Failure to Protect?: Applying the DRRI-2 Scales to Rwanda and Srebrenica

E. Mason
{"title":"Failure to Protect?: Applying the DRRI-2 Scales to Rwanda and Srebrenica","authors":"E. Mason","doi":"10.5038/1911-9933.14.3.1741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article critically reanalyses the action, or lack of action, taken by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990's. The lack of action of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia has long been criticised as a conscious decision made by peacekeepers to not act in defence of those being targeted but instead to act as bystanders of genocide when they had the ability to prevent acts of genocide taking place. This article re-examines the actions of the UN command under Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda and Thom Karremans in Srebrenica, Bosnia in terms of the stress-related factors which influenced their decisions and actions. A modern risk assessment tool for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, the DRRI-2 Scales, developed by psychologists at the National Centre for PTSD in the United States, evaluates which stress-related factors make modern-day soldiers deployed to conflict zones susceptible or more resilient to developing PTSD. This article reveals that in four out of the six diagnostic categories analysed by the DRRI-2 Scales, that UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica would have answered affirmatively to being exposed to a significant number of stressors outlined in the DRRI-2 Scales. This article challenges the reader to critically rethink the judgements that have been placed on peacekeeper's actions in Rwanda and Srebrenica based on this close analysis of their deployment environment, operational limitations and perceived threat to life. Given the multi-layered and persistent stress which these circumstances placed on peacekeepers, I ask what behaviour could have been reasonably expected of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia?","PeriodicalId":31464,"journal":{"name":"Genocide Studies and Prevention An International Journal","volume":"82 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genocide Studies and Prevention An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5038/1911-9933.14.3.1741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article critically reanalyses the action, or lack of action, taken by UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica in the 1990's. The lack of action of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia has long been criticised as a conscious decision made by peacekeepers to not act in defence of those being targeted but instead to act as bystanders of genocide when they had the ability to prevent acts of genocide taking place. This article re-examines the actions of the UN command under Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda and Thom Karremans in Srebrenica, Bosnia in terms of the stress-related factors which influenced their decisions and actions. A modern risk assessment tool for Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder, the DRRI-2 Scales, developed by psychologists at the National Centre for PTSD in the United States, evaluates which stress-related factors make modern-day soldiers deployed to conflict zones susceptible or more resilient to developing PTSD. This article reveals that in four out of the six diagnostic categories analysed by the DRRI-2 Scales, that UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Srebrenica would have answered affirmatively to being exposed to a significant number of stressors outlined in the DRRI-2 Scales. This article challenges the reader to critically rethink the judgements that have been placed on peacekeeper's actions in Rwanda and Srebrenica based on this close analysis of their deployment environment, operational limitations and perceived threat to life. Given the multi-layered and persistent stress which these circumstances placed on peacekeepers, I ask what behaviour could have been reasonably expected of UN peacekeepers in Rwanda and Bosnia?
保护不力?将DRRI-2量表应用于卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察
本文批判性地重新分析了上世纪90年代联合国维和部队在卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察采取的行动或缺乏行动。长期以来,联合国维和人员在卢旺达和波斯尼亚缺乏行动一直受到批评,认为这是维和人员有意识的决定,他们没有采取行动保护被攻击的人,而是在有能力防止种族灭绝行为发生时充当种族灭绝的旁观者。本文从影响其决策和行动的压力相关因素的角度,重新审视了罗密欧·达莱尔(Romeo Dallaire)在卢旺达和托姆·卡雷曼斯(Thom Karremans)在波斯尼亚斯雷布雷尼察领导下的联合国指挥部的行动。DRRI-2量表是一种现代的创伤后应激障碍风险评估工具,由美国国家创伤后应激障碍研究中心的心理学家开发,评估哪些与压力相关的因素使部署到冲突地区的现代士兵更容易或更容易患上创伤后应激障碍。本文揭示,在DRRI-2量表分析的六个诊断类别中的四个类别中,联合国驻卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察维和人员肯定地回答说,他们暴露于DRRI-2量表中列出的大量压力源。本文通过对维和人员在卢旺达和斯雷布雷尼察的部署环境、行动限制和感知到的生命威胁的深入分析,促使读者批判性地重新思考对维和人员行动的判断。鉴于这些情况给维持和平人员带来了多层次和持续的压力,我想问,在卢旺达和波斯尼亚的联合国维持和平人员有什么行为是合理的?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信