Raising Nations: A Canadian's Perspective

As we have seen in the last week and a half, a video called Kony2012 has gone viral around the world. I was drawn to write about the video after walking in on a conversation at work with someone who was telling another coworker all about the horrible things Kony is doing over there. I asked is she was referring to the video, and when she said yes, I responded, it is not the full truth, and that she has a wrong perception of the place. After listening to hear try and convince me that the atrocities are happening, I asked her if she had been to Uganda. When she said no, I responded by saying I had just returned a few months back. And that everything she was trying to convince me of was not true.

To many such as my self, this video is much like a chemical that seems like a good idea, but ends up being cancerous. Just focusing on Kony and not on all social issues in the country is not a good plan. Instead of bashing the Video, as I could for hours, I will instead point out the needs of the area in contrast to the video.

Firstly, Kony is not in Uganda, the LRA is not in Uganda, and the atrocities are no longer happening as of 6 years ago. Secondly, the international community is already doing what it can and has arrest warrants through the International Criminal Courts (ICC) out for Kony’s arrest. There are arrest warrants for the president of Sudan. He is still free, and we know where he is. As well, four countries (South Sudan, Uganda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Central African Republic) are already hunting him down. 100 US soldiers only operating in Uganda wont do a thing. See first point. Seriously, not much more can be done in that regard. Thirdly, advocating sending more soldiers by an NGO operating in the same area as the LRA sets a dangerous precedence. Effectively the organization has become a hostile force against Kony. This will make it far more difficult for many NGOs to operate in the areas the 300 LRA soldiers are still living.

The area needs development in the areas of medical, education, farming and sanitation to name a few. Catching Kony is a lower priority. In my opinion, money is better spent in programs that actually help. Believe me when I say that just showing a chart does not show an accurate portrayal of expenses. Invisible children’s programs are mostly video production. While I was over there, I didn’t hear any good feedback in regards to ICs programs. I did hear that the people there would take help from anywhere. The problem is, that the focus of IC is not where it should be. Advocacy alone in the issue of Kony doesn’t help the current problems.

Though Kony is a bad person, and the atrocities he committed are horrible, Ugandans have all but moved past this, in fact they need to move past this. They need to resolve the effects of the war on the land, and who owns what parts. The medical system needs a huge boost. (Trust me I went through the system with Malaria – see my early blogs).

Many NGOs already operate in the area have far better programs and don’t need a video campaign to promote themselves, or an issue far out of date. Caritas Gulu/Caritas Prague, CARE, Save the Children, World Vision, UNICEF, UNHDR, UNDP, and a host of other NGOs that actually know what they are doing, would love the 8 million that IC operates on. And trust me, any one of those organizations would help far more children than IC will with faulty, out of date and misinformed videos will accomplish. Just for thought read this article about the Ugandans reaction after watching the Video, and ask yourself if the reaction means you are doing a good job. And please, don’t make Kony more famous. Being informed, and fixing the social problems in the country will do more to stop Kony than a viral video and lack of a sustainable plan.

This week has been a rather busy week and I haven’t had much time to do a lot of research and writing. However, I have been having this nagging feeling of going back to my interests in how nations overcome disaster.

I was looking this week at the impact of aid and the length of time that I see it taking in some places. I have read a newspaper article a while back about a town in India struck by an earthquake and it is now an economic example of recovery. (I have yet to re-find that article.) I was also watching a BBC HardTalk with the Angolan foreign minister about how that country has overcome war and is now one of the leading countries in Africa.

David Suzuki also had a segment in Japan. I was highly interested in the level of recovery that the country is able to sustain. The areas are still remarkably stained by the Tsunami, however, the rubble is being cleared, and the images which I perceived as optimistic. In high contrast, CBC’s Stoumboulopoulis story on Haiti shows a much different level of recovery.

Between these different places in recovery I am interested in how each as managed their recovery so far. I will be looking at these places in my upcoming blogs. I have an interest in the individual problems each place faces in recovery, and how they have managed to achieve their levels of success, or being unsuccessful. Examples like these may help in understanding the huge task of developing areas struck by disaster.

After seeing an article on the BBC about the ongoing dispute over the Falkland Islands and the actor Sean Penn taking sides, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue. One, because I feel his comments are completely irresponsible and rather uneducated in nature. And Two the idea that colonialism is still playing a part is rather silly, however, there may have been more truth behind Cameron’s jest about Argentina being the one acting colonial than is to be admitted.

The reason for the dispute comes from a perceived ownership by both Britain and Argentina. The first thing we need to look at is history. How has the history of these islands been shaped?

History:
The islands were first discovered by a handful of different explorers that all named the islands differently. Though which islands these explorers saw in the area is a matter for historians. Regardless the first colony was apparently French in 1764, with the British setting up a colony on the opposite island in 1765. Neither the French nor the British knew of the other colony at the time. Going on this alone, France and Britain have historical claim. However, the islands were given to spain by the French in 1767. After a slight skirmish, in 1770 between Spain and Britain on the island, peace was made and Britian remained until Revolutionary war forced them to withdraw troops 1774 (leaving a plaque asserting claim for Britian). Spain withdrew in 1806 (also leaving a plaque). Britain did not give up claim to the islands either.

Both countries sought to administer the island from thier embassy in Buenos Aires. In 1820-1821 an American pirate looking to claim the wreckage of a ship, raised a flag and perceived to claim the islands for the ‘United Provinces of the River Plate’ (to be Argentina later). He was forced off the island after 6 months. After that, two entrepreneurs from Argentinean (both of whom asked permission from the British Embassy) tried to set up operations on the island. Both failed to even reach the Island. However, Louis Vernett persisted in trying and reached the island in 1828. The United Provinces of the River Plate had asked Louis to set up a colony for them in exchange for no taxes and full resource control. He lasted until 1831. Britain came back to the island with a navel outpost in 1833. They have held it since.

Today:
The problem here comes down to claim of territory. Obviously Britain and Spain can hold their claim to the island, though Spain never reasserted this since they left in 1806. Britain did. Argentina however, tried to set up a colony, but had to ask permission from Britain (which by the way did not know of Vernetts deal to build a colony. Hence forcing him off the island in 1831.

As Britain was leaving many of its colonies to self determination in the 1960’s to 1970’s, Argentina sought this opportunity to claim the islands a brief war was fought in 1982, the outcome of which left the British in full control and then passed the law giving Falkland Islanders full British citizenship. Today, Britain firmly maintains that the status of the islands is for those living on the islands to decide.

For Argentina to claim sovereignty over an island they never controlled (without dispute) has its flaws. Argentina must prove to the world and the Islands themselves that they have no self-determination. In the end, the Falklands should be its own country, like the former colonies in Africa, and Canada. The Falklands have the choice to determine which sovereign state they wish to be with, or to be their own country. So far, the choice is to stay with Britain. No doubt so they wont be forced under Argentinean control.

I have seen some talk lately about ethically made products, and the vast amount of companies that fire employees so the company can move to another country in order to save money. Some star struck NGOs (enough project) are advocating for the ethical development of products we buy, such as consumer electronics. This has interested me in a few ways. First is providing security for the individual employee, and the second is the treatment of a labor force in a foreign country.

The progress of employee rights is something in the west that we have been doing for countless years. Ever since the industrial revolution and before, the west has changed many of the conditions for our work force. Abolishing slavery, employment of children, and of courses many other labor relation’s initiatives. These initiatives often include wages and other monetary considerations. But, in today’s world where we look at the human security factor, should economic welfare of an individual be a human right? In other words, should harming an individual’s economic security for the sake of making money be seen as a crime against humanity?

There was a news article last week about a train engine plant closing down in Canada, so the company that was making money could open the plant in another city in the United States in order to pay workers less. All the workers have essentially been laid off for the sake of extra profit. Is it ethically and morally right to fire waves of employees so that a company can make millions of dollars and pay a few more cents on each dividend on their stocks?

I would say that in the current economy, the high unemployment rate, as well as the instability of the economy, that hiring and firing employees’ cuts into individuals economic security. We all need money to live in this world; almost all of us would like to work. So when a company decides to run around the globe spending more money to set up shop in another country at the expense of employees, that to me is unacceptable.

A thought (and only take this as a thought, with many multiple ways to come at this) would be that companies should hold a year’s wages for all employees, and fifty percent a second year, (either held by the government or the company and monitored by the government) in order to provide employees an economic security from the shock of lost employment and income. This would mean that if I were an employee of a company making 50,000 a year, my employer would have the responsibility to set aside 75,000 in order to cover my economic security in the event I was let go for economic reasons.

Two things come out of this. First, the company has a responsibility to its employees. Setting aside money is a responsibility, however, it is not something we as an employee are entitled to in the event we choose to leave or retire. There are other mechanisms already in place, however, i feel they are not far reaching enough to protect the individual worker. Second, it alleviates the strain on unemployment payments by governments that currently shore up the financial whims of corporate America. Besides, why should the government have to cover the whimful decisions of corporations.

By providing this buffer zone, we decrease the employee as being the expendable choice, and instead require companies to find better economic solutions to their problems, such as cutting billions in bonuses to CEO’s that obviously haven’t performed well or even cut waste.

To fail to provide to an employees economic security and instead creating a situation of economic disaster to an individual should be seen as a crime against humanity. The reason in my mind is the downward social impact societies face.

The second consideration I mentioned is the employment by a company in a foreign country. Many companies set up shop in other countries in order to save money. Fine, if they want to go to China and employ people there instead of here, they have that right. However, the standard of employment should be maintained at the highest level. If a Canadian mining company goes to South America, they should pay the employees a fair wage. But, they should also have the same labor responsibilities held in their home country, or face penalties here. A company should not be able to run across the globe just so that they don’t have to provide safety equipment, or adequate work hours.

As a western nation with higher expectations of employment rights we should be encouraging this trend in other nations. This also means penalizing foreign countries products and companies that wish to sell to us. I know personally, I would prefer to see a higher price for a wallet, than know it was made by a child or underpaid work slave. (the difficulty here is finding the balance as many underdeveloped countries have children working to support their families. Without the work they may never escape poverty) The change comes from our tolerance and what we accept when we buy products. If we expected all individuals to be paid properly, or receive some money no matter what, there might be a lot less people in poverty.

I bet china wouldn’t be nearly as productive if the companies paid higher wages or even held western safety standards. Africa might not allow Chinese businesses to operate under their current schemes, thus making it more expensive on trade, but no savings should be at the expense of the people in those countries.

These are just my thoughts as we face a new economic reality in the world, and if changes are made, maybe the 99% can use their economic willpower to change how companies operate, or change policy to reflect economic security as a human right.

I received some information from Caritas Gulu. This is the organization I was interning at. The child sponsorship program has had some funding suddenly not available. No information was given as to why the money is no longer available. What this means is that money that had been in the budget is somehow no longer available from a donor. They are looking at $1500.00 Cdn shortfall in their program. This money had been designated to bring the students to a workshop with the other children so that they can learn in a constructive atmosphere the best ways to learn, and to allow them to step out of their current situation and allow them to be children.

The Child sponsorship is designed to help children in Northern Uganda to attend school. Each child in the program is covered for there schooling up until the end of secondary school. These are children that live in poverty, have lost parents to the Lords Resistance Army, disease, accidents. These children, due to their poverty, are also suffering in health and malnutrition. I had the privilege to see this program in person, and to see some of these children.

This program is not designed to take away the responsibility of the government in education, only to provide these children a chance to go to school and provide them opportunities to get jobs in the future. The program currently is looking after 175 students. The need is far more than what the program covers.

The program is designed to alleviate poverty as well as fulfill one of the United Nations Millennium development goals.

I will be looking at different ways to aid this program. I am just waiting on information as to where donations can be made. Whether we go through one of the donor organizations such as Caritas Prague, or directly to Caritas Gulu. Donations can also be made on this site and will be sent to Caritas Gulu. Anything raised over the needed amount will be given to cover student fees for those unable to be included into the program because of the budget. Student fees are about $50.00 Cdn a year. Most students families are unable to make this amount a year.

I was asked to write a little bit about the Arab Spring, and though this is a complicated subject to address and I am not an expert on what is going on, I will give it my best shot.

The Arab spring started in the failed uprising in Iran. That uprising gave strength to other movements across the Arab regions, and exploded in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria, with a few others as well. The latest being in Syria. Civil war, public disobedience and similar yet smaller movements in Sub-Saharan Africa have been popping up all over the place in a call for political change. Change to address the unequal conditions or suppressed desires of a nations people.

The tipping point in Tunisia was due to the high unemployment rate for university students, and the policies that suppressed economic opportunities. This has spurred a rush to democracy in every nation to follow, and a demand for representation in the government in order to change the vastly different economic hardships. Why? Because the western nations want this and that is where the wealth is. They want our money to help them recover.

The change of government style will not necessarily create stability. See Libya where the new government is still having problems gaining control over different rebel groups. Nor will the change of who is in power create stability, regardless of whether or not the current leader/dictator should go; in a western view. These governments/leaderships could ‘simply’ change policy and save some problems.

Recovery. Don’t expect recovery to happen fast. With the world in an economic recession, the ability for these nations to change their economic plight overnight is very slim. Added to that is the instability of civil war. Aid and development is highly ineffective during this time. Hostilities must end before real progress can be made. As well, in the case of Egypt, where the military government deems western NGOs a threat to the state, progress can be heavily hindered or disrupted, and you can even say violated.

The best thing for these nations is to address the peoples concerns rather than block them or suppress them. A dictatorship does not mean that a nation can’t be progressive or be a pinnacle for human rights. However, most dictators are more concerned with controlling the people than providing for them as a means to maintain authority. With the transition to democracy, the people need to understand that their views, their desires and their wants will need to compromise with those they live with. This compromise will be the difficult part when they have received so much for their efforts, which if they back down now they wont get everything they wanted. Also, those suppressed often desire to suppress those they took power from. Again another flawed outcome.

As well, the fair representation may not be equal in these states. Different religions, factions, politics may play a part in keeping the countries in a worse state or degrade situations furhter before leveling back out. In the case of the former Yugoslavia, new nations where created, ethnic fighting took place, and we saw some of the worst crimes against humanity that has left the region with scars for generations.

As you can see, these nations have a lot of work ahead of them. It will not be easy, and it may not be smooth. It could worsen, and it could spread to other nations in Africa (a particular fear of most dictators I’m sure), South America (i.e. Venezuela) and Asia (China has decent, they are just better at hiding and keeping it suppressed).

In the end, each country is different, and faces different challenges. Each can be addressed, but as nations are the determiners of their own fate, and the people vehicles of change, it really comes down to political will over years/decades not days, for change to really happen.

I heard an interesting story over the Christmas breaks about South Africa Stepping up its international aid, even though the country itself receives international aid. This is a move designed to show its economic status to the world, and to become a global player.

I however, have a problem with this move. To me it is like saying “we can give away our money because we are still receiving money.” If South Africa is becoming an economic success, then that should translate to the communities within its own borders. Education, health and food, should be available to the community. Yet, South Africa still fails in many of these areas.

This is the same problem I have with Canadian aid. We have communities at home that need the same assistance. Then again the question is whether our communities problems are self-inflicted through corruption, mismanagement or just being clueless as to what is needed to raise their community. An example is the community of Attawapiskat. What really happened there? Was the aid given not enough? Was it mismanaged?

Regardless, the problems of such communities are not just in northern Ontario. We have similar situation all over the country, and not just on native reserves.

Now the question should be – should Canada keep giving as much international development aid when we have problems of our own? Should we be digging deeper into debt to do it?

I think in the end we can stop giving aid to countries that are also aid donors. There are exceptions, and those are in the event of national disasters. I am describing aid more in the areas of development. Emergency aid is just that, an emergency. That was one of the new realities for aid in Uganda.

If South Africa wants to step onto the international stage, the country should be able to show that it can provide first for its own people. Politically motivated or not, the money it sends outside its borders is money it can spend inside its borders so the rest of the world can focus on areas in real need, such as Somalia.

I have been back in Canada for about three week, and the hardest thing is finding the free time that I had in Uganda.. I have decided that a once a week posting for Monday will be the best, until life changes again.

The differences between Canada and Uganda are very apparent. Here in Vancouver it is wet and a good ten degrees. Uganda is simmering around plus thirty and supposedly is dry. Though I heard they had a pretty powerful lightning storm the other night.

However, even though I am still in a developed nation, we in Canada still face some challenges. As my blog title states, it is about raising nations, and we in Canada can do better on many issues. Including indigenous peoples issues, poverty and how to make our economy stronger. As I dive into the world of international development, I can’t just forget about the domestic issues that we face here, and what drains our resources at home, stops us from helping abroad. It is almost like a game of Sim game.

Now that my international travel has come to an end, what is next? Currently it is finishing my last paper and gathering information to return for a documentary. This may see me returning to Uganda, hopefully in the near future. This will also fuel many of my blogs as I will be looking at the merits of programs offered by various groups, and if there might be something better that can be done.

As well, I am looking to help support the child sponsorship program put on by Caritas Gulu, supported by Caritas Prague. As you can imagine this is a slow process. The manager in Gulu has been sick the last few weeks, so I am waiting on more information from him, as soon as I have that I can look at the requirements and set up a program here that can help support students over there. The need is great, but I will look at a conservative goal. But, hopefully we can support a few more students whose families are on the verge of pulling them from school.

If successful, I may look at continuing such programs in the future.

I have been resettling into my life here in Canada and it has taken its time to get to everything I was doing in Uganda. The pace of life here is so much faster. So this will be a quick posting. Until I get the chance to sit down and write more indepth.

Leaving Uganda was bitter sweet. Returning home is always nice, but leaving the friends that I had made was a bit more difficult than expected. Now, according to my mother and brother I need to explain what a Boda is. Think of a motorcycle, then think of a guy driving the motorcycle that offers you to ride with him in exchange for money. (I hope that clarifies what a Boda is in Uganda).

I did not experience much of a culture shock upon my return, the bus ride from Gulu was fast and I was quickly on a plane to Canada. The real shock was how much I felt the cold. I will miss many things about Uganda, however, I will not be missing the missing electricity and the cold showers.

So now that I am back, what will I do? I’ve been thinking a lot about this.

I have seen and watched the need for better and more efficient ways to help. I have read about this new facebook game ‘WeTopia’ that allows gamers to aid development in other countries through advertisers donations. Interesting, but somehow I don’t think it will have the immediate impact that is expected by the 60,000 people who playing the game. So where do I start to do a better job at helping?

My four months touched me on the many problems facing development. Mainly reaching those that still need help and the lack of capacity to do so. I am still thinking about the need of many of the children that currently are having a tough time. I’ve mentioned in previous blogs that these children are now safe from the Lords Resistance Army, and that they no longer need to fear abduction from the group. The difficulty remains. The fractured families due to war, disease and poverty continues to claim on their ability to prosper. School is already difficult enough for most children over there.

Over the next few weeks, I will be looking at starting a sponsorship program that will help the existing program at Caritas Gulu. The current program can only support about 150 students a year, and there is always the ability to help just one more child receive an education. This concept is apart of the Millennium development goals and I think it is a great place to start. This is not taking over the governments responsibilities, but will enable children to stay in school and I hope with support that more children will get the chance at a full education. Maybe, even allow them to be children instead of victims.

Hello, everyone! Your friendly neighborhood admin here. Erin will be posting more very soon; he’s had a busy week, getting re-settled back in Canada and whatnot. Stay tuned!