NationStates Jolt Archive

Just got to see this movie.I would recomend anyone to see it as soon as you can.Its based around the Rawandan genocide.If there is anyone on from the states try to get it released there although I can see why it may not be to Hollywood tastes.

Just got to see this movie.I would recomend anyone to see it as soon as you can.Its based around the Rawandan genocide.If there is anyone on from the states try to get it released there although I can see why it may not be to american tastes.

That's a bold statement. Want to back it up?

That's a bold statement. Want to back it up?
Sorry ment to be 'Hollywood Tastes'.

That's a bold statement. Want to back it up?
Films about genocide aren't very popular in America, unless America can claim that it helped save people (as in WW2). Actually, the equivalent is true in most Western countries.

Films about genocide aren't very popular in America, unless America can claim that it helped save people (as in WW2). Actually, the equivalent is true in most Western countries.
Its a shame nobody is willing to distribute this in the US as it is one of the most harrowing films in a long time.It got me emotional and that dosn't generally happen.Hotel Rawanda was a good show but still came on a little too much with 'Hollywood' sweetness.This one does not.

Just got to see this movie.I would recomend anyone to see it as soon as you can.Its based around the Rawandan genocide.If there is anyone on from the states try to get it released there although I can see why it may not be to Hollywood tastes.
Here's a trailer for the film: http://www.substance001.net/shooting_dogs_trailer/shooting_dogs_trailer_850k.mov

I would love to see the movie, but to what purpose? It's already well-established that the UN is notorious for sitting on its hands when the chips are down, and for indulging in their own rape and pillage when the opportunity presents itself. Yet when the US Representative to the UN tries to reform the UN "Human Rights" Commission, he's assailed. "Evil America! How dare they impose their own standards on us!"

We learned our lesson in Somalia: don't get involved in African politics. It only results in wasted American lives and accomplishes nothing!

I for one, am sick unto death of self-righteous Europeans suggesting that the US has no concern for people in other countries, such as Rawanda. And there are many, many others who feel as I do: reform the damned UN or stop supporting it.

Its a shame nobody is willing to distribute this in the US as it is one of the most harrowing films in a long time.It got me emotional and that dosn't generally happen.Hotel Rawanda was a good show but still came on a little too much with 'Hollywood' sweetness.This one does not.
So what did you do as a result of seeing "one of the most harrowing films in a long time?" Did you in some way support UN reform? Did you volunteer to go to Africa to help? Did you contribute to some organization truly dedicated to helping Africa?

Films about genocide aren't very popular in America, unless America can claim that it helped save people (as in WW2). Actually, the equivalent is true in most Western countries.
So tell us what you have done to help. Did you volunteer? Did you contribute? Or do you just want another chance to deride America?

Here's a trailer for the film: http://www.substance001.net/shooting_dogs_trailer/shooting_dogs_trailer_850k.mov

I would love to see the movie, but to what purpose? It's already well-established that the UN is notorious for sitting on its hands when the chips are down, and for indulging in their own rape and pillage when the opportunity presents itself. Yet when the US Representative to the UN tries to reform the UN "Human Rights" Commission, he's assailed. "Evil America! How dare they impose their own standards on us!"

We learned our lesson in Somalia: don't get involved in African politics. It only results in wasted American lives and accomplishes nothing!

I for one, am sick unto death of self-righteous Europeans suggesting that the US has no concern for people in other countries, such as Rawanda. And there are many, many others who feel as I do: reform the damned UN or stop supporting it.
Don't get me wrong .Europe sat on its hands big time on this one.What surprised me was that given the sucess of the movie 'Hotel Rwanda' that nobody wanted to back this one.

So what did you do as a result of seeing "one of the most harrowing films in a long time?" Did you in some way support UN reform? Did you volunteer to go to Africa to help? Did you contribute to some organization truly dedicated to helping Africa?
I've done my time in Africa.(Namibia, Lesotho) as well as in Madagascar.That is why I went to see this film.African politics or the lack there of in some cases are of intrest to me.

I've done my time in Africa.(Namibia, Lesotho) as well as in Madagascar.That is why I went to see this film.African politics or the lack there of in some cases are of intrest to me.
Really? What did you do there?

In Namibia worked with a charity called Bothar.They provide mainly african families with farm animals where the first offspring is donated to another family.I was there to teach animal care and husbandry.In Lesotho I worked for a few months after secondary school building a school.(Not alot I know ,probably would have been better to build hospitals.)

I for one, am sick unto death of self-righteous Europeans suggesting that the US has no concern for people in other countries, such as Rawanda. And there are many, many others who feel as I do: reform the damned UN or stop supporting it.
Actually, the UN could have intervened in Rwanda, but the US and UK blocked it. I actually participated in a student UN debating event where the UK UN SC representative at the time, gave a talk. He was a hand wringing conservative, basically saying yeah, we could have done a better job of peacekeeping, but it would have cost too much money. It was basically the French and Belgians trying to hold Rwanda together, and the US and UK weren't going to help. They didn't want to spend the money. It wasn't anything to do with the UN's structure Eutrusca, people understood the seriousness of the situation and reaching an agreement would have been a trivial matter. It was a purely financial decision.

Actually, the UN could have intervened in Rwanda, but the US and UK blocked it. I actually participated in a student UN debating event where the UK UN SC representative at the time, gave a talk. He was a hand wringing conservative, basically saying yeah, we could have done a better job of peacekeeping, but it would have cost too much money. It was basically the French and Belgians trying to hold Rwanda together, and the US and UK weren't going to help. They didn't want to spend the money. It wasn't anything to do with the UN's structure Eutrusca, people understood the seriousness of the situation and reaching an agreement would have been a trivial matter. It was a purely financial decision.

Not calling BS, but I'ld like to see a source for this.

Especially w/ the US offering $5M rewards for leaders of the massacres.

Not calling BS, but I'ld like to see a source for this.

Especially w/ the US offering $5M rewards for leaders of the massacres.
The book by Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit quotes correspondence on the issue. Also I can't actually teleport you to the talk to see the British UN guy wring his hands about their financial committments in Bosnia.

But basically Bosnia was at its worst, and the US and UK decided they didn't want the financial committment Rwanda entailed, also they were worried about a repeat of the 1993 events in Somalia, the shock of which did affect US willingness to deploy troops on UN missions. They left it to the French, who had business in Bosnia too and couldn't save a country with a force of a few hundred men.

Incidentally, it's easy to offer rewards after the event, when there is no longer any risk involved. This late concern does not change the history, that the US and UK were unwilling to spend the money or risk their troops at the time.

Films about genocide aren't very popular in America, unless America can claim that it helped save people (as in WW2). Actually, the equivalent is true in most Western countries.
Hotel Rawanda?

Or did you mean smashing commercial success? In which case, duh, the people who see a lot of movies are teenagers. Blame 300 cable channels.

I think this might be helpful.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/

The book by Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit quotes correspondence on the issue. Also I can't actually teleport you to the talk to see the British UN guy wring his hands about their financial committments in Bosnia.

But basically Bosnia was at its worst, and the US and UK decided they didn't want the financial committment Rwanda entailed, also they were worried about a repeat of the 1993 events in Somalia, the shock of which did affect US willingness to deploy troops on UN missions. They left it to the French, who had business in Bosnia too and couldn't save a country with a force of a few hundred men.

There was no "blocking" involved at all. The security council voted to withdraw troops.

"On April 21, 1994, the United Nations Security Council, at the behest of the United States—which had no troops in Rwanda—Belgium, and others, voted to withdraw all but a remnant of UNAMIR. "

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm

This is what irks me about US people criticizing the UN: their lack of knowledge and responsibility of their role in keeping the UN useless. The US is, after all, the nation that has vetoed more UN resolutions, more than any other member of the Security Council; and they're also the main reason that nothing was done in Rwanda. This is general knowledge in the rest of the world, but not publicly realized in the US, even after Clinton finally apologized last year for "not having reacted quickly enough" or words to that effect.

Here, a nice read: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

There was no "blocking" involved at all. The security council voted to withdraw troops.

"On April 21, 1994, the United Nations Security Council, at the behest of the United States—which had no troops in Rwanda—Belgium, and others, voted to withdraw all but a remnant of UNAMIR. "


Care to define "behest"? The US delayed action as much as possible, using worthless debate on issues like what color the vehicles should be painted to keep the resolution from being voted on.

This is what irks me about US people criticizing the UN: their lack of knowledge and responsibility of their role in keeping the UN useless. The US is, after all, the nation that has vetoed more UN resolutions, more than any other member of the Security Council; and they're also the main reason that nothing was done in Rwanda. This is general knowledge in the rest of the world, but not publicly realized in the US, even after Clinton finally apologized last year for "not having reacted quickly enough" or words to that effect.

Here, a nice read: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

And this is what irks me about people doing the traditional US bashing, not looking at all the other facts that delayed any action and just blaming it on the US. You make it sound as if the US wasn't there, the UN would act immediately on every occasion.

You might also notice that Annan took responsibility. Had it "just been the US", there would have been hundreds of articles blaming us.

You might also notice that I was the one that posted that link and it said nothing about the US or the UK "blocking" anything. Many countries delayed the issue. Try again.

Care to define "behest"? The US delayed action as much as possible, using worthless debate on issues like what color the vehicles should be painted to keep the resolution from being voted on.

Care to read the rest of the statement "Belgium and other nations".

Notice that it's a quote from the link I posted first and then you reposted.

But it's more fun to just make blanket US bashing statements.

You might also notice that I was the one that posted that link and it said nothing about the US or the UK "blocking" anything. Many countries delayed the issue. Try again.
Of course, but by far the most influential of those nations was the US, including being a Security Council permanent member with veto power. Belgium is not.

I've never said that the US is the only country blocking the UN, but that it has a role in doing so, and at times very important, and one that most US people are unknowledgeable of or unwilling to recognize. I don't think that exposing the fact that the US sat on its hands this time and decided not only not to act but to use its influence to delay any action that might come from the UN is US bashing. It's a simple exposition of fact. The US is not above criticism and, in this case, I believe it's deserved. Even Clinton has admitted the failure of his administration in Rwanda.

Would the UN have reacted faster without the US dragging its feet? Maybe, maybe not, but that would be pure speculation.

Of course, the US also does good things through the UN. It's commendable that they have kept Sudan on the forefront of the UN debates and now it seems that China and Russia may be turning around to at least not veto a resolution sending UN troops to the region.

Of course, but by far the most influential of those nations was the US, including being a Security Council permanent member with veto power. Belgium is not.

I've never said that the US is the only country blocking the UN, but that it has a role in doing so, and at times very important, and one that most US people are unknowledgeable of or unwilling to recognize. I don't think that exposing the fact that the US sat on its hands this time and decided not only not to act but to use its influence to delay any action that might come from the UN is US bashing. It's a simple exposition of fact. The US is not above criticism and, in this case, I believe it's deserved. Even Clinton has admitted the failure of his administration in Rwanda.

Would the UN have reacted faster without the US dragging its feet? Maybe, maybe not, but that would be pure speculation.

Of course, the US also does good things through the UN. It's commendable that they have kept Sudan on the forefront of the UN debates and now it seems that China and Russia may be turning around to at least not veto a resolution sending UN troops to the region.


Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I never stated that the US didn't drag it's feet. It did. Along w/ a good chunk of the rest of the UN. Some reports I've read had Russia and China "reluctant" to act as well.

I originally wanted sources on "The UN wanted to act but the US/UK blocked it" statement.

There was no "blocking" involved at all. The security council voted to withdraw troops.

"On April 21, 1994, the United Nations Security Council, at the behest of the United States—which had no troops in Rwanda—Belgium, and others, voted to withdraw all but a remnant of UNAMIR. "

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/714025.stm
Erm, quoting from your top link:

"On April 21, 1994, the United Nations Security Council, at the behest of the United States—which had no troops in Rwanda—Belgium, and others, voted to withdraw all but a remnant of UNAMIR."

"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)."

"This telegram forwards Department of State guidance to the US Mission to the UN in New York instructing US diplomats there that “the international community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible.” Advising that this withdrawal does not require a UN Security Council resolution—which would have likely focused international criticism—the Department instructs the mission “that we will oppose any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda.” April 15 was the first of two days of UN Security Council debate on next steps in Rwanda—for which the Rwandan ambassador was present and about which he reported back to the interim government in Rwanda. Over that same weekend, aware the UN Security Council was in retreat, the interim Council of Ministers, the genocide’s architects, met in Kigali and decided to take the program of extermination to the rest of the country."

"Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Peter Tarnoff and senior officials, including the Director of the Joint Staff, drafted and approved this cable delivering instructions to the US Mission in New York for Security Council debate over replenishing UNAMIR. With much of the killing completed and most of the remaining armed forces fleeing the RPF’s countrywide advance, US officials argue against a UN plan for a robust effort launched into Kigali to protect surviving Rwandans, rescue others, and deliver assistance. Such a plan, “in current circumstances, would require a Chapter VII mandate”, and the US “is not prepared at this point to lift heavy equipment and troops into Kigali” "

This nicely confirms what I've been saying.

Erm, quoting from your top link:



This nicely confirms what I've been saying.


No, you said the US/UK "blocked" it. It did no such thing.

Films about genocide aren't very popular in America, unless America can claim that it helped save people (as in WW2). Actually, the equivalent is true in most Western countries.
Are they actualy popular in any countries much less "western"?

No, you said the US/UK "blocked" it. It did no such thing.
Yes they did. They agreed it looked too troublesome and discouraged the efforts of others to do anything about it. It's all in the public domain. That's blocking action. Maybe you are so fixated on semantics that you only consider blocking to be such when something is legally forbidden, but anyone with any business sense and grasp of office politics can see that when one section of a committee denies resources to a project and plays up the dangers, it gets cancelled.

The responsibility for the failure lies principally with the US and UK.

Yes they did. They agreed it looked too troublesome and discouraged the efforts of others to do anything about it. It's all in the public domain. That's blocking action. Maybe you are so fixated on semantics that you only consider blocking to be such when something is legally forbidden, but anyone with any business sense and grasp of office politics can see that when one section of a committee denies resources to a project and plays up the dangers, it gets cancelled.

Nice bit on the personal attacks. While the US was a primary player, quite a few nations were reluctant to involve themselves both during and after. It didn't take much "discouraging" at all.

The responsibility for the failure lies principally with the US and UK.

Seems Annan disagrees w/ you. The responsibility for the failure lies principally with the UN.

Nice bit on the personal attacks. While the US was a primary player, quite a few nations were reluctant to involve themselves both during and after. It didn't take much "discouraging" at all.
Yes, a number of countries were reluctant, but the responsibility rests with the leadership, not the ranks. Those in project funding and management are responsible for the success or failure of a venture, not the staff they lead. The other countries on the UN SC at the time, were very much junior partners lacking the resources to do anything in the event of a US or UK refusal to commit their resources.

Seems Annan disagrees w/ you. The responsibility for the failure lies principally with the UN.
He has no choice, seeing as he has partial personal responsibility for the procrastination which resulted in the deaths of several UN troops. I wouldn't really expect him to say anything else.

You see, I have met the guy representing the UK in the UN SC at the time, I have heard him speak on peacekeeping under his watch, I have read about these matters recreationally and as formal research for debate at university. I have no difficulty accepting the fact, note the use of the word fact, that the UK decided its committment in Bosnia was a sufficient economic and military risk, that it did not wish to take on additional responsibility, and that Rwanda's demise was thus inevitable. I also have no difficulty accepting that the UK lobbied to ensure that this was the outcome of the UN discussions - responsibility spread and its interests at the time served.

This is how this stuff works. This is what ends up in the minutes, this is what ends up many years after retirement as memoir and guest speaker material.

Evidently you believe your country to be in some way different, in some way better, above these games - the weighing of political risk and material cost against lives, the spreading of responsibility when faced with inevitable failure. But the truth is, America's conduct was no different to the UK's in this matter. The two acted in unison, having the same interests at stake. And the two must take the majority of the burden of blame, because during those months, the US and UK could have made a difference, where others could not. France and Belgium had troops on the ground, trying to set up safe zones with barely a regiment under their command. But for the US and UK, dealing with Bosnia, the risk was too great, and Rwanda was sacrificed, the decision made by committee to save face. That's how these tragedies happen. It's not anti-anyone to read, analyse and learn.