I recently learned that the United Nations had a peacekeeping army stationed in Rwanda at the time the genocide began. Apparently, these men were equipped to stop the genocide, but were not allowed to commit violence to protect the Tutsis because the Security Council denied the UN forces in Rwanda the use of their weapons to kill.
My Question is: Why? Did they not understand the scale of the genocide? Why didn't the UN soldiers disobey orders? What is the United States' role in this, being the primary leader of the United Nations.
Conveniently, the genocide occurred just over 20 years ago, so any answers that don't break the 20 year rule are greatly appreciated!
Hi! First time posting here so I hope this answer goes over well!
For this question it is important to understand that Rwanda is of little importance to the world economy. It has no precious metals, it is not a transportation corridor, and lots of citizens live outside of the money economy. This means that there are no vested interests in helping the country in times of turmoil. The conflict in the Rwandian genocide was between the Hutus and the Tutsis and although the Hutus made up a much larger portion of the population, the Tutsis were generally the wealthier class of people. This was exacerbated when the Belgians colonized the country and they began to favor the Tutsis because they deemed them "finer-featured natural aristocrats." This is an extremely simple history of the Hutu/Tutsi divide and I encourage other historians to fill in more information in order to elaborate on the racial divide however I would now like to address your concerns about the U.N.
Very early after the killing started (April 6, 1994) 10 Belgian, U.N. Peacekeepers were sent by the U.N. General Dallaire in order to protect the moderate Hutu Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana. Soon after they arrived, a group of Hutu militiamen surrounded the PM's compound and proceeded to force their way in. The militiamen overwhelmed the Belgian forces, took their weapons, and then hacked the PM to death. General Dellaire heard what happened and did his best to intervene however he was stopped by Hutu extremists and did not have the tactical capability to fight back. All 10 Belgian soldiers were killed, 2 at the PMs compound while the other 8 were tortured before they were disposed of. The killing of these Belgians would have a HUGE impact of the rest of the conflict as the Belgians withdrew the rest of their peacekeepers soon after, leaving General Dellaire with only 450 troops at his disposal.
It is mostly untrue that the UN security forces were "equipped to stop the genocide." It is true that the member states could have mustered enough force in order to intact a successful intervention however following the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, there was little political will to send foreign troops. The Clinton administration did not need more dead US troops playing on the news right before an election. The Clinton administration did understand what was going on in Rwanda but they played a game of cat and mouse with the media in order to avoid saying the word "genocide" thus preventing them from having to act with force. General Dellaire's 450 men were not enough to stop widespread killing and every request he made for more troops was denied. It is true that sometimes the mere presence of the peacekeepers was enough to fend off the killers but planning a full scale assault on the militiamen would have been near suicidal.
This is a fairly simple answer and I recommend you watch the Front line documentary for more information
Edit: forgot to answer a question.
"Bystanders to Genocide" by Samantha Powers http://rfarkasch.com/bob230/Samantha%20Powers%20Bystanders%20to%20Genocide.htm (password protected)
"Genocide in Rawanda" by Robert Farkasch http://rfarkasch.com/bob230/IR/RwandaLink.html (password protected)