We watched the movie Sometimes is April. This post is different in that you will respond to the following questions. You can simply answer in same number format that is presented here:
Discussion Questions:
1) The US chose not to intervene in the Rwandan genocide - why do you think they took that position?
2) What role did Honore (Augustine’s brother) play in the genocide? What blame does he share? Should the government have blocked his radio broadcast? Should the U.S. have blocked the signal?
3) Would the U.S. have intervened had there been a 'national interest' at stake? What are our national interests, what should they include?
4) Why did the U.S call it acts of genocide and not genocide? (Watch Clinton's Apology here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_6CFNwJ9ww )
5) What can the global community do to prevent events like this from happening again?
6) What should the U.S. government do to help in situations like this? What should we do, for instance, right now in the Congo or in the Darfur region of Sudan?
1. The U.S did not intervene because they did not want to get into another crisis after what had happened in Somalia. Rhawanda had no resources to entitle the U.S to protect it. The U.S believed it was a civil war and that the Rwandan government should solve.
ReplyDelete2. Honroe worked for radio RTLM, who had repeatedly broadcast themes developed by the extremist written press underlining the inherent differences between Hutu and Tutsi. He worked for the radio station and supported it. The rhawanda government should’ve blocked the broadcast as it was causing the killings to go on. The U.S government should have blocked the signal because it would save thousands of lives.
3. If there was anything like oil, Gold and Silver or we were currently trading some other resource, we would be there in a heart beat. Our national interest now is to support human rights around the world.
4. Only acts of genocide were being committed. It was a distinction without a difference.
5. To stop this from happening again there has to be laws made that can give the U.N more power and let there be quicker responses to acts like the rhawanda genocide to prevent unneciacary death.
6. If something like this occurs again, the U.S should immediately respond and ask for the U.Ns approval. If it takes too long the president should use his power to send troops to that country for a limited time and then have talks with U.N officials about event. In the Congo and Darfur we should send U.S troops there until U.N will support or the fighting ceases and ends.
1) There are probably a couple of different reasons why the US did not intervene. We saw a bit of the gov’t in the movie deciding a course of action. Some suggested sending troops or cutting the Hutu radio signal that called for the killing of the Tutsi’s. However, the US did not want to send their own troops into a hostile region, and they believed it was against international law to block another country’s radio. Unfortunately I believe what happened here is the leaders thought that a war going on in Africa is not at the top of the agenda, simply because it is so far away. As bad as this may sound, most nations do not act altruistically, they usually have some sort of motive. I think the US government weighed the cost versus the benefits and decided not to take action, but asked the Hutu’s politely to stop (we saw that in the film when the Assistant Secretary of State made a phone call to the Hutu leaders asking them to stop) I thought this scene showed that the US was empathetic to the struggle of the African citizens being killed, but political agendas and liabilities got in the way of intervention.
ReplyDelete2) I think Honore does share some part of the blame; however, his situation is complex. I don’t think he started out being a bad guy, things just got sort of carried away and different factors led to this. In addition, once he started the broadcasts, if he had stopped or spoke out/changed his mind he would have been killed just like the rest of the people. So yes, Honore is partially to blame, but it’s easy to get swept up in propaganda and such. I don’t think the African government could have stopped the broadcasts because the government was primarily Hutu, so they were most likely in favor of them. I do believe that the US should have blocked the signal, even if it was against the law. In the end, the country probably would not have been brought up on charges because it was the right thing to do. It’s a tough call when deciding between ethics and law.
3) Yes, I definitely think the US would have intervened if there was an interest involved. One example of this is the Gulf War. Isn’t it common knowledge that the entire reason the US got involved was because of oil? Some of the current US national interest might include: oil, international trade, nuclear weapons/WMD, terrorism. So if any of these categories were ever threatened by another country, the US would most likely intervene. They should change their policy to include genocide and environmental concerns.
4) This might sound bad, but I think the US did not recognize the fact that what was happening in Rwanda at the time was genocide because they were afraid of being obligated to respond. Once the government had weighed the pros and cons, it was too much of a rick to send troops to Rwanda, and since officials did not want to look bad for not intervening in something they promised to respond to in the past, they did not recognize the legitimacy of the genocide, and carried on with the notion that only some killings were happening. Later, however, once more information was gained and the incident was found out to indeed be genocide, the US had no choice but to apologize and understand that they were wrong in not realizing the severity of the situation when it was unfolding.
ReplyDelete5) I think the global community can get more involved by creating international laws to punish those who commit genocide, as well as form laws that encourage other countries to act clearly when genocide is happening. The real issue here is that we need to change government’s way of thinking. Many believe that it’s not their problem, while it really is. It is the responsibility of any global citizen to stop injustices while they are happening. In order for things to change people have to change the way they think about these kinds of issues.
6) I think the government should send more aid. Not aid in the form of money, but other kinds of things. Sending money is a cheap way of showing that you care. Any person can write a check and send it off without any thoughts, but it takes real initiative to get out there and do things. I think some of the problems like the Congo or Darfur can be solved with diplomacy, if only our government or another country will step up and take charge of the situation. At the same time, though, America does not want to look bad by bullying another country. It’s complicated, this type of genocide should be stopped, but it needs to be handled delicately.
1) The US chose not to intervene in the Rwandan genocide - why do you think they took that position?
ReplyDeleteI think the US took that position because they didn't have enough self-interest in the matter. Foreign nations were worried about their people and getting Americans and Europeans out of Rwanda, not about the natives actually living there, most whose lives were actually in severe danger. I know it's really sad, but I feel that it just wasn't important to other nations enough, it didn't impact the world enough for us to get involved.
2) What role did Honore (Augustine’s brother) play in the genocide? What blame does he share? Should the government have blocked his radio broadcast? Should the U.S. have blocked the signal?
Honore was part of the radio station that was producing propaganda against the Tutsis. It was hate radio and genocide provoking, meant to cause the average Hutu to pick up rocks and machetes and go out and kill. A genocide practiced by all sectors of the population is unfortunately the most successful and most difficult to stop.
I think the government should have stopped it. It certainly was a huge promoter of the hateful feelings and genocide. It was wrong. If the US blocked the signal, I think that could have helped the situation. I'm not sure how the world would feel about it, and it would probably make the people at the head of the Hutu movement very angry, but I like to think it would have made lesss ordinary citizens step up and kill.
3) Would the U.S. have intervened had there been a 'national interest' at stake? What are our national interests, what should they include?
I think the US would have. Look at our actions in Iraq, our unilateralist actions to hunt down the terrorists that attacked our country. Or our involvements in the Cold War where we used the CIA to overthrow leftist leaders, in many African countries in fact. I think our 'national interests' have changed over the years. Right now I feel they're economical, we will intervene for resources like oil, but in the past they've had to do with other aims such as establishing democracy (during the Cold War). I think that the bottom line is that our national interest is what's best for us.
I think it might be a better idea if our national interests should be what is best for the citizens of this world instead of just the citizens of our nation. Maybe we would fight for human rights then, and intervene in Rwanda situations because it's what best for the global citizen, even though it may hurt US citizens on a smaller scale.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete4) Why did the U.S call it acts of genocide and not genocide? (Watch Clinton's Apology here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_6CFNwJ9ww )
ReplyDeleteHe says that, "We did not call these crimes by their rightful name, genocide." I think the US and world (UN) labeled it such because the UN's mandate forbids intervening in the internal politics of any country unless the crime of genocide is being committed. If you don't label it as genocide, you have an excuse to not get involved. Not calling those acts out for what they were allowed most of the world to stay silent while they occurred.
5) What can the global community do to prevent events like this from happening again?
I think that we should make it a priority to intervene when there are crimes against humanity occurring. Bottom line, we need to take action when we see these things happening, or hear of them happening. Staying silent is a crime in itself.
I know we can react better, but I'm not sure what we can do to prevent it before it starts happening. If we hadn't messed with these countries in the first place (Belgium creating the ethnicity cards and elevating the Tutsis) maybe it wouldn't have been started. But I don't know how to go back and fix the past. Maybe we should just monitor these areas, and do our best to remain actively seized in the matter (to quote the UN).
6) What should the U.S. government do to help in situations like this? What should we do, for instance, right now in the Congo or in the Darfur region of Sudan?
I think we should contribute to relief efforts. We should provide resources, food, safety for people trying to leave these places or for those who are the main targets of the killing. I think with the UN we should send troops to try to keep the peace, but we should do this as a global effort, not unilaterally. I think that the main thing we could do and should have done differently with Rwanda is simply get involved. Either send aid, send in planes or RVs to save people trapped in these areas, or send food and supplies. Maybe send soldiers to quell the unrest. Or if that is too much, the least we can do is speak out about what's going on and alert and motivate the global community to take action. Silence is as good as perpetrating the crime.
1)the United States chose not to intervene because they didnt have an interest in Rwanda. instead of caring for the people of Rwanda and the well being of the country the United states was only worrying about saving the lives of the americans there. the US didnt think twice about denying aid to Rwanda for two reasons. one, there was no available agenda or interest that the Us had in Rwanda. second, the US had already tried to intervene in Somalia and there were us casualties during that conflict. they wouldnt risk trying to intervene when american lives were at risk, despite the danger of the lives of africans.
ReplyDelete2)Honore was the broadcaster of the radio that spoke out to the people of Rwanda to kill the Tutsi's. Honore was responsible for instilling insurrection amongst the people of Rwanda and creating animosity for the Tutsi people. i feel that he was partially responsible for the uprising against the tutsi and infact responible for the lives of those who died because of his radio broadcasts.i feel that the government should have blocked his broadcast. had it been blocked perhaps the uprising would have been far less significant.
3) Yes, i feel that if the United States had some sort of agenda or national interest such as a precious resource or commodity then the United States would have intervened. if the conflict in Rwanda would constrain resource or money flow to North America then the United States would have a vested interest in intervening. basically our national interest include all resources that the United States deem important to their society or economy, such as oil, natural gas, and rare metals. however our national interests should include the well being of all other nations and peoples in the world, which currently we disregard for our own interests.
4) Clinton states that "We did not immediately call these crimes by their rightful name, Genocide." i believe, similarly to jacky's point that had the US and the rest of the world labeled the actions of the rebels to be genocide, it would give them a UN mandate to inttervene in the killings. but because the nations were fearful of intervening in a situation that was cloudy, calling the killings "acts of genocide" doesnt give any nation the right to intervene.
5) i feel that the only way to counteract future events similar to the Rwandan genocide would be to not only react to the atrocities quicker, but also it is necessary for countries to put aside their "national interest" and become altruistic and work for the betterment of humanity as a whole rather than being focused on benefiting your country at the expense of others. unfortunately i dont think this is a plausible course of action.
6) despite the risk of American lives, i feel that if the UN declares these regions to be conflict zones where genocide is taking place then it is necessary for the US to become involved and protect the innocent people, regardless of their nationality or denominations. Im not saying we have to end the geneocide ourselves but we could provide food, resources, shelter, clothing, and safety for those being persecuted. with this leadership, the US could potentially begin to assume the role of leading the world globally as Obama stated in the speech we listened to in class. other countries, i feel would lend their hand to the cause if america did aswell.
1. One of the unfortunate aspects of the US is that we tend to intervene only when it is convenient for us. If the conflict at hand does not have any effect on the US, then we won’t intervene. Rwanda did not have any important resources or any affairs for us to care about. No matter the outcome of the genocide, it would not affect the US. It is sad, but they took that position because there was not enough self-interest from the US in the matter.
ReplyDelete2. Honore played a great role in the genocide, even though it was indirect. He knew he held influence over the population through his radio broadcast, and he used this power to provoke average Hutus to go out and kill Tutsis with everyday objects. He encouraged makeshift groups of guerrilla soldiers to go and kill innocent Tutsis. The US should have definitely blocked the signal, although the US did not involve themselves in any part of the conflict, so it seems strange they would ever block the signal and do nothing else to stop the genocide. Had the US prevented the broadcast from airing, however, it is possible that the insurrection would not have been as large as it became.
3. Oh absolutely. The US only tends to involve themselves when there is a personal interest in the matter. We will only get involved if the conflict poses a threat to us in terms of economy, socially, or politically. If Rwanda had any of the resources that the US gets from other parts of Africa or if we needed their support for some reason, then there is no doubt that we would have intervened. Our national interests involve any sort of material we cannot get from our own soil such as oil, metals, and natural gas, but our national interests should include people of the world rather than just those in the US. We should be concerned for people of all nations and creeds and for their well-being. We need to stop being so self-involved and start caring for the nations that really need it, whether the outcome of whatever conflict at hand affects us or not.
4. I agree with both Jacky and Talib in that the UN and the US did not call it genocide because if they had, they would have been entitled to take action, which they did not want to do. It should have been called a genocide, however, especially because in Clinton’s speech, he says that “the killers armed mostly with machetes and clubs, nonetheless did their work five times as fast as the mechanized gas chambers used by the Nazis.” You cannot call the Holocaust genocide without calling what happened in Rwanda genocide. Such ignorance is horrible and I’m disappointed to see that that is what happened during the Rwandan genocide.
5. We cannot aid a conflict simply because it puts our national interests in jeopardy. We must react as soon as the conflict arises as to end it as quickly as it started. Whether we have personal interest in the matter or not, the US and UN must act on any problem like this or on any problem that has danger of turning into genocide as soon as it starts. No longer can we ignore such atrocities simply because they do not affect our own economy, government, etc.
6. It is not just the US government that should step in, but all influential nations must band together to give aid, resources, and just do as much as they can to help those suffering. Even if we can’t end the conflict ourselves, we can do all we can to mitigate the amount of lives lost. Those who have been displaced in the Congo and Darfur live in poor conditions, where they have died because of disease and malnutrition. We can provide safety, shelter, healthcare, and just better conditions while they are displaced. It is not our problem to end the conflict, but it is our problem to stop the loss of lives as best as possible.
1. The US did not want to get into another world conflict at this point because of many reasons. Rwanda had nothing to offer with respect to money or natural resources, so why bother?
ReplyDelete2.i believe that Honore and the radio people were being bullheaded. They were spreading a lot of negativity and hate throughout Rwanda. If the radios were turned off,I feel like a lot less people would have felt driven to do any harm to other people. The US should have blocked the radio or taken out the people in control of it.
3. Unfortunately, I think that the US would classify a national interest in Rwanda only if it would offer us money. Through natural resources the United States can gain power and control of a region, but Rwanda had nothing to offer, so the US had nothing to do with it.
4. The killings in Rwanda should most definitely have been called genocide. One specific race was being killed, and in unimaginable ways. Like Clinton said, the work done by machetes was done five times as fast as that done by Nazi gas chambers. Too many people died for outrageous reasons in this issue to not be called a genocide.
5. The US, and other countries with the power of controlling the world should use it. At the first sign of a major conflict, the UN should intervene. Lives are at stake and they must be protected.
6. In many conflicts such as this small problems are the causes of many deaths. For exmample, clean food and water could save hundreds of lives in conflicts such as this. The US obviously has the ability to drop food, water, clothing, shelter into countries like this, so they should do so. We have the ability to help people, and we should use it.
1) I think the US chose not to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide because their fear of losing innocent people in the battle. The Americans truly convinved themselves that this was not their battle to be fought and that more harm would come if they chose to intervene than good. No one truly knew how severe this genocide really was while it was going on. We did not know until agreements were met between the Rwandan people and over a million were killed. We didn't want to intervene because we may have sided with the "wrong" force. We didn't know enough about this war to lend any aid especially since it was among the people of Rwanda.
ReplyDelete2) Honore played a role that made him seem, despite his standpoint, just an innocent civilian. Because of his cultural background he was automatically forced to be on the refugee side that wanted to exterminate all the Tutsi's. But like many other people, I believe Honore knew this wasn't right of him. He was just trying to avoid being killed so he agreed to take Augustines wife and kids because he was caught in the middle of a war of which he had no choices in. He shares the blame of being a key role in this genocide because he did nothing to stop it, he went along with everything he was told to do. The government was right to have aired his radio broadcast because it let people know what dangers they faced. Whether what was aired was good or bad news, in some way or another it was beneficial to the people. The U.S. had no right to block this signal.
3) I definitely believe the U.S. would have intervened had there been a national interest at stake. In the video, many other countries involved in the UN believed there was too much at risk to get involved in the genocide in Rwanda. Unfortunately even the U.S. was pursuaded otherwise because the United Nations makes decisions together and the U.S. did not have consent to intervene. Putting this specific war into perspective, it makes it hard to pick out what our national interests really are. They clearly were not genocides, nor establishing peace. I think our national interests are more of doing whats right for the people of their certain country. What is the point of a UN if we're all not going to help eachother out regardless of the situation?
4) The U.S. called it acts of genocide and not genocide because they didn't know what exactly was occurring. All they knew was that it was between two opposing sides involving only the people of Rwanda. As they stated in the definition genocide was defined by cultural indifferences where people are killed in mass amounts. This is what was occurring in Rwanda but whos side to take was what we needed to figure out. Also if the U.S. had declared the war an actual genocide, there would be no reason not to intervene.
5) There is not much people can do globally to prevent things like this from happening again. But what we can do is work together so that we have the power of not one nation, but hundreds and hopefully one day can establish peace from this.
6) The U.S. is at a slight advantage compared to other countries because of how much money we have. We are able to feed our people, provide some sort of relief to the poor, and even more so have the freedom to do this. I think the only thing we can do for places like Congo or Darfur as treat them the same way we fellow americans treat eachother and provide them with food and water and enough supplies to keep them healthy and living.
1. the us didnt choose to intervene because they didnt want to risk getting into another situation that didnt even involve them.
ReplyDelete2. .i believe that Honore and the radio crew were being very ignorant. They were announcing a lot of non positive and hate throughout Rwanda. If they turned the radios off,I felt that like a lot less people would have felt driven to do any harm to other people. The US should have blocked the radio or taken out the people in control of it.
3. if the us did intervene there would be a national interest at stake, because we were poking our nose in someone else business. our national interest is preserving the union, leaving ourselves vulnerable would let an intruder in and take us down inside out.
4. the US called it acts of genocide because only a small amount of people were killed. If it was an actual genocide there would have more deaths and who ever was leading it would have taken everything to the next level, and expanded the genocide.
5. the global community can prevent this from happening again by making rules that everyone else can agree and run by.
6. the US can supply weapons and food to help out a little but not fight and get involved. and are to treat Congo and Darfur the same way we treat our own americans with food and water and shelter.
1. The US felt that the counrty was in such chaos as it was, that there was no way to possibly distribute help because they had no formal government, and there was fear the help may land in the wrong hands.
ReplyDelete2. He seemed to feed the fire in a way. By broadcasting hatred and such just got everyone amped up and ready to fight.
3. I think they definitly would have. Had they had oil, or other crucial resources, the United states would have been there the day the genocide started.
4. Because if we said it was genocide then we would have been blamed for not helping out. I think they tried to play it off like they didnt know what was exactly going on.
5. Every individual has a voice, and is capable of somehow promoting his or her veiws on global conflicts. It is those who speak and act out against it who make a difference.
6. Like i said in number 5, we all need to speak out against it, and stand up and do somthing about it, whether its spreading the word or raising money to help, everything makes a difference.
I think the US chose not to intervene in the Rowanda genocide because there was no natural resouces to defend there.
ReplyDeleteThe US probably would have intervened if there had been a national interest like oil and coal.
ReplyDelete1) The United States chose not to intervene due to the fact that no one (at least in the US) cares about what the natives of some mid-African country do, as long as American tourists don't get hurt, and said country doesn't have oil, or other resources we can exploit.
ReplyDelete2) Honore was a radio host who continued to spread the idea that the genocide was the "right" thing to do, and thus is responsible for inciting violence.
The government of Rwanda probably should have tried to block the broadcast, but due to how much confusion there was, and the fact the state military was already helping with the genocide, it might have been too risky or difficult to do. The United States (or some other government) should have done something to help block the signal, since they likely have better resources, as well as being at less risk than natives.
3) Depends on what you call a national interest. If it was something like oil (or any other big money resource), we would have gone in pretty quick, if only to cash in on better trade deals on oil when the dust settled. Supposedly one of our national interests is promoting and defending democracy, but it doesn't seem like that really motivates us as a country if it is a problem we would have to deal with anywhere else in the world. What should our national interests be? Firstly, make sure that ALL citizens have a good education, housing, paid healthcare, food, clean water, and have the government be able to help it's citizens in any situation, from natural disasters to crime, and have the government be able and dedicated to helping those citizens quickly. Secondly, we should work on spreading those interests to the rest of the world.
4) They call it "acts of genocide" and not Genocide because they don't want to believe that Genocide is really happening. No one wants to think or believe that something this horrible could possibly happen, even when the proof is staring you in the face. So when we do find out that something this bad is happening, unless it is a direct problem for the United States, we don't do anything about it.
5)What can the Global Community do? Well, since they didn't do anything other than send UN troops in to basically be slaughtered, they could at least give their own people the ability to defend themselves if the need arises. More importantly, the global community should have sent in armed forces to help control and lessen the chaos and violence that was caused by the genocide.
6) What we should be doing is sending in both engineers and troops. Engineers to help rebuild any damage that has been caused and start building new areas to shelter those who would not otherwise be safe, and troops to make sure the engineers and civilians (of any nationality) don't get killed on sight.