Mr. McGonigle, though your criticism fair in parts, I wish you to delve deeper into why, exactly, the United States is partially blamed in this feature, as well as in Roméo Dallaire's book as well.
I have spent time as a foreign aid worker in Rwanda, and after seeing this film, I was disappointed at how little was spoken in regards to the peoples involved. You wrote, "The Hutu fundamentalists didn't want peace or a political settlement; they only wanted to see Tutsis dead. That's it. All the troops in the world would only have stopped the slaughter temporarily.", to which I would say is a very simple-minded argument, and based on what I have witnessed on the ground in Rwanda, I would say it to be quite irrational.
What is exceptionally important to understand, and I feel very understated in the West, is how intelligent these African leaders are. They, like the leaders in the West, have often attended Universities in the West (in this case, Universities in Quebec seemed popular amongst the francophones). These leaders understand what buttons to push, and what will give them gain, and what will not.
The Hutu were not out to kill for the sake of killing. There was a cunning behind this, and had their leaders nothing to gain with genocide, we undoubtedly would have stopped it before it began. The terrible thing, as Dallaire of course bears witness too, is that 'we' (that is, the member states of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council) could do something to stop it. We simply chose not to.
Let us also understand where the United Nations went wrong. This was not a situation of Secretary-General Mr. Boutros-Ghali or any of his subordinates simply turning a blind eye to the plight in Rwanda, or otherwise not committed to spending there. This was a failure of the member states not wishing to spend the needed cost in staff, soldiers, MILOBS, and supplies. Specifically the members of the Security Concil - including, of course, the all-powerful United States of America.
Another argument you put forth, Mr. McGonicle:
"Now let's be very blunt, look around you; how many young Americans would you send into harms way to only temporarily halt, not stop the eventual killings? How many would you be willing to sacrifice for a country of little strategic value, no natural wealth and no great political objectives to speak of? I am aware of the "doing it for humanity" argument, but is it possible to stop every insane group determined to kill off parts of their own population? Are the superpowers supposed to be the world's police? Can they be everywhere all the time?"
While some might argue it a callous argument, it is indeed both logical and fair. No, the United States is not obligated to solve the worlds problems. However, one can certainly argue there have been few human catastrophes worse than the Rwandan Genocide within the last century. Given the last forty years of near-constant warfare waged by the Americans, logical questions must be asked. Is it logical for the United States to aggressively invade nations based on ideological principles? If so, is that truly more important than halting genocide? If not, all I can say is we must agree to disagree. The pure human loss seems far more important than if a government wishes to abolish private land ownership, or to legalise cocaine.
Forgive me for the transgressions, though. The book, 'Shake Hands with the Devil', is magnificent. All documentaries and films I have seen depicting the genocide seem to always fill be with a lack of ... something unexplainable. Perhaps it just seems that there isn't enough time in these formats to adequately tell such a complex political and sociological story. While I would recommend the film for the pure purpose of educating oneself about such an important historical footnote (in the West) that deserves far more attention, I could not say it told the whole story.
This film is about Mr. Dallaire, first and foremost. And on that note, I must say it does a fine job.
I have spent time as a foreign aid worker in Rwanda, and after seeing this film, I was disappointed at how little was spoken in regards to the peoples involved. You wrote, "The Hutu fundamentalists didn't want peace or a political settlement; they only wanted to see Tutsis dead. That's it. All the troops in the world would only have stopped the slaughter temporarily.", to which I would say is a very simple-minded argument, and based on what I have witnessed on the ground in Rwanda, I would say it to be quite irrational.
What is exceptionally important to understand, and I feel very understated in the West, is how intelligent these African leaders are. They, like the leaders in the West, have often attended Universities in the West (in this case, Universities in Quebec seemed popular amongst the francophones). These leaders understand what buttons to push, and what will give them gain, and what will not.
The Hutu were not out to kill for the sake of killing. There was a cunning behind this, and had their leaders nothing to gain with genocide, we undoubtedly would have stopped it before it began. The terrible thing, as Dallaire of course bears witness too, is that 'we' (that is, the member states of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council) could do something to stop it. We simply chose not to.
Let us also understand where the United Nations went wrong. This was not a situation of Secretary-General Mr. Boutros-Ghali or any of his subordinates simply turning a blind eye to the plight in Rwanda, or otherwise not committed to spending there. This was a failure of the member states not wishing to spend the needed cost in staff, soldiers, MILOBS, and supplies. Specifically the members of the Security Concil - including, of course, the all-powerful United States of America.
Another argument you put forth, Mr. McGonicle:
"Now let's be very blunt, look around you; how many young Americans would you send into harms way to only temporarily halt, not stop the eventual killings? How many would you be willing to sacrifice for a country of little strategic value, no natural wealth and no great political objectives to speak of? I am aware of the "doing it for humanity" argument, but is it possible to stop every insane group determined to kill off parts of their own population? Are the superpowers supposed to be the world's police? Can they be everywhere all the time?"
While some might argue it a callous argument, it is indeed both logical and fair. No, the United States is not obligated to solve the worlds problems. However, one can certainly argue there have been few human catastrophes worse than the Rwandan Genocide within the last century. Given the last forty years of near-constant warfare waged by the Americans, logical questions must be asked. Is it logical for the United States to aggressively invade nations based on ideological principles? If so, is that truly more important than halting genocide? If not, all I can say is we must agree to disagree. The pure human loss seems far more important than if a government wishes to abolish private land ownership, or to legalise cocaine.
Forgive me for the transgressions, though. The book, 'Shake Hands with the Devil', is magnificent. All documentaries and films I have seen depicting the genocide seem to always fill be with a lack of ... something unexplainable. Perhaps it just seems that there isn't enough time in these formats to adequately tell such a complex political and sociological story. While I would recommend the film for the pure purpose of educating oneself about such an important historical footnote (in the West) that deserves far more attention, I could not say it told the whole story.
This film is about Mr. Dallaire, first and foremost. And on that note, I must say it does a fine job.