Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

The PBS story marks the 10th anniversary of the 1994 Rwandan genocide of 800,000. Watching it, you hear the term "in retrospect," more than once, but i got the feeling that hindsight was still far from 20/20 for most of the people involved.

1. What are yall's thoughts on the current administration's foreign policy stands on the US's responsibilites to the world, particularly in the Middle East?

2. Can there be an acceptable blend of American interest-based involvement, isolation, and ethics in world situations?


There's always anti-war sentiment, but it seems like most conflicts, in my lifetime at least, have been riddled by a diatribe against any kind of action--anywhere. a sense of "what are we doing there/why are we fighting for them?" "this is just like Vietnam." i'm trying to express some late-night frustration and confusion, and i'm not sure if it's translating clearly onto the page.

Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

It was a very good program, but I believe that the lack of 20/20 hindsight was from Clinton officials who are trying to preserve their legacy. We didn't go into Rwanda because of Mogadeshu. If Bill Clinton was a real leader, he would have committed the US to Rwanda, but he had his reelection to worry about.

Yes. IMO, the US should be interventionist when it comes to genocidal regimes, state sponsors of terror who do not already posess nuclear weapons (Dr. Riker lives), against transnational terrorist organizations, and as part of UN coalitions for extremely rare instances when the UN acts competently, as well as when US security is directly threatened.

We should not be interventionist for the sake of business interests, such as pursuing United Fruit's agenda in the 1950s.

I think 9/11 proved that if we don't go after the terrorists where they are, they will come after us. It's unfortunate, and I don't personally enjoy the role as the world policeman. However, America has earned a reputation worldwide as being able to solve everyone's problems.

In Africa, I think much of the AIDS epidemic is blamed on the USA. In the middle east, they blame the entire Israel/Palestine thing on us -- and many of them simply hate us for religious reasons. Anywhere there's a problem in the world, people think the US is capable of helping them. If we don't, there's always that fringe element that's going to want revenge.

9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century. It was the reminder that the US is looked to for action. The UN has failed in its peacekeeping mission due to corruption and cowardice (see: Rwanda). The UN can no longer be looked to for military solutions to global problems. In fact, the UN really can't even be trusted to administer human aide programs (see: Iraq oil for food program).

If as America, we want to survive, often, we'll have to stick our necks out where it appears we don't belong -- just in case for some reason unbeknownst to us, our necks and interests do belong there.

Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

i agree. the UN is rarely competent.

The UN has proved itself ineffective on more than one occassion. How do you think the U.S. handles foreign public opinion when making any decision contradicting a U.N. "decision?"

do you forsee any U.S. action to redirect millions of impressionable children left orphaned by AIDS and manipulated by warlords?

The UN unfortunately is at the mecry of it's members when it comes to the enacting of resolutions and intervention, and when petty politics or domestic politics of a security council member come into play the whole suffers....

I remeber hearing through the grapevine about Gen. Delaire's concerns and fears about an impending genocide, but him being stymied at the UN because of politics. I also remember being ready to be deployed to Rwanda if we could get the go ahead from the UN. Unfortunately the US blocked or delayed repeatedly action regarding Rwanda most likely because of fears of another Somalia (which is why the term Genocide wasn't allowed to be used in any of the governmental meetings or memos because then legally the US has to act). Finally it came down to negotations were the US would provide logistical support and air transport, but in the end that also fell through....

You are damned if you do and damned if you dont. I wouldn't be the main peacekeeper in any of the countries. It just makes us a target. I would let the UN and and some of the pussy European countries like France solve the problem and we could give our share of support. Then those countries will have to put their asses on the line. Let's see how the French react when a terrorist blows up the Eiffel tower or wipes out a couple thousand of their people. The only time I would take control is if someone F'ed with us like 9/11 and we knew for sure who did it. Then I would nuke them.

Re: Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

The crystal ball is cloudy.

I doubt it though. We simply do not have the manpower to do something like this. No one really does.

This is one of the problems with our current foreign diplomacy (or lack thereof sometimes). We exchange a peaceful present for a questionable tomorrow. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there are strong efforts underway to establish a strong public school system.

Will they be sufficient?

Only time will tell.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

Okay this I agree with.... an all to often truth is that foreign policy is dictated my domestic politics (thinking baout the next election), when in a lot of cases it is long term planning that is need....

In the case of Afghanistan or Iraq, pulling out after a year or three is short sighted to say the least. People love to use Japan or Germany as an example, but even then forces were in place for close to a decade as "occupiers", to ensure a compentent reconstruction effort was made.

<hijack>I'm not really an expert at this, but I do think that Germany and Japan are very different situations compared to say, Iraq. Germany is a European country, and have a culture that is much closer to ours, and Japan opened its doors to the west back in the 1800s. They are, therefore, at least somewhat comfortable with our views and culture and are more willing to cooperate. On the other hand, middle eastern and African countries are constantly in conflict not just with the west, but with themselves. </hijack>

You have got to be kidding me...wow.

-Rudey

If you mean my writing skills, then yes, I should have done a check. If you mean my comment, I did say that I didn't know too much about the situation!

Your comment.

-Rudey

I did say that I didn't know too much about the sitituation originally posted. I was just giving info that I did know, and many CAN say that Japan is more "westernized" culturally than say, parts of Africa and the Middle East.

Except that Africa and the Middle East were carved up and owned by Europeans. Japan never was.

-Rudey

Let's stick with Asia for a while. Hong Kong was a British Colony, yet its current problems with mainland China are nowhere near that of the middle east or Africa. In fact, you can say that it being a British colony actually allowed its conditions to improve, especially post WWII.

Are you kidding? Japan did NOT voluntarily open its doors in the 1800s. Admiral Perry used some very persuasive means to get that going, and cultural differences led to WWII lasting longer than it should have. The last time I checked, Islam is a lot closer to Christianity than Shintoism is.

The huge differences in culture between Japan and the NATO nations was one of the primary factors in the creation of the Trilateral Commission in the 1970s.

The culture of the Middle East is far closer to European culture, than many people realize. The Europrean Renaisance began when ideas from the Arab world were imported across the Mediterranian. What began to change is that Arabia fell into its own dark age, and the Renaisance never ended.

The resentment in the Arab world today is really against modernity, not against a nation or culture. Western culture, and the US in particular, is viewed as the vesel of modernity. If we weren't there, they (they=jihadists, wahabists, etc.) would just find another scape goat.

There is no credible reason to believe that just because Japan was industrialized, they were easier to assimilate into Western culture. They are still not assimilated into Western culture.

WHile yes, force was used to "open up" Japan, they did end up adapting western technology, which was why they were able to take over much of Asia during WWII. Japan (and much of Asia)is also more willing to accept western culture than the middle east though. It's normal in Asia for parents to send their kids to after school English on top of piano and soccer.

Western technology does not equal Western culture. Japan adopts bits and peices of Western culture, but remains comparitively xenophobic, and definitely not Western.

Arabian culture is Western, and Islam is a Western religoun. Afghanistan is at the crossroads of East and West.

I don't no how many people from sub-Saharan Africa you know, but I know quite a few, although none are from Rwanda, the culture there is more advanced then they are given credit for. Most of their problems can be solved by the people who live there. The end of the Cold War has done more good than bad in that region. All that they need is for the EU to adjust their trade policies so that Africa can compete on the global market. For example, The Economist reported that the average cow in France receives more in annual subsidies, than the average farmer in sub-Saharan Africa makes in a year.

If Africa is allowed to compete in a true global free market, they will do just fine.

And in those instances where war or genocide rears its ugly head, lets just hope that the US does not have a poll-driven president who is morally bankrupt, like we did in 1994.

Japanese (and I guess Asians from Asia in general) are only xenophobic if a non-Japanese gets too close to them. If they were truly xenophobic, then parents wouldn't be sending their children to English class nor would the kids be playing western instruments. Also, there is indeed an east meets west sort of culture in Hong Kong, though no where near as old as that of Afghanistan. The "cha chan teng", or Hong Kong style diner, is definitely a mixture of cultures. The food isn't exactly Chinese, nor is it western. Many of the dishes are island developed, such as the various "baked rice" (rice casserole) dishes, Hong Kong tea (very, very strong black tea with condenced milk and sugar), and yeen-yeung (half coffee, half HK tea) and various pasteries that are "not quite Chinese, not quite western".

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with Hong Kong.

East/West culture was brought up. Hong Kong is sort of a mix of it.

Japan has about as much to do with Hong Kong as Russia does with Ireland. You just wanted to hijack this thread to bring up your home town in this thread, even though Hong Kong is completely, and totally irrelevant.

Getting back to Rwanda, for those who also saw the Frontline special, how did you feel about American inaction as you learned what happened?

Hong Kong's not my hometown. Toronto is. As for Japan having nothing to do with Hong Kong, you're totally wrong about that. Japan DID in fact occupy Hong Kong during the war, not to mention that much of Hong Kong's current pop culture is Japanese influenced.

What does any of this have to do with Rwanda?

Anger and frustration towards the world's innability to react...the US government dancing around the legal implications of using the word "genocide"...the fact that people were slaughtered in a church...the fact that the RED Cross is faster and more effective than the lumbering UN...the entire thing stinks.

there were however three people that i think were pretty amazing: the UN officer who saved countless lives; the only American who stayed; and the Red Cross doctor.

I hope that both the UN and the US gov't extract valuable lessons on how to react. the bodies they desecrated in Mogadishu, Somalia, and then in Fallujah, Iraq, deserve retribution and more attention than the crappy campaigning for the lesser of two...[rabble rabble rabble]

People need spines. We talk and talk but never do. We let emotions and the desire to play on public relations get in the way.

You can't win by kicking someone in the stomach. You win by not leaving even one bit of air for someone to breathe. You win by showing that something is wrong and by providing carrots as well. That doesn't mean you give them a temporary carrot. That is a final solution carrot that is the equivalent of a 5 minute morphine dose.

One of the few Americans to ever understand that is Kissinger

-Rudey

Hmmm, I thought Marco Polo first opened trade with The Asian Countrys!:(

Rawanhda or waht ever, if they cannot get a symbolence of going with out killing people then what are We supposed to do?:confused:

Say they do not like The American Way, why not just drop the Bomb on them:(

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/04/in...st/04IRAQ.html

Here is a good example. If I were commanding the military, I would go in and create a pile in the middle of the town with 1 eye from each adult and 2 eyes from each child. Every militant that attacked I would bury with a cut open pig. Well maybe I would pull an Assad and just go house to house and kill everyone, without discretion and make it understood that I would be willing to pay any price to end the problem. The periphery towns that are opening schools and working hard but need the help to ensure security, I would provide money.

-Rudey
--The peacemaker

Unfortunately, I think 21st century politics doesn't appreciate the value of a good atrocity for pacifying a population.

It doesn't for Westerners.

-Rudey

Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

Did it bother you when they said nobody knew what was going on??

Did it bother you that every single one of them didn't know except they refused to use the word genocide because the UN would legally be obligated to enter?

Did it bother you that it was America that somehow assumed responsibility for this? That bothered me when the Belgian contingent left. All of a sudden it became America's issue. America failed. Cut me a break. Not one country came to their aid.

It's not as if America failed, everyone failed. Every single country failed when they butchered those people. Clinton didn't even apologize. Nobody did.

The genocide is comparable to what Saddam did to his people but again nobody did anything. When Saddam was taken from power, they still wished the US had done nothing.

-Rudey
--The best line was how we had no friends, only interests.

Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

That irked me too. If that's true for America, then its true for all nations.

Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

Your wrong on that account... Canada did apologize, and specifically the commander (Delaire) of the UN contingent, who tried to warn the world, apologized... in fact he still is, as we speak, in Rwanda right now apologizing to the people he (and we) failed.

Re: Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

Did the PM of Canada apologize?

-Rudey

SAD IS SAD!:(

The Free World as We know it failed these people.

BUT, we as the Free World can only do so much! When is it time for Those People to do for them selves?:rolleyes: :(

They Keep having The Same Power Hungry Types want to over come and they do only to place them in the the same power struggle of a New Despot. They are once again put in the same position of being poor!:(

Re: Re: Re: Re: Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda
 

Actually yes.... Chretien apologized at the last African conference that he attended as PM... and he apologized to "people" of Rwanda, Hutu and Tutsi. He said that Canada failed them, the UN failed them, and the World failed them.