DRC – Alex B. Hill

Ebola, Disease Outbreaks, and Inadequate Health Systems

I vividly remember the Kagadi Hospital run by the Ministry of Health. In 2002, I was visiting the communities that would benefit from an ambulance fundraiser project. That evening the need for emergency transportation in the Kagadi-Nakuulabye area of the Kibaale District could not have been made more clear to me. Driving back to our housing one evening, our pickup truck was flagged down to help at the scene of a bicycle accident where two riders had collided head on in the dark. One man was bleeding from his ears and obviously needed advanced medical attention. We drove him, lying in the pickup truck bed, to the Kagadi Hospital only to be turned away because the staff said they didn’t have any supplies to treat the man. I remember looking into the hospital windows and seeing nothing but empty walls.

It came as a shock to read news of the Ebola outbreak in that very same area where I had visited 10 years ago: Kagadi, Kibaale District. My first thought was that the health care system couldn’t possibly respond quickly enough, but hopefully things had improved over the last decade. Reports noted that the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, CDC, and the World Health Organization (WHO) were assisting with the response. This was a positive sign since the area is rural, difficult to travel to, and as far as I knew lacking a strong health care system.

“This outbreak is occurring in the same area where the Red Cross is already responding to the growing crisis caused by the influx of Congolese refugees fleeing violence in their country” said Charlie Musoka, Regional Operations Coordinator for the International Federation of the Red Cross.

On top of dealing with the Ebola outbreak, the Ugandan Red Cross was also managing the influx of refugees into the country. My initial thought was that Ebola is easily transmitted by close contact between people and usually kills 90% of those infected. With the regular movement of people across the Uganda/ DRC border it could be just days before an Ebola outbreak occurs in the DRC.

Shortly after the Ebola outbreak, news broke that the Ugandan Ministry of Health needed Sh3 billion to be able to contain and manage the disease and necessary health care facilities. I was also contacted by the local health center in Kagadi and told that were having difficulty responding to the outbreak as well. My fears seemed to have been true and the health system was feeling the pressure of responding to an Ebola outbreak in an area where there was very little health care capacity.

Roughly, two weeks after the request for supporting funds by the Ugandan Ministry of Health, the Ebola outbreak is reported as contained in Uganda and a Ugandan team would be sent to the DRC to help contain the new outbreak there. Reports said that it was a different strain of Ebola, but the first reports were in a Uganda/DRC border town that is a regular crossing point between the two countries. I had worried about the lacking health care system in Uganda, but the health care system in the DRC is in an even more strained. There are limited health care workers and facilities, which are usually filled by casualties from the ongoing violent conflict in the region.

Early this month, the WHO declared Uganda Ebola free after there were no new cases reported after August 3rd (24 confirmed cases, 17 deaths). The facilities in Kibaale District remain on alert, but the larger Ebola crisis is in the DRC. The WHO confirmed the Ebola outbreak is a different strain (see map above) and not connected to the Ugandan outbreak, however there have already been 72 confirmed cases and 32 deaths. Health workers were reported infected in the Ugandan outbreak, but in the DRC so far 23 of the 32 deaths have been health care workers. Representatives of Medicines sans Frontiers note that the death of health care workers at hospitals scares people away from seeking treatment and they are more likely to continue the spread of Ebola. It seems that the DRC has been less equipped to deal with the Ebola outbreak or its just the nature of the area where the outbreak occurred that made it easier to spread.

Both of these examples of Ebola outbreaks in a remote region of Uganda and in a transit town in the DRC demonstrate the critical need for adequate health care systems and health care workers. Before conflict started in the DRC, the health care system was already underfunded and in need of investment. The United Nations reported that militias raided almost all of the health care facilities in rural areas where 70% of the populations lives. The conflict also disrupted transportation and everyone must travel by foot to get treatment. NGOs have tried to invest in the health care system, but Doctors Without Borders report regular attacks on their compounds. In Uganda, there has been similar conflict, but greater investment in the health system. However, a recent report highlighted the inadequate staffing and space in many key hospitals. In some areas there is 1 doctor for every 178,000 people. Due to financial constraints the Ugandan government has banned recruitment of health care workers.

No one can afford to not invest in health care capacity building. In these two countries it seems that health crises need to be managed by outside NGOs with additional funding. How can the international community better work to build the capacity of individual country’s health care systems?

Blue Helmets ineffective compared to US troops in Central Africa?

Development

After operations in Somalia ended badly in 1993, the US seemed to have full blown “Black Hawk Down” syndrome when it came to military intervention on the African continent. Many have cited the Somalia event among other reasons for the Clinton Administration’s failure to act during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. However, the US has been involved in militarizing the African continent since the Cold War: propping up warlords, funding resistance movements, and even assassinating the newly (democratically) elected head of state of modern day Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Patrice Lumumba. Currently, the Obama Administration has shown no reason for restraint in sending troops to engage in African conflicts.

The UN has had a high degree of failure when it comes to peacekeeping missions in Africa. Largely due to limited mandates, UN troops in Rwanda, Darfur, and the DRC have been ineffective. The UN has had 15 deployments related to African conflicts, 8 of which are ongoing. The critical question is are UN peacekeepers more effective than US military interventions?

Darfur/ South Kordofan/ South Sudan

Sudan has presented a host of conflicts that seem to have baffled US and UN diplomats alike. Some have called for greater military intervention, but the US has focused on non-military negotiations and peace deals. The conflicts in the Sudanese region are largely based on the Sudanese government attacking other ethnic groups and attempting to maintain control of the remaining regions under their jurisdiction. The SPLA has become the main military of South Sudan and has an affiliate in Sudan (North) SPLM-N.

During the 2008 US Presidential race, on the campaign trail in 2007, Joe Biden called for a force of 2,500 US troops to end the genocide in Darfur. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards supported a plan for a peacekeeping force. Barack Obama called for a no-fly zone in Darfur and divestment from corporations supporting the Sudanese regime. Bill Richardson personally met with the Sudanese president to push for a peacekeeping force.

It is a little known fact that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) leader, John Garang, was trained at Fort Benning and that,

“The US government decided, in 1996, to send nearly $20 million of military equipment through the ‘front-line’ states of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda to help the Sudanese opposition overthrow the Khartoum regime.” (Source)

President Bush was lauded for his role in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that ended the North-South civil war in 2005 which led to the popular vote dividing Sudan and South Sudan. However, there is no mention of the US’s military role in fueling the conflict.

The US has played a significant diplomatic role in the Sudanese region. There has been a lot of talk and agreements and support for peacekeepers, but there has been little accomplished in the way of ending the long running conflict between various groups. Could George Clooney get the US to send troops into Sudan?

The UN has four current missions in the Sudanese region: UNAMID, UNMIS, UNISFA, UNMISS. The first of which, UNAMID, began operating in Darfur in 2007. Since, then 51 peacekeepers have been killed. Reports continue that the Sudanese government is targeting civilians.

Following the creation of South Sudan, a conflict arose over the area of South Kordofan in Abeyi. The UN added missions in Abeyi to mitigate conflict in South Kordofan (UNIFSA) as well as a mission for South Sudan in general (UNMISS). By all accounts Darfur was a major failure of UN action and South Kordofan represented an equally prominent failure. Reports noted that UN troops stood by while Sudanese troops killed unarmed civilians.

In the Sudanese region, the UN has failed to end the killing of hundreds of thousands of people more than once and has suffered casualties of its own forces since becoming involved in the region. It is easy to quickly say that UN peacekeepers in the Sudanese region have failed, but would Joe Biden’s 2,500 US troops have done any better instead of the UN-AU peacekeeping force?

Actors:

Sudanese government troops
UNMIS (UN mission, 2005)
UNAMID with AU forces (UN-AU mission in Darfur, 2007)
SPLA (Sudan People’s Liberation Army)
SPLM-N (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement – North)
SLM/A – Sudan Liberation Movement/Army
JEM – Justice and Equality Movement
UNMISS (South Sudan, 2011)
UNIFSA (S. Kordofan, Abeyi, 2011)

Uganda/ Democratic Republic of Congo

The DRC has seen a high degree of conflict, which increased following the CIA assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 and the US backed Mobutu coming to power for the next 32 years. Mobutu supported the Hutu militia (FDLR) responsible for the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The FDLR has been given refuge by the political establishment in DRC first with Mobutu and later with current President Joseph Kabila utilizing the FDLR to combat intervening forces (i.e. Rwanda & Uganda in 1996, 1998).

Since 2008, US military advisors have been on the ground in DRC helping to train the Congolese army (FARDC) to better maintain control of various regions of the vast country. It is unclear why military advisors were sent in the first place. Potentially it was a move by the US to counteract Chinese development programs targeting natural resources extraction.

The US has largely been absent from the conflicts of the DRC until recently. In 2011, President Obama announced that 100 US troops would be headed to Uganda to act as military advisors in the campaign to flush out the LRA leader, Joseph Kony. However, Kony and the LRA aren’t in Uganda anymore, they have been hiding out and operating from the DRC since 2006. New reports have come out saying that US troops are operating from bases in 4 countries are tracking down the LRA from bases in Uganda, South Sudan, DRC, and the Central African Republic.

The fact that the US is willing to devote military assets to routing a single militant group is extremely significant especially since there have been numerous bad actors operating in the region for decades and US actions in African conflicts haven’t been forthcoming. Since Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni took power and ensured that he kept getting elected, there have been 22 armed groups that have been formed to combat the government. Museveni has perpetuated the North-South ethnic divide held over from British colonial rule. As much as the LRA needs to be routed, Museveni needs to be engaged by the US to step down and allow real democracy to occur.

UN troops have been operating in the DRC since 2008, but have often had to bend to the will of area militias. What real power does the MONUSCO have in the DRC? More recently, in 2009 and 2012, MONUSCO has been cooperating with FARDC (the Congolese army) on joint missions to take down the FDLR and other militant groups, including the LRA. On March 14th, a senior officer of the FDLR surrendered to the UN forces.

The UN mission in DRC has the largest budget of any peacekeeping mission, but is notably underfunded and ill-equipped. The main problem is the vastness of the mountainous region and the multiple militant groups that need to be negotiated with or militarily engaged. It just can’t manage all the space with the man power that it has, therefore it is unable to protect the population because it is just unable.

Some have credited MONUSCO with ending the violence in some of the regions of DRC as well as organizing successful country-wide elections. Potentially the UN missions is gaining ground in the conflict?

Support from both the UN mission and US military advisors is somewhat concerning since FARDC has been involved in some of the worst human rights violations in the conflict.

Actors:

FARDC (Congolese army)
MONUSCO (UN mission, 2010)
General Nkundu – split from Congolese army to lead Tutsi forces against FDLR
FDLR – former Interhamwe responsible for Rwandan genocide
Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) – backed by Rwanda
LRA (Lord’s Resistance Army) – from N. Uganda
UPDF (Uganda People’s Defense Force)

Will the US replace the UN as primary peacekeepers in Africa?

UN peacekeeping forces have tried to take on the Sudanese government and militias in the DRC, but have failed to keep peace or intervene in the killing of civilians. The UN almost always comes out with a statement condemning the killing of civilians by this or that group. Many peacekeepers have been killed in the various missions and there are only a few positive impacts noted from those missions. UN missions are notoriously plagued by underfunding, under-trained troops and a lack of adequate equipment.

In the past year the US has militarily intervened in 7 African countries with and without mandates or international support. They have trained the FARDC forces, which are now completing joint missions with MONUSCO to route militant groups. It seems as if Obama has taken up the Bush Doctrine to militarily intervene whenever he feels like it. Contrary to the UN missions, US military actions are rarely under-funded, troops are highly trained, and there is no lack of equipment.

On a side note, how can both the US and the UN overlook the atrocities committed by national armies (Sudanese government, FARDC, UPDF)? In these conflicts the UN/US create the narrative for who is the good guy and who is the bad guy, but there is a need for nuance. I understand that it isn’t possible to engage all sides and I can only hope that the UN/US missions are working to end atrocities committed by national armies, since those atrocities have often fueled conflicts further.

The UN is stretched and the US has the ability to send elite troops into conflict zones to rescue its citizens (Somalia). Can the US’s quick military interventions, anti-terrorism trainings, and military advisors create a more effective peace than the UN? After the LRA is eliminated will the US pick the next militant group to hunt down? Too many questions arise when analyzing military interventions. There is always cause for concern when conflict regions see an influx of militarization from the UN, US, and other countries with foreign policy interests.

who speaks for whom?

Development

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) peacekeepers are trapped in the middle of the fight. Checkpoints are all over the North Kivu province and the UN personnel are not exempt from interrogation. The UN peacekeepers are forced to live with a precarious relationship with the various warring factions in the DRC, including the government army. The DRC’s current government army is just a conglomerate of merged rebel armies and so there does not exist a common identity. You never know who you may have to deal with at a checkpoint. Recently a rebel leader in North Kivu surrendered to the UN forces. Kabila has given the green light to loyal troops to engage and disarm rebel General Nkundu. The recent fighting between government forces and rebels probably caused the small rebel group of about 30 to surrender. The resurgence of fighting has also brough with it human rights abuses. From 2005 – 2007, over 258 cases of rape were recorded along with 14,200 cases of sexual violence. Less than one percent of these made it to court. The UN Independent Expert on human rights has called for an end to the impunity of sexual violence cases and urged Kabila to take up a ‘zero-tolerance’ policy.

There is now talk of US military trainers coming to the DRC to train the mixed-up government army. A large Congolese delegation, along with President Kabila, will visit the White House on Friday to discuss the possibility. Is this yet another move by the US to gain ground over the Chinese resource grabbing machine? Will the US be able to bring together a divided government army? This is yet another great example of the US aiding the re-militarization of African countries. Well this case may be different I can’t see the US handling in a more focused approach of helping to create law and order in the security sector of the DRC.

In Sudan, we see the deployment of a UN-AU joint peacekeeping force. The force still lacks necessary equipment, notably from China, including specialized units in both air and ground support. A great step to ending a terrible conflict, but a step that I feel will meet the same difficulties as the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC. There are so many disconnected rebel movements in Sudan that it will again be hard to know who you are dealing with. In both countries peace deals had been signed to end the fighting, but fighting quickly resumed when rebel factions not associated with teh signing groups continued fighting. Somehow everyone needs to be brought to the table, but how? You have the government forces propogating a genocide and numerous, divided rebel groups fighting against the government and each other. The UN-AU peacekeeping force will be a help in Sudan. However in both the DRC and Sudan, peacekeepers will need to find out who is who and who speaks for whom if they are to broker a successful peace deal.

the real weapons of mass destruction are in the congo

Development

The conflict in the DRC is nothing new to the region. I would argue that the conflict began well before the assassination of the democratically elected leader, Lumumba, in 1961 and has only grown from there. After Lumumba was assassinated Mobutu Sese Seko gained power and ruled terribly for the next 32 years. He was overthrown by rebellion in 1997 by Laurent Kabila, who leader of the prominent rebel group. Unable to bring peace, Kabila faced his own rebel opposition until he was assassinated in 2001. Intense turmoil resumed in the DRC following Kabila’s assassination, sparking a six country war including Rwanda and Uganda. In 2002 a peace deal was signed to officially end the DRC conflict, 17,000 UN troops were deployed and yet the conflict continues. In 2006 Laurent’s son Joseph Kabila was elected in a tense, yet democratic and free election. Joseph Kabila faces opposition from his father’s rule (as well as support from his father’s popularity), calls that he is not Congolese – that his mother was Rwandan and he is not from the DRC, along with calls of corruption in his administration. When Joseph was born in Eastern Congo he was sent to live in hiding pretending to be part of a Tanzanian ethnic group. Later he recieved military training in China, which helps in the exploitation of the DRC’s vast resources. J. Kabila has been able to broker a written peace, but how well can he create peace in reality?

It is reported that 370,000 people have been displaced in a conflict that has more facets than a cut stone. Roughly 6000 Rwandan Hutu militiamen are hiding in the DRC hoping one day to invade Rwanda and retake control after the genocide they spurred. In an attempt to drive out the Hutu militias General Nkundu’s troops have torn through the region displacing thousands. He is estimated to control 8000 militiamen. Some claim that he is fighting a proxy war for the Rwandan government to keep the Hutu militias away from the Rwandan border. For this reason many local militias have formed to fight General Nkundu’s troops and stop them from wreaking havoc in the region.

The Eastern Region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has not seen peace in a long time and now there is an increase in violence against women. In September of this year, in an interview with the BBC, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women said that in the South Kivu province, sexual violence was the worst she has seen and warned that it was becoming something normal. Violence becoming normal? Sexual assault becoming normal? Rape becoming normal? In September the UN reported that there had already been 4000 incidents of sexual violence against women just in the Southern Kivu province.

It is interesting that Kabila is not doing more for the women of his home region and the region where he had the most political support. Why does he let the women of Eastern DRC be sexually abused? Rape has become so prevalent as a tool of war that women have stopped going to the fields. Girls as young as three, men, and boys have been raped too. Sadly even if the perpetrators are caught the court system refuses to hear cases on rape, witnesses are frightened away, and military leaders refuse to help. This year V-Day and UNICEF have partnered to raise awareness and bring aid to women affected by the weapon of mass destruction that is rape.

Since 1996, sexual violence against women and children in the eastern part of the DRC has been used to torture and humiliate women and girls and destroy families. UNICEF estimates that hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped since the conflict began in DRC. In addition to the severe psychological impact, sexual violence leaves many survivors with genital lesions, traumatic fistulae and other physical wounds, as well as unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

All of the military forces have used rape as a weapon of war, even UN personnel have been implicated in cases of rape in the DRC. The victims of rape experience more than just the physical impacts of the act – from ostracism to physcological effects to a lack of justice through the local and formal courts. I cannot even begin to write everything of importance here and would highly recommend the V-Day site to read the full story and access a great set of resources to learn more.

the ‘third’ congolese war

Development

From: !Enough: the project to abolish genocide + mass atrocities –

Dissident Congolese Tutsi General Laurent Nkunda’s more than 3,000 loyal forces have carved out control of parts of North Kivu Province. The Congolese government has responded by realigning itself with the FDLR — a militia composed of more than 6,000 Rwandan Hutu rebels, many with links to the 1994 genocide in their home country — to fight Nkunda’s more effective force. This threatens to draw Rwanda back into Congo’s conflict, which would lead to rapid escalation and potentially plunge Congo back into regional war.

In recent weeks, fighting between the two sides has intensified, with increasing numbers of troops being deployed to the front line and more being forcibly recruited. Civilians inevitably are caught in the crossfire, and the prevailing climate of impunity allows all sides — Nkunda, the FDLR, the Congolese army and local militias — to exploit the local population without fear of consequences.

Not many people know that there is even a conflict happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Not many people have even heard of the DRC or the frightening linkages between the conflicts in Rwanda, Uganda, Darfur and the DRC. People flee from southern Sudan into Uganda, rebels chase them into Uganda intensifying the northern Ugandan conflict. Some then flee to the DRC. During the First and Second Congolese Wars, Rwanda and Uganda intervened to try to bring stability to the region. Rwanda had an interest in intervening because Mobutu, leader during the Second Congolese War, was in support of the Hutu rebel militia, which was responsible for the genocide in 1994. Theseinterlocked conflicts have fueled the continued conflict in the DRC. There are now many competing militias in the DRC and they are all looking to gain the upperhand. A relative peace had fallen over the region, but the ceasefire between the rebel forces and government forces has been abandoned. Rebel forces resumed fighting just this month saying that it was in response to government attacks.

As the intense fighting waged on, China jumped into the turmoil to grab up the riches of the DRC. Because of the extended conflict the infrastrucutre of the DRC is extremely poor and nearly non-existant. China is investing a large sum to help the DRC build infrastructure in exchange for access to the mineral wealth of the country. The BBC writes about a recent study that concluded that China’s main interest in Africa is to guarantee its supply of raw materials. No study is necessary to conclude, just read the news. China’s work in the DRC is its largest loan out to any African country. There are plans to build a road from Kisangani to the Zambian border and a major railway to connect the mineral rich provice of Katanga to the port city of Matadi. Other funds are set aside to rebuild the deteriorating mining infrastructure. But where is this loan money going, who is recieving the money to build the roads and buildings and railways? Answer: China. As well as being the biggest loan supplier, China also has the largest building company, China Road and Bridge Construction, owned by the Chinese government, with 29 projects in Africa (many financed by the World Bank or other lenders) and offices in 22 African countries. Chinese money for big projects is going back to Chinese government. China is losing nothing in the deal while African countries lose everything. When there is no longer raw materials and resources an infrastructure is irrelevent.

Chinese trade and investment has galvanised mineral production from South Africa (manganese) to Niger (uranium), and from Sudan to Angola (oil). Much of that activity reflects an intense appetite for the African resources needed to fuel China’s manufacturing sector, but big Chinese companies have quickly become formidable competitors in other sectors as well, particularly for big-ticket public works contracts, like the ones now proposed for DR Congo. Chinese workers are engaged in dozens of African road-building projects. China is building major new railroad lines in Nigeria and Angola, large dams in Sudan, airports in several countries, and new roads almost everywhere.

The DRC is a lush, beautiful green land, full of extended unprotected forests. Minerals may be a hot commodity, but timber is what may become the DRC’s biggest challenge. A BBC reporter called the forest a “sea of broccoli.” The Congo forest stretches across six countries, but in the DRC it is disappearing at an alarming rate – more likely than not, due to the country’s instability. A recent report showed that the majority of the timber is headed to China, 90% illegally. Logging companies set up in the DRC in what appears to be far off forest wonderlands. These wonderlands are inhabited by groups of people who traditionally lived on the land being cleared by logging. Much of the land has traditional and religious importance to the people. In an article written for the BBC, the story of one traditional village is told with a overtone of hope. The logging company is working with the people to make maps and document which sites are of significance and should not be disturbed. They use handheld satelitte machines to mark sacred spots and the people could not be happier. In a country where logging companies overrun traditional peoples and sacred lands without any regard, this is an instance of positive development.

everyone wants to keep their power, don’t you?

Development

As I sat at the conference table waiting for the theorists to arrive, I tried to understand the causes for the Rwandan intervention into the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 1998. After some time passed I realized that no theorist was coming to confer their knowledge upon me, so I decided to seek them out myself. But before analyzing theories and dissecting Rwanda’s intervention in the DRC in 1998 (Second Congolese War), one must note that there were preceding events during the 1996 intervention that triggered the second intervention. Rwanda intervened in the DRC in 1996 because it’s newly empowered Tutsi regime realized that the DRC’s leader, Mobutu Sese Seko, was in support of the Hutu refugees and ex-FAR/Interhamwe, groups who had perpetrated the 1994 genocide of Rwandan Tutsis (Curtis 3). With Mobutu’s support and the foreign aid flowing into the Hutu refugee camps (from aid agencies and bureaucracies) located in the DRC the ex-FAR/ Interhamwe was regaining strength and re-organizing. The ex-FAR/ Interhamwe, with the encouragement of Mobutu and the Hutu government began a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Congolese Tutsi. The Rwandan forces then intervened in 1996 in support of the rebel Congolese Tutsi units. The Rwandan forces had many victories and eventually the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo/DRC (ADFL) was formed with the Rwandan forces, Congolese Tutsis, and anti-Mobutu groups in the DRC.

However this relationship between Rwanda and the DRC’s liberation forces did not last. The alliance with Laurent Kabila, who was leading the ADFL forces, had been an alliance of convenience rather than a uniting of ideologies. The alliance was based on overthrowing Mobutu and not on achieving a greater security for the region. Kabila began distancing himself from his Rwandan supporters and began creating divisions within the forces of the ‘alliance.’ Kabila soon called for all foreign troops to be out of the DRC, which threatened Rwanda’s ability to eliminate the remaining Hutu militants. Rwanda, being interested in keeping hold of its regional political-military influence it had gained from the First Congolese War (intervention 1996) along with the growing threat from Hutu militants, decided that a second intervention would be necessary to keep its regional power and security. The Rwandan forces experienced a surprising amount of success and it looked almost to be a repeat of the 1996 intervention, but later it was evident that the Rwandan forces would fail (5). Another factor that led to Rwanda’s failure was the creation of the RCD (Congolese Rally for Democracy), which became the new political face of the movement to oust Mobutu. With Rwanda and Uganda’s involvement in Congolese affairs in the past years the RCD was condemned as an “instrument for neighboring countries to serve their interests” (6). To that same effect Kabila’s forces were successful in stirring anti-Tutsi sentiment before the war, which made it difficult to garner indigenous support to move the rebellion forward (6). Ugandan forces pulled out and opened their own anti-Kabila front, but continued to send moral and military assistance also Kabila’s regional allies: Angola, Chad, Namibia, and Zambia all contributed troops and support that eventually led to Rwanda’s defeat in its second intervention (6). These foreign allies all contributed to a score of strategic victories that saved Kabila from a sure defeat by Rwandan forces and shifted the focus of the Second Congolese War (7). The new Rwandan government found itself isolated in the region and in much the same situation as Mobutu’s regime, which they defeated just two years earlier.

The underlying causes of the Second Congolese War (Rwandan intervention in DRC, 1998) are based in a division of regional ethnic groups and the tensions of ideas between those militarized forces. Both Rwandan interventions were militarily launched to provide support for indigenous (Tutsi) rebellions (4). The national security for Rwanda was just as immediate as it was during the first intervention in 1996. The Hutu insurgency amounted to what some call a “virtual civil war” – which increased Rwanda’s sense of being vulnerable and reinforced the ‘siege’ mentality which had fueled the regime’s view of national security since it came to power after the 1994 genocide (5).

The international relations theory that best sheds light on the causes and reasons for the Second Congolese War and Rwandan intervention in 1998 is realism. Hobbes says that the classical realists would argue that the weakest has the strength enough to kill the strongest (Schecter, Sept. 7, 2006) – and therefore the newly in power Tutsis in Rwanda would still be under threat from the fleeing Hutu militant factions. The two groups: new Tutsi government and the defeated Hutu militants and government, both desired the control of the Rwandan state and because of that, could only become enemies and conflict is inevitable. Hobbes tells us there that will always be conflict when two men desire the same thing (Sept. 7, 2006). The classical realist, Rousseau, continues the argument noting that the Rwandan rational was to provide for their own self-interest and not depend on others (Sept. 7, 2006). When Kabila decided he was going to dismiss his Rwandan backers, the Rwandan government decided to end that convenient alliance and serve its self-interest to then move against Kabila. Rwandan again rationalized its alliance with Kabila being that it was set up previously to oust Mobutu and to continue rooting out the Hutu insurgency, and not necessarily in support of Kabila’s movement to liberate the Congo. Thucydides would argue that every country seeks more power, because with more power comes more security (Baylis & Smith 167). All states suffer from the security dilemma where self-help is the only cure in which a state needs more power and opposing states will also seek power in response (Schecter, Sept. 7, 2006). Rwanda had an underlying motive to keep its borders free from Hutu insurgent attacks and a probable Hutu invasion after the 1994 genocide. Rwanda had gained a significant amount of regional power after the First Congolese War and wanted to be sure to keep a hold of that power in order to ensure its own security.

This moves us on to the contemporary realist argument. The Rwandan intervention in the DRC of 1998 was a near repeat of its intervention in the DRC in 1996. History very nearly repeated itself, the governments did not learn from their mistakes. However it is debatable if there were any mistakes to learn from. The new Rwandan Tutsi regime had its security in mind when it saw the growing attacks from the strengthening former Hutu armies and militias. Is it a mistake to act on an attack and threat from an opposing force outside a nation’s borders? The Second Congolese War is a good example of the classical realist argument that there is no international order or law only power and force. The UN or other International Organizations did not intervene and Rwanda was forced to take the conflict into its own hands. Could a continuation of the 1994 genocide and thousands more deaths have been avoided by an international intervention? The classical theorists would argue not, since there is no international order or law except for power and force. Morgenthau, a contemporary realist, argues that the international order of power is a means and also an end – security. Rwanda used its power as a means to remain powerful in the region and ensure its national security in regards to its borders. Power of force was used as a means to a greater end of power in security (Baylis & Smith 167). The contemporary realists would also argue that peace can only be achieved by a balance of power, which is why Angola, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Chad intervened on behalf of the DRC government because Rwanda was too powerful in the region. The argument continues with the point being made that the political sphere is autonomous therefore military power is critical. Rwanda could not depend on any political force to come to its aid, it had to depend solely on its military power. Waltz, as a defensive realist, reminded me that countries continuously pursue power without regard to regime type, or people (Baylis & Smith 163). In this case Rwanda was not concerned with the type of regime in the DRC. It only wanted to see the Hutu insurgency put down.

With all this realist theory being tossed around I felt sure that there is was also an element of social constructivism. Onuf argues that a social constructivist theorist would be sure to add to the argument by telling us that power is not only materialist, such as military or economic, but also that power involves ideas (256). In this particular case, the conflict is purely of ideas. The Rwandan government has the idea that the Hutus need to be stopped. The Hutus hold the idea that they need to fight against the Tutsis to regain control of the Rwandan government. Kabila believes that be needs to liberate the DRC and oust Mobutu. The conflict is purely of opposing constructed ideas of ethnic division and dislike. The socially constructed identities of the cultures in conflict are based on the non-state actors of the Hutu former FAR/ Interhamwe, the Rwandan Tutsi army, the ADFL in the DRC, and other various factors in support or opposition to the current government leaders of Rwanda and the DRC. The one hope in this conflict is that the ideas and institutions are not always path dependent, change is still possible because the state’s interests are not a given.

This is where a semi-Idealist approach enters the scene. These socially constructed ideas of dislike for an ethnic group can be changed in the idealist’s view. The Hutu and Tutsi factions can learn from their mistakes and conflicts and can work to create peace in the region. Kant informs us that an idealist theorist would argue that when these militant groups start thinking about the good of the state and not of themselves then there can be a peaceful end to the conflict (188). But herein lies the problem. How can one push out a constructed history of violence and hate? How can one throw out a deep past of conflict and dislike? How can a state ask its people to forgive and forget and move towards peace with such atrocities committed? The Idealists believe this ‘peace’ is a possibility when governments move towards a more democratic rule. Idealism doesn’t have as easily applied and proven theory for conflict, yet it does present a solution instead of a look into the reasons for a conflict. Therefore I believe the realist argument neatly describes how and why this war happened, the social constructivist argument gives a wonderful insight as to where the reasons come from and how to move forward, and the idealist argument provides a possibility for a future security and harmony between state and non-state actors.

The theories that do not present a clear insight into the conflict are Economic, Political, and Institutional Liberalism. In this case there was no economic conflict, it was a conflict based on security. Therefore Smith argued with me that if each actor pursued its own economic self-interest there would be a natural harmony holds no water. The ‘free’ trade in minerals (diamonds) between Rwanda and the DRC is definitely questionable and lends nothing to the argument for the war’s cause being that free trade and economic interdependence is supposed to equal up to no war. Political liberalist theorists’ argument that democratic governments do not fight one another is thrown out since neither Rwanda nor the DRC can be said to have a secure democratic government. The fact that no international laws or organizations took action also defeats the Liberalist approach to understanding the Second Congolese War. Institutional Liberalists are pushed aside when it become evident that neither Rwanda nor the DRC was interested in making sacrifices for the other and were only concerned with creating temporary alliances to serve self-interest. To that same effect the only instance of interdependence is with regard to the security of the region with which neither actor was concerned. The institutional liberals theory is also thrown out by the fact that none of the international institutions, such as the UN or European Union, came to help resolve the conflict. The First and Second Congolese Wars were fought without any interference from international institutions maybe because the states who hold membership in such institutions had no ‘mutual interest’ in the DRC or Rwanda. For many reasons the UN (or other institution) should have aided being that liberal institutions are concerned with keeping regional security and promoting cooperation between states. This is one of the many unanswered questions that always seems to break down to question the motives of people in power.

What is most interesting in applying the theories of international relations to the Second Congolese War and Rwandan intervention in the DRC in 1998 is that most international theorists that I called upon are not concerned with the ‘third’ world or developing world, yet here I am using their theories to explain a conflict that resides in this passed over ‘third’ world orbiting somewhere in the realm of the neglected. I now understood why I would be sitting at the conference table by myself. No theorist was on his way to consider a ‘third’ world conflict. Applying the international theories to a conflict in Africa is somewhat of an irony in that the politicians and government officials that apply these theories did not give a second glance as to why the Second Congolese War occurred and would not care for the reasons Rwanda intervened.

Works Cited:
Curtis, Marcus. ‘Raison d’Etat Unleashed: Understanding Rwanda’s Foreign Policy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Strategic Insights’. Vol. IV, Issue 7 (July 2005). . Date accessed: October 5, 2006.
Baylis and Smith. The Globalization of World Politics. Third Edition. Oxford University Press, New York: 2001, reprint 2005, 2006.
Schecter, Michael. MC220 World Politics and Security Class Lecture.
‘Realism and Idealism’ September 7, 2006. ‘Liberalism’ September 12, 2006. ‘Social Constructivism’ September 21, 2006. (citations only used when certain examples from lectures were not present in the Baylis & Smith book)

Research paper written in October of 2006 for an International Relations and Security Course. Look for more on the current DRC conflict soon.

zimbabwe, sudan, and the drc – enter ban ki-moon

Development

As the new Secretary General of the UN completes his very <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6304043.stm
“>first official Africa tour, crises loom across the continent. Ban Ki-moon called on the DRC to make a pact for democracy and the AU to be unified on the conflict in Darfur. With the DRC still working to emerge from its long civil war, Ki-moon noted the successful elections last year. The DRC currently holds the largest deployment of UN troops anywhere in the world and the UN says it is committed to creating greater security of the region.

Ki-moon also spoke to the AU about keeping unified in the face of the Darfur crisis. With the potential of Sudan becoming chair of the AU there is worry for the conflict to fall from the priority list. Ki-moon condemned the recent bombings of villages in Darfur and called on Africa’s leaders to join together for peace as they did before to bring peace to Burundi and Sierra Leone. Ki-moon met with President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan at the AU summit and urged him to commit to a joint UN-AU peacekeeping force for Darfur. “I… am deeply concerned about the continuing violence and the suffering of the civilians there. This time we need action and to make real progress,” Ki-moon said. Four years of violence and genocide has killed over 400,000 people and has displaced over 2 million people. “Together, we must work to end the violence and scorched-earth policies adopted by various parties, including militias, as well as the bombings which are still a terrifying feature of life in Darfur,” he told the African Union (AU) summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ki-moon also announced that he planned to convene in March a working group on Africa and the MDGs, “a coalition of the willing” of African stakeholders and international organizations and donors, to accelerate progress on the goals, which also seek to reduce maternal and infant mortality and provide access to health care and education. He noted that many African countries have made remarkable progress, but there remains a lot to be done.

As the well-publicized conflicts in Africa continue to recieve support, a mostly unheard of crisis grows. The name of this crisis is Zimbabwe or more specifically Robert Mugabe, president of Zimbabwe since 1980 and recently his term was extended for years. Mugabe has mis-managed economic policy and thrown out human rights. Hyperinflation and negative growth are a few of the problems which he attributes to Western sanctions and the legacy of white minoritiey rule. Reported in the news Zimbabwe is facing a massive food crisis. The government has refused aid agencies support and again combats calls of mis-management with the idea of an international plot to remove him from power.

The effects of the food crisis among many Zimbabwean issues is yet to be seen, however maybe we will not witness such tragedy. This July the popular band, Dispatch, will be reuniting for a cause. That cause is Zimbabwe. Their benefit concert has been sold out, a new date added, and again sold out. The proceeds are to be used to fight disease, famine, and social injustice. After reading that I inquired as to where exactly donations will be made, since funds in the government’s hands will not necessarily be used for good. “We are in the process of figuring out some existing NGO’s that are doing great work there–and some other projects we’d like to support. Once identified, we will make a post about them to the public!,” was the response I recieved. I was very pleased to get such a response from a well-known band working to make a difference in Africa. Supporting existing programs and projects that are working effectively will creat the most good. Check out the Dispatch Zimbabwe Team site, I think there are some remaining tickets for the concert this summer at Madison Square Garden.

Here at Michigan State University there is a push within the Student Assembly to revoke an honorary doctorate degree in law, which was presented to Mugabe when he spoke at MSU. The bill written in the Student Assembly will be voted on next week and after that will be referred on to the Administration. The international plot to overthrow continues. All jokes aside, the efforts of Dispatch should be commended and the pressure on Mugabe intensified as his people face certain death from his inactions.

america and the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time and our children’s?

Health

HIV/AIDS – Part I:

A silent call from a distant land
Crying for a helping hand, so
How long will it go on?
Ignorance and vanity
Supercede humanity, so
How long will it go on?
I want to know, how long will it go on?

We can’t wait any longer
They’re crying out, doesn’t it matter
We can’t wait any longer
No, no. Too long in a slumber
Shake it up, wake it up now.
We can’t wait any longer. No, no.

Another child is laid to rest
Another day of hopelessness, so
How long will it go on?
And every day we’re on the fence brings
Another fatal consequence, so
How long will it go on?
I want to know, how long will it go on?

Yuko awezayo kusikia kilio chetu? (Can somebody hear us crying out?)
Twaomba msaada wenu (Somebody help us)
Aweko mwenye kttoka (Somebody save us)
Aweko mwenye kutupa uhuru (Somebody free us)

From all that I have done and all that I have read the one thing that creeps into my mind every time the issues are talked about are invisible people, exploited people, dying people I cannot help but have the above song, “We Can’t Wait Any Longer,” run through my head (Michael W. Smith, 2004). The most important theme that the HIV/AIDS pandemic highlights, I believe, is the theme, plain and simple, that people are dying! People are dying! I think Smith speaks to the crisis well in his song and this important theme is what will eventually save lives and prevent the HIV/AIDS pandemic by inspiring people to act. The HIV/AIDS crisis is not just another growing problem prevalent in Africa, it is not just a media game of growing numbers, it is not just another cause to shirk and say someone else will take care of it. This pandemic is a cause that affects us all whether we live in Asia, Africa, or the Americas. The major theme of why people are left to die is what I will focus on, which will draw on America’s actions, structural violence, the impact of the disease, and, most importantly, indifference. Bringing people together in activism should be our biggest concern now if we are to change the course of history.

America, as Greg Behrman writes, has slept through the greatest humanitarian catastrophe of our time. How can America, the supposed greatest nation, remove itself from such a world-altering event – which is still taking place? It took some time to actually determine what the HIV/AIDS disease was and what it does, but even after discovering, the response was a hand waggle at best. You cannot get to know someone just by waving to them. You have to stop, talk, and listen – three things that America neglected to do. At the meeting on the Potomac, four years after the CDC discovered the disease, the President of the US publicly acknowledged that AIDS even existed. Four years! How can that be! Four years, by today’s numbers (still not accurate) is 12 million people! 12 million dead people! Two years ago the World Health Organization (WHO) was supposed to accomplish their plan of 3 by 5 (to get at least 3 million people on ARVs by 2005). That initiative failed, but why – indifference, lack of support, lack of passion. These themes keep coming back over and over. “It is difficult to see what is happening, harder to measure, easiest to deny.” (Barnett & Whiteside, 5) This great indifference is all too evident in politics. Politicians and policy makers and the media are all too concerned with the past and can’t look to the immediate present. HIV/AIDS is a huge issue of the present, but it has been too often in the media and newspapers and they now go for the more exciting, flash-bang issues of everyday life. People are dying, but the media needs people to read their papers and politicians need to look good in office to get re-elected for another term without controversy.

Authors, Barnett and Whiteside, point out that the US could have stepped up and emerged as an international leader at the 1987 International AIDS conference, but instead later that year Bush (Sr.) adopted a policy to keep all people infected with HIV/AIDS from entering the US. This action goes beyond indifference and speaks to the great ignorance that America and the world had and has about HIV/AIDS. This was not the first time that the US failed to take critical action. In the second presidential debate in 2000, Bush (current) was asked about the role of the US intervening on the continent of Africa to prevent humanitarian catastrophe. His response, “Africa is important. . . but there’s got to be priorities.” (Behrman, 246) Priorities! How about saving lives, how about preventing death – is that not a priority for the US political system? In 2002 the pandemic reached the mainstream media in full force. Behrman quotes an opening editorial by Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post,

“[…] sometimes the obvious needs stating, because it is taken for granted and then quietly ignored. A century from now, when historians write about our era, one question will dwarf all others, and it won’t be about finance or politics or even terrorism. The question will be, simply, how could our rich and civilized society allow a known and beatable enemy to kill millions of people” (297)

This quote sums up the ultimate American attitude of indifference. We were too caught up in politics and money and terrorism to even see the murder standing at our doorstep. The US as Behrman says, slept through the AIDS pandemic. His words and quote have a great impact on how we, as Americans, should view our response and caring nature. The AIDS crisis really asks the painful question of how “we” value other human beings. Are human beings of no importance unless they are advancing or helping to advance our country or position? Are human beings just numbers? 130 people die each day in Ugandan IDP camps, 3800 people die each month in the violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 3 million people die each year from AIDS – are we just supposed to take those numbers in their pure numerical value or should we delve deeper into the true impact of those numbers?

This brings about another underlying theme, the impact of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic. Each number has the face of a person, out of those three million people is a life, a life just like yours or mine, a life just as valuable and precious, a life so intricately linked to a family, a community, a city, a country, a world. AIDS was not just a health problem, it was a catastrophe that touches on every dimension of national and international society. (Behrman 173) This story is based on true events:

A father, seeking work in the transport industry since work is scarce in his villag in Africa, dies after contracting HIV/AIDS from a sex worker at a truck stop. He leaves behind a family with 6 children. After HIV/AIDS was contracted, the first child born afterwards most likely died from in vitro infection. That family is now without a “breadwinner” and provider (in the typical patriarchal system). With the father gone, the mother will have to find a way to make an income for the family to survive. The children may not be able to attend school anymore, most likely only a few were going to school to start, because they are now needed to work or cut costs. Now the children are helping work at home and the mother is trying to find work so that the family can get the basic things they need to survive. Many women faced in this situation of extreme poverty can find only sex work to earn money. This increases the chances of becoming infected with HIV/AIDS, if she was not already infected from her husband. The mother, now having the added responsibility of generating income, will very likely contract HIV/AIDS from her work, if that happens then it is only a matter of time until she will succumb to AIDS. Due to her impoverished situation and lack of income, receiving treatment is not an option. Now her 6 children have watched their father die and now they have lost their primary care giver – their mother. Children now are out on their own, without a family structure, trying to survive, can we even imagine?

The HIV/AIDS crisis has the face of a woman says Stephen Lewis. That statement is all too true. Women are the most affected, most vulnerable, and most impacted by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Women are, for one, more biologically vulnerable, they are bound by traditional and societal practices, they are forced to sell their bodies when their poverty becomes too much, all this on top of caring for a family and having the responsibility of providing food, clothes, and health. Stephen Lewis’ statement should more accurately read ‘the HIV/AIDS crisis has the face of a dying woman.’ Why must one family have to witness so much death? Just in this one family story there have already been three deaths and now six orphaned children fending for themselves in one of the harshest environments to survive. That environment is of a developing country. The family forms one root of a community and now that community is weakened by so much loss. The orphaned children will be left to fend for themselves since the it will be too much of a burden on their own families. Largely those infected with HIV/AIDS are members of the workforce (age 15-49) and when the workforce is disappearing due to AIDS, the economic impact is severe. The economic impact starts at the family, then the village community, and eventually that impact reaches the national level. How is a community to dig itself out of the already present poverty with a rampant disease coursing through and killing its people? As Barnett and Whiteside write:

“Where people lack material resources and do not have access to institutions and organizations beyond their limited and poor locality, they cannot be expected to take on extra costs and responsibilities in the absence of outside support. The great challenge for those who would assist communities, households, clusters and ultimately individuals to deal with the awful consequences of the AIDS epidemic is to face realities – to develop interventions and methods of support that recognize these realities, which can be effective at the local level and can take full account of the forces of globalization which will otherwise only exacerbate the already established processes of poverty and exclusion.” (195)

This quote is the key to what we all can do to intervene in the AIDS pandemic. Although it does tell us directly what a single individual can do, it should help us to remember reality when we do intervene or urge others to intervene. It does not tell us how to act, but why. We must intervene for the sole reason of the reality of the pandemic – people are dying! The main reason that people are dying is because of the all too prevalent structural violence. This also speaks to the earlier posed questions of: What kind of people are we? And How do we value human beings? Paul Farmer brings clarity to the thoughts of all these authors in speaking about structural violence.

“But the experience of suffering, it’s often noted, is not effectively conveyed by statistics or graphs. In fact, the suffering of the world’s poor intrudes only rarely into the consciousness of the affluent, even when our affluence may be shown to have direct relation to their suffering.” (31)

How can we be so indifferent? How can our government know and not act? How can people die without a name, without a face, without so much as a moment of silence. The world marches on. We know that we are privileged here in the US, and we must know that we are satisfied by the exploitation of the poor. Our affluence is a product, not a privilege of our circumstance. How can we not realize that with our affluence we can change the world? Farmer throughout his book suggests that we can. Suffering cannot be compared, it cannot be measured, and it cannot be put into one image. At the root of suffering is structural violence, a violence that does not necessarily involve physical means. It is a violence that is perpetuated by the government and imposed institutions of the world. The effects of structural violence are all too evident in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The lack of basic health care, the lack of basic rights to live, and the lack of affluence all contribute to the structure of violence present in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Another important theme that is tied in with structural violence is that of human rights in regards to health. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 25:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (Farmer, 213)

There is one thing that I cannot stop thinking. Everything looks good on paper, but in reality, as Barnett and Whiteside remind us, we need to see the actual situation. In reality this declaration is not upheld and I cannot help but wonder how many of the countries who signed the declaration can actually provide these promises to its people. I am sure most cannot due to the violence of structure. Farmer says:

“Social inequalities based on race or ethnicity, gender, religious creed, and – above all – social class are the motor force behind most human rights violations. In other words, violence against individuals is usually embedded in entrenched structural violence.” (219)

By saying this Farmer means that people are affected by the relationship between structural violence and human rights. People are dying because the social classes do not line up with the basic human rights of health and right to life. We need to not only realize this relationship, but also come up with a positive intervention. Farmer presents his ideas with the term ‘pragmatic solidarity.’ By pragmatic solidarity he means that our plan needs to involve a rapid response using our tools and resources to remedy the inequality in health care and human rights.

People are dying! However I don’t think you need someone to tell you the reality. The message and knowledge needs to be out first before we can even begin to know where to start. Indifference, impact, and structural violence are all prevalent themes that explain why people are dying. How long will this crisis go on? How long will the indifference linger? How much longer will it be before structural violence is remedied? How many more people will die? We can’t wait any longer and neither can those most affected by HIV/AIDS. Can someone hear their cries before another so needlessly dies? I for one will be listening and acting.

beyond the tragedy, the hope of africa

Development, Featured

Africa is far from being without tragedy, but when you look past all the blaring news article headlines you will see that there are many reasons to be optimistic for the future of African and its people. Beyond the Western media’s fixation with the African tragedy there is so much hope and joy that gets pushed under the rug. Why? Is it because there is an othering and the problems and issues are over there? Is it because there is no hope on the ‘dark’ continent? Is it because the West would rather not admit that Africa is ‘developing’ and is really doing well? There are plenty of articles in the news that would deter even the staunchest optimist. Most of Africa lives in extreme and absolute poverty. Crises in Cote d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Uganda, and a few other countries are far from resolved. The conflict in the DRC has been inflamed by its recent free election results. Uganda is moving closer to a peaceful resolution of its conflict, but the rebels have backed out again. There is growing tension between Somalia and Ethiopia. And now Chadian rebels are storming across the country capturing major cities. The conflict in the western Darfur region of the Sudan is becoming further and further from resolution it seems. The African Union peacekeeping force’s mandate has been extended, but a UN force is still being rejected. All these armed conflicts are frightening, but then there is also many preventable diseases and basic essential needs that kill more people each year. HIV/AIDS is a growing problem and has yet to reach its peak in Africa.

The first great example of African hope is the amazing diversity of ideas and cultures. The people are shaping a better future for themselves and advancements are being made. African culture is thriving. Before we, who are not in Africa, can begin to understand how to assist Africa we have to first understand the intricate links between Africa’s people, culture, and wildlife. Africa’s middle class is growing, African entrepeneurs are becoming more prominent and have incredible ideas and solutions to problems that they know and live with.

On the continent the advances in medicine, technology, and science are taking hold. I remember when I was in Africa almost everyone had a cell phone and could easily stay connected. Advances in medicine are slow to be adopted mostly because of their costly nature, but there are growing efforts to provide services. We all need to remember that Africans are not just vulnerable people, but also solvers of problems. They may live in dire situations, but they still have the capacity to run a more effective program that pinpoints the real issue, which many times Western donors miss. The greatest innovation that I have seen developed so far has been the PlayPump. Discovered and designed by a man visiting South Africa. The pumps are set up to provide children a way to release their energy on a roundabout and also pump clean water for their community. There is a wealth of children’s energy, but a lack of means to use that energy. The water pumped through play is then stored in a 600 gallon container with billboards promoting HIV/AIDS education and other healthy messages. These billboards assist in paying for upkeep and maintenance of the pump. No worries children are not forced to play or pump, they just enjoy playing and that helps their community to have clean water. Water-related diseases are the leading cause of death in Africa and the ‘developing’ world. It is estimated that two out of every five Africans live without a clean water source. With the PlayPump children are able to stay in school instead of getting water. Women and children benefit from less injuries due to carrying heavy water containers over long distance. Women can focus more on their families and children with extra time not spent on water fetching. Some women have been able to start-up small businesses to provide an added income source and more food for their families.

Beyond the calls of corruption, falsified elections, and conflict between candidates, there is an increase in credible leaders in African countries. The first woman leader was elected last year. Leadership is growing as Africans step up to help one another and show their fellow citizens effective ways to improve life. There has also been a venture launched by an African millionaire to combat corruption within African governments. Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese multi-millionaire, is offering $5 million to African heads of state who deliver security, health, and economic development to its people. The Mo Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African Leadership was launched on the 28th of November this year. This is obviously a very controversial idea and many have stated that African leaders that are oppressing and killing their people will continue to do just that. Mo Ibrahim has said, “The day we do not need any aid will be the most wonderful day in my life.” The award will be given out as $200,000 for 10 years after the leader is out of office, so that the African leaders will have a life after office. Secretary General Annan has thanked Ibrahim for offering such a generous prize, but many still remain skeptical. Keep a watch on this one, time will tell if it will be successful.

Along with all the innovation and advancement there is also a great opportunity fro those of us in the ‘developed’ Western world. Doing your research, finding a sustainable project to assist, and becoming personally involved in working for Africa provides so many opportunities for personal development and happiness. I can tell you working in Africa is a joy and an amazing way to self-actualize your potential to change the world. Don’t wait, jump in – each year that you wait is a missed opportunity, each day that you do not challenge yourself is a wasted day, each minute is a lost life.