hotel-rwanda.com

Chapter 29: The World Turns Away IV: The Bystanders - The UK, Belgium, and the Paralysis of the Security Council

The chamber of the UN Security Council is a secular cathedral, a circular space of polished wood and muted blues designed to inspire sober reflection and project global authority. The great mural of the phoenix rising from the ashes of war looms over the horseshoe table where the fate of nations is decided. In the crucial, blood-soaked month of April 1994, this chamber became a theater of the absurd, a stage for a masterful performance of inaction. The air was still and cool, the translations whispered into earpieces were calm and professional, a universe away from the screams and the stench of death in the hills of Rwanda. The narrative being written here was not one of villains, but of a cast of well-spoken, reasonable men, each acting with impeccable logic in their own nation's perceived self-interest, their collective prudence paving a direct path to hell.

The Belgian ambassador, his face a mask of pale, tight-lipped fury, spoke first. His country was in a state of national trauma. The savage, calculated murder of ten of its elite paracommandos had shattered any remaining illusions about the nature of their mission. His instructions from Brussels, delivered to him by a Prime Minister facing a political firestorm, were absolute. This was not a peacekeeping mission; it was a savage civil war in which they had been deliberately targeted and betrayed. He was not asking for a change in mandate; he was announcing, with immediate effect, the complete and unilateral withdrawal of all Belgian forces. He was pulling his nation out of the fire, a politically necessary act of self-preservation that he, and everyone else in the room, knew meant kicking the cornerstone out of the entire UNAMIR structure.

A desperate, impassioned clarity then came from the chair of the council president, held that month by New Zealand. Ambassador Colin Keating leaned into his microphone, his voice sharp with a frustration that bordered on anguish. He refused to use the sterilized language of diplomacy. "What we are witnessing is not a civil war," he declared, his words a direct challenge to the comfortable narrative of tribal chaos. "It is a genocide. A systematic campaign of extermination." He pleaded with the permanent members for reinforcements, for a shift to a Chapter VII enforcement mandate, for a clear and powerful signal that the world would not stand by. He was joined by the ambassadors from Nigeria and the Czech Republic, their voices echoing his, a small chorus of conscience from the powerless, observers in a play whose script was being written by the great powers.

Then came the performance of the British ambassador, Sir David Hannay, a master of procedure and the English language, a man who wielded bureaucratic logic like a surgeon’s scalpel. He did not speak of murder or of moral obligation. He spoke of "prudence" and of "realism." Haunted by the specter of the UN's bloody and intractable quagmire in Bosnia, his every instinct screamed against being drawn into another. He leaned back in his chair and began to methodically, and brilliantly, dismantle the case for intervention. "Let us be clear," he began, his tone one of reasonable inquiry. "Is there a ceasefire to keep? No. The peace accords are dead. Is there a political settlement to support? No. The government has been slaughtered. Is there a clear objective for a larger force? What would be its mandate? And from where," he asked, looking around the table, "would these troops come, and who would pay for them?" Each question was perfectly reasonable, and each was utterly deadly. He built an unassailable case not for abandonment, but for what he termed a "realistic adjustment" of the mission's mandate. His procedural elegance was a silken shroud for the thousands dying each day.

All eyes turned to the American ambassador, Madeleine Albright. She was a hawk, a forceful advocate for action in Bosnia, but on Rwanda her hands were tied. She sat in a kind of pained, frustrated silence, her instructions from a White House terrified by the ghosts of Somalia absolute. The US would not be involved, and it would not support any robust action that could lead to it being asked for funds, airlift, or resources. Her silence was more powerful than any speech; it was the tacit veto that killed any hope of a real intervention before it could even be seriously proposed. The Chinese and Russian ambassadors listened with quiet, knowing stoicism, content to deliver their rote, single-paragraph statements on the inviolable doctrine of non-intervention in the "internal affairs" of another state.

The final act was the vote on Resolution 912. There was no thunderous debate, only the quiet choreography of capitulation. The culmination of this cynical, risk-averse performance was not a vote to send more troops, but a vote to formally gut the mission, to reduce the UN force to a pathetic handful of 270 soldiers whose only order was to mediate a ceasefire that would never come. In the chamber, it was a moment of quiet, procedural order, the raising of hands a bloodless formality. In Rwanda, the broadcast of the decision was received by the killers with triumphant cheers. It was the death sentence their victims had been dreading, a formal, public declaration of abandonment, a green light from the capitals of the civilized world for the killers to pick up their machetes and finish their work.

The Discourse 29: The Collective Failure of the Global Order

29.1 Belgium's Retreat: The Keystone of Collapse
The paralysis of the UN Security Council was a systemic failure, a cascade of self-interested national decisions that created a perfect storm of inaction. The first and most decisive domino was Belgium. Its decision to unilaterally withdraw its contingent in the wake of the murder of its ten peacekeepers was the single most destructive blow to the UNAMIR mission. The Belgian paracommandos were not just another unit; they were the "keystone" of the entire force—the best-equipped, most professional, and logistically most capable soldiers in Rwanda. Their presence had been the precondition for the participation of other, smaller nations like Bangladesh. As Belgium's own parliamentary commission of inquiry later concluded, their withdrawal, while politically unavoidable at home, constituted a strategic victory for the Hutu Power extremists, who had correctly predicted that murdering European peacekeepers would be the fastest way to drive the UN out of their country. This single act triggered the mission’s "death spiral," providing a compelling excuse for other troop-contributing countries to follow suit and making any subsequent argument for reinforcement a logistical and political near-impossibility.

29.2 The British Obstruction and the Ghosts of Bosnia
While the United States provided the primary political weight for disengagement, the United Kingdom played a crucial and often overlooked role as the "procedural obstructionist" in the Security Council. Memoirs from key participants, including the British ambassador himself, Sir David Hannay, reveal a deliberate policy of blocking any move towards a more robust "peace enforcement" mandate. This policy was not born of ignorance, but of trauma. The British government, like the French, was deeply mired in the bloody and intractable UN peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, where its soldiers were consistently outgunned, humiliated, and unable to protect civilians. The "ghosts of Bosnia" created a profound institutional aversion to being drawn into another quagmire with an unclear mandate and significant risks to its troops. The UK delegation therefore used its mastery of UN procedure to methodically dismantle the case for intervention in Rwanda, raising a series of perfectly logical but morally evasive questions about logistics, costs, and objectives. This policy of extreme risk aversion provided a powerful echo and intellectual justification for the American position, ensuring that the P5's Anglophone bloc was united in its opposition to meaningful action.

29.3 P5 Paralysis and the Implicit Veto
The crisis exposed the fundamental, structural flaw at the heart of the UN Security Council: its complete inability to act in a major crisis if the permanent, veto-wielding members (the "P5") have no direct national interest at stake or if they are divided. No formal veto was ever cast against a resolution to intervene in Rwanda, because the system of the "implicit veto" ensured that no such resolution ever reached the floor for a vote. The openly stated positions of the US and UK made it clear that any attempt to pass a Chapter VII enforcement mandate would be blocked. This effectively paralyzed the Council. This paralysis was compounded by the cynical self-interest of the other P5 members. France was actively sympathetic to the Hutu regime it had spent years arming and training. China and Russia, whose foreign policies were (and are) deeply rooted in the doctrine of state sovereignty and non-interference in "internal affairs," were more than content to let the resolution gutting the mission pass. This perfect alignment of risk aversion, active complicity, and cynical realpolitik among the five permanent members guaranteed the council's paralysis. Their collective inaction drowned out the desperate pleas from the non-permanent members, particularly New Zealand’s council president Colin Keating and the Czech Republic's Karel Kovanda, who argued passionately that a genocide was occurring and that the world had a moral duty to act.

29.4 The "Universe of Obligation"
Ultimately, the collective failure of the UN was a moral and psychological one. Sociologist Helen Fein, in her seminal studies of genocide, describes the concept of a "universe of obligation"—the circle of individuals and groups "toward whom obligations are owed, to whom rules apply, and whose injuries call for amends." In April 1994, the deliberations of the Security Council drew a stark and brutal line, defining precisely who was inside this circle and who was outside. The methodical arguments about logistics, the calculated silence on the word "genocide," and the procedural maneuvering to justify inaction made it brutally clear that the million people of Rwanda—a small, impoverished, strategically insignificant nation in the heart of Africa—fell outside the "universe of obligation" of the world's great powers. Their injuries did not call for the risk of a single soldier from a P5 nation. The rules of the Genocide Convention, and the vow of "Never Again," did not, in practice, apply to them.