The Public Intellectual (Part 1 of 3): The Public Intellectual, Religion And Politics

The concept of the public intellectual has at times been mired in anonymity and tension. Many people wonder just who or what a public intellectual is, what their role encompasses, when and where they operate and most importantly, why they do what they do. From one perspective, they appear to be public commentators on issues of today, but on the other hand, they appear to be dissenters. On the matters of public intellectuals, many argue over issues such as whether they are to be guided and, to a certain extent, restricted in their rhetoric. Indeed, questions are raised in which people wonder if these intellectuals truly are public commentators governed by their own opinions and belief systems, or whether they are merely the mouthpiece of the American public, compromising their personal beliefs in favor of representing the public opinion. Coupled with an ever changing world and media along with the growing uncertainty of his role, the public intellectual faces these challenges. One of these complicating challenges is the issue of the dichotomy involving politics and religion. Is the public intellectual to argue by logic, reason and politics? Or do his own personal convictions and religious beliefs shape his rhetoric? The two major problems that seem to be plaguing the public intellectual seems to be how they are to reconcile the roles of logic and politics and personal religion in public forums and second, what the role of the intellectual is in the present day and if they are facing a possible decline in society.

In looking over America’s past, the 200+ year old nation’s beginnings have been inundated with politics and religion. After all, the beginnings of America is laced with countless numbers of Puritan colonials, such as John Winthrop, leaving England for a new beginning, politically and religiously, in America. It’s seen in many other points in our history as well. This study reveals the fact that the founding fathers, the 56 signers of the Declaration of the Independence all had religious affiliations. Another incidence shows up in the first amendment in guaranteeing the freedom of religion and speech among other rights. In this example, the fate of religion and press and speech are intertwined. The irony is, our nation whose foundation has roots in these two ideologies also is at the same time, divided by them. As Stephen Mack put it, “they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination”. Mack makes the point that religion and politics have been driving forces that give our lives a purposeful meaning and a sense of existence but at the same time, paradoxically polarizes society as a whole. Indeed, any unity that has existed between the two has been uneasy. In fact, it was as early as 1635 when Roger Williams highlighted the tension between church and politics when he was kicked out by the Massachusetts colony for being critical of their mixing of religion and politics.


As this nation continues to witness the dichotomy of religion and politics, the public intellectual finds himself in the middle of this mess, deafened by the polarizing results. However, as polarizing as these forces have been, there is historical precedence in there being some coexistence, albeit an uneasy one. Thus, it makes more difficult for the public intellectual to determine where he stands in the middle of that mess. In fact, it has become an issue of “either us or them” in public debating, which is for the intellectual, a key aspect of his existence. Do they stick to the language of politics and logic, supposedly the language of the public masses or base their rhetoric on personal belief and religion? For the former, Peter Beinart of The New Republic states:

It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological. (Beinart)

and for the latter, Stephen Mack countered with two flaws that arise out of Beinart’s argument. First, it’s hard to argue for the lack of credibility of religion in public debate and conduct when America’s history has been one filled with and shaped by “activist theologians from the right and the left”. Second, as Hugh Heclo put it, Beinart’s demand “amounts to a demand that religious believers be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence”. This is a conundrum that has personal implications for me. Personally speaking, I am a Christian, and yet, I find myself actually agreeing with the side that I shouldn’t, that is, I understand Beinart’s rationale that religion is something that is not a common language and thus won't appeal to everyone. I also understand that having been built on logic and reason, those should still be the only things driving public debating to this day. However, the essence of being a public intellectual, I believe, is in expressing your views and opinions and how they relate to the matters of the world today. And it goes without saying that, to be deprived of your fundamental beliefs and religion means to lack the passion and core values that shape your arguments in the first place. I believe that just as the fate of freedom of religion and speech were intertwined in the First Amendment, it should hold true in public debate today. For anyone who calls themselves a public intellectual, they owe it to not only the public, but for themselves to stick to what they believe in.

I believe though, much of the skepticism regarding the church-state and any derivatives of, comes from examples that are of a national level. On an individual level, in public forums, what I believe is that one should always be governed by what they know and believe, otherwise, their rhetoric comes off as nothing but a resounding gong. However, at the national level, things are a little unclearer, even as a Christian. Not everyone is of the same religion, but political regimes and governments are institutions that usually have the approval of the majority, even if it is an uneasy one. On the one hand, many of the basics and beginnings of America, the right of the individual for one, and many movements such as abolitionism of slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights all drew upon these basic human rights and Christian values. And the point that Mack makes from one side is that:

(John) Winthrop teaches us that a people deeply committed to a religiously inspired vision of society will inevitably try to make that vision law. And our history teaches us that American democracy would not be nearly so liberal or humane if they hadn't. In the American experience, in short, religion and civil society are political codependents. (Stephen Mack)

Thus, in one respect, many of the greater political developments have risen out of a Christian foundation, but the skepticism expressed by those like Beinart grows when people are aware of Roger Williams' recognition of the fact that Mack reveals, that, "this codependency had a dark side". That the fear of religion mixing with politics isn't mostly due to its clashing with people's beliefs, though it plays a part, but rather it seems a dangerous contradiction to them that a democracy, which is built on compromise, teamwork and tolerance, could be headed by religious zealots whose personal beliefs can only be defined as being uncompromising. Luckily, the role of the public intellectual is one that isn't of any formal affiliation or official position, but one that is guided, at its root, by the same right that the rest of us possess, that is, our freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. In fact, if a public intellectual were to be involved at the national level in some level of government, there would be a very dangerous risk that not only would the political leadership be compromised, but also their own personal beliefs. By entering politics and their religion into a melting pot, not only is the reputation of their religion at stake, but their conduct as called for by their religion is likely to come into conflict with political duties. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this point that when religious leaders become politicians, they end up having to possibly "defend allies who are such from interest rather than from love".

It is an interesting paradox that even when you think you have it figured out, you find yourself back at square one. Because I believe that the role of the public intellectual is limited to that as a third party, non-political citizen, for reasons which will be explored later, the complications that arise from the national level cannot impede him. That is, because his role finds its roots in public forums and speech, and I argued earlier that he has the right and also the responsibility to stay true to his beliefs, his role is clear. Now if we were talking politicians, that would be a different story.

A Redirection of Foreign Focus

It goes without saying that ever since the 9/11 attacks, American foreign policy has been fundamentally changed. That is, the crux of the post-9/11 American foreign policy has been constantly attached to two words: “terrorist” and “regime”. First it was Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks, then it was Iraq with its “weapons of mass destruction” and the “Saddam Hussein regime” and there have been recent rumblings regarding Iran. Of course, let’s not forget to mention North Korea. The Bush administration taking the offensive against these “threats” can be seen from two ends. On the one hand, the best defense is a good offense, as the saying goes, as exemplified by the U.S.’ pre-emptive policy, especially in Iraq. But on the other hand, while the U.S. has been taking action watching out for its own interests, suffering in other areas of the world has been relatively neglected. Amongst the chaos of war, terrorism and American fingerprints all over the Middle East, areas such as Uganda and Darfur have been lost in the shuffle. So it is the combination of a lack of progress in the Middle East and the growing problems in those other areas that I believe should call for a slight redirection of America’s focus, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

The “War On Terror”, in short, can be summarized as the “War of Adjustments” due to the many twists and turns that have occurred along the way ever since the attacks in September 2001. In his speech to the nation on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush iterated towards the end:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. (President Bush Addresses the Nation)

Thus, Bush outlined from the beginning that with U.S.’ pre-emptive measures, the purpose would be to end the “outlaw regime” and rid any risks by getting rid of their “weapons of mass murder”. He buttressed those points by emphasizing a swift and effective invasion as to avoid disaster back home. However, because he has had to acknowledge the lack of progress and high costs due to circumstances that will be explored later in this piece, Bush has resorted, among other things to point out notable deaths and captures to appease and draw attention away from the lack of U.S. progress in Iraq. As recently as August 2007, in Maine, Bush admitted slow progress in Iraq, but quickly appealed to the death of notable Al-Qaeda member, Haitham Sabah al-Badri, as he commented “His death is a victory for a free Iraq, and a sign that America and the Iraqi government will not surrender the future of Iraq to coldblooded killers” (Bush sees 'encouraging news' in Iraq, Afghanistan). Another notable speech was his momentous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln back in May 2003 when he declared:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before.

With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. (Bush makes historic speech aboard warship)

From this sample of his speeches across the duration of the invasion of Iraq, he has made several statements and assertions that have yet to come to live up to the visions he outlined. It also didn’t help that from the beginning there was a lack of legitimacy and certainty with regards to the basis of the war. Starting with the “weapons of mass destruction”, the very reason the invasion was based on turned out to be nothing more than exaggerated and baseless accusations.

And of course, there was not only an apparent inconsistency internally, but external skepticism regarding the existence of the “weapons of mass destruction”. This lack of legitimacy was not only expressed internally by many critics, but externally as well, not the least of which was the U.N., whose former Secretary-General Kofi Annan commented in September 2004, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal" (Iraq War illegal, says Annan). He prefaced that comment by pointing out that it was concluded that “it’s best to work together with our allies and through the UN” (Iraq War illegal, says Annan). Having defied U.N. opposition to the war, Bush and the U.S. not only disregarded the U.N.’s authority but also the opinion of its ally nations. Having committed such actions on grounds of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it came like a car crash when the Downing Street Memo leaked. Now, fundamentally speaking, when you cite a justification for doing anything, and that justification is shown to be false, then you lose that justification and right of that action. As such, the leaked memo revealed that the officials of U.S. and U.K. knew about the deception behind the basis of the Iraq invasion (C stands for Secret Intelligence Service head Sir Richard Dearlove):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (national security council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. (The Secret Downing Street Memo)

The reasons for starting the war and invasion were dubious at best. It didn’t help that once they were in Iraq that the fruits of the U.S.’ labor have so far been marginal at best. Referring back to Bush’ speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln regarding the end of major conflict, events since then have indicated that little has changed. The irony of that speech was that his words indicated a sense of clarity, accomplishment and hopefulness. However, as major warfare closed and occupation took priority in Iraq, order only led to more chaos. As things got moving with the Iraq elections of 2005, Thomas Ricks, in his book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, noted that insurgent attacks that year increased to 34,131 recorded incidents, versus 26,496 the year before. However, although the current Iraq government took office in 2006, it was also followed by more bad news. Although Iraq was pulling itself together, the U.S. still hadn’t accomplished anywhere near where it set its goals. In fact, there were many shortcomings rather than successes in Iraq. As the U.S. set out to eradicate remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime and bring about a new democratic order, they fell short in that. In fact, studies released and compiled by the US Foreign Policy magazines and the US-based Fund for Peace think-tank in 2006 indicated that, based on a variety of factors ranging from “chronic and sustained human flight” to “rise of factionalized elites” ranked Iraq as 4^th on the list of failed states (Sudan tops 'failed states' index). Furthermore, in a tragic twist of irony, there have been sad and unfortunate events between the soldiers and the Iraqi civilians they were supposed to protect and honor. In particular was the April 2004, incident involving the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. According to a New York Times Report (Detainees Describe Abuses by Guard in Prison), the following abuses Iraqi prisoners faced included, but were not limited to:

o Ordering detainees, threatened by soldiers with knives if they didn’t do it fast enough

o Forced masturbation

o Piling into pyramids, completely naked

o Being urinated on

o Physical beatings

o Forced to eat pork against their Muslim faith

Indeed, as the times have become tougher and stressing, the U.S. measures have become more and more desperate. As of January 2007, President Bush announced changes in the military policy in Iraq, calling for the beginning of the “surge” strategy which had at that time been known as “The New Way Forward”. The new policy called for more than 20,000 additional American troops to be deployed to Iraq with their main priority to secure local cities and neighborhoods and defend against continuing insurgency in Baghdad, as outlined by Bush in his address to the nation in January 2007. The result of this new policy has been less than impressive, even startling. According to figures released by government figures in April 2007, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose by 15%. The same authorities also revealed that more people died on the average in March than they did in February. Furthermore, Iraqi civilian casualties rose from 1,646 to 1,869 from February to March. On top of this, the death toll was nearly double those of the Iraqi army (Iraq toll up 15% despite crackdown). Compounding that issue is the fact that the new security measures have only been applied in “only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal (registration required)) and the Iraqi police and armed forces have been lacking and unable to perform rudimentary tasks. Several military officials such as Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks admitted the troops are “at a difficult point right now” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal) with the lack of progress, and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno conceded that the government’s goal of meeting a midsummer timetable for establishing peace was unrealistic, commenting, “This was always going to be conditions-driven” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal).

A war that once stood for the preservation of democracy and the end of tyranny in Iraq has only led to more strife, turmoil and confusion. The story of the Iraq war can be summarized in the fact that while the gains have been few and far between, the cost for those few gains has been very great. First off, a 2006 study by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 U.S. invasion and that nearly a third of these deaths were due to the Coalition force in some form (Updated Iraq Survey...). However, as of September 2007, in light of the new surge strategy, a new poll conducted by Opinion Business Research has revealed that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since 2003, which would actually far exceed the death toll of the Rwandan genocides from 1994 (More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered). As for the U.S. troops, their toll went over 3,000 as of the beginning of this year, which surpassed the toll of the victims of the 9/11 attacks of 2,973. In addition, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the Iraqi government have estimated that as of October 2006, there were 1.5 million people displaced within Iraq, and 1.6 million Iraqis displaced outside Iraq in Jordan, Syria and Iran (UNHCR). In addition to the cost of lives, a recent study released by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz reveals that in the long term, the Iraq War costs could top $2 trillion dollars. The same study revealed that the monthly bill for just military operating costs was $4.5 billion dollars. (Iraq War Costs Could Top $2 Billion)

Looking over the facts and the developments that have transpired over the last four years, it has become clear that something went wrong along the way. Bush promised a war of efficiency, swift justice and peace for the Iraqis in getting rid of the Hussein regime and the “weapons of mass destruction”. Thus far, none of those promises have been kept, and while Hussein and those “weapons” are gone, little has changed. In short, by focusing so hard on the Middle East and specifically, Iraq, the U.S. has used many resources that have had little returns. Once again, the question is not regarding the U.S.’ right to protect itself, but rather if the pre-emptive policies against Iraq and the Middle East were undertaken in an effective way. So far, all signs point to a resounding no. The important point is that, simultaneously, while all this was occurring, there have been continuing and growing sufferings in places such as Darfur and Uganda. As John Edwards put it:

As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges--whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... (Bush's global war on terror has backfired)

The struggles in Uganda and Darfur have been well documented. The two nations are not unlike each other in the pains they have experienced in displaced citizens, famine, deaths and genocides. The conditions in the two countries have been up and down but foreign aid needs to come sooner than later. In Uganda, they are still recovering from the atrocities committed by the LRA, also known as the Lord’s Resistance Army, whose reign of terror has plagued Northern Uganda for decades. The following excerpt is part of a story that is all too common among many children and young adults of Uganda:

A young woman I met had been abducted by the LRA along with other members of her village. She calmly described their first night's "welcoming meal," in which one of the villagers was killed and the rest forced to eat him, to instill a proper fear. (The Price of Peace in Uganda)

This is the same LRA that has been responsible for over a 100,000 deaths, 20,000 abductions and the displacement of over 1.5 million people. Although the storm has calmed in Northern Uganda, especially with the LRA retreating to the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even though there are some 18,000+ United Nations peacekeepers nearby, there still must be more done for Uganda in defending against the LRA. The worry is that the LRA is rearming and planning to strike again when the time is right. This worry is echoed by President Museveni who revealed that not only was there a lack of U.N. aid in the early 90s, but that the effort against the LRA was hamstrung by the international community’s insistence on placing restrictions on defense funds that go towards Uganda (Invisible War). This is on top of the already existing problems for the displaced persons and the children who still walk every night homeless to avoid being captured. As of February 2006, according to internal-displacement.org, the total population of all the IDP camps in Uganda has been numbered at 460,226 (Chart). An earlier post I wrote also indicates another sign of Uganda’s struggles. Reading that blog and looking at what could be done, if the $4.5 billion spent per month on military operation by the U.S. were allocated to aiding Uganda, that would amount to roughly, with a dollar roughly equaling 1600 schillings, an astounding $7.2 trillion schillings.

Similarly, Darfur has suffered heavily as well due to the genocides, warfare between the Sudanese government, militias and rebel forces and with a lack of aid. The current death toll according to one report has been something of a point of contention, with one study revealing that death estimates for Darfur have been inaccurate, with the Government Accountability Office citing that past figures released by the government have been off, and in some cases an underestimation (Death Estimates For Darfur Inaccurate). U.N. officials have estimated to be somewhere around 400,000 while those that have been displaced have been numbered at some 2 million (Annan welcomes extension of African Union). Even to this day, deaths, displacement and a sense of hopelessness still continues, as recently as September 18, 2007, thousands more have fled Darfur as the UN Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) stated “Over 240,000 people have been newly displaced or re-displaced during 2007”. The same report by OCHA continues stating that “the humanitarian situation in Darfur has deteriorated” with the UN staff having to relocate 24 times in 2007 due to the hostile environment. (Thousands More Flee Violence in Darfur). As for foreign aid, the Minority Rights Group (MRG) summed it up when they stated, “Darfur would just not be in this situation had the UN systems got its act together after Rwanda: their action was too little too late”. What made it worse was that in spite of MRG reports on the worsening conditions in Darfur, the U.N. in 2003 removed Sudan from its watch list of the Commission on Human Rights. They expressed that “this report clearly shows that the UN was given several opportunities to act on Darfur but failed to do so” (UN Could Have Averted Darfur Crisis).

As I have explored throughout this reading, as the U.S.’ grip in one place, that is the Middle East, has loosened, those suffering off in the distance in Darfur and Uganda have been continuing to fade, just as they had been before the war. As the troops and President Bush try in vain to correct mistakes, to re-allocate resources and efforts in resolving the instability in Iraq, the current sufferings, histories and violence will only continue to linger and rear its ugly head sooner than later in Uganda and Darfur. One can only hope that the U.S. officials will resolve the issues in the Middle East they have been obsessing over and work with the international community to bring aid to those nations whose humanitarian, economical, social, political and religious problems have been plaguing them long before the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Works Cited

Faraj, Salam. “Iraq toll up 15 percent despite crackdown” Relief Web. 1 April 2007. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6ZV4DW>

Gerson, Michael. “The Price of Peace in Uganda” Real Clear Politics. 25 Jul. 2007. 19 Sept 2007 <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/heart_of_darkness.html>

Pleming, Sue. “Death estimates for Darfur inaccurate - U.S. study” Reuters. 12 Dec 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11255774.htm>

Regan, Tom. “Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion” 10 Jan. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html>

Ross, Will. “Uganda’s Invisible War” BBC News. 19 Sept 2007
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3944371.stm>

Zernike, Kate. “Detainees Describe Abuses by Guard in Iraq Prison” The New York Times. 12 Jan. 2005. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/12abuse.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Iraq&_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190254484-3m+iT/P4LQ4vGvLQcbfEDw>

“President Bush Addresses the Nation.” The White House. 19 Mar. 2003. 12 Sept. 2007< http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html>

“Bush makes historic speech aboard warship” CNN International. 2 May 2003. 12 Sept. 2007
<http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/>

“Bush sees 'encouraging news' in Iraq, Afghanistan” CNN International. 11 Aug. 2007. 18 Sept. 2007

< http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/11/bush.radio.ap/index.html/>

Edwards, John. “Bush's Global War on Terror Has Backfired” Real Clear Politics. 23 May 2007. 19 Sept. 2007
< http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/a_strong_military_for_a_new_ce.html>

“Iraq war illegal, says Annan” BBC News. 16 Sept. 2004. 18 Sept 2007< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm >

“The secret Downing Street memo” TIMESONLINE. 1 May 2005. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article387390.ece>

“Sudan tops 'failed states index'” BBC News. 2 May 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4964444.stm>

“September 2007 - More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered” ORB. Sept 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78>

“U.S. deaths in Iraq, war on terror surpass 9/11 toll” CNN International. 3 Sept 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/>

“U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq” USA Today. 1 Jan. 2007. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-31-us-death-toll-3000_x.htm>

“Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal” New York Times. 4 Jun 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html>

“Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates” Public Health News Center. 11 Oct. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html>

“IDP Camps and Population” Internal-Displacement.org. Feb 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/(httpInfoFiles)/94A9D7E83DDB0279C12571470038488F/$file/IDP%20camps%20and%20population_Gulu-%20Feb2006.pdf>

“Sudan: Thousands More Flee Violence in Darfur – UN” allAfrica.com. 18 Sept. 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://allafrica.com/stories/200709180683.html>

“Annan welcomes extension of African Union mission in Darfur” UN News Centre. 21 Sept 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19948&Cr=sudan&Cr1>

“UN could have averted Darfur crisis – MRG” iOL.com. 16 Oct. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=136&art_id=iol1160956523318B235>

Uganda: What is the Opportunity Cost of Hosting Chogm?

Earlier today, I read this article by Sam Akaki of The Monitor regarding Uganda and its hosting of Chogm (which stands for Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). In short, Chogm is a biennial summit meeting of the heads of government from all Commonwealth nations hosted by a different member nation each meeting. The purpose and the theme of Chogm has been "Transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve political, economic and human rights" but the article expresses the irony that arises from the said goals and with Uganda being the host country this year.

The intention of the event itself is perfectly acceptable as it is a time to meet with the commonwealth nations to debate, negotiate and discuss issues that affect various member nations. While that may have been easier in practice in its earlier years, with the growing number of members (there are over 50 member nations in Chogm) and leniency/relaxation in its agendas, there have been questions raised about not only its relevance but also its ability to establish any sort of political consensus.

A fact that gets lost in the shuffle is that Uganda is the host country for the 2007 Chogm conference. With the budget for the conference rising above 1 trillion schillings for the nation of Uganda and asked in the parliament how much the UK government would provide of that total, the Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney replied, "The government of Uganda will meet the full costs of hosting Chogm. The [British] government will [not] contribute [anything] to these costs". And in this is where the contradiction lies, the fact that a nation whose history has been plagued by economical, political and social problems that needs help more than anyone else has been asked to help in solely hosting its events and the financial costs that come with it. The article states my thoughts perfectly:

Given that Uganda is facing catastrophic social, economic and political crises including explosive population growth; rapid deforestation; falling food production; violent scramble for land; increasing unemployment among graduates; growing rural-urban migration; power shortages; crumbling health, education and road infrastructure; over one million citizens who have been living in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps for the last 20 years; louder and wider complaints about ethnic marginalisation; political opponents dying or disappearing in detention; non-existent prospect for peaceful change through free and fair elections; calls for secession in Buganda and the north - all making lethal cocktail that will sure tear Uganda apart; one would expect hosting Chogm at a cost of one trillion shillings to be the last thing in the minds of Ugandan rulers and its western backers.

The irony cuts deep in that while Uganda hosts Chogm, an event that promotes the well being of the commonwealth nations, the host country is receiving a lack of help in these times when they need assistance in all those said areas. Regarding the title of the article, the opportunity cost of an action is defined as "the monetary cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue another action; or the benefits you could have received by taking that alternative action". This refers to what could have been if the responsibilities and burdens placed on Uganda could have been lightened or redirected. The article, in fact, mentions several of areas of benefits that could be realized if an alternative action was taken.

Why didn't we spend that money to resettle over one million men, women and children who have spent 20 years in camps; or create decent jobs for tens of thousands of graduates and other professionals who are working as security guards, hotel waiters, petrol station attendants, international drug traffickers, mercenaries in Iraq, or walking the streets looking for employment?

Why not spend the money to renovate Mulago Referral Hospital, and provide equipment and staff for the badly needed specialist units for treatment of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, neurological disorders and burns?

How many more new doctors, nurses, primary and secondary school teachers would be trained with this amount of money? What if some of the money had been spent on increasing the salaries for doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, civil servants and university lecturers?

Why not spend the money on building one first class primary school in every parish, fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers, and build one first class secondary school in every county, well equipped with science laboratories and fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers?

Why not spend the money on providing descent accommodation for our police officers who are sharing one room with married colleagues?

Why not properly maintain or purchase brand new military transport vehicles to avoid frequent needless deaths in freak accidents?

Why not spend the money to recruit and train more judges and other judiciary officials to deal with the huge backlog of cases in which thousands of Ugandans are on remanded for alleged defilement, murder and treason without trial for decades?

Why not use the money to build at least two water boreholes in every parish throughout the country; or renovate the Owen Falls Dam and accelerate the construction of two or more hydro power stations to arrest the terrible power shortage?

Why not use the money to organise an effective population control programme including reproductive health education, safe pregnancy termination clinics, cash rewards to families with fewer than three children and imposing taxation on those with more?

Why not use the money to implement the recommendations of the Commonwealth Observer report to ensure free and fair elections in 2011 and avert the prospect for violence?

For myself, this is an issue that is a personal burden for me, having gone to Uganda this summer as part of an short term summer mission with my campus Christian ministry, Korean-American Campus Mission (KCM). Personally seeing with my own eyes the poverty, the homeless and ill kids, the pain and just the lack of help and resources was a humbling experience. Realistically, change won't occur at a miraculous overnight pace, but things could be done better in helping this nation stand for itself. The one enduring and unfortunate fact that was evident in my month-long stay was the fact that there is a pervasive beggar culture. Just seeing so many beggars, homeless and people who would offer me their children for money made me realize that even if there is foreign aid, it's not enough to just donate, but to take initiative and help them to stand on their own. Unfortunately, as this article indicates, there has been more that's been hurting rather than helping the people of Uganda.

Testing

Mic check.. 1, 2, 3.