After reading more tweets about Kony as well as articles by both opponents and proponents of the Kony 2012 campaign, many opponents being Ugandans, I have found several issues that are important to address. These issues are related to the interpretation of the situation in Uganda and also the intentions of Invisible Children Inc.
First, some issues arising from the short film "Kony 2012":
"Kony 2012 provides inaccurate information about the current involvement in Uganda."
Judging from both the film and the Federation of American Scientists article on Joseph Kony, Yes and No. To the film's credit, as some proponents have pointed out rightly, it does mention that the LRA has been moving out of Uganda towards the other three countries bordering Uganda. On the other hand, this generates a different, somewhat worse irony. If the LRA is not highly involved in Uganda anymore, what's the point of helping the Ugandan Army? If the Ugandan Army is the best equipped in the region, as IC Inc., has pointed out, then all the more so should the U.S. be helping its neighbours instead of itself. Kony 2012 still gives then, a self-contradictory impression that the ones in need are Ugandans. At the same time, FAS pointed out that military cooperation between Uganda and its neighbours is very unlikely judging from past animosity, so the Ugandan Army cannot be expected to push beyond Ugandan borders in pursuit of Kony, though of course this very reason might be used as an excuse to.
"Any awareness leading to Kony getting arrested is good. Period."
I read a comment to this effect (At least I remember the "Period." at the end) on an article criticising the aims and scope of Kony 2012. This is a very dangerous assumption. It's not that Kony 2012 is not good enough to be perfect; it's that Kony 2012 has the potential to cause so much damage that IC Inc. would have helped Uganda more by sitting back and doing nothing; it's net impact is negative. The lopsided awareness may lead people, organisations and governments to spend a disproportionate amount of money on Kony 2012 instead of on more useful ways to help Ugandans. Many activists on the ground in Uganda say that stopping Kony is going to have little practical impact on the citizens' standard of living. Even though developed countries have money, it's not infinite. Raising a disproportionate amount of awareness about Kony is going to draw resources away from economic initiatives in Uganda that actually help people.
Furthermore, the first ten minutes of Kony 2012 is essentially tells us nothing about Uganda. It is pretty much an egoistic rant by Russell about himself and his son. It reminds me of advertisements.
Secondly, some issues arising from the negative responses to Kony 2012:
Many comments on anti-Kony 2012 articles and sites attempt to discredit the authors by pointing out that they, too, have done nothing for Uganda. Others accuse the authors of being jealous of IC Inc.'s achievements. As true as these facts are, are they enough to discredit these authors' arguments? Because the only humanitarian work I've done was in Cambodia, does that make it wrong for me to criticise potentially misguided activists in Uganda? True, I certainly have less experience than Russell, but it does not immediately disqualify my argument. Everybody is fallible and has the potential to make well-intentioned mistakes. World record holders may not make the best coaches. If it is true that my lack of involvement disqualifies me from criticising Russell, then how can U.S. citizens and Republicans criticise Obama? He's certainly achieved much more, not only for himself, than the average American. And as unjustified as jealousy on the part of other activists in Uganda may be, aren't their opinions worth a listen too?
Third, a few issues with the objectives of Invisible Children, Inc.
As many activists and Ugandans have said, chasing after Kony will do little to help the Ugandans. As valuable a first step may be, this one seems to be going at a tangent. IC Inc.'s stated objective should then be to stop Kony, not to help Uganda, as these goals may not be mutually inclusive. Kony 2012's objective is to get people to care about International Justice and War Crimes, not Uganda. If this is true, it then raises many questions about IC's contribution as an NGO. Sure, stopping Kony will serve as a deterrent to future fiends and will serve justice, but in the light of greater problems in Uganda, should Uganda be the main focus of attention in the developed world? Recognising military intervention as one of IC's main goals immediately opens up a can of worms. The need for external military intervention in Uganda is dubious, so either IC hasn't worked that one out, or it has and has another unstated reason for advocating military intervention. Which, frankly, is quite disturbing.
Also, the photo of IC leaders posing with weapons together with Congo soldiers shows that IC is mainly about military intervention. If the photo is a "joke photo" as Russell claims, what is it doing as a background image on one of IC's website's pages?
Of course, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Kony 2012 is a result of "inertia". IC certainly has been trying to stop Kony and the LRA for a long time, and the recent sudden success has served as a natural motivation for continuing on a problem that is becoming less and less significant or relevant. If this is the case, I can't blame Russell and the IC from continuing with their long struggle to push for Kony's arrest but still must remind them to re-evaluate the relevance of such a goal today, when the LRA is no longer a significant problem in Uganda and the annual automobile accident death toll in Uganda far exceeds the annual casualty rate from the LRA in the entirety of Central Africa.
Lastly, it seems to me that many opponents of Kony 2012 are locally-based activists and indigenous activists, while supporters from developed countries far from Uganda (at least the majority are on twitter and can be traced to countries such as Belgium, U.S.A etc.). The opinions of the people on the ground are definitely very valuable. This is definitely worth a look into. If I have time I'll probably collate the authors of articles for and against Kony 2012 and post my findings.
The bottom line is, while Kony must be brought to justice, other goals should take priority lest valuable resources be wasted. And IC, together with other NGOs, must constantly evaluate the relevancy of their objectives in order to help people, their ultimate goal and objective. Kony 2012 has great potential to go either way, though at present it is at best irrelevant and offensive to many Ugandans. The real challenge will be for IC Inc., and other NGOs such as The Diaspora Project, War Child International, maybe even Grameenbank to harness the slightly misaligned momentum from Kony 2012 to really help people worth helping.
No comments:
Post a Comment