I'm just a simple person. I don't have a great knowledge of politics and stuff. Like others, this film aroused so many emotoins.
It also raised a question:
If I am being assaulted in my home, I would expect a passer by to help me in one way or another by disregarding the usual boundaries that we set for our personal spaces. Why then did the UN sit back and watch the events in this country? To me the UN are just as responsible as the Hutus!!! They just watched. Sad.
I completely agree. The UN should've helped, but unfortunately they were only there to observe the area. They weren't there to protect the people, they were only observing. They could only engage in action if they themselves were being attacked. However, they would've been able to attack or intervene if it had been classified as a genocide before it was over. It's a shame that only a few people realized what was going on before it was all over.
shareSHAME ON the *beep* UN....they are always only watch.
shareThe UN plays a very cursory role in Africa...as long as it's africans killing africans, the UN will not get involved. In 'Hotel Rwanda', the UN played a role in protecting and marshalling the safe transit of 'westerners', and did NOTHING when it came to helping Rwandans.
Bottom line is, governments of the 'west' (Ie. the usa,uk, etc) don't really care less about Africans, and if it's African Vs African atrocoties, so much the better in their eyes.
the conclusive proof for this???
Well, the US secretary of State at the time, Madeline Allbright REFUSED to aknowledge the events in Rwanda as a genocide.
Being, jewish, I wonder how she reacts when neo nazis claim there was no such thing as a 'holocaust' ?
Bottom line is...jews are pretty and white, Africans are...well, african, black and politically irrelevant and utterly disposable.
nothing's changed...look at Darfur.
[deleted]
"Madeline Allbright REFUSED to aknowledge the events in Rwanda as a genocide."
Madeline Albright is a war criminal as far as I'm concerned - she was instrumental in putting the genocidal sanctions in place in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over 500,00 children. When asked if it was worth it, she replied, "Yes, it was." This creature should be rotting in prison, not gallavanting free out in the open!
The trouble is that most of the time, the owners of the house aren't the one being assaulted, just the residents.
The UN sat back and watched because it wasn't politically smart to do otherwise. The UN itself relies on countries that make up the UN in the first place. If none of those countries feel like doing anything (not entirely the case, as some countries like New Zealand pushed for intervention, but they were the minority), the UN can't do anything. The US just experienced bad PR in Somalia, where 18 US marines got killed in the streets of Mogadishu. How do you explain sending troops to some African country a year after to the American people? Why would America bother, really? Sending troops to other countries comes with a pricetag, financially and politically. And, why would anyone bother about some small African country which has nothing to offer to the outside world? It's the sad math that results in tragedies.
I think this answer definitely answers OP's question. I don't know how to put it but sometimes the right option is not the best option.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
And, why would anyone bother about some small African country which has nothing to offer to the outside world?
And, why would anyone bother about some small African country which has nothing to offer to the outside world?
It all came down to money and greed. The same governments who refused to give mandate to UN did so to protect their own investments in Rwanda - all the while shipping guns to Rwanda. They were in fact funding the coup.
"I wanna be like Mother friggin' Teresa, but with a diva attitude" - Dominique, ANTM Cycle 10
[deleted]
The reason the U.N didn't intervene is simple... NO OIL!!! There is no commercial gain helping over there!!
shareWhat we have here is long and complex and we need to set the genocide in some sort of context. For a start, Rwanda had been in a state of civil war for 40 ood years before the genocide. In 1993 UNAMIR (The United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda) was mandated to over see the Arusha peace accords that was supposed to have put an end to the civil war and put in place a mixed Hutu/Tutsi government in a power sharing agreement...therefore their mandate was only a chapter 6 (An observational mandate. However on the 6th April 1994 Rwandan President Habyarimana's plane was shot down leading the events portrayed in "Shooting Dogs". Some theories as to why the UN were totaly inefectual in RwandaN: 1)They, namely the USA, had got a bloody nose in the Somali conflict (The UNSOMA mission)which lead to the infamous Black Hawk down incident (Ridley Scott made a film of this called, suprisingly "Black Hawk Down")and 2) they were over streched in the Balkans. I have the feeling that after the disarsterous UNSOMA mission the UN was worried about it's public profile and wanted to take a step back from Africa conflicts in general. Also the fact that they had troops comited to the Serbo-croat war..they did have the troops. If you read Dallaire's book (he was the forces commander on the ground for UNAMIR mission) somehow things got lost in transilation. He was sending situation reports (Sit. Reps) back to the UN and nothing was being done. Yes it was self serving...but Boutrous Gahli (The Head of the security council at the time ) effectively gaged the P5...they were not alowed to pass on what they new. So it is only for time to be the judge. But the situation is never as simple as a two hour movie may make it seem. I'm not a fan of the UN and would love to see it disbanded but there you go.
shareBut we are all bound by rules and laws and the international community is no different...it has to be so careful not to be seen to be imposing its own will on soverieng states and Rwanda had been in and out of Civil war since the 50's...in the begining they felt that the lead up to genocide was simply a continuation of the civil war...why they ignored the blantant evidence afterwars is not for me to fathom but at first they did try to act hounorbly to Rwanda.
share