[Stephen Dame]

I don't know if this gives the whole Red Chamber new credability, but the corner of the room Romeo occupies just gained a ton of prestige.

I'm thrilled he's been given the nod, I'm amazed he said yes...

And while it doesn't come out of my mouth often: Congratulations Paul Martin, that was a smart political AND practical move.

And welcome to Ottawa Mr. Dallaire, it's going to be a pleasure having you around town more often.

Consider this political geek enthused.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Yes, I like that choice.

I have a lot of respect for Dallaire, which was raised by a power of 17 when I read his book.

And that's why I refuse to see Hotel Rwanda, which I understand paints him as a useless drunk....

[VioletlightHeron]

Yes, I like that choice.

I have a lot of respect for Dallaire, which was raised by a power of 17 when I read his book.

And that's why I refuse to see Hotel Rwanda, which I understand paints him as a useless drunk....

From what I understand, Hotel Rwanda is from the viewpoint of a guy who risked his life pretending the refugees he was hiding were not refugees. Perhaps the guy sees Dallaire as useless because he wasn't able to do anything, even though he wanted to do everything in his power to save the Tutsi.

[prz]

I am happy to see Romeo appointed but I actually was hoping he would be Canadian's next GG.

As for Eggelton. I am disgusted about it. The guy had to resign from being Minister of National Defence after paying his girlfriend to write a paper and now he is in the Senate. That is a joke.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Nice try, VLH, but he is portrayed as a drunk. Despite the fact that he had to eat outdated rations that caused chronic diarrhea, he had access to a plentiful supply of alcohol? Sorry, this can't be explained by point of view.

Dallaire is portrayed as a useless drunk in Hotel Rwanda to pander to an American audience that wants to see the UN in that light. Period.

[fingernailsonhull]

Agreed. Haven't seen Hotel Rwanda, but I plan to. However, having historical knowledge about the Rwandan genocide, I will not buy into the "drunk" theory which is apparently put forth in the movie. For once, I am pleased with a Paul Martin appointment. The Senate is useless, but it is nice to at least see Dallaire recognized. Eggleton was, and continues to be, a joke.

[willthenurse]

Nice try, VLH, but he is portrayed as a drunk. Despite the fact that he had to eat outdated rations that caused chronic diarrhea, he had access to a plentiful supply of alcohol? Sorry, this can't be explained by point of view.

Dallaire is portrayed as a useless drunk in Hotel Rwanda to pander to an American audience that wants to see the UN in that light. Period.

here here! I am about 1/2 way through the book...and I also refuse to see the movie...Dallaire has suffered more than enough through the realities of his ordeal, and to have a movie made about it, and to portray him as a drunk ....whats wrong with making a true movie and portraying the real heroes as heroes?

some things I will never understand...
Oh yeah, and Im glad to see him in the senate!
~Will

[VioletlightHeron]

Again, I've never seen the movie or read the book so I was just thinking the book and movie were expressing the anger of an individual caught up in the horror of genocide and being very frustrated with the UN for being there and not being able to do very much despite its supposed mandate to stop genocide and intervene. Was the book written by the guy whom the movie was based on and how faithful to the book is the movie?

[Stephen Dame]

The character in "Hotel Rwanda" is not based on Dallaire. The press kit for the movie says that the character is a composite, basically all the incompetence of Anan, B.B. Ghali and the UN rolled into one man. But the Canadian flag on his shoulder sure doesn't help Romeo's cause.

Dallaire told Macleans a few months ago that he was dissapointed in the film, but said that's why his book and documentary exist. Hollywood is Hollywood, he's got the brutal truth.

And PRZ, I'm with ya on Romeo for GG, but the word is now that Paul will appoint the first ever Native Canadian to the gig... another wise move in my opinion.

[skippy the wonder dog]

How about we get a grip on the historical facts here?

The UN in Rwanda had no mandate to intervene and no mandate to stop the genocide. Nor had they any ability to do so.

[VioletlightHeron]

How about we get a grip on the historical facts here?

The UN in Rwanda had no mandate to intervene and no mandate to stop the genocide. Nor had they any ability to do so.

Ok, but then the question and debate comes to this: What good is the UN if it doesn't have a clear cut mandate to intervene in situations where genocide is taking place? Part of U.S. frustration, I believe, with the UN is hypocritical nations using the UN to prevent the U.S. stop emerging threats and despots (like Saddam or Abacha, dictator of Nigeria) because it goes against their national interests (and yes, I freely acknowledge that the U.S. record in stopping atrocities during the Cold War is extremely dismal) while denouncing the U.S. as an imperalist bully. In my view, either the U.N. has to take a stronger stand against terrorism and failed states or watch its credibility go down the drain. I'm not a big fan of Kissinger realpolitik in the first place but I'm tired of seeing the U.S. denounced for making strategic moves like deposing Saddam, both for our own good and for the betterment of the region.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'm well aware of what the press kit says. The press kit says that it is not based on Dallaire because if it were, he could sue them for libel. Does the fact that they have covered their asses make the representation fair and accurate? Is it even a fair and accurate representation of the UN? Where is the composite character representing the international community and its refusal to risk one life to prevent the genocide?

The film is unfair to Dallaire in that it purports to portray historical events. You can try to gloss that over any way you like, but an unfair portrayal is an unfair portrayal. Every viewer does not receive the press kit. They draw conclusions from what they see.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Ok, but then the question and debate comes to this: What good is the UN if it doesn't have a clear cut mandate to intervene in situations where genocide is taking place?

You need to look into the history of the Rwandan genocide before this gets embarrassing.

Dallaire sought that mandate. The United States was one of the countries that resisted giving him the mandate.

Your moral high horse is a toy pony, VLH.

[VioletlightHeron]

Ok, but then the question and debate comes to this: What good is the UN if it doesn't have a clear cut mandate to intervene in situations where genocide is taking place?

You need to look into the history of the Rwandan genocide before this gets embarrassing.

Dallaire sought that mandate. The United States was one of the countries that resisted giving him the mandate.

Your moral high horse is a toy pony, VLH.

I would appreciate it if you didn't let your biases interpret what I said, Skippy. Nowhere in my previous post did I say that the U.S. government at that time was actively pressing for a mandate in Rwanda. Clinton refused to intervene because he was scared of having another Black Hawk Down occur on his watch and get slammed politically by Republicans for letting it happen. My beef with Clinton and the American Left on this issue is not against intervention, but against their incompetence in intervention decision making. Sure, there are going to be some conservatives who view intervention in non-strategic regions like Rwanda or Darfur as not in our national interest because it ties down troops, etc but I'm not one of those. What makes me angry in these cases in the willingness of Clinton to "get tough" in Somalia and hamstring the military in that case by refusing to approve more flexible rules of engagement and allow the deployment of heavy weaponry and then have a disaster like Black Hawk Down occur and have him claim he wanted to intervene in Rwanda but unfortunately not being able to because the situation on the ground was muddled, which is pure unadulterated horseshit. Records clearly show that the Washington knew what was going on but was timid in reacting. There clearly is a lot of blame to go around in this mess.

My problem with the UN stems partly from their ineffectiveness in preventing genocide in countries like Rwanda and their intrasengence and willingness to coddle dictators like Saddam. Clearly, the US shares some blame in Rwanda but it really irks me when we finally do the right thing even after trying to work with the UN and have Kofi Annan denounce our invasion of Iraq as illegal. My impression is the UN General Assembly and the UN bureacracy likes the idea of using American military power to intervene in places like Rwanda while ineffectively calling the shots and trying to negotiate from Geneva and opposing American intervention in places where we have strong national security interests. No doubt some of the countries on the Security Council use it to advance their countries national security interests and thats to be expected and the US should try to make those countries, like France for instance, understand that mutual ground exists between our security concerns and theirs.

[skippy the wonder dog]

My point, VLH, is that there is no failure of "the UN." The rhetoric around the failure of the UN deliberately confuses the UN as a bureaucratic structure with the UN as a body of the international community, so that the failures of the community can be blamed on the institution.

I will make no apology for finding crocodile tears from the American right over "UN failures" transparent. The US consistently undermines the UN, and then complains that the organization is ineffective.

I'm done on the UN in general; the ideologue's game of retreating to generalities is not going to work here. "The UN" was not to blame for the Rwandan debacle. The French and the Belgians bear the bulk of the responsibility for that one. The point is that the cute little allegory set up by the film is distorted.

It is especially inappropriate that the allegorical figure is made a Canadian. Canada was the only country to commit more resources to the UN mission after the genocide began.