Thank you, Globalists, for providing these insights into overlooked crises. We Americans need to start paying more attention to what goes on around the world.
I have been peripherally aware of the situation in Africa for some time, and greatly appreciate the detail you provide.
However, it's one thing to know about a problem, but what can be done about it? Sending "lawyers, guns and money" doesn't seem useful. Sending food might be, but that might only empower those already with the guns and money.
I suspect that many people turn away from paying attention to Africa because they do not see what can be done to improve the situation.
"Peripherally" is right. A few refugees from North Kivu showed up in town, then a Congolese congregation started, but I was imagining a small insurgency in a rural province, not the Thirty Years' War.
Exactly. The Africans wanted the whites out so that they could rule themselves. They got what they wished for. I suspect most people believe that nothing we can do will change the situation there, so there is 'loss of affect'. If anyone has any new ideas about how we can keep them from killing each other, let's hear them. As for all that cobalt, etc under the ground there ... I have confidence that the Chinese, who are most unsentimental about these things, will find a way to get at it.
I wouldn't be so confident in China's ability to do that. As the world has learned recently, conflict can very much result in the failure of a critical commodity--in Ukraine's case, grain--to reach global markets, and when it does, the whole world feels the impact. Most of the mining concessions in DRC are not, in any event, Chinese: I couldn't find recent figures (I didn't look hard), but in 2011, at least 25 international mining companies were active in the DRC according to Datamonitor 360: Canadian-domiciled companies had the largest presence; with nine in total. Seven firms were incorporated in Australia; three in South Africa; two in the United Kingdom; two in the United States; and one each from China, Morocco, and Switzerland.
The sentiment that there's "nothing we can do" is, I think, unrealistic. These are problems caused by humans, so they can be solved by humans. Conflicts in Africa seem very far-away and exotic, but that's mostly because we never hear about them in the news. There's no reason, inherently, why this region couldn't be peaceful and prosperous. If you arrived from another planet and landed in Europe in 1915, or 1940, you might conclude that these people are simply too violent and barbarous ever to govern themselves. You'd have been wrong: This is now one of the wealthiest regions of the world, and until recently, it enjoyed one of the longest peaceful periods in European history. Human beings start wars--and they can end them, too: It's not some intractable force of nature.
What outsiders can *constructively* do is a good question: Often, foreign involvement makes things worse. But that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea; sometimes it makes things better. It's worth studying interventions that work and those that didn't to get a better feel for what can be constructively done.
By "intervention," I don't necessarily mean military intervention (though at times the interposition of a UN Peacekeeping force can be very helpful). I mean diplomatic engagement, investment (which can be subject to political agreements), and even just positive or negative publicity and moral pressure. Putting pressure on mining firms to renounce slave and child labor is certainly a worthwhile intervention, for example.
And direct aid can also be useful, but has to be *very* carefully done: Aid and the dependency it creates has arguably been more harmful to this region than helpful. But certain kinds of aid are very effective under certain circumstance--micro-loans to women, for example, or training local healthcare providers. The CDC's training of health ministries throughout Africa has unquestionably been helpful.
(continued) engagement, investment (which can be subject to political agreements), and even just positive or negative publicity and moral pressure. Putting pressure on mining firms to renounce slave and child labor is certainly a worthwhile intervention, for example.
And direct aid can also be useful, but has to be *very* carefully done: Aid and the dependency it creates has arguably been more harmful to this region than helpful. But certain kinds of aid are very effective under certain circumstance--micro-loans to women, for example, or training local healthcare providers. The CDC's training of health ministries throughout Africa has unquestionably been helpful.
Scholarships for bright Africans, sure ... although maybe that just helps brain drain. So building more decent schools there, perhaps.
But we have to face reality. Europe may have looked hopeless in 1939 -- 'midnight in the century' -- but then emerged into broad sunlit uplands, save for the part under Communist rule, where even now the wheel is still spinning.
But the Europeans had previously evolved a high civilization. They weren't living in mud huts. How did they do this (evolve from mud huts to cathedrals)? Can the process be repeated, internally, organically, for the Africans, at a faster tempo? We all thought it would, sixty years ago.
But if benevolent aliens had landed in Europe in about 5 000 BC, could they brought modernity in a generation or two?
If anyone has any ideas about how to do this, let's hear them. (Can we rule out sending soldiers to Somalia to deal with the warlords? )
And really, we ought to have a good discussion about economic/social development in general. A good place to start would be Latin America -- clearly, some progress has been made, when we contrast the place today, with the period not long ago when much of it were ruled by death-squad militaries. And it's never been a basket-case like many African countries seem to be. But the path up doesn't seem very straight. Why? Those darned Argentines -- mostly all descendants of Europeans, but addicted to all the funny-money nostrums the Europeans have rejected.
Here's my contribution to the discussion, a cheer-you-up website stuffed with data: https://HumanProgress.org -- always worth a look if the current news has put you into a depression.
There's lots that can be done. Rarely is "sending stuff" the right answer, although sometimes it helps. Intelligent diplomatic engagement and pressure can help a lot. I'll put this question directly to the people who've written for us and ask them what they hope for in writing about this. One thing is sure: They want their story to be told. Hearing it may be the most important thing you can do for them.
Thank you, Globalists, for providing these insights into overlooked crises. We Americans need to start paying more attention to what goes on around the world.
I have been peripherally aware of the situation in Africa for some time, and greatly appreciate the detail you provide.
However, it's one thing to know about a problem, but what can be done about it? Sending "lawyers, guns and money" doesn't seem useful. Sending food might be, but that might only empower those already with the guns and money.
I suspect that many people turn away from paying attention to Africa because they do not see what can be done to improve the situation.
"Peripherally" is right. A few refugees from North Kivu showed up in town, then a Congolese congregation started, but I was imagining a small insurgency in a rural province, not the Thirty Years' War.
Exactly. The Africans wanted the whites out so that they could rule themselves. They got what they wished for. I suspect most people believe that nothing we can do will change the situation there, so there is 'loss of affect'. If anyone has any new ideas about how we can keep them from killing each other, let's hear them. As for all that cobalt, etc under the ground there ... I have confidence that the Chinese, who are most unsentimental about these things, will find a way to get at it.
I wouldn't be so confident in China's ability to do that. As the world has learned recently, conflict can very much result in the failure of a critical commodity--in Ukraine's case, grain--to reach global markets, and when it does, the whole world feels the impact. Most of the mining concessions in DRC are not, in any event, Chinese: I couldn't find recent figures (I didn't look hard), but in 2011, at least 25 international mining companies were active in the DRC according to Datamonitor 360: Canadian-domiciled companies had the largest presence; with nine in total. Seven firms were incorporated in Australia; three in South Africa; two in the United Kingdom; two in the United States; and one each from China, Morocco, and Switzerland.
The sentiment that there's "nothing we can do" is, I think, unrealistic. These are problems caused by humans, so they can be solved by humans. Conflicts in Africa seem very far-away and exotic, but that's mostly because we never hear about them in the news. There's no reason, inherently, why this region couldn't be peaceful and prosperous. If you arrived from another planet and landed in Europe in 1915, or 1940, you might conclude that these people are simply too violent and barbarous ever to govern themselves. You'd have been wrong: This is now one of the wealthiest regions of the world, and until recently, it enjoyed one of the longest peaceful periods in European history. Human beings start wars--and they can end them, too: It's not some intractable force of nature.
What outsiders can *constructively* do is a good question: Often, foreign involvement makes things worse. But that doesn't mean it's inherently a bad idea; sometimes it makes things better. It's worth studying interventions that work and those that didn't to get a better feel for what can be constructively done.
By "intervention," I don't necessarily mean military intervention (though at times the interposition of a UN Peacekeeping force can be very helpful). I mean diplomatic engagement, investment (which can be subject to political agreements), and even just positive or negative publicity and moral pressure. Putting pressure on mining firms to renounce slave and child labor is certainly a worthwhile intervention, for example.
And direct aid can also be useful, but has to be *very* carefully done: Aid and the dependency it creates has arguably been more harmful to this region than helpful. But certain kinds of aid are very effective under certain circumstance--micro-loans to women, for example, or training local healthcare providers. The CDC's training of health ministries throughout Africa has unquestionably been helpful.
(continued) engagement, investment (which can be subject to political agreements), and even just positive or negative publicity and moral pressure. Putting pressure on mining firms to renounce slave and child labor is certainly a worthwhile intervention, for example.
And direct aid can also be useful, but has to be *very* carefully done: Aid and the dependency it creates has arguably been more harmful to this region than helpful. But certain kinds of aid are very effective under certain circumstance--micro-loans to women, for example, or training local healthcare providers. The CDC's training of health ministries throughout Africa has unquestionably been helpful.
Well, no decent person would argue with you on this, 'this' being the idea that if we can do something, we should, at least in principle.
Surely the little things that can be should be done. I donate to Kiva, and urge everyone to follow suit. [https://www.kiva.org/lend-beta/2371007]
Scholarships for bright Africans, sure ... although maybe that just helps brain drain. So building more decent schools there, perhaps.
But we have to face reality. Europe may have looked hopeless in 1939 -- 'midnight in the century' -- but then emerged into broad sunlit uplands, save for the part under Communist rule, where even now the wheel is still spinning.
But the Europeans had previously evolved a high civilization. They weren't living in mud huts. How did they do this (evolve from mud huts to cathedrals)? Can the process be repeated, internally, organically, for the Africans, at a faster tempo? We all thought it would, sixty years ago.
But if benevolent aliens had landed in Europe in about 5 000 BC, could they brought modernity in a generation or two?
If anyone has any ideas about how to do this, let's hear them. (Can we rule out sending soldiers to Somalia to deal with the warlords? )
And really, we ought to have a good discussion about economic/social development in general. A good place to start would be Latin America -- clearly, some progress has been made, when we contrast the place today, with the period not long ago when much of it were ruled by death-squad militaries. And it's never been a basket-case like many African countries seem to be. But the path up doesn't seem very straight. Why? Those darned Argentines -- mostly all descendants of Europeans, but addicted to all the funny-money nostrums the Europeans have rejected.
Here's my contribution to the discussion, a cheer-you-up website stuffed with data: https://HumanProgress.org -- always worth a look if the current news has put you into a depression.
There's lots that can be done. Rarely is "sending stuff" the right answer, although sometimes it helps. Intelligent diplomatic engagement and pressure can help a lot. I'll put this question directly to the people who've written for us and ask them what they hope for in writing about this. One thing is sure: They want their story to be told. Hearing it may be the most important thing you can do for them.