The Story of Rwandan Genocide — III


Just when I was translating this Chinese post last night, I found out that the blog link I provided in my first post of this discussion about Rwandan Genocide was not valid any more. I checked the blogger’s homepage and found out that all the posts were gone. I didn’t know what happened to this blog and its author. I wish everything is fine with this blogger. Maybe this weird event is another proof of the paranoia, stupidity, and craziness of Chinese Communist Party.

Actually, this blogger might not be the original author of this long article. At least, s/he claimed this article was from someone else. According to this article itself, it was probably written in around 2005. It is a very old article. I happened to find this very old article at this blog about two weeks ago through other Chinese blogs and websites. I guess it was because of the NATO air campaign in Libya that some Chinese serious thinkers started spreading and discussing this very old article again. This article itself was obviously amateur, not written by professionals in politics or journalism. That’s why I treasure, respect, and even admire this voice although I didn’t agree with it on many points. This is an independent and brave voice that concerns about justice, peace, humanity, and sympathy. This is a voice that dares challenge the mainstream propaganda of CCP. I hope this article would not bring any trouble to the blogger on whose homepage I traced back to a dead end the origin of this article. Here, I provide the link to his/her homepage as below:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/1613505287

Please be aware that all the posts at this blog could not be accessed any longer. Some record at this blog shows that at least as late as Mar. 30th, 2011, this blogger still published new posts here. This article I translated was posted at this blog on Mar. 22nd, 2011.

Here is another link that posted this same article transferred from the above blog.

http://www.blogchina.com/201103241109456.html

To honor the author of this article and the bloggers who spread it, and to defy the stupidity and brutality of CCP, I would also post the whole original article in Chinese here:

卢旺达大屠杀的前因后果(ZT 转载

(2011-03-22 14:43:26)

P1:

在卢旺达大屠杀10周年纪念日,联合国秘书长安南说:90年代卢旺达和南联盟所发生的大屠杀是整个人类的耻辱。1998年克林顿总统曾专门飞抵索马里向受害者家属道歉并宣布援助款项。

P2:

从1994 年4月7日开始的100天的大屠杀里有近100万卢旺达人死在弯刀,锄头,棍棒和火器之下,一半多的图西族人口被灭绝,其杀人的速度数倍于当年纳粹用毒气 残杀犹太人的速度。当时联合国驻卢旺达维和部队的指挥官达赖尔将军后来说:只要联合国愿意介入,只要给他5000名精兵就可以阻止这场人类大灾难,然而被 索马里人吓破了胆的美国和其他西方国家,在数十万卢旺达人的哀号中转身离去。

P3:

然而,事实上,只要冷静地思考就可以知道,1994年的那场卢旺达大屠杀不可能被制止。

P4:

首先进行武力干涉的联合国决议不可能及时出台,当时策划和执行屠杀任务的卢旺达军人独裁政府本身就是联合国安理会成员,其支持者如法国和吉布提等也是 安理会成员,他们压根就否认有大屠杀的事情;中俄两国向来对联合国使用武力介入别国内政持反对态度;美英两国则由于索马里维和行动的惨败而无力再陷“泥 潭”。所以,等联合国总部的外交家们辩论结束,艰难地达成一致后,大屠杀也就基本结束了,该杀的都杀了,没杀的也逃走了。在大屠杀后期的6月22日,安理 会以10 票对零票(5票弃权)通过决议授权法国组建维和部队进入卢旺达时,卢旺达爱国阵线宣布外国军队为干涉卢内政的侵略者,只要在战区内出现就给予坚决的打击。 事实上,法国维和部队客观上又给予了大屠杀的组织实施者头目逃脱的机会。

P5:

再者,联合国的干涉机制阻止不了卢旺达那样全民性的大屠杀。联合国派维和部队的本意是对都有和平意愿的冲突双方进行隔离和监督,维和士兵没有首先使用 武力的权力。所以,达赖尔将军所等来的联合国命令是:“我们不能同意你所计划的收缴武器行动,因为它明显超越了第872号决议所授予的权限”。联合国部 队,西方军队在第三世界国家不能首先开枪,只能自卫。那些手持弯刀,棍棒和AK47的卢旺达人在手中的凶器落下前是平民,在凶器落下后也还是平民,维和士 兵若要阻止这样的暴行就会造成这样的“平民”的伤亡,这样的平民伤亡就会遭到世界舆论的谴责。这样的维和机制导致了1995年在前南联盟斯雷布雷尼察联合 国划定的“安全区”内,派驻的荷兰士兵只能眼睁睁地看着塞尔维亚军队将数万受联合国决议保护的平民押上卡车带走,以至6天内有7000伊斯兰教徒遭到集体 屠杀;这样的维和机制导致了2003年500名维和士兵在塞拉里昂被集体缴械并被扣为人质。所以,联合国拖沓,繁杂的“程序正义”无法面对突发的人道灾 难。

P6:

第三,从索马里维和失败的经历来看,卢旺达的大屠杀在当时情况下无法被阻止。索马里一直是个军阀混战,连年饥荒的国家。当只剩下2个多月生命的晚期癌 症患者,著名电影演员奥黛丽.赫本在索马里面对镜头呼吁:为什么我们不采取一点行动去挽救濒于死亡的百姓呢?于是,美国老百姓大受震动,美国政府也在备受 压力后向索马里紧急运送粮食和药品,但发现大多数的救援物质被军阀头子给截留倒卖了。1992年12月,联合国决定组织一项名为“恢复希望行动”的维持和 平行动。索马里各派军阀对联合国的干涉不满,他们无一列外地扛起了反抗外国侵略的民族主义大旗。“索马里联合大会”领导人法拉赫.艾迪德还对对维和部队采 取伏击行动,造成数十人伤亡。1993年8 月,联合国安理会授权维和部队采取一切必要措施,抓捕这次暴力事件的幕后策划者艾迪德。当时负责索马里事务的联合国特使请求美国增派特种部队帮助抓捕。从 这里看到,以美国人为首的由20多个国家组成的联合国部队既代表了良知和正义,也有了动用武力的合法性。但在索马里军阀们看来,他们更具有反抗外国武装干 涉内政的天然权力。

P7:

美军“游骑兵”特遣队在索马里先后6次单独执行抓捕任务,都很顺利。但在1993年10月3日下午3时,突降的特遣队员在10分钟内就将正在开会的几 十名艾迪德武装分子抓获。就在准备撤离的时候,艾迪德利用清真寺的广播鼓动:“出来为你的家园战斗吧!走上街头去打击侵略者吧!”。由此,索马里武装分子 从四面八方赶来,虽然他们手持AK47步枪和弯刀,还着开车或奔跑着与美国士兵抢占控制点,美国大兵却不能拿他们怎样,他们在扣动扳机前都是平民。更多的 索马里人则兴奋地跟随着美国大兵,就象观看拍电影一样,而武装分子则利用人群向美军射击,一名枪手甚至利用3名妇女作掩护,趴在地上从妇女的胯下向美军开 火。打死了美国人是索马里人的勇敢,被美国人打死了,那是美国屠杀平民,就这样,暴露的美军就成了活生生的靶子。最后两架直升飞机被击落,18名美军特种 队员被打死,其尸体被索马里人拖着游街的镜头赢来了电视机前的看客们的一阵阵的欢呼,至今不熄。

P8:

人民日报就此刊登文章说:“美国舆论一片哗然,一致抨击美国政府出兵索马里。同时,国际上的批评也不绝于耳:英国前首相爱德华.希思说,联合国不应成 为美军军事行动的保护伞;埃及外长穆萨表示,目前索马里发生的一切,将会给索马里民族和解进程增加新的障碍;法国国防部长莱澳塔尔指责美国的所作所为超出 了“人道主义使命”的范畴,变成了“不能容忍的对抗”;德国报刊称,美国正在索马里进行“一场肮脏的战争””。奉联合国之命并应联合国特别之请求,代表了 “良知”和“正义”的美军的可怜下场令人心悸。

P9:

刚刚上台还不到一年的克林顿灰头灰脸,只得下令撤出索马里援助计划。他感叹道:美国人给索马里送去了成千上万吨的粮食和药品,索马里人则送给了美国十 几俱士兵的棺木。有20多个国家参与,耗资20多亿美元,历时27个月的联合国维和行动彻底地失败了。当时,在索马里的不是5千名精兵,而是3.7万强 兵,其中美国就派出了2.7万。这7倍于达赖尔将军所要求的军队也没能阻止接下来的更为惨烈的,使得数万索马里人丧身的战争灾难,还白白断送了100多名 和索马里人无亲无故,无怨无仇的维和士兵的性命。

P10:

现在,可能会有人说,美国应该不惜再牺牲18人,不惜杀掉3000索马里人,或许就可以挽救后来丧身的数万的索马里人了。可是,索马里人会答应吗?世界舆论会答应吗?我们中国人民会支持吗?凭什么要求美国人出钱出命讨挨骂呢?

P11:

黑鹰堕落了,美军不可战胜的神话被打破了,美国人的威风扫地了,美国人彻底地滚了出去,可是仅仅一个月后,一场被称为人类的大灾难开始上演了,那就是 卢旺达百万大屠杀。18俱美国大兵棺木的后面是数万索马里人的尸体,数万索马里人尸体的后面又是百万卢旺达人的头颅,密密密麻麻地排列在纪念馆里,这不是 偶然的,这是一种古老的“宿命”。一些学者认为,只有在一种情况下,卢旺达的屠杀可以避免。那就是,在索马里,国际社会消除歧见,团结一致地放开手脚地打 击各种军阀,赢得维和行动的成功。在这样威震力量的协助下,达赖尔将军的5千精兵才可能有所作为,否则手里的尖端武器就成了拨火棍,维和士兵就成为活靶 子。这就是倒萨成功促使卡扎非放弃大规模杀伤性武器给予我们的启示。

P12:

历史不能改写,事后只能假设。在卢旺达,美国人当时明智地选择了“不作为”,所以100万的死难者中没有一个是美国大兵杀的,但美国还得为此道歉并用 纳税人的钱去洗刷“罪责”。如果联合国真的通过决议介入,如果美国真的派了 5千或5万精兵去了卢旺达了又会怎么样呢?一年前,美国人应联合国决议的要求去了索马里,被媒体说成是贪图中非宝石去侵略人家,美国人被暴尸街头的场面不 少人至今还在津津乐道,更多的人心里惦记着的是美国大兵杀了更多的索马里平民。如果一年后,美国真的选择“作为”去了卢旺达的话,在那种野蛮屠杀的情形 下,肯定会用手里的尖端武器杀一些卢旺达人,不然如何平暴?但无论所杀的是真暴徒还是假平民,人们会永远记着被美国大兵所杀的100个卢旺达人,定然不会 想到美国大兵可能因此挽救了100万个卢旺达人的生命。如果“美国大兵杀100人”和“卢旺达人杀100万人”可以放在世人面前自由选择的话,那么除了那 些极端反美人士外,无疑都会选择前者。但问题是,事先谁也无法料到会有100万人被杀,即使有迹象显示有可能会发生,那么是联合国或美国否就可以据此“先 发制人”呢?

P13:

1994年的卢旺达与现在的伊拉克也有极其相似的一面。那些极端分子所控制的报纸电台等媒体不但鼓吹暴力还煽动仇恨外国人。当卢国总统的座机被击落 时,这些媒体渲染是图西族人串通西方人干的。当驻在卢国的比利时军队奉联合国之命保护卢国总理时,被宣传成帮助图西族人策划屠杀胡图族人,并残忍地杀害了 被他们称为侵略军的比利时士兵。现在知道,这是胡图族武装迫使联合国撤出维和部队的阴谋,其目的是为了不受限制地屠杀,驱赶图西族人,以达到阻止图西族分 享政府权力的目的。

P14:

现在的伊拉克,象萨德尔这样的宗教军阀一直在广收门徒,组建私家军,甚至成立自己的政府。就象在卢旺达胡图族武装所做的那样,他们利用自己控制的媒体 制造谣言,散布仇恨。比如把阿里清真寺汽车爆炸(炸死著名什叶派宗教领袖哈吉姆等129名什叶派信徒)说成是美国人策划的,把炸死56名接受训练的伊拉克 新警察的爆炸说成是美国阿帕奇直升机发射的导弹造成的等等。在卢旺达,胡图族极端分子的报纸《KANGURA》煽动说:“让胸中继续的愤懑都爆发出来 吧……..。在这样一个时刻,鲜血将滚滚成河”,在伊拉克,萨德尔德报纸《阿尔-哈瓦兹包》也充斥着同样的煽动。随着6月30日移交权力的临近, 掌权无望的萨德尔利用清真寺布告鼓动武装围攻本已屈服于311恐怖爆炸压力而决定撤军的西班牙营地从而导致冲突升级,因为他们已经等不及了。逊尼派聚居区 的费卢杰也重演了11年前的索马里暴尸的一幕。

P15:

但这次美国人没有吓破了胆,反而誓言缉拿凶手,平定暴乱,恢复秩序。然而,随着伤亡的增加,目前据媒体报道共有700人之多,虽然联军表示绝大多数为 武装暴乱分子,但许多媒体则称被打死的大多数是妇女,儿童和老人。这样,不但各国民众,宗教人士坐不住了,就连被公认最亲美的伊拉克临管会成员阿德南.帕 查奇也对美军进行了强烈的谴责,他说:美军的行动是对费卢杰人民的集体惩罚,是不能接受,是非法的。阿拉伯联盟代表会议后,其秘书长穆萨也谴责了美军的行 动造成了大量的人员伤亡,称是“无法接受和危险的行为”并表示阿拉伯国家不应对此置之不理。

P16:

按照国际法,美军作为占领当局具有维护当地秩序的责任和义务。如果在萨德尔私家武装全面暴乱,费卢杰匪徒袭击救援组织车队的情况下,美军选择“不作 为”的话,那么又会继续遭到“不尽责任和义务”的谴责。批评和谴责都是没错的,但以此来束缚恢复秩序的行动,为暴力活动打保护伞,则反而会令更多的无辜伊 拉克平民的伤亡。如果任凭萨德尔武装占领警察局和市政大楼的话,那实力更强大的西斯塔尼什叶派也不会答应。如果美国真的受不了人命的损失,扛不住舆论的打 击而滚出伊拉克的话,那么伊拉克就会群雄并起,什叶派,逊尼派和库尔德人就会互相讨伐,欠有30万什叶派和库尔德人命的原统治者逊尼派就很有可能象在原先 也是处于统治地位的卢旺达图西族一样被要求血债血还。支持什叶派的伊朗,支持逊尼派的沙特和约旦等阿拉伯国家以及境内有大量库尔德人的土耳其就很难置身之 外。那样的伊拉克很可能就是三分的伊拉克,那时候的伊拉克很可能就是中东全面大战的策源地。当然,再残酷的报复战争也会平息的,该杀的人杀光了,杀人的人 也杀累了,就像索马里和卢旺达一样暂时和平了。如果那样,10年后,联合国很可能又会定个伊拉克大屠杀反思日,在那一天,人们又会谴责美国的自私和冷血: 你美国600人的生命就重于200万个中东人吗?美国总统当然也肯定会飞抵伊拉克向受害者家属道歉并称诺给予援助补偿,当然,后来的事情谁也无法料到。

P17:

在卢旺达大屠杀发生后,那些一贯高喊非洲的事务由非洲人解决的政治家们的责难无一例外地指向美国等西方国家。在卢旺达大屠杀10周年的纪念会上,现任 联合国秘书长安南落泪了,他当时正好是专门负责维和事务的副秘书长,给予维和部队不干涉的命令也正好是他下的,作为非洲人的他应该落泪,但落泪何用之有?

P18:

卢旺达大屠杀刚刚落幕,位于欧盟眼皮地下的前南斯拉夫地区正在互相残杀,作为具有维护世界和平和稳定的联合国又再次轮番开会,各抒己见。声明发了一个 又一个,决议出了一拨又一拨,但杀红了眼的各方互不相让。这场出现在欧洲的战乱,着急的是法国,德国等欧洲大陆国家,积极努力寻求联合国武装介入的也是这 些欧洲国家,但压力却压向了失意于索马里而无意插手的美国。当时,在美国白宫前,穆斯林民众和*团体打出了美国是屠杀纵容犯的条幅,甚至高呼克林顿是侩子 手的“帮凶”,就和2003年非洲的利比里亚群众在美国使馆前高呼“布什是杀人犯”如出一辙。但当美国终于决定介入时,已经有近20万人死亡。在北约飞机 轰炸的逼迫下,冲突各方于1995年在美国的主导下签署了“代顿和平协议”。一波刚平,一波又起,科索沃的阿族穆斯林又和塞族军队互相残杀起来。联合国还 是那个联合国,同为斯拉夫人的俄罗斯和米洛舍维奇老朋友的中国都是具有否决权的联合国安理会常任理事国,一边是辩论,争吵一直没个结果,一边是处于弱势的 阿族穆斯林的村庄被夷为平地。最后当越过联合国的北约用导弹将塞族军队炸出科索沃时,被安南所称的大屠杀已经酿成。

P19:

为了清算和惩罚反人道罪行,就象对卢旺达一样,联合国也成立了前南国际刑事法庭。随着一批又一批的战争嫌疑犯被送上审判台,前南地区渐渐地回复常态。 2002年9月,新华社转载光明日报文章说:“从代顿协议签署至今的7年中,前南各民族间的和解进程取得了很大的进展,整个巴尔干地区处于十几年来最稳定 的时期”。强大武力会带来杀戕,但也能带来和平与稳定。虽然人们的记忆中存留的是78天史无前例的“野蛮”轰炸,眼前浮现的是美国巡航导弹下的残墙断壁, 耳边想起的是空袭警报和儿童的啼哭声。固然,死于北约导弹下的 2000余人(约500多为塞族正规军军人,其余为民兵警察和无辜平民)的命是宝贵的,但也应该看到死于种族仇杀的20多万平民的血也是热的,更应该看到 北约的导弹熄灭了有名的巴尔干火药桶,维护了欧洲的和平和稳定。

P20:

在今年召开的防止种族屠杀国际会议上,许多国际领导人都表达了阻止悲剧重演的决心,并给出了5项建议,比如将灾难扼杀于萌芽状态;干涉散布仇恨鼓动暴力的“民族主义”媒体;切断外界支持和禁运武器并进行必要的武装干涉。

P21:

然而,说起来容易,做起来难。首先联合国安理会的成员国都有各自的国家利益,坐以论道还行,一旦涉及出钱出力的时候就难达一致。假如在1994年的卢 旺达维和需要100亿美元和5000精兵的话,如果英美法能出75亿和3000精兵,那么中俄能出25亿美元外加2000精兵吗?再说,情报毕竟是情报, 虽然一直有大量的情报指向朝鲜的核设施,但谁又能保证不会出现象伊拉克WMD那样的滑铁卢呢?如果不是卡扎非主动配合,利比亚的大规模杀伤性武器库怎么会 大白天下呢?即使确有情报显示某国有大屠杀的迹象,是否就可据此“先发制人”?在事发前,再好的情报也只是表明一种可能,就像本拉登的炸楼和萨达姆的违禁 武器一样,虽然都有一些情报的支持。即使在屠杀发生后,也还有一个定性和程度问题,就像在卢旺达和前南联盟一样,联合国内部一直在为“是否出现了种族屠 杀”而争论不休。

P22:

在联合国的主导下,组建维和干涉部队“以暴制暴”基本上得到了多数国家的认同。但怎样实施武力又成了问题的焦点。当卢旺达大屠杀开始时,已有数千联合 国的维和部队驻扎当地,但主持维和工作的副秘书长安南依据安理会的决议下达给达赖尔将军的命令则强调:“务必避免可能导致使用武力的举动”。中国社科院西 非研究所的张郇在中央电视台卢旺达大屠杀专题节目中说:“恰恰是因为索马里的行动,他们(指美军)特别讲究交战规则,你所面对的持枪的人没有朝你开枪的 话,你就无法开枪,就无法保护大批说救救我们的卢旺达人,没法保护他们,因为你无法首先开枪,怎么能阻止那些拿着枪,拿着刀去杀人的人呢?”。事实上,在 南联盟也是这样,塞族军队平时对待维和士兵客客气气,相当友好,但一旦他们认为有必要时,就当靶子来打。

P23:

在当今的社会舆论和现有的国际法的框架下,外国部队处于天然的道德劣势,稍有差错就会被指控为“公然违反国际法”。更由于文化和宗教的差异,即使没有 差错,一个看似高傲的姿势,或是一个看似鄙视的眼神也会被媒体渲染,更会被借以煽动仇恨。那些与维和士兵对立的当地武装分子不但占据了“反抗侵略和占领” 的道德制高点,还掌控了战场上的何时打怎么打的主动权。国际社会出于对武力的恐惧和警惕,给予了强势一方格外的关注和限制。但由此来束缚强者的手脚封住他 们的嘴巴来获得所谓的均势,则会在事实上纵容弱势一方的为所欲为,在客观上造成更多的平民的伤亡。在伊拉克我们也看到了类似的情况,伊拉克妇女小孩围着美 军看打战热闹,血气方刚的青年不时地扔几块石头,武装分子则躲在后边放冷枪。新闻晨报几天前发表了这样一篇文章,叫着“并不可怕的美军”,那么这样一支 “不可怕” 的军队怎么能履行职责,惩罚暴徒,恢复秩序和保护平民呢?

P24:

联合国是什么?目前的联合国不是国家的上级组织,只是众多国际性组织中的一个,她的合法性是来自于成员国的认可,她的现有权威是来自几个大国的意志和 实力。十年过去了,卢旺达大屠杀纪念馆理令人惊骇的累累白骨并没有阻止仍在发生或者将要发生的种种非人道行为,国际社会显然应该存在意志强有力的干涉力 量,这支力量显然不应该仅由美国等少数强势国家来充任,但如果强势的美国撒手不管,联合国是否能够担此重任?如果她能,那么萨达姆也就不能与她玩耍12年 的猫鼠游戏,延续至今的伊拉克战争也就不会发生了。

P25:

安南在种族屠杀纪念会上警示国际社会:苏丹是最有可能出现种族大屠杀的下一个国家。苏丹就是那个和乌干达,塞拉里昂等一起努力将美国踢出联合国*委员 会的国家,苏丹还是我们中国在非洲的主要盟友和贸易伙伴,也是我们主要的经援和军援的对象,但愿安南的警告不会成为现实。(the end)

Please be advised that all the content, comments, observations, reflections, opinions, and narrations on this blog belong to the author alone personally. The only purpose of the author to put them here is to discuss and share with others. Any content on this blog should not be used as legal consultations for any financial, economic, or social activity. Therefore, this blog is not responsible for any decision or action made by any reader. If you would like to contact the author for any further discussion or sharing, please fill the contact form below.

Posted in People's Diplomacy, Political Economy of Democracy, The Myth of Chinese People | 44 Comments

The Story of Rwandan Genocide — II


(continuing from the previous post)

P11:

Black Hawks were down, the legend of invincible American army was smashed, American glory fell into dust, and Americans were kicked out of Somalia. Just one month later, a humanitarian catastrophe was started, remembered by human history as Rwandan Genocide. 19 coffins of American soldiers were followed by tens of thousands of Somali bodies, and tens of thousands of Somali bodies were followed by millions of Rwandan skulls that are crowdedly displayed in memorial museums. This is not an accidental history, but an old “foreordination”. Some scholars believed that only in one situation Rwandan Genocide could be prevented. That is the International Community be united together, putting aside divisions, and determined to defeat all the warlords with free hands, to achieve the success of peacekeeping operation in Somalia. Backed by such a deterrent power, General Dallaire’s 5000 men could possibly achieve something. Otherwise, their advanced weapons would become pokers and peacekeepers were moving targets. This is the lesson we could learn from toppling Saddam, the success of which pressed Gaddafi to give up his WMD project.

P12:

History could not be rewritten, and only assumptions could be made afterward. In Rwanda, Americans made a reasonable choice of “doing nothing”. Therefore, none of the one million victims in Rwanda was killed by American soldiers. However, US still had to apologize and wash its “sin” with taxpayers’ money. What if UN had really passed a resolution and US had really sent a troop of 5,000 or even 50,000 men into Rwanda? One year ago, Americans went into Somalia under the request of UN resolutions, only being depicted by public media as invaders for diamonds. The scene of American bodies being dragged on the Somali streets could still amuse many people today, and what more people are concerned about is more Somali civilians were killed by American soldiers. If one year later US had really chosen to “do something” in Rwanda, American soldiers would very likely have to kill some Rwandans with their advanced weapons under the extremely violent circumstance. Otherwise, how could they stop the violence? But no matter if they were real mobs or false civilians, they would be remembered as “the 100 Rwandans killed by American soldiers” permanently. No one would think that American soldiers might have saved one million Rwandans by doing so. If we could have a free choice between “American soldiers killing 100 people” and “Rwandans killing one million people”, most of us who were not extremely anti-American might choose the former. But the problem is that no one could predict one million people would be killed beforehand. Even if some evidences had indicated so, could UN or U.S. initiate any “preemptive” action based on such evidences?

P13:

Rwanda in 1994 was pretty similar to Iraq in some aspect. The media such as newspaper and radio stations controlled by extremists not only advocated violence but also inflamed hatreds toward foreigners. When the airplane of Rwandan president was shot down, these media fabricated and exaggerated the “conspiracy of Tutsi”, backed by Westerners, to kill the president. When the Belgium troop in Rwanda followed the order of UN to protect Rwandan Prime Minister, they were depicted as aiding Tutsi’s plan to kill Hutu people. Thus, these Belgium soldiers, being called as invaders by some Rwandans, were brutally murdered. Now it is known that this was the conspiracy of Hutu military force to drive the UN peacekeepers out of Rwanda so that they could freely massacre and drive away Tutsi people to prohibit them from sharing powers in Rwandan government.

P14:

(In this paragraph, the author briefly described how the current situation in Iraq was similar to Rwanda and Somalia, how the Sadrists applied the same strategy as Rwandan Hutu military forces, and how the Sunnis in Fallujah replayed the horrible scene in Somalia.)

P15:

(In this paragraph, the author continued to describe how American army stood up to the Fallujah Sunni insurgents and drew all kinds of harsh critiques from people around the world, including Muslims, religious leaders, Arabic politicians, and even some pro-US Iraqi leaders.)

P16:

(In this paragraph, the author continued his analysis of the situation in Fallujah. The author believed that American army had the legal obligation to maintain the order of Fallujah as the occupational authority, according to international laws. The author argued that although the critiques on American army were largely legitimate, they could cause more innocent Iraqis to be killed or wounded if the American efforts to restore the order were comprised. The author continued his analysis, comparing Iraq with Rwanda and Somalia. The author argued that if US could not sustain the public pressure and be beaten out of Iraq, Iraq would become a hotbed of violence, crimes, and wars that would destabilize the whole Middle East. The last three sentences were translated as below.)

Of course, any brutality and war will have an end, with all possible victims killed and all killers tired, just like Somalia and Rwanda in their temporary peace. If so (Americans were beaten out of Iraq with a vacuum of authority left behind.), a decade later, UN would very likely name a day of “Iraqi Genocide”, and on that day people would criticize Americans as being selfish and cold-blooded. Were the lives of 600 American soldiers more important than the lives of 2 million Middle East people? American president would probably have to fly to Iraq to apologize to the families of victims and make promises of compensations and aids. Certainly, no one could be sure about the future.

P17:

After Rwandan Genocide had taken place, those politicians, who always chanted African affairs should be handled by Africans, unanimously pointed their blames to Western nations including United States of America. On the 10th anniversary of Rwandan Genocide, tears were rolling down the face of the incumbent UN Secretary-General Annan. He happened to be the deputy Secretary-General of UN in charge of peacekeeping during the Rwandan Genocide, and the order of “no military intervention” happened to come from him. As an African, he should shed his tears. But what could be changed by his tears?

P18:

(In this paragraph, the author briefly discussed the humanitarian disasters in former Yugoslavia, which happened immediately after Rwandan Genocide. The author mentioned that US was reluctant to get involved in this mess due to the terrible memory of Somalia. But many Muslim people and organizations raised banners in front of the White House, accusing US of conniving at massacres, even calling Clinton “the accomplice of killers”. When United States finally decided to jump in, there were already 200 thousands of people killed. Later in Kosovo, again, when NATO, bypassing UN, bombed the Serbian troops out of Kosovo, the genocide, defined by Annan, had come true.)

P19:

(In this paragraph, the author briefly described the “achievement” of NATO’s air campaign in Balkan region. The last sentence is translated below.)

Undoubtedly, the 2000 plus lives (About 500 were Serbian official military men. Others were militiamen, policemen, and innocent civilians.) lost under NATO’s missiles were invaluable. But we have to see that the blood of more than 200 thousands of civilians, who perished in the ethnical cleansing, were warm too. We should also see that NATO’s missiles had put out the fire on the famous “Balkan Powder Keg” and maintained the peace and stability of Europe.

P20:

On the “Anti-Ethnical-Cleansing” International Conference this year, many international leaders expressed their determinations to prohibit any replay of these tragedies, releasing 5 proposals such as: to stop the disaster at its early stage, to intervene the “nationalist” media that spread hatred and advocate violence, to cut off outside support, to impose embargo of weapons, and to have necessary military interventions.

P21:

However, it is easier to say and harder to do it. First, the members of UN Security Council all have their own national interests. They could sit down to discuss some philosophical issues. But it would be very difficult for them to reach any consensus once it took their money and real efforts. If in 1994 Rwandan peacekeeping had required 10 billion US dollars and 5,000 soldiers and Britain, France, and US could only provide 7.5 billion dollars and 3,000 soldiers, would China and Russia provide another 2.5 billion dollars and extra 2,000 soldiers? Besides, intelligence is just intelligence. Although there were always intelligence pointing to North Korean nuclear facilities, who could ensure North Korean nuclear program would not turn out to be the waterloo as Iraqi WMD? If it were not Gaddafi’s willful cooperation, how could Libyan WMD program be unveiled in front of the world? Even if there is certain intelligence indicating the occurrence of genocide in a nation or region, can anyone initiate a “preemptive” action based on such intelligence? Before anything happens, the best intelligence only reveals a possibility, like in the cases of 911 terrorists’ attacking and Saddam’s WMD program. Even if the genocide has taken place, there will be problems about its definition and severity. Like in the cases of Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, inside UN there were always debates over “whether any genocide has really happened”.

P22:

Under the leadership of UN, most nations support peacekeeping intervention troops’ policy of “using violence to stop violence”. But how to implement this policy is another focus of questioning. When Rwandan genocide was started, there had already thousands of UN peacekeepers stationed over there. But according to UN resolutions, the deputy Secretary-General Annan who was in charge of peacekeeping at that time, could only give General Dallaire an order emphasizing on “trying all possible means to avoid military actions”. In a discussion panel of special report on Rwandan Genocide on Chinese Central TV (CCTV), Dr. Zhang from the Western Africa Institute of Chinese Social Science Academy said: “It was just because they (American soldiers) followed the rules of engagement very strictly in the operations in Somalia that they could not shoot at people with weapons when not shot at first. Therefore, tied by these rules you could not protect those Rwandans crying for help. Since you could not fire first, how could you stop those killers with rifles and machetes in hands?” In fact, it is the same situation in the former Yugoslavia. In the peaceful time, Serbian troops were quite friendly and polite to peacekeepers. Once they deemed it was necessary, they would shoot at peacekeepers as moving targets.

P23:

The current public opinions and international legal frameworks put any foreign military force at a natural low ground of morality. Any tiny mistake of foreign troops could be charged as “publicly breaking international laws”. More because of the cultural and religious differences, even without any mistake, a seemingly defiant pose or a possibly disrespectful expression in one’s eyes could be exaggerated by public media or exploited to incite hatreds. Those fighters against peacekeepers not only stood on the high ground of morality “to resist foreign invasion and occupation”, but also controlled the initiative of battle field, because they could decide when to fight and how to fight. Due to fear of and alert to military powers, international community put particular attentions and restraints on the stronger side. But the balance of power, obtained by tying the hands and zipping the mouth of the stronger side, actually unleashed the weaker side to do whatever they wanted, objectively causing more civilian casualties. This is what we saw in Iraq. Iraqi women and children, out of their curiosity, stood around to watch American soldiers, angry young Iraqis occasionally threw some rocks at Americans, and militiamen hiding behind civilians sniped at American soldiers mercilessly. Moring News (a Chinese newspaper) published an article several days ago, titled as “Not So Scary American Army”. How such a “Not So Scary” army could fulfill their obligations, punish thugs, restore orders, and protect civilians?

P24:

What is UN? By now, UN is not an upper level organization controlling over all nations. It is just one of many international organizations, whose legitimacy comes from the endorsements of member nations. Her current authority comes from the powers and wills of several powerful nations. A decade having elapsed, the horrible bones and skulls displayed crowdedly in the Rwandan Genocide memorial museum haven’t yet stopped any ongoing or potential anti-human behavior. International community should have a strong intervention force which should not be supported only by few powerful nations like US. If almighty US let it go, is UN capable of carrying on the burden? If she is, Saddam could not have played the “catch me if you can” game for 12 years with UN, and the second Iraqi war would not take place.

P25:

On the memorial conference for ethnical-cleansing, Annan warned the international community: Sudan was the most possible next nation where ethnical-cleansing could occur. Sudan is the nation who worked hard with Uganda and Sierra Leone to kick US out of the UN human rights committee. Sudan is also the important ally and business partner of our nation (China) in Africa. Sudan is also the major receiver of our economic and military aids. I wish Annan’s warning would not come true.

(the end)

Please be advised that all the content, comments, observations, reflections, opinions, and narrations on this blog belong to the author alone personally. The only purpose of the author to put them here is to discuss and share with others. Any content on this blog should not be used as legal consultations for any financial, economic, or social activity. Therefore, this blog is not responsible for any decision or action made by any reader. If you would like to contact the author for any further discussion or sharing, please fill the contact form below.

Posted in People's Diplomacy, Political Economy of Democracy, The Myth of Chinese People | 6 Comments

The Story of Rwandan Genocide — I


A Chinese blog post about Western Interventions around the world

Once NATO started the “no-fly zone” air campaign in Libya, Chinese official propaganda machine immediately started running its ideological campaign against the so-called “Western Interventionism”.

Unanimously, Chinese official medias were reporting how Western bombs were killing innocent Libyan citizens and how brutally and shamefully an independent nation’s sovereignty was violated. However, on these Chinese official medias you can rarely find any detailed story about the background of this Libyan drama and how it was started. Neither can you find any outright denouncement on Colonel Gaddafi’s killing his fellow citizens. Through these Chinese official medias, with a little simple logical reasoning, you can easily conclude that people killed by Gaddafi are not real Libyan people, and only people killed by Western Powers are real Libyan people. You can also easily conclude that whatever Gaddafi did is always excusable and justifiable, but whatever Western Powers did is always evil and sinister. These Chinese official medias have implicitly defined the so-called “national sovereignty” as “the absolute freedom of whoever ruling the nation to do whatever they want to the ruled people”.

Here the Chinese official medias include not only the traditional news reports from news agencies but also a lot of “anonymous comments” posted on the websites to discuss these reports. Most of these comments accorded with the “mainstream official opinions”, denouncing and cursing the military operations of Western Powers. This is hardly a surprise to anyone, since China is famous for its crazily strict control over internet today. This situation gives me a déjà vu that reminds me of the Chinese propaganda running the story of Kosovo war about a decade ago. Today, more than a decade later, Chinese medias use the almost identical words and sentences to remind the world that how strong and successful the CCP’s “brain-washing” system is, and how hard and slowly the Chinese civilization is progressing, if there is any progress.

What surprises me is the progress of Chinese civilization manifested in China’s fast growing grass-root medias, such as personal blogs, Chinese twitters, and some non-official forums. Recently, I just found a blog post written by a Chinese on Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, and “Western Interventionism”. After reading it, I feel obliged to introduce this blog post to more English readers. Unfortunately, the original author could not be identified and this is normal in the Chinese internet jungle. I can only provide a link to where I found it, which is a Chinese blog. Also because this post is very long and not organized very well, I will not translate it word by word into English. I will only translate the important sentences and paragraphs in my eyes, and briefly explain other parts.

The link to the original post: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_602c23070100ppb3.html

This is a Chinese blog website. If the Chinese fonts are not installed on your computer, you may not be able to read this website normally.

Title of the post: The Causes and Consequences of Rwanda Genocide.

Paragraph#1(P1):

On the 10th Anniversary of Rwanda Genocide, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the genocides occurring in Rwanda and Yugoslavia in 1990s are shames of the whole human species. In 1998, President Clinton flew a special trip to Somali (see the Note below) to apologize to the families of victims and announce an aid project. (Note: Here Somali might be a typo of the original author. President Clinton’s Africa Trip in 1998 didn’t include Somali according to my research. According to the context, this Somali should be replaced by Rwanda.)

P2:

The genocide in the 100 days beginning on April 7th, 1994 saw almost one million Rwandan people killed by machetes, hoes, clubs, and firearms, more than half of the Rwandan Tutsi population exterminated, with a speed of killing multiple folds of Nazis’ poisonous gas room to kill Jews.  Romeo Dallaire, the United Nations Force Commander in Rwanda at that moment, later said that as long as UN was willing to intervene, he only needed 5000 elite soldiers to stop this humanitarian catastrophe. However, US and other Western nations scared out of their wits by Somalis, turned their back on the miserable wails of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans.

P3:

Nevertheless, actually, just some calm reflections could lead us to the conclusion that it is impossible to stop the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

P4:

First of all, it’s impossible for UN to work out any resolution to authorize a military intervention in time. At that time, the Rwanda military government that was organizing and implementing the genocide was a UN Security Council member itself. Its supporters, such as France and Djibouti were also members of UN Security Council then. They all denied the existence of any genocide in Rwanda at that moment. China and Russia always opposed any UN military intervention in other nations’ domestic affairs. US and Britain were both tired of the fiasco in Somali peacekeeping operation and refused to be dragged down into the new mire. Therefore, when the diplomats in UN headquarter had finished their debates and reached a consensus painstakingly, the genocide would have been over, possible victims having been killed or run away. On June 22nd, at the late stage of this genocide, when UN Security Council passed a resolution with a 10:0 vote (5 abstaining) to authorize France to build up a peacekeeping force and send it to Rwanda, RPF immediately claimed that foreign armies were invaders to intervene the domestic affairs of Rwanda, and vowed to resist them all out once they showed up in the war zone. In fact, French peacekeeping force objectively provided an opportunity to the organizers and operators of the genocide to get away with their crimes.

P5:

Secondly, UN intervention mechanism couldn’t prevent a genocide committed by civilians as in Rwanda. UN peacekeeping force is designed to separate and supervise the two conflicting sides who are both willing to pursue peace. UN peacekeepers do not have the authority to use their weapons preemptively. Therefore, the UN order to General Dallaire was: “We cannot approve your plan to seize the arms caches since it will obviously go beyond the mandate granted under UN Security Council Resolution 872.” UN forces and Western forces could not open fire preemptively in a third-world nation. They could only defend themselves. Those Rwandans wielding machetes, clubs, and AK-47s were civilians before and after they used their weapons on other civilians. If the UN peacekeepers had wanted to stop this violence, they would cause casualties of these “civilians”. Such casualties of civilians would be denounced by public opinions worldwide. Such a peacekeeping mechanism caused the nightmare in the “safe area” designated by UN in Srebrenica of the former Yugoslavia, when the Serbian soldiers loaded their trucks with tens of thousands of civilians protected by the UN resolutions and drove them away right in front of the Dutch “peacekeepers” who could do nothing to stop it. Therefore, 7000 Muslims were massacred within 6 days. Such a peacekeeping mechanism caused 500 peacekeepers were collectively disarmed and taken hostage in Sierra Leone in 2003. Thus, the sluggish and burdensome “procedural justice” could not handle these abrupt humanitarian disasters.

P6:

Thirdly, according to the defeat of Somali peacekeeping, Rwanda genocide could not be prevented by UN under its historical circumstance. Somalia was plagued by wars and starvations for years. When Audrey Hepburn, the movie star with two months of life left before dying of her cancer, appealed to the world before the camera in Somalia to save the dying people over there, Americans were shocked and pressed American government to send emergent aid of medicines and food to Somalia, most of which were intercepted and sold by the warlords in Somali. In December 1992, UN decided to organize a peacekeeping operation code-named as “Restore Hope”. Somali warlords were upset with UN interventions and unanimously raised the flag of “nationalism” to resist the “foreign invasions”. The chairman of “United Somali Congress” Farrah Aidid ordered his military forces to ambush UN peacekeepers, killing and wounding dozens of peacekeepers. August, 1993, UN Security Council authorized the peacekeeping forces in Somalia to arrest Aidid in all necessary means. Then the UN envoy in charge of Somalia affairs asked US to send more special forces to help this operation. At this point, the UN forces backed by US and other 20 plus nations represent both conscience and justice, with legitimacy of using military powers. However, in the eyes of Somali warlords, they have more natural rights to resist the foreign military interventions in their domestic affairs.

P7:

(This paragraph briefly described the Battle of Mogadishu on Oct. 3rd, 1993, between US Task Force Ranger and Somali militiamen. The last two sentences are translated here): …… Shooting Americans was the bravery of Somalis, but being shot by Americans meant Americans massacring civilians. Hence the exposed American soldiers became the moving targets. Finally, two helicopters were shot down, 18 American Task Force members were killed, and some of their bodies were dragged on the street by Somalis in front of cameras. The video of this scene won the cheers of viewers in front of TVs one time after another till today. (Note: The correct number of US casualties should be 19. In following paragraphs, this wrong number 18 will all be corrected as 19.)

P8:

People’s Daily of China published an article saying that American public opinions were in an uproar, unanimously criticizing American government for its military operations in Somalia. At the same time, international denouncements were running full of the air non-stoppable. British former Prime Minister Edward Heath said that UN should not become the “umbrella” of American military operations. Egyptian Foreign Minister Moussa expressed his concern for what had happened in Somalia and the consequential new hurdles to the Somali national reconciliation process. French Minister of Defense Leotard accused US of going beyond the “humanitarian missions” and becoming “unbearable conflicts”. German newspaper reported that US was conducting a “dirty war” in Somalia. Although US military operations in Somalia were ordered by UN, requested by UN envoy, and representing “conscience” and “justice”, such an outcome was scary and chilling.

P9:

In White House for less than one year, President Clinton was humiliated and hence ordered the pullout from Somalia. He whined that Americans sent to Somalia thousands of tons of food and medicines while Somalis sent back to America more than a dozen of coffins of soldiers. Involving more than 20 nations, costing more than 2 billion US dollars, and lasting 27 months, the UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia was totally failed. At that time, there were 37,000-strong soldiers stationed in Somalia, instead of 5,000, just US having deployed 27,000 soldiers already. This army, 7 folds of the amount General Dallaire asked for, could not prevent the following more fierce and brutal war catastrophe that would consume tens of thousands more of Somali lives, only after more than 100 peacekeepers, who had no connection to or animosity against Somalis, sacrificed their lives in vain.

P10:

Now, someone might say: Americans should dare to sacrifice another 19 soldiers and kill 3,000 more Somalis to save the tens of thousands more of Somalis who were killed later. But would Somalis accept this solution? Would world public opinions accept this solution? Would our Chinese people support this solution? Why did Americans have to sacrifice more lives and spend more money to “win” the unanimous accusations worldwide?

(to be continued…)

Please be advised that all the content, comments, observations, reflections, opinions, and narrations on this blog belong to the author alone personally. The only purpose of the author to put them here is to discuss and share with others. Any content on this blog should not be used as legal consultations for any financial, economic, or social activity. Therefore, this blog is not responsible for any decision or action made by any reader. If you would like to contact the author for any further discussion or sharing, please fill the contact form below.

Posted in People's Diplomacy, Political Economy of Democracy, The Myth of Chinese People | Leave a comment

A Game Without Winners or Losers


Weeks ago on msnbc.com, I read a cold comment on the news of Wisconsin anti-union war. In this comment, Darwinism is cited to support the Wisconsin governor’s proposal to deeply cut school aids. Putting aside this commentator’s total ignorance of American public education, just the citation of Darwinism could chill me to the toe. Such an ignorant and cold comment manifests the troubling fact that some Americans really have no clue about how modern society is working, and they just want to observe and deal with this world through their narrow, ignorant, and selfish minds.

continue reading here…

Posted in Letters to USA, Miracle of American Liberty, Political Economy of Democracy, Political Economy of Knowledge, Innovation, and Human Development | Leave a comment

War Of Social Powers


In this era of globalization, “Social Engineering” tools could even become “Weapon of Mass Destruction” used by nations to wage the political, cultural, or economic wars upon each other. These new types of wars are invisible but could be even more catastrophic than the conventional warfare, because they get each innocent citizen involved without their awareness or agreement, have no start or end, could go on and on forever, and inflict long-lasting fundamental damages on the development of a nation. Therefore, it could be more imperative for the safety of ordinary citizens that international Social Powers and Forces are stably under the control of democracy too. That’s why “People’s Diplomacy” must replace “Elites’ Diplomacy” globally before ordinary citizens could enjoy any long-lasting real peace and prosperity.

continue reading here…

Posted in Letters to USA, Miracle of American Liberty, People's Diplomacy, Political Economy of Democracy, Political Economy of Knowledge, Innovation, and Human Development | Leave a comment

Social Engineering & Social Powers


After reading the post about Economic Engineering, maybe your vision has reached a further point where you see politics is an engineering game too. Politics is even more obviously about “engineering people” than economics. Maybe this is the inevitable pathway for human species to expand and advance its living arts and surviving skills in this world. We first accumulate knowledge to understand this world. Then we start using the knowledge to control and change this world. Economics, politics, and all other Social Sciences about human societies and behaviors will sooner or later become “Social Engineering” technologies. From science to technology may be the inevitable pathway of the evolution of human intelligence.

continue reading here…

Posted in Letters to USA, Miracle of American Liberty, Political Economy of Democracy, Political Economy of Knowledge, Innovation, and Human Development | Leave a comment

Uncertainty Principle of Economics & Economic Engineering


Related Old Post

Uncertainty Principle of Economics makes the “Economic Engineering” a more exciting and complex art. The imagined example of economic engineering in stock market in this old post could merely be called “engineering”. It is the most primitive market operation. But such a primitive economic engineering has been applied in the most common market operations we can see in our daily life for a long time. For examples, when oil price is predicted to go up in a very scientific and convincing way, more oil producers might increase their productions and end up with too much oil on the market with lower prices later. A false alarm of economy going down could trigger a large-scale layoff and finally drag down the economy as predicted. When big players are convinced by the economic science that the market will collapse, they will probably try everything possible to boost the market so that they could get out before the collapse.

continue reading here…

Posted in Letters to USA, People's Diplomacy, Political Economy of Democracy, Political Economy of Knowledge, Innovation, and Human Development | Leave a comment