Crimes against humanity describe atrocious offenses on human dignity. This encompasses slaying, extermination, and captivity, among other barbaric acts invested against civilians, especially during war times (Bassiouni, 2002). This is not new, with documentation of crimes against humanity running down the history line to the First World War, where Turkish officials perpetrated crimes of this nature. A perfect example is the massive killing of over six million Jews who died at the hands of Nazis during world war two, what is commonly known as ‘the holocaust’ in contemporary times. However, the most stunning crime in the recent past is the Rwandan genocide in 1994, where over 500,000 people died as war broke out between two warring sides; the Hutus and the Tutsis (BBC news, 2008). Different modes of communication aired the news all over the world. However, the movie ‘Hotel Rwanda’ stole the day by bringing out the untold stories about this genocide in style.
This is a consummate work portraying one of the ugliest historical events on crimes against humanity. In the movie, Don Cheadle acts as Paul Rusesabagina, a rich Hutu successful businessperson who has powerful connections with all classes of Rwandan life. Her wife urges him to use his massive influence to help the minority Tutsis from harassment and inhumane practices directed to them by the majority Hutus. However, Paul does not seem to take charge, not at that time. At around that time, the violence intensifies, and this marks the start of the massacre of Tutsis by Hutus. European invitees and workers residing in the hotel where Paul is a manager are taken out of the country immediately, leaving Paul in charge. As the massacre escalates, Paul, moved by his conscience, converts the hotel into a refugee camp to protect the innocent Tutsis from these atrocities. However, the most captivating event as the movie progresses is the reluctance of the international community to intervene to quell the raging storms. Apart from one journalist and Col. Oliver, a UN peacekeeping colonel, nobody else seems to bother to intervene. As the movie ends, one wonders about the role of international human rights groups in facilitating their mission per se.
How does this movie address the issue of the international human rights watchdog in carrying out its mandate? This movie portrays a total failure on the part of the international human rights watchdog in intervening at times of crimes against human rights, as witnessed in the Rwandan massacre. What else explains the fact that the international community sat back the massacre continued? In the movie, the international community seems to enjoy watching as the story unfolds. Moreover, if this was the case, then they would enjoy the drama of a long, drama of human massacre. For one hundred days when the massacre is taking place, not even a single voice is heard from the international community save for a journalist and Col. Oliver, the UN peacekeeping colonel. This may be a movie, a collection of documentation about the past, but it is a true depiction of how our structures are poorly established to carry out their missions.
It is interesting how one man, Paul Rusesabagina, assumes the role of human rights watchdog and offers refuge to fleeing people. In principle, the international human rights watchdog could do a better job than this one man does. The interesting story about the international human rights’ laxity unveils as the movie progresses and violence worsens. In retrospect, there were thousands of UN peacekeeping troops in Kigali before the war broke out. They were there to oversee the implementation of the Arusha accord that sought to end the civil war in Rwanda (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2009). After the war breaks out, the UN withdraws its troops from Kigali, leaving behind around 300 troops. In addition, the troops left behind do not seem to do anything to stop the massacre. To defend their non-involvement in keeping the peace, the UN colonel states that UN troops are ‘peacekeepers,’ not ‘peacemakers.’
Hotel Rwanda’ depicts clearly how tribal and ethnic infringes shaped the state of affairs in Rwanda during that time. For instance, a conversation taking place in a hotel bar throws weight on the issue of ethnicity. A journalist, in a bid to establish the cause of the genocide, interviews a Rwandan who confirms that there was strife between Hutus and Tutsis at that time. The Rwandan states that before colonization by Belgium, Hutus and Tutsis had cordial relationships void of social distinctions save for the economic distinctions that are prevalent in any community. However, the Rwandan in this conversation points out that the Belgian colonial rule created racial divisions between these two groups. Before the Belgian colonial rule, the Tutsis assumed the status of nobility while Hutus were the ordinary people. The Belgian rule, however, aggravated the divide between these two communities by favoring the Tutsis. The tribal and the ethnic chasm widened slowly under the Belgian colonial rule. Unfortunately, this divide did not cede with the attainment of independence.
The movie tackles the issue of the Rwandan genocide, and it is clear that this was not an ‘internal issue’ as some people may want to put it. In the course of the movie, it emerges that the French government had close links with the Hutus during the time of the massacre. Though these may be mere allegations, one cannot fail to note that France was the chief supplier of weapons to the Rwandan government. Actually, during the tenth anniversary of the massacre, the then Rwandan president impeached France for deliberately training Hutus with full knowledge of the impending massacre (Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2009). Regardless of whether these are allegations or truth, they resonate well with what the movie brings out as an international affair as opposed to the notion that this was an ‘internal affair.’
Finally, the movie depicts the degree of responsibility held by the United Nations and the international community concerning the genocide that happened. From the movie, it is clear that the international community refrained from intervening to stop the massacre. In principle, it is the duty of the international community to intervene at such times. However, this same international community chose to stay back and watch. Indeed, it watched for 100 days as more than 500,000 innocent lives went down the drain. UN, on its part, failed at a time when it could have taken control. Why should it withdraw its troops with all signs written on the wall that a crisis was looming? A colonel goes on to state that the work of UN troops is to keep the peace, not to make it. One then wonders how you can keep the peace that is lacking in the first place. Even though this movie contains some contentious ethical issues, it serves the purpose of exposing how our so-called international watchdogs may prove wanting at some times.
It is unacceptable and unethical to condone crimes against humanity anywhere in the world. The international community should get involved more to avoid a repeat of what happened in Rwanda. Surely, we cannot change the past, but we can learn and correct our past mistakes to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.
Reference list
Bassiouni, M. (2002). Crimes against Humanity. Web.
BBC News. (2008). Rwanda: How the genocide happened.
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (2009). Hotel Rwanda. Web.
Chelde, D. Okonedo, S. & Nolte, N. (2005). Hotel Rwanda. Web.