Answer:
No, the UN Colonel would not have done the right thing if he had disobeyed orders and authorized his troops to fire on Interhamwe fighters, even if it was to protect civilians or prevent further violence.
The UN mandate for peacekeeping operations specifies that UN troops should use force only in self-defense and only to protect civilians. This is because the UN's role is to facilitate peace negotiations and ensure that agreements are respected, rather than to take sides in a conflict or engage in combat.
If the UN Colonel had authorized his troops to use force beyond what was authorized by the UN mandate, it would have violated the principles of impartiality and non-intervention that underpin UN peacekeeping operations. It could also escalate the conflict and jeopardize the safety of civilians and UN personnel.
Instead, the UN Colonel should have worked within the limits of the UN mandate to protect civilians and ensure the safety of his troops. This could include negotiating with the Interhamwe to ensure the safe passage of civilians or working with other UN agencies to provide humanitarian aid to those in need.
In summary, while it may be tempting to take unilateral action to protect civilians in a conflict zone, UN peacekeeping operations are guided by strict principles and rules to ensure that they remain impartial and effective. The UN Colonel's duty was to uphold these principles and operate within the boundaries of the UN mandate, even if it meant not taking action that he felt was necessary.
Step-by-step explanation: