Responding to the devastation of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami, the international community has demonstrated a type of generosity and concern for others that can only be described as atypical. As the powerful nations of the world begin to show their capacity for charity, we must ask ourselves why this type of outpouring has not happened more often.
The answer lies in the fact that the global community chooses which humanitarian catastrophes will be addressed and which will simply be ignored.
The international response and media attention dedicated to the recent tsunami constitute the ideal reaction to this type of disaster. But the response must also serve as a measuring tool for our past and future reactions to humanitarian issues.
Specifically, the media and the people must create greater consciousness of human-caused crises around the world and ensure that genocide, famine and systematic infringements on individual rights get the same international priority as do environmentally caused disasters.
It is immoral and contradictory for the public to rush to the aid of tsunami victims, yet turn its back to the victims of genocide. Immoral, yet it seems to happen all the time.
The new movie "Hotel Rwanda" will likely be the first time that many Americans have learned about the horrors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide that took the lives of at least 800,000 people in a mere 100 days. This movie, which focuses on an opulent Kigali hotel used to guard thousands of Tutsi refugees from certain death, has done more to stimulate interest in the details of Rwandan slaughter than anything else I have encountered.
Sadly, most theaters won't show the film, most people won't see it and those who do will probably disregard its message as soon as the credits roll.
The confusing issue is why some tragedies hold the interest of society, while others are only briefly reported by the media and all but ignored by average citizens. It is unnerving that the tsunami has shown us how benevolent and sensitive we can be to the problems of others because our reaction invalidates any possible excuses we could have for not engaging so actively with regard to the other great humanitarian crises of the world.
Clearly, the same media that captivated regular people with stories of the tsunami could more aggressively report to us the stories of genocide, famine and disease. If massive tidal waves killing 235,000 people can sell papers, then surely the massacre of 800,000 people by their fellow machete-toting countrymen could sell some papers, too.
In 1994, the Unites States was too cowardly and the United Nations too ineffective to stop what was clearly wholesale murder. Of course, this story didn't get the news coverage or the public outrage of the president's sex life.
Years later, few Americans cared about the reports of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo until American forces starting dropping bombs. Then again, the Kosovo campaign mostly sparked concern from the public because many viewed it as a ploy by President Clinton to shift coverage away from his impeachment proceedings.
The international community has answered the recent natural disasters in the right way. The humanitarian bar has been set high, and we can no longer afford policies of inaction in the face of mass death. Go see "Hotel Rwanda" and discover the consequences when self-absorbed people don't care about those who are helpless. This lesson could save countless lives and is certainly worth your six bucks.
Macy Hanson is a political science and philosophy sophomore. Reach him at macy.hanson@asu.edu.
