Romeo Dallaire
28 September 2006 by Gil
I had the chance to listen to Romeo Dallaire give the 2006 Schumiatcher Lecture at TCU Place last night and left the evening with a renewed sense of admiration of a courageous and visionary leader as well as a bit of lingering confusion over what it was that Dallaire was envisioning for the future. Dallaire is someone who deserves to be listened to simply on the basis of what he has lived through and the leadership he has shown in the face of unimaginable chaos so I’ll state at the outset that it was a privilege to listen to this man speak.
Dallaire’s topic was ‘Human Leadership’ but he really covered a lot of different issues; from the lack of true leadership within Canadian politics to the ethics of a pre-emptive strike in Darfur; from the Canadian role in Afghanistan to the prospects of our global future in what he called a ‘New World Disorder’. Throughout the lecture Dallaire continually reminded us that all human beings are of equal value and that this ought to be the foundation for human leadership. This is a simple yet profoundly necessary reminder.
Dallaire tried to make the case for a renewed vision of what Canada could contribute toward the global establishment of human rights and equality and he argued that we need political leaders who are willing to embrace that vision of what Canada could be and to act, not according to the fluctations of opinion polls but according to that vision.
I was very surprised to hear Dallaire say that he genuinely believed that within a few centuries humanity would come together and rid itself of the violence and conflict that has wracked the 20th century (and, I would argue, most of human history). The source of this salvation will come, oddly enough, through NGOs committed to advancing the cause of human rights (within the context of a liberal democracy).
Far be it from me to criticize Romeo Dallaire but I was a bit confused by this utopian vision of the future, especially given the things that Dallaire himself has witnessed. The path to global peace may the universal acceptance of the dogma of human rights but it seems to me that the failure of the UN in Rwanda (and now Darfur) was based precisely on the fact that rich Western countries were more interested in self-preservation than the possibility of taking casualties in the cause of protecting black Africans. Essentially we were too concerned about ourselves to care about Rwanda, too concerned with our own rights to safeguard the rights of others.
If our collective future lies in our willingness to give our lives for the advancement of human rights, I’ll be honest, I’m not optimistic. This requires a genuine (and costly) love of neighbour that I see little evidence of within a society that is characterized more by self-indulgence than self-sacrifice. I hope Dallaire’s optimism is well-founded. I hope our future will be one where things like Rwanda and Darfur never take place again. But I think we as a race are plagued by a paradoxical recognition that we should do more in the service of others but not if it costs too much.
wow what a privilege to listen to this man. I too have to admit that i was surprized by his hope and optimism when i heard him a little less than a year ago. what struck me was a his profound confidence in humanity. Most of us, I would suggest reject the inherent beauty of humanity. We mistrust people and are generally pessimistic about any sort of worth or value that humanity may bear. Almost as though we are not worth redeeming. That’s why for me Dallaires comments stand out for me.
I am not at all convinced that human rights is the vehicle to any sort solution to the wide sperad human calamity but…
…a little more optimism is a refreshing shift for me especially since it seems so undeserved…
I had the exact same questions lingering in my mind after hearing Dallaire speak… I’m glad the foyer had speakers, otherwise I would have missed out. Noah tried to be quiet, but he just didn’t find human leadership very interesting.
“The path to global peace may the universal acceptance of the dogma of human rights but it seems to me that the failure of the UN in Rwanda (and now Darfur) was based precisely on the fact that rich Western countries were more interested in self-preservation than the possibility of taking casualties in the cause of protecting black Africans. Essentially we were too concerned about ourselves to care about Rwanda, too concerned with our own rights to safeguard the rights of others”
i don’t know if like someone trying to impose guilt on me for something i did not cause. it is true that what is happening over in darfur is horrible but it is also true that i am not responsible for it. our counrtries are free to act in darfur but i am not sure it is our moral responsibility to sacrafice ourselves in the hope of making the situation better in darfur. hypothetically, if canada was to decide to get involved there i would think that the nation could not sustain the thought of taking casualties. think of of the outcry for loss of a few soldiers lives in afghanistan. or even the amazing outcry for the u.s.a. losing almost 3,000 soldiers in iraq. with the population having such a weak stomach for casaulties in war how can we expect to achieve victory. if the public had behaved like this in wwII than we would never have won that war[some times the casualties were over 40,000 soldiers in one day].
i think dallaire is right about the u.n. being ineffective. i think they ought to take hugo chavez’s suggestion and move it out of new york and down to venezuela. the u.s.a. should defund it’s 22% contribution. if we want leadership, those nations who feel like they should stop the genocide in darfur should just form a coalition and do what they feel is necessary without going through the bueracracy of the u.n.
i am wondering if any of you do think that canada is morally responsible to act in darfur. if yes, what moral principle is this based on? and if you think we should act… do you think a country of our size would be able to mount a force that would be able to do anything meaningful there?
“it is true that what is happening over in darfur is horrible but it is also true that i am not responsible for it. our countries are free to act in darfur but i am not sure it is our moral responsibility to sacrifice ourselves in the hope of making the situation better in darfur.”
Should our moral responsibility extend only to those situations for which we are directly responsible, either individually or nationally? By what kind of calculus could/should we determine how far our responsibility ought to extend? Does it just reduce to brute self-interest? What would the world look like if this sort of an ethic was universalized?
Somehow I don’t think this is a strong enough ethical stance for most people - we tend to feel that we have an obligation to our fellow human beings, however inadequately or inconsistently this is acted upon. Whether this obligation is dressed up in the language of inalienable human rights, or an explicitly religious basis it seems to be a persistent feature of human existence.
I think that Canada is morally responsible to act in Darfur, but I am under no illusions regarding the extent of Canada’s military muscle (or lack thereof) or how much Canada’s specific intervention would accomplish. The moral principle that this is based on is simply Christ’s command to love our neighbours as ourselves - if this principle was consistently acted upon, the world would simply look much different than it currently does. Maybe that seems simplistic or idealistic, but I firmly believe that human beings are created to be moral creatures who take into account more than their own (individual or national) self-interest.
jc
should self-interest be the guiding moral norm that dictates our (national or personal) intervention in areas of injustice or other human tragedy?
JC,
I think it is possible to talk about something like ‘collective guilt’ in situations like these. I am not trying to assign personal blame to you or anyone else who did not have the actual power to do something about Rwanda or other injustices. But I think that as citizens of a democracy we have to admit that the failures of our governments are some kind of reflection on us as a collective, even if that reflection isn’t directly related to us as individuals.
So why is it that the West largely turned its back on Rwanda? Dallaire would say that Western nations were too concerned about risking casualties and the implications that might have at election time.
How have we contributed to the construction of a society in which our leaders are afraid to make a decision without first consulting the opinion polls? Why has self-preservation become the only real goal of most of the major political parties? Is it because our leaders are hungry for power and will do anything to hang onto it. Probably. Is it also because we have seen our government as something that exists to serve my interests as an individual? I would argue yes.
ryan, for canada to act in darfur then this requires everyone’s tax dollars and will cost lives of canadian soldiers. so you say … “The moral principle that this is based on is simply Christ’s command to love our neighbours as ourselves.” so we are to mount a war effort because of a command given by Christ in a very Muslim nation. that seems problematic but beyond that, I don’t think canada is very much a christian nation anymore and we would be asking everyone to commit to a war effort based on a priniciple contained in a religion that most of them don’t even believe in… not to mention that some christians like mennonites are supposed to be pacifist. so we would be using canadian citizens wealth to support something they don’t really believe in. so i would like to see a more basic moral principle to base this war on. if it is to be based on some sort of human right to exist in a society free of oppression… then we are going to be obligated fight a lot of wars… china, north korea, iran, zimbabwe… etc.
incoming, i think self interest is an excellent guiding moral norm.
gil,
“But I think that as citizens of a democracy we have to admit that the failures of our governments are some kind of reflection on us as a collective, even if that reflection isn’t directly related to us as individuals.”
i am not sure how it follows that a failure in our society means that we need to try and save a primitive society in sudan? or am i misreading you here?
i don’t know why we keep electing political parties that are more interested in self-preservation than ideas. it is something i cannot seem to understand. i don’t think conservatives or liberals have any real principles they are fighting for or a philosophy they believe in. i think the ndp are more respectible in that at least we know they are fighting for some sort of collectivism.[i quite oppose the ndp by the way] but the two most popular parties seem to just stick their finger in the air come election time to figure out which way the wind is blowing. i would like to see more political figures running for office who had an ideology that they believed in.
jc,
I suppose the bottom line would be whether or not we believe we have any obligation to others who are suffering. The ‘morality’ of going into any of the places you’ve mentioned would depend on our answer to that question. I was not equating our failure (as a liberal democracy) with a responsibility to Darfur. The second does not follow the first, it is based on other moral assumptions that I bring into the conversation.
“Why us?” would be answered by the fact that we, as privileged nations, may have the capacity to do something about it (although the limitations of the Canadian military would not always make this an option for Canada).
jc,
Acting on a Christian ethic does not require the prior acceptance of Christianity as the basis for that ethic, so the fact that Canada is not a “Christian nation” does not disqualify Canada (or anybody else) from acting upon it. Canada’s interventions in the past have largely been based on some vague notion of a general obligation to protect “human rights,” although it is never really explained where these rights may come from, or who/what might be capable of bestowing them. It matters not whether these interventions are sold as “Christian” or not - the very fact that we are in, for example, Afghanistan at the moment seems to indicate that at least some Canadians have some intuitive sense that we have a moral obligation to our global neighbours (of course, Christians would say that this moral intuition comes from somewhere, but that’s another discussion…).
I absolutely agree with you - if Canada or other Western countries were consistent with their claims re: universal human rights, they would be obligated to intervene much more frequently than they currently do. This simply points to Canada’s inability/unwillingness to consistently act upon its professed ethical stance, and demonstrates that in practice, we consider some human’s rights to be less inalienable than others.
I’m just curious - you ask for a more basic moral principle upon which to base actions. In your view, how would the world look if literally everyone acted upon Christ’s command to love their neighbours as themselves? (or some variation of this - similar sentiments are expressed in Hindu, Ancient Chinese, Jewish, and pagan thought). When I look at the world, unless I’m missing something obvious, enlightened self-interest isn’t faring so well as a universalizable ethical principle. Self-interest as a guiding moral imperative seems to simply reduce to power - how else can a situation where self-interests conflict be resolved?
at the risk of this seeming like a three on one…
I appreciate your disillusionment over the seeming futility of intervention in (especially) global conflict and injustice. I think you’ve also reminded us of how religious paradigms embroil us in complexity in any collective action we should undertake especially on a national level.
I wondered if you could give evidence or support how self interest as a guiding moral principle ends up being good. Like Ryan I too would see almost only failure in it. To me even if you deny the existance of God you still actually have to acknowledge that some sort of collectivism has be present to even ensure the survival of the species. But maybe I’ve missed something in your thought process although it did sound in your last comment that you were acknowledging some sort of collective approach…