Hotel Rwanda

Recently, I viewed the film "Hotel Rwanda" to gain a better sense of what happened regarding the genocide in Rwanda. The film is based on a true story of a man who sacrificed everything he had short of himself and his family to provide shelter to over one thousand Rwandan refugees, who in turn survived the genocide.

I am aware that this is only a film based on a true story, but the brutality of the event is blood curling and difficult to watch. The Tutsi had no protection for a very long time, and even when the UN decided to intervene, they didn't do too much to stop the killing. I watched a ten minute video about what the world was trying to do to 'stop' the genocide. Bill Clinton made a statement saying, "I want to assure the families that we are doing everything we possibly can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to ensure the safety of our citizens there." This statement enfuriates me, as earlier in the video, a man who was involved in the UN at the time said they had a plan that looked great on paper, but they never really planned to do anything with it. Troops were sent, but the quote from the movie from a man who was apart of the UN troops said, "We're here as the peacekeepers, not as the peacemakers," symbolizing they were not trying to actively stop the killings. Clinton blatantly lied to the American public, trying to make it seem as if we WERE doing everything we could when in reality, we were doing the bare minimum short of completely ignoring the situation all together. So sometimes the United States denies the occurrence of genocide, but once it is recognized, the public is lied to saying that the government was doing everything that it could.

What is the United States trying to do? Stay out of international issues, or just ignore it because it doesn't affect us? Did Clinton think by lying to the public that they could get away with doing the bare minimum? Well it worked.

Here is the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC5j-gRemYk

Natural Disaster Help vs Genocide Help Continued

The United States has been known to give initial aid then stop before everything is taken care of. For example, even in New Orleans there are still many people without housing and the necessities to live. Not much else has happened after the first year of aid. The U.S. waited until the worst was over in Rwanda before it decided to send troops AFTER the genocide was over.

My accusations of the United States may be a bit harsh, but they need to be. The country doesn't do all it can to prevent genocide; it essentially turns a blind eye because it doesn't want to get involved (though it can be controlled). Even when the country itself isn't threatened, it still decides not to intervene. There may be other things of 'higher priority' for the government to worry about, but honestly, what can be of higher priority when thousands of innocent people are being murdered EACH DAY?

The St. Louis Ship 1939

In May of 1939, a German ship called the St. Louis left Europe with a little more than 900 Jewish refugees aboard (this is during the time of the Holocaust). It is important to realize that all the refugees on board had legitimate Visas necessary to enter the United States. The ship made a stop in Cuba, where only about twenty Jews were allowed to stay, then the ship departed for the U.S. With legal visas in hand, the hopeful Jewish refugees were denied entrance to the United States by Franklin Roosevelt.

So why were the refugees denied entrance to the United States? Legally, they should have been able to land and take refuge, but they were not allowed. The ship was sent back to Europe and the hopeful Jews were sent to concentration and labor camps. It is basically like we dangled freedom in front of their faces, then essentially denied them their last opportunity to live (since they were sent back to Europe). Sure, at the time the United States was neutral in World War II, but I don't think that is reason enough not to accept the Jews. Hitler's idea was to rid the Aryan race of anything he considered impure, and by accepting the Jews in the U.S., they wouldn't have been in Europe anymore, therefore not contributing to the problem.

The United States had the chance to save 900 lives, but it didn't even let the ship pull into the port. We may never know the true reason why they were denied entrance, but by denying, the country essentially crushed the hopes and dreams of some innocent Jewish people's lives.

The point is that victims of a genocide were knocking RIGHT AT the door of the United States; the country did not even have to go out of the way to help them, but still refused. There is something seriously wrong with this.

Intervening in Interventions

I will most likely spend most of my time on this blog exploring why the United States SHOULD intervene in foreign genocides but doesn't. I will use many harsh words in trying to explain why it is so wrong for the U.S. not to intervene, but in this particular blog post, I will explore a potential reason as to why the country doesn't help the victims of genocide.

It doesn't seem like a big deal to have the Superpower of the world intervene in smaller, less threatening countries for the benefit of humanity and to protect human rights. No, the country that the U.S. tries to help will probably not have the power to attack the United States, but other countries may see this as an opportunity to intervene in the problems of the U.S. that they personally do not agree with. The lack of U.S. intervention may then be a result of fear that foreign places will take that as an invitation to attack the country.

The one problem with this theory is that the United States does not recognize these mass killings as genocide, which isn't what necessarily needs to happen for it not to get involved. I am still convinced there are other reasons, less legitimate than this, for the lack of U.S. intervention.