In Defense of Kony 2012: An Analysis of Criticisms

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?

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Reza Deghati @ AUP

Debating Human Rights recently had the opportunity to sit down with Franco-Iranian photojournalist Reza Deghati. Reza has been photographing and traveling the world for decades, sharing his insights into the places he photographs and the people he meets. More recently, Reza served as a consultant to the United Nations in Afghanistan and has turned to advocacy work. In 2006, National Geographic awarded him with a fellowship. We are grateful he has taken the time to share his insights with us about the changing world that is unfolding in such unpredictable ways.

What follows is an excerpt from our interview. In it, Reza explores the implications of the kinds of citizen journalism we are seeing in the Middle East and North Africa.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No Amnesty for Qaddafi

by Ebba Lekvall

In the last few months, rumors have circulated about the possibility of offering Muammar Qaddafi amnesty if he steps down. While the rebel leaders have declared their opposition to the idea, it now seems that both France and the United Kingdom may be open to the idea of pardoning the estranged dictator. Perhaps from a political perspective, amnesty in exchange for Qaddafi relinquishing power would be a good deal since it would most likely mean that foreign troops (mostly British and French) would be able to withdraw from this conflict – one that has already extended far beyond anyone’s imagination when the operation was launched in March this year. However, from an international legal and justice perspective, offering Qaddafi amnesty would be highly detrimental. Amnesty would mean completely undermining the international community’s efforts to end impunity, it would thwart the interests of victims in receiving justice, and contrary to popular argument, it would not actually provide a long-lasting and stable peace. Furthermore, amnesty for the crimes of which Qaddafi is accused is a direct violation of international human rights law.  Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Legacy of the ICTY

by Ebba Lekvall

With the arrest of Goran Hadžić on July 20 this year and his transfer to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the last remaining war crimes suspect on the ICTY’s list will be brought to justice after seven years on the run. The tribunal will be able to close its doors after almost 20 years of working to prosecute those most responsible for the atrocities during the wars of the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal has endeavored to deliver justice to victims, and has served as a catalyst for the recent development in the area of international criminal law. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No Longer Above the Law? Immunity for UN Peacekeeping Forces

On 5 July, six days before the 16th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre that killed 7,000 to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys, an appeals chamber in the Netherlands handed down an unexpected and historic verdict that for the first time found a state responsible for conduct in a UN peacekeeping mission.  The case (Nuhanović v. The Netherlands) involved the deaths of three Muslim men handed over to Bosnian Serb forces by Dutch peacekeepers at the UN compound near Srebrenica during the 1992-1995 Balkan conflicts.  The decision was celebrated by human rights groups but may have far reaching effects on the willingness of states to contribute troops to UN peacekeeping missions and may influence other cases involving UN and state responsibility for Srebrenica.  In addition, the ruling brings to light larger questions about the accepted status quo of immunity for UN peacekeeping forces. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Justice for all? International Criminal Law and the Environment

By Matthew Gillett

Debating Human Rights is is proud to welcome Mr. Matthew Gillett from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as this week’s guest blogger

“Now, as a result of this disaster, lives have been lost, businesses have been decimated, communities that had already known great hardship now face the specter of sudden and painful economic dislocations, untold damage is being done to the environment; damage that could last for decades”

Press statement by President Barrack Obama following BP Gulf Oil Spill, 1 June 2010

The world faces an environmental threat of catastrophic potential. Climate change, deforestation, loss of biological diversity and pollution are increasingly ravaging the planet.  President Obama’s words convey the destruction wrought on the American people and the local environment following the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Irrespective of whether or not BP or its representatives could face criminal charges for that disaster, it demonstrates the destructive capabilities of mankind.  One potential mechanism for addressing and seeking to curb examples of egregious damage inflicted on the environment is international criminal law. Despite the rapid development of international criminal law over the lasts two decades, prosecutions at the international level of those responsible for severe environmental destruction have remained rare and have not resulted in convictions.  Nonetheless, with other efforts to address environmental damage stalling, it is worth considering the increased use of international criminal law as an additional tool to confront extreme cases of environmental damage of concern to the international community.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Some thoughts on “third state complementarity”

by Dr. Philipp Ambach*

Debating Human Rights is proud to welcome Dr. iur. Philipp Ambach, Special Assistant to the President of the International Criminal Court as this week’s guest blogger.

One of the cornerstones of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter “Court”) is the principle of complementarity. Contained in Article 17(1)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute of the Court (“Statute”), the principle of complementarity stipulates that it is the duty of every state to exercise criminal jurisdiction over those responsible of international crimes,[1] and more concretely perpetrators of the crimes enlisted in Article 5 of the Statute.[2] Only when states fail to fulfil their duty in this regard will the court step in and exercise jurisdiction.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gaddafi’s Arrest Warrant – An Avenue for Peace and Justice?

A Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court (the ICC) housed in The Hague issued arrest warrants on Monday, 27 June 2011, for Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, and chief of military intelligence, Abdullah Al-Senussi for crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution, allegedly committed in Libya between 15 February 2011 and around 28 February 2011. The chamber stated that there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that the three men committed crimes against civilians stemming from the uprising against Gaddafi in February.

This is only the second time the ICC has issued an arrest warrant against a sitting head of state. Previously, an arrest warrant was issued for Omar Al-Bashir, Leader of Sudan, for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. Two other International Tribunals have also prosecuted leaders of state – Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, at the Special Court for Sierra Leone.

The Libyan government was quick to denounce the issuance of the arrest warrants, calling it a “tool of the Western world to prosecute leaders in the third world.” Continue reading

Posted in Africa, International Criminal Court, Libya | Leave a comment

Raising Awareness: World Refugee Day, “1 refugee without hope is too many”

Debating Human Rights reviews current refugee issues and challenges readers to “Do 1 Thing” on World Refugee Day

Today UNHCR celebrates World Refugee Day to raise awareness of the plight of refugees and highlight the inequalities and imbalances of the current refugee protection regime.  Through their new “Do 1 Thing” campaign, the organization is encouraging the public to engage in one simple activity to support refugees, either by learning about refugee issues, spreading awareness or donating money.  The dynamic website accompanying the campaign includes a refugee simulation game and a video recorded by UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie amongst other materials. Continue reading

Posted in Africa, European Union, Refugees | Tagged | Leave a comment

Kosovo Advisory Opinion, 2010: A Commentary

by Alexia Solomou

Debating Human Rights is proud to welcome Ms. Alexia Solomou from the International Court of Justice as this week’s guest blogger.

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “Court”) regarding the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo has been the subject of voluminous academic commentary since the date of its delivery. The aim of this commentary is to provide a concise understanding of this advisory opinion, providing an incisive critique of the majority opinion of the Court, and a reiteration of the cornerstone general principle of international law of territorial integrity. First, this commentary sets out the question posed to the Court by the General Assembly of the United Nations (hereinafter, the “General Assembly”). Second, it explains how the interpretation of this question by the majority of the Court constituted an actual reformulation of the question. Third, it briefly sets out the applicable sources of international law in this specific advisory opinion, namely Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999),[1] and the general principles of international law of territorial integrity and self-determination. Finally, it acutely analyses the majority opinion of the Court, challenging it both on methodological and substantive grounds. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment