Central African Republic - a good intervention?

as you might expect, the Central African Republic is a lot better known in France than it is in other European countries. This piece gives a good rundown of what has been going on. Although it does have some yes-buttery, namely that France is doing it (the intervention) for uranium, that the Americans are behind the intervention (as if Obama's America would have the balls) because they want the deposed pro-Western president Bozize reinstalled - the usual stuff. The facts are these though - Bozize was kicked out in a chaotic kind of coup, and now Muslim militias are killing and terrifying the population, with Christian militias springing up in resistance and using similar terror tactics. About 15% of the population is Muslim. Sudan is known to be providing covert support for some of the Muslim militia outfits. France already had some troops there, and now it has a lot more. The UN has been talking about a peacekeeping mission, but no decision has yet been made as to whether there will be one.

Francois Hollande's France (and the tail end of the Sarkozy regime before it) has a pretty good record on intervention, unlike David Cameron's Britain, and especially unlike Obama's America. The rest of Europe are pussies by comparison. Bring back Tony, I say. But then I've been saying that since 2007.

pic: alJazeera

two hundred and twenty-three

picture: Time

that figure ring a bell? It's how many were killed in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam fifteen years ago last week, in al-Qaeda attacks on US diplomatic facilities. US diplomats may have been the target, but most of those killed were Africans, and many others were permanently maimed. So it goes, with terror. Perhaps the memory of this was overshadowed by the 9/11 atrocity three years later. Certainly, those who gloated after 9/11, Guardianistas all, had nothing to say about 7/8 (as it has never been called). For myself, I am probably still trying to recover from the shock of ostensibly well-intentioned people on the left glorying in slaughter and terror, as has been happening since 9/11. I have always been an interventionist, without always realising it. Intervention saved Cambodia from the Khmer Rouge in 1979 - it was done though by the "wrong" people (the Vietnamese). Intervention in Afghanistan the same year gave education and a measure of equality to a generation. I was a strong supporter of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and I think subsequent events have shown me to be right. But that got me called a tankie. Well, yes, probably. Anyway, let's remember those 223 people who were killed by the death-lovers, and those who still mourn them.

Anyone? Anyone?

*sound of tumbleweed*

who volunteers abroad?

this piece from matador (where I had not looked before,and it is interesting), titled "Only WEIRD people volunteer abroad" took my eye this morning.  Hat-tip Andrew Wilson for putting up a link to it.  It is American, and it cites some research which shows, not very surprisingly, that the vast majority of Americans who volunteer outside the US are white and have a bachelor's degree and a family income above the average.  How else would they have the luxury of being able to do it in the first place?  Of course huge numbers of people, probably most people everywhere, volunteer in some way.  And a lot of those people are poor, and black.  Think of women in ppor neighbourhoods who do unpaid work for their church, or who look after neighbours' children on occasion.  Think, come to that, of people who feed  their neighbour's cat while the neighbours are away.  Volunteering is something most people are willing to do.  Those who reject the very idea, and who are firm in the belief that they will do nothing they do not get paid for, are most likely deluding themselves, but in any case tend to give the impression to others that they are narrow, life-hating and misanthropic.

Anyway, back to the piece, which I recommend you read, and click through some of the links too.  Nowhere that I could see does it stand up the notion that those who volunteer (it is really talking about relatively privileged young people from north America who go and do volunteer work in Africa or similar) are actually weird.  What it does indicate, backed up by research, is that large numbers of them believe that they are useful to the communities in which they volunteer, because they are better at what they do than a local person would be.  That surprised me a bit.  My American niece (OK, her parents are British-born) volunteered with the Peace Corps in Togo several years ago, and was very clear that for her this was going to be a learning experience.  She had never set foot in Africa before that.  She would learn, and if she could be helpful while doing so all to the good.  She took French classes before going there, and remains fluent in French.  My British niece volunteered in Tanzania at a slightly younger age, and for similar reasons and with similar objectives.  Tanzania is anglophone, so she had less need of prior language classes.  I don't believe either of them thought they could do local things better than locals could.  Perhaps it is normal for Americans to think so, as the research behind this piece indicates. Maybe that is what is intended to be understood as weird about those people - that they would think they could run an African clinic better than an African could.  But hey, maybe they are right.  Maybe it is wrong to assume that because someone is local they will be good at running a clinic, or teaching children, or whatever.  Still less that they will be better at it than a non-local because of their origins or ethnicity.  Maybe the wrong question is being asked, or answered.

What struck me here too was the testimony of an American who volunteered in Italy, I think it was earthquake relief.  She sounded scandalised that an acquaintance had been turned down for volunteering for earthquake relief in Japan because they could not speak Japanese.  She herself had gone to Italy speaking no Italian, and described the language barrier as a personal difficulty for her, rather than as a difficulty for the local colleagues she was working with, which it undoubtedly was.  If someone had come to work with her int he US with no English she would have treated it as a personal difficulty for herself, no?  Why did she not take an intensive course in Italian before going there?  Bizarre.  Did no-one suggest it to her? Perhaps readers of a north American persuasion can confirm (or deny) that north Americans really do refuse to learn the language of a place they are intending to spend some time in.

Personally, I have my doubts.