours on the stand last Monday, Dallaire locked eyes with Bagosora for the first time in nearly a decade and seemed ill at ease being in the same room as the man he regards as the kingpin of the extermination campaign. But eventually, Dallaire seemed to be oblivious to Bagosora‘s presence, sometimes laughing and joking with the judges and lawyers, or in trademark fashion, cursing under his breath when he couldn‘t remember a name, or realized there was a gap in his testimony.

Clearly for Dallaire, being here is an important part of trying to find some closure on Rwanda, to realize it is in the past and not entirely on his shoulders.

"In some ways, he has even surprised himself," said one of those who has been cloistered with Dallaire each evening, when he leaves the tribunal. "Yes, from time to time he needs his medication ... but he has commented that he thinks he‘s holding up well."


----------



## Spr.Earl (25 Jan 2004)

To all I feel for Gen. Dallaire!!!    

That poor man was left out in the cold by the U.N. and by our own and our Gov.   

I have seen some snippet‘s from the BBC about the on going War Crime‘s Trial‘s in Africa.

That man deserve‘s all the sympthey we can give him as Member‘s in Arm‘s!!!


Gen Dellaire,Sir I salute you because you have up held the standerd‘s we all wish to attain and keep  as Soldier‘s


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (25 Jan 2004)

I think respect and support may be more useful than sympathy...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (25 Jan 2004)

Sorry, on second read that sounded a bit harsh... We‘re on the same page, Dallaire sacrificed a lot for a mission that the rest of the world essentially abandoned.

He may feel he failed in his mission, but I don‘t. The way I see it, his mission was not to stop the genocide (there was no way he could have given the resources and limitations he had). He was there to be witness to it all so the architects of the disaster could be brought to justice.

Which is exactly what he‘s doing right now.

Hopefully this will provide some closure, not just for the Rwandan story but for Dallaire as well.


----------



## OLD SCHOOL (25 Jan 2004)

The man was thrown in the middle of an ocean and when he requested flotation...he was thrown an anchor...over and over and over.

How he continued on in those conditions is beyond me. That is not the same situation as a tough course or reg. mission as there was NO support. Constantly being ****ed by his own side he and the rest of UNAMIR soldiered on through atrocious conditions. I would serve beside him anytime or place.    

Look at his efforts since...still trying to help and improve peoples lives.

How many UNAMIR soldiers were casualties of this mission. All?


----------



## Pikache (25 Jan 2004)

Well, in terms of effecting their mind, I‘d say yes.


----------



## tmbluesbflat (26 Jan 2004)

What happened to Dellaire is typical of how the Civil administration deals with the military, set an impossible task, take enormous credit if for sum ungodly reason it is successful. If it fails however they sit back and smirk a do the "it‘s not my fault" excuses snivelling and cowardice are the hallmarks of Canadian politicians, very much part of the reason the U.N. cannot fill it‘s mandates, and the exact reason such massacres take place, they are as much at fault as the perpetrators, they are the enablers! They should be tried as well!


----------



## Slim (27 Jan 2004)

Here is the latest in the Rwanda court battles.


Jan. 26, 2004. 06:27 AM 

Canada may try Rwanda leaders

ALLAN THOMPSON
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Canada could be asked to take over prosecution of some of the accused ringleaders of the 1994 Rwanda genocide if the war crimes tribunal based in Tanzania can‘t complete its work, senior tribunal sources say.

The tribunal‘s chief prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow of Gambia, said it is not realistic to think the court can complete the full roster of cases before the court and those still under investigation, before the 2008 deadline for trials imposed by the United Nations Security Council. 

"We have decided to review the cases and decide in a realistic way what really can be handled,‘‘ Jallow told reporters.

And a senior tribunal source said Canada could be one of the countries asked to take on some of the cases. 

"All that is necessary is the political will to do this,‘‘ the source said.

As many as 800,000 Tutsis and politically moderate Hutus were massacred in a three-month killing spree in Rwanda beginning in April, 1994. Before the genocide, Tutsis made up about 20 per cent of the central African country‘s population. 

The tribunal‘s chief prosecutor addressed a news conference here on Friday to attract the attention of the international media covering the testimony of retired Canadian Gen. Roméo Dallaire. 

Dallaire, who commanded the ill-fated U.N. force in Rwanda during the 1994 slaughter, is scheduled to take the stand again today to continue testifying against Theoneste Bagosora, one of the alleged architects of the genocide.

Jallow said the court‘s "focus should be always on those who bear the greatest responsibility for what happened.

"We‘ll decide on a core group of cases and say this is what we‘ll continue to do," he said.

"The rest, if the evidence is not strong, we will discontinue or if another country is willing to take on those cases and have them prosecuted at the national level, then we can pass them to that particular country,‘‘ he said.

Jallow was echoed by the court‘s chief judge, Erik Mose of Norway, who said criminal justice could take place at the international and the national level.

"It is clear that people should not go unpunished. But the tribunal cannot deal with everyone. In other words, we are focusing on the alleged leaders,‘‘ Mose said in an interview.

"There is a need to find the right division of work between international and national criminal justice in order to avoid impunity,‘‘ the judge said.

"The question of transfer of cases is on the table ... (but) our aim is not transfer, our aim is to do the job. We are not delegating our work to the national jurisdiction," Mose said.

"We are here to complete the task.‘‘

The court was established in 1994 and began hearing cases in 1997. It operates on a budget of $177 million (U.S.) per year and so far, 18 of the accused have been convicted, two have pleaded guilty and one has been acquitted.

Among the most notable convictions was that of former Rwandan prime minister Jean Kambanda, who was sentenced to life in prison.

Last month the tribunal sentenced two Rwandan media bosses to life in prison after finding them guilty of using a radio station and a publication to help incite the massacre.

The tribunal is currently hearing testimony against cases involving another 20 detainees are now in progress. And another 22 accused have been indicted and are still being held at the tribunal‘s detention centre, awaiting trial proceedings.

Jallow said there are another 16 indicted, who remain at large. And there is yet another group of 40 suspects who have been targeted for investigation.

It is those 40 cases have been earmarked to be transferred to other jurisdictions.

Jallow said it is not yet clear how the transfer would work, whether states would be empowered to try suspects that are already within their territory, or if states could volunteer to prosecute some of the cases.

Another option is to transfer the remaining cases to the new International Criminal Court in The Hague.

"All these options could be looked at ... some reflection has to start on that particular problem,‘‘ Jallow said.

The Rwanda tribunal has been harshly criticized for the slow pace of its proceedings and the fact it has achieved only 18 convictions since 1997.

But Mose insists that while the tribunal clearly had administrative and procedural problems in the first years, those problems have been addressed and real progress is now being made.

Because the perpetrators of the Rwanda genocide did not create the kind of detailed records left behind by the Nazis, for example, this tribunal has had to rely almost entirely on oral testimony.

As well, the tribunal has had to translate all proceedings, rulings and transcripts into three languages â â€ English, French and Kinyarwanda.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (27 Jan 2004)

thanx again slim.


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Sh0rtbUs:
> [qb] thanx again slim. [/qb]


You‘re welcome.

Slim


----------



## Slim (28 Jan 2004)

Yet another article...


Dallaire returning to Rwanda ‘to mourn‘

Agence France-Presse with a report from Associated Press
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - Page A12 

  ARUSHA, TANZANIA -- Roméo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of UN troops during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, said yesterday he intends to travel to the central African country "to mourn."

The 57-year-old retired general has been testifying before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda since Jan. 19 as a witness for the prosecution in the case of four former senior Rwandan army officers charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

"I would love to spend some years in the Land of the Thousand Hills [Rwanda] to mourn," General Dallaire said after ending his testimony at the tribunal in Arusha.

Gen. Dallaire has said he was traumatized by the massacres in Rwanda in 1994, which he said his forces were unable to stop because they were few and had insufficient means. 

But he said he is ready to return to Arusha if the tribunal so desires. "My mission will end when the tribunal no longer needs me."

In his testimony, Gen. Dallaire accused his superiors in the United Nations of denying him permission to carry out raids that could have prevented the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people during the genocide that began in April, 1994, after the death of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana in a plane crash.

Gen. Dallaire described how he tried to persuade both the Hutu extremist government and the Tutsi rebels to stop violating peace accords they had signed only a year earlier. 

Later, an estimated 800,000 people -- mostly Tutsis -- were killed in government-orchestrated massacres.

The inaction of the UN and international community before and during the genocide has been widely criticized since 1994 and has formed the subject of several books, including one Gen. Dallaire published last year entitled Shake Hands With the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda.

Colonel Théoneste Bagosora, Brigadier-General Gratien Kabiligi, Colonel Anatole Nsengiyumva and Major Aloys Ntabakuze, former officers in the Rwandan army, have pleaded not guilty to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity in the 100-day slaughter.

Defence lawyers tried to discredit Gen. Dallaire‘s testimony because he has suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of his experiences in Rwanda. Col. Bagosora‘s lawyer, Raphael Constant, pressed Gen. Dallaire about why some events he described in testimony were not in his book, or were not in UN situation reports he filed during the genocide.

At one point, Gen. Dallaire retracted a statement in which he said Col. Bagosora led a May 1, 1994, meeting of militiamen who were killing civilians. "I have before me a situation report that I sent to New York on the first of May, 1994, which clearly states that Bagosora was not at the event," Gen. Dallaire said. 

He added, however, that he believed Col. Bagosora had arranged the meeting.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (28 Jan 2004)

"have pleaded not guilty to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity"

The ****? So Bogosora is getting off on it?? What a load of _____


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by OLD SCHOOL:
> [qb] The man was thrown in the middle of an ocean and when he requested flotation...he was thrown an anchor...over and over and over.
> 
> How he continued on in those conditions is beyond me. That is not the same situation as a tough course or reg. mission as there was NO support. Constantly being ****ed by his own side he and the rest of UNAMIR soldiered on through atrocious conditions. I would serve beside him anytime or place.
> ...


Old School my first post were thought‘s of the personal troubles he suffered on his return home.
As many know he suffered a guilt at what he saw as his failure as a Soldier.


WRONG!


He did not fail the World failed him!

He did his best!

It is the  failure of OUR Gov. and the U.N. that caused the Genocide in Africa.

I,also would serve with him any day.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Mar 2004)

Intelligere wrote:


> So New York let Romeo down? What‘s new? What would somebody like Lew MacKenzie have done under similar circumstances? Not gone to pieces.


That‘s a crass and stupid statement from someone having the experience you claim. Unless you were in his hip pocket, you have no idea of the trials and tribulations witnessed by Lt.-Gen Romeo Dallaire or the effects they caused. Who are you to judge how anyone should react.


----------



## bossi (24 Mar 2004)

> So New York let Romeo down? What‘s new? What would somebody like Lew MacKenzie have done under similar circumstances? Not gone to pieces.


I‘m appalled that you could say something so crass.
Romeo Dallaire saw something few have ever seen - genocide - hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children murdered, hacked to death, until the rivers ran red with their blood, and the crocodiles were so engorged they couldn‘t eat any more.
He also lost troops under his command - something no commander ever "gets over".

How dare you say something so insensitive, so callous, so unthinking?  Shame upon you!


----------



## Engineer Corporal (24 Mar 2004)

Try reading his book. It will open your eyes. He did everything in his power.


----------



## Duotone81 (24 Mar 2004)

What an ignorant thing to say. I‘d feel lower than dirt if I even thought that. It‘s real easy to shoot  bullshit comments like that through the anonymity  of the internet eh?

I tell ya what. I‘ll loan you my copy if you‘re too cheap to go out and spend a couple bucks on one so you can read for yourself what he experienced for a year with little to no support.

Show some respect.


----------



## wongskc (25 Mar 2004)

> Originally posted by Intelligere:
> [qb] So New York let Romeo down?  What‘s new?  What would somebody like Lew MacKenzie have done under similar circumstances?  Not gone to pieces. [/qb]


As far as I know, Dallaire never went to pieces during the mission.  He did his job as best he could.  The poor guy had to argue with the UN for a month just to get a shipment of flashlights, and even then, they never got the batteries.  He was left out in the cold.  It was our fault the mission failed, not the people on the mission.


----------



## Gunner109 (31 Mar 2004)

I have to agree.  Gen Dallaire is an outstanding Soldier who cares for his troops and the mission.  His book, while depressing is a great book.  It compliments Gen MacKenzies book WRT the poor direction of the UN.  After the first deployment of troops under NATO I agree that they can do the job much better than the UN, as far as armed Soldiers go.  They might be good with duties such as, the UNHCR and alike.  But I feel that they are totally incompitant as far as deploying armed troops.  We need former or current soldiers in charge of armed UN forces in New York.


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Apr 2004)

One dark night in Rwanda, a man who called himself Jean-Pierre warned the UN about a plan to exterminate Tutsis at a rate faster than the Nazis killed Jews. 

In a lamp lit room in Kigali, Jean-Pierre offered to lead the UN to arms caches in return for asylum for his family, but UN officials in New York refused permission. Nobody knows "Jean-Pierre‘s" fate, but we do know the fate of those he tried to help. 

Because three months later - in the spring of 1994 - gangs of renegade soldiers and machete-wielding street kids organized by the extremists of Hutu power set about murdering their Tutsi countrymen and leading moderate Hutus. 

They killed at least 800,000 in 100 days, aided by ordinary men and women who were somehow convinced this was their "umuganda", their work and civic duty. 

Never again

  The UN declined for many of those hundred days even to use the term "genocide" 

Steve Bradshaw  

This was not tribal frenzy, not anarchy, but the work of an organised, hierarchical and obedient society. One that would certainly have noticed if the rest of the world had said "Stop It" and backed the warning up with a little force. 

But while the UN voiced its disapproval, it declined for many of those 100 days even to use the term "genocide". 

Over half a century after the world swore "Never Again" to the Holocaust, what are we to make of this exercise in what political scientist Norman Geras has called balefully the "Contract of Mutual Indifference"? 

It wasn‘t that the rich, developed nations - not to mention landlocked Rwanda‘s African neighbours failed to intervene in Rwanda. Given the debacle earlier that year of Somalia, when 18 US marines died in a humanitarian mission to Somalia, a refusal to intervene might at least have been understandable. 

The sin, if you want to call it that, was that the world was already there. 

A force of UN peacekeepers had been despatched to Rwanda in 1993 to help enforce an emerging peace deal between the Hutu government and invading guerrillas of the Tutsi-led RPF. 

Tragic fiction  
Piles of bones show the scale of the slaughter 

They‘d been kept short of weapons, ammunition, vehicles, medicine, you name it. (It has to be said this was partly the fault of some of the governments who sent them there, like Bangladesh). The helicopters didn‘t even have hostile environment insurance, and were flown out when the killing started. 

Then the UN voted to withdraw all but a handful of the peacekeepers (only to try to put them back when most of the killing was done). It has been claimed that even with the support of Western troops, flown in to evacuate Europeans, there weren‘t enough to stop the murders. 

But whatever aggressive action they might have taken, some of the UN troops were actually guarding civilians. 

When Belgian troops were pulled out of the Don Bosco camp - codeword Beverly Hills - the killers who had been driving around the camp with their machetes, AKs and fluorescent wigs moved in and killed about 2,000 men women and children. 

Shortly afterwards - with UN troops still protecting many civilians - the British team at the UN was privately claiming it would be a "tragic fiction" to suppose the UN could help protect any more beleaguered Tutsis. 

The ultimate insults to the dying are now well known. The US State Department‘s spokeswoman Christine Shelley - acting on orders - declined to use the term "genocide" unqualified, insisting on saying only "acts of genocide" were occurring. 

What colour?

  When the UN did decide to summon up an intervention force, the US delayed over the despatch of armoured vehicles - the arguments ranged from what colour to paint the vehicles to who would be paying for the painting 

Steve Bradshaw  

The department‘s legal team feared that recognising the G Word would oblige the US to intervene because of the UN Genocide Convention. In fact the convention mandates no such thing, merely makes it a possibility. The lawyers knew this but politicians feared the public wouldn‘t follow such subtle reasoning. 

Then, when the UN did decide to summon up an intervention force, the US delayed over the despatch of armoured vehicles. The arguments ranged from what colour to paint the vehicles to who would be paying for the painting. 

And when they did arrive - they didn‘t have radios. Although the killing was already over. 

And then there was the suggestion of jamming the Hate Radio station that was giving the killers orders. The trouble with that - apart from a few technical hassles that could surely have been overcome - it would surely breach the US‘s constitutional commitment to free speech. 

There were other episodes of mass murder in the 20th Century. But - other than the Allied planes flying over the Nazi death camps - there has been no other such demonstration of the Contract of Mutual Indifference in a country where the onlooking world - in an age of mass media - has had a military presence. 

Ashamed

Hence the title of Panorama‘s 1999 film "When Good Men Do Nothing" a phrase attributed to the English philosopher Edmund Burke, and his condition for what he called The Triumph of Evil. 

We could also, I suppose, have called it And Who Is My Neighbour? That, you may recall, is the sardonic question a lawyer asks in Saint Luke, a question that prompts the Parable of the Good Samaritan. 

One official who originally backed the do nothing policy, Anthony Barnett, told Panorama he could never have believed he would be a bystander to genocide. 

"You should be ashamed," he told himself on camera. I think he would like to feel he speaks for the rest of us. 

Steve Bradshaw made his first Panorama programme on Rwanda - A Culture of Murder - in the weeks after the genocide. He has made two other films on Rwanda including the award winning When Good Men Do Nothing, which investigated the failure of the international community in Rwanda in detail.


 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3577575.stm


----------



## gate_guard (7 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] As I have said before it is always easier as a Canadian to say what you are not (American) than it is to say what you are.[/qb]


I don‘t like what you are insinuating.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (7 Apr 2004)

Sherwood,

I know you‘re just trying (once again) to get a rise out of us Canucks here... There are so many things wrong with your post I don‘t know where to start. But here goes:

Dallaire condemned Canada‘s inaction as well, not just in his book, but in interviews. We‘re fully aware that we as a country could have done much more, but that doesn‘t "undo" the situation.

The truth is however, even if Canada threw all it‘s available military might at the situation, it wouldn‘t likely be sufficient. (More so now than in 94 I suspect!) The US on the other hand could handle the mission without feeling the pinch. It just chose not to.

The Canadian flag campaign has zero to do with this issue. Or maybe I‘m missing the connection...? (Surely you‘re not trying to say *Canadian* patriotism is overdone!)

And yes, it would have been a great thing if Canada had stepped in to stop the genocide, but nobody did, so now all the participating countries have blood on their hands. You have to ask: is the responsibility proportional to the amount and ease of aid each country *could have* provided, but chose not to?

*NOW* it‘s "nuff said."


----------



## 30 for 30 (7 Apr 2004)

I‘m curious to hear comments regarding the incident in which Dallaire saw a few of his Belgian troops dead or dying on the ground in a compound as he drove by. I‘ve never really understood why he didn‘t immediately contact his other units to intervene in the situation (whether it was too late or not). Instead, the story goes that he just drove on, stunned, to meet with the bad guy leadership and attempted to convince them to pull their forces back. According to CBC/Frontline, during that meeting he didn‘t mention his dead/dying soldiers. Does anyone have any insight here?


----------



## bossi (8 Apr 2004)

Hopefully somebody else will add their comment, based on Dallaire‘s book and what he has said about the incident.

However, it is a slippery slope to be an "armchair judge" ...

First of all - very few armies conduct "genocide recognition classes" (i.e. ‘everybody who has ever PERSONALLY witnessed the murder of 800,000 civilians, take one step forward‘ - I‘ve spoken with folks who were there, and it was traumatic for all of them).

Secondly - "discretion is the better part of valour" - I remember reading once that it would have been suicide for Daillaire and his relatively unarmed escorts to have stopped at the murdeer site - and if the Belgique paratroopers were already dead, it would might have been foolhardy.

Thirdly - the Belgian inquest into the incident revealed that the Belgian commanding officer used radio orders to tell his own soldiers to surrender their weapons (as opposed to the deputy commanding officer who tried in vain over the radio to tell the doomed soldiers to use their own judgement based on their assessment of the situation on the scene, using one particular phrase "your fate is in your own hands").

I don‘t know - I wasn‘t there - Dallaire has suffered enough.



> It is not the critic that counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
> Theodore Roosevelt.


----------



## meni0n (8 Apr 2004)

Nobody blamed the US military Major Baker. Gen Dallaire blamed the US governement as he did all of the western governements that could have helped but didn‘t.


----------



## gate_guard (8 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb] I guess bottom line is as a member of he US military I am tired of being collectively blamed for all of the crap in the world.  It is one of those ****ed if you do...****ed if you don‘t!
> 
> Sherwood [/qb]


If your tired of the crap that goes along with being a member of a nation‘s military, why don‘t you leave? I didn‘t sign up because I thought I‘d make more friends, or because I knew that the CF had the collective support of the Canadian public no matter what it did. A nation‘s military will always take some misplaced criticism because of the fact that the military represents the current government‘s position. That will never change. But for you to lash out at Canadian‘s (gov‘t or military) because of your discontent due to the possibly unfair treatment of the U.S. military in this issue reeks of immaturity.

It sounds like most of your discontent lies with the overall unpopular position the U.S. finds itself in. That goes along with being the world‘s major police force. It sucks but too bad, nobody ever said you were going to have a career full of ticker tape parades and young nubile females throwing themselves at you. Your frustration sounds a tad misplaced, like your blaming Canadians because the world likes us better.


----------



## casing (8 Apr 2004)

I‘m not entirely sure why everyone is dumping on Maj. Baker here.  (Is it because of his comments about Lt. Gen. Dallaire?)  What I infer from his posts is that he feels Canada as well as the rest of the world (pointing fingers at New York = pointing fingers at the UN, does it not?) also holds responsibility for what transpired in Rwanda, not just the US, or France, etc. and that they should start accepting that responsibility. And he is right about that, as most of the other posters here have already noted in your own posts.  Maybe I‘m wrong but I think the point Maj. Baker was trying to raise is that the politicians around the world need to start taking responsibility for their actions.  Unfortunately the dominant feeling in the general populations around the world is to blame Americans as a people when the stuff hits the fan, for whatever the malady might be.  It‘s a "perk" of being the main policing power in the world, but that‘s how it always is.

Of course, being politicians, they never will.

_Edit after Maj. Baker‘s last post above._ Popularity always seems to win out.  This has to do with media attention.  If no one hears about it, no one is going to protest it.  The more media attention something receives, the more activity will happen in respect to that something.  It‘s all about topic education, which is greatly lacking and biased due to emotions and media coverage.


----------



## gate_guard (8 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by S_Baker:
> [qb]
> Finally, I got a response that I always knew was underlying, so are you telling me that Canada bases its decisions on popularity?...
> 
> Your are also missing the point, why are there no protests in Canada over the genocide in Ruwanda or for that matter the Genocide of the Kulacks in Russia, albania, etc. (check your History Books) and look at the memorial in downtown Edmonton.  Sure was a lot of protests against the war in IRAQ! [/qb]


No, I didn‘t say that Canada bases it‘s decisions on popularity (although I think the government does), my point was that it isn‘t the fault of the Canadian public that people worldwide generally "like" us more than Americans. In the words of one of the obscure, dime-a-dozen rappers out there, "Don‘t hate the player, hate the game."

As for nobody protesting the genocide in Rwanda, I agree on that point. I find it really pathetic to see anti-war signs whenever the U.S., Britain, and (when it‘s popular) Canada goes peacemaking but not a peep is heard when some third world warlord sees fit to eliminate a third of his country‘s population. Where are the anti-war activists then? So you see, Maj Baker, I understand your discontent and frustration with the way the U.S. is viewed in light of the good you guys are trying to do. It‘s like I always say to anybody who slams the U.S. as being bullys,
"The U.S. is the worlds police force, sometimes they screw up, but imagine the world without police, it would be a lot worse off."

I do find your finger-pointing at Canada as a cheap way to deflect some blame. It really isn‘t needed. Take it as a compliment that everyone is gunning for you, that‘s what happens when your on top. And that‘s all the kiss *** I‘m going to do for Americans for a while.


----------



## xFusilier (8 Apr 2004)

S_Baker,

If I have understood Gen. Dallaire‘s thesis correctly it is that all off us, including the US, Canada, Belgium, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, and EVERY other nation in the so-called western world sat back and allowed 1,000,000 people to be butchered along in the period of 100 days, simply for what basically amounts to reasons of political convienance.  And guess what? WE DESERVE TO BE BLAMED FOR LETTING IT HAPPEN, all of us, everyone of the countries I listed above, lets face, it we sat back and watched it happen live on TV because it was easier that commiting military forces to STOP it.  POPULARITY has nothing to do with the situation that occured in Rwanda, we (the western world) were given the opportunity to step up to the plate and really show that the "new world order" rhetoric was anything but, instead we chose to stand by and watch one of the greatest acts of barbarism since WWII occur because we couldn‘t be bothered to stop it.


----------



## xFusilier (8 Apr 2004)

It is irrelevant whether or not we had colonies in West Africa.  The most ****ing thing of the whole affair is that those of use, who could have (with minimal expenditure of resources) put a stop to the Rwandan genocide did not.  No moral relativism, absent of historical context the cold hard, facts of the matter is that we (the nations of North America and Western Europe) who like to believe in the moral supremacy of our actions, when given the opportunity to "put or money where our mouths are" did not, irrelevant of the various political or historical considerations that may or may not mitigate our actions.

As for Gen. Dallaire, it is, truly hard to say what a Zuhkov, Patton, Montgomery, Slim, or even Simonds (though I would prefer Hoffmeister as a Canadian allegory), given the same situation.  Dallaire was but in a situation where he was given only the minimum of support from not only his government, but those brothers in arms that he thought were his comrades (Gen.Baril).  Needless to say that regardless of what your take on Gen. Dallaire is, it cannot be said that the man is not dealing with his own demons in regard to what happened in Rwanda.

I respect your above post and should you wish to pursue this freely on PM please feel free this is interesting.

By the way, I thought you couldn‘t be a US officer and bear allegiance to any other country that the US, enlighten please!


----------

