Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

Throughout modern history the interest in the African continent was rather low. Since the first colonization expeditions the continent became part of European history and an “object” of interest. Indeed, undiscovered human and natural sources attracted European powers who seized the land without any respect to local populations. However, from the very beginning there was little interest in the way of life of African people's nor in their histories, languages, cultures. More worldwide interest got African countries during the decolonisation process after the Second World War when the two super powers both the US and the Soviet Union tried to gain the sympathy as many African regimes as possible to demonstrate their domination. Finally again during democratization processes after the end of the Cold War Africa got more international attention, this time not by great powers but by the media who brought conflicts in Africa to the people worldwide. However, I argue that the interest has always been very selfish and short-term. Africa was, is and will be crucial for the world. Still, there is lack of deeper knowledge and interest about it. Instead, there is generally superficial interest in the African continent and its people based on widely spread stereotypes. Those are created by a general lack of interest of the “West”, poor media coverage together with lack of information. Let me present some main ideas that came to my mind when I was reading the literature for lesson II.

The first main reason for superficial interest in African issues is definitely the existence of stereotypes. Many of them are based on the “creation” of Africa as part of “our” history, by us, indicating and confirming Africa's incapability and dependence. Those stereotypes about African inferiority are deeply rooted in “Western”, or as I prefer to call them “Northern societies”[1]. For instance, in European schools African history is usually taught from the colonisation as if there were no history before; African countries are being labelled as “developing”; reducing Africa to one homogenous area or society by e.g. talking about “African culture” or “African people” etc.

Those stereotypes drive the work of journalists too. Since the end of the 1980s Africa became more present in “Northern” media. For example, pictures of children suffering from famine in Ethiopia started a “worldwide pity” mainly reflected in pop culture. Unfortunately, many of the reports usually were confirming existing stereotypes about “poor, savage, uneducated, incapable African people”. The current media landscape demands short, simple stories with attractive pictures. Given the complexity of conflicts in Africa many journalists simply don't write about them or they need to simplify them to draw attention to them as it was the case of the film “Kony 2012”.  

The film and the campaign is definitely an example of the very simplified and “northern” perspective of conflicts in African countries. I think that the question whether it is good or not to draw such huge attention to a particular conflict is very difficult to answer. It seems that international attention should help to bring a positive change. However, too much global attention overlooks and basically wipes out all the other efforts of local people. Since I am convinced that long-term positive changes have to come “from the bottom”, from people in site, I am very sceptical to foreign interventions. International attention is important and can influence a lot but is it always a step in the right direction? And what comes next? Campaigns such as “Kony” are based on one main idea or aim and they don't present any plans for the following development which in my opinion makes them very short-term. Efforts of local people's organizations and associations are deeper because people in site have a much bigger interest in working on long-term solutions because the following development will influence them and the lives of their descendants. Therefore, I think that instead of using social media to gigantic campaigns they can be used to smaller ones, directed and controlled by people from the affected countries, and supported (financially, technically, know-how) from abroad. The progress will be slower but at the same time more genuine and considered.

When I watched “Kony 2012” I was surprised how less attention was actually given to people from Uganda. It seemed to me that it was more a promotion film about the director, about his son and about the uprising American youth. In the beginning the director says that media allow us to intervene. But do they indeed? And who are we intervening for – for people in trouble or for our conscience's sake? If it really was for the Ugandan people, children, the campaign would not take place in such a range because people would show real interest and look for information about the country, about the history, about the government. It was paradoxically people's disinterest that enabled the campaign. 

The film also reminded me of the well known film “Hotel Rwanda” where the Rwandan protagonist asks the American journalist to spread the pictures of the Rwandan genocide as soon as possible so that American people rise up and make the government to intervene. The journalist answers: “People will see this footage and say: 'Oh my God, it's horrible.' And then they go and eat their dinners.”

There has been too much external interventions in Africa and most of them based on “northern” perceptions of the world. International support and solidarity remain very important components of further evolution in Africa but they should not be forced nor central as it is often the case.

---

[1] „The North“ or „Northern societies“ meaning countries of the Northern hemisphere but mainly Europe, North America. Often also called “the global North” in contrast to the undeveloped or developing “global South”.

Primitivising Conflict_Reflection Memo

Throughout history the continent of Africa has been riddled with war and conflict, civil or
otherwise. From the safety of the West, while we have watched these developments unfold and
atrocities strike - we have also observed numerous efforts of western do-gooders and foreign
governments to bring peace and stability fail miserably. This raises the question of what have
these governments bodies and organisations been doing wrong? Are their current actions and
methods of peacekeeping ill-thought out, or are their shortcomings a product of the West’s
ignorant consciousness to the realities of these problems on the ground? I think it is a
combination of both. It is to no surprise to anyone that the Western world pushes a certain
narrative in regard to the continent of Africa and its cruel generalisation, but how much is this
dichotomy between our concepts and the actual reality negatively effecting the stability and
development of these African countries?

Views of any African conflict outside of the continent tend to be skewed, due to both a
combination of the publics lack of understanding of the conflict, but also for the country itself and
the culture, traditions and political environment it embodies - that of which are usually heavily
integrated into the conflict at hand. Not only does this allow a certain narrative to be easily
created and pushed, it allows for the the mindless consumption of these narratives by the general
public - exacerbating the root of the problem.

There are 3 narratives regarding the continent that have been penetrating the western media for
decades - Africa is hopelessly impoverished, Africa is a haven for wildlife and culture, African
people are primitive and barbaric. The latter, being the most dangerous in the arena of
international relations and peacekeeping efforts. Pushing the narrative that African people remain
primitive in their war strategies and conflict resolution methods promotes a general image of
barbarism onto the people of the continent, an image comparable to the Hobbesian state of
nature which he famously coined as ‘Nasty, brutish and short’, where humans are constantly
engaged in a anarchic state of war against one and other for survival. This is dangerous as it
allows the people who pull the strings behind the curtains of these conflicts to completely
overlook an integral part of the country’s attitude to the conflict - therefore overlooking their
motivations and tactics - while also disregarding the collective consciousness of the civilians
caught in the crossfire of the conflict in question.

Though the traditionalist beliefs of African countries may remain illogical and irrational to the
Western mind, it does not delegitimise the reality that these beliefs form an integral part of the
countries collective consciousness and therefore, their strategies in war. It is of utmost importance
for any body waging efforts of peace and stability to have a deep understanding of the traditional
beliefs and cultured rooted in the country in question, rather than brushing it off as another
‘downfall’ of the continent in terms of progressive development. An example of this is the use of
traditionalist beliefs of ‘mystical warfare’ utilised by the RUF (Revolutionary United Front) during
the Sierra-Leonian civil war against government forces, of which both soldiers and civilians blame
for the inability of the army to defeat them.

Another danger of the West’s tendency to push certain narratives when it comes to African
conflict, is the risk of over simplifying the conflict at hand and therefore disregarding key
components integral to the situation. KONY 2012 is one campaign that faced criticism for
oversimplifying the LRA (Lords Resistance Army) conflict in Uganda, in order to appeal to a wide
public audience and spread awareness of the atrocities committed at the hand of LRA leader,
Joseph Kony. Though the campaign was applauded for awakening a large audience to the war
criminals crimes, it also faced deserved criticism for over-simplifying the reality of the situation.
While KONY 2012 dramatically appealed to peoples emotions by painting an image of good and
evil through the characters of the Ugandan government and the LRA rebel movement, it failed to
give any background or political context to the war or information on prior peace negotiations,
and in doing so transmitted painfully misleading information on the conflict. This creates problems
while appealing to a large audience, advocacy groups and governments, as a misunderstanding
of the conflict is equal to a misunderstanding of how to approach the situation and resolve it.
The question arises of who pushes these narratives and why? Who is benefiting from them? The
framing of narratives takes place throughout all spheres of the mass media, serving a method of
defining a persons understanding of a particular incident/situation in their mind. A skill that proves
particularly useful in the eyes of government bodies and NGO’s advocating for Africa, as the
continent is vulnerable to negative stereotypes that can be manipulated to appeal to people’s
emotions and henceforth, benefit their own motives. For example, an NGO working to end child
hunger in Kenya, will always push the narrative that the majority of children in Kenya are starving,
in order to encourage people to donate money to the cause. However we can clearly see this
approach backfire with the case of KONY 2012, when the narrative of ‘Big Bad Kony’ pushed by
the American NGO ‘Invisible Children’ began to benefit the Ugandan government, who were in
fact not so innocent in the conflict, being responsible for the displacement of thousands of
Ugandans.

Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

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.

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.

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.

 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.

Primitivising Conflict_Reflection Memo

Africa, a continent of over 53 sovereign states, House over 1.2 billions people, many resources and rich culture, natural resources and rich culture and a moderate climate, suitable for peaceful coexistence ,yet one  would  wonder  why most  of the world think of it as a dark ,  primitive geographical settlement The  answer  to  this would be the narrative held and views and perception feed to the general public.

A journey back in history proves the continent to house the earliest form of civilization. The oldest bones being found on the Continent etc. However, most geographer’s anthropologist have refused to recognize or accept these realities- the communal and orderly lives existed in the Africa before the eventual voyage and discoveries.

Africa for its part, was already a patrimony made up of authorities: chieftains local heads, religions leaders and Royalties who acted in capacities of protector and warriors as well as guarantor on Law and Order. Precolonial Africa’s setting was made up of Empires whose major aim and objectives were territorial expansion, Eg benin kingdoms in Nigeria and Ashanti in Ghana. While expansion was the main focus, they also made trade in salt, and metal and steels etc. across neighboring communities and kingdoms, even before the coming of imperialist.  The main aim before the colonial era was conquest and exporting language, influence around their regions and subduing other empire seg  Kenem - bornu Empire. Unbeknown to most scholars who in their works have argued on the non- existing structure, civilization, and organization of African communities before colonialism.

A departing point however, as found in the readings ( Kony 2012) reinstates emphasis on narrative on Africa, which inversely reflects on the approach  to solving conflicts and ethnic Violence in the region by external actors  The narrative being a negative one, has more often than never created a bad image of the continent and in most cases a self inflicted sympathetic outlook towards Africa these outcomes has several consequences and benefits for both internal and external actors.

Methods of resolution and ways of solving conflicts in Africa are acutely influence by narratives and roles and engagement of external actors have been to a  large extent been shaped on this narrative. E.g Military intervention as solution in Libya after Qaddafi regime. Another prime example where the misgivings in Eastern Congo conflicts. For the international Actors, who intervene on the umbrella of settling the dispute, instead supporting one camp while branding the other as the aggressor etc.

Narratives matter and cannot be over emphasized.

For kony 2012, there is always a campaign narratives or picture often painted to portray a certain conflict in a certain way, dividing the warring parting into two sides, good and bad, victims and aggressor. This actions Mostly carried with little or no considerations for other factors of cause of conflict. The west and international actors for its part, choose who they would pitch tent with, choose what aligns with they own National interest and what they think is in the best interest of the state and peaceful coexistence. They therefore take a narrative sell it and lobby every one to band wagon with it. The problem is that upon realization of truth in most cases, the campaign and narrative most have accepted so much that it is hard or impossible to eliminate or erase.

Most Conflicts in Africa has been projected as being Driven by certain narrative e.g Grievance, ethnic selfishness, Government Corruption and endemic corruption, Religious Fundamentalism etc.

The question of when and if narratives are to be given is answered by due diligence and carefully rational consultations with the people at the grassroots to determine interventions in conflicts.

Primitivising Conflict_Reflection Memo

Based on the questions raised and opinions presented during the class I would like to provide a deeper argument on how of an important role can narrations and optics of Africa play in judging and evaluating the future of this specific region. I am going to focus on media portrait of African region delivered through childhood and on its impact on the vision western nation have regarding this continent. When the subject of these contextualization is Africa, I consider these complex historical relations and media narratives even more important.

That is for we have only a little understanding of what Africa really is and what native Africans consider it to be. From young age it is portrayed to us somewhat as both magical and dangerously wild place. This optic is, in my opinion, strengthened by all mainstream informational resources available to us, and digging for more complex and trustworthy information became quite of a hard task in the modern times.

To truly understand the process of shaping the “not so empirically based” vision of Africa in western societies, we need to approach the problem through socially contextual nuances of one’s childhood and adulthood.

The first source of information on Africa is generally through pictures and television. The first encounter with a specific phenomenon is often crucial and in this case I would argue that the very first mentions of (to us) distant and specific environment of Africa is actually positive in one’s childhood. It is hard to imagine that the first mentions of Africa that a person would be about to absorb would have been geopolitical facts, situational analysis or security related discussions. No. The first contact is full of beautiful scenery, wild and exotic animals, to us very distant tribes and apparent cultural difference. This specific audiovisual learning curve is actually without any further contextualization and in many cases without geo-related placement or any further information bases. The first contact is usually based on pure childish emotion. As mention in the article “How to write about Africa” this childish presentation of Africa as continent and environment full of adventure somehow persist to the adulthood era.

I don’t perceive this phenomenon strictly bad rather than positive. To child Africa is presented as exotic world full of surprises and hard-to-understand experiences that are so distant to child’s actual not so long live period that it is “distant” from the beginning. Distant and magical. The magical aspect can have two usual consequences.

Firstly there are huge sympathetic connotation created toward Africa in young age – these can actually be broken hardly by the not so exclusive racist tendencies in modern societies in later age. I would describe that process as if beautifully painted imaginary portrait of Africa met the drastic reality of misery, bloodshed and warfare, which is as naïve as the childhood fantasy itself. Both of these radical descriptions of Africa in general persist among our societies. The Kony 2012 short documentary was a good example of these simplistic irrational descriptions – it was catchy and hugely shared on social media by young audience with zero to none informational base of this specific conflict.

The second consequence is the difference we perceive in Africa when compared to the other continents and states. This magical difference actually holds us from accepting the reality that some of the states can be as developed as ours and that they are actually quite similar both politically and economically. We would actually like to help Africa all the time, not because it needs us, but because we want it to need us. It is a higher cause, a calling, a way of life. We don’t want to imagine or to experience the nature of highly developed cities and areas next to the safari and savage tribes. This is not the vision of Africa full of adventure and expenditure options we gained through our childhood.

Africa is not described and taught about deeply enough in one’s educational period in westernized countries. By this I mean mostly elementary and high school education institutes which persist in this fairytale like description of the continent. These optics can argue for two perspectives, none of these picture Africa as it is. One of them is description of savage, wild and dangerous Africa. Violence, wars, drugs and child soldiers are main topics of these narratives. The second one is more focused on the wilderness and magical aspects - native tribes, rituals including herbs and substances, exotic free animals.

Both of these, sadly, supports the childish fantasies we obtained in youth. But how to change this unrealistically shaped approaches towards African continent? Here I must agree with the opinion that this is at least partially caused by mandating the narratives about Africa to non-African speakers. It could help to stir these narratives by ones that actually comes from the within the continent. Let people from Africa tell us what they think about their continent and specific country, not only at later age when we actually have the chance to search for this original information, but at childhood. Include this narrative as part to one’s development. Practically talking this would contain of African made stories and fairytales, books, African teachers at schools etc.

But this is the goal of globalization as such and the problem does not lie in ignorance of these options and their benefits. It lies in comfort, tradition and irrational hatred we are witnesses to every day. There would be very strong voices advocating against this approach which drastically differs from our traditional narratives and perceptions. It would be perceived as multiculturalism and globalization efforts.

Yet I have strong believes that these voices will be shushed by simple and natural phenomenon.
By progress and understanding.           

Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

Western attempts to narrate and find a solution to African civil conflicts, such as the Congolese, the Ugandan and the Sierra Leonese ones, are controversial and, at times, even counter-productive. They are framed with simplistic narratives trying to explain the intricated factors behind insurgencies and wars by oversimplifying the stories to make them easily accessible to the entire world. Despite the fact that journalists and activists embracing this methodology are succeeding in spreading the word across the West and informing anyone with access to the internet about the atrocities carried out by warlords and their armies, they are shaping the African realities in a way that only reinforces Western stereotypes. By choosing to break down the complicated dynamics of the conflicts to a handful of actors, motives and solutions, journalists, activists and analysts are conveying a misleading message.

In the big campaign KONY 2012 aimed at encouraging United States’ officials to participate in the hunt for Joseph Kony, the Ugandan warlord indicted of several crimes against humanity and war crimes, Jason Russell squeezed the narration of the whole civil war in a 30-minute-long video, in which his 5-year old blonde son is pictured more than the only three Ugandan citizens interviewed for the project. The campaign’s message has been accused of being fictional and exploiter of the conflict itself. Russell frames the intricated web of human rights violations and abductions conducted by both the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and the Ugandan People’s Defence Force (UPDF) through a one-dimension narration, in which Kony is the evil while the abducted children and the UPDF are the good ones. He portrays the situation in Northern Uganda as if the only solution to the problem was that the United States stationed its troops on the ground, acting as impromptu saviours arrived to rescue the victims of the violence.

Despite the benefits of the campaign reflected in the overwhelming awareness that it contributed to raise worldwide, it came at a price. Civil society organizations as well as Ugandan intellectuals strongly advised against any military intervention from the United States. They argued that it could have caused reprisals from the LRA and ignited further violence. They also discussed the wrong impression that the wider international audience was getting from KONY 2012 as the video was full of misleading and non-updated information. For instance, Russell did not mention that the images appearing in the video were shot before 2006, but at the time when the campaign started in 2011, the LRA had already spread over neighbouring countries, hence the conflict was no longer affecting exclusively Northern Uganda.

The video is moving and clamorous. Russell knows how to grab the attention of thousands of people easily moved by heart-breaking stories circulating on social media. The “white” and paternalistic perspective that KONY 2012 embraces might be problematic and symbolic of the Western sense of superiority, yet it is a first attempt to engage a wider audience and help hundreds of abducted children return to their homes. Surely, Obama’s decision of military intervention in the country resulted from the campaign is controversial, given the numerous failed tries in Uganda and outside Africa led by the United States, and indeed the campaign itself was superficial, but it must be acknowledged as an attempt to give innocent victims, like the Ugandan boy Jacob in the video, hope for a better future. 

Although it must be recognised that the intentions of Russel and those of his colleagues at Invisible Children and Enough must have been purely to help put an end to the devastation that they witnessed during their first trip to Northern Uganda, I agree with the idea that the Western colonial mentality of narrating African realities must be stopped. The shallow perspective used in the campaign stems from colonialist views, according to which African barbarians, in this case Kony and its ruthless followers, need to be defeated by the white power, the United States, and the remaining good but still backward people need to be saved. The consequences are enormous: they validate white privilege, ignite fear of foreigners and emphasize stereotypes. Journalists have admitted streamlining the narration of multi-layered stories so as to make it easier for the international audience to understand and better relate to something completely different from their daily reality. Same for policy makers whose need for reports’ conciseness has led them to break down the complexity of African realities to just one reason to blame, one implication to handle and one solution to work for.  Therefore, the causes of the civil conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, such as illegal exploitation of natural resources, antagonisms between political leaders, issues over land among others, were reduced to conflict minerals only, which only led to sexual abuses against women and girls, without speaking of men or victims of non-sexual torture, and finally, the only solution to the conflict seems to be the expansion of state authority, neglecting other crucial measures that need to be taken. Robert Kaplan himself agrees that his portray of the Sierra Leonese and Liberian civil wars in the 1990s can no longer be applied to African chronicles. At the time, they seemed so inexplicable to Western mentalities that Kaplan believed that the motives behind the wars could be find in the forest, as it insulated the populations and prevented them from developing like the rest of the world. This narrative reduced complex tales and the populations’ entire existence and turned them in easy clichés promoting paternalism.

One question must be raised: if Western journalists and activists are not able to portray the African continent and its stories as it deserves, how are African media telling their own stories? We are lucky to live in an interconnected world where we can get all types of information we want at any times. If African journalists and media channels are narrating their domestic realities doing justice to their complex nature, why don’t Western media look at them to change their simplistic dominant narratives? After reading about the implications of KONY 2012 and other attempts of cheap chronicles, I wonder whether it is possible to weight the benefits and disadvantages of the westernized lens through which we see Africa. How would the world react to African issues if the narratives were not simplified? Would they still work to take straightforward and focused actions or would the peacebuilding process be slower as policy makers try to understand the complicated essence of the continent, which so far, we have been trying to ease?

Another point that I found very interesting is how the Closure and Darkness practices in Sierra Leone were considered signals of Africa’s primitivism in Kaplan’s travelogue, while in reality, the magical rituals started to circulate when the British empire integrated the country into its Atlantic slave trade. In her article on Robert Kaplan and Juju journalism, Shaw states that this type of journalism has resulted in “official inaction” encouraging American nativism and a fear for the obscure and inexplicable African traditions, rather than the attempt to understand foreign cultures. I tend to agree with the idea that many world’s realities should be considered in light of the country and its population’s cultural heritage, as it unconsciously shapes their judgments and perceptions of themselves and others. Although cultures relate to both a material and spiritual dimension of our lives, they do not make the rest of the world barbarian or alien only because we cannot see explicitly the reasons behind certain behaviours or because they do not meet our expectations. The Westernized ideals of modernity and civilization praised in contrast to African animist beliefs and irrationality are creating a huge gap made of cultural generalizations and taxonomies, which are hindering cross-cultural relationships and promoting the over-simplification of intractable realities. This kind of approach is also the cause of Western aid agencies and institutions thinking that recruiting staff with technical expertise yet with next to zero knowledge of the specific situation of the country is the answer to find quick solutions to existing problems. Conflicts cannot be resolved only with generic medical and logistical skills, but it is crucial to avoid minimization of cultural influences and to get to know the country’s identity through its traditions without prejudice in order not to fall into the trap of the white saviours coming to the rescue of the needy locals. Surely, military intervention is not the one-size-fits-all approach to resolve conflicts in Africa. Building cultural fluency is essential if anyone wants to raise awareness of certain issues and promote active engagement from the international community, like Jason Russell. However, I believe that conveying a message to the world in the same way as you would explained it to a 5-year-old boy is not the answer. Paying attention and understanding how the country, whether it is Uganda, Congo or Sierra Leone, frames its reality and the multi-layered contest of its conflict must be taken into consideration so as to avoid working for counter-productive solutions.   

Primitivising Conflict_Reading Memo

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?