October 3, 2002
6:46 PM Subscribe
In spite of his promise that human rights would take precedence over concerns of state sovereignty, Kofi Annan's philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence in the face of genocide and dictators, costs over 7,000 lives at Srebrenica, and 800,000 in Rwanda alone.
Multilateralism isn't the same as noninterventionism. Multilateralism isn't the same as neutrality. Annan's project is to consolidate the United Nations in International Law as the guarant against abuse of the idea of humanitarian intervention. Without the United Nations mandate those interventions are illegal - and illegitimate.
The reason is that the one thing the UN guards the most is the soverignty of it's states. Not just the strong European and states, but even the weak African states. Thus, it has to be a very convincing argument, and everybody (that matters) should agree that it is really necessary to intervene in another country, before a UN mandate is given.
The problem with humanitarian interventions is that they are open to abuse, because the criteria aren't as clear cut as the case of self defence (in which no UN mandate is needed) and therefore the strong can claim to make an intervention for the common good when they are only serving their own purpose. For instance, Canada could invade Alaska for some more-or-less bogus reason, like because Alaska mistreats it's citizens. If it wasn't for the UN the great powers (the US, Russia, Europe, China) could end up warring over Canada's right to intervene in Alaska. And nobody wants a big war - only small easy to win wars, please. Instead, Canada goes the UN and asks for a permission to go to war with Alaska, and if the US, Russia, Europe and China agree that such a war is indeed necessary Canada can invade Alaska without risking a major war between China and Russia or Europe and the US or what have you.
Multilateralism obvious makes it harder to go to war. Even when you think you've got this smashing good reason to. But the reason it is harder is because nobody wants a small conflict - like say, Austria invading Bosnia - to turn into another World War. They've done that one time too many.
In the case of Yugoslavia the P5 deemed that they'd rather risk genocide than war between Russia and Europe. In Rwanda it was much simpler; nobody wanted to send their soldiers to be slaughtered down there (as it appeared had happened in Somalia) They just didn't care that much.
posted by cx at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2002
The reason is that the one thing the UN guards the most is the soverignty of it's states. Not just the strong European and states, but even the weak African states. Thus, it has to be a very convincing argument, and everybody (that matters) should agree that it is really necessary to intervene in another country, before a UN mandate is given.
The problem with humanitarian interventions is that they are open to abuse, because the criteria aren't as clear cut as the case of self defence (in which no UN mandate is needed) and therefore the strong can claim to make an intervention for the common good when they are only serving their own purpose. For instance, Canada could invade Alaska for some more-or-less bogus reason, like because Alaska mistreats it's citizens. If it wasn't for the UN the great powers (the US, Russia, Europe, China) could end up warring over Canada's right to intervene in Alaska. And nobody wants a big war - only small easy to win wars, please. Instead, Canada goes the UN and asks for a permission to go to war with Alaska, and if the US, Russia, Europe and China agree that such a war is indeed necessary Canada can invade Alaska without risking a major war between China and Russia or Europe and the US or what have you.
Multilateralism obvious makes it harder to go to war. Even when you think you've got this smashing good reason to. But the reason it is harder is because nobody wants a small conflict - like say, Austria invading Bosnia - to turn into another World War. They've done that one time too many.
In the case of Yugoslavia the P5 deemed that they'd rather risk genocide than war between Russia and Europe. In Rwanda it was much simpler; nobody wanted to send their soldiers to be slaughtered down there (as it appeared had happened in Somalia) They just didn't care that much.
posted by cx at 7:28 PM on October 3, 2002
Semmi you give the UN and Anna way too much power and credit.
I do nothing of the sort. Please refer to the article I tried to introduce (paraphrase) with what caught my interest.
posted by semmi at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2002
I do nothing of the sort. Please refer to the article I tried to introduce (paraphrase) with what caught my interest.
posted by semmi at 7:36 PM on October 3, 2002
Is there some law that UN Sec Gen's must now be little brown skinned tempests from impoverished nations? I suspect that the real purpose of the UN is to provide the various elite of disgusting third world countries the opportunity to double park in NYC.
posted by paleocon at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by paleocon at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2002
If you want something which spends more time engaging with fact than dallying with opinion, the Atlantic piece on Rwanda is a good start. It suggests that Foer's lazy conflation of 'Annan's office' and 'Annan' ('Annan denied both requests. His office cabled Dallaire...') misrepresents things in a crucial way:
When Dallaire notified Kofi Annan's office that UNAMIR was poised to raid Hutu arms caches, Annan's deputy forbade him to do so. Instead Dallaire was instructed to notify the Rwandan President, Juvénal Habyarimana, and the Western ambassadors of the informant's claims. Though Dallaire battled by phone with New York, and confirmed the reliability of the informant, his political masters told him plainly and consistently that the United States in particular would not support aggressive peacekeeping.
Philip Gourevich's book on Rwanda describes things in similar terms: and if we're to indict Annan, it's at arm's length. As Iqbal Riza, Annan's deputy said, 'I was responsible... This is not to say that Mr. Annan was oblivious of what was going on.' Not oblivious, but in no real position to act, since UNAMIR was unco-ordinated in the face of genocide, and also under-resourced.
Blame Clinton if you like. He blames himself these days. But such glib re-readings are apparently the modus operandi of TNR these days. And there's a reason for editorials like this: smearing Annan is good politics at a time when the UN is set to be cast into the dirt for the benefit of people such as serial UN-pisstaker Ariel Sharon. When smear campaigners such as 'Honest'Reporting laud Marty Peretz for his blithe obeisance, the reek extends from that noxious little squat in north London across the whole city.
Is there some law that UN Sec Gen's must now be little brown skinned tempests from impoverished nations?
Ah, speaking of noxious emissions. You obviously pine for the days of Kurt Waldheim, paleocon. Now go and shit somewhere private.
posted by riviera at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2002
When Dallaire notified Kofi Annan's office that UNAMIR was poised to raid Hutu arms caches, Annan's deputy forbade him to do so. Instead Dallaire was instructed to notify the Rwandan President, Juvénal Habyarimana, and the Western ambassadors of the informant's claims. Though Dallaire battled by phone with New York, and confirmed the reliability of the informant, his political masters told him plainly and consistently that the United States in particular would not support aggressive peacekeeping.
Philip Gourevich's book on Rwanda describes things in similar terms: and if we're to indict Annan, it's at arm's length. As Iqbal Riza, Annan's deputy said, 'I was responsible... This is not to say that Mr. Annan was oblivious of what was going on.' Not oblivious, but in no real position to act, since UNAMIR was unco-ordinated in the face of genocide, and also under-resourced.
Blame Clinton if you like. He blames himself these days. But such glib re-readings are apparently the modus operandi of TNR these days. And there's a reason for editorials like this: smearing Annan is good politics at a time when the UN is set to be cast into the dirt for the benefit of people such as serial UN-pisstaker Ariel Sharon. When smear campaigners such as 'Honest'Reporting laud Marty Peretz for his blithe obeisance, the reek extends from that noxious little squat in north London across the whole city.
Is there some law that UN Sec Gen's must now be little brown skinned tempests from impoverished nations?
Ah, speaking of noxious emissions. You obviously pine for the days of Kurt Waldheim, paleocon. Now go and shit somewhere private.
posted by riviera at 7:52 PM on October 3, 2002
Interesting link and I am glad you posted it. However it seems to be yet another chance for the New Republic to compromise its original values so it can defend Israel. Maybe that's bullshit and I am misreading it, but that is such a part of New Republic culture these days, to use their own turn of phrase. But anyway thanks for posting Semmi, it may be kind of a bullshit article but it's well written and thought provoking and not a newslink so peace.
posted by chaz at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by chaz at 8:00 PM on October 3, 2002
No riviera, it was just you talking about noxious emissions, and Clinton.
posted by paleocon at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2002
posted by paleocon at 8:08 PM on October 3, 2002
Semmi please you did so. The article states that Annan refused to evacuate a source prior to 800k getting killed. You said Annan's philosophy "costs over 7,000 lives at Srebrenica, and 800,000 in Rwanda alone".
Riviera and cx do a good job of breaking down the political reality that must be dealt with in the UN. The Atlantic article is very good. Highly rec.
TNR is doing an incompetent & spurious hatchet job in order to further the political goals of the Bush administration and TNR's good fortune with idiots unable to think or recall history. There are huge problems which could be addressed to the UN or to Annan. The article is just nonsense in order to undercut the authority of the UN. I'd say the UN does a great job of undercutting its own authority, thank you very much, and doesn't need the piss poor bullshit being spewed by TNR.
With the logic you propose semmi in your paraphrase Bush 41 is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's over the last decade. Do you think that is the case?
I don't think that is anymore the case than that Annan is responsible for 807k deaths.
posted by filchyboy at 8:17 PM on October 3, 2002
Riviera and cx do a good job of breaking down the political reality that must be dealt with in the UN. The Atlantic article is very good. Highly rec.
TNR is doing an incompetent & spurious hatchet job in order to further the political goals of the Bush administration and TNR's good fortune with idiots unable to think or recall history. There are huge problems which could be addressed to the UN or to Annan. The article is just nonsense in order to undercut the authority of the UN. I'd say the UN does a great job of undercutting its own authority, thank you very much, and doesn't need the piss poor bullshit being spewed by TNR.
With the logic you propose semmi in your paraphrase Bush 41 is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi's over the last decade. Do you think that is the case?
I don't think that is anymore the case than that Annan is responsible for 807k deaths.
posted by filchyboy at 8:17 PM on October 3, 2002
Is there some law that UN Sec Gen's must now be little brown skinned tempests from impoverished nations?
Thanks for the update. Why don't you check in again when civilization comes to western Michigan?
posted by goethean at 9:09 PM on October 3, 2002
Thanks for the update. Why don't you check in again when civilization comes to western Michigan?
posted by goethean at 9:09 PM on October 3, 2002
Riviera and filchboy: I don't profess to have privileged inside information and I don't condescend to calling information dirty names because it doesn't fit my mindset.
The fact is that mass murder took place and no action was taken to stop the atrocities by, among others, the UN who had observers in those places, who had the information about the killings, and who stepped aside to observe. I appreciate the links you offered, and here is one for you, via the Atlantic, with the following quoted from it.
What happened in Rwanda was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. It had been under preparation for months, preparations made in the presence of two-and-a-half-thousand UN peacekeepers. UN troops had informants from within the Interhamwe who were telling them about the plans. This information was being sent to UN headquarters in New York.
TELEX SOUND
Reader: Force Commander put in contact with informant by very, very important government politician. Informant is a top-level trainer in the Cadre of Interhamwe armed militia. He has been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis.
Bronwyn Adcock: This cable warning of the organisation of a genocide arrived in New York on January 11th, 1994, three months before the genocide. It was sent by the UN's Force Commander on the ground in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire.
Dallaire and his force of UN peacekeepers were there to monitor peace accords. Instead an informant was telling them about far darker plans. Dallaire wanted to take action by raiding the stored weapons, ending his cable to New York with:
Reader: Where there's a will, there's a way. Let's go.
Bronwyn Adcock: But there was no will. This cable went directly to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO. The head of this department at the time was Kofi Annan. Annan refused General Dallaire permission to act. The critical information in this cable was only given to the Embassies of the United States, France and Belgium in Rwanda. The United Nations Security Council was never told. In fact this cable remained a secret till it was leaked nearly two years after the genocide.
Today the UN says it was an error of judgement not to take that cable more seriously. Kofi Annan is now the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His spokesperson is Fred Eckhardt.
Fred Eckhardt: Looking back to the early days of '94 when we first received the famous cable of January, I guess we can say now that had we known how serious the intentions were, and how well organised the opposition was, we should have made a lot more noise than we did.
Bronwyn Adcock: Evidence is mounting however, that the UN should have known just how serious the intentions were. The cable of January 11th is not an isolated piece of information. A wider picture of the UN's knowledge is now emerging."
posted by semmi at 9:20 PM on October 3, 2002
The fact is that mass murder took place and no action was taken to stop the atrocities by, among others, the UN who had observers in those places, who had the information about the killings, and who stepped aside to observe. I appreciate the links you offered, and here is one for you, via the Atlantic, with the following quoted from it.
What happened in Rwanda was not a spontaneous outbreak of violence. It had been under preparation for months, preparations made in the presence of two-and-a-half-thousand UN peacekeepers. UN troops had informants from within the Interhamwe who were telling them about the plans. This information was being sent to UN headquarters in New York.
TELEX SOUND
Reader: Force Commander put in contact with informant by very, very important government politician. Informant is a top-level trainer in the Cadre of Interhamwe armed militia. He has been ordered to register all Tutsi in Kigali. He suspects it is for their extermination. Example he gave was that in 20 minutes his personnel could kill up to 1000 Tutsis.
Bronwyn Adcock: This cable warning of the organisation of a genocide arrived in New York on January 11th, 1994, three months before the genocide. It was sent by the UN's Force Commander on the ground in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire.
Dallaire and his force of UN peacekeepers were there to monitor peace accords. Instead an informant was telling them about far darker plans. Dallaire wanted to take action by raiding the stored weapons, ending his cable to New York with:
Reader: Where there's a will, there's a way. Let's go.
Bronwyn Adcock: But there was no will. This cable went directly to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO. The head of this department at the time was Kofi Annan. Annan refused General Dallaire permission to act. The critical information in this cable was only given to the Embassies of the United States, France and Belgium in Rwanda. The United Nations Security Council was never told. In fact this cable remained a secret till it was leaked nearly two years after the genocide.
Today the UN says it was an error of judgement not to take that cable more seriously. Kofi Annan is now the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His spokesperson is Fred Eckhardt.
Fred Eckhardt: Looking back to the early days of '94 when we first received the famous cable of January, I guess we can say now that had we known how serious the intentions were, and how well organised the opposition was, we should have made a lot more noise than we did.
Bronwyn Adcock: Evidence is mounting however, that the UN should have known just how serious the intentions were. The cable of January 11th is not an isolated piece of information. A wider picture of the UN's knowledge is now emerging."
posted by semmi at 9:20 PM on October 3, 2002
Semmi I appreciate that post. I completely agree that the UN is complicit. I also agree the Annan and others in a large number of different nations and NGOs were complicit.
I hope that you can see though that the situation is far too involved to make a one to one correlation between 807k deaths and one mans philosophy of governance of a very large multi national institution. I understand, and to be honest I was aware of these links and quotes before this thread, that Annan was intimately involved in much of what you outline in the previous post.
I am often more concerned with process than I am with some sort of judgement. IMHO your post would have greatly benefitted from laying out some of the above quotes from a multitude of sources rather than rely soley on the very contextually loaded TNR piece and a hastily drawn correlation between Annan's philosophy and death.
posted by filchyboy at 11:33 PM on October 3, 2002
I hope that you can see though that the situation is far too involved to make a one to one correlation between 807k deaths and one mans philosophy of governance of a very large multi national institution. I understand, and to be honest I was aware of these links and quotes before this thread, that Annan was intimately involved in much of what you outline in the previous post.
I am often more concerned with process than I am with some sort of judgement. IMHO your post would have greatly benefitted from laying out some of the above quotes from a multitude of sources rather than rely soley on the very contextually loaded TNR piece and a hastily drawn correlation between Annan's philosophy and death.
posted by filchyboy at 11:33 PM on October 3, 2002
Is there some law that UN Sec Gen's must now be little brown skinned tempests from impoverished nations?
Yeah, yeah we know - some of your best friends are black.
posted by niceness at 3:37 AM on October 4, 2002
Yeah, yeah we know - some of your best friends are black.
posted by niceness at 3:37 AM on October 4, 2002
semmi, that transcript's helpful, but again it fudges the critical detail of who handled the telegram from Dallaire:
The cable went directly to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO. The head of this department at the time was Kofi Annan. Annan refused General Dallaire permission to act.
See the logical implication? The assumption is that everything which went through the office was handled personally by Annan. It wasn't. That's on the record. Now, you can talk about sins of omission, a breakdown of communications and so on, but you have to acknowledge the roles of the personnel outlined in the links I posted. which this piece doesn't. I know that the radio/TV format imposes limitations, but it shouldn't be at the expense of shifting the blame onto one man.
posted by riviera at 3:39 AM on October 4, 2002
The cable went directly to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, DPKO. The head of this department at the time was Kofi Annan. Annan refused General Dallaire permission to act.
See the logical implication? The assumption is that everything which went through the office was handled personally by Annan. It wasn't. That's on the record. Now, you can talk about sins of omission, a breakdown of communications and so on, but you have to acknowledge the roles of the personnel outlined in the links I posted. which this piece doesn't. I know that the radio/TV format imposes limitations, but it shouldn't be at the expense of shifting the blame onto one man.
posted by riviera at 3:39 AM on October 4, 2002
Riviera, if the same type of "mistake" occurred, say in the "office" of the President, would you or the press, or most of America be as forgiving? Captain of the ship and all that.
posted by Shike at 4:26 AM on October 4, 2002
posted by Shike at 4:26 AM on October 4, 2002
if the same type of "mistake" occurred, say in the "office" of the President, would you or the press, or most of America be as forgiving?
Most of us wouldn't, the press however...
posted by niceness at 4:31 AM on October 4, 2002
Most of us wouldn't, the press however...
posted by niceness at 4:31 AM on October 4, 2002
if the same type of "mistake" occurred, say in the "office" of the President, would you or the press, or most of America be as forgiving?
Well, I'd want to know who did what, and when. And there's also a big difference between an under-funded, under-regarded UN department, and the White House. And the office of the UN Secretary-General for that matter.
Let me get this clear: I'm not trying to absolve Annan here. But those seeking to blame him personally and exclusively for the genocide in Rwanda are either ignorant of the facts, or have an axe to grind. This article plays fast and loose with the facts, so I suspect the latter. Check back in a week or so, and see what TNR's letters page says.
posted by riviera at 8:09 AM on October 4, 2002
Well, I'd want to know who did what, and when. And there's also a big difference between an under-funded, under-regarded UN department, and the White House. And the office of the UN Secretary-General for that matter.
Let me get this clear: I'm not trying to absolve Annan here. But those seeking to blame him personally and exclusively for the genocide in Rwanda are either ignorant of the facts, or have an axe to grind. This article plays fast and loose with the facts, so I suspect the latter. Check back in a week or so, and see what TNR's letters page says.
posted by riviera at 8:09 AM on October 4, 2002
I am often more concerned with process than I am with some sort of judgement. IMHO your post would have greatly benefitted from laying out some of the above quotes from a multitude of sources rather than rely soley on the very contextually loaded TNR piece and a hastily drawn correlation between Annan's philosophy and death.
filchyboy: That's where we differ. As I'm not a bureaucrat temperamentally or otherwise, I am more concerned with the outcomes in real terms then with the processes, which cannot ever be quite nailed down and are always open to interpretations, as in the contextually loaded TNR piece, which I found inductively appropriate, particularly, as Riviera so brightly pointed out, it reflects on the UN's and Annan's capability, as we are attempting again to rely on their "processes."
But in any case, instead of propaganda, I was more interested in the paradoxical nature of the concern for human rights, and at the same time, the philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence in the face of genocide and dictators, and the cost in human lives and suffering such posturing incur.
Let me get this clear: I'm not trying to absolve Annan here. But those seeking to blame him personally and exclusively for the genocide in Rwanda are either ignorant of the facts, or have an axe to grind.
riviera: I must bow to yor all exclusive knowledge and ability to rephrase everything to your monomania, as clearly you have no ax to grind.
posted by semmi at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2002
filchyboy: That's where we differ. As I'm not a bureaucrat temperamentally or otherwise, I am more concerned with the outcomes in real terms then with the processes, which cannot ever be quite nailed down and are always open to interpretations, as in the contextually loaded TNR piece, which I found inductively appropriate, particularly, as Riviera so brightly pointed out, it reflects on the UN's and Annan's capability, as we are attempting again to rely on their "processes."
But in any case, instead of propaganda, I was more interested in the paradoxical nature of the concern for human rights, and at the same time, the philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence in the face of genocide and dictators, and the cost in human lives and suffering such posturing incur.
Let me get this clear: I'm not trying to absolve Annan here. But those seeking to blame him personally and exclusively for the genocide in Rwanda are either ignorant of the facts, or have an axe to grind.
riviera: I must bow to yor all exclusive knowledge and ability to rephrase everything to your monomania, as clearly you have no ax to grind.
posted by semmi at 12:10 PM on October 4, 2002
I don't think the article has as much to do with blaming Annan as with blaming the timelag ineffectualities of the United Nations. The UN, I think, is best suited as a diplomatic meeting-place - nothing more, nothing less.
posted by Kevs at 12:50 PM on October 4, 2002
posted by Kevs at 12:50 PM on October 4, 2002
« Older The eXile's Gary Brecher, | U.S. Has No Right to Invade Iraq, Canada Says Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Annan may be a timid politician. He may be incompetent. He may even disagree with your political stance. But its just plain bullshit to claim that his actions resulted in 807k deaths. Please think! As folks are wont to claim it was the highjackers who killed people on September 11th, not the actions of the United States. The same statement can be applied in this situation.
posted by filchyboy at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2002