Customer Reviews

The Lion, the Fox and the Eagle

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Carol Off does a terrific job explaining two of the most complicated tragedies of this lifetime. If you want a concise understanding of the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides and wars then this is your book.

It is told from the point of view of the Canadians. It has excellent references.

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of United Nations peacekeeping efforts created to intervene in regional conflicts has increased significantly. Of these, two of the most striking failures were the missions sent to Rwanda and Bosnia. In her book The Lion, The Fox, & The Eagle, Carol Off attempts to identify the reasons why these failures occurred by examining the actions of three prominent Canadians closely associated with those events. The principle actors involved in her exploration are, on the military side, generals Romeo Dallaire and Lewis MacKenzie, with Justice Louise Arbour rounding out the group as Chief Prosecutor for the International War Crimes Tribunal. For those Canadians who may find themselves acting in the role of peacekeeper this book is useful, not necessarily as a guide to conduct, but for revealing the mindset of many of Canada's political elite, and for explaining the purposes they will expect sacrifices to be made.
Off makes it clear that much of the blame for the Rwandan and Bosnian tragedies stem from United Nations inefficiencies and with Kofi Annan personally, but her assessment of the three principle actors identified is intended to reinforce the organization's perceived viability for any potential intervention in future conflicts. Philosophical or ideological considerations compel her to do so, and in the process, she offers a new definition of heroism to gauge the success of those who will be tasked with leading these efforts. Her assessment however, is unconvincing.
It is a collectivist worldview which causes Off to cast Major General Romeo Dallaire in a tragic and heroic light. Dallaire, the lion, was force commander of the UN mission to Rwanda prior to, and during, the genocidal slaughter of the Tutsi minority by the governing Hutus. At the outset, his assigned mandate was to assist in the implementation of a new power sharing agreement encompassing both ethnic groups. Once Hutu President Habyarimana was killed however, it became impossible for him to fulfill his mission. His continued efforts to do so, fueled by ideological considerations shared by Off, caused the general to subordinate the welfare of his troops to the completion of his diplomatic endeavors. This resulted in the useless deaths of ten Belgian paratroopers.
The fox in this story is Major General Lewis MacKenzie, Chief of Staff of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Sarajevo. His job was to provide leadership for the UN forces within the city once the Serbian siege altered the strategic situation. Off vilifies MacKenzie for realizing the tenuous position UNPROFOR had fallen into, and for making the maintenance of his force's security his primary goal. Unlike Dallaire, MacKenzie realized it would not be feasible to continue with his original mission (to Croatia) as it was configured, and rationally assumed that his individual responsibilities towards those under his command remained his paramount consideration. To prevent mass starvation in Sarajevo, UN officials simultaneously decided to open the Sarajevo airport. Thus, with official approval, MacKenzie quickly deployed his forces to secure the position. Off contends this action extended the war by removing the necessity of NATO intervention, thereby increasing the suffering of the people of Sarajevo.
Yet, on several occasions throughout the book human suffering seems less significant than does adherence to ideological dogma. If MacKenzie's troops had been engaged in fighting a war (rather than having found themselves caught in the middle of one), then more aggressive action may have been warranted. But that was not the situation MacKenzie was faced with or equipped for. If however, the function of the United Nations is to facilitate the complete destruction of all forms of nationalism, as opposed to providing a forum for encouraging international cooperation, then Off's assertion that MacKenzie should have forcefully challenged the JNA makes her argument more consistent. Consequently, one is left to consider that she would have preferred to see his troops needlessly slaughtered rather than establish a secure defensive posture. Moreover, their removal from the area (either through destruction or capitulation) could have created greater hardship for Sarajevo's citizens.
Off, and many others on both sides of the issue, believe that the creation of a `New World Order' (a phrase she uses repeatedly) is the main purpose of the United Nations. Only when the organization is viewed in such light does her account make any sense. That is why her greatest acclaim goes to the eagle, Louise Arbour, for her dramatic successes against the numerous African and Balkan practitioners of genocide. Arbour, as hero, belatedly succeeds where the two men have failed. Her example is glorified to demonstrate how the enemies of collectivism can be defeated.
Obviously, those responsible for acts of genocide deserve punishment for the horror they have inflicted, but for Off, the only acceptable methods to impose it stem from direct international intervention. This assumption, and others, such as the role of military leadership in conducting international political affairs, remains questionable. An additional problem involves the idea that nationalism is the root cause of all genocide. What of the actions of Josef Stalin, the greatest collectivist of all time? How many tens of millions were slaughtered in the name of creating the perfect socialist union? Her treatment of lesser communist tyrants such as Marshall Josip Tito is also bizarre. In comparing the `rehabilitated' communist Slobodan Milosevic's attempts at consolidating Serbian power with those of the late dictator, Off states he had, "None of the vision or imagination of Tito."(341) What exactly was that vision? The creation of a perfect multiethnic union fused together by state sanctioned murder and maintained through the employment of OZNA-UDBA terror squads? As far as Off is concerned, supranational government remains the solution, not the problem.
Accompanying these considerations, Off's work displays other contradictions that further unravel her argument. If Tito's vision of state controlled multiculturalism is to be enforced on a global scale then there is a great deal of certainty that humanity is in store for more acts of genocide, not less. More people were killed by socialist based governments (whether labeled national socialist or international socialist) during the last century than by any other cause. This point is lost on Off as she explains how the implementation of the Dayton accords brought peace at the cost of ideological advancement. "Everybody won something," she states, "but everybody lost something as well - especially a generation of Sarajevans who, under Tito, had come to believe in and live the dream of multiculturalism."(222) Was it a dream or a nightmare?