Ronald B.

Joseph
HM502P
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.