Kony 2012
 

I'm sure by now you've heard of this, what do you think about it?

While I'm glad more and more people are becoming aware of the ongoing conflict and war crimes committed in Uganda, I'm a little wary that a) we're singling out one person as if he was the cause of all of this, instead of the effect of colonialism, b) Invisible Children is advocating for US military intervention, when the US military has been trying to hunt him down and has been unsuccessful at best and exasperating at worst. Wasn't the notion that white people know best and should invade what started the whole thing?

I'm hearing that he's not even in Uganda.

Fuck, I don't know what the shit's going on with this. But something seems weird about the whole damned thing. Something about children being taken and turned into killing machines. While that's probably true, I'm skeptical that this is such a black and white good guy bad guy scenario. There's something bigger going on here and it kinda stinks.

http://ericswanderings.wordpress.com...d-joseph-kony/

Hmmm. Kony's a dick, but IC doesn't seem much better.

Thats the problem. He is no good, but the alternatives are no better. And as Saya said, colonialism caused the problem, and now they are basically asking America to invade yet another country.

There are no good solutions to this problem.

I wouldn't say the alternatives are no better, its just that the current Ugandan government is just the lesser evil and we probably shouldn't settle for that.

There must be solutions, such as helping Ugandans who are already there and understand the problems better than anyone, interloping instead of helping doesn't seem to be it.

PS since posting here I've witnessed on facebook, twitter and tumblr white people getting mad at Ugandans and people of colour for pointing out the colonialist attitudes displayed. Seriously, on the local facebook event after a Ugandan man pointed out no one here attends the fundraisers we've had for Uganda, and the situation is a lot more complicated than IC is saying, a white chick called him a moron. A MORON. Clearly she knows better than people who lived this all their lives because she just saw a half hour youtube video. I'm tempted to start a colonialist activist tumblr to record this shit, its distressing.

It will be interesting to see if the internet can take this guy down. As we all know it's already taken down several north African dictators, maybe it can succeed here as well.

This is why I don't want to touch this thing with a 10 meter pole. I don't know the entire story, therefore I feel it's unfair to march forward until an understanding of the situation is established. While Kony deserves justice, I think it's prudent to remember that autonomy is paramount.

I def. got convinced by the whole documentary when I watched it the other day, but after reading into it more I feel pretty iffy.

I'm so emotional that cute little babies, crying boys, and group "feelgoodness" can convince me of anything. And I'm sure those emotions are taken into account by IC. .. and whatever motives they may have whether good or bad. I still don't really know what side to be on.

A new requirement before sharing the Kony video.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...12157_700b.jpg

http://9gag.com/gag/3212157

http://www.independent.ie/world-news...a-3045148.html

Joseph Kony 2012: Viral movie watched by 46m in four days sparks outrage in Uganda

I don't think there's really sides, and I don't think its a bad thing to care about this. What's problematic is the people who assume they know whats best for Uganda, without consulting Ugandans, and without educating themselves further.

I totally recommend picking up the memoir A Thousand Sisters by Lisa Shannon. After seeing Lisa Ling on Oprah talking about the situation for women in the DR Congo, she started fundraising for Women For Women International, and went over there. I like it because she becomes more aware of her privilege and the importance of the agency of the Congolese. I think one of the worst things I read in the book was how apathetic the UN was to rrape victims (one telling her, "its just cultural here".)

Her response to Kony kinda bothered me. She doesn't like the focus on IC and isn't donating to them, but overall she agrees the US should intervene to capture him, and only says that Ugandans she's spoken to before thinks its a good idea. I just don't think its a good idea to speak for Ugandans, even if they said that before things could have changed since 2010 when she was there, and its just anecdotal information right now.

I think my biggest fear is that people will get so upset for a short enough time for the US to justify expanding in Africa, and then get compassion fatigue or even just forget all about it. I don't think the campaign has much lasting power, especially if Kony is captured, to get people to really learn and care about the problems of central Africa.

I have a friend in Uganda at the moment, she has been doing aid work there for a few years now, and quite frankly she is sickened at the number of friends she has who have gotten all caught up in this yet never before gave a fuck about the situation or about the work her organization is doing there. She started in '07 when things were still pretty fucking bad but she has seen how much better it has gotten since then, sure there have been a few setbacks but overall just about everything in Uganda has been on a steady path of improvement and that drastic intervention at this point looks like it would do more harm than good.

From what I have read (which is admittedly somewhat limited) and what I have learned from my friend if people really want to help fix the ongoing problems in Uganda military intervention isn't really the way to go, chasing after a foe who was essentially forced to flee the country years ago just seems like a waste of time and resources that could better be spent on other thing.

It always happens. Privileged people don't care about an issue until enough time has passed that it's safe to have a position on it, yet not enough time has passed that it can still be called an 'issue'.
Same thing happened in Juarez. It's only until last year or two years tops that you get the hipsters coming from UCLA and NY to 'tell the story of Juarez'

Alan, I'm curious: what would having "privileged people" care sooner about the issue (before enough time had passed so that it was safe to have a position) do to improve the situation?

Well, considering the LRA has left Uganda into other countries, perhaps pushing for the solution of pumping money and arms into the Ugandan army and sending in American troops is probably too little too late.

While you have a fair point, I don't think that solution would have worked while the LRA was active in Uganda either. So, what could they have done besides pumping money and guns that would have improved the situation?

First off I disagree with that point, the LRA would not have been nearly as effective if there was a significant force resisting them, they were able to get away with so many atrocities because the opposition was undermanned and inadequately armed. I'm not saying that it would have magically ended the LRA immediately or even easily but the fact that eventually enough strength was gathered to force them out of the country indicates that if the people of Uganda had additional support it would have certainly helped that to happen much more rapidly.

Helping to bring political and economic stability to the area has proven to be a nice deterrent to such chaotic upheaval in other areas so that may have been something we could have tried but that would have required us to be proactive, which the US isn't too keen on. While the conflict was at its height the least that people should have done is to help provide basic necessities to the people who had to flee their homes. Or if you are asking what could have been done immediately following the LRA's departure from Uganda help for the victims would have been nice, many people received horrific injuries, with little access to high quality medical care that could give them significantly increased quality of life, assistance with education and job skills would have been great (after all chaos and fear do not breed the best learning environment and when you are worried about your life and the lives of your loved ones you tend to focus on security more than learning a trade), food distribution is another awesome thing that could have been done, a major problem was the same thing seen in Ethiopia not a shortage of food but an inability to get a lot of it where it is needed. The list could go on for pages but hopefully that paints a clear enough picture.

It isn't as though there weren't people doing any of those things, there were and to a degree there still are, they just didn't have enough support, both in numbers of people and in funding, to make nearly as much of a difference as they could have if people had cared when it was needed the most.

Where has the introduction of superior firepower resulting in an insurgency being fully suppressed been the case in the past? We're talking about an army of maybe 15,000 at the most (including child soldiers). Introducing superior firepower would probably result in the same conditions that occurred in Iraq with the surge: temporary reductions in terrorist activity that don't necessarily win the war.

Also, as far as I'm aware the LRA still operates in Uganda. Maybe not the capacity they did during the '90s and '00s, but they're still committing atrocities. I'd guess that the reduction in their assaults in Uganda has more to do with the fact that it had been almost 20 years since they started operations and their movement is losing steam.

Except that a lot of this happened during LRA's time in Uganada and still didn't change the situation. Uganda was receiving something to the tune of 57 million euros from the UK alone, and roughly one billion US dollars to aid through government and third party programs.

The basic necessities, access to medical care, job/education assistance and food distribution that you're describing were all given at least 50 million US dollars each (medical care was given 200 million US dollars) during and after the LRA's time in Uganda.

Exactly how much more support is required to achieve the desired results?

I can't find any figures on the number of volunteers in Uganda, so I can't really argue that point on the basis that I've got no data.

You hit the point I'm trying to make by mentioning Ethiopia (I was thinking more of Somalia, but either example works). The problems are internal; unstable governments, poor distribution systems and lack of internal security. I don't see any solution where anyone from the West could have improved this, short of an occupation, and even then I don't see that working.

The situation in Iraq and the situation in Uganda aren't really comparable for a few reasons but in this one the clearest is that in Uganda it isn't a war with a well funded, organized structure that has imbedded itself within the local communities. You are dealing with a relatively small group that is not using politics but force to drive itself. The influx of arms and possibly troops that I was talking about would not have been for a strike force to take these guys down but to police and offer protection, after all it becomes pretty damn hard to build an army of children soldiers if the children are well protected against kidnappers.

They are operating in some of the more remote areas but most of Uganda has become relatively safe, not that it is a utopia but things are a far cry from what they used to be and it is to a point where things have mostly become internally manageable.

Throwing money at something is not the same as offering real, tangible aid. Unless people care enough to get involved on more than just paper then a lot of that gets eaten up through bureaucracy and corruption. Especially if no specific plan details how that money is to be spent. Also $1 billion sounds like a lot but once you start really looking at providing infrastructure you realize that it doesn't actually go that far.

To put it in perspective the operating budget for my home county (I use it because I'm very familiar with the numbers from my time working for the county so if you have additional questions about the breakdown and such I can answer most of those), with a population of 312,311 people, has an annual operating budget in excess of $1billion (this is just county money and does not include any state or federal funds), this is a county with established infrastructure, the only new infrastructure cost is a new school every couple of years so that money is simply to maintain what is there and to provide services. Now I realize that I grew up in a nice county, especially our schools were well above what would be a basic expectation but still 312,311 people when Uganda has about 115 time that amount of people (35,873,253 according to the CIA factbook) and lacks a lot of basic infrastructure so that money can only be expected to go so far even if someone made a perfect plan for exactly how to spend every dollar and that plan was flawlessly carried through.

See above, you are talking as though these numbers are quite large but as a response to the actual situation they are essentially token gestures so that people can say that they did something or show support but it isn't really meaningful.

Do you want something quantitative like a dollar amount or do you want something qualitative? The well being and stability of a country (and its people) is not a short term goal that you can just check off when it is completed. It requires time, effort, and commitment.


Data is hard to find I can only go off of the experiences of people I know, all of whom worked on projects where staffing was more of an issue than funding (not that they were overflowing with money but they were paying people to fill many of the spots intended for volunteers, in many cases paying handsomely because they needed people with somewhat specific skill sets).


You don't have to occupy a place to assist in putting in infrastructure. It is all about taking things one step at a time and showing a progression toward stability, a large part of the process is psychological, there has to be definitive improvement. It doesn't all have to happen at once (and frequently trying to do that makes any real progress impossible as everything gets stretched way too thin to make a difference in any area so people just go "look at how much money we sank into this with no result").

I know that is a little vague, especially that last paragraph, I'll add more later but I have to get up for work in less than seven hours so getting all worked up is not really the best idea.

this is a very nice thread i really like this.
prize bond

Alright, so Iraq isn't the be allegory to make. How about Afghanistan?

The Taliban were:

a.) Relatively small group
b.) Using force more than politics (I'm going to argue that it was to the same degree the LRA did)
c.) In relatively the same status as the LRA is today (leader made irrelevant, largely booted from the country)

Even with the Afghani national police receiving arms, training and a good deal of money; the Taliban are still a threat to most of the country. Even with additional police and protection, you still have massacres, you still have attacks and atrocities. You might make it more difficult for them to operate, but you'll never have a solution until you address the core issue of a strong internal government. I still don't see how this could have been improved.

I get that $1b might not sound like a lot, but it actually is. Take in to consideration that $1b is in addition to the $17b usd that Uganda has in GDP, which is on par with stable countries like Nepal (who has a population of 25m).

However, even if I accept all of your premises, you still have answered the question: exactly how much more monetary support is necessary? Are you expecting another billion? 10 billion? If so, where does that money come from?

It isn't a token gesture though. You can't expect countries with the capability to provide aid to believe that if they gave aid and it didn't make a difference, then the solution to the problem must be more aid.

Also, keep in mind that this "token gesture" virtually doubled or contributed 1/3 to the country's budget (the budget is $2b, but I don't know if that's $2b with or without aid). Are you really saying that was a token gesture?

I'm going to address the idea that money isn't enough in the next paragraph.

I'm not arguing that there's a tangible difference between just giving money to a country and providing actual aid. However, there have been over 3,500 NGOs in Uganda since this whole ordeal. For us to truly say that there wasn't actual aid provided, we must believe that:

a.) The majority of these NGOs were ineffective in producing real change for reasons other than having a difficult situation to deal with.
b.) The majority of these NGOs did not have specific plans on how they were going to assist Uganda.
c.) The majority of these NGOs were ill funded.

I don't buy these premises. As far as I can tell, there were well funded organizations who had boots on the ground attempting to make real change in Uganada, and it didn't meet the necessary change.

Either will work, because what I'm trying to find out is that if the criticism of "privileged people" is that they didn't contribute enough, then what should they have contributed?

My worry is that we're running in to circular logic. The argument, to me, sounds like this:

1. Privileged people didn't contribute enough support to Uganda as they should have.
2. We know they didn't contribute enough support because a qualitative difference in Uganada didn't happen until just recently.
3. Therefore it is valid to criticise privileged people for their lack of support.

The problem is that I don't think we've justified premise 2. I think that we can agree that it's not reasonable to expect other countries to provide support indefinitely.


The thing is, I don't see where this didn't happen. As far as I can tell, you had people attempting to assist putting infrastructure in to place and it didn't work. Again, as far as I can tell you also had organizations who tried taking things one step at a time (addressing food supply routes or medical deficiencies) and that didn't work either. The whole problem I have is that I don't see an indication that everything was stretched too thin, and yet it still didn't make a difference. Maybe my perceiption is wrong, but I still haven't see any evidence of that.

The problem with looking at foreign aid that goes to the Ugandan government is that the government is pretty corrupt and god knows where exactly its going, donating to Ugandan NGOs might be a better idea. It was in the news a while ago that aid sent to deal with the malaria pandemic went to selling medicine on the black market rather than giving it out.

I hate how a large percent of these people who are getting upset over this cause have never donated to or given a shit about War Child, or any other cause. And on April whenever, the city will be plastered with posters. Everyone will pat themselves on the back, and eventually never wear their bracelets again (or wear it for the next 10 years, and tell the story of their heroic activism to anyone who looks at it).

Not to say I don't support ICs ideal, however I believe capturing one man won't solve anything. Will they keep doing these kinds of campaigns for every evil do-er?

Another thing, I've read the Ugandan army has been accused of looting, ******, and other such acts of brutality. IC is backing the lesser of the two evils, but that doesn't sit right with me.

Not to mention I have no idea if American intervention now is a good idea. Especially if they go there just to hunt down Kony, and don't provide anything else.

I don't know. I'm glad it's making people aware, but there are some shady things about the organization. There's no way I'd donate money to them or buy merchandise just because I saw a video that made me sad, and that's what people seem to be doing.

TLDR; I have a lot more reading to do on this, and I'm ridiculously bothered so many people can just throw money at something they don't fully understand.

Well yeah the organization is Kind of like Peta.

First off sorry for taking a while to get back to this, I've been a little under the weather

Eh not really, they weren't kidnapping and brainwashing people to make an army, they have used large shows of force to coerce local populations but in a very different way than the LRA and they aren't viewed with pretty much exclusive hatred by the people of Afghanistan the way that the LRA is viewed by Ugandans, after all they have been doing outreach work in poor areas, things like building wells to provide drinking water, to try and win over people's support. The situation isn't as black and white as a lot of people portray it.

Again the situations are not the same the Taliban is focused on taking out the more urbanized areas where people have more support for progressive ideas, in Uganda the LRA is not trying to take down the government, after all the government has not been responsible for any significant action against them, ever driving Kony out of the country was done via community efforts by those most affected. Having a strong government would do no good if that government did not view ending the situation as a priority.

Just because it is a large amount in comparison to what they have does not mean that it is a large amount in comparison to what they need. Also that was aid given to the government of Uganda not given directly to specific organizations and causes. Not to mention that you seem to have completely ignored the point that I was making, which is that you can't just give in proportion to what someone already has, you have to look at what it will take to accomplish what needs to be done.

A blank check wouldn't do any more good than that $1billion unless the issues of government corruption and mishandling of the funds were addressed.

It is a token gesture and the solution wouldn't be to blindly give more aid it would be to be aware of the broader situation and to realize that maybe a little planning and forethought would be a good idea.

You don't honestly think that the US government and the EU were unaware that there is corruption with the government of Uganda, do you? They gave money to look like they were doing something which totally makes it a token gesture.


Again you are looking at things in relation to what Uganda had not what they need and not in comparison to US spending. The defense budget for this year, which includes “Overseas Contingency Operations” to fight terrorism around the world, is nearly $700billion, that doesn’t include the money under the State department that is to be used to promote international diplomacy, or the Army Corp of Engineers, who I dare say could make a huge difference in a country where there is inadequate infrastructure. If the US had given almost no money but had simply dedicated a portion of that corp of engineers to assisting with projects such as building a stable electrical grid or wells for safe, reliable drinking water, I think that would have made a much larger difference.

The funny thing is that one employee of the Army Corp of Engineers did go to Uganda on his own time, his name is Tim, he went to a village in Northern Uganda to dig a well instead of having a vacation and good lord has he been used for some great publicity. Don’t get me wrong I think he is an amazing person for doing what he did but his dedication to help people has somehow been turned so that it looks like the government actually did something, even though he had to use up vacation time to do it and his church in collaboration with a church in Uganda funded the project. I read an article about him a while ago and he made some great points, the people in that village were just returning from refugee camps with deplorable conditions, they are struggling to meet their most basic needs, and most importantly even though there are organizations to provide the needed tools the people there do not have the skills or training to do everything that needs to be done.

Highly skilled workers are kind of worth their weight in gold as they can not only plan projects but supervise them and guide others in how to do the necessary labor. Unfortunately they are few and far between, thankfully now that things are growing more stable people are more willing to travel to where their skills are most badly needed but they still are far from plentiful and most go for a very short time, to complete individual projects.