John Doe in Hell

Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire, Carroll & Graf, 562 pages, $30

The saddest story is of the impossibility of necessary things. It is necessary that the United Nations prevent genocide. It is also impossible for it to do so. The proof is Rwanda, where 800,000 people died in 100 days in the spring of 1994, in plain view of a small group of UN peacekeepers. And how did the UN answer the anguished pleas of the peacekeepers? It expressed concern, it expressed deep concern, it condemned, it strongly condemned, it demanded, it called upon, it invited, and (playing its trump card) it decided to remain actively seized of the matter.

What little it did do, it tried to undo. It sent a person wholly ignorant of warfare—a Canadian general—to oversee a peacekeeping operation when there was peace, and then tried to hobble him when there was war. Lt. Gen. Roméo Dallaire’s Shake Hands with the Devil tells the story. The book has won prizes in Canada but is little known in this country, and that is a scandal. The book should be read by all of us as penance for smug indifference to evil during a low, dishonest decade.

General Dallaire is a passionate man, a deeply religious Catholic with an extraordinary story to tell. He is an instinctively loyal person, who found in the army a mistress, a muse, and a family. Before he graduated from high school, he went on a retreat where an old Army padre heard his confession. “He was a bit of a mess, his black soutane stained with ketchup, his ill-shaven face pale, his eyes bloodshot. And there was me, with my bony knees pressed into the cold, stone floor.” The padre asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. Well, said Dallaire, I’ve applied to the Royal Military College. “Ah, soldiers,” said the padre. “You know, soldiers are very unusual people. On the outside they are the hardest, most demanding, severe people, but underneath that, they are the most human, the most feeling, the most emotionally attached people who exist.” That expressed exactly what Dallaire had seen in his father and his army buddies. “I wanted more of that feeling.”

When Dallaire was posted to the UN he had no idea what was in store for him. “Rwanda, that’s in Africa, isn’t it?” he asked. He had never seen combat and felt like a fireman who had never seen a fire. He wondered how he would react when he came to be tested. But being tested was never supposed to be in the cards. Instead, he was to lead a small group of soldiers to oversee a peace accord between two warring factions. He asked for 5,000 soldiers and was given half that many: none from Canada or the United States, some first-rate soldiers from Africa, and some terrible ones from other parts of the world.

Nothing Dallaire had ever seen prepared him for the génocidaires he would meet in Rwanda. He saw them first, before the genocide, as reasonable people not unlike himself. They had studied in the West, often in Québec; they read the same books and watched the same news. He thought he had taken their measure; but they had taken his. They had concluded, correctly, that Western nations would stand down before a slaughter, so long as it happened in Africa.

Dallaire’s test came quickly. When he heard of a plot to massacre civilians, Dallaire decided to raid an arms cache. He wired his intentions to his superior at the UN, General Maurice Baril of Québec. “Peux ce que veux,” he concluded. You can do what you want to do. “Allons-y!” The response came back the next day, from Kofi Annan. Do nothing, it said. Worse still, the information was shared with a Rwandan extremist who had a seat on the Security Council.

The UN mindset was typified by its special representative to Rwanda, Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh. The Waughian name should have been a tip-off. Booh-Booh kept bankers’ hours throughout the slaughter and chiefly concerned himself with his limousines and oriental carpets. Other UN bureaucrats on site worried about procedures for requisitions in the midst of genocide.

To comprehend the horror of Rwanda, one must understand just how long it takes to kill 800,000 people when the murderers use machetes. They would trap their victims in a church, and then slowly, methodically, hack away. Hours later they might tire and sleep. Or move on to another church. Then the priests would move in to comfort the survivors and the dying.

While the UN shirked the issue, Dallaire sat through a season in hell. Friends would call up for help. And then there would be people outside. Dallaire would hear screams, shots, and the silence of a dead line. Through all this, he bravely stayed on. When the UN wished to bring all peacekeepers home, he announced his decision to remain, like Gordon at Khartoum. He watched as the French and Belgians evacuated the whites and left the blacks to die. His troops were cut to 250 soldiers, who were powerless to stop the killings. “Ultimately, led by the United States, France and the United Kingdom, [the UN] aided and abetted genocide in Rwanda.”

The genocide took an enormous personal toll on Dallaire. He washed out of the Canadian Army five years ago. A few years later he was found one morning, drunk, on an Ottawa park bench. But he did not return from hell empty-handed. His book is the best explanation of how “Never again!” turned into “From time to time,” of how Darfur can happen today.

The book is informed by a Catholic sensibility throughout. Near the very end, Dallaire asks a question which those raised in a certain milieu will find as familiar as beads and incense. “Is the human condition not defined by an endless struggle to control the ego’s subterfuges?” Think quickly of current writers, politicians, pundits. Who among them would find that question meaningful?

And who among us asks the question? Dallaire accepts personal responsibility for standing watch over a genocide, for shaking hands with the devil. As for Bill Clinton, who prevented the UN from stopping the genocide but felt the pain of Rwanda, a mumbled apology years later wiped away all sins. He was sorry all those people died. He rather felt as though something should have been done by someone, somewhere. He did nothing. But then we don’t blame people who do nothing. Instead, we blame people like George W. Bush who do act to topple bloodthirsty dictators. Say what you like about Clinton, but he represented his constituents. Which includes you and me.

F. H. Buckley is an associate dean at the George Mason School of Law and the author of The Morality of Laughter (University of Michigan Press, 2004) and Just Exchange (Routledge, 2005).

Why does our society trivialize genocide? It has become much more apparrent how pervasive the 'culture of death' has become in our secular society. In the past week we have learned more about Saddam Hussain's mass graves, yet it seems that there is little outrage. We were outraged by rape/murders of the little girls from Florida. I too felt the horror, anger and sadness of the stories; and physically reacted in my throat and chest when heard the details. But what happened in Rwanda and Iraq still doesn't seem to phase people. It seems like so people refuse to even contemplate Saddam Hussain's murderous regime as they wish he had never been toppled. Are the secular left and media racist, whereas the lives of the so many Africans and Kurds are valued so much less than the girls from Florida. On the other hand, would the media and NY/Massachuesettes Senators have been quiet it Rwanda occurred on GW's watch (I have faith that GW would not have let this occur)?

Also, the review has a great quote about soldiers by a priest.

It's a given that Demoncrats thrive on death.

BTW, did I miss something?

Is George Bush doing anything about Rwanda?

It was going on under Clinton and under the first term of George Bush. Now we are in his second term. Again, what is GW doing about this ongoing atrocity?

For one thing, we have a media and a "compassion" industry that would rather take the safe road, which is to bash their own country, which will not retaliate upon them in the middle of the night.

I don't ever remember hearing of one casualty-counter when Saddam was still in power.

I am certainly no expert on the situation, but according to the review/book Dallaire wanted to take action to prevent at least some of the genocide and he was prevented by Annan - and likely Clinton was involved in that decision.

The events took place in 1994.

Current wars are underway in Congo, involving half a dozen African countries, and a tiny UN contingent to catalogue the dead.

And then there is the Darfur, where we have sponsored a small contingent of Rwandan troops as security for the camps, and where a small contingent of US troops are acting as observers.

Its a pretty unsatisfying response.

We did help to end the Liberia slaughter, by organizing the arrival of other African troops and forcing the president to step aside.

But I won't be satisfied until something more concrete is done in the South Sudan, but its unlikely we will do much more than we are doing. We are looking for third parties to get involved, but there aren't any interested either. So basically we are holding meetings while the killing continues.

Sending the UN in to stop any situation like Rwanda, Sudan or the Congo is like pissing in the wind. It don't do any good to send in troops if you are going to order them to stand around and watch and not get involved.

Clinton sent troops into Somalia and then when we got our nose bloodied he pulled the troops out. The military felt the shame of cutting and running, Clinton felt nothing because he has no soul.

At least GWB stopped Saddam's slaughter of Iraqis and Kurds.

It is an old old lesson, don't send in the troops if your not serious about using them.

How many ongoing atrocities do you suppose the US can handle at one time. Right now we are dealing with Iraq , almost alone. If we decided to deal with Rwanda we would also be alone, and liberals would be screaming about our going alone. Mugabe threw out all white farmers causing his people to starve, now he has ordered the elephants slaughtered to feed the people, would you have GWB attack Zimbabwe and Rwanda, and how about the starving in No. Korea should we attack them too? Liberals scream we arent the worlds police force, then they scream we arent doing enough. Somebody is full of crap to blame the USA for every starving country in the world. What is the UN doing ? Nothing, We could take the money we are pissing away supporting the UN and the OAS and pay for some food and at least do some good. Europe just keep saying hoiw awful it is they do Nothing. Nothing. and we just cannot carry the whole burden while they attack our economic system.

Why does our society trivialize genocide?

Welcome to Free Republic!

It's because of our tribal roots: we are wired to compete against outsiders while taking care of our own. Genocide is really a new word for human evolution. It's why there are are no Neaderthals still walking around.

Ancient Chinese proverb: He who interferes in others fights often wipes a bloody nose.

I wrote something on that. This is what Pres. Bush's admin is doing:

UN Ambassador John Danforth was sent to negotiate a peace agreement between the government and the southern rebels.

The President signed the "Sudanese Peace Act", allowing sanctions against the Sudanese government and several Sudanese corporations if the peace agreement with the South is stalled and if the flow of humanitarian aid is obstructed.

Ambassador Danforth criticized the lack of UN involvement and urged the world body to act in Darfur.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the situation in Darfur a "genocide", consequently putting pressure on the world community to take action.

Military cargo planes have been utilized to transport
African peacekeepers into Darfur.

The US has proposed a UN resolution on Sudan that includes peacekeeping operations and a war crimes tribunal.

Over $1.7 billion has been allotted for humanitarian aid and reconstruction.

"How many ongoing atrocities do you suppose the US can handle at one time. Right now we are dealing with Iraq , almost alone. If we decided to deal with Rwanda we would also be alone, and liberals would be screaming about our going alone. Mugabe threw out all white farmers causing his people to starve, now he has ordered the elephants slaughtered to feed the people, would you have GWB attack Zimbabwe and Rwanda, and how about the starving in No. Korea should we attack them too? Liberals scream we arent the worlds police force, then they scream we arent doing enough. Somebody is full of crap to blame the USA for every starving country in the world. What is the UN doing ? Nothing, We could take the money we are pissing away supporting the UN and the OAS and pay for some food and at least do some good. Europe just keep saying hoiw awful it is they do Nothing. Nothing. and we just cannot carry the whole burden while they attack our economic system."

I don't expect the U.S. to handle everything but the U.S. certainly doesn't have to go around raping victims its trying to "help".

I say, pull out of the U.N. and use that money to help Zimbabwe and Rwanda.

Liberals are NEVER happy. They NEVER have any answers. All liberals do is criticize their opposition.

Welcome to FR!

I think Americans are sadly distracted with a number of other issues; human fingers in hamburgers, runaway brides and such. Not to say that the situation in Africa isn't grave, but the media just isn't making the issue such a big deal. Isn't this what organizations like the UN are supposed to be for?? Aren't we already footing so much of the bill for such 'undelivered services'??

I'm hopeful that John Bolton is cleared to go to the UN. I hope that he is able to effect change and, in the very likely event that he can't by himself, I hope that he p_sses-off a lot of those liberal smacks up there in Turtle Bay. I hope that he yells at people and makes them uncomfortable and bad about themselves.

Curiously, if Daillure's book is such a commodity of national penance in the land of the Maple Leaf, exactly what are they doing about it?? Lest we not forget what country Monsieur Kerry supporters were going to flee to after the '04 election.

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.