The PBS NewsHour last night had a good segment on the Congoese civil war. One of the pundits interviewed, Bill Fletcher, offered a harsh view of the problem in the U.S.’s attitude toward African affairs:
When it comes to Africa, both Democratic and Republican administrations have shown a callousness towards the actual concerns of the continent, and at best, throw us a bone. You have a bias at all levels in this society– in the political realm, in the media, in education– a bias against the lives of brown people, of people that are nonwhite. There’s a bias that basically accepts that black death is somehow less important.
It’s hard not to look at media coverage and our political response to the situation and not think that Fletcher is correct in his assessment. That said, one question might be: given the entrenched racism in both the popular and political imagination, what short-term changes might make for a more engaged attitude on the part of Americans? It seems to me that, in addition to a broader and more sustained critique of subtle forms of racism in media coverage, there are two necessary avenues to explore.
One, that I alluded to yesterday, is a journalistic dedication to analysis that elucidates the changes that seem to be sweeping over Africa. African politics are confused by the combination of vestigial Marxist and anti-neo-colonial ideologies with oppressive local elites, making key players like “liberation” movements or nationalist parties hard to read according to Western expectations. Good journalism can present not merely events but an understanding of why the events occur.
The second area for improvement has to do with the formation of ideas in policy circles. Foreign policy is structured around our economic interest (and this rule has a corollary: even small economic players can gain importance through military power that threatens the activity of the advanced economies), and it will continue to do so. But ideals of humanitarian intervention aside, the impoverished world (Latin America, too, but particular Africa) deserves more attention for practical reasons having more to do with the long term than the short term. Militarily, African nations are “weak states” that can become crucibles of terrorist activity or conduits of black market arms. Having power vacuums across West, Central and East Africa doesn’t do the United States any good. Economically, with some initial investment in capital, the underdeveloped world could begin to grow. We don’t have any sure idea for the solution, but shirking away from our responsibility to help African economies is even more likely to do harm than throwing money at dictatorial regimes for foreign policy bribes. And that abdication ultimately does the world economy no favor.
No comments have been added to this post yet.