Looking the Other Way
The Economist recently published a short article entitled "Looking the Other Way," following up on a theme that I had touched on awhile back at the onset of the brutal Somali famine. The biggest question that I raised initially was why is the West and the African public bearing the brunt of the fund-raising and donation efforts being undertaken to help alleviate the suffering in the Horn of Africa, while the most obvious partners, the neighboring countries and the countries of the broader AU, are providing a pittance? Fundamentally, one would expect a country such as Kenya, which shares a long and porous border with Somalia, to be stumping up funds for humanitarian aid, as they are most subject to bearing the brunt of the cross-border ramifications; a nation such as Uganda, which has provided troops for the AU mission in Mogadishu (funded by the UN/West through its peacekeeping initiatives) will provide men, but not food aid (there are no reimbursements from the international community for food aid, I suppose). Thus, the famine continues, as many as 3/4 of a million people at risk of eminent starvation, and 4 heads of state from Africa actually showed up for the pledging conference in Addis Ababa; could Jacob Zuma not spare a day, and could his country, South Africa, which makes up 1/3 of the GDP of the continent, spare more than the measly $1million dollars pledged? Zuma, staunch advocate of "African Solutions to African Problems...." This figure is simply an affront to collective humanity, to the dreams of the Pan-African statesman of the past. Zuma sent $250million to diminutive, autocratic Swaziland to help them fend off default and the subsequent democratic reform demanded by the international community. African solutions to African problems? Is the famine in the Horn not an African problem? Is this not a dangerous game of lethal hypocrisy? Criticism alone cannot provoke action; the action must be collective and intrinsic. If the entire African Union cannot pledge more than the $50 million already committed for the calamity unfolding on the continent, one must question the basic governmental impetuses of the nations of this land, the shared bonds and collective humanity present, or so seemingly deficient. How can true development take place in states that show little interest in actual altruism towards neighbors, and thus, their own citizens? Have the leaders been simply more frugal than the international community because they understand the realities of aid on the ground more than those in the developed world? Is this, in itself, a wake up call? Or is it simply the reinforced understanding that the international community will share the brunt of the burden, as they have done since independence for many of the aid-reliant states on the continent. This entire humanitarian catastrophe has shown down like a magnifying glass on the motivations and predispositions of the governments of the region, and it has not been a pretty sight.
The Economist recently published a short article entitled "Looking the Other Way," following up on a theme that I had touched on awhile back at the onset of the brutal Somali famine. The biggest question that I raised initially was why is the West and the African public bearing the brunt of the fund-raising and donation efforts being undertaken to help alleviate the suffering in the Horn of Africa, while the most obvious partners, the neighboring countries and the countries of the broader AU, are providing a pittance? Fundamentally, one would expect a country such as Kenya, which shares a long and porous border with Somalia, to be stumping up funds for humanitarian aid, as they are most subject to bearing the brunt of the cross-border ramifications; a nation such as Uganda, which has provided troops for the AU mission in Mogadishu (funded by the UN/West through its peacekeeping initiatives) will provide men, but not food aid (there are no reimbursements from the international community for food aid, I suppose). Thus, the famine continues, as many as 3/4 of a million people at risk of eminent starvation, and 4 heads of state from Africa actually showed up for the pledging conference in Addis Ababa; could Jacob Zuma not spare a day, and could his country, South Africa, which makes up 1/3 of the GDP of the continent, spare more than the measly $1million dollars pledged? Zuma, staunch advocate of "African Solutions to African Problems...." This figure is simply an affront to collective humanity, to the dreams of the Pan-African statesman of the past. Zuma sent $250million to diminutive, autocratic Swaziland to help them fend off default and the subsequent democratic reform demanded by the international community. African solutions to African problems? Is the famine in the Horn not an African problem? Is this not a dangerous game of lethal hypocrisy? Criticism alone cannot provoke action; the action must be collective and intrinsic. If the entire African Union cannot pledge more than the $50 million already committed for the calamity unfolding on the continent, one must question the basic governmental impetuses of the nations of this land, the shared bonds and collective humanity present, or so seemingly deficient. How can true development take place in states that show little interest in actual altruism towards neighbors, and thus, their own citizens? Have the leaders been simply more frugal than the international community because they understand the realities of aid on the ground more than those in the developed world? Is this, in itself, a wake up call? Or is it simply the reinforced understanding that the international community will share the brunt of the burden, as they have done since independence for many of the aid-reliant states on the continent. This entire humanitarian catastrophe has shown down like a magnifying glass on the motivations and predispositions of the governments of the region, and it has not been a pretty sight.
