|
The Politics of Hotel Rwanda
I just got back from watching the movie Hotel Rwanda. I recommend the film to anyone, but I'll leave the critical reviews to Tilted Entertainment.
I'd like to start a discussion about any political issues the film might provoke. The film depicts the horrific genocide that went on there during the mid-90s. Although the UN and the rest of the world was aware of what was going on... very little action was taken to end the violence. So I'd like to know...
Do you think that the violence could have been halted if any country had decided to intervene?
Did the outside world have a moral imperative to get involved even though it would most certainly be a messy ordeal?
What can be said about the UN's handling of the genocide?
How should our (meaning the U.S. and the west in general) response, or lack of response, to the genocide in Rwanda shape our future international policy?
On one hand it's difficult to hear of such awful things and not immediately say western (or UN) involvement is needed. However, it's a slippery slope... does that mean that we should always get involved? Surely not... but then when and why? the U.S. in particular has got its feeding-hand bitten in Somalia, got involved in a millenia-old (yet smaller scale) conflict in Bosnia... yet ignored the butchering in Rwanda and the Sudan.
sure, it's best to stop it while you can, if you can... but can we ask our soldiers to get involved (and possibly die) to stop ethnic violence around the world? that certainly isn't in the oath they take.
lots of stuff spinning around in my head.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
~ Winston Churchill
|