HOTEL RWANDA

The movie is based on a true story and happened only in 1994 in the age of swift
exchange of information. But, how did the situation in Rwanda came that worse if
not the worst? What may be inferred about the movie is that it focused only to Paul
and the colonel and not the whole genocide. But I think, resonating the reality of
what happened in Rwanda, the movie tries to depict the truth during the genocide,
only a few responded. It illustrates the apathy of the international community in
treating Rwandan strife or upon the willful blindness, which allowed the slaughter
and displacement of many hundreds of thousands. What Colonel remarked to Paul
when he questioned why would the international community not intervene to the
Rwandans is very apt to describe the UNs discrimination of its members, or maybe
for the reason that what is it for them to afford help. They think youre dirt, dung,
black. Youre not even a nigger youre African. Theyre (European intervention
troops) not going to stay! Moreover, Paul also had an occasion to see the footage
Jack, a European journalist was able to record. He said, I am glad that you have
shot this footage and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance
that people might intervene. Then Jack replied, Yeah and if no one intervenes, is it
still a good thing to show? Then Paul inquisitively responded, How can they not
intervene when they witness such atrocities? and Jack answered, I think if people
see this footage they'll say, "oh my God that's horrible," and then go on eating their
dinners. How and why had it come that these super power nations are the keepers
of Rwanda? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly of which these super power nations are also members
speaks of a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It
sets out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. In one occasion
the Colonel of the UN Peacekeepers said, We are peacekeepers and not
peacemakers. This statement draws attention to what really is the role of the U.N.?
Moreover, there seem to be a conflict on the remark, an absurdity. What would they
keep if there is no peace? So it follows that they should first be peacemakers for
them to attend to the next role of being peacekeepers. In this instance, I would like
to contrast two situations. On September 11, 2001 the world was surprised by an
attack on the U.S. where 2,973 people died (CNN, 2006). U.S. then as retribution or
what they propagandized as war against terrorism instigated war against the
Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq who they said cuddled and supported Bin Laden, the
mastermind of the attack. The U.N. as a body advocating for world peace and
human rights, in response to the terrorism decided to help the U.S. in one way or
another. On the other hand, in not too distant past just seven years prior to the US
attack, in Rwanda, on April 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in a
span of 100 days because UN did not intervene. Can the reason of state sovereignty
be made as a cloak to justify willful blindness? Definitely not. So why is it that the
UN in response to U.S.s call immediately responded while in Rwanda they did not?
Is UN only created to serve the interests of the rich nations? I smell a double
standard in such situations. It must be either racial or economic bigotry. In the
words of Gandhi, the test of pudding is on the eating. Experience taught us that of
course, they can bake the cake and eat it too. Given that my interpolation is true,
how can these poor member-nations expect genuine help from these rich nations or

the so called UN? I think what Paul said during the time when they were deserted by
the U.N. is appropriate to answer this question. We must shame them into sending
help. Might makes right. This was one of Hitlers founding principles of the right to
exterminate the Jews. In the same manner, the Hutus also rediscovered this
principle and used it against their Tutsi brothers. Then a cycle of hate begins. The
aggrieved side would then avenge the death of their fellow. An eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth (Code of Hammurabi) would then ensue. But Mahatma Gandhi
believed otherwise, an eye for an eye would only make the whole world blind. All
things said, I had come to the opinion that we, humans, are really incapable of
understanding each other for I believe, as long as we love, there would always be
hate. And as long as this kind of system we are in thrives, there would always be
discrimination.