A beneficial friendship: Egyptian-US relations

Hilary Clinton’s visit to Cairo in mid July re-affirmed the United States’ support for a democratic Egypt. Clinton and President Morsi discussed, what she described as the “broad and enduring relationship” between the United States and Egypt, which has been mutually beneficial for both nations over the years. Egypt has, in recent history, been an ally of the US and has played an important role in protecting the US’ interests in the region. Clinton’s meeting with President Morsi covered a number of topics that are pivotal to the relationship between the two countries, including, democracy, stability and most importantly Israel. The uncertainty that arose from the toppling of Mubarak certainly would have worried US foreign policy makers. The aspects of the relationship have changed, the US is no longer dealing with an autocrat that can be controlled easily, but now they must deal with a democratically elected President who is charged with upholding the interests of the people he represents.

Many might take it for granted that maintaining a good relationship with the US is necessary, but in Egypt there are a number of reasons why the US might not be seen as a friend. The US has an image of being a meddler in Middle Eastern affairs, a view shared by many across the region. The strong and unwavering support for Israel serves to alienate much of the region’s population further, not to mention the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition to this the strong relationships with the corrupt and authoritarian regimes in the region puts the trust of the US at quite a low level in the Middle East. Why then, should Egypt maintain a relationship with the US if all they seem to do is cause trouble in the region? Why shouldn’t the Arab world return to fighting for the Palestinian homeland?

Money is the answer. Egypt is one of the largest beneficiaries of US spending, and much of this is reliant on the peace with Israel. Even if Egypt wanted to go to war with Israel they wouldn’t be able to afford it. Egypt’s domestic issues are desperately critical. Poverty is rampant throughout and the economy is in tatters. With many tourists being put off by the scenes of a violent revolution, one of Egypt’s biggest industries has been hit hard. It is clear that now, more than ever, that Egypt could benefit from some extra money in order to stabilise itself.  This was part of Clinton’s support package and it seems that Morsi has taken it and has since give assurance to his Israeli counterpart that he will work for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The US believe that with Egypt secured as an ally, the region is stable as far as Israel is concerned, apart from the game of nuclear cat and mouse with Iran. At this point the interdependency between Egypt and the US is just as it always has been: necessary. If Egyptians were hoping for change then it will not occur in foreign affairs. It seems that some things cannot be changed by a revolution.

Gove's Reforms: A Blast from the Past

Michael Gove’s well publicised recent Education reforms which call for a return to a two-tier secondary qualification, akin to the old O level/CSE system, came as a surprise to many, not least to the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Not only is this yet another clear example of the increasingly ‘behind close doors’ attitude that has engulfed Britain’s governance since the advent of the coalition, it is also one of the most controversial policies. Mr. Clegg has suggested he will vote against the propositions simply because ‘he was not consulted’ (roaring passionately as he throws his toys from the pram). Cameron for his part has now, fairly limply it must be said, got behind the proposals, but Gove has since been forced to retract somewhat and pull his neck in, lest he be beaten to death by Lib Dem cabinet members with what remains of their 2010 election manifestos.

So what of the remaining proposals themselves? Most notable amongst them is a move towards a single exam board that will set standardised, cross-the-board papers, in an attempt to enact a more rigorous approach to examinations. Moreover, there will be no more re-sits, except in the key disciplines of English and Maths. Whilst I do agree with Mr. Gove that British education is in dire need of reform, I also firmly believe that this is not the way to do it. Mr . Gove wants to build an education system for the future, to compete with the likes of Singapore, France and the USA; as the White Paper of April this year argues. However, these proposals are anchored in the past. If Britain wants an education system of the future (presumably to build an economy of the future), the past is not the place to find it.

We have already entered a new age in how we communicate, work, play and interact. This is the information age and in the information age, the enlightenment notion that knowledge is power is becoming ever less important, whilst understanding is becoming increasingly so. We continue to persevere with the industrial revolution’s model of education, born out of the values of the enlightenment. This system is founded on principles of education for the masses; but what this has led us to in the 21st century is a lowest common denominator structure. Schools are run like factories; children are sculpted and taught to in the same way, treated as a batch and not an individual. As any teacher worth their salt will tell you, what works for one child will not work for another. Furthermore, why should Britain aspire to be like any other country in its education system? What is right for the children of Singapore may not be right for the children of Britain. If Mr. Gove wants to start building education reform we need to be progressive not regressive, leaders not followers and we need to think differently about what we think will best benefit our children and our society as a whole.

What I mean by this is that principles of creative, divergent thinking are what need to be taught to our children. Ironically, these are the very same principles which Mr. Gove has failed to apply to his own education reforms. An approach centered on children being encouraged into a culture of learning, of interaction, of modern skills and of personal discovery that can take them out into the world with a desire to learn, create, collaborate and improve. A lecture given by Sir Ken Robinson to TED followers ‘Changing the Education Paradigm’ rather neatly sums up this sentiment: That we need to think differently about how we educate our children if we want to move forward and Michael Gove’s proposals would certainly be a step backwards.

I will use myself as an example, I have just graduated from a Russell Group university with a degree in Politics & Philosophy. My degree result and previous application to my subject has been good enough for me to be offered a place to study for a Masters at that same institution. However, this educational success has not always the case. I finished college with reasonable A-Levels but decided late on that I didn’t want to take the university course to which I had applied (Sports Science).The ability to do re-sits allowed me to improve my grades enough to get into a higher standard of university and to subsequently to excel within that environment. This is a classic example of children maturing at different ages academically. At 19 I was among the least qualified of the students entering the course, but by the age of 21 I had developed enough to stand out within the right environment. Any education system needs to give young people every opportunity to succeed in this way, not penalise them and create a culture of failure because they are not at the same level as their peers at any given age in mental arithmetic or their ability to remember the names of the Tudor kings and queens.

Education is undoubtedly in need of reform and indeed always will be. The world changes at such a rapid pace that we need to be prepared to be constantly flexible in all our institutions to adapt and survive. If we cannot achieve this then they will fall into disrepair and generations of children will be failed. To achieve these reforms by reverting to an archaic method that simply closes down children’s options before they could even understand what they are seems unjust. Education needs change and it needs both imagination and creativity to help us to achieve this, not simply a reversion to antiquated, anecdotal notions of previous excellence. We have to reassess the most basic principles on which our model of education stands, the things that we take for granted, standardised testing, class sizes, methods of teaching, what we are actually teaching if we wish to move towards a brighter, more educated future.

J.P. CHESHIRE

Putin's Russia:Parallels with Al-Assad

The first part in a new series on Russia, its internal politics, and its role in International affairs.

The recent news that a Russian cargo ship, bound for Syria, has turned back after having its insurance to move through British waters revoked by the government is troubling. On board the MV Alead reportedly were three Mi-25 Helicopter Gunships and a new advanced air defence system; the perfect tools to fight a civil war and to deter any potential interference from the outside world. The ship, which was flying the flag of the Dutch-Antilles, is now likely re-sail under the Russian tricolour as a sign of the Putin regime’s determination to support Al-Assad.

In such a case, any attempt by the British authorities to prevent the passage of the ship would be highly prevocational and illegal. Instead the significance of the matter remains with the actions of the Russians: Putin’s determination to defy the western world is indicative of his deep paranoia over internal opposition and of the continuance of his outward-looking KGB Cold-War mentality. Indeed the recent wave of protests that have accompanied Putin’s re-entrance into the Kremlin have provoked a difficult situation for the regime. The propping up of Assad is becoming increasingly reflective of the domestic situation in Russia, as the Oligarchy resorts to intimidation and oppression of opposition forces, fearing a movement reflective of the Arab-spring.

Pro-Democracy protests against Putin's rigged re-election to the Kremlin: New laws against protests are indicative of the police state characteristics of Putin's internal and external policies (more on the protests in Part 2) 

This paranoia is compounded by the paranoia of the ruling elite, who see every attempt to challenge them as part of a wider western-led plot to overthrow them. Luke Harding, in his book Mafia State has estimated that up to 77% of the political elite could have FSB ( (Russia’s post-Soviet Intelligence agency) and/or KGB backgrounds, including 42% of leaders who are already known to have had. Such a makeup goes some way to explaining the action of a regime that has moved to solidify its position internally through oppression, whilst simultaneously remaining belligerent in its diplomacy toward democracies. It is therefore unsurprising that despite the moral-bankruptcy of his position, Putin continues to block UN resolutions towards Syria, considering the immediate parallels that can be drawn between the protests in Syria and the Arab world in general, and the protests against Putin’s recently rigged return to the Kremlin

Aside from explanations centred on the backward and autocratic mentality of Russia’s political elite, and the parallels that can be drawn between Syria’s revolution and Russia’s own internal opposition (more to come in a future article), the regime’s actions can be viewed as an attempt to remain a big game player on the international stage. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs has stated “my deep conviction is that Russia has not cared about its international image for a long time.” This may be true, to the extent that Russia does not care what the west thinks of it. But Putin is desperate to revive the strength of his Russian state; which means being taken seriously by both internal opposition and the West.

The support of Syria is just one on a list of actions that share inconspicuously the common theme of highlighting the strength and autonomy of Putin’s regime from the West. The murder of the KGB defector Alexander Litvineko by FSB agents in London in 2006, which was likely to have been ordered, or at least endorsed, by Putin, is another such example. In the aftermath of the assassination, the Putin regime refused to give up the supposed killer, Andrei Lugovoi, and even endorsed him for political office. The invasion of Georgia to humiliate the country and its president, Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008, for their pro-Western stance is also indicative of this.

A posed picture as part of Putin's carefully cultivated 'Strongman' image

The message of Russia’s actions in Syria is simple: ‘We don’t need the West and we do as we please.’ But as The Economist has argued, Russian defiance should not be seen as an insurmountable bar to action: It did not prove to be in Kosovo in 1999. The UN Security-Council should thus move to outmanoeuvre Russia, and sideline it from resolutions, particularly if China’s position softens further. My personal suspicion is that Putin does care about Russia’s international image, just as he cares so obviously about his domestic one. Just as he wants to return Russia to great-power status, so too does he want to project an image of strength. The response therefore, should be strength from the West against him; to be ignored in the case of Syria would be a humiliation for Putin both internationally and at home.

Putin’s legitimacy had been quashed in the wake of the election-rigging scandal and his oppression against opposition and his support of dictatorial regimes is reflective of this domestic context. With his regime’s position so morally-bankrupt, western leaders should not allow him the pleasure of playing such a major, and disruptive, role in international relations.

Upcoming:

Part two of this feature will deconstruct Putin’s so called ‘Mafia State’ and assess how Putin’s ascendancy to power has corresponded with the formation of an autocratic oligarchy. Part three will question whether, with the centennial anniversary of the 1917 revolution soon coming into view, popular opposition forces will have the strength to enact a new revolution.

Austerity vs Growth

In his recently released book ‘End this Depression now!’ Nobel-Prize winning economist Paul Krugman cuts against the current economic consensus, arguing for a return to Keynesian economics to push us out of the current recession. He believes that the deficit needs to be extended with more public spending in order to restore the confidence of consumers and businesses. With the recent democratic revolutions in Europe against austerity, Krugman has stated that today's voters across Europe have proved themselves "wiser than the Continent's best and brightest.”

Krugman’s arguments will be wind in the sails of Labour, who are advocating a ‘pro-growth’ strategy of enlarged public spending. The logic is that just like in the 1930s, governments must spend more during a recession in order to stimulate demand. The danger is that, as R. Rajan in Foreign Affairs has pointed out, the current recession is very different in nature to that of 80 years ago. He has argued that the recent growth has been fuelled by cheap borrowing – and this ‘debt-fuelled growth’ is unsustainable. Austerity is therefore necessary to cut the deficit and ensure the confidence of those lending to Britain.

So what is it to be – Austerity or Growth? With Europe’s voters rejecting austerity, the coalition is coming under increasing fire from both voters, in local elections, and many commentators also. Labour has rallied against austerity, blaming the coalition for the ‘double dip’ that the British economy has taken. However, the major extent of the coalition’s austerity has yet to hit, and with the EU being Britain’s largest trading area, the Euro implosion is undoubtedly having a significant impact.

Across the pond, Obama can take credit for overseeing a rejuvenation of the US economy with a significant stimulus package, evidence for Krugman and Labour’s cause. But US fiscal policy also mixes in necessary fiscal restraint, perhaps in part enforced by the brinkmanship tactics of the Republicans. Furthermore the US economy is also being rejuvenated by dynamic states who enjoy significant autonomy from the centre but are nevertheless required to balance their budgets – policies that are noticeably far from the Labour vision.

America is proving that austerity and growth are not necessarily mutually exclusive: Obama’s emphasis on ‘fairness’ is certainly a more palatable message to voters than the austerity enforced by centre-right parties across Europe (and facing widespread rejection). Yet the question has still not been answered as to when the bill will be paid. Obama’s plan, in an election year, may be successful in securing his re-election – in France, Hollande has been successful in using a more drastic plan to overturn Sarkozy. Here, Labour are promising much of what Krugman has advocated, but like Obama and Hollande are yet to decide when the budget deficit will be reduced. As a party largely reliant on high public spending, it is difficult to see them taking the plunge (if they are elected and recovery occurs) to cut spending when Britain is on the up again. It’s all very well promising more ‘debt-fuelled growth’, but Labour are yet to prove they are mature enough to keep the more sour end of the fiscal bargain – footing the bill during the good years.

‘A liberal, a moderate and a conservative walk into a bar…’

So begins a joke in yesterday’s Financial Times; it ends with the barman looking up and saying ‘Hi Mitt.’ The candidate who is now all but guaranteed to challenge President Obama in this year’s election is well characterised by this feed line. Certainly the FT seem vindicated in its interpretation that Romney is a candidate unable to make up his mind; Romney has consistently backtracked and bungled his way through the Republican primaries, leaving a heap of ammunition for Obama’s campaign to cut into hard hitting adverts indicating his indecisiveness.

This is partly true, but in essence Romney’s dithering is reflective of a wider trend in American conservatism that has been evolving since before Reagan. The growing dominance of neo-Conservatism within the Republican Party and their support base is having a telling effect on Romney, who is instinctively a moderate. In effect Romney is being forced to adopt more Rightist policies than he would like since neo-Conservatism has triumphed in taking over the American right: As a result, social issues have been pushed to the fore in the primaries, and Romney has had to adopt a belligerent and aggressive foreign policy outlook based on American exceptionalism and the aim to bring American values to the world.

As the FT has highlighted, it is with foreign policy that he is most easily able to assert that he was a true conservative, since as Governor of Massachusetts he had no foreign policy and so has had no precedent to diminish his claims. This neo-Conservative influence has been guaranteed by his foreign affairs team, which contains less realists and less diversity than under George W. Bush.

However Romney is not a natural neo-Conservative, and his domestic record highlights this. Whilst labelling Obama’s healthcare plan (‘Obamacare’) as ‘socialist’, he pre-empted Obama’s plan by introducing something similar in Massachusetts. His domestic record also indicates his willingness to debate tax rises, and on the moral front, his Mormon faith does not sit well with many Christian voters.

Essentially, Romney is being pushed right by voters who are reacting to the black, ‘socialist’ Obama. However the propagation of moral issues and the right shift of the Republican Party, who on the face of it are just reacting to this public move, has been an agenda pushed by neo-Conservatives for over two decades.

The two American parties are further apart now than they have ever been but it has been the Republicans who have most vehemently pushed ideology over pragmatism. The use of brinkmanship tactics that ultimately resulted in the downgrading of America’s credit rating is one fiscal example. Perhaps more dangerously it has been the triumph of the radical-Right agenda in the social and foreign sphere that is forcing Romney to make promises he is not keen to keep, but may have to if he is elected. 

 FILM/ POLITICS

GasLand

Is shale gas the answer to the global need for an alternative source of energy? Over the past decade shale gas has become an increasingly significant resource for America; predictions estimate shale gas will contribute up to 50% to gas production in North America by 2020. The Obama administration believes that it could help reduce pollution output and ease the dependency and potential of energy price rigging from Russia and the Persian Gulf States. North America has a cluster of shale plains (some of the largest in the world) and more have been located in South America, Europe and Africa. However, before you start running the bath and dreaming about buying your next Range Rover, open your eyes to the threats that shale gas extraction poses. 

Josh Fox (Writer, Director and Star) is one of thousands of Americans who have been approached by an energy company to take a lump sum in return for the use of the gas thousands of feet below their land, but he wishes to explore the issue further before committing to a decision. GasLand is a superbly shot, first person activist, exploratory look at the affects of the shale gas industry, namely “frack” drilling technology and its role in the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history, covering 34 states with over 450,000 wells. Fox sheds light on countless first person experiences illustrating the negative side effects that fracking incurs and the institutional and systemic subversive barriers that prevent solving the issue.     

In the global race to secure energy provisions, GasLand paints a bleak picture for the current methods, effects and future of shale gas extraction and the chances of America ever abiding to cut greenhouse emissions dramatically. It is no coincidence that in 2005, Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol and pushed through a new energy bill exempting the oil and natural gas industry from a number of provisions including the Clean Air Act. As the scramble for resources continue and the current European economic conditions prevail, the appeal of shale gas increases and the reality of fracking impinging on new households is very real.

For instance, here is a link to the first European interdisciplinary shale gas initiative - excuse the acronym:

http://www.gas-shales.org/index.php/en.html

Francois Hollande – The Unknown President?

The Socialist candidate in the 2012 French Presidential election Francois Hollande received an official endorsement this week from his former rival, Presidential candidate and the mother of his four children Segolene Royal, as ‘official’ campaigning began on Monday ahead of the first round of voting on April 22^nd. Yet little is known about Hollande outside of France; if you asked most Europeans what they know about France’s potential leader, you would most likely be met with head scratching and listless shrugs. This is in part because Hollande carries negligible international experience, and as such has been largely ignored by key European leaders on his campaign visits to Germany and the UK. His measured campaign and lack of strong Presidential personality, so beloved in post-Gaullist France, has been criticised by some as a failing to seize the initiative on his significant early poll lead, allowing his more experienced and aggressive opponent Sarkozy to make up ground.

Inevitably, President Sarkozy has relentlessly attacked his adversary on this issue, questioning his governing credentials and lack of political identity throughout the period of unofficial campaigning. Can France be entrusted to a man who has never even commanded a government ministry? Indeed, were it not for the well publicised international scandal that engulfed Dominique Strauss-Khan last year, leading to the initial favourite for the Socialist candidacy having to step aside, Hollande may well have not been here at all. This kind of personal assault has been typical of Sarkozy’s assertive political style, as his campaign has attempted to cover up the fact that he was the first president in the history of the French Fifth Republic to be less popular than their Prime Minister (Francois Fillon) and had a ‘recovering’ approval rating of merely 34% as of November 2011[i]. By comparison Hollande has largely refrained from mentioning Sarkozy at all, most significantly in his keynote speech at Bourget in January.

In times of great political uncertainty for both France and Europe, what one can be assured of is that if Hollande is elected come April, Europe will have to welcome a vastly different character from Sarkozy, the ‘bling-bling president’, to the top table. Hollande has pushed his image as an everyman of considered intellect, in comparison to the flashy showmanship and often erratic outbursts which have characterised Sarkozy’s time in office. Hollande has cast financial capitalism as his enemy and thus looked to capture much of the energy and disaffection of what Occupy would have called ‘the 99%’. In this mode Hollande has also pledged to implement a 75% top rate tax on earnings of over €1m and promised to renegotiate the European Treaty should he be elected.

Controversial as these policies have been, they have been par for the course in what has been a fractious, values lead, discourse light campaign, as neither candidate has been moved to any genuine discussion about the French economy, the countries budget deficit or the loss of its triple A credit rating last year. Hollande still has a 55% 2^nd round poll lead[ii] but the gap is narrowing. Sarkozy has now overturned Hollande’s first round lead polling at 29% to Hollande’s 26.5%[iii]. If Hollande wishes to claim victory he may have to take the initiative, as passively allowing the wily Sarkozy and the far right to dominate the current discourse with predictable posturing over immigration and crime may leave him isolated. Unless he can redirect discussion and get serious on the economy, as well as answer some of his opponents and critics challenges by showing some Presidential character and coming out of his shell; Hollande may well find himself left in the wake of the Sarkozy show.

J.P. CHESHIRE                                                                                    

---

[i] OpinionWay, November 2011

[ii] IpsosFrance, 10^th April 2012

[iii] IFOP-Fiducial, Friday April 6^th.2012

Boris digging hole in mayoral race

Running for re-election as London Mayor in May, Boris Johnson is playing a dangerous game by threatening to veto the proposed third runway at Heathrow. The Tories had previously ruled out the possibility of an expansion at Heathrow in their 2010 manifesto but lobbying by both domestic and foreign business interests has put the controversial issue back on the agenda in this year’s budget.

Johnson has consistently portrayed himself as a green-friendly mayor and has vowed to reject a new runway on the grounds of the pollution it would cause over West London. Instead he has reiterated his support for a new airport on the Thames Estuary. In doing so he is at risk of losing support from many in the capital, especially considering the current economic climate. An expansion of Heathrow would be a cheaper and more effective answer to the clear need to increase Britain’s airport capacity in the Southeast, which is being aggressively challenged on the continent. The question is adding more strain to the coalition partnership, since the Liberal-Democrats had previously promised to oppose a capacity increase at Heathrow.

With the mayoral election looming, Boris needs to assess the kind of message he wants to put to voters. Pledges made by former mayor and Labour candidate Ken Livingston to make London more ‘New York-esque’, based around an increased independence from the rest of the country, may appeal to those worried about the capital’s competitiveness on the world stage. Boris may be playing into the hands of his opponent by seeming to not put London’s needs as seriously.

The Granny Tax was a surprise that should be welcomed by young people

So far those who were ‘late to the party’ have been hit hard by the economic downturn; sharing the burden is the right thing to do.

One of the biggest surprises of George Osborne’s budget, and certainly one of the biggest political risks, was the decision to freeze tax allowances for pensioners. This was certainly a controversial move: the reaction of the right-wing press exemplifies the scorn Mr Osborne is facing from one of his core support groups, who also happen to be much more likely to vote.

The decision will mean that pensioners will lose money in real terms (the Evening Standard estimated the average London pensioner will be £83 shy annually), and in other parts of the country this could have a harder impact. But the measure has not proposed a cut to allowances, and with growth estimated for 2012-13 to be around 0.8%, a freeze was the right thing to do. The elderly already rightly receive other bonuses, such as free travel passes, and have arguably borne a relatively small burden from the recession.

The under-25s on the other hand, with slightly over a million unemployed and that first rung on the housing market still impossibly high, have been hit by hard times. With the next generation of graduates set to exit higher education with debts nudging £40,000 (including maintenance for a 3 year course), it seems to me that a freeze on a tax exemption seems like small change. This is especially so considering the main source of wealth for many older people: property. Particularly in the Southeast, property prices over the last 40 years have skyrocketed (the highest have been in Brighton, where prices have increased 40-fold), meaning that those in their prime during the boom times were able to ride the property bubble to relative affluence.

This is not without qualification; the elderly deserve to live in comfort and to enjoy what they have earned in retirement. Similarly it should go without saying that those dependent on the state should receive as much as can be afforded. However as one weekend commentator put it, being under-25 in the 2010’s is the equivalent to turning up to a party to find the house trashed and everyone being thrown out for being too drunk. The baby-boomers in particular, have had it far too good.

With the retirement age ever increasing and the debt-to-employment ratio horribly disproportional, it seems to me only fair that those who have already made their money should take a small hit in these times.

The White Man's Burden: More on the Kony 2012 campaign

Our treasured national poet, Rudyard Kipling, infamously referred to the welfare and development of the African people as the 'white man's burden'; something that as a superior race, was an obligation to the white Europeans who were busy 'scrambling' for Africa 150 years ago.


As mentioned in my previous post, the Kony2012 campaign is not without a hint of neo-colonialism: Its liberal and altruistic motives are no different in many ways from the justifications used by British pro-imperialists during the inter-war period. Emerging from WWI as a declining industrial power and with souring unemployment, British policy makers advocated the development of the colonies in order to stimulate British exports and alleviate the depression. This was accompanied by a second, supposedly 'selfless' line of argument that formed Britain's 'Dual Mandate' policy. With the League of Nations' blessing, Britain framed itself as the 'benevolent imperialist' who would manage the development and civilising of these new states until they were ready to do so themselves.


Assumptions of racial superiority, prevalent in earlier colonial discourse, had certainly not faded entirely by this time. More generally such arguments were premised on the assumption that Africans were unwilling or incapable of developing themselves. To make a direct comparison between the Kony2012 campaign and European colonialism is perhaps unfair; the Invisible Children campaign are certainly not suggesting a general development of Africa in order to stimulate US exports and thus ease unemployment. However it is my suspicion that many of the celebrities endorsing the campaign (whether they are black or white) assume that the west is superior to Uganda and therefore that intervention there will be beneficial. 


As an example, the video makes no mention of the success Uganda has had in forcing Kony out of the country (I have already slandered the claim that the campaign's pressure caused Kony to 'change tactics' and go into hiding). By choosing to hide this fact, it has chosen to emphasise its own success over that of the Ugandans themselves, and thus only perpetuates the belief that Africa is incapable of its own action.


Moreover it seems to claim that its intervention would appear as some sort of magic bullet to the problems of those who have been affected. I am sure that many at the Kony2012 campaign have an intricate understanding of the complexities of such issues, particularly around development; so why sell it in such a simple fashion? Those watching the video might be fooled into assuming that the propagation of western influence is always a good thing. They might become convinced that Ugandans are helpless without their support.
They will therefore be disappointed to find that, like the most benevolent of the early Christian missionaries to Africa, that western development and welfare is not universally accepted as a panacea for improving quality of life.


To condemn too much is dangerous: The possibilities of popular pressure can be harnessed by noble campaigns; holding governments more accountable for morally bankrupt policies. But this is not the place to do it. Improving the terms of trade for Africa vis-a-vis the west, or tackling corruption there would have a far bigger impact to the welfare of Africa. But such issues are too divisive and complex for popular support to agree on a decision. Conflictingly, they would serve to undermine the interests of many ordinary people in the west; so what then? The answer apparently is to stick to the black and white issues.

Viral media has formed policy makers' out of the online community.

·         The Kony 2012 project is  sparking a debate on how much collective power, through social networking, can be used to influence or make policy.

Firstly,  it is only the threats posed by the method of the Kony 2012 that  is the danger, obviously not the honourable sentiment.

Objectivity and logic  are the champions of  policy making, but now the emotionally inspired zeitgeist of social networking is playing a bigger part. The argument is not that there is no need for this type of  emotional blackmailing,  policy making should have an overture of humanism. Even so, the choice to go to war should not be for mere  public consumption. This approach may see the beginnings of a slippery and dangerous path to lynch mob-ism. Before this is disregarded as overly cynical and bleak, let me explain.

The danger is that people could be coerced by emotion and not objectivity, by playing to our heartstrings. Out of the 30 million supporters of Kony 2012, did all of them read up on the poor credentials of Invisible Children, or delve any further into the Ugandan situation? Perhaps. But the sheer numbers would cry out that they did not. So here is the risk, the people have been emotionally urged to go on a crusade against evil for reasons unselfish and admirable, but without proper consideration.

The Invisible Children run under the banner of ending war,  yet the campaign is advocating  a kind of war, a war of policing the world. All the while, they help supply the Ugandan military, and pursue a cause that would inevitably  see more military intervention all over the world, and on a moral basis rather than the 'finite' reason of self-protection. As Gordon precluded, it smacks of neo-colonialism, in a  sense  a mandate, based on the idea that the relatively few have a moral authority over the rest.

And if it is a force for good, which I think Invisible Children is, then I think that is brilliant. Nevertheless, the power of viral media may have taken over from TV as the best  controlled indoctrination tool.  The internet audience must be ever self-vigilant and critical of what they experience online, especially if it concerns decisions as significant as going to war. It makes me grumble to think that people need to see the tragic events of  Jacob juxtaposed to a cute kid doing sand angels to appreciate the horrible situation in Uganda

The Invisible Children are false advertising; in reality they are not  anti-war; emotion has betrayed the audience from investigating this. This is not a slant on the Invisible  Children's integrity, I support their noble cause, and hope that Kony is punished. However, if one man's NGO can persuade people to put aside their objectivity , and indirectly and unknowingly insight  war because of emotional propaganda, this is  a danger. "The world is not ruled by reason, but by passion, and when a man is driven to despair he is ready to smash everything  in the vague hope that a better world may arise out of the ruins." Kock-Weser Foreign Affairs Journal.  When a war is for public consumption it can be as temperamental as its people are, if it is for public protection it has some limiting factors, the perceived parameters of self defence.

Whether for good or bad,  the internet has allowed for the privileges once only bestowed on  governments and authority's to decide to go to war, to everyone online. And this everyone can be blinded by emotional propaganda. The Kony 2012 project is a good use of this emotional propaganda, but it could be used for more sinister causes. The people are blinded by emotion in this campaign, this time it is a good thing; but the new collective power of the internet, combined with  good spin doctoring can lead to people putting aside their objectivity and  picking up their pitchforks.  

Why the 'Kony 2012' campaign is doomed to failure

The recent explosion online of Invisible Children's 'Kony 2012' video has brought to the fore the possibilities of social networking in changing the political landscape. The video links itself with the use of social networking in triggering the uprisings of the recent Arab spring and its ongoing use in Syria. But the American NGO has also come under much criticism for its lack of transparency in its allocation of donor's money.

There are perhaps bigger problems still. The cause itself is admirable, and the possibility that people power can influence the course of American foreign policy and therefore the world is optimistic: Its success in bringing the Obama administration to send a task force of 100 US special forces to help train the Ugandan military is creditable. But the campaign is doomed to fail and therefore also to disappoint the thousand that have gotten involved on the back of such a possibility. Half a decade ago Kony was forced from Northern Uganda into the impassable jungles of the DRC, one of the least governed and governable regions on earth. If he wants to remain hidden there, he will do. The video claims that it was its involvement that forced Kony to 'change tactics' and go into hiding, but in truth he has been in hiding long before the American military assistance was sent.

The DRC means little, currently, to America. Though its vast untapped mineral wealth may indeed bring it to prominence in coming decades, there is no chance, no matter how much popular lobbying power, that the US will involve itself in any larger military campaign there as the video has called for. The US has little regional interest there, no real allies, and no interest in stirring conflict in another part of the globe. What is more the DRC is significantly larger then Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq, and I doubt the US military will ever try to claim, as it has done historically, that it can win a campaign there. Such a likely failure is unfortunate and will only lead to the disappointment of those who have pinned on the Kony 2012 campaign their hopes of a more effective role for popular pressure in policy making.

Moreover the campaign asks broader questions as to where to draw the line in the sand. Kony is undeniably a monster who has earned his position at the top of the ICC's list. But a campaign asking for US government intervention smacks of neo-colonialism, albeit with liberal rhetoric. When the campaign fails, what then? Do you move onto number 2 (Sudan) or number 3 (Bosco Ntaganda, also at large in the DRC)? The chasing of these criminals is morally sound but technically impossible and not in America's wider interest. The Iraq war was first justified on the removal of a comparable monster, who not only murdered thousands of Kurds but was allegedly acquiring nuclear weapons. The more likely hidden explanation for the war, based ultimately on the threat Hussein posed to regional  oil, was far more within the American public's interest than the removal of Kony, who has no oil and no large conventional weaponry. My prediction is that many within the Invisible Children NGO (a charity motivated towards ending war) were against the intervention in Iraq.

Furthermore as one observer has pointed out (http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/03/07/stop-kony-yes-but-dont-stop-asking-questions/) the video makes not one mention of Uganda's president-come-dictator Yoweri Museveni, who came into power at roughly the same time as Kony emerged. Since then Museveni has succeeded in overturning Uganda's democratic system to keep himself in power. Perhaps if he was more accountable to the Ugandan people then he would have felt more of a need to ensure the safety of tens of thousands of children in the North of his country. American efforts could be far better placed in encouraging the re-structuring of the Ugandan democratic system. As P.Bryan will point out, such an end unfortunately is far more complex and un-emotive than the black/white picture painted by the Kony 2012 campaign (and is less effectively juxtaposed next to American kids making sand-angels.)