It's a video done by Invisible Children, a charity based in California, describing in detail the horrors of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, led by Joseph Koniy. Kony is an African warlord and a religious zealot (Christian nut job) who is not above using child soldiers, sex slaves and butcher civilians. He has waged a largely unsuccessful war for 24 years from Uganda, Sudan, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo. While Kony is univerally reviled, this campaign by IC has raised so many red flags that inaction is all but inevitable. Here's why:
Invisible Children (the Charity) -
Wow, talk about shady, here's IC's 2010 tax return, or lack thereof, from the U.K (where they are required to file one). To be fair though they did file in the U.S, where most of their funding comes from. Charity Navigator gives them a rating of two, or as they claim in their rebuttal, a three. Now I don't know which one is true (for what year etc.), but either way short of a four. They claim to get a 2 of 4 on transparency because they only have four board members, not five (and as a side note not one of which is African, which will become important later). Maybe that's true, but then why does their own website list seven members on their board? Also, doesn't that mean that they started their mass campaign without a proper board of directors? Well done guys. Here's a break down of finances that they provide:
any Fox News critics out there?
A GIANT 9.6% for "awareness products" proudly wedged between a tiny 16.24% Management and 7.27% Film and Media creation. By their own admission they balance their money out between programs in Africa, making videos to raise awareness and "channeling effort". Here's their breakdown of how they spend:
- 1) Make the world aware of the LRA. This includes making documentary films and touring them around the world so that they are seen for free by millions of people.
- 2) Channel energy from viewers of IC films into large-scale advocacy campaigns to stop the LRA and protect civilians.
- 3) Operate programs on the ground in LRA-affected areas that provide protection, rehabilitation and development assistance.
Now I know that 16% for management and salaries is normal in most charities. In fact people who think that 100% of their money can go directly to aid effectively are naive. Look at the Red Cross. Responsible for coordinating, training, and delivering assistance WITHIN 24 HOURS to anywhere in the world. That takes serious administration and you need capable, highly skilled people to do that. I mean, anyone really begrudge the head of the Japanese Red Cross making $85,000 USD last year? The New Zealand one the year before? How about Red Cross leaders in 2004 or 2005 in Bangkok, Jakarta or Singapore? I don't. But as far as I can tell this charity is essentially three friends, a 4-7 member board of directors (depending on which part of their site you look at) and a support staff numbering 104, many with jobs such a "mentor" or no job listed. Now all of this is purely SPECULATION on my part, but it's based on logical assumptions (that could easily be wrong). $1.45 million on salaries for a staff that size isn't outrageous (divide it by 104 and you get about $14,000 a year per person) but are the Ugandan drivers and mentors getting anywhere near that (I'm NOT saying that they aren't, just saying that that info is unavailable)? In fact if the board members get 30% (again not unusual) then each of the seven members has a $62,000 salary, or $107,000 on a four member board. If IC would post these numbers (be transparent) I could put them as fact, but for now it's logical assumptions.
But iffy tax returns and corporate spending are not enough to condemn a charity, and IC is no different. But this is:
Invisible Children advocate armed intervention (you know, by someone else):
Yup, they openly advocate U.S "advisors" in Uganda working with the military to bring Kony down. So if you give them cash you are, in effect, donating to INCREASE violence. But that's okay right? Uganda are the good guys. Actually if any of those child soldiers are gay Kony might be a better bet, as the Ugandan government has now made homosexuality punishable by death. Now that may little to do with child soldiers, but it gives me cause to question how enlightened the Ugandan government is and it does have me questioning their "good guy" status. But it'll end child soldiers and rape right? Maybe. The Ugandan government has recruited child soldiers in the past, although none are known to be active now.
But realistically what are they asking us to donate to, and campaign for? Remove Kony through armed force and bring him to trial, but to what end? He has a command structure and his second-in-command would likely just take over and continue. Attack and destroy the LRA using US forces? Could do, but that is an undertaking that would have the potential to dwarf Iraq and even Vietnam. First off you are talking about the invasion of a huge territory occupied by multiple states. Iraq is 438,317 square kilometers and yet 130,000 US troops and 20,000 UK and Australian troops could not secure it. Now look at what IC is asking:
Uganda- 236,040
South Sudan- 619,745
CAR- 240,534
RoCongo- 342,000
total- 1,437,319 square kilometers.
That's a lot of land.
Now on the plus side his removal would have the support of many of the locals, so perhaps not as many troops would be needed, but to provide security to villages and just search an area that size, well less wouldn't be an option. Add to that the idea of western colonialism would be powerful and it would give the LRA support that it does not enjoy now. Also, what is to be done once the LRA is removed? If the U.S forces just knock them out and leave, do we seriously believe that Uganda and South Sudan are capable of maintaining a peace? What are the odds that some other militia won't just draft these kids (there are other militias in central and sub-saharan Africa). Think about it, you would have hundreds of armed, hungry and traumatised orphans running around. This is Peter Pan from hell. You also have Kony's adult army who may not take kindly to being shot at by U.S drones and maybe, just maybe, will fight back. This would require U.S forces not just for the attack, but for the cleanup, a cleanup that would likely last a generation as these kids would need rehabilitation and education and security to make sure another generation wouldn't go down the same path. So a generation of U.S troops in Africa. No matter what the intentions THAT will scream colonialism. Not only that, the toll that would take on the finances, logistics and most importantly emotions of the families and the countries that send these troops off. I wouldn't blame an American mom who didn't want her son dying in Africa or a U.S taxpayer who didn't want to finance another seemingly neverending overseas conflict. However, a generational occupation IS what would be required, with the hope that Uganda will become more interested in ending child slavery than erradicating homosexuals, which at present they are not.
Finally, remember that in all of this, IC is a group of white kids from California. Not one member of their board is African. They are advocating military intervention in Africa from San Diego. They are telling the Africans what they need, not asking them. That reeks of a colonial mentality to me. It shows no respect for the very people they are trying to help and in fact their entire approach suggests that they have little respect for Africans as equals.
So to sum up with a comparison:
Is Kony a bad guy? yes
should he have to face justice? yes
was Saddam Hussein a bad guy? yes
should he have had to face justice? yes
do the Iraqi people appreciate the U.S invasion? nope
did invading Iraq to get him do more harm than good to the Iraqi people? yes
would it be any different in central Africa? ______ (you tell me)
has western intervention ever ended well, anywhere, in the long run? _______ (you tell me)
Finally, as a side argument. Rwanda. We sat by and watched a genocide. Terrible. Except that western intervention was the root of that same genocide. German colonists showed up in the 19th century and saw two groups. One group, the Hutu, we short and dark. The other group, the Tutsi, were taller and whiter. 19th century western values assumed the Tutsi must be better (I mean, just look at them, their noses are bigger). So the German (and Belgian colonial government after WWI) educated Tutsi and put them in positions of power while making the Hutu virtual serfs. As you can imagine the Hutu didn't care for this arrangement and after WWII they drove the Belgians out and started getting revenge. The Tutsi fought back. Belgians interfered, the French interfered (the French even assassinated a former Rwandan president in 1980). It just got worse. Finally 1993. We watch and are damned for it, outcry at this genocide that came "out of nowhere". But then Kurt Cobain shot himself and we all forgot about it. We left Rwandans to fix their own mess totally abandoned by us heartless, fat, colonialists........and they are doing a darn fine job of it. Imagine that. All westerners have sent over since 1993 are educators and food and Rwandans are building a lasting peace all by themselves (Rwanda is hailed in Africa as a 21st century African success story). They have a long way to go, but they are doing more in 20 years than colonial governments did in 120. Maybe these Africans aren't as dumb as groups like IC think they are? Maybe if we treated them like a neighbour down on his luck rather than a child who needs a spanking and a handout they'd do just fine on their own. BTW - I'm not saying that the UN shouldn't have provided a safe place for people fleeing genocide to go in 1993, that was cowardly. However, the Germans, Belgians and French are as much to blame as anyone else and the best thing any of them ever did for Rwanda was leave.
So before deciding to support this group, make sure you understand what it is that you are supporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.