Having written that last depressing post, I'd like to say that Uganda is actually a nice place. I'm sitting in the office right now feeling like a movie star on vacation. There's a rooster outside that's been crowing its head off all morning, birds tweeting, cows lowing, the perfect breeze coming in through the window, and the rustle of palm fronds just across the fence. Tonight, when I go home, I might just get a free massage at the gym. Well, not exactly free. I might have to tip my masseuse a whole dollar.
I was talking with Onyango this morning, chatting about the western media. "They never show something nice in Uganda, like Queen Victoria Park. Queen Victoria is beautiful. They never even show pictures of a good hotel." And there is some validity to that statement. When's the last time you saw something nice about Uganda on TV, outside of the National Geographic Channel or PBS?
Last week Onyango took me and a partner from his soon-to-be law firm out to dinner. The place was called Faze 2, and wow, not only was the food delicious, but the setting was gorgeous! We had the perfect patio seats, meat on skewers and steaks on sizzling plates, delicious fruit shakes, and excellent service. Even the smaller pubs are cute, once you get past the dusty storefront to the well-kept back patios.
It's easy for me as a westerner to criticize governmental corruption and bad hospitals, but keep in mind this country hasn't been around as long as the United States, and it has a whole lot more to deal with in terms of cultural conflict and business disputes. Think Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, and you've got an idea of what property managers deal with every day, trying to figure wrestle clear title from the Kabaka (the Baganda king), the national government, and the squatters who have been cultivating the land for decades. Try to build a new business on land like that, and see how many wars you have to contend with before you see any economic development!
But folks still manage. The people who can afford it are much more educated than we are in the U.S. My boss, for example, speaks seven languages. He has his bachelor's and master's degrees in law, and is about to return to school for a second masters in international relations. He's thinking he might get an LLM after that. Meanwhile, he owns two separate businesses, coordinates the UCICC, and is applying for a fourth job with a religious political human rights association. And he's raising a family. That's what people are like, out here. Everyone who can afford it is brilliant and industrious. It's the best way to survive.
When I write those sadder posts, please understand that this isn't the armpit of the world. Uganda is very, very rich in very many ways. That's part of what makes working to support it worthwhile. It's just that there's no public safety net. If something doesn't work in your favor, there is no welfare to fall back on, no credit line to draw on, and likely no doctor to tend to your wounds. I guess that's the biggest difference between Uganda and the United States. You've got only got one shot to live like a king. (But when you do, oh, what easy luxury!)
Showing posts with label Global Thinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Thinking. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Western Union is my best friend
The crisis is over, after only one night. I even remembered I had soup mix, so I got to eat something yesterday. Still, it gives me a little perspective on what the days must feel like for people who don't have enough to eat. I was scared.
Mom sent me enough money to live off of for weeks, bless her heart. I have to find a good way to pay her back. She and Dad always say "what is ours is yours" (honestly, they just might be the best people in the world), but days like this, when I literally feel cut off from every resource I have, mean a lot. I don't have a credit card, I don't have a bank card, international calls don't work, the power goes out, the water gets shut off, and the roads are closed down ... but I still have my family! I wish they knew. My eyes are literally welling up, right now. I love them so much.
Mom sent me enough money to live off of for weeks, bless her heart. I have to find a good way to pay her back. She and Dad always say "what is ours is yours" (honestly, they just might be the best people in the world), but days like this, when I literally feel cut off from every resource I have, mean a lot. I don't have a credit card, I don't have a bank card, international calls don't work, the power goes out, the water gets shut off, and the roads are closed down ... but I still have my family! I wish they knew. My eyes are literally welling up, right now. I love them so much.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
To my friends traveling in Africa:
Avoid South Africa! For now, anyway.
Details from my emergency travel insurance:
Security Situation Updates - South Africa
May 25, 2008 12:20 GMT
ANC Holds Rallies against Xenophobic Attacks
Members of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) organized public meetings and rallies on 25 May against the ongoing xenophobic violence in the country.
President Thabo Mbeki addressed a public gathering at Healdtown in Fort Beaufort in the Eastern Cape. ANC President Jacob Zuma and other leaders are expected to hold public meetings amid the Gugulethu community at the Bekkerton Hall in 'Springs' on the East Rand, Dawn Park community at the Mapleton open grounds, and Delomore community at the Jerusalem open ground.
Rallies are scheduled to be organized at the Etwatwa stadium, Mehlareng stadium in Themisa, Huntersfield Stadium, Orange Farm communities at the Leshata Secondry School, Raphela Secondary School, Thetha Secondary School and other areas in Gauteng with substantial immigrant population.
Security personnel backed by the military remain on high alert level particularly in the suburbs of Johannesburg to avert any further outbreak of violence.
At least 50 people have been killed and nearly 25,000 displaced in a wave of xenophobic violence that began on 11 May in Alexandra township, north-east of Johannesburg. The attacks have targeted foreigners of African origin including nationals from Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Somalia. The residents accuse the migrants for increasing crime levels within the country as also for depriving them of employment and housing. An estimated three million Zimbabweans as well as 50,000 Mozambicans are believed to be currently residing in South Africa. The mobilisation programme of the ANC is an attempt to curb the rising anti-immigrant violence and restore stability in the affected communities.
Despite deployment of military personnel in Johannesburg on 22 May, the security situation remains fragile. The subsequent spread of violence to other regions of the country including provinces of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu Natal in the east as well as in Western Cape is indicative of the deteriorating law and order situation within the country as well as government's inept handling of the crisis.
Travel disruption is likely due to the scheduled rallies and public gatherings. There remains a high possibility of further outbreak of violence targeting immigrants in the country. Foreign nationals and businesses face a high risk of being directly targeted and also face a risk of incidental violence. International SOS will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as warranted.
Details from my emergency travel insurance:
Security Situation Updates - South Africa
May 25, 2008 12:20 GMT
ANC Holds Rallies against Xenophobic Attacks
Members of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) organized public meetings and rallies on 25 May against the ongoing xenophobic violence in the country.
President Thabo Mbeki addressed a public gathering at Healdtown in Fort Beaufort in the Eastern Cape. ANC President Jacob Zuma and other leaders are expected to hold public meetings amid the Gugulethu community at the Bekkerton Hall in 'Springs' on the East Rand, Dawn Park community at the Mapleton open grounds, and Delomore community at the Jerusalem open ground.
Rallies are scheduled to be organized at the Etwatwa stadium, Mehlareng stadium in Themisa, Huntersfield Stadium, Orange Farm communities at the Leshata Secondry School, Raphela Secondary School, Thetha Secondary School and other areas in Gauteng with substantial immigrant population.
Security personnel backed by the military remain on high alert level particularly in the suburbs of Johannesburg to avert any further outbreak of violence.
At least 50 people have been killed and nearly 25,000 displaced in a wave of xenophobic violence that began on 11 May in Alexandra township, north-east of Johannesburg. The attacks have targeted foreigners of African origin including nationals from Mozambique, Malawi, Zimbabwe and Somalia. The residents accuse the migrants for increasing crime levels within the country as also for depriving them of employment and housing. An estimated three million Zimbabweans as well as 50,000 Mozambicans are believed to be currently residing in South Africa. The mobilisation programme of the ANC is an attempt to curb the rising anti-immigrant violence and restore stability in the affected communities.
Despite deployment of military personnel in Johannesburg on 22 May, the security situation remains fragile. The subsequent spread of violence to other regions of the country including provinces of Mpumalanga and KwaZulu Natal in the east as well as in Western Cape is indicative of the deteriorating law and order situation within the country as well as government's inept handling of the crisis.
Travel disruption is likely due to the scheduled rallies and public gatherings. There remains a high possibility of further outbreak of violence targeting immigrants in the country. Foreign nationals and businesses face a high risk of being directly targeted and also face a risk of incidental violence. International SOS will continue to monitor the situation and provide updates as warranted.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
China
While my focus is currently on east Africa, I couldn't neglect to mention the recent earthquake in China. The following is a repost from our Penn Law announcements.
As you may be aware from news reports, a 7.9-magnitude devastating earthquake hit the central China, Si Chuan Province, on 5/12/2008. The death toll from the disaster was raised to nearly 19,000 (the number is increasing) while tens of thousands of people remain missing and hundreds of thousands are injured. Rescue teams are now digging through collapsed buildings in schools, factories and residential areas to reach victims trapped beneath rubble. Many families lost their beloved and homes in this deadliest natural disaster in three decades in China. Survivors now are in great need of water, food and other supplies.
Many charities and non-profit organizations are now open to donation for China earthquake. If you would like to know more information with respect to ways to donate, please click the following links or contact the charities you are familiar with:
American Red Cross
http://www.redcross.org/news/in/profiles/Intl_profile_ChinaEarthquake.html
Mercy Corps
http://www.mercycorps.org/
China Red Cross
http://202.108.59.10/english/index.htm
Hong Kong Red Cross
https://www.redcross.org.hk/donation/user_donation.asp
Thank you for your concern and kindness.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
2008 Global Health Career Day
Friends,
I wanted to share a conference with you that was held here at the University of Pennsylvania last March. I found it extremely pertinent to issues of human rights and humanitarian relief - here, there, everywhere. This is a long presentation, but certainly worth a ten-minute glimpse. Any of you involved in the medical field might consider watching this in full, for reasons of professional development. The title of this blog posting will link you directly to the conference's web site, where you will find videos of each presentation. I tried to include them here, but unfortunately the file sizes are too large. Instead, here is the presentation schedule.
Love to you all!
- Maisha
***
8:30-9:30 a.m. Keynote Address: Global Health: A Declaration of Interdependence
Dr. Richard Guerrant is an internationally-recognized expert on enteric infections. He is the founder and Director of the Center for Global Health (CGH) at the University of Virginia (UVA), School of Medicine. The CGH draws students from UVA’s Schools of Medicine, Nursing, Law, Commerce, Engineering, and Arts & Sciences. Students travel to Latin America, Africa, and Asia, building new relationships and helping to strengthen and diversify the institution’s long-standing research exchanges with international partners. This support of emerging leaders in the US and abroad contributes to developing a critical mass of scientists and health professionals working to improve the health of people globally.
9:30-10:45 a.m. Clean Water: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Global Health Problems
Ensuring the health and wellness of global communities requires a collaborative effort that brings scientists and health care providers together with educators, government leaders, economists, and community representatives. Using the central theme of water and sanitation, this panel will highlight strategies for a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to global health and community wellness.
11:00-12:30 p.m. Collaborative Partnerships in Global Health
Over the past decade, the health and wellness of global communities has received considerable attention in the news. A diverse group of participants ranging from private industry to academic institutions can now be found on the frontlines of global health. A central theme for effective collaboration in global health involves capacity building and sustainability. This panel will highlight a variety of models and approaches intended to achieve these results.
1:30-3:30 p.m. Advisory Panel : Multi-Disciplinary Opportunities in Global Health
The rapidly growing interest in global health is a shared phenomenon experienced by schools across PENN’s campus. This panel provides an opportunity for students to learn more about Global Health career opportunities among a variety of diverse disciplines.
I wanted to share a conference with you that was held here at the University of Pennsylvania last March. I found it extremely pertinent to issues of human rights and humanitarian relief - here, there, everywhere. This is a long presentation, but certainly worth a ten-minute glimpse. Any of you involved in the medical field might consider watching this in full, for reasons of professional development. The title of this blog posting will link you directly to the conference's web site, where you will find videos of each presentation. I tried to include them here, but unfortunately the file sizes are too large. Instead, here is the presentation schedule.
Love to you all!
- Maisha
***
8:30-9:30 a.m. Keynote Address: Global Health: A Declaration of Interdependence
- Introduction: Steve Larson, MD, Assistant Dean, Global Health Programs, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
- Speaker: Richard Guerrant, MD, Director, Center for Global Health, University of Virginia School of Medicine
Dr. Richard Guerrant is an internationally-recognized expert on enteric infections. He is the founder and Director of the Center for Global Health (CGH) at the University of Virginia (UVA), School of Medicine. The CGH draws students from UVA’s Schools of Medicine, Nursing, Law, Commerce, Engineering, and Arts & Sciences. Students travel to Latin America, Africa, and Asia, building new relationships and helping to strengthen and diversify the institution’s long-standing research exchanges with international partners. This support of emerging leaders in the US and abroad contributes to developing a critical mass of scientists and health professionals working to improve the health of people globally.
9:30-10:45 a.m. Clean Water: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Global Health Problems
Ensuring the health and wellness of global communities requires a collaborative effort that brings scientists and health care providers together with educators, government leaders, economists, and community representatives. Using the central theme of water and sanitation, this panel will highlight strategies for a collaborative, multidisciplinary approach to global health and community wellness.
- Richard Guerrant, MD, University of Virginia School of Medicine
- Samantha Beers, Esq., EPA
- Stanley Laskowski, Philadelphia Global Water Initiative
- Shannon Márquez, MEng, PhD, Temple University College of Health Professions MPH Program
11:00-12:30 p.m. Collaborative Partnerships in Global Health
Over the past decade, the health and wellness of global communities has received considerable attention in the news. A diverse group of participants ranging from private industry to academic institutions can now be found on the frontlines of global health. A central theme for effective collaboration in global health involves capacity building and sustainability. This panel will highlight a variety of models and approaches intended to achieve these results.
- Stephen Gluckman, MD, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (Botswana)
- David Spiegel, MD, CHOP (WHO)
- Anthony Sauder, PE, PG (Engineers Without Borders)
- Debra Abraham, MSN, RN University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing (Hospital Albert Schweitzer)
1:30-3:30 p.m. Advisory Panel : Multi-Disciplinary Opportunities in Global Health
The rapidly growing interest in global health is a shared phenomenon experienced by schools across PENN’s campus. This panel provides an opportunity for students to learn more about Global Health career opportunities among a variety of diverse disciplines.
- Marjorie Muecke, RN, PhD, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing Global Health Affairs
- Neal Nathanson, MD, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Global Health Programs
- Stephen Sammut, University of Pennsylvania Wharton
- Robert Collins, DMD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine
- Sarah Paoletti, Esq., University of Pennsylvania Law School
- Hong Truong, University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering, PENN Engineers Without Borders
- Giang Nguyen, MD, MPH, University of Pennsylvania MPH Program
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Somebody else's problem
And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?"
Genesis 4:9
I want to write more about responses to crises and social apathy. I mentioned this subject before in my post "Where Altruism Lies," in the section "The Bigger Picture," where I hinted that there may be utilitarian and political reasons for international cooperation to foster a baseline standard of living for all human beings. Here I would like to approach the same discussion from another angle -- what do we become, if we shut our eyes to the value of human life? I stumbled across one example as I prepared for my criminal law class tomorrow morning. And with Professor Robinson's permission, I thought that I would share the story, just as I encountered it in my textbook. A sensitive reader may want to skip this post; the material is very ... powerful.
The following text is excerpted with the permission of the author, Paul H. Robinson, from his book Criminal Law, Case Studies and Controversies 463-471 (1st ed. 2004).
CAUTION: This true story contains graphic violent and sexual content.
The Case of David Cash
It is Memorial Day weekend, 1997. Best friends Jeremy Strohmeyer and David Cash are seniors at Woodrow Wilson High School in Long Beach, California. Classmates consider Cash smart but socially awkward. He acts cool by spiking his hair and growing sideburns, but he is still baby-faced, short, and interested in subjects like engineering. In contrast, Strohmeyer is outgoing, wild, and worldly, after living in Singapore for several years while his mother was working there. He drinks, has a fake ID, and is very flirtatious. The two have a firm friendship, though, after meeting in computer class during their junior year, just after Strohmeyer returned to the States. Both have aspirations for after graduation. Strohmeyer wants to be an officer in the Air Force, like his adoptive father, and Cash a nuclear engineer.
Strohmeyer is responsible for introducing Cash to the wilder side of high school by taking him to parties and getting him drunk for the first time, even bringing a camcorder to tape the evening. Cash's parents, who are reconciling after being separated for years, are not terribly concerned. They treat Cash leniently because he has always been independent and trustworthy, and his grades remain good. Even when Cash returns home drunk with Strohmeyer, they do not get angry. Strohmeyer also shows off to Cash his upper-class lifestyle, which includes a maid, a jet, and four cars.
Strohmeyer's behavior is increasingly wild and erratic, and his grades have dropped since he returned from Singapore. For example, a teacher who once described him as one of the best students he ever taught has recently changed his mind; he now sees two different sides to Strohmeyer. In school, he is thought of as a hard partier with a violent temper. His Internet sign-in name is "Killer." He also has a secret interest in child pornography. Recently, he had an Internet chat, under the screen name "flyboy1030," where he wrote that he fantasizes about sex with five- or six-year-old girls. He even asked a girlfriend to dress up in a young girl's school uniform and put her hair in pigtails. (She refused.)
Over the past year, Strohmeyer has slowly spiraled into a destructive pattern. He uses drugs more often, drinks frequently, and is taking amphetamines, the combination of which explains his recent behavior at parties. At one, he spit in a jock's face and screamed profanities at a girl after she asked him to leave. On another occasion, he sneaked a kitten out of a host's house and threw it out of a car's window as he drove away. He even incited others to help him throw marshmallows, then books, and finally bottles down a hallway at a party, which he followed up by personally kicking holes in the walls. His parents think he is just going through a typical teenage rebellion stage, while classmates attribute his behavior to extreme senioritis.
Nonetheless, Cash still looks up to Strohmeyer. Strohmeyer is one of the "cool kids," and helps Cash overcome his struggles of trying to fit in by introducing him to people and giving him the chance to hang out with the other "cool kids." Cash sometimes joins Strohmeyer in a big group when it goes cruising the town, which occasionally also includes harassing prostitutes and the homeless. Strohmeyer often brags about smashing eggs in the faces of prostitutes.
Strohmeyer also benefits from his friendship with Cash. As the more impressionable of the two, Cash helps Strohmeyer feel cool by laughing at all of Strohmeyer's jokes and pranks and defending his actions. Cash is also allowed to drive his mother's red Chevrolet convertible, while Strohmeyer's parents never allow him to drive their cars. The two recently used Cash's mother's car for a road trip to UC Berkeley, during which they got their tongues pierced. The university is Cash's top choice. A serious car crash ended their trip, but Strohmeyer's father bailed them out by purchasing them airline tickets back to Long Beach.
For the long Memorial Day weekend, Cash's father invites Strohmeyer along for a trip to Las Vegas as a thank-you to his parents for letting Cash stay with them for three weeks. Cash is looking forward to the trip.
On the evening of Saturday, May 24, 1997, they leave for Las Vegas. On the way, they stop at several towns for food and gas, reaching Primm, on the Nevada border, at midnight. There they visit the Primadonna Casino. Cash's father gives the two some money and tells them to meet up again at 3:00 a.m. He then goes to play poker. Cash and Strohmeyer want to ride Wild Bill's Roller Coaster, but cannot find the entrance. Instead, they end up at another casino and then an arcade. Neither place thrills them, and they eventually make their way back to the Primadonna.
Sitting by the pool, Strohmeyer uses his fake ID to order some drinks. He has a whiskey and Coke, while Cash goes for a strawberry daiquiri. As the night creeps on, they grow restless. At one point, Strohmeyer tries sneaking into the gambling section, but casino security promptly kicks him out. They order more drinks and play arcade games. Strohmeyer starts talking to a girl who he thinks has a nice body. He asks for her beeper number, but she refuses, recalling later that she thought he was creepy. Strohmeyer leaves to get more drinks, but when he returns he keeps trying to talk to her. He tries to impress her by showing off his nipple and tongue piercings. When her mother arrives, they quickly leave.
Cash and Strohmeyer are tired of playing video games and decide to urinate on them to entertain themselves. They quickly become distracted, however, by two young children having a spitball fight. One of their wet paper towels hits Strohmeyer, and he throws it back. He then starts playing with the kids, and they run through the rows of video games.
One of the children is seven-year-old Sherrice Iverson of South Central Los Angeles. Like them, she has grown tired of waiting for her father. Casino security has twice taken her back to her father and she had already fallen asleep in the driver's seat of a video game. She is used to the long nights that the Nevada casinos trips bring, because her father, a diabetic on disability, has "gamblin' fever." While thinking it too dangerous to allow Sherrice to play in front of their house in South Central, he thinks the Primadonna is safe and lets her have the run of the place. Sherrice is generally well cared for; she always sports freshly pressed clothes and neatly braided hair. At age seven, she likes "The Little Mermaid," purple, and jump-roping, but is still afraid of the dark. When she grows up, she wants to be a "nurse, policewoman, model, or dancer." She is less than four feet tall and weighs about forty-six pounds. Her playmate on this night, Strohmeyer, is almost six feet tall and weighs about one hundred fifty pounds.
They continue playing in the arcade for another ten minutes or so, until Sherrice runs into the women's restroom. Strohmeyer gets a drink of water, takes a puff of his cigarette, and follows her in. A few seconds later, Cash follows after him. In the bathroom, Sherrice swings a plastic "Wet Floor" sign at Strohmeyer and he gets angry. He picks her up, placing one of his arms under her armpit with his hand over her mouth, while using the other arm to lift her into the handicap stall, locking the door behind him. He chooses this one because it has more room.
Thinking that the game has gone too far, Cash becomes a little concerned. He tries to get Strohmeyer's attention by standing on the toilet in the stall adjacent to the handicap one. Cash tells him to let Sherrice go and tries to convince him to leave the bathroom. He then starts tapping on Strohmeyer's head to get his attention. Finally, Cash catches Strohmeyer's attention when he knocks off Strohmeyer's "Bruins" hat. Strohmeyer just stares back weirdly, like "he [doesn't] care what [Cash] is saying." After his unsuccessful attempts to get Strohmeyer to stop, Cash gives up. He leaves the arcade and waits for Strohmeyer and his father on a bench in the resort's courtyard.
Strohmeyer notices Cash's intervention, but quickly refocuses on Sherrice. He takes off her boots, followed by her pants and underwear. She screams when he "fingers" her a few times. He notices blood on his index finger. To quiet her down, he puts her on the floor, with her hands pulled around her neck. He holds her in this position for about ten minutes and then puts her on the toilet and begins to masturbate against her body. He thinks she is unconscious but alive.
When women suddenly come into the restroom, Strohmeyer quickly props her up on the toilet and sits on her, so that only his feet show under the stall's door. With people still there, he tries masturbating again, but cannot maintain an erection. Strohmeyer quickly covers her mouth when he hears Sherrice gasping for air.
After the restroom empties, Sherrice is limp. Strohmeyer thinks that it would be cruel to leave Sherrice as she is. He considers her future as a "vegetable" and decides to "put her out of her misery." He tries to break her neck. Despite hearing a loud pop, he sees her still moving, and uses all of his strength to do it again. This time he is convinced that she is dead.
Strohmeyer cleans up by putting Sherrice's boots, pants, and underwear in the toilet. He then wipes his forearm clean of white foam and blood before finally putting Sherrice's legs in the toilet and propping her up so that none of her limbs are visible from under the stall door. Twenty-two minutes after following Sherrice in, Strohmeyer leaves.
As he walks out of the casino, he stays close to the walls of the arcade in an attempt to avoid the security cameras. He meets Cash. On their way to the car, they talk to a valet and show off their piercings. Cash asks Strohmeyer what went on in the bathroom after he left. Looking him straight in the eye, Strohmeyer answers, bluntly, "I killed her." Cash later recalls being shocked by the revelation and having no idea how to react. His only other question of Strohmeyer is whether she was "wet" when he digitally raped her.
Shortly afterwards, Cash's father arrives and they finish driving to Las Vegas, arriving there on the morning of Sunday, May 25. They check into the Holiday Inn at noon. Strohmeyer and Cash play slot machines, drink beer, ride a roller coaster, and check out all the casinos. During their explorations, they discuss what happened at the Primadonna. Cash is convinced they will be caught because of the video surveillance that was all over the resort. He is also worried that they made themselves conspicuous by showing off their piercings and saying that they were from Long Beach. They make a pact not to tell anyone. If caught, they make up various excuses for Strohmeyer to use, ranging from sheer innocence to intoxication to insanity. Early Monday morning, the three arrive back in Long Beach. At the Primadonna, meanwhile, a female employee has found Sherrice's body and has informed the police and the girl's father.
On Tuesday, school is back in session, but Cash sleeps in and skips his classes. He hangs around the house all day and during the five o'clock news sees that there is a videotape of him and Strohmeyer entering and exiting the restroom. Realizing that they will certainly be found, the color drains from his face. He calls Strohmeyer to tell him about the video. Cash watches it again with Strohmeyer. To gain perspective, they decide they need to tell someone about the incident. They tell the whole story to a friend, James Trujillo, in a Kinko's parking lot. When Trujilo does not believe them, Cash tells another friend, Jeremy Philips, who tells Cash to turn Strohmeyer in to the police.
The next day, a classmate, Melissa Ellis, sees the video on television before school. She immediately recognizes the pair, identifying Strohmeyer from his posture and walk and Cash by his sideburns and hair. Strohmeyer and Cash drive to school that day in Cash's mother's red convertible with an LA Times newspaper in the backseat. On the front page of the paper are pictures of the two (stills from the videotape). They talk with Justin Ware, whose mother called him at 10:00 p.m. the night before to see if he recognized the boys in the video. Ware asked them if they really did it; Strohmeyer says he did. Ware is speechless. The pair goes to class and Strohmeyer acts normally the entire day, goofing off and flashing his piercings.
Later, Ellis runs into her friend, Lisa Cota, and finds out that she too recognized Strohmeyer and Cash in the video. They talk to Carmela Rhmyer, who says that Strohmeyer just told her that he and Cash were in Las Vegas over the weekend, but that he was drunk and is innocent. Later, a girl in Ware's class says that the LA Times photo looks like Strohmeyer. Ware tells Strohmeyer about it and asks him what he is going to do. Strohmeyer says, "Nothing," and that another student has already confronted him. Strohmeyer and Cash go to Taco Bell for lunch and make "last supper" jokes throughout the meal. Cash thinks they will be arrested when they return to school. Acting on information from Ellis and Cota, Assistant Principal Greg Mendoza contacts Officer Birdsall about the video. Birdsall interviews the two students and arranges for surveillance on Strohmeyer's house.
Strohmeyer goes home after school, growing increasingly anxious. He calls an ex-girlfriend, Agnes Lee, and asks her to come over. Although she feels ill, she does not want to let him down and goes. They go to Jamba Juice, where she notices that he is nervous and fidgety. She drops him off at his house just as his older sister, Heather, is arriving. He runs back to Lee's car and asks her to stay because he has to tell her something -- that he has done something horrible. He tells her that he strangled a young black girl and asks her to leave the country with him. He also says the girl was sexually molested, but (falsely) blames it on Cash. Lee refuses to flee with him and tells him he deserves to be punished. When she gets back to her house, she sees the video and recognizes Strohmeyer and Cash. Lee calls her father and recounts her conversation with Strohmeyer. Her father immediately calls the Long Beach police. They contact Lee, who warns them of Strohmeyer's temper and desire to leave the country.
By now, Cash has received a phone call from his father, instructing him to stay home. Cash is certain that his father is now aware of their involvement in the crime at the Primadonna. Cash calls Strohmeyer to explain that his father knows and that he will probably be forced to talk to the police. Strohmeyer agrees and says that he understands the situation. He is now aware that he is being watched. He takes his ADD medication off the shelf, empties the bottle into his mouth, and writes a suicide note. He then goes out on the porch to smoke a cigarette while the police sit in their cars, watching patiently. Strohmeyer's sister drops their mother off at home, but he does not want her to see him in this state and scrambles out the door and down the street. He does not make it very far, however, before the police overtake him.
They take him to a community hospital, after his mother alerts them to his drug ingestion. Meanwhile, Cash's father asks Cash if he saw the video. They go to the police department. Cash is scared, thinking, "even though I didn't do anything, I could get into more trouble." The police take his picture and interview him, but do not charge him with a crime. cash goes home to finish homework that is due the next day.
At the hospital, Strohmeyer tells the police he wants to talk and get things out in the open. They inform him of his rights. He tells them that Cash had nothing to do with the murder. Strohmeyer "wanted to experience death." He describes that it was like a dream and he can only remember bits and pieces. After giving a full account of the evening, Strohmeyer adds that he hopes some good will come of his crime, in the form of parents keeping better watch over their children.
At school the next day, Cash is curious whether things will be different and what people's reactions will be. His day is cut short, however, when he is thrown out of class for his project -- a collage of pictures of pierced female genitalia. When he finally returns to school, Cash is shocked to learn that he will not be allowed to participate in his class's graduation or its prom. He is told that his diploma will be sent to him and the cost of his prom tickets refunded.
The story is sensational and the media quickly descends on Cash. They interview him and even pay for the video of him getting drunk for the first time with Strohmeyer. he sells it for $1,500, keeping $500 for himself, and gives the rest to Philips for orchestrating the deal. Cash and Phillips later show up outside the school prom, standing through the sunroof of a limo screaming, "I'm not going." The media cover the stunt heavily, and Cash later recalls that he enjoyed being in the limelight. He later goes with friends to watch a belly-dancing performance at a restaurant.
On Saturday, May 31, Sherrice's funeral is held at Paradise Baptist Church. Her parents are not speaking to each other and both are using Strohmeyer and the Primadonna. (Sherrice's father is also involved in another lawsuit for slander, after a casino official told reporters that the father asked for $100, a six-pack, a hotel room, and payment for Sherrice's funeral, after learning of her death.) The Primadonna files cross-claims and third-party claims against Cash and Strohmeyer. Sherrice's mother says she still dreams about her daughter. Strohmeyer's parents are receiving death threats.
In an interview with the LA Times, Cash says that "if anything, the case has made it easier for [me] to score with women." When asked whether he is angry with Strohmeyer, Cash says no, only that he misses his friend. When asked if he feels sorry for Sherrice Iverson, he says that the "situation sucks in general." He says he feels worse for Strohmeyer because he knows him.
"It is very tragic, okay? But the simple fact remains I do not know this little girl. I do not know starving children in Panama. I do not know people that die of disease in Egypt. The only person I knew in this event was Jeremy Strohmeyer, and I know as his best friend that he had potential. ... I'm sad that I lost a best friend. ... I'm not going to lose sleep over somebody else's problem."
The aftermath: Strohmeyer was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Cash was never charged, and went on to attend UC Berkeley, where other students reportedly shunned any association with him. Nevada passed the Sherrice Iverson Bill, making it a misdemeanor to omit reporting the murder, rape, or sexual assault of a minor 14 years of age or younger.
Shaking off academia
It has been a busy spring break. I finally got to do a bit of research for an independent project I dreamed up for the Sudan Studies Association. I'll be going to Florida mid-May to present a paper on land laws and their effect on resettlement in southern Sudan. It's been a tough project because most of the source material I need is only available in Arabic. I've had to rely on journal articles describing Sudanese legislation to learn about the legislation, itself. Fortunately, I have recently encountered a group of British academics who should be able to get me a full translation.
I've been working as fast as I can, because I won't have time for things like this when I go back to class tomorrow. But for all the reading that I've done, the most powerful lesson thus far has come from my mother.
I make a point of calling home at least once a week. The conversations are comfortable and rejuvenating -- Mom tells me everything the family has been doing, I tell her everything I've been doing. It doesn't matter that she doesn't understand the legal doctrine I'm learning, or that I don't know the co-workers she's describing. This is how we weave our lives together, like any healthy family does.
On this particular call, I started telling Mom about my project for the SSA. I was going over some of the more controversial provisions of the 1984 Civil Transaction Act when she stopped me.
"You mean, if you leave your land for more than a year, the government takes it?"
"Yeah, Mom. And that's a real problem for people who are running to the cities for protection from violence."
"You mean ... your father's land isn't his, anymore?"
That stopped me -- the little break in my mother's voice, more than anything else. I know how much my father has lost. I think about it all the time. Officially knowing he has no home to return to -- that's no surprise. But you have to understand about my mom: She is one of the strongest women in the world. Perhaps because she grew up with bombs falling on the neighbor's house, perhaps because she was born that way, my mother has an inner strength surpassing most. If there is an emergency, Mom handles it. If there is a death in the family, Mom handles it. If there are tears, Mom handles that too. So hearing her voice crack -- I'd imagine watching the planet shatter would be just as surprising.
Maybe it was just the remnants of a cold, maybe that pinprick of sorrow is something I made up. But I realized something. Academia is just as much of a filter for dealing with these issues as self-enforced ignorance. The only real knowledge I will ever have comes from knowing people, seeing places, experiencing life myself. That is not to say research isn't useful; it is a powerful tool. But at some point, I need to cast off my protections and really feel.
I've been working as fast as I can, because I won't have time for things like this when I go back to class tomorrow. But for all the reading that I've done, the most powerful lesson thus far has come from my mother.
I make a point of calling home at least once a week. The conversations are comfortable and rejuvenating -- Mom tells me everything the family has been doing, I tell her everything I've been doing. It doesn't matter that she doesn't understand the legal doctrine I'm learning, or that I don't know the co-workers she's describing. This is how we weave our lives together, like any healthy family does.
On this particular call, I started telling Mom about my project for the SSA. I was going over some of the more controversial provisions of the 1984 Civil Transaction Act when she stopped me.
"You mean, if you leave your land for more than a year, the government takes it?"
"Yeah, Mom. And that's a real problem for people who are running to the cities for protection from violence."
"You mean ... your father's land isn't his, anymore?"
That stopped me -- the little break in my mother's voice, more than anything else. I know how much my father has lost. I think about it all the time. Officially knowing he has no home to return to -- that's no surprise. But you have to understand about my mom: She is one of the strongest women in the world. Perhaps because she grew up with bombs falling on the neighbor's house, perhaps because she was born that way, my mother has an inner strength surpassing most. If there is an emergency, Mom handles it. If there is a death in the family, Mom handles it. If there are tears, Mom handles that too. So hearing her voice crack -- I'd imagine watching the planet shatter would be just as surprising.
Maybe it was just the remnants of a cold, maybe that pinprick of sorrow is something I made up. But I realized something. Academia is just as much of a filter for dealing with these issues as self-enforced ignorance. The only real knowledge I will ever have comes from knowing people, seeing places, experiencing life myself. That is not to say research isn't useful; it is a powerful tool. But at some point, I need to cast off my protections and really feel.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Legality in the absence of government
International law is different than every other type of law because there is no central government to create and enforce legislation. The central principle of public international law is that States are sovereign; they can do whatever they like. The only international law is what States agree to -- supplemented ever so slightly by what a vast majority of other states agree to and are willing to enforce. This lack of government and inability to bind has generated a debate among legal scholars: if States can do whatever they want, does international law actually exist?
This is the field I want to work in -- a field so discredited in the United States, a major Ivy League university like Penn only has one assistant professor teaching the subject as an elective. Of course, different countries treat international law with varying degrees of respect. In Europe, for example, international law is still regarded as a significant force. Study is mandated, and students memorize the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other such sources of international law. The law is taught as if rules lead to the outcome of every case. By contrast, in the United States we determine the politics underlying a case and assume that States will strategically employ international legal rules to reach the politically desirable outcome. Professor Burke-White says that a good international lawyer can figure the law like a European and like an American.
The problem with adhering strictly to legal codes is that sometimes there is no rule leading to an outcome that seems absolutely necessary. And in the absence of a legislature, how else can a set of laws develop except by new activities that eventually become customary practice or are codified into the law?
I encountered an excellent example early this week while I was working on my criminal law outline. I found this material especially useful because it refers specifically to the concerns presented to the International Criminal Court. But before I address the ICC, more background on legality for my non-legal readers:
Background in Criminal Law
In the United States, we employ a criminal code established by the legislature and a set of interpretive rules that almost always favors the defendant. The U.S. justice system would rather let guilty defendants go free than impose penalties on the innocent. It embodies a strong preference for leniency and popular oversight, and as follows:
1. Our laws rely on elected officials to determine what is and is not criminal, because that gives the public voting power over the individuals who make acts criminal. If the populace disagrees with a proposed code, the power of our vote should make legislators responsive to that intuition.
2. The court cannot spontaneously decide that an act is a crime without a prior legislative act criminalizing that activity -- protecting defendants from arbitrary, political, or retributivist criminalization.
3. A defendant must have sufficient notice that his or her act is criminal.
4. The court cannot interpret an ambiguous statute to make an act criminal unless there is strong evidence that such interpretation was intended by the legislature.
Collectively, we call these ideas the "legality principle." It has its advantages and disadvantages. Take this situation for example (taken from Professor Paul Robinson's criminal law book, and based on a true story):
Keeler and his wife Theresa get a divorce. Five months later, Keeler learns that Theresa is eight months pregnant with another man's baby. He stops her on the road one day as she is returning from dropping off their daughters at his house. He helps her out of the car, saying he wants to talk. Then he shows his anger. Yelling "I am going to kick it out of you," Keeler knees his ex in the abdomen, hard. She starts experiencing pain, and goes to the hospital. The fetus has suffered a fractured skull. If it had been born that day, it would have had more than a 75 percent chance of survival.
But Keeler was not prosecuted for murder -- or any other kind of criminal homicide, for that matter. The laws for criminal homicide only forbid the killing of a human being. Neither the Model Penal Code nor the state code include the unborn in their definition of "human being," so Keeler could not be found guilty on those specific charges.
As a result of the legality principle, working with the criminal code is like writing a poem. There's an old Latin saying: nulla crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege (no crime without a law, no punishment without a law). Prosecutors have to figure out how to achieve a desired effect within rules that frequently seem to work against their objective. The art lies in taking these rules that could work contrary to your objective, and turning them into advantage.
In Keeler's case, prosecution tried him for assault on the mother and illegal abortion -- a felony offense that earns a punishment as severe as some homicide convictions.
Synthesizing My Homework: The Legality Principle's Relevance in International Law
Warning, Graphic Subject Matter Below
But as I mentioned earlier, international law has no legislature to establish a code. Instead it evolves around concerted State practice. So what happens when a case falls outside traditional definitions and rules, like Keeler's did?
This problem came up in the early prosecution of war crimes. There was no rule, "No person, group of persons, or State shall systematically kill members of a specific race, religion, or social group so as to eliminate that group for a perceived social purpose." There was no rule, "No person, group of persons, or State shall form alliances with political parties which kill members of a specific social group." Imagine, at Nuremberg, having to try a high-ranking member of the Nazi party for direct or complicit involvement in the deaths of hundreds of victims who might not be identifiable, with little direct evidence of the defendant's specific involvement in that case. So the international community defined new crimes and began to prosecute in new ways, contrary to the legality principle.
Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States in the Prosecution of War Criminals, justified the prosecutions by asserting that "our test of what legally is crime gives recognition to those things which fundamentally outraged the conscience of the American people and brought them finally to the conviction that their own liberty and civilization could not persist in the world with the Nazi power." The problem with that defense is that it imposes the values of one culture on the people of another culture. Who is to say that the accused knew that their acts were criminal, or that they were acting with some sort of blameworthiness? It may be easy to incriminate Adolf Hitler, but what about the Japanese general who is directing his troops as per the orders of his government? Do you hold him accountable for following orders? Is that fair?
This is not equitable, this is victor's justice, the critics say. This is revenge seeking, not law.
Hard to argue. Still, even divorced from emotion there seems to be an intuitive split between what is necessary to war, and what is unnecessary to war. Burning crops so that military forces cannot be fed -- that makes some sense, in its cruelty. Raping a woman with a foreign object. That may have a psychological objective, but it has no direct impact on troops and seems unnecessary.
Professor Burke-White actually encountered the latter case during his work with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. To strengthen the prosecution, he had to find definitions of rape that included the insertion of foreign objects (as opposed to traditional sexual contact). In a world of vastly different standards governing sexual contact, it wasn't easy. In some societies, punishment might be imposed just for unlawfully touching a woman's hair. In other societies, it might not be unlawful for a man to engage in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with a woman provided he does not cause her lasting physical harm. With so many varied definitions, how do you prove to a judge who may or may not share your cultural standards that what the defendant did is wrong?
The answer, of course, lies in aggregating as much law in your favor as possible: treaties, State practice, learned opinions, legislative histories, custom, etc. You construct the most powerful argument possible, and then you hope the court finds in your favor. I'll tell you what I hope. A thousand years from now, if humankind still exists, I hope we will have worked out a better system. Until then, however, I really have my work cut out for me.
This is the field I want to work in -- a field so discredited in the United States, a major Ivy League university like Penn only has one assistant professor teaching the subject as an elective. Of course, different countries treat international law with varying degrees of respect. In Europe, for example, international law is still regarded as a significant force. Study is mandated, and students memorize the Geneva Conventions, the U.N. Charter and other such sources of international law. The law is taught as if rules lead to the outcome of every case. By contrast, in the United States we determine the politics underlying a case and assume that States will strategically employ international legal rules to reach the politically desirable outcome. Professor Burke-White says that a good international lawyer can figure the law like a European and like an American.
The problem with adhering strictly to legal codes is that sometimes there is no rule leading to an outcome that seems absolutely necessary. And in the absence of a legislature, how else can a set of laws develop except by new activities that eventually become customary practice or are codified into the law?
I encountered an excellent example early this week while I was working on my criminal law outline. I found this material especially useful because it refers specifically to the concerns presented to the International Criminal Court. But before I address the ICC, more background on legality for my non-legal readers:
Background in Criminal Law
In the United States, we employ a criminal code established by the legislature and a set of interpretive rules that almost always favors the defendant. The U.S. justice system would rather let guilty defendants go free than impose penalties on the innocent. It embodies a strong preference for leniency and popular oversight, and as follows:
1. Our laws rely on elected officials to determine what is and is not criminal, because that gives the public voting power over the individuals who make acts criminal. If the populace disagrees with a proposed code, the power of our vote should make legislators responsive to that intuition.
2. The court cannot spontaneously decide that an act is a crime without a prior legislative act criminalizing that activity -- protecting defendants from arbitrary, political, or retributivist criminalization.
3. A defendant must have sufficient notice that his or her act is criminal.
4. The court cannot interpret an ambiguous statute to make an act criminal unless there is strong evidence that such interpretation was intended by the legislature.
Collectively, we call these ideas the "legality principle." It has its advantages and disadvantages. Take this situation for example (taken from Professor Paul Robinson's criminal law book, and based on a true story):
Keeler and his wife Theresa get a divorce. Five months later, Keeler learns that Theresa is eight months pregnant with another man's baby. He stops her on the road one day as she is returning from dropping off their daughters at his house. He helps her out of the car, saying he wants to talk. Then he shows his anger. Yelling "I am going to kick it out of you," Keeler knees his ex in the abdomen, hard. She starts experiencing pain, and goes to the hospital. The fetus has suffered a fractured skull. If it had been born that day, it would have had more than a 75 percent chance of survival.
But Keeler was not prosecuted for murder -- or any other kind of criminal homicide, for that matter. The laws for criminal homicide only forbid the killing of a human being. Neither the Model Penal Code nor the state code include the unborn in their definition of "human being," so Keeler could not be found guilty on those specific charges.
As a result of the legality principle, working with the criminal code is like writing a poem. There's an old Latin saying: nulla crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege (no crime without a law, no punishment without a law). Prosecutors have to figure out how to achieve a desired effect within rules that frequently seem to work against their objective. The art lies in taking these rules that could work contrary to your objective, and turning them into advantage.
In Keeler's case, prosecution tried him for assault on the mother and illegal abortion -- a felony offense that earns a punishment as severe as some homicide convictions.
Synthesizing My Homework: The Legality Principle's Relevance in International Law
Warning, Graphic Subject Matter Below
But as I mentioned earlier, international law has no legislature to establish a code. Instead it evolves around concerted State practice. So what happens when a case falls outside traditional definitions and rules, like Keeler's did?
This problem came up in the early prosecution of war crimes. There was no rule, "No person, group of persons, or State shall systematically kill members of a specific race, religion, or social group so as to eliminate that group for a perceived social purpose." There was no rule, "No person, group of persons, or State shall form alliances with political parties which kill members of a specific social group." Imagine, at Nuremberg, having to try a high-ranking member of the Nazi party for direct or complicit involvement in the deaths of hundreds of victims who might not be identifiable, with little direct evidence of the defendant's specific involvement in that case. So the international community defined new crimes and began to prosecute in new ways, contrary to the legality principle.
Justice Robert H. Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States in the Prosecution of War Criminals, justified the prosecutions by asserting that "our test of what legally is crime gives recognition to those things which fundamentally outraged the conscience of the American people and brought them finally to the conviction that their own liberty and civilization could not persist in the world with the Nazi power." The problem with that defense is that it imposes the values of one culture on the people of another culture. Who is to say that the accused knew that their acts were criminal, or that they were acting with some sort of blameworthiness? It may be easy to incriminate Adolf Hitler, but what about the Japanese general who is directing his troops as per the orders of his government? Do you hold him accountable for following orders? Is that fair?
This is not equitable, this is victor's justice, the critics say. This is revenge seeking, not law.
Hard to argue. Still, even divorced from emotion there seems to be an intuitive split between what is necessary to war, and what is unnecessary to war. Burning crops so that military forces cannot be fed -- that makes some sense, in its cruelty. Raping a woman with a foreign object. That may have a psychological objective, but it has no direct impact on troops and seems unnecessary.
Professor Burke-White actually encountered the latter case during his work with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. To strengthen the prosecution, he had to find definitions of rape that included the insertion of foreign objects (as opposed to traditional sexual contact). In a world of vastly different standards governing sexual contact, it wasn't easy. In some societies, punishment might be imposed just for unlawfully touching a woman's hair. In other societies, it might not be unlawful for a man to engage in nonconsensual sexual intercourse with a woman provided he does not cause her lasting physical harm. With so many varied definitions, how do you prove to a judge who may or may not share your cultural standards that what the defendant did is wrong?
The answer, of course, lies in aggregating as much law in your favor as possible: treaties, State practice, learned opinions, legislative histories, custom, etc. You construct the most powerful argument possible, and then you hope the court finds in your favor. I'll tell you what I hope. A thousand years from now, if humankind still exists, I hope we will have worked out a better system. Until then, however, I really have my work cut out for me.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Where altruism lies
I wonder what other people see when they look at international crisis and relief videos like the ones I just posted. Video is effective in disseminating information, and so I include what I believe are better documentaries. But the medium can also foster a certain misconception that makes me uncomfortable; a type of hubris I would very much like to address.
Seeing People
Back in the 1980s, there was a prolific ad campaign requesting aid for for relief efforts in Ethiopia. The country was enduring a severe famine, and these ads portrayed dark toddlers with enormous staring eyes, ribs standing out like trellises above their swollen bellies.
Even as a kid, those ads drove me crazy. Yes, I wanted to share my 50 cent-per-week allowance. But there was something both alienating and dehumanizing about these images. On reflection, I was probably angry that the clips relied on deliberate emotional manipulation to part me from something of value. But more than that, I don't like the way these ads make relief recipients seem less like people and more like ... I don't know. Cows. Mute. Helpless. Needy. Personally ineffective.
These are not the Africans I know, and I have met a range. Scopas Poggo, Jok Madut Jok, Ali B. Dinar, Beniah Yongo-Bure, Lako Tongun, Stanley Einstein Matthews ... and those are just the professors! I'm not counting priests, social workers, entrepreneurs, doctors, or environmentalists. I haven't spoken about those who returned home, the relief workers. I'm not talking about the revolutionaries or the intellectuals who have been imprisoned for trying to make their country a safer place. And I'm not talking about the ordinary people, either; the mothers who work three jobs to send their children to school, the fathers struggling to keep their families housed in a discriminatory environment, the students who are working to put themselves through university ...
When I think about people from east Africa, I do not think about feeble, weak individuals that the world should blindly pity. Many of these people are decently educated by Western standards. Others have no formal training but are sensitive to the environment and to family life in ways that we here in the United States are just starting to learn. These are respectable, emotionally complex, multifaceted individuals who are unfortunately besieged by political conflict; conflict fomented by poorly planned state boundaries and ethnic tension. I am confident that many war victims will make something of their lives regardless of their dire circumstances, with or without foreign assistance.
Perhaps, as the daughter of a successful refugee, I am overly optimistic. But I remember being struck by the amount of laughter at my first Sudanese Studies Association conference last year. Here were northerners and southerners, Muslims and Christians, men and women, emigrants and Sudanese, all sitting together discussing conflict resolution. They might have disagreed with one another about various topics -- sometimes vehemently so -- but they were still able to go dancing together after the talks were over. As one gentleman from Khartoum explained, these troubles are like a block of ice. They will melt away. So we tell ourselves in order to survive.
So to me, any "oh, let me save these poor souls" attitude seems condescending and flatly offensive. A million times better, in my opinion, to think "let me help these people manage their circumstances."
You DO Have an Effect
It is undeniable that many east Africans face enormous social and political obstacles to living in stable environments. But here in the United States, as in many different countries, we can help alleviate those problems without sending troops, or even large sums of money. We can support acknowledgment of political crises on an international level, and that acknowledgement will enable future redress of grievances. We can trade and form alliances with governments who treat their people in accordance with basic international standards of decency, and enforce sanctions on governments that do not. We can open student exchange programs and internships. We can write comparative policy reports and advise capacity building. We can offer microloans, we can send doctors, we can send engineers. We can distribute STD information packets with birth control. We can teach neighbors to host community forums for conflict resolution. Maybe we can even expedite immigration for refugees from countries going through recognized conflict.
On an individual level, we can support intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations like the UNICEF and Human Rights Watch that are already engaging in such activities. We can write to our politicians whenever foreign aid is reduced, or when the United States hasn't acknowledged conflict abroad. We can volunteer for larger organizations, or we can donate directly to institutions abroad. There are second-graders who hold book drives for libraries in other countries. If you've been following all my posts, you saw the video of the boy who lost his water can -- why can't we send water cans? Blankets? Inflatable beds? Tents? Underwear? Shoes?
Okay, I'm emotional. Let me slow down.
The Bigger Picture
My point is, this is not some desperate affair that no one can solve. The mechanisms I mentioned above are helpful because they support stabilization and autonomy; they do not create economic reliance. True, Joseph Kony is not going to walk out of the jungle and lay down his arms because Joe Smith in the United States donated $5 to Amnesty International. But. Giving one bucket to a twelve-year-old boy might save a family of four from dying of thirst. And who knows what that family of four will turn out to be?
Making the point personal again, somebody saved my dad, and now he's a doctor in south-central Los Angeles, fighting his own battle against disease in one of the most impoverished areas of the West Coast. And because he was spared from hunger and violence, my brother was born and is working as an electrical engineer in Santa Monica. And me, I'm studying law in Philadelphia and putting together a human rights clinic for a university in Uganda. Look at the impact, and that was just one little act, just one person saved.
But -- and this is the last bar of soap in the box, I promise -- the reasons for anyone to be interested in foreign affairs is much, much broader than just one personal experience. Even under-developed nations like Sudan have valuable resources. Oil, for example. And in our current energy crisis, how valuable would those resources become if they were effectively managed and marketed across the hemisphere? Not to mention, small nations can be the source of disease such as Ebola, diseases which threaten to become a pandemic if they are not effectively quarantined and treated. And here's another angle: Think about the influence Afghanistan has had on our global political situation over the past ten years. And these are relatively powerless countries. Broaden your thinking to China and macrolending. Think about Russia's oil pipelines and how its control influences the United Nations Security Council and our allies in Europe. Recognize that the Berne Convention has affected intellectual property rights in the United States.
We cannot ignore other countries; not for humanitarian reasons, and not for business reasons. This is the wisdom of small tribes, an entry that I will write another day: For the sake of survival, you cannot ignore your brother. The person you take care of today will save your life tomorrow. The person you angered yesterday will let you die, given the choice.
Those kids whose lips were cut off by soldiers from the Lord's Resistance Army -- we can't afford to discount them. They might seem a world away, but their lives and ours are interconnected. We are all interconnected. And we benefit mutually from helping one another survive.
Seeing People
Back in the 1980s, there was a prolific ad campaign requesting aid for for relief efforts in Ethiopia. The country was enduring a severe famine, and these ads portrayed dark toddlers with enormous staring eyes, ribs standing out like trellises above their swollen bellies.
Even as a kid, those ads drove me crazy. Yes, I wanted to share my 50 cent-per-week allowance. But there was something both alienating and dehumanizing about these images. On reflection, I was probably angry that the clips relied on deliberate emotional manipulation to part me from something of value. But more than that, I don't like the way these ads make relief recipients seem less like people and more like ... I don't know. Cows. Mute. Helpless. Needy. Personally ineffective.
These are not the Africans I know, and I have met a range. Scopas Poggo, Jok Madut Jok, Ali B. Dinar, Beniah Yongo-Bure, Lako Tongun, Stanley Einstein Matthews ... and those are just the professors! I'm not counting priests, social workers, entrepreneurs, doctors, or environmentalists. I haven't spoken about those who returned home, the relief workers. I'm not talking about the revolutionaries or the intellectuals who have been imprisoned for trying to make their country a safer place. And I'm not talking about the ordinary people, either; the mothers who work three jobs to send their children to school, the fathers struggling to keep their families housed in a discriminatory environment, the students who are working to put themselves through university ...
When I think about people from east Africa, I do not think about feeble, weak individuals that the world should blindly pity. Many of these people are decently educated by Western standards. Others have no formal training but are sensitive to the environment and to family life in ways that we here in the United States are just starting to learn. These are respectable, emotionally complex, multifaceted individuals who are unfortunately besieged by political conflict; conflict fomented by poorly planned state boundaries and ethnic tension. I am confident that many war victims will make something of their lives regardless of their dire circumstances, with or without foreign assistance.
Perhaps, as the daughter of a successful refugee, I am overly optimistic. But I remember being struck by the amount of laughter at my first Sudanese Studies Association conference last year. Here were northerners and southerners, Muslims and Christians, men and women, emigrants and Sudanese, all sitting together discussing conflict resolution. They might have disagreed with one another about various topics -- sometimes vehemently so -- but they were still able to go dancing together after the talks were over. As one gentleman from Khartoum explained, these troubles are like a block of ice. They will melt away. So we tell ourselves in order to survive.
So to me, any "oh, let me save these poor souls" attitude seems condescending and flatly offensive. A million times better, in my opinion, to think "let me help these people manage their circumstances."
You DO Have an Effect
It is undeniable that many east Africans face enormous social and political obstacles to living in stable environments. But here in the United States, as in many different countries, we can help alleviate those problems without sending troops, or even large sums of money. We can support acknowledgment of political crises on an international level, and that acknowledgement will enable future redress of grievances. We can trade and form alliances with governments who treat their people in accordance with basic international standards of decency, and enforce sanctions on governments that do not. We can open student exchange programs and internships. We can write comparative policy reports and advise capacity building. We can offer microloans, we can send doctors, we can send engineers. We can distribute STD information packets with birth control. We can teach neighbors to host community forums for conflict resolution. Maybe we can even expedite immigration for refugees from countries going through recognized conflict.
On an individual level, we can support intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations like the UNICEF and Human Rights Watch that are already engaging in such activities. We can write to our politicians whenever foreign aid is reduced, or when the United States hasn't acknowledged conflict abroad. We can volunteer for larger organizations, or we can donate directly to institutions abroad. There are second-graders who hold book drives for libraries in other countries. If you've been following all my posts, you saw the video of the boy who lost his water can -- why can't we send water cans? Blankets? Inflatable beds? Tents? Underwear? Shoes?
Okay, I'm emotional. Let me slow down.
The Bigger Picture
My point is, this is not some desperate affair that no one can solve. The mechanisms I mentioned above are helpful because they support stabilization and autonomy; they do not create economic reliance. True, Joseph Kony is not going to walk out of the jungle and lay down his arms because Joe Smith in the United States donated $5 to Amnesty International. But. Giving one bucket to a twelve-year-old boy might save a family of four from dying of thirst. And who knows what that family of four will turn out to be?
Making the point personal again, somebody saved my dad, and now he's a doctor in south-central Los Angeles, fighting his own battle against disease in one of the most impoverished areas of the West Coast. And because he was spared from hunger and violence, my brother was born and is working as an electrical engineer in Santa Monica. And me, I'm studying law in Philadelphia and putting together a human rights clinic for a university in Uganda. Look at the impact, and that was just one little act, just one person saved.
But -- and this is the last bar of soap in the box, I promise -- the reasons for anyone to be interested in foreign affairs is much, much broader than just one personal experience. Even under-developed nations like Sudan have valuable resources. Oil, for example. And in our current energy crisis, how valuable would those resources become if they were effectively managed and marketed across the hemisphere? Not to mention, small nations can be the source of disease such as Ebola, diseases which threaten to become a pandemic if they are not effectively quarantined and treated. And here's another angle: Think about the influence Afghanistan has had on our global political situation over the past ten years. And these are relatively powerless countries. Broaden your thinking to China and macrolending. Think about Russia's oil pipelines and how its control influences the United Nations Security Council and our allies in Europe. Recognize that the Berne Convention has affected intellectual property rights in the United States.
We cannot ignore other countries; not for humanitarian reasons, and not for business reasons. This is the wisdom of small tribes, an entry that I will write another day: For the sake of survival, you cannot ignore your brother. The person you take care of today will save your life tomorrow. The person you angered yesterday will let you die, given the choice.
Those kids whose lips were cut off by soldiers from the Lord's Resistance Army -- we can't afford to discount them. They might seem a world away, but their lives and ours are interconnected. We are all interconnected. And we benefit mutually from helping one another survive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)