Severine
explores the consequences of the international community’s well-meaning attempt
to improve the ongoing grievances in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Severine’s article focuses on the negative effects of external attempts to help
introduce peace and democracy to Congo. This article draws on 1 year of
ethnographic research, including interviews conducted in the North Kivu region.
Data from other unstable regions (South Kivu, Kinshasa, North Katanga) was also
collected by the author. Furthermore, Severine claims to have patrolled with
military peacekeepers, assisted in NGO reconciliation projects, advised
diplomatic missions and implemented state reconstruction programs, and these
experiences helped her paint a picture on the situation in Congo.
Interesting
point 1:
The first issue Severine raises here is the power of simplification of a certain narrative. She points out that there is a trend amongst news media where complex issues are being simplified for the sake of attracting the general public. For example, the first thought that pops into people’s mind when talking about Congo will be something along the lines of conflict minerals. However, as the author points out, only 8 per cent of all of Congolese conflicts relate to conflict minerals. The remaining 92 per cent involve other resources such as land, timber, charcoal, and taxes. The proof that international efforts pay an unusual amount of attention to this issue can be seen by looking at the European Union, the US and the UN: these political entities have all passed legislations that help fight the exploitation of Congolese rare earth minerals. Severine acknowledges that conflict minerals play an important role in causing conflicts in the region. However, by focusing intensely on this single issue, the international community has overlooked other equally important (if not more so) issues, such as corruption and rebuilding state administration. International regulations, bans, and restrictions on exports are not followed by any economic, social and political reforms. Such measures, Severine argues, would only deplete the local people of their only livelihood, while doing little damage to regional armed groups. In summary, the end result from such half-hearted measures from the international community would deprive small businesses and mine workers of their income, and give rise to rogue businesses that would find a way to bypass international restrictions.
The first issue Severine raises here is the power of simplification of a certain narrative. She points out that there is a trend amongst news media where complex issues are being simplified for the sake of attracting the general public. For example, the first thought that pops into people’s mind when talking about Congo will be something along the lines of conflict minerals. However, as the author points out, only 8 per cent of all of Congolese conflicts relate to conflict minerals. The remaining 92 per cent involve other resources such as land, timber, charcoal, and taxes. The proof that international efforts pay an unusual amount of attention to this issue can be seen by looking at the European Union, the US and the UN: these political entities have all passed legislations that help fight the exploitation of Congolese rare earth minerals. Severine acknowledges that conflict minerals play an important role in causing conflicts in the region. However, by focusing intensely on this single issue, the international community has overlooked other equally important (if not more so) issues, such as corruption and rebuilding state administration. International regulations, bans, and restrictions on exports are not followed by any economic, social and political reforms. Such measures, Severine argues, would only deplete the local people of their only livelihood, while doing little damage to regional armed groups. In summary, the end result from such half-hearted measures from the international community would deprive small businesses and mine workers of their income, and give rise to rogue businesses that would find a way to bypass international restrictions.
Interesting
point 2:
Next to conflict minerals, rape is often cited as the focal point of the Congolese conflict. No other form of violence has had international attention devoted to it in the same way rape does. Journalists and news outlets use the term “rape capital of the world” to describe the ongoing violence in Congo. According to Severine, the most vocal challengers to this narrative are the Congolese themselves. They point out that the people of Congo also suffer from many types of violence, namely torture, killing, forced labor, conscription of child solders, and these deserve attention as well. It is easy to explain why news outlets tend to flock to rape as a rallying cry. After all, people react strongly to rape, no matter nationality, culture or background. To the media, this is an ideal tool to broadcast the severity of the Congolese conflict to the international audience. Like the issue of conflict minerals, here Severine reminds us that by investing an unequal amount of attention into rape, the international community has neglected to address other grievances. Sexual violence against boys account for about 10 per cent of all rapes committed in the country, but this topic rarely gets any attention. Even more alarming, local armed groups have noticed this trend and derived a negotiation tactic of their own. For instance, a local militia ordered his soldiers to gang rape 387 women and girls because he knew that this was the best method to negotiate with the international community. Many rebels, realizing the effectiveness of this tactic, have begun to use sexual violence, or the threat of it, as a bargaining chip.
Next to conflict minerals, rape is often cited as the focal point of the Congolese conflict. No other form of violence has had international attention devoted to it in the same way rape does. Journalists and news outlets use the term “rape capital of the world” to describe the ongoing violence in Congo. According to Severine, the most vocal challengers to this narrative are the Congolese themselves. They point out that the people of Congo also suffer from many types of violence, namely torture, killing, forced labor, conscription of child solders, and these deserve attention as well. It is easy to explain why news outlets tend to flock to rape as a rallying cry. After all, people react strongly to rape, no matter nationality, culture or background. To the media, this is an ideal tool to broadcast the severity of the Congolese conflict to the international audience. Like the issue of conflict minerals, here Severine reminds us that by investing an unequal amount of attention into rape, the international community has neglected to address other grievances. Sexual violence against boys account for about 10 per cent of all rapes committed in the country, but this topic rarely gets any attention. Even more alarming, local armed groups have noticed this trend and derived a negotiation tactic of their own. For instance, a local militia ordered his soldiers to gang rape 387 women and girls because he knew that this was the best method to negotiate with the international community. Many rebels, realizing the effectiveness of this tactic, have begun to use sexual violence, or the threat of it, as a bargaining chip.
My
thoughts:
Autessere, Bareebe, and Finnstrom all warn us about the dangers of oversimplifying the ongoing conflicts in Africa. Autessere provides us with a more insightful view into Congo, and stresses that such a deep-rooted conflict can never be simplified into catch-phrases and slogans. From my point of view, I can understand why Autessere criticizes such publications from medias. Conflicts have been running rampant in Congo and despite the international community’s best efforts, no sight of a stable government has emerged. However, in this article, her writing often times comes off as if wanting to blame the world for intensifying the rapes because it is abhorred by such atrocities committed against women and girls. Autessere’s main argument against the issue of “paying too much attention to rape” is that more rapes would be committed the world continues to such topics. As the author already points out, other forms of violence do exist. If the world does decide to pay them an equal amount of attention, then the local rebels would simply switch their “negotiation” tactic to suit their needs. Instead of raping a few hundred girls, they would torture a few hundred locals and broadcast these acts over the internet. I think Autessere’s criticism, while well-constructed, is placed at the wrong door. The international community is not directly responsible for the abuse of women and girls. The international community does not force men and children to work in terrible conditions under mines. The blame lays squarely at those responsible (the rebels, the armed militias, the Congolese corrupt governmental officials). To use Autessere’s words against her own: by condemning international efforts, she has inadvertently diverted focus away from the true perpetrators of crimes against Congolese people.
Autessere, Bareebe, and Finnstrom all warn us about the dangers of oversimplifying the ongoing conflicts in Africa. Autessere provides us with a more insightful view into Congo, and stresses that such a deep-rooted conflict can never be simplified into catch-phrases and slogans. From my point of view, I can understand why Autessere criticizes such publications from medias. Conflicts have been running rampant in Congo and despite the international community’s best efforts, no sight of a stable government has emerged. However, in this article, her writing often times comes off as if wanting to blame the world for intensifying the rapes because it is abhorred by such atrocities committed against women and girls. Autessere’s main argument against the issue of “paying too much attention to rape” is that more rapes would be committed the world continues to such topics. As the author already points out, other forms of violence do exist. If the world does decide to pay them an equal amount of attention, then the local rebels would simply switch their “negotiation” tactic to suit their needs. Instead of raping a few hundred girls, they would torture a few hundred locals and broadcast these acts over the internet. I think Autessere’s criticism, while well-constructed, is placed at the wrong door. The international community is not directly responsible for the abuse of women and girls. The international community does not force men and children to work in terrible conditions under mines. The blame lays squarely at those responsible (the rebels, the armed militias, the Congolese corrupt governmental officials). To use Autessere’s words against her own: by condemning international efforts, she has inadvertently diverted focus away from the true perpetrators of crimes against Congolese people.
Bareebe
& Finnstrom Articles
Both
articles criticize KONY 2012 made by Invisible Children. The narrative here is
similar to the one we see in Autessere’s article. Finnstrom argues that KONY
2012 simplified a complex political struggle in Uganda into a colonialist display
of African primitivism. Finnstrom warns against the consequences that come hand
in hand with the spread of this movie. The message in the movie is simple: it
masterfully steers the viewers’ emotion and portrays the US in a positive
light. Indeed, the movie claims that the conflict in Uganda can only be solved
once the US military intervenes. Only then can LRA leaders, branded by the ICC
as war criminals, be apprehended and brought to justice. This resonates well
with certain demographic groups in the United States and over the world.
Invisible Children echoes a powerful slogan to match their message: Stop at
Nothing. According to Finnstrom, Invisible Children has depoliticized and
dehistoricized a war into a black and white story. The Ugandan government and
its international allies: good guys. The LRA: bad guys. Finnstrom believes that
it’s dangerous to jump on this bandwagon and that the Invisible Children’s
lobbying attempt has helped militarizing an already troubled region. Kony has
become a scapegoat whose name is often mentioned to justify military presence
in the country.
My
thoughts:
Both authors argue that it is dangerous to paint a clear cut black and white picture on a multifaceted conflict. Strict distinctions between good and evil are impossible to make in any war in any period of history. Bareebe stresses that the local population has suffered at the hands of both the LRA and the Ugandan government itself. The narration of a “strong white man savior” implies that the people of Africa are unable to solve problems themselves, and therefore the West must intervene. I agree with Bareebe that the viral spread of KONY 2012 presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The international community can learn from this and adapt the internet, mainly social medias to capture worldwide audience’s attention, while also carefully draw a clear distinction between mass sensationalism and a focused campaign. I believe this goal can be achieved.
Both authors argue that it is dangerous to paint a clear cut black and white picture on a multifaceted conflict. Strict distinctions between good and evil are impossible to make in any war in any period of history. Bareebe stresses that the local population has suffered at the hands of both the LRA and the Ugandan government itself. The narration of a “strong white man savior” implies that the people of Africa are unable to solve problems themselves, and therefore the West must intervene. I agree with Bareebe that the viral spread of KONY 2012 presents both an opportunity and a challenge. The international community can learn from this and adapt the internet, mainly social medias to capture worldwide audience’s attention, while also carefully draw a clear distinction between mass sensationalism and a focused campaign. I believe this goal can be achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment