Are We Really “Saving” Africa?

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 View All»

Some attempts at justice are better than others.

Bono stood on the stadium’s stage, a briefcase in his hand.

This is what I remember he said, “In a few hours I will be taking this briefcase to Gleneagles Hotel, and turning it over to the leaders of the countries you represent.  Inside they will find over a million signatures demanding they do the right thing for the stupid poverty that is killing our Africans brothers and sisters!”

A cheer ran through the crowd as he hoisted the black case above his head.  I looked around at the ONE campaign delegation from the US.  We were at the most important foreign policy summit held that year, and we were there to demand the leaders of the free world attend to the needs of the poorest among us, those living in poverty in the developing world.  I was elated; finally, I was acting on my convictions instead of talking about them.  Among a crowd of thousands, there were 150 of us from the US, and I knew from conversations we felt honored to be here.  And important.   Sir Richard Branson had flown us from London to Edinburgh, Scotland.  Bob Geldof had spoken to us in the airport.  Natalie Imbruglia met us at the tarmac, and George Clooney spoke to us from the nave of a converted stone cathedral.   Most exciting of all, our world leaders, the Group of Eight listened, and they came through. ¹  I felt so honored to be a part of a historic event that made a difference in the lives of millions (and possibly billions) of people.

And yet, even though the ONE campaign has done a great deal of good, I often wonder about the impact of these campaigns on those involved like myself, ² and how they fit into Jesus’ call to care for the least among us.  I know in my own life these grand gestures have often taken the place of developing relationships with people in my own neighborhood or city, for they keep me so busy working on behalf of those half a world away.  And even, most invisible of all, it can hide a self-righteousness in righteous clothing, as it often did for me.  For all these reasons I’ve been wondering what role NGOs, campaigns like this one, and even missionaries and direct Christian charity have to play in “developing Africa” and other regions.  I wonder how we should respond when we hear about famine in northeast Africa, conflict in the Sudan, and genocide in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

We know the answer is not simple.  Foreign policy, development aid, and conflict resolution are complicated issues even to those who spend their lives studying and implementing solutions on the ground.  Well-trained, knowledgeable scholars and writers like Dambisa Moyo, William Easterly, and Jeffrey Sachs develop strikingly dissimilar conclusions on how we should end the “stupid poverty” stealing the futures of so many.  One similarity emerges, though, in all of these campaigns and opinions:  We must make Africa a partner in its own development.

The problem is, Western governments do not like to make Africa an equal partner.

And neither, I’m afraid, do we.

—

Is it up to us to save Africa?

If you think about this at all, like me, you generally operate under the assumption that those with access to power, resources, privilege, education, knowledge, and connections are the most important piece of the puzzle.  If we don’t bring the forgotten wars, diseases, and injustices to the attention of those in power, who will?  And, to a certain extent, it’s true: if we don’t do it, the Western world will ignore the issue.  But it also begs the question, is it truly up to us to save Africa?

It’s not our fault we believe it’s in our hands.  When reporting on these things, most news agencies and many aid groups focus on the negative (of which there is plenty) because it sells and it tugs at our heart strings.  But that means it’s up to us to demand something more.  Demand that reporting on Africa no longer focus on the perpetual basket case scenario, the place that is incapable of helping itself, the continent that needs to be saved.   Demand that we see a more nuanced, holistic, and accurate picture of the continent that cradled civilization and serves as home to so much beauty, hope, reconciliation, perseverance, and particularity.

When it’s all said and done, I have to admit it’s easy to buy into the guilt-inducing headlines and campaigns because I want to make a difference and it gives me a sense of accomplishment and purpose that I am doing my small part for those who have so little.  Lately, though, I have been wondering, is this what social justice in Jesus’ name looks like?  What about serving, relationship with the other, and laying down my life?  How do I do that for someone who is 3,000 miles away whom I may never meet?  And, most importantly, how am I transformed in the process?  When I ponder these things I am convicted that if we remain untransformed, we aren’t living into God’s story, and that means we won’t be of any help at all.

When I get down to it, I realize, paradoxically, I am both the answer to the needs of the world and the problem behind them.  Not only do I serve to fuel the wars raging³ in the heart of Africa through my consumption, but I can also be a channel of blessing.  I prefer to focus on the last part because I like my cell phone and my lifestyle, and it assuages the guilt of living in the most privileged country the world has ever known.

But when I am overwhelmed by a desire for change, by a need to do something, when I can’t stand the fact 30,000 kids will die of preventable illnesses today and tomorrow and the next day, when I am overwhelmed by the plight of millions of AIDS orphans and the hundreds of thousands of child soldiers, I force myself to take a deep breath.  Sometimes, I pray.

Which is, also paradoxically, one of the most effective things I can do.

It’s not the end, but the beginning.  It’s the recognition that God – and not me – is in control, and even though I don’t always like it, real change begins with God, and from God’s work within me.  Africa, and places that experiences the same impediments to growth and prosperity, will only get worse when I believe I am the answer to their problems.  I may be more enlightened, more educated, and more faithful than the colonizers, but perhaps the real problem begins with the fact I believe that last statement.  Africa will get better only when the people who are leading its development are Africans.

But Africans will only lead their own development if you and I let them.  Because we have more power, more “expertise,” and more influence, we must step aside and come alongside if Africans are to lead.  I know I can be a part of that growth and a channel of blessing only when I act with humility and an understanding of my own privilege and lack of knowledge when it comes to the complexities of working in developing countries (and this is often a challenge – I have a Masters focusing on International Development!).  Even more importantly, I need to continue to develop an appreciation of the knowledge, expertise, and abilities of Africans to solve their own problems.  Only then will I – and you – actually do good for the people of the continent of Africa and the vastly different countries that make it up.

When I look around at the people and the groups doing work in this area, I see a lot of good intentions and some really good work, but not as many organizations that live by these principles.  Unfortunately, even though we don’t realize it, most of us still suffer from the White Man’s Burden, and often act out of guilt rather than real, sacrificial love.  Or, commonly, we work out of the assumption that anything we offer will be better, because they have so little (see a critique of this mindset here).  What would the world look like if we believed in the resources of those at the bottom, and acted out of love, in a power-under, come-alongside sort of way, toward those who benefit from our connections and resources?

By way of illustration of the harm that can come from believing it’s our role to “save” others, I’d like to take a few moments to talk about an organization that does a lot of good, but often gets caught up in the kinds of activities that can be so harmful to resource-poor communities.

—

Invisible Children is a high-visibility organization that has achieved a great deal with its film and outreach efforts.  The organization was born in the spring of 2003, when three young filmmakers traveled to Africa searching for a story.  What they found was the longest running civil war on the continent, fought by child soldiers who were abducted from their homes and families.  The filmmakers, and eventual founders, created the documentary “Invisible Children: Rough Cut” upon return to the States, which became the basis for the organization and the work they do today advocating an end to the war and rehabilitation of abducted children.  Much of their work involves calling for an end to the reign of terror of  the rebel Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), and cause of so much destruction against the Acholi people in Northern Uganda.

The Invisible Children campaign has raised awareness, but at what cost?

Invisible Children has a mighty support-base, the envy of more established organizations.  Their followers are deeply committed and passionate about their work and go to great lengths to advance the cause of the organization.  Their work is admirable.  Recently, they appeared on Oprah by camping outside her studio for several days until she put them on the air.  In April, they sent 1,700 people to a lobby day where participants asked their representatives to support Senate Bill 1067, a bill aimed at ending the civil war and rescuing Kony’s child soldiers.  They have rallied thousands of high school and college students to take part in their awareness-raising events, and have recently (like the ONE campaign) relied on “powerful” people like actresses and members of Congress to inspire, motivate, and get their message out to the public.  It is possible that they have done more than any other organization to bring the forgotten war in Northern Uganda ⁴ to the attention of the American people and government.  Many credit the organization with emboldening and inspiring youth that had been disaffected and apathetic until they met the passion and conviction of the Invisible Children staff.  The rise of this movement of young people can be credited with the US government’s responses to Invisible Children’s lobbying efforts, which were partly responsible for sending a US senior level diplomat  to the Juba peace talks between the LRA and the government of Uganda (held between 2006 – 2008), and over $17 million USD in reconstruction funds through USAID.  Their stated goal is to see Joseph Kony apprehended and the abducted children returned to their homes, and they are on their way with Senate Bill 1067.

In addition to their advocacy efforts, the organization has an extensive network of Northern Ugandans on the ground developing and running programs benefiting the war-torn region (of which most are of the Acholi tribe).  They run a Schools-to-Schools program that links Northern Ugandan schools with American schools, which sends children who could otherwise never afford it to school, and they are developing a handicrafts program that will benefit adults and children in the area.  In email correspondence I conducted with the organization, they appear to take seriously the importance of putting leadership in the hands of the Ugandan people.  Over ninety percent of their Uganda staff is Ugandan and they rely heavily on community input.  As Erica D’Alessandro stated, “The Schools for Schools program would not be able to implement any of its funding without the input of the School Development Committees at each of our partner schools.”

In many respects, Invisible Children is treating the Ugandans with whom and for whom they work as partners.  However, in some egregious cases, they are missing this important component that has been an important part of their success.  I am echoing the voices of many others, particularly those who are more knowledgeable than I when I say that, like all NGOs, Invisible Children needs to take seriously the potentially negative impact they can have as arbiters of immense resources – both monetary and more importantly, rhetorical.

—

It’s important to note the founders of Invisible Children have always had good intentions.  Good intentions can do a great deal of good, but when they’re not examined, they can also do a great deal of harm.

Mary Anderson in her book, Do No Harm, discusses this first hand.  Policies used by NGOs around the world have been created based on her work in conflict areas.  A sample of her philosophy is included below:

Aid is not neutral in the midst of conflict. Aid and how it is administered can cause harm or can strengthen peace capacities in the midst of conflicted communities. All aid programmes involve the transfer of resources (food, shelter, water, health care, training, etc.) into a resource-scarce environment. Where people are in conflict, these resources represent power and wealth and they become an element of the conflict. Some people attempt to control and use aid resources to support their side of the conflict and to weaken the other side. If they are successful or if aid staff fail to recognise the impact of their programming decisions, aid can cause harm.

Numerous sources who prefer to remain anonymous have concerns Invisible Children is doing harm with some of their methodologies and approaches.  Their actions on the ground, particularly in the early stages, lacked cultural sensitivity, sophistication, and knowledge of the complex dynamics that arise when white people with resources and power enter a war-torn, resource poor environment.  In many respects, they seem to have grown up in the intervening years.  However, in some areas they still need to develop sophistication and a complexity that comes with maturity.

Simplistic messages and solutions

"Saving Darfur...via thong?" Sisqo would be proud.

In their campaigns, Invisible Children often uses simplistic characterizations of the solutions to the conflict or the child soldiers themselves, such as “The Abducted” or “The Rescue” campaign.  This simplistic language exacerbates stereotypes about Africans, reinforcing that they have no resources, expertise, and/or ability to help themselves, while at the same time propagating the erroneous belief Americans are responsible for saving poor Africans who have nothing.  Nowhere in their messaging do they appear to be using empowering language (like CARE International’s I Am Powerful campaign).  It is difficult to describe the impact of the words we use, but it can mean the difference between empowerment and stripping power away, between hope and despair.

As this site points out,

Organizations like Invisible Children not only take up resources that could be used to fund more intelligent advocacy, they take up rhetorical space that could be used to develop more intelligent advocacy. And yeah, this may seem like an absurdly academic point to raise when talking about a problem that is clearly crying out for pragmatic solutions, but, uh, the way we define problems is important. Really, really important. Choosing to simplistically define Congolese women as “The Raped” and Ugandan children as “The Abducted” constrains our ability to think creatively about the problems they face, and work with them to combat these problems.

Additionally, like other campaigns, but perhaps even more so, Invisible Children has heavily used a consumerist thrust to get their message out.  Their (always creative, often overly provocative, sometimes crossing into bad taste and worse) t-shirts are coveted and sell very well.  There is nothing inherently wrong with selling t-shirts to raise money, but the way it functions at Invisible Children and some other groups, is troubling.  When the first thing a supporter sees on their website is “look good, do good” it promotes a belief that purchasing something is one of the most powerful things a person can do to end the abduction of child soldiers and do good in the world.  A less prominent emphasis on image and  consumption would promote a more accurate picture of what the solutions to conflict and injustice really require.

In discussions with a representative from the organization it appears that much of the disconnect between the greater sophistication of their programs on the ground and their simplistic messaging has to do with the fact that “none of the decisions” about creation of the messaging “are ever made in Uganda,” though Uganda staff is consulted “from time to time.”  According to this representative, the rationale is that “it is difficult for the context of many of the media and merchandise to cross such a cultural divide, especially when both are so heavily marketed to teenagers in the U.S.”

Many organizations that work in the developing world have had a difficult time relating the complexities of what they do to a desensitized, oversaturated population.  However, they overcome these hurdles because they know it is their responsibility to portray the individuals with whom they work with dignity and respect.  Especially in the last several years they have taken the leap, believing that their supporters can assimilate a nuanced and complex picture of the issues and people who they desire to aid.  They still use slogans and soundbites, but they use empowering language that invites reflection.  Invisible Children should follow in the footsteps of the organizations that came before them, providing their supporters with a vision of the conflict and the children involved that is not reduced to slogans or simplistic characterizations of incredibly complex issues.

The Ultimate Solution Is Not Supported By Some Community Leaders

And you thought the Darfur thongs were in bad taste. At least they're largely invisible to the public...

The only way Invisible Children’s admirable goal of bringing the Acholi child soldiers home will be realized is if Joseph Kony is apprehended.  Most experts on this matter conclude that ending Kony’s reign of terror will require his death.  Invisible Children’s most recent advocacy and awareness raising efforts concentrated a great deal of energy and resources on gaining passage of Senate Bill 1067, a bill that aims to eliminate “the threat posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army to civilians and regional stability through political, economic, military, and intelligence support for a comprehensive multilateral effort to protect civilians in affected areas, to apprehend or otherwise remove Joseph Kony and his top commanders from the battlefield, and to disarm and demobilize Lord’s Resistance Army fighters (emphasis added)“ and and further support “comprehensive reconstruction, transitional justice, and reconciliation effort.”⁵.  Essentially, the bill has two goals: 1) eliminate the threat posed by the LRA and 2) support reconstruction in the area.

Though it appears that the reconstruction goals are lauded by all,  the military solution is not condoned by at least some of the Acholi people.  The Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative, “an interfaith forum which brings together Muslim and Christian (Catholic, Orthodox & Anglican) leaders in Acholiland, Northern Uganda and provides a proactive response to conflicts through community based mediation services, advocacy & lobbying and peace-building activities,” sent a letter to congress detailing their opposition to the bill.  A peaceful solution focusing on dialogue is also being supported by the African Faith and Justice Network.  (See their full letters to Congress here).  A notable excerpt from the ARLPI document includes these words:

“We applaud the commitment of the bill [in the U.S. Congress] to bring about stability and development in the region. However, we as the Acholi religious leaders whose primary concern is the preservation of human life, advocate for dialogue and other non-violent strategies to be employed so that long term sustainable peace may be realized. Let us learn from the past experiences where we have seen that violence only breeds more violence.”

They refer specifically to the deaths and upheaval that came about after the US-backed Ugandan government’s response to Kony’s withdrawal from the 2008 peace agreement prompted the LRA to go on a killing spree.

“Military strategies launched against the LRA have time and again led to severe reprisal attacks on the innocent civilian community as illustrated during the recent 900 deaths during Operation Lightning Thunder.”

Again, as the African Faith and Justice Network states,

“In essence, AFJN believes that a military strike against Joseph Kony and the LRA is likely to be disastrous for civilians and abducted child soldiers, and is unlikely to result in Kony’s capture. The precedent set by Operation “Lightning Thunder” in December 2008 does not give us hope that there can be an effective military operation against the LRA and we therefore advocate for a peaceful resolution to the crisis. Those who push for a military solution often cite the failure of peaceful alternatives; however, this ignores the clear fact that a military option also failed and that killing Kony alone might not be the end of the LRA.”

One must ask, when reading these documents, whether the Invisible Children staff was aware of opposition to the bill by religious leaders and others?  And at whose behest did this bill become one of the most prominent goals of the organization?

In email correspondence with the organization relating to these questions, Invisible Children Uganda’s Public Relations Officer Erica D’Alessandro questioned the assumption that the disagreement by some of the community would translate into wholesale rejection, noting that there are conflicting opinions on the ground.  She also stated,

“I have spoken personally with Bishop Onono Nelson, one of the founders for the Acholi Religious Leaders Peace Initiative, and in a recent interview he stated this: ’I doubt a peaceful solution may be reached at this point. It is a mistake we normally make: going back to the peace talk. There is no more talking to be done. What is left? To sign the document. Will he come out? He will refuse. Unless God performs a miracle, he will not sign. How will it end wither way? It must end somehow, and yes, a peaceful means is easiest. But if a military solution will end it, it should be done. If the world were interested in rescuing the children, they will find a way to get to them. If they cannot, there is no other way out.”

Alessandro suggested that Bishop Onono Nelson’s opinion suggests that “perhaps some of the ALRPI opinions of the bill/best possible solution to the conflict have changed of late.”  Clearly, there are differences of opinion (or perhaps changing opinions) among the ARLPI, but I conclude that  the consensus among the organization is to eschew the military option given their letter to Congress in April of this year.

It is worth noting that an American solution to a Ugandan problem is not only opposed by some of that region’s residents, but the results of the final solution of the bill – further violent conflict – would upset the peace that the region has sought for decades – and Invisible Children helped bring about.  Additionally, though it would be a multi-lateral approach including Ugandan, Southern Sudanese, Congolese and possibly forces from the CAR, embroiling the US military in the Great Lakes region of East Africa, an extremely volatile and hostile environment that has known conflict for decades, could rival Vietnam in its failure and unnecessary loss of life.

On a related note, it is an interesting and troubling phenomenon, this recent growth in the number of young people starting NGOs.  I applaud the passion, the commitment, and often, the sacrifice of these individuals – including those who work or Invisible Children – but I also question whether this is truly the most efficient, effective, and sensitive way to put one’s skills and passion to work.  Certainly, there is a place for it, but frankly, not as often as it occurs.  Engaging in development work outside our culture, our nation, and our skill set (even with sensitive, knowledgeable oversight and mentoring) can have extremely negative consequences for those we are intending to help.  My hope is that anyone with a passion for a place or a people would come alongside an established organization that has years of experience before  considering starting their own.

—

Our first step: recognizing God as the author of peace.

In the final analysis, Invisible Children has been a force for good, for bringing awareness, and for galvanizing the passion of its followers.  Unfortunately, it has also neglected some of its responsibility to act sensitively, carefully, and in broad collaboration.  In my opinion, these problems arise not out of malicious intent, but from a lack of training, sophistication, and a misguided (and perhaps latent) sense that whatever the West can bring will be better than what Northern Ugandans experience without us.  My hope is, in the future, Invisible Children will use its immense creativity, momentum, and abilities to develop sophisticated messages empowering Ugandans and inviting Americans into humble relationships with those we seek to “help.”  The organization has a responsibility to the people it has filmed and that  youth it has inspired  to offer a version of the truth that is whole, honoring, and ultimately messier than the version that is packaged easily, that is black and white, that is as simple as stating a slogan or buying a t-shirt.  And the supporters of organizations like these have a responsibility to ask for it.

Invisible Children’s example demonstrates the immense power of a story and a just cause to galvanize people to action on behalf of the downtrodden.  It also demonstrates that groups of people like those Invisible Children has gathered in the past can make far-reaching changes in situations that need attention.  Certainly, it shows that developing nuanced and empowering messaging is essential to a respectful response to the people we desire to aid.   Lastly, it shows we must be very careful how we use the power, resources, and creativity we carry as citizens of the world’s only superpower.

As I reflect on my experience with the ONE campaign and my concerns about the methods and assumptions of other social justice movements active today, I am confronted with questions that barely have answers.  What does it mean to serve, to pursue social justice in Jesus’ name, to lay down one’s life, to care for the least among us?  The answers to problems like world hunger, family homelessness, AIDS orphans, and child soldiers are incredibly complex - but our response can be very simple.  First, as Christians, we must recognize that God is the author of peace and reconciliation – and His methods are often incredibly slow in our eyes.  Second, God invites us to join Him, but first we must examine ourselves and our motivations – our pride, our self-confidence, our answers, and even our passion that can mask self-righteousness.  Although advocacy is an essential tool for standing on behalf of the suffering, it is not the end.  It’s easy to retain an unexamined heart when our efforts eschew relationship.  God will use us to change the world as He transforms and refines us through relationships with people who are different from us or who scare us.  This is what sets us apart from others who pursue the good work of serving others.  It’s not as exotic, or as interesting, or – seemingly – as dire as what happens in war-torn, poverty-ravaged countries, but it’s a step that begins where we live.  It doesn’t have to end there, but it’s a beginning that honors God, ourselves, and the people – both here and across the globe –  we desire so desperately to help.  Maybe, along the way, we will grow to step aside and come alongside our fellow man out of love and respect for the dignity and expertise of those for whom God has given us passion.  For that, I believe, our African brothers and sisters will thank us.

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 View All»