The film Shake Hands with the devil (2007) depicts the genocide in Rwanda (1994), recalled by the memories of General Roméo Dallaire, the head of the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Rwanda. Dallaire was sent to Ruanda in 1993, months before the genocide began, to negotiate peace with the Hutus militia (the party that started the genocide), as well as protect and give refugee to the Tutsis (the ones that were being targeted). The movie illustrates how despite the power and available resources, the United Nations was unable to directly and effectively intervene to help the Tutsi people and stop the genocide. The United Nations was funded in 1945 with the primary purpose of maintaining international peace and security, through prevention
…show more content…
He presents both sides of the coin, which we can use when analyzing the film. In one instance Annan mentions Rwanda, saying that the “genocide showed us how the terrible consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder”, and on the other hand he mentions Kosovo, in which NATO’s decision to bomb Kosovo as a measure to solve the conflict “ raised important equally questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear authority”, because it didn’t have the UN Security Council approval and resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians. With this in mind and analyzing the situation in the film, we can observe that it would be hard for the UN to simply make available all of its resources to General Dallaire disposition, just as it was hard for them, I suppose, to stand by and watch those events unfold. Making resources available could lead to the death of more innocent lives, and that the total opposite of what their mission was; on the other hand, standing by also led to that tragic nearly 1.000.000 deaths, and this is where UN credibility in “humanitarian intervention” starts being
He presents both sides of the coin, which we can use when analyzing the film. In one instance Annan mentions Rwanda, saying that the “genocide showed us how the terrible consequences of inaction can be in the face of mass murder”, and on the other hand he mentions Kosovo, in which NATO’s decision to bomb Kosovo as a measure to solve the conflict “ raised important equally questions about the consequences of action without international consensus and clear authority”, because it didn’t have the UN Security Council approval and resulted in the death of hundreds of civilians. With this in mind and analyzing the situation in the film, we can observe that it would be hard for the UN to simply make available all of its resources to General Dallaire disposition, just as it was hard for them, I suppose, to stand by and watch those events unfold. Making resources available could lead to the death of more innocent lives, and that the total opposite of what their mission was; on the other hand, standing by also led to that tragic nearly 1.000.000 deaths, and this is where UN credibility in “humanitarian intervention” starts being