Shaming and compelling, but what does this tell us about foreign policy

Rating: 7/10 (10 December 2005)

I was a little suspicious of this subject in George's hands given how some of the facts of his previous wok had been distorted for dramatic effect. I'm not sure if he has indulged himself again here, but I would not question the power or message the film conveys.
But I wonder how many in the current anti-war movement ask themselves what exactly they would have had the west do in this, or any similar, situation given their shameful queasiness when confronted with uncontrollable atrocity and human rights abuses, such as in Iraq, Afghanistan and, in this case, Rwanda.
It seems when faced with corrupt, insane murderous extremism such as practised by the likes of the Interehamwe, the Taliban, the Baathists - and currently the Janjaweed in Sudan - only force will do, and complicity in the status quo to preserve self interest is unacceptable.
This thinking is, of course, a neo-conservative cornerstone and underpins much of its foreign policy theory - to its credit. In 1994 Clinton stood idly by and history shamefully glosses over this when it comes his presidency. Indeed he would have done the same in Bosnia had the British among others persuaded him not to.
It is to our shame that while the west intervened in the Balkans Rwanda was left to implode, and equally depressing that the current (Tutsi) Rwandan leader, Paul Kagame, shows all the signs of playing to type as another despotic, militant for whom power is a means to an end, and something to be abused, as he conducts similar excursions into neighbouring DRC.
Ultimately, though, this film should make audiences think and not forget the words of Dalliaire when Paul proposes a toast when the troops arrive.