Leveraging Guilt: The Kony 2012 Campaign & the Militarization of Africa

The Uganda People's Defense Forces conduct joint training exercises with soldiers of the Georgia National Guard, supported by U.S. Army Africa, in Uganda in 2011.

by Dan Gordon*
Special to Sutradhar’s Market

In 1877, the British Empire was at the height of its glory, the Spanish Empire would soon collapse, and a young Oxford student named Cecil Rhodes was writhing in the dirt, gripped by a sudden religious vision.

After his madness passed, Rhodes scrawled out a manifesto based on his delirium.  In it, he called for an “Anglo-American Empire” that would begin in the heart of Africa and spread out to conquer the known world.

“Africa is still lying ready for us,” he wrote. “It is our duty to take it. It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory and we should keep this one idea steadily before our eyes — that more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race; more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses.”

Rhodes went on to found the DeBeers diamond cartel and devote his company’s vast wealth to the colonial project in Africa.  He couldn’t have known that, just over a century later, a new invention called the internet would be tweaking his message, smoothing out his more inflammatory language, and sending his ideas around the globe through YouTube and Facebook.  Nor would he ever had imagined that the first black president of the United States would be the one to carry his vision to its ultimate conclusion, under the guise of “humanitarian intervention.”

Fast-forward to March of 2012, when the non-profit Invisible Children launched an online video called “Kony 2012.”  Filled with lightning cuts, footage of battle-scarred African children, and tearful appeals to emotion, the video rallies its viewers around a single goal: stopping the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and its leader Joseph Kony.  With the help of the U.S. military, of course.  And Oprah Winfrey.

At first glance, that’s not such a bad idea.  After all, the Lord’s Resistance Army has kidnapped perhaps thousands of Ugandan children and forced them into their militia in their bid to topple the Ugandan government.  The fact that the movie ignores, however, is that Uganda’s government, and its U.S.-backed leader, Yoweri Museveni, doesn’t appear to have a much better record when it comes to human rights.

After all, Museveni was recruiting child soldiers to serve in the Ugandan military before the LRA unleashed its guerrilla war against the government.  His success is probably what inspired Koney to take up the same tactics. So why does “Kony 2012” try to pin the blame squarely on the LRA for a war in which neither side seems to be a friend of the Ugandan people?

It’s because Museveni is a willing tool of U.S. foreign policy.  His troops are helping the Obama administration back up an impotent government in Somalia, a regime so mistrusted by its people that it has no power outside of Mogadishu.  Because Museveni plays ball with the United States, he is given a free pass, just like Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi, to commit human rights abuses. (For more, please see: “Focusing on the Media of the Ethiopian Diaspora.”)  Meanwhile, African leaders who try to pursue an independent economic policy like Libya’s now-dead Muammar Gaddafi are rewarded with NATO bombs and arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court.  (For more please see:  “Searching for Truth in a World of Death, Violence & Media Voyeurism.”)

“Kony 2012” is a crafty piece of propaganda.  It happens to have been released at just the right moment in history.  The movie’s narrator warns “this movie will expire at the end of 2012.”  Of course, it’s just a coincidence that Barack Obama is running for re-election this year.  It’s also a coincidence that the Kony 2012 digital graphics the group has created to publicize its campaign are the same color as Shepard Fairey’s iconic “Hope” posters that swept Obama into office.  In the video, the camera often makes shy glances towards shots of the Kony and Obama posters next to one another.  The message is clear: elect one man and you will defeat the other.

Never before has subliminal programming been so blatant.  If the makers of the film are truly concerned about stopping violence in Africa, they might want to question the film’s premise — that the 100 U.S. Special Forces Obama sent to Uganda in October of last year are actually there to fight the LRA.  After all, according to the United Nations, the Ugandan military has whittled the LRA down to a mere 200 fighters.  With only two guerrillas for every special ops soldier, you would think the war would have been over in a weekend.

Another fact the film neglects to mention is that Uganda’s government announced the discovery of large oil deposits in the northern part of the country last spring.  Of course, this is probably a coincidence and has nothing to do with Obama’s decision to send special forces to Uganda several months later, despite the fact that the LRA has shifted its operations to the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to the makers of the film, rather than questioning the true motive of sending troops to Africa, we should use whatever means necessary to pressure the U.S. to beef up its military presence in the region.  To do this, the group has hijacked the language and imagery of the anti-globalization movement.  Dropping banners, wheatpasting posters at night, holding rock concerts, and raising your fist in the air all become subversive ways to fight for escalating our military presence in Uganda.

Cecil Rhodes would be smiling in his grave.

(For a different take on Kony 2012 and Invisible Children, please see:  “The Kony 2012 Campaign:  A Manhunt Goes Viral.”)

(The photo is by Sgt. 1st Class Brock Jones from U.S. Army Africa via Flickr; the photo is in the public domain.  To see two background reports on the Kony 2012 campaign and U.S. military involvement in Central Africa from Al Jazeera English, please check below after the byline notation.)

*Dan Gordon is a freelance writer living in Washington, D.C.  You can follow him on Twitter at @iamdangordon or contact him at upagainstthewalrus@riseup.net.  A version of this piece is cross-posted and available on Dan’s blog.



This entry was posted in Africa, Barack Obama, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Facebook, Internet, Joseph Kony, Libya, Meles Zenawi, Propaganda, Somalia, Uganda, United Nations, United States, Videos, YouTube, Yoweri Museveni and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Leveraging Guilt: The Kony 2012 Campaign & the Militarization of Africa

  1. Pingback: Recent Posts | Sutradhar's Market

  2. Although I agree with much of the anti-imperialistic and anti-militaristic tone of this piece, I’m compelled to comment about the offhand comment regarding Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi didn’t become a target of NATO bombs merely because he chose an independent path away from U.S. policy. That excuses the actions of a tyrant. It is clearer now than ever how human rights were violated in Libya for decades with a repressive regime that practiced torture. Gaddafi not only violated human rights but was a state sponsor of terror on a global basis. He became a target of the International Criminal Court (a court the U.S. does not really support) because of his human rights violations. I don’t follow the logic of wanting to lionize someone like Gaddafi because they opposed imperialistic or militaristic expansion of super-powers. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Sometimes when discussing these strategic areas, all the state actors or state leaders are acting badly. In our world where we want to paint everything as either white or black we find that hard to accept.

  3. saltyd says:

    …But accepting NATO’s claim at face value that the Libyan invasion was about protecting human rights is no different than accepting Bush’s claims that the Iraq invasion was based on weapons of mass destruction. In both cases military intervention was sold as a just and necessary step to take and the media has more or less accepted this justification until it was too late.

    If NATO was really concerned about protecting human rights, why didn’t it intervene in Gaza or the Congo or Bahrain when innocent people were being slaughtered by government forces? The fact that it only singles out countries like Libya shows that there are larger issues at stake.

    In 2009 John McCain met with Gadhafi and praised him as a peacemaker, saying that the U.S. would work to further ties with the Libyan government. But in 2011 he returned and met with the rebel leaders, this time encouraging them in their fight against Gadhafi. What caused this sudden shift in U.S. policy?

    It’s not as if Gadhafi dramatically shifted his human rights policy over those two years. He’s been pretty much the same guy over the last 40 years. So why, all of a sudden, did he become the number one tyrant like he was in the 80’s?

    Has Gadhafi committed human rights abuses? Probably. But not any more than any of the other U.S.-backed leaders you could pick from a hat. In fact, in January of 2011 the U.N. was set to release a report that commended Libya for the progress it had made in human rights (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24154). As the CIA-backed uprisings in Libya began, he asked the UN to send a fact-finding mission to his country to confirm what was happening, but the UN denied the offer because the invasion was already decided upon.

    I think it’s important not to idealize any leader, but there are specific policies Gadhafi carried out that made him a thorn in the side of U.S. plans for the region. It’s true that he had previously made deals with Western corporations for oil contracts, but in 2009 he unveiled a plan to transfer much of the country’s oil wealth directly to the its citizens (http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE51H0N120090218). Gadhafi was one of the few African leaders that refused to join AFRICOM, the U.S. military mission in Africa whose inaugural mission was the overthrow of Libya. He had announced plans to develop an African Monetary Fund, an African Development Bank, and an African Central Bank to serve as parallel institutions to the IMF and World Bank (http://www.rightsmonitoring.org/2011/04/why-the-west-wants-the-fall-of-gaddafi-an-analysis-in-defense-of-the-libyan-rais/). Gadhafi’s plan to begin printing African dollars in Africa would have challenged the strength of the CFA Franc, which is printed in Paris and used throughout most of West Africa. (http://japanfocus.org/-peter_dale-scott/3522). This can explain the zeal of leaders like Sarkozy to begin bombing their former allies.

    In short, regardless of his human rights record, his development plans were simply not in line with what the U.S. envisioned for the region, and that is why he had to be dealt with in the end.

  4. Pingback: Kony 2012: Lessons Learned? | Sutradhar's Market

  5. Pingback: Kony 2012, Lesson Learned?

  6. Reblogged this on Child Troopers and commented:
    I just returned from Uganda, and the main question people have is “why now?”.

  7. sanculottist says:

    Excellent post and, of course, not only has Museveni’s ethnic cleansing of the Acholi been given the green light, but ultimately any direct intervention in the region by the United States can also be sold as some sort of humanitarian exercise. That is, of course, what is happening and it is something that is also being facilitated by the “Kony 2012″ campaign.

    In casting our net further afield we might indeed also question George Clooney’s intentions in Sudan, which, if genuinely humanitarian, must at least smack of a certain naivity considering Washington’s Machiavellian “Realpolitik” in the area. AFRICOM pursuing humanitarian goals has to be seen as a bad joke!

    Good to see you bringing Meles Zenawi into a narrative which extends from Kinshasa to Kigali, Kagame to Kabila, is stretching out towards Khartoum. Yes, Musevini and his mates can get away with blue murder as long as they follow what Andrew J. Bachevich referred to as “Washington Rules”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s