Answer two of the following questions in paragraph form:
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
2) What is the nature and limit of personal responsibility in the 21st century? Support your personal view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
Both responses must to be posted by 1:30 pm on Friday 14 January
1. I believe that genocide could occur again in the same way that it occurred in Rwanda as long as it does not threaten international interests. If there is no oil in the country, particularly if the country is in Africa, the world will stand by and watch again. For example, the situation in the DRC is not genocide but it is horrific violence and there is no international effort to make any difference. The world has demonstrated that African lives are not valued through nonintervention in Darfur, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Uganda, and the DRC among others. China shows no inclination of caring enough to intervene in humanitarian issues if it would cost them money.
ReplyDelete3. All that September 11 proved was that even after the end of the Cold War, America was still willing to respond militarily to perceived international threats. We were afraid of communism during the Cold War so we attacked Vietnam, for example. We are fully willing to support anyone, no matter what kinds of human rights abuses they commit as long as it serves our interests. This was true in the Cold War days when we backed dictators throughout the world from Chile to Iran. Now, we are willing to say that we are friends with Equatorial Guinea's leadership because they have oil. Little has changed besides what we are willing to respond to: communism to Islamic terrorism.
John Heenan
ReplyDelete1. Based on the documentary, I believe that genocide could occur again. The Rwandan genocide could have been prevented through a variety of mechanisms, including foreign presence and military support. The decision not to enter Rwanda, as made by the UN, US, and other world powers, was out of a desire to avoid loss of soldiers. This is an understandable position, but the decision not to intervene resulted in the death of over 800,000 people. The political situation at the time meant that no one wanted to intervene, even when political action campaigns were suggested. While the US has since pledged to never allow such a thing to occur again, the decision not to enter Rwanda demonstrates the political machinations at play here. It would be very easy for a government in the future to classify an ongoing genocide as a situation not meriting the attention of the US or other international bodies. Because of this ability of world powers to avoid calling the genocide what it is, it would be very possible for a future genocide to be carried out without US intervention.
2. /
3. I agree with the idea that September 11th has led to a change in US foreign policy. However, I disagree with the cause. The US has not changed responsibilities, it has simply come to the conclusion that in order to prevent the threat of terrorism it must proactively engage governments that would support it, as can be seen in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The US certainly failed to respond to world events before 9/11, but the ongoing conflicts in locales such as Darfur show that the US is only acting in the support of its interests. In this respect, US foreign policy has not changed, but the implementation of that policy has. We still only act in our interests, we simply now recognize that our interests may be served in more diverse ways.
1. Of course genocide could happen again. As we saw in the video people are just as selfish as ever. I feel that people are still mainly concerned with their own self interest. This is especially true now a days as America has its "War on Terror" we are so concerned with what interests us across that sees that there is no way we would even have the capability to care about genocide. The only was the world would step in to stop a genocide would be if the genocide was threatening oil production. As well genocide confers a great amount of responsibility on any nation that calls it that and no country wants that responsibility. Also its hard to believe that a genocide is taking place as it is. Its just such an inhuman and other worldly thing. Getting away from the abstract one just has to look at Darfur, Rwanda, Armenia, Bosnia, or Kurdistan. A genocide happened in each of these places recently and the world did nothing about any of them. The only genocide that the world did anything about was the one in Kosovo and even then all the world did was bomb Serbia. Countries value their own citizens significantly more then those of other nations, this is a simple truth that prevents much great humanitarian work.
ReplyDelete2.-
3. Yes Sept. 11 changed how America views its place in the world, no it was not a particularly good change. Americans still only care about their interests all that Sept. 11th was show Americans that they need to go and put troops on the ground to have our old influence back. Now that we are so busy putting men in oil rich regions we are even more stretched and less able to put men into conflicts that really matter. In regards to our still only caring about our interests, our invasion of Afghanistan was only because of terrorism and Iraq was only because Americans thought that Iraq had something to do with Sept. 11 or WMDs. America doesn't care about Darfur or Uganda or the Congo or any other purely humanitarian intervention possibility. Sept. 11 changed how we act but not how we think.
-Continued-
ReplyDeleteThe US was also threatened by the events of September 11 since there had not been a major attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor and it threatened our dominance of the world. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has felt secure in its superiority and no longer felt a need to engage militarily. September 11 sent a message to the US, not only about Islamic fundamentalism but also about fading US power. The US responded to the threat with a show of force wrapped in a humanitarian farce. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan were not good for anyone but that was not why the US intervened. The invasions were a response to a threat and also a reminder that the US's power was fading.
It may also be the case that the US does not hold African lives in as high esteem as lives anywhere else, for example, there was military intervention between Serbia and Kosovo and the US conducts military exercises with S. Korea, but it is more likely that the US simply feels it has nothing to gain from humanitarian intervention. Allowing US soldiers to die is politically unfavorable, much more so than civilians around the world. Also, the US knows that it is able to continue to get resources even from wartorn African nations. For example, while bloody violence destroys the DRC, US companies are still able to purchase Coltran, a component of electronics, cheaply. Violence in the Niger Delta does not prevent oil extraction and conditions in Chad do not interfere with pipelines. The US knows that even with a dictator in power, or warring factions fighting for control, they need to sell resources in order to fund genocide/civil war/drug traffic/etc.
The UN has sworn to prevent genocide but as Rwanda demonstrates, the UN can simply not use the word genocide to describe a situation of systematic ethnically motivated killing by one group toward another. Also, the UN is only as strong and committed to its ideals as the member nations in it. Bigger nations such as the US, RF and PRC have tremendous influence on international policy and since these countries have veto power on the Security Council, if they are unwilling to act, little can be done.
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteBased on past events, especially in regards to Rwanda, I think that genocide could definitely happen again, in fact it probably will. The main reason is just that there will always be people that disagree with each other and all it takes is a misunderstanding or a radical group to cause a problem. An even bigger problem is that, while the world has committed to stopping genocide, when it comes down to it no one wants to act. In the future I think it will come down to how much the international community wants to stick to the resolution they made after the fall of the Nazi empire and the Holocaust. Even though we all want to prevent something this horrific from happening again, it seems that our government and others around the world are too tied up with other issues to fully commit. I would hope that something like this never happened again, or that it will be stopped if it does, but after watching this documentary I don’t have much faith in the international community.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
Before September 11, 2001, international relations were very different for the United States. In previous wars and disputes, while we would show up when we were needed to fight, we were not usually the aggressors for either change of peace. Our role was one of action only when we were either immediately attacked or felt an immediate threat. Even that sentiment changed after failed missions in Vietnam and arguably Korea. Leading up to the new millennium we were trying as hard as possible to stay out of wars or engagements. However, following 9/11 we began to see a larger enemy, terrorists, that seemed to lurk everywhere in the world. All of a sudden, we made many more enemies and since then it seems to be our responsibility to police the world. For those reasons, America has changed how it views its responsibilities, even though somewhat unwarranted, but now we see ourselves as the country that is needed to come to the rescue. This makes some sense seeing as we are the military superpower in the world, but we still seem to neglect important issues, especially ones still happening in Africa. Our nation is now quick to engage and I think that gung hoe attitude might come back to bite us soon.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
ReplyDelete- It would appear that the US only has interests abroad when we, as a country, have something at stake or something to gain from the specific situation. There is an inherent tendency for individuals in power to turn a blind eye to human rights issues when they will cost the aiding nation money or lives, even if they are on a smaller scale than what is being lost by the victim nation. Our interest in Afghanistan sky rocketed after 9/11 because American public safety was threatened in what the US percieved to be the "greatest danger to American livelihood in the past decade." America's responsibilities in and towards nations of the world did a three sixty turn when the events of 9/11 occurred. We stopped turning a blind eye to foreign affairs because we were concerned solely about the safety of Americans if these affairs spilled into our areas of interest. Therefore, in that sense, America thought that it needed to invest concern in areas that would threaten the lives and dignity of American citizens. There had hardly been any interest in events that happened prior to 9/11, such as the events that took place in Rwanda, in Africa. However, after 9/11 the US adopted a much more paranoid and involved approach to foreign affairs after the terrorist attacks because we felt a growing threat to public and personal safety. Our attitude though, as terrible as it may be to admit,hasn't changed with regard to humanitarian issues that don't pose the immediate threat of what we all fear...harm on our territory. The US' view of our role of responsibility in the world because it reaffirmed that it is our duty to exist as a powerful and condescending nation that will infleunce whatever we have over others to establish that we should not be messed with. However, we are not responsible enough as a world power to affairs abroad that need our powerful influence but do not affect us in any way shape or form...we tend to become numb to human need unless we are threatened.
part II
ReplyDelete1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
- Genocide could very easily happen again.It could happen anywhere. The circumstances in parts of Africa, much like the rest of the world, are very unstable and chaotic and the political climate is like a volcano that's ready to erupt. All it takes is for a conflict between opposing groups or races to occur and the top could blow, especially if extremists are at the heart of such a matter. However, I don't think a genocide could continue as long as the one in Rwanda did because the world learns from its mistakes and I don't think any nation would turn a blind eye and have the gaul to ignore such a horrific situation. However, like the documentary said, we have stated "NEVER AGAIN" several times and have let it happen again AND we tend to let history repeat itself. In the world we live in today, it would be so easy for genocide to take its course because we live in a world where power is the only thing that puts a country in a position to prosper. Disputes about how that power should be distributed nearly always lead to conflict and very easily, in our turbulent world...genocide. On a seperate but important note, the US tends to show disinterest in humanitarian involvement when it costs us money or doesn't directly threaten us...therefore if another country were not to intervene in the wake of a terrifying extermination, then genocide could easily take its course and creep back into Africa, or any place else for that matter.
1. I believe that it would be foolish to think that genocide could never occur again. There is a lot of racial tension in the world, but also more pressingly, religious tension. As global populations increase, and religions become more and more secular and populous, there will be conflict in regions where dominant religions collide. Interestingly enough, this sort of conflict almost always occurs in regions with Muslim populations that wish to establish Sharia law and create secular Muslim states. The world has accepted this and established a dangerous precedent through the expansion of Muslim North Africa, Pakistan, the impending division of Iraq between Kurds and Shiites, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and most recently, Sudan. International organizations such as the UN have little prescribed power to control conflicts if they emerge in these regions of potential conflict as seen in Rwanda. While the world may be more eager to protect against genocide after the incidents in Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia, I feel that in the heat of the moment, there will be many diplomatic and political barriers. These barriers will bar immediate intervention in the conflict. Thus, I feel that the combination of regions where ethnic and religious conflicts can emerge, coupled with the international community’s inability to intervene in global crises, will not help to stop genocide.
ReplyDelete3. I believe that the most significant event that 9/11 had on the way the USA approached international relations and conflicts was to shift the focus onto a new part of the world. The USA has since the end of WWII been heavily involved in “peacekeeping” roles across the world, which in fact has been a mode of aggression for reasons perceptively unknown to the public. It is important to follow this trend through to completion. The Cold War Era was marked with involvement in Asia and Cuba. The 90’s saw heavy involvement in Africa and Eastern Europe. 9/11 was a catalyst for a change in focus. This is to say that the USA now had an excuse to shift its international attention away from previous conflicts and towards Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States thus still maintains an important and aggressive role in international conflicts, but they have become more justified by the events of 9/11.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. The nature of personally responsibility in the 21st century is a complex concept as the world has become more interconnected. As individuals, the nature of personal responsibility to other nations is very limited because one person cannot be held responsible or expected to address all the problems of a struggling nation. However, the importance of the individual cannot be overlooked. Carl Wilkens was the only American to stay in Rwanda. His efforts prove that one person is capable of being responsible when his or her country is not.
ReplyDeleteA nation’s responsibility is much more complicated than an individual’s. Stronger nations with resources, such as the U.S., have the obligation to help weaker nations, but not at an extreme cost to them. The limit on a country’s involvement should be when its own citizens stand to lose more than the amount of good that can be done. Unfortunately, often this is not the perspective that many countries prescribe to. Only a few Belgian peacekeepers died, but hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were murdered. Though the value of each Belgian life is important, the loss of a few Belgians in no way allows a country to fully withdraw and let nearly one million Rwandans die, especially because Belgium could be blamed for partly causing the ethnic tensions by haphazardly dividing Africa, disregarding different ethnic groups, during the Scramble for Africa. Former colonial powers should be held accountable for issues that they potentially caused in their former possessions. Unfortunately, this is not the reality of responsibility in the 21st century. Too often nations fraternize with the minimum as opposed to the limit. Frequently, western nations claim to not want to infringe on the sovereignty of other countries, though a valid point, excuses them from their responsibilities.
1. Considering the complexities of the world, genocide is almost always still a possibility. However, it is unlikely that it will occur again in Rwanda, or at least not in the near future. The world community, particularly the U.S. and Belgium, have received many harsh criticisms and judgments for their lack of involvement in the Rwanda genocide. After seeing the results of the conflict, these nations and the world feel guilty for allowing the situation to escalate and become so deadly so quickly. The world has learned from its mistakes, but only in this case. If Rwanda were to be put in a similar situation with an approaching genocide, the world community would likely be overly cautious as a way of compensating for their previous failures. Additionally, the current climate in Rwanda does not create an environment for genocide. Ethnic conflict is not a major issue because the country’s economic success has overshadowed potential conflicts. The successful economic growth in the agricultural sector and improvements in healthcare, social services, and infrastructure have helped to mollify tensions between the groups as both sides are receiving adequate services and have the opportunity to live a content, successful life. These improvements have worked to heal the wounds of the genocide. Furthermore, the rising generation played witness to the atrocities of the genocide and most strongly feels its negative effects. Ideally, these children would be less inclined to allow another genocide to occur because of what they have had to deal with.
ReplyDeleteAlthough genocide in Rwanda is not a likely occurrence, it is still a possibility elsewhere in the world. As we have seen in Rwanda, the countries can easily detach themselves from the problems of another nation. Self-interest will inevitably trump moral obligations. Genocides have occurred recently and are occurring currently in Darfur, Kurdistan, and possibly approaching one in Kyrgyzstan. The world has barely been involved in these conflicts, allowing massive human rights violations to occur despite the fact that one motto about the Rwandan genocide is “never again”.
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not? From what we have seen, read, and heard I believe the chance of genocide occurring gain, big or small, is unavoidable. The genocide in Rwanda is not far history, and actually occurred in my lifetime, even though I was very young. Differences between different people occur, and at certain moments they can be taken to the next level and turn into genocide. Religion has always been a huge factor in which large conflict has erupted over. It is a possibility that religious difference between different people can lead to genocide. U.S. and U.N. complacency towards genocide in Rwanda leaves me to believe that another possible or occurring genocide would not be stopped or will be stopped too late. In Rwanda, the U.N. peacekeepers inside the nation seemed more like a show of force rather than an actual force. They could do nothing to combat the genocide violence. U.N. peacekeepers seem effective until the actual violence breaks out, and if another genocide breaks out, I see another situation with U.N. peacekeepers such as in Rwanda happening. The U.S. and the international community were ineffective in acting against the genocide. A huge factor is the failure of the U.S. and international community to recognize the violence in Rwanda as genocide. The U.S. has pledged to stop another situation like Rwanda from happening, but unless they can immediately recognize violence occurring as genocide, I do not see how genocide can be truly stopped.
ReplyDelete3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events. I feel that the events of 9/11 gave the U.S. a reason to continue its international involvement in many conflicts. Prior to 9/11 and after the cold war, the U.S. was attempting to stay out of conflicts that did not directly involve them. After 9/11, the U.S. seemed and seems willing to engage in many situations/conflicts. It seems that the U.S. is the international police and has stretched its forces throughout the world. However, most of the situations/conflicts the U.S. seems to engage in are ones that are to its own benefit: such as involving itself with many oil nations. Money is a huge factor in who the U.S. involves itself with, and this was the same situation in Rwanda. When asked to jam radio transmissions Rwanda genocide forces were transmitting, the U.S. responded by saying it was “too expensive”. September 11 also gave the U.S. a new face to call the enemy, the Middle East. This is a trend throughout U.S. history, an example being communism. Yes, the U.S. changed how it views its responsibilities in the world. However, U.S. focus seems to look at situations/conflicts that benefit them and not ones that are humanitarian and do not benefit them.
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not? From what we have seen, read, and heard I believe the chance of genocide occurring gain, big or small, is unavoidable. The genocide in Rwanda is not far history, and actually occurred in my lifetime, even though I was very young. Differences between different people occur, and at certain moments they can be taken to the next level and turn into genocide. Religion has always been a huge factor in which large conflict has erupted over. It is a possibility that religious difference between different people can lead to genocide. U.S. and U.N. complacency towards genocide in Rwanda leaves me to believe that another possible or occurring genocide would not be stopped or will be stopped too late. In Rwanda, the U.N. peacekeepers inside the nation seemed more like a show of force rather than an actual force. They could do nothing to combat the genocide violence. U.N. peacekeepers seem effective until the actual violence breaks out, and if another genocide breaks out, I see another situation with U.N. peacekeepers such as in Rwanda happening. The U.S. and the international community were ineffective in acting against the genocide. A huge factor is the failure of the U.S. and international community to recognize the violence in Rwanda as genocide. The U.S. has pledged to stop another situation like Rwanda from happening, but unless they can immediately recognize violence occurring as genocide, I do not see how genocide can be truly stopped.
ReplyDelete3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events. I feel that the events of 9/11 gave the U.S. a reason to continue its international involvement in many conflicts. Prior to 9/11 and after the cold war, the U.S. was attempting to stay out of conflicts that did not directly involve them. After 9/11, the U.S. seemed and seems willing to engage in many situations/conflicts. It seems that the U.S. is the international police and has stretched its forces throughout the world. However, most of the situations/conflicts the U.S. seems to engage in are ones that are to its own benefit: such as involving itself with many oil nations. Money is a huge factor in who the U.S. involves itself with, and this was the same situation in Rwanda. When asked to jam radio transmissions Rwanda genocide forces were transmitting, the U.S. responded by saying it was “too expensive”. September 11 also gave the U.S. a new face to call the enemy, the Middle East. This is a trend throughout U.S. history, an example being communism. Yes, the U.S. changed how it views its responsibilities in the world. However, U.S. focus seems to look at situations/conflicts that benefit them and not ones that are humanitarian and do not benefit them.
ReplyDelete1. Not only could genocide occur again, it is happening now in Darfur. The human capacity for evil should never be underestimated or dismissed. Not only that, but our global apathy to such evil enables it to occur. The world's response to Darfur, which has wavered between inadequate and purposeful ignorance, is evidence of this. In the past, genocide has been able to occur because of our unwillingness to act in the face of such tragedy, or we simply turn a blind eye to it, reluctant to shatter our image of global peace and cooperation.
ReplyDelete2. In the modern world, information, ideas, and opinions can be transmitted across the globe in an instant; a bomb can be built in one country and dropped in another; and borders that historically have divided peoples, nations, and cultures have been eroded. As a result, our responsibility as a nation has expanded past our own borders. It is impossible to please ignorance or helplessness in regard to world issues. Both of these facts mean that we are in a way accountable for inaction. The power of the individual is more ambiguous, but the higher position a person holds, the more responsibility they are handed. Moreover, an individual’s responsibility can be autonomous of their nation, as was the case with Carl Wilkens, the only American to stay in Rwanda during the genocide. As a nation that has long proclaimed itself a leader and model of democracy and an enemy of tyranny, it can be argued that it was our implicit duty to intervene in Rwanda. We did not. However, while we can be held accountable for our inaction, we cannot be for the genocide itself; there is a difference. It is likely that the death toll would have been halved had we stepped in, but as we didn’t, we must now look to the future and consider our responsibility in foreign affairs. If it is to match our manifesto of peace and power, then the next time we should not hesitate before using the full thrust of our strength to halt the spread of hate and violence. As a superpower of the modern world, this is our inherent duty, and we cannot simply rely on an inadequate number of peacekeepers or a small number of independent, brave individuals to do the job for us.
1. Judging what I have seen, read, and heard, I think that there is a great potential for history to repeat itself, in both Rwanda and other parts of the world. After the Rwandan genocide, the world watched as similar acts of violence were carried out in the Democratic Republic of Congo. At the same time, Darfur, Sudan was involved in genocide. The modern world, or America, at least, seems to have learned a lesson from Rwanda, however. In 2005, the Bush administration was quick to label the killings in Darfur “genocide,” despite the fact that the UN and other countries avoided the use of the word. That being said, the world still has a lot to learn in the case of preventing humanitarian crises. After World War II, the world swore that something like the Holocaust would never happen again. After Rwanda, the UN and the US both promised that a similar genocide would never occur again. The pattern of history tells us that in fact the world has not learned its lesson in regards to humanitarian crises, and this allows for the likely possibility of another genocide.
ReplyDelete2. Unfortunately, nature of personal responsibility in the 21st century is selfish. Most countries do not interfere in the business of others unless it holds some sort of benefit for them. Rarely do countries help other countries out of the goodness of their hearts; rarely do they interfere in humanitarian crises purely to help the victims – usually they interfere under great pressure from individuals who are dedicated to the issue. Even the UN, whose job it is to create a better world, is often reluctant to involve itself in humanitarian crises without the support of powerful nations. Some may argue that it is the duty of our governments to protect their people and their nation, but we cannot forget others who are hurting.
2. What is the nature and limit of personal responsibility in the 21st century? Support your personal view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
ReplyDeletePersonal responsibility that rest on a single person in the 21st century has different limits. As a single person, you have the ability to make change but only through hard work and a lot of patience comes some form of success. It is a lot harder to make change in a neighboring country alone. In the movie, Laura Lane wanted to stay and leave the embassy open for those seeking refuge and help. However with the little amount of backing support by the United States to let her stay, she was unable to stay. One person is limited to the willingness and support of their county and by the degree of security that is required to keep a country’s citizens safe. However a personal responsibility of one nation has different limits. A nation of people such as the United States has the responsibility of helping and protecting its fellow countries if there is no question of harm.
3. "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
I agree. I feel that after September 11th, the United States raised its limits towards helping other nations. Prior to the events, The United States had a greater support for countries in desperate need. The attacks put a large threat on our national security and from then on the citizens of the U.S. were limited to their help abroad. In the movie, Lane and some other passionate US citizens wanted to remain in Rwanda and help the victims of violence find safety. Once again they were denied the ability to remain in Rwanda due to the threat to their individual safety.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1)Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI believe genocide could certainly happen again, as much as I would like not to believe it. The UN should be able to circumvent any occurrences of genocide, but its power is limited to that of the countries willing to support each measure it passes. As a result, a politician or administration who does not support the UN can have a seriously detrimental effect, as the Clinton administration or the Belgian government did in Rwanda. This leaves me with the more precise question to ask: Will those in power allow genocide to happen in the world once more? I believe the answer to this question is yes, as certain politicians and governments have proven both corruptible and amoral. How we as a nation deal with genocide will, I believe, be a result of and response to the current political climate or the members of the party involved much more than morality of a situation, as we saw in Rwanda.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
September 11th changed how American views its worldly responsibilities only minimally. The US has shown that it primarily involves itself when it has something at stake, whether it be resources or its image as a world power. On September 11th, perception of the US government's ability to protect its citizens or was brought into jeopardy. It decisively acted in response by committing troops to Afghanistan and beginning its' 'War on Terror'. Seen in contrast to Rwanda, the US was clearly showed that it would act on behalf of any threat to its citizens, especially with popular support, but both cases in conjunction support the idea that our government will generally act on its own behalf. The main problem with this theory is what I said in my previous response: the government acts according to its leaders, so if the leaders do follow what they believe is the morally correct way, then the government will as well. As a result, all I can say for sure is that the parties in charge during the times of the Rwandan genocide and 9/11 onwards seemed to be motivated by the political climate rather than moral obligations. To answer the question more succinctly: America did indeed change its actions in response to 9/11, but I believe the country did so out of the same motivations as it had been all along, self-interest.
1. Of course genocide will happen again. As long as people have the capacity to hate other people for no reason whatsoever there will be genocide. As much as the leaders of other countries condemn genocides after the fact, when it's actually being executed they don't want to get involved. They don't want to get their hands dirty in the bloody business of other nations' tragedy. It's much easier to beat around the bush and claim that they don't know the extent of the carnage or that it can't really be deemed genocide as a technical term and therefore they have no right to intervene. One of the congresswomen in The Ghosts of Rwanda said something to the effect of "There is a very specific definition of genocide that we can't know is applicable to the situation in Rwanda at this time." This serves to illustrate my point that to the people of other nations, the mass murder of people is only truly horrific enough to inspire action when it's over and done with.
ReplyDelete3. I agree that generally this is true. I think that September 11th brought the focus of America back to itself a little bit. It was really one of the few times that the civilian population of America has ever been attacked on a grand scale. Because of this I believe that America's interests began to center more around what is good for America. Most of the actions that America has taken globally since then have been centered around the benefits to American populations.
1) As sad as it is to say, I believe that genocide could very possible occur again somewhere in the world. There are always going to be people angry at other people, and where racial identities are very strong, this anger can be disastrously easily generalized to whole ethnicities. Inevitably, some of these people will have enough hate in them to act violently, and if they are not stopped, perpetrate genocide. In Rwanda,the difference between the Hutu and Tutsi peoples is so clearly physically marked that even the European conquerors, who generally painted all the “natives” with broad brush, noted the Tutsis’ high foreheads and aquiline noses. The Belgian conquerors thought that these differences made the Tutsi a better choice for rulers and put them in charge. The Tutsis’ status as a foreign imposed ruling minority lead to strong difference socially between the two groups. Fear and anger were used to manipulate Hutu into committing genocide against the admittedly very different Tutsi. This combination of anger, fear, and manipulation could easily be used to commit genocide again. However, all of this would amount to naught if other forces intervened. However, it is likely that, just as in Rwanda’s case, most nations with the power to do something will that it is not their responsibility because they have no monetary interests in the country. Even those sworn against letting genocide ever happen again might look the other way if the same inopportune combination of lack of motivation and bad press were to arise as did with the UN in Rwanda. Genocide is one of the most terrible horrors that the world has faced, and until something basic in human nature or the nature of international relations changes, we may yet see it rear its ugly head elsewhere in the world.
ReplyDelete3) Though the events of September 11th emboldened America to extend the long arm of its military even farther for a while, I think it now serves as a warning both to fight even harder and smarter against your enemies and to be careful about how involved one country can justifiably be in another and for how long. America under the Clinton administration held the policy of non-intervention, unless the country was directly involved in America’s interests. However, under the Bush administration, and after 9/11, America found itself over-extended, embroiled in two wars, one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. Now, under President Obama, America is working on phasing troops out of the region. Whether or not one believes that the wars were justified or right, it is true that now in a reaction to 9/11 America is working on moving its responsibilities back towards itself, and not so much on other countries.
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteIn watching the film I learned that many governments expressed remorse for Rwanda but at the same time, no county proposed that they wished they sent aid or that they plan on aiding any count that goes through a trouble such as the one Rwanda did. The fact that Clinton’s inaction to comment on or express remorse for Rwanda until the genocide was over shows he did not truly care. Taking into consideration that the U.S. is the world super power, making it one of the few that could bring an end to the genocide, and they don not want to help predicts that many other counties would be hesitate as well.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
Prior to Sept. 11, 2001 the U.S. attempted to avoid world issues. Later, the country realized that as the worlds super power they needed to be responsible for solving many world conflicts. As a result, the U.S. entered Bagdad as well as Iraq, Iraq being the selfless decision. Today, the United States is involved in settling disputes that have nothing to do with it. This shows that the United states of America is now more interested in being responsible for the world and its many conflicts.
1. Genocide in Rwanda or another region of the world will not be stopped in the future. The UN has vowed never to allow a genocide to happen again many years ago but as soon as fighting began to break out in Rwanda, troops and foreigners were evacuated immediately. As was stated in Ghosts of Rwanda, countries like the United States will not intervene in any country unless its own interests are at stake. The self-centered western states are not willing to risk the lives of their own citizens even if it means saving thousands more.
ReplyDeletePresident Clinton said that he regretted not sending troops in after the genocide was concluded but at the end of the day, Clinton was too scared to act from the beginning because he did not want to risk any American lives. There is not reason that this will ever change. In the heat of the moment, countries like the United States show what they are really about and the US and Belgium proved with Rwanda that future genocides will not be stopped unless the interests of the country with power are at stake. The UN preaches about equality among nations and that message is heavily supported by member states but there is clearly not equality in this world because the US and Belgium were not willing to risk the lives of a few troops to save hundreds of thousands of people in Rwanda.
3. The horrific events on September 11, 2001 has not changed the US’s responsibility in the global community. 9/11/2001 gave the US an excuse to intervene in the Middle East to protect its oil interests and try to stabilize the region. The State department came out and said that it was trying to make the region safer for locals and that we were searching for Osama but it was clear that protecting the oil was a high priority for the US. As we saw in Ghosts of Rwanda, the US is focused on protecting its economical interests and since the majority of our oil comes from the Middle East, it seemed vital to protect the region.
As time elapsed however, the US’s motives seemed to waiver. The initial priority of stabilizing the region quickly evolved into the US trying to impose a democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq. The issue in the Middle East was becoming more and more like the Cold War. Not only was the Bush Administration protecting its oil interests, it was pushing its ideals of democracy on nations that may have been better off without it. For the past few decades, the United States has structured its international relations around its economic and political benefit.
EVERYBODY READ THIS TESTIMONY ON HOW I GOT MY LOAN FROM A LEGIT AND TRUSTED LOAN COMPANY My name is Kjerstin Lis, I have been searching for a loan to settle my debts, everyone I met scammed and took my money until I finally met Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee He was able to give me a loan of R 450,000.00.He also helped some other colleagues of mine. i am talking as the happiest person in the whole wide world today and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will tell the name to the whole wide world and i am so happy to say that my family is back for good because i was in need a loan to start my life all over as i am a single mum with 3 kids and the whole world seemed like it was hanging on me until i meant the GOD sent loan lender that changed my life and that of my family, a GOD fearing lender, Mr, Benjamin, he was the Savior GOD sent to rescue my family and at first i thought it was not going to be possible until i received my loan, i invited him over to my family get-together party which he did not decline and i will advise any one who is in genuine need of a loan to contact Mr, Benjamin Breil Lee via email at (Lfdsloans@outlook.com ) because he is the most understanding and kind hearten lender I have ever met with a caring heart. He doesn't know that i am doing this by spreading his goodwill towards me but I feel I should share this with you all to free yourself from scammers, please beware of impersonators and contact the right loan company Email us via: Lfdsloans@outlook.com or whatsapp +1-989-394-3740. .
ReplyDelete