African continent seems to be
still one of the places we do not fully understand. As we could see from the
readings, there are still many misunderstandings, stereotypes,
oversimplifications and generalizations made about Africa. Even the good
intentions usually end up causing even more misery because of lack of
understanding. These problems are demonstrated by all three cases – The Democratic Republic of Congo,
Uganda and Sierra Leone – which we
could see in the readings.
International interventions seem still quite confusing to me. How can states intervene into sovereign state´s issues when they do not even fully understand them? The inflexibility of these interventions is also rather astonishing. Is it really better to do something just for the purpose of doing something or should we rather do the right thing? States and international organizations seem to go for the most expected (by people) and maybe even the easiest option instead of solving problems. And the even more confusing part is that it is obviously known that there are problems and more suitable solutions to them but it still leads to no change. Séverine Autesserre shows in her article the problem of the oversimplification and the suffering it is causing to people it should be helping. We are using these narratives just because western audience respond to it but should not it be the local population who is the important actor there? So rather than making western audience interested we should find solution that will actually solve something and then figure out how to get the needed support. For example, Autesserre writes that nobody really known and cared about the victims of sexual violence until the Human Rights Watch wrote their report in 2002 and Hillary Clinton visited victims of sexual abuse. If what the local situation need, is focus on other issues (land, state oppression, killings etc.) I am sure we can find a way to sell it to western audience (to gain support for the presence of western forces and get donations) just as well as the previously unknown sexual violence.
I understand the need for narratives to start a campaign – the problem need to be sold to politicians so they support the intervention and to public to gain their support and donations for humanitarian help. If the narrative is easy to understand, if it presents simple solution and also, have some emotional leverage, it is likely to succeed. What I do not understand is why is these simple narratives kept even during the intervention and peacekeeping mission itself? Once we say: “okay let´s go to the Democratic Republic of Congo to help people there,” should not we be doing everything it takes to solve it and not taking the easy road only to keep the popular support? It is said in the article that states are rather building roads and buildings than solving the problems of oppressive government even though there are some better solutions at their disposal – as the ones proposed by Autesserre – like paying the salary, financing based on performance, proper training of security and state authorities. There is awareness of oversimplification, there are proposed solutions, yet it is still these three simple narratives (conflict minerals, sexual violence, restoration of state authority) that determine solutions to the conflict that obviously cannot be solved this way.
Now, moving to the second case – Uganda and the problem of Kony 2012 campaign. Not saying that the simplified narratives are right, I can, however, say they are extremely powerful. I watched the KONY2012 documentary before I read the articles. Watching it through the eyes of westerner with practically zero knowledge about this conflict and very little knowledge about Africa, I was moved by the video. Nice people doing something for others, the power of people who can change the world to be better by their determination etc. It was amazing. Then I started reading the articles and looked at it more critically. The video definitely fulfilled its purpose, it gained support for the cause and make people to care about the issue. However, less is sometimes more and the advocated military intervention does not necessarily seem as the best option. I am not sure if it was the case that US secured another battlefield for its war on terror (as Finnström argues) I got more the impression that this intervention was mostly because of the public pressure on US government, however I agree with him that we must learn from history and study it and not just be part of making history by intervening into conflicts we know nothing about. Especially when (as presented in the article by Bareebe, Titeca and Verpoorten) even the local population and African scholars do not see it as the best solution. They even warn that the military intervention can cause more problems – forcing Kony to another offensive, increasing militarization of the region etc. They also pointed out that there already have been several military interventions that have failed in either ending the conflict or capturing Kony or some of his commanders. So, the question is, should we do what we believe is right or should we listen to the local people? I believe that the choice is very easy. If people who live in the area (Uganda and other countries where LRA moved to) and scholars who spent years studying the local conflicts, relations, culture etc. believe that the negotiations still have chance to succeed and the military option can only make it worse, we must respect that and offer help with this solution. I also absolutely agree with the claim that we have to put pressure also on local government and not only on Western ones. There is too much focus on West – Western people, Western decision-makers, but very few people care what the local people think and nobody is giving too much responsibility to local actors. The pressure must be put on local government not just to solve the problem but also to stop the abuses that is committed by its own forces. There have already been many efforts by local organizations and people, that led to peace talks, there is no reason to assume that they cannot solve the situation without the Western help, we have to stop portraying West as the only solution for all problems in the whole world.
The last article, focusing on Sierra Leone present another simplification and explanations based on lack of knowledge. Shaw presents Kaplan´s work, in which he argues that the combination of modernity and the fact that population of Sierra Leone believe in magical rituals (such as Closure and Darkness - making yourself bulletproof, seeing your enemy before he can see you) will lead to decline of civilization). Although he seems not to have any relevant information and his research in Africa does not even include talking to local people he seemed (at least in past) confident in his findings. It is yet another example of our lack of knowledge of this continent, countries and people. Shaw argues that the juju journalism lead to isolation toward Africa and lack of any activity because the situation cannot be solved anyway. I wonder to what extent these excuses were use in the past.
In conclusion, all of these articles were very interesting and even eye-opening and the reading of them raised many questions for me – Why are peacekeeping operations/interventions so inflexible and cannot change their strategies once it is realized they are not working? Why cannot we respect opinion of local people with knowledge about the country and situation and have to enforce our own idea (like military intervention) even though it is wrong? And how much has juju journalism influenced Western decision-making?
International interventions seem still quite confusing to me. How can states intervene into sovereign state´s issues when they do not even fully understand them? The inflexibility of these interventions is also rather astonishing. Is it really better to do something just for the purpose of doing something or should we rather do the right thing? States and international organizations seem to go for the most expected (by people) and maybe even the easiest option instead of solving problems. And the even more confusing part is that it is obviously known that there are problems and more suitable solutions to them but it still leads to no change. Séverine Autesserre shows in her article the problem of the oversimplification and the suffering it is causing to people it should be helping. We are using these narratives just because western audience respond to it but should not it be the local population who is the important actor there? So rather than making western audience interested we should find solution that will actually solve something and then figure out how to get the needed support. For example, Autesserre writes that nobody really known and cared about the victims of sexual violence until the Human Rights Watch wrote their report in 2002 and Hillary Clinton visited victims of sexual abuse. If what the local situation need, is focus on other issues (land, state oppression, killings etc.) I am sure we can find a way to sell it to western audience (to gain support for the presence of western forces and get donations) just as well as the previously unknown sexual violence.
I understand the need for narratives to start a campaign – the problem need to be sold to politicians so they support the intervention and to public to gain their support and donations for humanitarian help. If the narrative is easy to understand, if it presents simple solution and also, have some emotional leverage, it is likely to succeed. What I do not understand is why is these simple narratives kept even during the intervention and peacekeeping mission itself? Once we say: “okay let´s go to the Democratic Republic of Congo to help people there,” should not we be doing everything it takes to solve it and not taking the easy road only to keep the popular support? It is said in the article that states are rather building roads and buildings than solving the problems of oppressive government even though there are some better solutions at their disposal – as the ones proposed by Autesserre – like paying the salary, financing based on performance, proper training of security and state authorities. There is awareness of oversimplification, there are proposed solutions, yet it is still these three simple narratives (conflict minerals, sexual violence, restoration of state authority) that determine solutions to the conflict that obviously cannot be solved this way.
Now, moving to the second case – Uganda and the problem of Kony 2012 campaign. Not saying that the simplified narratives are right, I can, however, say they are extremely powerful. I watched the KONY2012 documentary before I read the articles. Watching it through the eyes of westerner with practically zero knowledge about this conflict and very little knowledge about Africa, I was moved by the video. Nice people doing something for others, the power of people who can change the world to be better by their determination etc. It was amazing. Then I started reading the articles and looked at it more critically. The video definitely fulfilled its purpose, it gained support for the cause and make people to care about the issue. However, less is sometimes more and the advocated military intervention does not necessarily seem as the best option. I am not sure if it was the case that US secured another battlefield for its war on terror (as Finnström argues) I got more the impression that this intervention was mostly because of the public pressure on US government, however I agree with him that we must learn from history and study it and not just be part of making history by intervening into conflicts we know nothing about. Especially when (as presented in the article by Bareebe, Titeca and Verpoorten) even the local population and African scholars do not see it as the best solution. They even warn that the military intervention can cause more problems – forcing Kony to another offensive, increasing militarization of the region etc. They also pointed out that there already have been several military interventions that have failed in either ending the conflict or capturing Kony or some of his commanders. So, the question is, should we do what we believe is right or should we listen to the local people? I believe that the choice is very easy. If people who live in the area (Uganda and other countries where LRA moved to) and scholars who spent years studying the local conflicts, relations, culture etc. believe that the negotiations still have chance to succeed and the military option can only make it worse, we must respect that and offer help with this solution. I also absolutely agree with the claim that we have to put pressure also on local government and not only on Western ones. There is too much focus on West – Western people, Western decision-makers, but very few people care what the local people think and nobody is giving too much responsibility to local actors. The pressure must be put on local government not just to solve the problem but also to stop the abuses that is committed by its own forces. There have already been many efforts by local organizations and people, that led to peace talks, there is no reason to assume that they cannot solve the situation without the Western help, we have to stop portraying West as the only solution for all problems in the whole world.
The last article, focusing on Sierra Leone present another simplification and explanations based on lack of knowledge. Shaw presents Kaplan´s work, in which he argues that the combination of modernity and the fact that population of Sierra Leone believe in magical rituals (such as Closure and Darkness - making yourself bulletproof, seeing your enemy before he can see you) will lead to decline of civilization). Although he seems not to have any relevant information and his research in Africa does not even include talking to local people he seemed (at least in past) confident in his findings. It is yet another example of our lack of knowledge of this continent, countries and people. Shaw argues that the juju journalism lead to isolation toward Africa and lack of any activity because the situation cannot be solved anyway. I wonder to what extent these excuses were use in the past.
In conclusion, all of these articles were very interesting and even eye-opening and the reading of them raised many questions for me – Why are peacekeeping operations/interventions so inflexible and cannot change their strategies once it is realized they are not working? Why cannot we respect opinion of local people with knowledge about the country and situation and have to enforce our own idea (like military intervention) even though it is wrong? And how much has juju journalism influenced Western decision-making?
No comments:
Post a Comment