WI: Intervention in Rwanda

[DStecks]

The international community's failure to intervene in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide is often held up as one of the great failures of the United Nations, and of the international community at large. Hindsight, though, is 20/20, and now after two failed interventions in the Middle East, and apprehension over a looming third, the question presents itself: What if we had intervened in Rwanda?

(I'm going to refrain from stating my personal opinion in the OP, to prevent the discussion from being slanted in either direction from the start.)

 

[Pellegrino]

I think it would have gone very much like the US invasion of Liberia. Keep in mind the killers were mostly wielding machetes. We would have a UN/US force going into Rwanda, prompting the Impuzamugambi and the Interahamwe to collapse almost immidiately. The RPF and Paul Kagame (which was already winning the Civil War) would get a boost thanks to UN air strikes on government positions and move quickly to overrun the remaining government held areas. UN troops would land in Kingali within 48 hours of the strike order.

The Rwandan genocide was a horrific war crime, but one born out of desperation mixed with ethnic hatred. The Hutu's were frightened of the RPF and a they saw how the war was going. It was in part this recognition that the RPF was going to win the war that prompted the Interahamwe to try and kill every last Tutsi in the nation; to rob the RPF of its powerbase. Even if the Hutus wanted to fight back agaisnt the UN troops they couldn't do so unless (1) they were better armed and (2) unless they could afford to take those arms and troops from the front lines. So I really think we could have prevented the genocide in Rwanda with several thousand troops with almost no casualties. Such a sucessful mission could have prompted the UN and international community to act with more confidence in the future such as in Liberia and Sierra Leone as well.

Sigh. Sometimes OTL is more dystopian than we realize.

 

[Simon]

IIRC didn't the UN forces under General Dallaire pretty much know that things were about to go down, that people had been importing massive amounts of machetes and put in a request to be allowed to carry out pre-emotive raids to seize them and other stockpiled arms? If they were somehow able to get the go ahead then whilst likely to not be great for UN-government relations and not completely head things off it would make it much harder to carry out the genocide.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

What if Romeo went rogue and ordered his peacekeepers to do that?

 

[EnglishCanuck]

What if Romeo went rogue and ordered his peacekeepers to do that?

He would be arrested and recalled faster than you could say George Manning. He would then have been tried for insubordination, stripped of his rank, and dishonorably discharged, and in all likelihood imprisoned.

 

[d32123]

Is there a plausible way to get intervention in Rwanda?

 

[TRH]

Is there a plausible way to get intervention in Rwanda?

Probably not enough, but butterflying Black Hawk Down is a necessary start, since it turned off the Clinton Administration to humanitarian interventions for a good while. Maybe throw in some cultural POD's that increase social awareness of human rights abuses in Africa to get the global community more interested. Not enough to justify intervention to a realist, but you could posit getting lucky with liberal internationalists.

 

[Pellegrino]

Is there a plausible way to get intervention in Rwanda?

Probably not enough, but butterflying Black Hawk Down is a necessary start, since it turned off the Clinton Administration to humanitarian interventions for a good while. Maybe throw in some cultural POD's that increase social awareness of human rights abuses in Africa to get the global community more interested. Not enough to justify intervention to a realist, but you could posit getting lucky with liberal internationalists.

Have space bats put oil in Rwanda to ensure intervention.

Other than that what could happen is have the Belgians take a more hawkish stand after the torture and murder of the ten Belgian peacekeepers on April 8th. The Belgians surrendered but were then castrated and tortured before they were killed. So put a hawkish Belgian government in place coupled with more public outcry in Belgium. Perhaps have a video of the torture and murders leaked. This could prompt the Belgians to act in conjection with Interpol to "arrest" the murderer (Major Bernard Ntuyahaga, the commanding officer of the Presidential Guard). They make it clear they are going in, alone if need be. This shames Clinton into agreeing to go in as well as the French. End result is it becomes less of a humanitarian mission and more of a police action, but the end result is the same.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Some rich dudes hires some mercenaries

 

[Plumber]

Is there a plausible way to get intervention in Rwanda?

Easy, Somalia is portrayed as a successful intervention. Despite Black Hawk Down ending it with shame, the American intervention did reduce the intensity of the civil war to the more low-level conflict it is today.

 

[Simon]

Some rich dudes hires some mercenaries

Apparently Executive Outcomes did publicly state that if the UN or someone was willing to pick up the tab they could have troops on the ground with air support in the form of a Mi-24 attack helicopter and transports inside of a week. And considering how well they did in Sierra Leone whilst I don't think they could have stopped everything I think they would have been more than capable of securing part of the country as a safe zone.

 

[Ijon Tichy]

I think you'll find, gentlemen, that there was in fact western intervention in Rwanda in 1994, and it did not exactly shower itself in glory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opération_Turquoise#Controversy

 

[teg]

I think for there to be an intervention in Rwanda beyond Operation Turquoise, you need there to be a US president who is big on humanitarian intervention [basically a Bush Jr who believes his own rhetoric] or for there to be substantial rewards for intervening. Avoiding Black Hawk Down is not enough, that was a sympton of the general US reluctance to accept lengthy and costly interventions [along with Lebanon in the 1980s] rather than a cause. Avoiding the Barracks bombing in Lebanon could potentially lead to more foreign interventions, providing Lebanon does not become another Vietnam. Of course a PoD that far back does raise a number of butterfly issues.

teg

 

[Sanderford]

If the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, then Europe follows, as does the United Nations as a whole.

The problem, therefore, is getting the United States to intervene in Rwanda, because unless they do, nothing happens.

 

[Plumber]

If the U.S. intervenes in Rwanda, then Europe follows, as does the United Nations as a whole.

The problem, therefore, is getting the United States to intervene in Rwanda, because unless they do, nothing happens.

France was actually in the best position to intervene against the genocide IOTL, but deliberately chose not to.