In this piece, the author makes an argument regarding genocide, a problem that the people of Rwanda faced as a result of political unrest. For instance, because the Rwanda Patriotic Front killed the animals, it was difficult to see creatures like dogs and cats. Similarly, only white people possessed dogs while African Americans did not because of inequality.
The author claims that the political unrest in the area was a major factor in the acts of genocide that killed thousands of people and creatures. When Rwanda experienced genocide, the world's powers all departed because they were interested in the country's political, military, and economic affairs. (Gourevitch 149). The discrimination of people based on race saw dogs belonging to Africans being shot while those owned by white people survived. Also, the article explains that Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) killed dogs because they were feeding on corpses. The UN feared for the health of people, and that is why all corpse-eating dogs were shot.
In 1946, genocide was proclaimed a crime, and this resulted in the adoption of the Resolution 260A (III) to prevent and punish those responsible for committing the offense (Gourevitch 149). The dictatorship of the Hutu Power was a concern for UNAMIR. The U.S established a memorial museum to commemorate the suffering people of Rwanda went through during the genocide period.
While Harder Washington tried to distance themselves from the mess in Rwanda and France was rescuing their military and political investment to protect their interest, the problems kept on piling up. The killings in Rwanda was as a result of the tribal reasons (Gourevitch 154). Although the government and army claimed to have had the mission to restore order, the killings was an extended war with the RPF. The question, I would consider asking is that was France genuine with its humanitarian venture?
Work Cited
Gourevitch, Philip. "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families: Stories from Rwanda." New York: Picador, 1998.
