The genocide in Rwanda was not an event that occurred in a vacuum. It was planned and executed in full view of the world, with the brutal efficiency of the killings matched only by the devastating inertia of the international community. The United Nations, which had a peacekeepingPeacekeeping
Full Description:A mechanism not originally explicitly defined in the Charter, involving the deployment of international military and civilian personnel to conflict zones. Known as the “Blue Helmets,” they monitor ceasefires and create buffer zones to allow for diplomatic negotiations. Peacekeeping was an improvisation developed to manage Cold War conflicts that the Great Powers could not agree to solve forcibly. It operates on the principles of consent (the host country must agree), impartiality, and the non-use of force except in self-defense.
Critical Perspective:While often celebrated, peacekeeping is often criticized for “freezing” conflicts rather than solving them. By stabilizing the status quo, it can inadvertently remove the pressure for political solutions, leading to “forever wars” where the UN presence becomes a permanent feature of the landscape. Furthermore, peacekeepers have faced severe criticism for failures to protect civilians and for sexual exploitation and abuse in host communities.
Read more force on the ground, became a spectator to atrocity. Its failure was not one of capability, but of political will—a conscious decision by powerful nations to disengage. This failure was born from the ghosts of a recent mission in Somalia and tragically prefigured the international community’s paralysis in the face of the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia just a year later. The story of the UN’s response to the Rwandan genocide is a stark lesson in how diplomacy, bureaucracy, and national self-interest can conspire to enable the unthinkable.
The Ghost of Somalia: The Genesis of a Risk-Averse Culture
To understand the international response to Rwanda, one must first look to the events of October 3, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia. During a U.S. military operation, two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down, leading to a ferocious firefight that resulted in the deaths of 18 American soldiers and hundreds of Somalis. The images of a U.S. serviceman’s body being dragged through the streets were broadcast worldwide, triggering a political earthquake in Washington. The United States, the world’s sole superpower, swiftly lost its appetite for humanitarian intervention in complex African conflicts. The policy of the Clinton administration became one of extreme risk aversion, crystallized in Presidential Decision Directive 25 (PDD-25), which set prohibitively high standards for American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions.
This retreat created a chilling effect throughout the UN system. The Secretariat, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), and the key members of the Security CouncilSecurity Council Full Description:The Security Council is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions and authorize military force. While the General Assembly includes all nations, real power is concentrated here. The council is dominated by the “Permanent Five” (P5), reflecting the military victors of the last major global conflict rather than current geopolitical realities or democratic representation. Critical Perspective:Critics argue the Security Council renders the UN undemocratic by design. It creates a two-tiered system of sovereignty: the Permanent Five are effectively above the law, able to shield themselves and their allies from scrutiny, while the rest of the world is subject to the Council’s enforcement. were now primarily concerned with avoiding casualties and “another Somalia.” The mandate for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), under the command of Canadian General Roméo Dallaire, was consequently narrow and weak. Its primary role was to monitor the fragile Arusha AccordsArusha Accords Full Description:A set of peace agreements signed between the Rwandan government and the rebel Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). Intended to end the civil war through power-sharing and the integration of the armies, it never fully came into effect. The Arusha Accords were the international community’s attempt to impose a liberal democratic solution on a deep-seated structural conflict. The agreement stripped the ruling Hutu elite of their absolute monopoly on power, reducing the president’s authority and integrating Tutsi rebels into the military. Critical Perspective:Critically, the signing of these accords acted as the catalyst for the genocide. For the Hutu Power extremists within the deep state, the accords were a “suicide note” and a betrayal. Fearing the loss of their privileges and protection, they concluded that political cohabitation was impossible and that the “final solution” was the only way to retain power. It illustrates the danger of peace agreements that address political mechanics without resolving the underlying security dilemmas of the elites., not to impose peace or protect civilians. This inherent limitation would become a death sentence for hundreds of thousands when the genocide began.
“They’re Going to Kill Everyone”: The Warnings That Were Ignored
The genocide did not come without warning. General Dallaire and his team were acutely aware of the escalating tensions and the proliferation of weapons and hate speech. The most famous and tragic of these warnings was the “genocide fax” sent by Dallaire to UN Headquarters in New York on January 11, 1994.
In this cable, Dallaire reported on intelligence from a high-level informant within the Hutu extremist militia, the Interahamwe. The informant revealed a detailed plan to exterminate Tutsi civilians. He stated that the militia could kill up to 1,000 Tutsis in just 20 minutes. Most critically, he provided the locations of major arms caches and explained that the plan was to provoke and kill Belgian peacekeepers to guarantee Belgium’s withdrawal from UNAMIR . Dallaire requested immediate permission to raid these arms caches to disrupt the plot.
The response from UN Headquarters, specifically from the DPKO head Kofi Annan’s office, was a categorical refusal. Dallaire was ordered not to proceed with the raids and told to remain within his narrow mandate. The official UN mindset, as characterized by one official, was that Dallaire needed to be kept “on a leash” . This was not an isolated warning; Dallaire sent repeated pleas for a stronger mandate and reinforcements on January 22, February 3, February 15, February 27, and March 13. All were ignored or rejected . Michael Barnett, a former UN official, later testified that there was a “concerted effort to minimise reports of imminent tragedy” from the office of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali . The January 11 fax, for instance, was never even shared with the Security Council members .
The Collapse: Withdrawal in the Face of Genocide
When President Habyarimana’s plane was shot down on April 6, 1994, the Interahamwe set their plan in motion. The very next day, April 7, ten Belgian peacekeepers were captured, tortured, and murdered while protecting the moderate Hutu Prime Minister, Agathe Uwilingiyimana, who was also killed. This event executed the militia’s strategy to perfection. Belgium, a key troop contributor, immediately announced the withdrawal of its entire contingent from UNAMIR. The loss of this well-equipped, core battalion crippled the mission’s operational capacity.
Rather than reinforcing UNAMIR and changing its mandate to “Chapter VII,” which would have allowed the use of force to protect civilians, the UN Security Council did the opposite. In a decision that stands as one of the greatest moral failures in the organization’s history, the Council voted to reduce UNAMIR to a token force of just 270 men. The message to the génocidaires was unmistakable: the world was leaving, and they could proceed without interference. General Dallaire was left with a handful of dedicated troops from Ghana, Bangladesh, and a few other nations, forced to stand by while the slaughter unfolded. He later recounted the devastating logic at play: “Our lives are more important than theirs” .
The following table summarizes the key failures in the international response during the critical early days of the genocide:
Jan 11, 1994 Dallaire’s “genocide fax” warns of extermination plans and arms caches. UN DPKO orders him not to act, keeps Security Council in the dark.
Apr 6, 1994: President Habyarimana’s plane is shot down; genocide begins. Despite prior intelligence, no reinforcements or mandate change for UNAMIR.
Apr 7, 1994: 10 Belgian peacekeepers are murdered. Belgium announces full troop withdrawal, critically weakening UNAMIR.
Mid-April 1994: Genocide reaches peak intensity; scale of killings becomes clear. UN Security Council votes to reduce UNAMIR to a skeleton crew.
Throughout Genocide Clear evidence of systematic extermination of Tutsis. US and others refuse to use the term “genocide,” fearing legal obligation to act.
The Semantics of Complicity: The Refusal to Say “Genocide”
As the scale of the slaughter became undeniably clear, a parallel diplomatic failure was unfolding: the refusal to use the word “genocide.” The 1948 Genocide ConventionGenocide Convention
Short Description (Excerpt):The first human rights treaty adopted by the General Assembly. It codified the crime of genocide for the first time in international law, defining it as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
Full Description:The Genocide Convention was a direct legal response to the Holocaust. It obligates state parties to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. It stripped state leaders of immunity, establishing that individuals could be held criminally responsible for acts of state barbarism.
Critical Perspective:The definition of genocide in the convention was heavily politicized during drafting. Crucially, “political groups” were excluded from the protected categories at the insistence of the Soviet Union (to protect its internal purges). Additionally, the requirement to prove “intent” has created a high legal bar, often allowing the international community to debate whether a slaughter technically counts as “genocide” rather than intervening to stop it.
Read more legally obligates signatory states to “prevent and punish” the crime of genocide. For the United States, France, and other Security Council members, acknowledging the reality in Rwanda would have created a legal and moral imperative to act—an action they had already ruled out.
Instead, officials resorted to a bureaucracy of euphemism. The U.S. State Department infamously instructed its spokespeople to avoid the g-word, referring instead to “acts of genocide.” This linguistic cowardice was a deliberate policy to justify inaction. As one U.S. official later admitted, “We knew what was happening, but if we called it genocide, we would have had to do something.” This semantic debate, which lasted until the final weeks of the killing, provided a thin diplomatic cover for a policy of abandonment.
The Srebrenica Parallel: A Pattern of Failure
The international community’s failure in Rwanda was not an isolated incident. Just over a year later, in July 1995, the same pattern of risk-aversion and empty promises played out in the UN “safe area” of Srebrenica, Bosnia. A Dutch peacekeeping force (Dutchbat), like UNAMIR, was deployed with a weak mandate and inadequate resources. They were surrounded by a more powerful, determined force—the Bosnian Serb army under General Ratko Mladić. As Mladić’s forces advanced on the town, the Dutchbat commander called for close air support. The request was bogged down in a labyrinthine UN approval process. By the time a few symbolic airstrikes were authorized, it was too late. The safe area fell, and over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered in the worst atrocity in Europe since the Second World War.
The parallels are chilling: a UN force on the ground, tasked with protecting civilians but without the means or mandate to do so; clear warnings of an impending attack; a slow and dysfunctional chain of command in New York; and the eventual abandonment of a vulnerable population to a murderous regime. Srebrenica was the ghost of Rwanda haunting Europe. It demonstrated that the lessons of 1994 had not been learned. The failure was systemic, rooted in a peacekeeping model that was fundamentally unsuited for confronting actors who had no interest in peace.
The French Intervention: A Controversial Legacy
France’s role in the Rwandan Genocide remains a subject of intense controversy and historical scrutiny. Unlike the U.S. and the UN, France did take military action, launching Opération Turquoise in June 1994. This UN-mandated mission created a “Safe Humanitarian Zone” in southwestern Rwanda and undoubtedly saved some Tutsi lives in the final weeks of the genocide.
However, France’s overall role was deeply problematic. Throughout the early 1990s, France had been the principal international backer of the Habyarimana regime, providing it with significant military aid, training, and political support, even as evidence of impending massacres mounted . French diplomats were notably supportive of the Rwandan government in the lead-up to the genocide . Critics argue that Opération Turquoise had a dual purpose: while humanitarian in name, it also served as a final attempt to prop up the collapsing genocidal regime and create a safe zone for its leaders to retreat. The operation ultimately facilitated the escape of many génocidaires into Zaire (now DR Congo), allowing them to evade justice and perpetuating the cycle of conflict in the Great Lakes region—a conflict that, as of 2025, continues with Rwandan support for the M23 armed group in the DRC . For many survivors and historians, France’s actions before and during the genocide make it a complicit actor, rather than a saviour.
Conclusion: The Enduring Legacy of Abandonment
The legacy of the international failure in Rwanda is profound and enduring. It shattered the post-Holocaust promise of “Never Again,” revealing it to be a hollow slogan. The calculated withdrawal of the international community sent a dangerous message to future perpetrators of mass atrocities: the world’s great powers lack the will to stop them.
In the aftermath, the UN and key member states issued apologies. A report by the International Panel of Eminent Personalities concluded that “the failure by the United Nations to prevent, and subsequently, to stop the genocide in Rwanda was a failure of the United Nations system as a whole.” Lessons were ostensibly learned, leading to the development of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine in 2005, which asserts that state sovereignty is not a license to massacre one’s own citizens.
Yet, the persistence of mass atrocities in the decades since suggests that the fundamental problem of political will remains. The failure in Rwanda was not a technical or logistical failure; it was a moral and political one. It was a choice. As General Dallaire poignantly asked, “Are all humans human or are some humans more human than others?” . In 1994, the international community, through its actions and inactions, delivered a devastating answer. The ghosts of Rwanda and Srebrenica continue to challenge the conscience of the world, serving as a permanent reminder of the cost of indifference and the grim reality that peace without the will to enforce it is no peace at all.
Sources and Further Reading
· Des Forges, Alison. “Leave None to Tell the Story”: Genocide in Rwanda. Human Rights Watch, 1999.
· Dallaire, Roméo. Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda. Random House Canada, 2003.
· Barnett, Michael. Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda. Cornell University Press, 2002.
· Melvern, Linda. A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda’s Genocide. Zed Books, 2000.
· Power, Samantha. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. Basic Books, 2002.
· United Nations. Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda. 1999.
Leave a Reply to From Ashes to Africa’s Success? Paul Kagame’s Authoritarian Development Model – Explaining History PodcastCancel reply