Living in a World with Danger and Killing

The United Nations failed Rwanda, in a time of need they abandoned the Rwandan people giving them no physical protection. Sadly, things go wrong with the slaughter of almost 800,000 Rwanda people, left defenseless in a country where no one outside cared. U.N. troops were present as only “peace-keepers.” The dispute was between the Hutus and Tutsis people could of been controlled if the U.N. changed their position, but the result could bring more consequences. This conflict between the two social groups in Rwanda,was left to be resolved on its own with many lives lost.

Though the well known wars are occuring in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, there are many other wars occurring across the globe.How many innocents’ lives does society have to lose before we settle our agreements? If society continues on the path of war and destruction to settle their disputes the world will end in “bombardment, barrage, curtain-fire, mines, gas, tanks, machine guns, hand-grenades” all that “hold the horror of the world” (Remarque 132) much like the setting in All Quiet on the Western Front. With continuous warfare the world is far from perfect utopia but in distress. Though not all of society experiences bombs going off at their front doorstep and many can safely sleep, this is not the case for everyone. Society must begin to not characterize the world with only their lives but the lives of

During the United States' wars in the middle east alone, an estimated two hundred and ten thousand civilians have died violent deaths, and the number of deaths caused by inadequate resources and an inhabitable environment is thought to exceed that number. During the Vietnam War “as many as 2 million civilians on both sides” were slaughtered, as well; the destruction of war does not only affect those who wear a uniform. These deadly and unnecessary fights, where hands slippery with blood scrabble to grasp at power, fail to protect anyone, and they consume life and light and peace in exchange for resources that are far less precious – such a trade goes against all of the goodness in human nature. Wherever war goes, ruin, irreparable pain, and need become inevitable, leaving those who have no part in the war to bear the brunt of the burden, so governments should find themselves quite reluctant to employ military

Unfortunately, our modern society has been marred with war and strife over its eventful lifespan. A civil disagreement, when accompanied by mass offenses, often ends with deadly war. Throughout history, many nations have been unable to solve their personal grievances with one another in a diplomatic manner. In many instances are solves through protest, boycotts and other contentious means. However, in some instances, society elects the worst possible alternative, which is often war. In retrospect, wars have been fought for many worthwhile causes, even by today's standards. Wars have been fought over liberty, injustice, the potential threat to national security and more. However, no war is more damaging than those that are civil. Brother against brother, father against father, neighbor against neighbor. These are often the most bitter of wars simply because they are so personal and contentious. As is the case with the American Civil War of 1861-1865, the varying degrees of hatred and disagreement resulting in massive deaths. Due primarily to the civil nature of the war, many lives were lost in an unnecessary and often brutal manner.

The Rwandan genocide is a grim reminder of how the world failed to protect hundreds of thousands of civilians. The conflict between the Hutu’s and Tutsi’s resulted in the massacre of 800,000 Tutsi’s in 100 days. Following the Second World War, the UN was created to constitute the obligation to protect; it is an attempt at a mutual effort to encourage international peace. How could the world allow such an atrocity to transpire without any retribution from anyone? The media undoubtedly functioned as an essential factor to the world for not understanding exactly what was developing in Rwanda. There was an ignorant notion of turning away from the atrocity because it was “far away”. The Clinton Administration was in charge during this conflict and

The formation of the United Nations in 1945 was marked by an international outcry to ‘never again’ idly bear witness to the genocidal atrocities capable of man, as so harshly revealed in the nature of the Holocaust. In doing so, all member states actively sought to facilitate discussion in the United Nations as a world forum, in order to achieve both international and intra-national security. While the United Nations has achieved various successes in the international community, the international entity and its’ member states are subject to various legal and moral flaws, weakening response to conflicts in the contemporary era of international relations. These failures are exemplified tragically in the response to the Rwandan genocide in

Throughout history, there is a kind of web of war that the human race is tangles in. Whenever our society seems to be finally getting out of war, someone seems to get tangled in it again. Throughout history, there have been men (these men still exist today) who have trouble using their mouths to solve problems, and consequently would rather have their fists do the talking. Except in this scenario the “men” are nations, and their “fists” are their armies. In every fist fight, every “fist” gets damaged, or even worse, the “men” get even more damaged. Every war causes destruction and devastation without and remorse. Moreover, there is no morally justifiable reason to go to war. Instead of talking out political issues, like diplomats, countries

Gun shots! Chanting killing songs! There are dead bodies everywhere. That’s what one would see if one took a trip to Rwanda in the year 1994. There was an enormous amount of people who were being killed in Rwanda. This broke out to be a civil war against their two major ethnic groups. The account of all of the killings became known as the Rwandan Genocide. Rwanda’s people were in great danger, and no one was there to help. The United Nations, which is a global organization with a mission to promote peace throughout the world, failed to help the people of this country. The UN failed to end the Rwandan Civil War by ignoring the warnings that there could be massive killings breaking out, also by decreasing the number of troops that were in Rwanda during the civil war, and sending the number of troops that were needed in Rwanda after the war ended.

In the entire human history, war will never be the best way to end a crisis or to solve a problem with other country; war will only bring death, famine and destruction to millions of people worldwide, because “What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!” Edwin Starr (1970). For 6 years we experienced

The UN should have definitely taken more action to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The UN has the resources and manpower but it seems that the UN is only motivated by monetary gain. Based on the reading, the UN stated “We will recommend to our governments not to intervene as the risks are high and all that is here are humans.” (Dallaire & Beardsley, 2003. p. 121) indicates that the members of the UN only take action if it’s in their best interest. In my opinion, the UN should disregard any gain and put human life at the top of their priorities. If they had done so during 1994, the civil war might not have become a genocide, saving the lives of

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

The 20th century can be credited as being one of the most violent times in recorded history. There were over 98 million war related deaths, which is about six times the combined deaths of both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Orwell conveys each of these killings as “one mind less, one world less.” World peace would be an important goal to work towards. Many wanted to achieve world peace, however, there were many different visions for how this could be accomplished. Despite the many anti-war actions that occurred during the previous centuries, the twentieth century marks the conception of an organized approach to global peace. Advocates of world peace believed that with an ever increasing connected world, military advances, and

The United Nations was created to solve world problems. It has made actions like making peace with other countries, creating programs that help them, and helping countries in war. But sometimes, the UN will simply avoid a problem. One of these instances was in Rwanda. Around 1994, the Hutu tribe of Rwanda was committing the genocide of the Tutsi, another tribe of Rwanda. The Tutsi tribe was in alliance with Belgium when it controlled Rwanda, so when the Rwandans gained their independence, there the Hutus had prejudice against Tutsis. Eventually, there was a war between them. The Tutsi rebels were vastly outnumbered (about 10% of the Rwandan people were Tutsi and about 90% were

The United Nations, with its rigid moral and political limitations against force, has become a benchmark of peace and a social achievement of modern times. From war torn Europe, the United Nations developed from five major powers with an initial goal to prevent the spread of warfare through peaceful means and to establish and maintain fundamental human rights. Through the past fifty years, this organization has broadened its horizons with auxiliary organizations from peace keeping missions to humanitarian aid, to economic development. However, in a modern example of ethnic cleansing, the UN faces new a new role as a bystander as its power is bypassed by NATO forces. The UN, however, promises to be an

An end to war doesn’t necessarily erase the damage of decades of poverty, international isolation, and social, cultural and ecological devastation; an AIDS epidemic, pervasive violence, and poor quality education and health care systems, among other problems, fuel contemporary strife. (Shapiro-Phim 2007, 5)