You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Are you a Politik?
- Thread starter Vampyr
- Start date
This is completely random.
I'm reading a book in one of my classes about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families by Philip Gourevitch. It gave me a whole new understanding of US, UN, and French leadership at the time. Its interesting because the author doesn't indict the system, but instead its individual players. Has anyone else read it?
I'm reading a book in one of my classes about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families by Philip Gourevitch. It gave me a whole new understanding of US, UN, and French leadership at the time. Its interesting because the author doesn't indict the system, but instead its individual players. Has anyone else read it?
killerdwarf
Scooby
The UN is increasingly finding itself in danger of becoming irrelevent. The US, Britain and some other countries have rejected the idea of a "World Court", and in the aftermath of 9/11 the US especially is going to promote the idea that they have the right as a sovreign nation to pursue and prosecute anyone perpetrating acts of war on America. They don't want some tribunal letting a mass murderer get let off because of lack of political will to prosecute to the full extent of the law. This trend will continue for the forseeable future, and will need an amendment to the US constitution to be changed (and we won't see it in our lifetimes!).
A
Allycat
Guest
I'm extremely interested in politics. (No alternative spelling for me please.)
I think the UN is absolutely not a toothless tiger, it's a slow working organisation that has a enourmous role in bigger international conflicts, and though it's not always activated it does prove to be a solid discussing base for different countries. Apart from this all it's daughter-organisations such as UNICEF and UNESCO play vital roles in the reconstructions of countries fresh out of a war. It's this role that makes the UN very important, we the 1[sup]st[/sup] world countries can sort things out ourselves, and some of the time the 2[sup]nd[/sup] world countries can too, but especially for 3[sup]rd[/sup] world countries the UN is very important. So maybe it can't stop that american idiot from bombing, but it can help creepily thin looking africans get food, so I'm cool with them.
I think the UN is absolutely not a toothless tiger, it's a slow working organisation that has a enourmous role in bigger international conflicts, and though it's not always activated it does prove to be a solid discussing base for different countries. Apart from this all it's daughter-organisations such as UNICEF and UNESCO play vital roles in the reconstructions of countries fresh out of a war. It's this role that makes the UN very important, we the 1[sup]st[/sup] world countries can sort things out ourselves, and some of the time the 2[sup]nd[/sup] world countries can too, but especially for 3[sup]rd[/sup] world countries the UN is very important. So maybe it can't stop that american idiot from bombing, but it can help creepily thin looking africans get food, so I'm cool with them.
Hmm, I think it is.. no one trusts the authority of the UN anymore! Well I do, and I think Australia does but how can you expect a world court that prides itself on peaceful resolutions to still be in full function when the most powerful country in the world turns its back on it and defies its will?
I'm in all support for the UN, but it cant opperate when countries disregard its authority only to be proved wrong. The UN weapon inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction which is why they took no action! Do you not remember that the original basis for George Bush to invade Iraq was because he 'knew' they had nuclear weapons? Which I find a bit of a contradiction you know..
'If you're threatening to use nuclear weapons, DOesnt that make you a Rogue State too?'
George Bush: 'Yes, but we are a loveable Rogue State!'
I'm in all support for the UN, but it cant opperate when countries disregard its authority only to be proved wrong. The UN weapon inspectors found no weapons of mass destruction which is why they took no action! Do you not remember that the original basis for George Bush to invade Iraq was because he 'knew' they had nuclear weapons? Which I find a bit of a contradiction you know..
'If you're threatening to use nuclear weapons, DOesnt that make you a Rogue State too?'
George Bush: 'Yes, but we are a loveable Rogue State!'
Basically, he makes the point that the genocide in Rwanda was well planned and government sanctioned. His account of the world response is pretty damning. Kofi Annan who was then head of Peace Keeping at the UN got a report from the commander of the UN peackeeping force in Rwanda that a source inside the government said that the Hutu militas were being trained to kill Tutsis. The UN ignored the report. During the genocide, the Clinton administration deliberately avoided calling it a genocide and worked very hard to make sure that they would not have to intervine in Rwanda. Under the genocide convention if a radifying nation discovered evidence of genocide it had an obligation to stop it. I haven't finished the book but a lot of people in many western nations completely overlooked their moral obligations to intervene. Ironically, after the genocide had ended they sent massive amounts of aid to refuge camps on the borders of Rwanda that contained people who had participated in the genocide as well as some presumably innocent Hutus who were afraid to return to Rwanda.Vampyr said:No I havent, sounds very interesting though! What was the writers perspective of the situation?