Simviation Forums

Forgive me for posting on such a touchy subject but I'm really curious about this specific subject.

I watched that film called "Hotel Rwanda" a week ago and all I can say that it stirred some emotions. One of the most strongest emotions I felt was anger. I was angry at the western countries for not doing enough to help those refugees. I'm wondering why couldn't the U.N airlift those refugees in the hotel to somewhere safe. Im wondering why could'nt more soldiers and U.N peace keepers be sent to Rwanda (it seems clearly evident in the film that the Hutu's were "scared" of the western forces for the time they were there. I have not at all researched this subject properly. I'm actually researching some right now. But so far I only have the film to go back on. Maybe I have written this thread in a wrong and sarcastic manner. I can assure you that I have not intended to do any of that.

But I just want to try and understand the situation. I hope someone can answer my wondering queries. Or maybe if they could refer me to a website. I'm also looking around for a website also. I am no avid historian, its just that this subject is intresting and if anyone can explain or point me in the right direction that would be great  ;D

                             Your Friend, Ace
               

Alas as usual it was a lack of political will that failed the innocent. The various military groups involved could easily have managed to airlift those people but the politicians sat on their hands and did nothing.
Nine times out of 10 this is the case. One exception being the Srebrenicia matter which is in Dutch courts at the moment as the Dutch peacekeepers whilst they were outnumbered did nothing to help and just handed over the civilians. Not one of their finest hours

With anyone but the dutch and US bombers turning back before they even got in range of bombing the artillery there... we were not the only ones responsible

The US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

The US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Nobody is pointing a finger at the US. This is a job for the UN which appears increasingly toothless nowadays & takes an eternity to come to a decision. I haven't seen this film & although I recall it happening I admit to not knowing as much about these horrific events as I should. The facts are that an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. That's genocide on a massive scale & yet the West stood by & allowed it to happen. I'm not sure what could have been done to prevent it but similar things are happening in some parts of the world right now. In most cases nobody seems to care.

PS. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230.stm

The UN seems to largely consist of spineless old women taking back-handers from all and sundry and basically doing bog-all. Can anyone name anything useful they've done of late?

I know no one here is pointing fingers at the US but since the UN is worthless at stopping this kind of thing some people a) blame the US for doing nothing when it should have done something or b) blame the US for acting when it should have waited for the UN to do something.

As I said, damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Jim. You seem to be confusing this with events in the Middle East which is a completely separate issue which I have no wish to discuss here.

I don't see how this affects the US apart from being an influential member of the international community & the UN. I believe that Rwanda was formerly a Belgian colony granted independence in 1962.

During World War I, Belgian forces occupied (1916) Rwanda, and in 1919 it became part of the Belgian League of Nations mandate of Ruanda-Urundi (which in 1946 became a UN trust territory). Until the last years of Belgian rule the traditional social structure of Rwanda was not altered; considerable Christian missionary work, however, was undertaken.

The United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said he could and should have done more to stop the genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3573229.stm

I have no idea how the UN is organised but maybe the Belgian government should have pressed for action in the same way that I think the British government should do more about the current situaton in Zimbabwe. The UN is an international organisation & maybe it's time it was reorganised or disbanded. It seems pretty useless to me the way it is now.

the same way that I think the British government should do more about the current situaton in Zimbabwe.

And yet they expect South Africa to do something. Its sit on backside while twiddling thumbs again. So many problems could be sorted by perhaps actually doing something in that country.

A "nonpolitical" question about genocide?  I didn't think so.

To the extent that this is a debate about "the US should have done more but we are imperialists if we do" I offer a simple Google search.  As an example:

"Despite overwhelming evidence of genocide and knowledge as to its perpetrators, United States officials decided against taking a leading role in confronting the slaughter in Rwanda.  Rather, US officials confined themselves to public statements, diplomatic demarches, initiatives for a ceasefire, and attempts to contact both the interim government perpetrating the killing and the RPF.  The US did use its influence, however, at the United Nations, but did so to discourage a robust UN response (Document 4 and Document 13).  In late July, however, with the evidence of genocide littering the ground in Rwanda, the US did launch substantial operations

[quote]A "nonpolitical" question about genocide?

The article I quoted is true to the extent that it expresses a common criticism of the US, to wit, "Why didn't you, the most powerful country on the Earth, stop this?"

To which I reply, "If the US had stopped this you would have immediately turned around and accused us of imperialism."

That is what I mean by "damned if we do and damned if we don't".

Webb, lots of countries are in the same position. The UK are being criticised because they are not doing much with Zimbabwe, a country where thousands of people who supported the opposition to mugabe, were just made homeless because of it. At the moment its just talk between officials, and people want more done. But you can bet your bottom dollar, if we were to send a peacekeeping force, either to stabilise the place or remove mugabe, it would be endless anti-war rallies from those with their heads up their backsides thinking the place will get better without our help, because really they dont know what they are talking about, but see this as an opportunity to perhaps be heard on tv, or look caring to their friends.

Eeesh....the messy thing is that this is a nasty little side war where no "right" and "wrong" exists and both use a strange kind of moralistic violence.
A brutal conflict, one would like to avoid, and I'm sorry if I piss you off, Webb, but it would have helped if the US/UN (SAME THING!!:p) stayed out of it....

A.

the US and UN are not the same thing.