10 Years After: The Rwandan Genocide And The Future Of The United Nations

For 100 days in 1994, while the United Nations looked on, more than 800,000 Rwanda Tutsis were slaughtered wholesale by their Hutu cousins. On April 6, 1994, Rwandan President Habyarimana's plane was shot down near the Kilgali airport. The killings began that night.

Thousands died on the first day. Some U.N. camps sheltered civilians, but most of the U.N. peacekeeping forces (UNAMIR – United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda) stood by while the slaughter went on. They were forbidden to intervene, as this would breach their "monitoring" mandate.

The next day, 10 Belgian soldiers with the UNAMIR assigned to guard the moderate Hutu prime minister were tricked into surrendering their weapons. They were tortured and slaughtered. One week later, Belgium withdrew from UNAMIR. A week after that, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to withdraw most of the UNAMIR troops, cutting the force from 2,500 to 270.

Commenting on the genocide ongoing in Rwanda, President Clinton told the press corps:

"... I mention it only because there are a sizable number of Americans there and it is a very tense situation. And I just want to assure the families of those who are there that we are doing everything we possibly can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to try to assure the safety of our citizens there."

By this time, the Red Cross estimated that tens of thousands of Rwandans had already been slaughtered.

The day after Clinton's comments, France and Belgium sent troops to rescue their citizens. American civilians were also airlifted out. No Rwandans were rescued – not even Rwandans employed by Western governments in their embassies, consulates, etc.

On April 30, the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution condemning the killing, but omitted the word "genocide." Had the term been used, the United Nations would have been legally obliged to act to "prevent and punish" the perpetrators. It wasn't until mid June that the Security Council authorized the deployment of forces to create a "safe haven" in the south where the killings continued unabated until mid-July. Between 800,000 and 1,000,000 men, women and children were brutally slaughtered while the West did nothing.

After the killings ended, the United Nations trotted out its tribunal to conduct show trials of less than 200 suspects. In 10 years, it has tried half of them, at a cost of more than 1 billion dollars.

Now this is the organization to which the liberals of this country want us to turn over the defense of our country. They talk about the goodwill we squandered after the 9-11 attacks. They rail against the president for not getting a greater coalition together before charging to the defense of this country when the available intelligence indicated we were in imminent peril.

And who were the staunch allies that we failed to enlist in our defense? France, Germany, Russia and the United Nations. And why did they not join our cause? Because they had illegal oil deals with Saddam Hussein that amounted to billions of dollars. Might this not have been the reason for their foot-dragging? I don't know about you, but I prefer to keep the defense of this country under the control of our elected officials. Not in the hands of proven cheats and totally ineffective defenders – most of whom hate us anyway.

Meanwhile, in Rwanda, bodies still remain unburied throughout the country. No international aid package of any substance has found its way to Rwanda since the killings ended. It took until 1998 for Kofi Annan to acknowledge the U.N.'s guilt, and he has yet to take concrete steps to help the survivors.

The Bible foretold the existence of a global government in the last days, and the United Nations thinks that it is it, but it isn't. The United Nations governs nothing, meddles in everything, and everywhere it interferes, it leaves chaos in its wake.

Let's face it. The United Nations is useless, but its infrastructure is critical. The U.N.'s many global institutions are now indispensable to international relations, particularly those governing trade.

The Bible prophets elaborately predict the role of global government in the last days. It will be assumed by a revived Roman Empire in Europe. It is no coincidence that the European Union is uniquely positioned to pick up the pieces in the event of a U.N. collapse.

And I do not believe it is a coincidence that the calls for the United States to pull out of the United Nations grow louder each year. While Europe waits in the wings.

Never in history has this complete predicted scenario of events totally come together as they now have. Jesus Christ said about this time, "So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He (Jesus Christ) is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away" (Matthew 24:33-35).

Remind leftists of this atrocity every time they call for the United States to 'wait on the United Nations' to give its assent.

Commenting on the genocide ongoing in Rwanda, President Clinton told the press corps:
"... I mention it only because there are a sizable number of Americans there and it is a very tense situation. And I just want to assure the families of those who are there that we are doing everything we possibly can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to try to assure the safety of our citizens there."

Why aren't blacks in this country enraged over the Left's lack of response to this? Who has ever really been called to account for this? Surely not Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton.

I know, let's blame George Bush.

Crosslinked:

-"No Blood for Oil"- Kojo & Kofi: Unbelievable U.N. stories--

...and as my old pal from long-defunct forums, ALOHA RONNIE, likes to say, "never forget!"

I would submit that as brutal and tragic and horrible as this was, the well-being, security, and future of the United States did not hang in the balance, and that the only obligation of the US was to the safety and security of her citizens in Rwanda. If we had stepped into that mess, we WOULD have another Vietnam on our hands.

As fas as what the UN did or did not do, said or did not say, who cares? We, the US, should have nothing to do with the UN, and what they do or say should not affect us. They can do what they want, just don't expect us to come running.

Leave it to Slick Willie, though. His response here was, I think, appropriate, yet he gladly intervened - under the auspices of the UN, no less - in the Balkans. Horribly inconsistent, consistently horrible foreign policy.

The only reason that people keep ignorantly referring to our involvement in Vietnam in the negative is because we did not win the war. Why? Because we were incapable of winning? Hardly. It is because our leaders were yellow and a handful of snot-nosed anti-war protesters who should have been jailed or killed were given more media coverage than our soldiers.

Our soldiers, U.S. soldiers, killed exponentially more NVA and VC than was ever reported. We could have stacked their corpses like cordwood from Saigon to Hanoi. And we would have won if our leaders would have lead from conviction instead of polling data. Clinton didn't go into Rwanda for one simple reason. There was no mandate to do so.

If a similar situation arose in Great Britain, would you be content to fold your arms and watch from this side of the Atlantic? Do you think that stopping the Holocaust would have been enough of a reason to invade Germany?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.