Humanitarianism in Africa

Humanitarianism in Africa is humanitarian effort in the continent of Africa. Reasons for humanitarian aid are attributed but not limited to poor living conditions, overbearing poverty, and natural disasters. Sources for humanitarianism in African countries can be domestic or an act of foreign aid.

Public Image of Africa

Media coverage of current events in Africa result heavily influences public opinions in Western societies. Africa is often portrayed as a continent plagued with extreme poverty and genocidal warfare. However, it is also portrayed as a nation on the brink of becoming “civilized” if only more developed foreign nations would intervene. Media is often criticized as failing to report positive movements within African countries. As a result, foreign nations often view Africa as one of the two extremes.^[1] While the media depicts these extremes, it fails to report the success of local governments and domestic efforts by African countries to aid themselves.

Challenges

Humanitarianism in Africa faces several challenges to date. Several western governments have introduced legislation that criminalizes terrorist organizations. While this is beneficial, it inadvertently ends up causing complications for humanitarian aid organizations because the anti-terrorist legislation does not make a difference between intentional and unintentional support to terrorist groups. Any commodities that end up in terrorist hands causes the people responsible for its distribution to be held criminally liable. This poses a large problem for humanitarian aid organizations that work in war-torn areas – specifically those areas which are oftentimes ruled by terrorist organizations as most organizations cannot say that 100% of their commodities get distributed to the original demographic it was meant for. The only exemption from criminal prosecution is medical assistance. Unfortunately some aid organizations do not bother to negotiate access to regions where terrorist groups have a strong presence. Consequently those who need this aid are the ones forced to pay the consequences. War-torn regions such as Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan have had villages attacked in response to their receiving aid from organizations because it was aimed at attaining allegiance. Aid in this regard can also then be seen as a tool or weapon of war. A prime example of this can be demonstrated through the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Paradoxes of Humanitarianism in Africa.^[2]

Since 9/11 many humanitarian organizations have directed their aid with western political agendas – this can be seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not new however – aid was similarly distributed during the cold war. However there are other organizations such as Al qaida that in 2011 used aid to win the hearts and minds of the Somalian population. It can be seen then that the best interests of the population receiving aid is not always the reason for distribution of aid from organizations but rather to influence the vulnerable. Aid should be given only on the basis of our shared humanity.^[3]

Genocide

Genocide is the deliberate mass murder of individuals with a shared identity. The Rwandan Genocide resulted in the death of thousands of Rwandans. Media coverage was prevalent during the gruesome event. From April 6 to July 16, 1994, a mere 100 days, an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 Tutsis were believed to have been slaughtered. At height of the slaughtering, it was projected that six people were being slaughtered every minute.^[4] As a result of the extreme violence, there was great public outcries from other nations to put an end to the slaughtering. As a result of the genocide, Western interest in Africa was heightened, as well as humanitarian organizations. Unfortunately, while genocide continues to shock nations, many nations have accepted that this a characteristic of Africa. Genocide is often depicted as a common occurrence within the continent.

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is a serious epidemic in Africa which has claimed the lives of millions. It continues to be one of the leading causes of death amongst countries in Africa. Reported cases of HIV/AIDS have increased from 8 million to 34 million by the end of 2011 worldwide. At height of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, life expectancy began to drop in certain countries.The number of people being diagnosed with AIDS and dying from the illness continues to increase. In 2011, 23.5 million children and adults were estimated to be living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. And in sub-Saharan Africa alone, 1.2 million children and adults have died due to the disease.^[5] The severe outbreak of HIV/AIDS called for immediate attention. A number of countries began to implemented large-scale prevention programs in order to contain the outbreaks. Despite having the largest prevention program in the world, South Africa is estimated to have had 370,000 new infections in 2012. Senegal however, has been successful in maintaining low HIV statistics among the population. The success of the country is attributed to early initiative and political factors.^[6]

Food Insecurity

According to the USDA, food insecurity is separated into two categories: low food security and very low food security. Low food security is defined as reports of reduced food quality and variety, where as very low food security reflects reduced food intake.^[7] Food insecurity is a leading cause behind humanitarian efforts. Approximately 854 million people around the world are reported to live in food insecurity. Of this, 60% of these people live in sub-Saharan Africa or south Asia.^[8] Of the 600 million people residing in sub-Saharan Africa, 200 million people are chronically malnourished. Over 40 million children are malnourished while 50 million suffer from vitamin deficiency.^[9] Lack of proper nutrition can be attributed to governmental, social, or environmental factors. Individuals experience food insecurity may be dependent of food aid for survival, which may be provided through foreign aid.

On October 23, 2014, the United States Agency for International Development announced a $75 million food security program to aid Madagascar’s chronic food insecurity problem. The USDA defines the programs as “a sign of the United States’ renewed commitment to Madagascar.” ^[10]

Critique

Ethnocentrism is use of one's societal values to judge the values of another society. Ethnocentrism can also result in one using their as a blueprint for other cultures—ultimately causing one to pass judgment on the other culture. These judgments are often negative and detrimental.

Critics of foreign humanitarian efforts in Africa argue that Western society’s obsession with “saving” Africa bear traces of ethnocentrism. Western ethnocentric perception of Africa results in it being viewed as less civilized and developed. Thus, these views perpetuate Africa’s appearance as an inferior country. As a result, the continent Africa is painted as helpless without foreign intervention. Names of organizations, which call for Westerners to “save the children,” reflect this notion

While Western efforts have good intentions, critics argue that movements paint Africa as helpless without Western aid. Many critics have also brought up the neglect of domestic humanitarian efforts. Media coverage often shows Western organizations aiding impoverished sub-Saharan countries, yet fail to acknowledge inter-country activism and efforts. ^[11]

Furthermore, some argue that foreign aid were not beneficial to impoverished nations. It is argued that aid programs sponsored by rich countries merely shift food surpluses with the countries, thus causing it to be an ineffective form of aid. Western societies also encourage the education of African’s yet “fail to encourage” them to return to their home continent.^[12]

The White Man’s Burden

The term The White Man’s Burden was coined to represent the duty of White race to bring Western society and education to non-White colonies. The term reflects the view that it is ultimately up to the West to save “lesser” nations. The source of these beliefs are embedded deeply in racism, regarding the White race as superior. This notion was prevalent during imperialism and colonialism. Critics argue that the shadows left behind imperialism and colonialism are still present in modern society; that western society has still failed to let go of the concept of “White Burden.” As a result of this shadow, Westerns have projected “White Burden” onto Africa. Western society’s promotion that is up to the responsibility of Westerners to save an entire nation reflects this. This notion is argued to be the new white man’s burden. ^[13]

Counter Argument

While critics of foreign humanitarianism in Africa argue it to be rooted in ethnocentrism, others argue that foreign aid is crucial for Africa to begin to sustain itself. That the act of financially aiding a country in need could not be detrimental. The work of foreign nations would allow the continent to eventually sustain itself and “feed itself”—addressing issues of extreme poverty in the nation. While this may be reflective of "The White Man's Burden," it is argued that Western nations are more developed scientifically and could then produce resources to assist the continent. Some argue that Africa’s current state is due to the shadows of imperialism and colonialism, and thus it is up to foreign nations to assist the continent.

Paradoxes of Humanitarianism in Africa

Humanitarian aid can therefore be considered a paradox in certain situations because instead of alleviating war, pain and suffering it can actually prolong them. Western society believes that the risk of a wounded soldier returning to conflict after being healed is better than leaving him or her to die where they are. This however, tends to prolong conflict. An extreme example of this can be seen through the Rwandan refugee camps that were formed along the border of Rwanda in 1994. The Rwandan army and the Interahamwe militias used the camps as a base to launch an attack and finish the genocide which had begun earlier that year in April. The militia was able to control the population through humanitarian aid and did not permit the return to Rwanda. Through these events they were also able to gain a considerably large amount of money through the humanitarian aid efforts. If and when it is found that aid is doing more harm than good, then that aid needs to be evaluated and stopped by the organization.^[14]

Celebrity Humanitarianism

Thanks to an increase in “celebrity humanitarianism” a phenomenon that has arisen in the past few decades, many celebrities are now seen as global Samaritans, political activists, and celebrity diplomats. Some of the most popular spokespersons on behalf of Africa include many famed celebrities such as Robert (Bob) Geldof and Bono (Paul David Hewson) along with Angelina Jolie and George Clooney. The debate surrounding “celebrity humanitarianism” is very controversial as many argue that they are instrumental to the development of Africa, while others argue that they are in fact detrimental to the development of Africa. Humanitarian actors such as Jolie, Clooney, Bono and Geldof come from western society and help to perpetuate the conceptualization and imagery of Africa as childlike in a western neo-colonial political framework. Africa has come to be a place that has a specific role in the neoliberal international system; it has become a place thanks to western stereotypes that needs to be saved from poverty, disease, and climate. Many argue that only westerners and celebrities are portrayed as saviors in the media while ignoring the very real local and regional progress as well as the movements and philanthropic work done by Africans themselves.

Overall celebrity involvement has been viewed positively especially from the United Nations (UN), World Economic Forum (WEF), and many western non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who have used them as spokespeople or participants in their activities. The criticism mainly centers around the effectiveness of aid in the development process and real knowledge of the problems faced in Africa. Those who object to celebrity humanitarianism question not only question the knowledge of celebrities regarding African problems but also their ability to explain the issues since typically Africa is portrayed by them as a place that needs saving but the progress in Africa remains ignored. The debate and criticism also calls into question of celebrity humanitarianism acting as the process of subjectivization which produces imagery and “truths” of the third-world Africa. Historical and political practices generally stem from popular figures in colonial history who have dictated the current narrative that the world at large hears of Africa. In this narrative, westerners and missionaries were seen as the saviors and heroes of freedom and civilization, and aimed to fight barbarianism by being champions of the enlightened world. They aimed to do this by bringing both freedom and civilization to a dark continent which was viewed as savage, backwards and dangerous. For these reasons, western intervention was justified by the causes of bring progress, reason and civilization to a place that needed it. As a result, Africa began to emerge as an empowered continent thanks to the westernization, a passive helpless victim of turmoil and disease, or a chaotic viral ground.

Another critical objection comes from the feminist view where celebrity humanitarian actors show a gendered division when it comes to the support of humanitarian causes. Men such as George Clooney, Bono, and Bob Geldof promote humanitarian causes by meeting with governmental officials and representatives while women such as Mia Farrow, Audrey Hepburn, and Angelina Jolie are acknowledged and well known for their involvement with women and children in areas of crisis. It is argued that this depicts a view that “rational” men have a better grasp and understanding of politics while “emotional” women are better suited to caring and dealing with household or societal issues. In this regard, celebrity humanitarianism is viewed to be constituted and constructed of racial, class-specific, and gendered limits.

Geldof, Bono, and Jolie have all met with high-profile political and financial leaders in the world and are celebrated in the press as heroes who are fighting against the western elite by declaring the truths of Africa and its politics. Jolie’s work mainly involves charities such as the Jolie-Pitt foundation and she is involved as a UN appointed Goodwill Ambassador for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 2001. Bono and Geldof are known for their contributions through mainly charity concerts and records. Subsequently, they have become household names and central spokesmen for the various campaigns for Africa such as the cancellation of Third World debt, which was followed by the organization of other Africa-related campaigns and events, such as DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa), Product Red, Live 8 and Make Poverty History which George Clooney is also known for his involvement with.

However criticism arises as to their humanitarianism approaches because they are sometimes viewed as contradictory which results in differing images of Africa. From the feminist point of view, as artists their identities are said to lend an ambiguity to class, gender, and race. The men are feminized as artists however they convey a very white and hypersexual masculinity through their punk rock music which provides them the platform to act politically or as TIME magazine once said, to “rock the establishment”. Bono and Geldof’s representation of Africa was further strengthened as references were made to their working/lower-middle-class post-colonial Irish backgrounds. Jolie’s colorful past shows traces of masculinity but that was overcome through specific acts of femininity. In an article by the New York Times in October 2005, her bodily presentation – her hair and attire lent her an additional air of credibility as a humanitarian actor as it claimed: “Ms. Jolie stood poised and serious, her hands clasped behind her back, her sexy, streaky hair pinned up in a compassionate bun. Black was the color of her pearls, eyeliner, sleeveless silk dress, and the blurry tattoo on her arm that once bore the name Billy Bob.” Jolie’s disengagement from her hedonistic class privileges along with a public image makeover strengthened her position to be an advocate of humanitarian aid in Africa. Additional criticism arises as Bono gains even more credibility by discussing his Irish background and likening the past of the Irish colonial dispossession under the British to Africa. Bono and Geldof’s humanitarianism was enabled due to their masculinized disadvantaged backgrounds and pasts while Jolie’s humanitarianism was enabled because of her motherhood which was intertwined with her humanitarian work as she adopted children.^[15]

Current Humanitarianism

Organizations asking others to assist Africa are omnipresent. They can be found at a wide variety of institutions and schools. Even television commercials asking for charitable donations to “sponsor” or feed a child are not uncommon in Western countries. There is also a myriad of organizations within the West with the mission to help aid poor African countries. These organizations attempt to settle issues from sustainable water source to education.^[16]

Notes

References

• McColl, Karen (2008). Can We Feed the World?, BMJ: British Medical Journal.
• Conway, Gordan and Susan Sechler, "Helping Africa Feed Itself", Science.
• Ottaway, Marina, "Africa", Foreign Policy
• Sen, Amartya, "The Man without a Plan: Can Foreign Aid Work?"
• Osman, Jamal. "Al-Qaida and the Politics of Aid in Somalia."
• Repo, Jemima, and Riina Yrjölä. "The gender politics of celebrity humanitarianism in Africa." , International Feminist Journal of Politics .