This blog post was written by Virginia Bennis, a graduate of the American University of Paris’ Masters in Public Policy and International Law. She is based in Paris and can be reached at vabennis@aol.com.
Over the last four weeks I have been, quite frankly, awestruck by the negativity of comments surrounding the Kony 2012 video campaign produced by non-profit organization Invisible Children. My sudden delight over the fact that friends (who don’t know the first thing about international human rights law and, for the most part, used social media to post baby pictures and talk about Hunger Games) were sharing the video and discussing the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) was quickly stamped out following the Scrooge-like grumbling of my colleagues in the human rights field, many of whom are alumnae of postgraduate human rights programs, or currently work for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or inter-governmental organizations (IGOs). It was mind-boggling that so little good was being said of a YouTube video from a start-up NGO that had managed to introduce the plight of LRA victims to the general public on a scale that had never been seen before, despite two decades’ worth of attempts from better-funded and better-known NGOs, IGOs, and television networks.
In searching for an answer as to why anyone in the human rights field would disparage the success of a non-profit trying to raise money for LRA victims, I couldn’t help but feel that those of us familiar with the dialogue of human rights occasionally suffer from bouts of intellectual elitism, causing us to spew bitter criticism in a burst of condescending I-know-more-than-you-dos whenever one of the unassuming layfolk dares to take an interest in our sacred realm of expertise. We become threatened by sudden interest in a subject that has, for the most part, been ignored by the general public, and feel the need to assert our authority as, well, the authority, on all things human rights. Suddenly, our general knowledge on the LRA is commonplace, and in an attempt to make ourselves stand out, we begin nit-picking and forget to celebrate the bigger battle that has been won: namely, that people are starting to care about a humanitarian crisis that is happening a world away.
My intention in this article is to address six of the most common criticisms of Invisible Children and the Kony 2012 video in an attempt to make the case that the NGO is not, in fact, the wolf dressed in sheep’s clothing that some would have you believe.
1. The Kony 2012 video is an oversimplification of complex events
First of all, this is such an obvious statement that I have questioned whether or not I should justify it with a response…but I will anyway. Yes, the Kony 2012 video is an oversimplification of complex events. Of course it is. Why? Because it is impossible to portray an in-depth analysis of any humanitarian crisis in a 29-minute video, let alone one that stretches across four countries and a twenty-five year period.
2. The Kony 2012 video does not accurately document victims of the LRA
This criticism was spawned after Al Jazeera’s Malcolm Webb reported that a public screening of the Kony 2012 video in Uganda resulted in outrage and rock-throwing. In his March 14, 2012, blog, Webbs writes, “People I spoke to anticipated seeing a video that showed the world the terrible atrocities that they had suffered during the conflict, and the ongoing struggles they still face trying to rebuild their lives after two lost decades.”
I find this report disheartening, mainly because it appears as though the Ugandans attending the screening, many of whom were victims whose lives have been intimately and irreparably affected by LRA violence, were led to believe that the Kony 2012 video was some sort of documentary film depicting their plight.
It is important to bear in mind that the Kony 2012 video is not a documentary film. I would argue that its chief purpose is not even education. At face value, it is a 29-minute NGO campaign video whose principal purpose is to rally a target audience (anglophone Westerners) into donating time and money. The last half is the set up to a classic “call to action,” and anyone in the advertising industry will recognize it immediately in statements like “donate a few dollars a month” and “start making Kony famous today.”
I would argue that a screening of the Kony 2012 video to LRA victims is vastly insensitive outside of this context, and support the decision of the African Youth Initiative Network (AYINET) to suspend further public screenings because, let’s face it, at the end of the day it is a fundraising video about a white guy and his white kid.
3. The Kony 2012 video contains factual errors and misrepresents Kony as being in Uganda
There is one alleged factual error in the film that claims that over 30,000 children have been kidnapped and forced into slavery or child soldiering. That number is not a misquote from a UN press release, as some have claimed, but a statistic drawn from an educational pamphlet published by World Vision Australia, a Christian relief fund. I see little room for claiming a factual error, as this number is not inconsistent with other estimates. Human Rights Watch, for example, estimates that at least 20,000 children were abducted between 1987 and 2006 in Uganda alone. UNICEF currently places the total number of abducted children at “over 25,000,” and the World Vision figure seems conservative compared to the estimated 66,000 projected to have been abducted by the 2007 World Development Report, Development and the Next Generation.
Regarding the claim that the Kony 2012 video “misrepresents” the conflict as being largely in Uganda, I would say that “misrepresentation” is a strong word, especially in light of the fact that that the video transcript does point out that the LRA has moved to other countries, going as far as to display a map of central Africa depicting the areas in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic where Joseph Kony is reported to have moved (reproduced in the screenshot below).
4. The Kony 2012 video wants to make a serious human rights issue “trendy”
I would argue that Invisible Children is trying to do anything but make the human rights violations occurring in central Africa “trendy.” The video’s rallying cry is for sustained pressure on the U.S. government so that it does not cancel the current training mission in Uganda. As Senator Jim Inhofe explains in the video, “People forget and you’ve got to remind them, and it takes numbers to remind them…if interest wanes, than it’ll just go away.”
While some take issue with campaign’s edgy strategy of presenting Kony as a political candidate and the video’s unconventional stylistic choices (i.e. its conversational language; the integration of personal footage from the life of Invisible Children’s cofounder, Jason Russell), one thing is certain: it worked. The video went viral in a way that most human rights NGOs only dream about, breaking an online record of 100 million views in only six days, making it the “most viral video of all time.” With these views came unparalleled revenue for Invisible Children educational and economic programs throughout Uganda, the DRC, and the Central African Republic. All this to say that we should be celebrating and learning from the success of the Kony 2012 video, rather than criticizing it.
5. Invisible Children supports the Ugandan military
This misunderstanding is largely due to a controversial photo taken in 2008 depicting the Invisible Children founders holding assault rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher while posing with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). To their credit, Invisible Children has placed the photo it on their website, and chalked it up to what was supposed to be an ironic joke for family and friends, as they were actually in the DRC for the purpose of the 2008 Juba Peace Talks.
While the photo is certainly in bad taste, there is no evidence to suggest that Invisible Children provides financial or direct military support to the Ugandan military, and CEO Ben Keesey denies it vehemently in a recent “ask anything” video response.
6. Invisible Children advocates for a military solution
My first question regarding this criticism is this: Invisible Children advocates a military solution to what? I ask for specifics because, over the last two decades, the LRA has left in its wake a host of different problems that require a host of corresponding solutions, and by no means does Invisible Children believe that a “military solution” will fix the humanitarian, economic, educational, psychological, physical, or cultural damage suffered by the victims. As mentioned above, Invisible Children has implemented a number of programs aimed at everything from education to rehabilitation. Visit the Invisible Children website for an overview, or view the “ask anything” video response from the Invisible Children CEO Ben Keesey, who addresses the question of whether or not they support a military solution.
Now that we’ve established that the solutions required to rehabilitate LRA victims are varied and multifaceted, let’s discuss whether or not Invisible Children supports the use of a military solution to “stop Kony” from committing human rights crimes in the future. The short answer is yes, but let us not equate the use of military force for the purpose of arresting LRA leaders with a violent invasion of Central Africa. Jason Russell, the narrator of the Kony 2012 video and cofounder of Invisible Children, has advocated for the use of technology and “human power,” stating, “We don’t want bombs being dropped.
We don’t want a bullet through his head. We want him alive. That’s the win.”
Ultimately, Invisible Children advocates the surrender of Jospeh Kony to the International Criminal Court (ICC), which issued an arrest warrant on Kony (as well as other LRA leaders) in 2005, charging him with 33 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC relies on national governments execute these arrest warrants. So I ask you, how will the arrest of a notorious rebel leader who moves between four countries and is equipped with munitions befitting an army going to be carried out, if not with the use of armed soldiers? Voluntary surrender is not likely, and there are reports that Kony has continually used cease-fires and peace talks as ploys to rearm and carry out more attacks on civilians.
Even the “best case scenarios” require the use of the military forces. A stealthy bin Laden-style Navy Seal operation that ended in arrest, rather than death, would still require the use of armed forces.
Those who point to the the expansion of UN peacekeeping mission MONUSCO (the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo) as a non-military solution seem to forget that UN peacekeeping tasks are, by their own admission, “essentially military in character.” Despite this, it is doubtful that a UN peacekeeping mission would be used to extract Kony, as it seems to contradict the UN Peacekeeping Operations Principles and Guidelines, which would avoid a situation where a UN peacekeeping operation “risks becoming a party to the conflict, and being drawn towards enforcement action and away from its intrinsic role of keeping the peace.” What’s more UN peacekeeping officers are bound by the “non-use of force except in self-defense and defense of the mandate.”
The mandate, as outlined in Security Council Resolution 1906 and Security Council Resolution 1925 prioritizes civilian protection, and only authorizes the “support” of efforts of the government of the DRC “to bring ongoing military operations…against the LRA…to a completion.” This support is “premised on the protection of civilians as a priority” and includes: facilitation of the Demobilization, Disarmament, Repatriation, Resettlement and Reintegration program (DDRRR), “enhanced efforts to prevent the provision of support to armed groups,” and logistical support, amongst other strategies. Indeed, Resolutions 1906 and 1925 place the burden of apprehending Kony squarely upon the shoulders of national militaries, as is reiterated in a November 14, 2011 UN Security Council Presidential Statement:
The Security Council commends the important efforts undertaken by the militaries of the Central African Republic (CAR), the DRC, the Republic of South Sudan and Uganda to address the threat posed by the LRA, and urges those militaries to coordinate and concert their efforts to apprehend Joseph Kony and LRA top commanders in the coming months and bring them to justice.
Thus, it seems, even the UN Security Council agrees: a military solution is necessary to stopping Kony. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the military solution advocated by the UN Security Council, Invisible Children, and even the United States, is one of compliance with international humanitarian law.
In the end, I would like to say that I don’t believe Invisible Children or the Kony 2012 video is perfect. I do believe, however, that the merits of this campaign are being vastly overshadowed by misinformation, misunderstanding, and undeservedly harsh criticism. Instead of nit-picking about what Kony 2012 video doesn’t do, the human rights community should be celebrating what the video does do. Using an innovative strategy, Invisible Children was able to generate dialogue, raise money, and garner support for a humanitarian issue on a scale never seen before. In the end, isn’t that what we all want? Isn’t that the dream?
