Moral Disengagement In Rwanda

It was not until I was in tenth grade that I was exposed to the Rwandan Genocide. This event happened only a year before I was born, yet I had never heard of it. It was only in an integrated English and History class that the tragic events of 1994 became known to me. Two other classmates and I were given the task of researching, gathering the facts, and then teaching our fellow students about the atrocities that took the small country of Rwanda by storm. While other groups were learning and presenting about wars and combat, my group was wrestling with the very idea of genocide. Although we had been exposed to the Holocaust, this only raised questions of how another genocide could happen after such a devastating mass killing, especially because …show more content…
Moral disengagement is the “...active, but gradual, process of detachment by which some individuals or groups are placed outside the boundary within which moral values, rules, and considerations of fairness apply” (Waller, 2002, p. 202). By refusing to send help to Rwanda, the United States is placing Rwanda and its people outside their moral boundaries simply because it was too expensive or because there was nothing of material value to gain. As one of the countries that is a main player in the United Nations, the United States agreed to protect others against a repeat of the Holocaust. Yet, with Rwanda, they turned the other way. In fact, it was the United States sole mission to not intervene with the conflict in Rwanda. Quaid points out to Bushnell that at least they succeeded in their mission and “did everything right” in terms of “national interest.” Bushnell replies back, “ We were loyal to a policy that allowed hundreds of thousands of people to be killed! As far as moral imperative, we did not do the right thing.” As a country, the United States ignored Rwanda when it was at its peak, sending in troops only after the fighting was done to do damage control with the …show more content…
Alongside this portrayal is the association with the United Nations. Both of these things indicate that the United States - and other countries- wish to see universal justice. But wishing and fulfilling are two different things, and so far, the United States has wished more than fulfilled. As one of the superpowers, I absolutely believe that is not only a moral duty, but also a Christian duty to use the resources we have to help those in need. Because we, as a nation, are a relatively advanced society, it is a moral obligation to be an example and teach others. This does not mean invading a country and installing a government that is entirely controlled by the United States, or even forcing help upon countries who do not want it. Instead, the United States and the UN should be zeroing in on country that promote injustice among its people, whether this be oppression or genocide. If we have the power to change it for the better - meaning the better for those suffering the injustices, not the better for ourselves- than there should be no question about offering