UN – Alex B. Hill

Blue Helmets ineffective compared to US troops in Central Africa?

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.

what does genocide mean to you?

Development

We are back again to the age old debate of language and the way it is used – this time however the consequences are much greater. Genocide, how do you define it? In a Slate News, Senator Obama’s comments are noted when referring to genocide. The article, titled “Getting comfy with genocide”, gets deep into the definition of genocide and the consequences of our current use of the term.

Lemkin’s definition, which was finally adopted in 1948 by the U.N. General Assembly, classified as genocide ‘acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.’ It is a definition that has lasted nearly six decades, and it is important to remember that it refers not merely to war between nations or war within nations, however terrible. It is not about the death of soldiers in armed combat or in foreign or civil strife. It is about the mass murder of defenseless civilians—men, women, and children—because they belong to a certain kind of group. And it’s not just a matter of words. The United Nations convention on the prevention of genocide, signed by 138 nations, holds genocide to be a special category of crime that justifies “action appropriate for the prevention and suppression of genocide.” The convention does not exclude abrogation of the sovereignty of a nation engaged in genocide in order to effect a humanitarian military intervention. The problem is that while it’s going on, when it can still be stopped, it’s often not evident just how grave a crime is being committed or whether it will eventually result in genocide if it’s allowed to go unchecked. At what point, for instance, does “ethnic cleansing” become genocide? “Ethnic cleansing” can refer to the forced transfer of populations—bad enough—rather than the indiscriminate murder of them. “Ethnic cleansing,” that hideous euphemism, becomes genocide when it involves mass murder with the intent to exterminate. Genocide is about annihilation.

In the debate candidates were asked how they would handle the genocide in Darfur. Slate News says the real question should have been:

“What would you do if you saw another Rwanda developing? In other words, a genocide that has little to do with previous U.S. intervention and is not our fault in any direct way, but one we could prevent—at a cost: U.S. troops, U.S. lives. President Clinton has apologized for his failure to intervene in Rwanda. Do you agree that the United States should commit itself to preventing genocide anywhere it threatens to occur?”

We have come to talking about the genocide in Darfur in a ‘feel good’ way. We cover it in debates, make up solutions that are not so feasible, and attempt to show how much we care. Is it possible to get comfortable with genocide? I covered that idea that it is very difficult for our minds to fathom the extent of genocide and the amount of mass killing that it entails, but is this the reason that it is so easy for us to be comfortable? This could be part of the argument, but I think it may also lie in the political framing that the world loves to use.

At any rate, it is pointless to argue the fine points of language; the definition of genocide – and actual work to stop genocide. This can be done in the same ‘feel good’ manner, but it can also include actions that everyone can take at home. Currently, Michigan’s congress is working on bills of divestment from corporations that operate and support the government of Sudan. This would cut off a great deal of funding to the government of Sudan and hinder the country’s ability to further the killing of their own people. The bill has passed the Michigan House of Representatives and is not working to pass the Senate. This bill is expected to be much harder to pass in the Senate, so if you live in Michigan call your senator and ask them to support this bill. There are numerous advocacy groups around the world. Michigan State University’s campus has one such group associated with a national organization STAND: Students Taking Action Now Darfur. Check out what the MSU STAND: Spartans Taking Action Now Darfur chapter is doing and learn more about the genocide in Darfur. We can say “genocide is bad” as much as we want to, but it is still there looming, killing, waiting for us to completely forget – don’t allow yourself to forget.

are the MDGs credible?

Development

The ‘bright idea’ of the West very often comes under scrutiny from the rest of the world. In Tanzania the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are seen as the ‘hidden agenda’ of the West that is impossible for African countries to achieve. Many see South Africa’s ability to achieve the MDGs as an obvious reference to the Western powers’ foreign policy towards ‘developing states.’ Is it because South Africa is most Western and developed that it has achieved so much?

The MDGs can certainly be seen as worrisome, however I would not go so far to state that they are a tool for Western powers to control African countries or ‘underdeveloped’ countries. The ‘developed’ and Western powers do hold the power in the UN, but I know a good number of people who work for the UN and are dedicated to reducing poverty and providing access to the necessities that all people need to survive. I am not a proponent of big plans, such as the MDGs. As I have come to understand and know by way of William Easterly – big plans do not work, big plans do not succeed and there is a large cynical backlash when the big plans fail.

Many professionals say that the MDGs are unachieveable by African countries but the institutions say otherwise and claims that African countries are actually achieveing the goals. The UN newsletter on Africa, African Renewal, has facts and figures from the 2005 MDG report that outline how Africa is doing at achieveing the MDGs. Many of the goals are very far off track from the actual goal, but in the area of access to a clean water source and primary school education there is improvement.

Since the 1960s numerous, ambitious development goals have been set for the world to achieve. Every time that goals are set their deadlines for achievement are passed and new goals are drafted. Most recently we reached the new millennium and the most ambitious goals were set.

They are the most broadly supported, comprehensive, and specific reduction objectives the world has ever established. (UN Millennium Project)

The deadline is fast approaching and achievement is far off for many ‘developing’ countries. The first ‘decades of development’ (1960, 1970, 1980, 1990) focused on economic growth. Beginning in the 1990s, development started to focus on the need to create “macroeconomic stability, strong institutions and governance, enforce the rule of law, control corruption, and provide greater social justice.” From those aspects, the new MDGs reflected the emerging role of human rights in the international community, focusing on the economic, social and cultural rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (rights to food, education, health care, and decent standard of living). Throughout the ‘decades of development,’ conferences upon conferences, meetings and more meetings were held to build the best plan for development in our world. Yet as this happened goals failed, new goals were created, and millions lost their lives. This is where I will end with a very important quote:

“Meetings are indispensable when you don’t want to do anything.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

african economic growth and oil

Development

The UN has reported that Africa’s economic growth is increasing, slow and steady, but frail. They are predicting that the continent’s economies will grow almost 6% in 2007. However the report states that if African countries are to continue to grow they will need to diversify their economic output and invest more in infrastructure. The top growing econmies include: Mauritania (19.8%), Angola (17.6%), and Mozambique (7.6%). The report points out that the economic growth rests on a very fragile base and there are still conflicts to face. The HIV/AIDS crisis has killed much of Africa’s workforce. Countries need to open their borders to trade, invest in their infrastructure, and insulate themselves against external shocks. If these predicted growth percentage’s come true in 2007 this will be the continent’s fourth year of growth. Zimbabwe was the only economy to contract in the last year by 4.4%.

The Foreign Policy blog notes that the landlocked Rwanda will be the prime spot for multinational corporations to invest. The article states: ‘Kagame, who has been president since 2000, is viewed as an honest, business-savvy man opposed to corruption, unlike many other African leaders. Consequently, American businessman Dan Cooper, who has been pitching Rwanda to U.S. corporations, describes the Maryland-sized country as “the most undervalued ‘stock’ on the continent and maybe in the world’.” However Freedom House listed as not free, the hope is that this economic upswing will benefit the citizens.

Africa is gaining economically even as Zimbabwe’s inflation reaches 1,600% and Angola calls off talks with the IMF. China continues to invest in countries regardless of political or human rights standings. Africa’s countries have a lot to deal with if they are to continue their strong economic upswing. The recent signing of many bilateral trade agreements will hurt these economically developing countries. Many countries still have conflicts to clean up before more growth can happen. Rwanda is recovering from genocide, but seems to be gaining a foorhold in the economic system. Oil, don’t forget about oil. It is my belief that oil will be the greatest hope for African countries to become economically stable and advanced, as long as the resource is used wisely. Africa’s hope is growing, but so is the resource lust of emerging economic giants.

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.

a promise fulfilled, land rights deferred, the new UN, and spreading violence

Development

An election promise, a first for Africa, a hope for a better future. The Ugandan government in cooperation with private donors will begin offering free secondary schooling for high performing children. Yoweri Museveni, Uganda’s “President” of 20 years, made a promise in his re-election bid to offer free secondary schooling for needy students. The education ministry has said there has been a high demand for secondary school after universal primary education was introduced in 1997. Of the 350,000 primary school students only about 40% are absorbed into the secondary school system due to the need for help at home, lack of funds to attend, or a number of other reasons. Incredibly the Japenese government will be providing teaching expertise and a grant from the African Development Bank will allow for the construction on facilities. This is an amazing development in Africa with the role of advanced education moving to the forefront. I am glad that Mr. Museveni has recognized the importance of secondary schooling. I can see this as a great hope for Uganda’s future and Africa’s future. While I was in Uganda, in 2002, we traveled to so many schools. Schools which were small brick structures with open squares for windows and doors, schools which had maybe a few benches and possibly a black board, schools that were jam-packed with young children who had walked many miles (as far as 8 miles) without shoes, schools where one teacher had as many as 80 students. We visited so many schools and met so many inspiring and dedicated students. They really wanted to learn, when you compare that to students here in the US, there is a drastic difference in academic drive at such a young age. With all the schools we visited there was just one that continues to stand out in my mind. Near the end of our time in Uganda we visited an orphanage and montessori school for children affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The children welcomed us excitedly, sang welcome songs, performed dances, and then demonstrated their academic poweress. These students could read, point out many countries on the map, and do simple math among many things – take note these students were only preschool age! Preschool and they already knew where they were in relation to the globe, where the US was, how to add 10 and 2, and how to sing and dance their traditions. And yet even with so much hope, there is a great despair. Being HIV/AIDS orphans means that more likely than not most of the students are also positive for HIV. These children have no access to medications or treatments, they do not possess great financial means to survive. And I wonder, are these inspiration little geniuses alive today? Did they make it past their fifth birthday as many do not? Will they be able to benefit from the free secondary schooling program?

Late last year there was great hope that people would cease to be exploited by their governments. That has now been called into question in Botswana. The San people, more wrongly referred to as the Bushmen, were granted the rights to their ancestral lands, which now reside on the Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve (CKGR), in the Kalahari Desert. However, even though the Botswana high court determined that the San were forcibly removed to make way for tourist and economic development, when the San went to begin rebuilding their community they were turned away at the gates being told that they did not have clearance. Governments will no longer exploit their people? There is hope and fear for the future. Another great hope for Africa is the appointment of Tanzanian Foreign Minister Asha-Rose Migiro as Deputy Secretary General of the UN. Today she became only the second woman in history to be appointed to the position. The AU special envy on Sudan welcomed the appointment as do I. There is hope that African issues will remain a top priority for the UN in the years to come.

In less hopeful news, there is increased violence in Chad due to the Janjaweed’s attempts to drive people from their homes. Spilling over from the Sudanese conflict in Darfur, this conflict is beginning to threaten the regional security of Central Africa. Is that not enough to intervene? In a recent poll (because they are so reliable, and I can’t remember the source) 64% of Americans support sending US troops into the Sudan to help qwell the violence. I agree, what a better use of our massive military budget – saving lives, repairing the US’s tattered image, and bringing peace to so many people. Behold, emerging on the US political scene. . . Barack Obama! An American born of a Kenyan father who was an immigrant and an American mother, Obama brings a beautifully refreshing and hopefully new approach to American politics. Besides speaking to the people, Obama also has a great place in his heart for Africa. With his father being from Kenya it makes sense. Just last year the Illinois Senator went on an African tour visiting South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Chad – discussing the issues of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the growing violence in Darfur, refugees from the Sudan conflict, the Kibera slums, and Africa becoming a new haven for terrorists. I wonder if he is in favor of the Africa Command? Obama presents a great hope for American political reform and rebirth, but also Obama presents a great hope for Africa and bringing about a more focused and effective and involved US African Policy that is not afraid to invest in the continent.

what, are you serious?

Development

I was going to be done for the year with the annual report, but recent events do not allow me to leave this year with something unsaid.

Today I had a dentist appointment. My teeth were first checked out and cleaned by the dentist’s assistant and as you all know, while they have those metal tools and the nifty little mirror in your mouth, they ask you questions and try to hold a conversation with you. You, the one with everything in your mouth. It started out normally – I was wearing my Michigan State University sweatshirt so I was first asked about college, how it was going, and then my major – International Relations and Global Area Studies: Africa specializing in International Development. Well now that changes the conversation to Africa. “Wow Africa, so what do you plan to do with that degree after college?” I said I was planning on doing the Peace Corps for two years and then whatever comes after. (most likely the Master International Program with the Peace Corps)

The assistant then told me some very interesting stories about people she knew who did related work in Africa. She talked about a co-worker who was a photographer and was about to go on safari in Africa to take pictures of wildlife, ‘wouldn’t that be fun?’ Then she noted with a degree of disdain in her voice that she would never go to such a dirty, sticky, tropical place with a bunch of mosquitoes and stuff. All I could think was ‘you have got to be kidding me!’ Is this still how most people think of Africa? I could not say much because of the tools occupying my mouth. Then she said something to the effect of ‘well whatever you want to do.’ To be honest I could not believe it and I was slightly taken aback by her perceptions of Africa. Thanks so much American mass media! That is a topic for another time, but this event has given me a sense that more people need to travel to Africa and see first hand the wonder and beauty and people. More people need to understand that actual people like you and me live in Africa everyday – they may not have as much ‘stuff’ as we do, but nevertheless they live incredible lives in that dirty, sticky, mosquito filled tropical wonder land that I have come to love.

On a more up-beat note, UN personnel arrived in the Darfur region of Sudan to support the African Union force, which is attempting to keep the peace as government backed militias spread destruction and terror with ‘rebel’ groups battling to keep the people safe. This is a large step towards a much debated hybrid UN force, backed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, being sent to the region to keep the peace. The African Union troops are under equipped and understaffed in this conflict. With the UN personnel also came equipment, including night vision goggles and armored personnel carriers. The goal is to eventually move to a hybrid UN-AU force of roughly 20,000 personnel. I believe that a positive step has been made here and it gives me hope for a future resolution of the Darfur conflict and the lives of those affected.

Have a Happy New Year everyone!

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.