Yugoslavia, Rwanda massacres were avoidable, says Annan

AFP ^ | 27 January 2004

[fdsa2]

STOCKHOLM, Jan 26: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said on Monday that the slaughters in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s could have been prevented if the world had taken action as he opened the first international genocide conference in over 50 years.

"There can be no more important issue, and no more binding obligation, than the prevention of genocide," Mr Annan told ten heads of state and officials from dozens of nations gathered for the three-day conference hosted by Sweden.

The UN chief singled out as "especially shameful" the failure by the international community to take action in the former Yugoslavia during the wars of secession in the early 1990s and the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

"The events of the 1990s, in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda, are especially shameful. The international community clearly had the capacity to prevent these events. But it lacked the will," Mr Annan said.

He said those memories were "especially painful" for the United Nations. "In Rwanda in 1994, and at Srebrenica in 1995, we had peacekeeping troops on the ground at the very place and time where genocidal acts were being committed," he said. "Instead of reinforcing our troops, we withdrew them."

More than 7,000 Muslim men and boys were killed when Serb forces captured the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995 and the massacre is known as Europe's worst atrocity since World War II.

Mr Annan himself has been criticised for the failure of the United Nations to respond to warnings that Rwanda was descending into bloodshed that claimed the lives of up to one million Tutsis and Hutu moderate. Annan was head of UN peacekeeping operations during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Among the delegates at the "Preventing Genocide" conference were heads of state or government from Armenia and Latvia. Israel is taking part in the conference, although it sent a low-level representation after coming close to boycotting the conference during a diplomatic row with Sweden over an art exhibit a week ago.

Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Persson, the only western European leader attending the conference, said that nations had no choice but to work together to "prevent future mass murders".

During mass killings in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia, "the world stood paralysed", Mr Persson said. "And we can offer no guarantees, it can happen again," Mr Persson said. He added that lack of information was not the main problem, as eyewitness accounts of atrocities spread around the world quickly, thanks to modern technology.

"We do not lack the information, but we have to improve our ability to believe it, to believe the unbelievable," Persson said. The conference is the first major inter-governmental conference focussing on genocide since the adoption of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, conference spokesman Stig Berglind told AFP ahead of the meeting.

Some governments sent justice ministers, whose portfolio include international law, and others have dispatched specialised academics and researchers.

The European Union is represented by foreign policy chief Javier Solana.Security was tight in the centre of Stockholm as police cordoned off streets around the Norra Latin conference centre and put up barriers and tape to prevent cars from parking nearby.

Organizers stressed that the talks are to focus on the future, and will be based on "the principle of the international community's joint responsibility for preventing genocide". But Mr Persson also said that any credible preventive strategy must include provisions for the worst case, when atrocities do occur. "Potential perpetrators of genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing must know that their crimes will not go unpunished," he said. The conference closes Wednesday, and organisers said they hoped for a final declaration and follow-up conferences. -AFP

[fdsa2]

This further reinforces the need for us in Europe to cease to rely on the US to bail us out every time. EU must have a streghtened defence cooperation and Sweden must abandon the cold war porcupine defence strategies and get some aircraft carriers and nuclear subs.

[camle]

where was the UN when these massacres were taking place???? Waiting for somebody (The US) to act unilaterally so they could condemn them.

Annan is such a jerk. when the UN is needed they aren't there. When somebody does their dirty work for them, they cmoplain about getting their toes stepped on.

worse than useless.

[Adder]

What a whine. But the Swede pegged it: they can't guarantee that it won't happen again somewhere else.
"Rely on the UN.." is the mantra of the lefties....they should be involved in our policy decisions, the UN is the answer and the rest of that bilge.
The UN is nothing but a strutting capon. At the first sign of difficulty they run.
Abandon them to their fate of irrevelancy. Don't send them one more dime.

[mewzilla]

Hmmmm...Stockholm. Does one of the city's museums still have that salute to homicide bomers on its wall? Gee, great place to have a conference on genocide.

[mewzilla]

bomers=bombers

[camle]

wonder if they'll bring ginger spice to give a presentation...

[fdsa2]

UN is not stronger than its weakest members. In its current form and the problems nations have to act in the face of genocides etc. one has to find other solutions.

In my opinion the UN is a good institution but now it´s only a discussion forum and one more departement on genocide will solve nothing.

[Doc-Joe]

UN is useless bump

[mewzilla]

I hope the Iraqis sue the UN till the cows come home. The billions the Iraqis have coming to them from the Oil For Food program should be able to provide for a heck of a lot. Where's a law firm when ya need one?

[ClearCase_guy]

I bet that if North Korea sent its army south, and started massacring civilians, the UN would spend a few months passing a resolution to send inspectors there. And then condemn the US for having already won the war.

While it is not wrong to say the UN is useless, it is more accurate to say that the UN is evil.

[fdsa2]

Why is it evil?

[exit82]

I'd have to disagree with you, my Swedish friend.

The UN is useless. It should be called the Useless Nations.

As an American, it is clear to me that unless the US is involved, nothing gets done. And Clinton and Albright are just as complicit as Annan in the 1994 Rwandan massacres.
Yet the world just loves Billy Boy and Kofi Annan--they are such wonderful folks, don't you think?

But George Bush makes the UN take a stand against a dictator, and all hell breaks lose against him and against the United States.

You have to understand that from our point of view, after having our taxes bankroll, and our sons and daughters being sent away to ensure, the safety and security of the rest of the world for the last 60 years, we are damn tired of the rest of the world acting in judgment when they don't do a damn thing to help(present helpers in Iraq excluded).

For Kofi Annan to speak out like this is the height of hypocrisy. This man has the blood of hundreds of thousands on his hands, plus he was complicit in the UN oil program with Iraq which enriched various UN officials and the UN.

From this American, we have had it with the rest of the world and their ingratitude. We are going to defend our families and our nation against Islamic terrorism, and we don't care if anyone is offended.

And if any country on the face of the earth and in all human history has done more to free oppressed people and not take the spoils of war and conquest, please point it out to me.

We have been the spirit, the financing, and the military and humanitarian arm of the UN since its founding. No one else steps up to the plate other than us. And frankly, we're tired of this thankless job.

The rest of the world can play nice together on their own dime. Then we'll see how far they get. We've already seen how fast they came to the aid of the Iraqi people. The whole rest of the world can't even come up with a third of what we Americans are committing to this nation.

As for me, the sooner we are out of the Useless Nations and they are out of my country, the better.

[ClearCase_guy]

In Rwanda in 1994, the UN was on site and DID NOTHING!! Then thay wrung their hands and said that they wish they had handled it differently.

But this was in the midst of 12 years of UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein (who gassed the Kurds and committed many other crimes) -- but the UN wanted to do Nothing! AND they were upset that the US took action, with a coalition of the willing.

They are terrible hypocrits. They have NEVER acted to remove a butcher from power. They have OFTEN stood in the way of action to remove a butcher from power. They ARE evil.

[fdsa2]

Disagree - more in agreement?! See my comment under the article. The UN in its current form does not work, but there is no better alternative.

[OneRatToGo]

I guess you wouldn't consider the mass graves of Shiites in Iraq to be genocide. That was strictly the internal affairs of a sovereign country.

Stop sending my tax dollars to the UN! Put that money into military spending for my own security.

[ClearCase_guy]

The UN in its current form does not work, but there is no better alternative.

Let's get right to it. As you say: it doesn't work. So, what is the point? I have a design for a car engine: it's a block of wood. It doesn't work either.

Also, as you say: there is no better alternative.

What you just told us is that you believe that there is no international political organization that can do any good. There is no structure or bylaws that can provide a framework for international cooperation. That's what you just said.

And I agree with you. I choose National Sovreignty.

[MrsEmmaPeel]

The UN in its current form does not work, but there is no better alternative.

I disagree. The better alternative is Nothing. Remaining with a system that is broken only makes things worse. As the UN has no mechanism to reform itself, it will never improve but only get worse.

The days of the UN's usefulness are long gone.

[sergeantdave]

The UN bureaucracy is nothing but a bunch of strutting Marxist peacocks looking for their next free hand-out from the United States.

These UN pigs gorging on steak, chicken breasts, pate de foie gras and oysters at the Earth Summit in Sandton, South Africa, while 6,000 African children died each day was loathesome. All the food was paid for by US taxpayers.

US Army tank battalions should use the UN for target practice.

[exit82]

I was replying to your post #7,in which you stated you believe the UN to be a good institution. I could have made that clearer.

The UN won't work in this form or in any other. The rest of the world does not have the innate goodness that is required to selflessly help others. This has been a singular characteristic of the American people more than any other people, the desire to share of God's bounty with those less fortunate.No other nation has demonstrated that to the same proportion as this country.

We had hoped that Europe, especially France and Germany, would have learned from our example in the last 60 years, rebuilding both of those nations. But they chose to stab us in the back; thus I have no use for either of them. Those in Europe will make the bed of their own choosing. And it will not be pretty.

Sorry if I sound jaded. The socialist European countries could develop that way solely because we Americans paid for your defense. Now that we need the world's help, we see who our true friends really are. And surprisingly enough, it isn't those who we've helped the most.

[fdsa2]

What are you talking about? "... guess you would not..." who the hell spoke of the shiites in Iraq - me?

An American genocide researcher constructed a six criterias modell for risk assessment and early warning sign concerning genocide. 1) earlier experience in mass killings or genocide, 2) social unrest, 3)ethnical minorities forming an elite, 4) ideologies that exclude certain people, 5) type of regime and 6) degree of trade relations with the international community.

Sudan, Burma, Burundi, Rwanda and Kongo-Kinshasa fit all six criterias and are the probable hot spots,

China, Algeria, Uganda and Somalia fit four criterias and are possible hot spots and

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Ethiopia fit three criterias and must be followed closely,

There is evidently a much more refined method with over 70 factors being weighed in today.

I however do not know whether the mass killings in Iraq of Shiites constitute genocide, they very well could. The Shiites make out 60 percent of the population in Iraq. I know one thing though. Many of the dead Shiites died as a result of a "uprising" after the last gulf war. Sounds familiar?