Author

James Walker

Upon His Return to Egypt, Activist Ahmed Maher Arrested by Egyptian Authorities

A little over a week ago, The Generation was fortunate enough to host and interview Ahmed Maher, a modern-day revolutionary, who upon his return to Egypt a few days ago was arrested by Egyptian authorities. Ahmed Maher was one of the leading architects of the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, a founding member of the April 6^th movement, and a proponent of youth oriented political change and democratic inclusion for one of the oldest nations on earth. The organization, which had begun with a handful of dedicated activists, now encompasses upwards of 50,000 dedicated and politically active members from a broad cross section of Egyptian society. Inspired by student-led, non-violent protests in Eastern Europe, the April 6^th movement has worked tirelessly to embody the ideals of political activism, collective expression, and non-violent change that are the hallmark of modern democratic societies, as exemplified by Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. King, and Otpor!.

That is why it is so disheartening to report that upon his return to Egypt, Maher was immediately arrested and detained on a number of politically motivated charges. He was subsequently released on bail, but must now face another round of legal and political obstacles. This is not the first time that he and his fellow April 6^th leadership have been attacked by the Egyptian establishment – but this time it is not the corrupt regime of Hosni Mubarak that fears the voice of Egyptian youth – rather it is the government of President Mohamed Morsi. Amongst a flurry of other high profile arrests, the detention of Maher for crimes of “incitement” only goes to demonstrate the desperate measures the current regime is willing to go to in order to quell dissent amongst the people.

What is most disturbing is the notion of Maher being portrayed as a threat to the peaceful stability of the state. Throughout our conversation with him on campus, a number of points were continually raised: the need for Egypt to transition into a true, peaceful democracy; the necessity of maintaining the non-violent philosophy of the organization; and the fact that the solution to Egypt’s pressing social, economic, and political problems must come from the people of Egypt themselves. Ahmed Maher is an Egyptian patriot in the true sense of the word. The rigorous process through which hopeful Egyptian applicants must apply to become members of April 6^th is intended to make them prove their commitment to the aims, goals, and philosophical objectives of the group. This strict dedication stands as a testament to the movement, and to its leadership’s desire to help Egypt navigate through this complex period of transformation.

Maher was in the US in an attempt to raise political awareness of the situation on the ground back home. He travelled to a number of cities, meeting with powerful groups in the Obama administration and Congress, as well as with student groups such as The Generation here at UCLA. When we asked him directly what he wanted to achieve during this visit, Maher replied that he wanted to highlight the complex challenges that democracy faced in Egypt, and help to forge connections between youth groups and activists across the globe. To be clear, he did not want US students to answer the questions facing his country – the Egyptian people are quite capable of doing that for themselves – but what he wanted was for a sense of solidarity and shared understanding, support, and compassion between the youths of the world. The more visible we are to each other, the more successfully we will be able to face the challenges of the modern era. The April 6^th movement stands as a testament to what can be achieved by dedicated people, and those willing to stand up for what they believe in.

Ahmed Maher and his allies were able to use the power of social media to help foster the revolution two years ago. Facebook and Twitter stand out as ideal non-violent media through which activists can gather, coordinate, express their views, and work for change. Even from a distance, those with an interest in the solidarity that Maher was talking about can make their presence felt. There are already rumors floating through the net concerning President Morsi deleting tweets about this incident, in the face of public scorn. With that in mind, I would urge you to take your place on the digital barricades. News concerning this recent arrest can be followed on Twitter at #FreeMaher, and there are countless Facebook and other Twitter feeds you can follow, write on, and show your support for. Our generation is often accused of being disinterested in the world at large, or at best of being “slacktivists.” The dedicated youth of Egypt prove that idea to be false – stand with them, and show the world that our generation is up to the challenges of the 21^st century, wherever in the world they may be.

Written by James Walker on behalf of The Generation editorial team.

May 11, 2013 1 comment

Asia Europe Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

This Land is Our Land: Territoriality, jingoism, and the farthest reaches of the Earth

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

Earlier this month, two of the largest and most significant economic powers on Earth came close to exchanging blows over a few scraps of rock in the middle of the East China Sea. Both the Japanese and the Chinese militaries locked radar guidance onto their opposite numbers, making this incident the closest that the two states have been to open hostilities since the end of World War II. Tension has been mounting since last September when Japan purchased the Senkaku Islands from a private Japanese owner (ostensibly in order to avoid an even more controversial plan by nationalist political activists within Japan). China has declared Japan’s acquisition an illegal nationalization of a disputed territory, and has ramped up patrols in the area as well as ramping up the aggressive rhetoric and sabre-rattling.

With diplomatic and military tensions rising, various tit for tat exchanges have taken place over the past few weeks. The Chinese Ambassador refused to accept an official protest from the Japanese government concerning military incursions over the island by the Chinese air-force. When summoned to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the Ambassador refused to attend and simply stated that the islands were Chinese territory. Various Ministers in Tokyo have expressed their outrage, calling such incidents “extremely deplorable,” while anti-Japanese riots have broken out across mainland China and Hong Kong. Several people have been injured, and the timing of the escalation of this dispute to coincide with the 75^th anniversary of the Nanjing massacre only serves to play into the jingoist rhetoric of nationalist sentiment in China.

This recent event comes at a time when China is actively disputing the sovereignty of a variety of small islands in both the South and East China Seas. As such, Japan is not the only country in the region wary of the Chinese navy’s territorial stake claiming. The Spratly Islands – a collection of over 700 reefs, islets and rocks in the South China Sea – are currently another source of regional tension, as they are claimed by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The Parcel Islands (also in the South China Sea) have been a disputed territory since the 1970s, and while occupied by China, are claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam.

To be clear, the Chinese are not the only nation laying claim to hunks of barren rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans. In addition to its dispute with China, Japan claims sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks – 46 acres of desolate topography in the Sea of Japan that falls nominally under the supervision of South Korea. For most of modern history, one family lived there. Now no one but a lighthouse keeper stays on the island. At least in the case of Japan’s claims to the Kuril Islands sufficient space exists to house a population. 19,000 currently people live there under Russian jurisdiction, since the islands were claimed by the Soviet Union at the end of the war.

Modern day territorial disputes, however, are not solely an East Asian affair; a quick tour around the world demonstrates the pervasive nature of the phenomenon. For example, possibly one of the most windswept, lifeless chunks of rock in the entire world lies in the North Atlantic Ocean, about half-way between the United Kingdom and Iceland. Rockall measure 83 ft. by 102 ft., and is claimed by the U.K., Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands), Iceland, and the Republic of Ireland. It is quite literally just a large rock – no land, no vegetation, not even a place to moor a boat.

For the United Kingdom, Rockall is just one of many disputed territories across the globe. There are the Falkland Islands, which Britain went to war over in the early 1980s with Argentina. Then there is the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean – a series of idyllic looking atolls and lagoons that are claimed by Mauritius, but occupied by the United States military. Fortunately, there is no native population to worry about as the British forcibly deported them all starting in the 1970s, in order to make way for the military base.

Not to be outdone, France also continues to lay claim to tiny spots of land thousands of miles away. Tromelin Island is 200 acres of sand-bar sitting off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. It reaches a whopping 23 ft. above sea-level at its highest point, and its only inhabitants are the meteorologists that man the weather station, and a rare species of Red Footed Boobie. Nonetheless, Mauritius and the Seychelles both claim sovereignty over it as well.

North America also enjoys engaging in such disputes. Canada and Denmark argue over the ownership of Hans Island – an utterly inhospitable knoll of rock that sits between Greenland and Canada in the Kennedy channel of the Nares Strait. As you might expect from the Canadians, the level of rhetoric boils down to the occasional visit to the island in order to leave a bottle of Canadian whiskey and a note saying “Welcome to Canada.” The Danes tend to respond by leaving their own notes, and a bottle of schnapps.

The United States takes a less friendly tone in regards to its own territorial claims. For example, the U.S. has been contesting the ownership of Bajo Nuevo, a small reef in the Caribbean Sea, since 1869. Bajo Nuevo is also uninhabited and rather inhospitable, but its ownership is contested by Jamaica, Nicaragua and Columbia (there is an automatic lighthouse that is maintained by the Colombian military).

Regardless of the relative size and power of the countries involved nationalist rhetoric and an ongoing culture of “name it and claim it” continues to influence the IR realm on a global scale. In many instances, there are significant realist reasons to claim dominion over an otherwise insignificant rock. In the South China Sea it is strategic positioning and mineral resource management, in the Nares Straight it is navigational rights and control over the last great frontier on Earth. Rockall has substantial fishing rights associated with ownership, but regardless of the underlying quantitative reasoning behind such claims, when governments appeal to their populations they do so on the basis of emotive, subjective ideals rather than strategic necessity. For example, political observers have noted that both the Chinese and Japanese governments are currently transitioning into new leadership structures. Some of the fiery jingoism on display could be attributed to a desire to shore up domestic support, as there is often a strong correlation between nationalist rhetoric and political change. One way or another, claims to minuscule territories somehow tend to involve rhetoric on a grand scale.

The 20^th century philosopher Bertand Russell once stated that “Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.” Students of IR should be aware of the power of jingoism, and be wary of its influence on both domestic and “enemy” populations. Small, insignificant, inhospitable, barren, lifeless crags of rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans are odd things to be willing to die for. After all, as Russell also noted, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”

James Walker is a Fourth Year Global Studies major, and an Editor for The Generation. His studies focus on the changing nature of national sovereignty in the 21^st century, and he really, really enjoys writing about islands.

March 9, 2013 1 comment

Africa Security and Conflict Uncategorized

Luis Moreno-Ocampo

written by James Walker

Students of International Relations are often asked to look at the evolutionary changes taking place in the global system. Challenges to the traditional Westphalian order, in particular in regards to notions of national sovereignty, are often presented as indicative of the “Era of Globalization.” Many of these challenges are connected to the rise of supranational institutions. The ongoing tragedy taking place in Darfur or the popular revolutions of the Arab Spring are two examples of the increasing visibility of regional events onto the global agenda. These shifts demonstrate a movement towards not only greater visibility, but also a call for greater accountability.

The development of the modern Human Rights agenda, the enacting of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) as a signature doctrine of international society, and the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as a standing tribunal to sit in judgment over the worst crimes against humanity, all indicate the significance of accountability. Like all ideals, it requires both the dedicated efforts of civil society and of the individual.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo is a long-term veteran in the fight for global justice. As an Argentinian lawyer, he was instrumental in prosecuting the leaders of the country’s Military Junta for their horrific human rights abuses during the 1970s and 80s. After a successful private practice that specialized in human rights cases, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo was tapped to take on the politically charged and highly sensitive role of Chief Prosecutor for the newly inaugurated International Criminal Court. He served in that capacity throughout the first decade of the court’s existence, instigating several high profile prosecutions, and ultimately securing the court’s first completed trial and conviction in 2012: Thomas Lubanga, a Congalese warlord, who was sentenced to 14 years for the crime of conscripting child soldiers.

As Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo was subject to some harsh criticism. The nature and impartiality of the court, along with the very concept of international justice, has been questioned by numerous players on the global stage. The United States has refused to ratify the Rome Statute that governs the ICC, as have a number of other sovereign states. Some have questioned why the ICC has so far only issued charges against African leaders, indicating that the court may represent Western rather than global notions of justice. Mr. Moreno-Ocampo has acted as a kind of lightening rod for the court in this regard. As a visible and outspoken proponent of international justice, he has also been placed at the heart of the debate over whether human rights abusers should be given amnesty in order to secure peace. For Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, the choice is a false one – in his opinion, there can be no peace without justice.

In November of 2012, Mr. Moreno-Ocampo was in Los Angeles to receive an award from Jewish World Watch, in recognition of his “determination to forge sustainable peace in conflict and post conflict situations through the pursuit of justice.” Generation editors Brad Rowe and James Walker were fortunate enough to have a private interview with Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, and to ask him a number of questions concerning the nature of his work, the effect the ICC has had on the global stage, and his vision for the future of global justice. This interview offers a fascinating glimpse into the philosophy of one of the leading proponents of human rights in the world today.

—

Video is the author’s own.

January 25, 2013 0 comment

Security and Conflict The International Economy

Fiji – Fun in the Sun with Guns!

written by James Walker

by Magpie372

By James Walker

In the rough and tumble world of International Relations, it is sometimes easy to focus too much on the major players, and allow the smaller (but no less interesting) states to disappear from view. With that in mind, and with the caveat that a brief article can only hope to scratch the surface of even the smallest of players on the world stage, this exploration of the current situation in Fiji is intended to view the IR arena through the lens of a small island nation. From the absurdity of Westphalian notions of sovereign functional equality, to the demonstrations of Rosenau’s “Fragmegration” in action, the tiny, beautiful state of Fiji allows students of IR to view the swirling complexity of modern globalization in a microcosm.

To set the scene, Fiji has been an independent state since 1970, and in its short forty year history has suffered through four military coups. The last one took place in 2006, and while Commodore Josaia Voreqe “Frank” Bainimarama (the reigning Prime Minister), swears that nation-wide elections will take place in 2014, the fact that he is the same man who overthrew the last regime suggests to most outside observers that they should not hold their breath. The revelation that Fiji is now regarded as a “Parliamentary Republic”, run by a “Military Appointed Government” also suggests that even military dictatorships have a sense of humor, in addition to a good PR department.

So good, in fact, that the G-77 (+ China) recently announced that Fiji would take over as chairman of the UN’s largest geo-political voting block in 2013. As the “voice of the developing world”, the G-77 represents the vast majority of the “Global South”, encompassing 132 players in the great game of international relations. This is Westphalianism at its most interesting, given that Fiji (an island nation with a population of just over 850,000) will be the point-person for developmental agendas in a group that encompasses states such as Brazil, India and China. It takes a great sense of faith in the precepts of sovereign equality to see how this is supposed to work. Either that, or a healthy dose of skepticism about the realities of power relationships in our anarchic system.

What is truly fascinating about Fiji is the nature of its domestic troubles, and the way in which they represent the turmoil that has become such a topic of academic debate in globalization theory. The population of Fiji has been split along both racial and economic lines, with institutionalized racism as an explicit aspect of the national political discourse. Within the Fijian constitution (currently abrogated) 37 of the 70 Parliamentary seats were reserved for “native Fijians”, meaning that a nativist political infrastructure was mandated as a majority. This issue of racial politics is just one of the things that the current regime promises to reform in the new constitution, due by 2013 but still the subject of some debate.

However, the vast majority of the Island’s commercial wealth is generated within the Indo-Fijian population – a diaspora that was brought to Fiji during the British colonial era to work the sugar plantations, and has since shown the same entrepreneurial spirit that has marked their presence in so many other Commonwealth countries. Unfortunately, this has also led to many of the same discriminatory tactics faced by Indian diasporas elsewhere. In fact, there was a substantial, violent backlash against Indo-Fijians after the third coup d’état in 2000, exacerbating an already troubling trend towards an exodus from paradise for the Indian community.

If the situation were not complex enough, Fiji recently made international headlines when the winner of the Ms. World – Fiji contest (2012) provoked outrage over the fact that she did not look “native” enough. Ms. Torika Watters, of mixed Fijian and European heritage, was subsequently disqualified for being too young to enter the competition, thereby neatly side-stepping the inherent racism involved, and avoiding the need to address this political hot-potato on a global (if somewhat superficial) stage. However, while the incident may have been swept under the carpet, the notions of ethnic identification that were behind the outrage have not been displaced so easily.

These issues concerning nationality, ethnicity, and fundamental notions of identity in the modern state are indicative of what James Rosenau describes as “Fragmegration.” While the processes of globalization continue to draw this tiny state into the global flows of commerce, governance, and communication, they are also serving to pull the fabric of society apart. The changing nature of Fijian demographics, fluctuating as they do with the flow of new ethnicities into and out of the country (including many new immigrants from the Philippines) mean that the “imagined community” of the state is under ever increasing pressure. The response of the military to retreat into authoritarianism in order to shore up the walls of nationalism can only be a stop-gap measure at best.

While trendy hipsters and society dilettantes sip their Fiji Water in bars on Rodeo Drive (shipped across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean, in bottles manufactured from Chinese plastic) they are partially funding a military dictatorship hidden behind the image of a tropical paradise. What is astounding is the fact that, even in this day and age, the image of Fiji as an Island paradise is so pervasive that folks happily go there on their dream honeymoons, without ever actually coming into contact with the political reality of visiting a dictatorship. This is not to suggest that people should stop going, simply that they should be aware of where they are going, and what is happening there. Given that tourism is the lion’s share of the national economy, this is a significant potential lever for change.

While the situation is still tense, and the prospect of reform is rather aspirational at present, it is both heartening and disappointing to see the reaction of the world at large. On the positive side, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Pacific Islands Forum, and the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations have all suspended Fiji from membership. However, while the UN Security Council has called for “fair elections” to be held as soon as possible, it has still not seen fit to recall the 1000 Fijian Peacekeepers that are stationed around the world, representing the international community in their famous blue helmets. And then, of course, there is the chairmanship of the G-77. It seems that even in the modern era of global governance and institutionalized legalism, the Waltzian ideal lives on, no matter how crazy it might be. Apparently, the dictators of the world are free to do as they please, provided their nation is far enough away to avoid any unseemly publicity. As they say in the corridors of power, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (“The more things change, the more they stay the same” – Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr).

James Walker is a fourth-year Global Studies student and a research intern at the Burkle Center.

November 22, 2012 0 comment

Middle East Security Security and Conflict

No Easy Relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan

written by James Walker

by James Walker

There has been a great deal of controversy recently in the U.S. over the publication of No Easy Day, a personal account of the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden written by one of the elite Seal Team 6 members who took part in the raid, Matt Bissonnette. The book was released on September 4^th, and was immediately listed as the number one best selling book on Amazon.com. The memoir raised concerns on many levels domestically, with much attention paid to the possibility that the author might have revealed classified information, that he had not obtained prior clearance to write the book at all from the powers that be, that the account differed in some respects from the official version, that he had broken the unwritten code of silence within the Special Ops community, and that the revelation of his real identity (by conservative news broadcasters Fox News) placed him and his family in harms way. Gallons of ink have been spilled exploring these issues, but this controversy also raises questions concerning the effect of publishing sensitive information in the International Relations (IR) realm.

As can be imagined, the publication of the book has not been beneficial in regards to the strained relationship between the United Statesand Pakistan. Still smarting from the raid itself, which was conducted without the knowledge or acquiescence of the state, and with a justifiable sense of outrage at the infringement of its national sovereignty, the Pakistani government has nonetheless been remarkably subdued in its official response. However, the relationship between the two countries has been badly strained over the past year. In particular, the Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI) have been very active in responding domestically to the raid.

As a result of ISI investigations, a number of significant repercussions have taken effect. Perhaps the most visible has been the prosecution and conviction for treason of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani doctor who assisted in a CIA sponsored genetic screening operation disguised as an inoculation program. The US has confirmed that the program took place, and that it provided significant information in the search for Bin Laden. Dr. Afridi was arrested 20 days after the raid, and has been sentenced to 33 years in prison. Recent news reports suggest that he was subjected to torture during his incarceration before trial, and continues to suffer inhuman treatment at the hands of the security forces.

Aside from the repercussions to Dr. Afridi, the revelation of CIA involvement in a public health initiative has had a severe impact on distinctly non-state oriented actors and initiatives. Multiple humanitarian organizations have reported that their ability to provide assistance and public health programs to people in the region has been badly curtailed. Warlords and tribal elders have made health workers persona non grata, leading to significant issues with a resurgence in levels of childhood disease, and other public health concerns. This rather begs the question of why the US government would ever admit to having done such a thing in the first place. In this instance, the actions of the state in releasing information have had a direct effect on the non-state realm.

Which brings us back to No Easy Day and its potential impact on the IR world. Unlike the sad case of Dr. Afridi, nothing about the publication of Mr. Bissonnette’s book has the imprimatur of the US government; quite the contrary. However, while the contents of the book describe a sanctioned US operation, the publication itself is a distinctly private, non-state actor affair, and one that has the potential to impact the state of play between two sovereign nations. While there has been no official response to the book’s release from Pakistan, it is not surprising to see that it is considered an insult to the state. Many commentators have described this book as an example of the lack of regard shown by the US, and view the silence of an official response to the publication as a sign of weakness and insecurity domestically. This plays into a major political debate within Pakistan in regards to its relationship with the US. For example, Dr. Afridi describes his ISI interrogators as stating that “the Americans are our worst enemies; worse than the Indians.” That is a powerful statement, given the 70 year history of aggression and warfare between India and Pakistan.

Doubtless the details of the raid in No Easy Day will add further points of contention to the internal political dialog in Pakistan, and that is why this book is such an interesting point of reference for students of IR. In classical Waltzian Realist IR theory, the actions of the domestic realm and the international realm are distinct entities, and never the twain shall meet. Ian Clark describes this notion as the “Great Divide” between Political (Domestic) Science and IR as fields of study, and argues that it is a false distinction. So much attention has been focused in the US on the domestic impact and repercussion of this book, with the debate almost entirely framed in regards to the propriety of publishing such a personal account of a secret mission. The questions asked are exclusively concerned with duties towards the state and comrades in arms, verses personal gain, becoming a best selling author, and being used as a political tool during an election year. However, this book has the potential to impact the domestic political debate of BOTH countries, and by extension the field of IR as a study of the relationship between sovereign entities. No Easy Day suggests that the actions of a private individual who chooses to publish a memoir can transcend the great divide between the domestic and the international. It is not just the actions of states that impact the field of play, however attached to Kenneth Waltz we may be.

While the raid to kill Bin Laden in Abbatobad, Pakistan was a distinctly Waltzian, realist operation, the repercussions have been anything but. The release of information by the state has significantly impacted the non-state realm causing transnational effects on humanitarian efforts, and domestic impacts within both sovereign parties to the event. At the same time, the actions of Mr. Bissonnette, one year removed from the event itself, are showing themselves capable of impacting the domestic political arena of these two distinct nations. When we focus only on the domestic implications of this book, we leave out a vital dimension in our considerations. The boundary between the domestic and the international arenas is far more blurry than we like to think, and in this instance the great divide has never looked quite so easy to traverse.

James Walker is a fourth year Global Studies Major at UCLA, and a lifelong social activist. His research interests focus upon international governance and institutional legitimacy, with an emphasis on personal accountability, and the development of the International Criminal Court.

September 17, 2012 2 comments

Africa Security and Conflict

The Slacktivism of Generation @: A New Era of Human Rights Activism?

written by James Walker

By James Walker

Slacktivism has become a word used to describe the well-meaning, but ultimately pointless efforts of Generation @ to make its presence felt in the world. Campaigns that seek to exploit modern technology are considered a kind of distraction: well intentioned, but ultimately doomed to failure due to the lack of real, tangible commitment or results. The most obvious example of this would be the KONY 2012 campaign, an Internet phenomenon that must have delighted the authors at Invisible Children, but which was instantly castigated as an adolescent fantasy piece by the establishment human rights world. Much as Macbeth would have it, KONY 2012 was seen as “a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Given the fact that the original Kony video came out in March of this year – and that five months is practically an eternity online – it is interesting to look back on this infamous “slacktivist” campaign to see where it went and what, if any, tangible effects it had.

The first thing anyone mentions in regards to KONY 2012 is the fact that the video was watched more than 100 million times in a week. While proponents pointed to this viral success, opponents focused on two main issues: that watching a video was not the same as actually doing something (Slacktivism at its most ignoble) and that the content distorted the situation on the ground and would do more harm than good by focusing attention on American intervention as the only hope for peace. Cries of “Imperialism” resounded quickly due to the film’s projection of Africa as a kind of neo-Hobbesian nightmare. However, as crass as some of the narrative may be, it is astonishing how much critics focused on the idea that the film had a point of view. The fact that the people at Invisible Children have an agenda does not seem all that unusual in the non-profit world. Rather, it would appear to be something of a pre-requisite for getting into the business. Why the particular narrative in KONY 2012 was a point of contention is apparently linked to the fact that, for once, people in the West were actually paying attention. For those with an interest in human rights and IR, nothing in the video was new. The same litany of horrors had been doing the rounds for decades as a result of exhaustive reportage from groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or the Ugandan NGO Refugee Law Project. The problem is that the number of people interested in such matters is regrettably quite small. People in the West just didn’t care very much, and for all the complaints about oversimplification, the old school human rights world had not done a very good job of getting the word out.

The real critique here was apparently that the KONY 2012 video was not telling the story in a way they approved of. Of course, disagreements over the appropriate response to humanitarian issues are nothing new in the NGO world. Getting two NGO’s to agree to a common response to anything is a minor miracle. What was new was the fact that a minor player had pushed their own agenda in a successful manner and in a way that connected to their target demographic: young, internet savvy Westerners who could be leveraged as a political voice in their own internet savvy societies. Every disapproving editorial piece in Foreign Affairs just served to re-enforce the notion that the rest of the HR world was busy kicking itself at being behind the curve.

So, do those 100 million views actually translate into anything other than a feeling of self-satisfaction in the college dorm rooms of the global north? The majority of opinion pieces simply branded it “Slacktivism” and associated it with a short attention span and lack of serious intent amongst Generation @. It will come as no surprise, however, that there are other organizations that actively court the same demographic. The most prominent is MoveOn.org, a political powerhouse predicated on the notion that young folk can make their voices heard via the net. Another example would be the One campaign against Aids. But the fact that others work the same beat does not mean it is necessarily successful. Perhaps other metrics such as petitioning could be used to chart the usefulness of Slacktivism? In many ways this is the very basis of traditional grass roots campaigning, and a staple of well established groups like Amnesty. Three weeks ago the KONY 2012 campaign handed a petition signed by 3,729,816 people to the United Nations Security Council. To put that into perspective, when you visit the UN Building in New York City, outside the main chamber is a display from an organization called “Mayors for Peace,” advocating for a nuclear free world. The display holds 1,000,000 signatures, and was described as a landmark achievement, and the “voice of the world’s people” by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. So, Slacktivism apparently works quite well in this sense.

Still, that is just the UN—an institution often regarded as big on talk, but not really effective on the ground. What about the intended effect in the United States? After all, the explicit aim of the KONY 2012 video was to excerpt pressure on the US government. Perhaps in an election years it was optimistic to think that a viral campaign would have much of an effect. On the other hand, the folks at Invisible Children called the concept “KONY 2012” for a reason. While ROMNEY 2012 and OBAMA 2012 duked it out in the media, KONY 2012 would attempt to ride the electoral wave. The results appear to have been pretty good. In June, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously passed H. Res 583/ S. Res 402, calling upon the United States to continue the deployment of military advisors, expand support for regional programs, and ensure that the President keeps Congress fully informed of efforts to track down and capture Joseph Kony. Once again, Slacktivism appears to have done exactly what was asked of it.

Lastly, and with a view to looking at Slacktivism in general, an argument can be made that dismissing 100 million views as mere “sound and fury” misses an important lesson from the “real” world of business. The Direct Marketing Association states that on average you can expect to get a 2.6% response rate to a direct marketing campaign. From 100 million views, that translates into over 2.6 million “customers.” In fact, the DMA suggests that the direct response rate for non-profit campaigns is closer to 5.23%. The idea that people would willingly respond to unsolicited advertising, and yet somehow would NOT respond to a viral campaign appears to be illogical. If you read an advertisement for a new iPad, you are an active consumer… but if you watch KONY 2012 you are a Slacktivist!

Regardless of your personal response to the narrative in KONY 2012, it is disingenuous to suggest that Invisible Children is at fault for the success of their campaign. They have a view, and chose to express it (very successfully) in this manner. More significant to this exploration of Slacktivism is the fact that KONY 2012 is a resounding demonstration of the new age of activism in the Global North. The era of the viral campaign has arrived, and it is important that activists co-opt this new form, or risk being left floating in its wake. One thing is abundantly clear in our brave new world – The Slacktivists of Generation @ are not too concerned with whatever connotations we negatively attach to their name – they already know how effective they can be.

July 23, 2012 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts