You're All Invited to Uganda's Dinner Party!

What’s the recipe for success for an impoverished country? Simply bust out an apron, an Emily Post book and have themselves a dinner party!

This November, Uganda is set to host over 50 commonwealth nations for the annual CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). This is where the heads of government gather to discuss issues regarding member nations.

Ironically, the country whose poverty and disease are only surpassed by its tragedies is the one left with the burden of hosting CHOGM. In light of recent floods and British Foreign Minister McCartney’s revelation that the Ugandan government would meet the full costs of hosting CHOGM, it is clear that the world needs to stop wondering how Uganda can help them, but how they can help Uganda.

The numbers are known, and the situation has been publicized. There have been over 100,000 deaths, 20,000 abductions and over 1.5 displaced in and out of Uganda due to the LRA and war. Though things have improved, the total population for the IDP (internally displaced persons) camps in Uganda alone is easily half a million. And though there has been some U.N. aid, to the tune of 18,000 mobilized, it still has not been enough. Furthermore, a recent study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz reveals that the monthly bill for the war in Iraq is $4.5 billion dollars. If this were calculated in terms of the Ugandan schilling, it would equate to over $7.2 trillion schillings!

In addition to these well-publicized facts and numbers, these don’t include the havoc wreaked by the recent floods. The contamination of two-thirds of the water sources has led to a 30% rise in malaria and other illnesses. Furthermore, the flood has taken away Uganda’s bread and butter, the harvests that come from their farming industry, creating severe food shortages. The floods have also shut down 300+ schools which educate over 100,000 students. The Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, has had to declare a state of emergency due to the flood displacing over 300,000 people as well as claiming 21 lives.

And yet, despite these trials, with little help in sight, Uganda has had to bend over backwards even more to accommodate the CHOGM conference. Uganda is like the hostess who, thanks to Emily Post, puts on fantastic dinner parties for the public, but desperately needs help to straighten out her personal life. There are real problems going on, but it seems that the commonwealth nations that are going to gather have been anything but worrying about Uganda. They have found it convenient and more beneficial to them and enjoy the “dinner party” while Uganda finds itself picking up the pieces. This is especially unfortunate since the point of CHOGM is to promote the well-being of all member nations.

The cold, as-a-matter-of-factly indifference towards this issue is summed up by British Foreign Minister Ian McCartney, who stated the “government of Uganda will meet the full costs of hosting Chogm. The British government will not contribute anything to these costs”. On the one hand, the $1 trillion schilling cost for Uganda in hosting CHOGM could be easily covered by less than a week’s worth of bills due to the U.S. for the Iraq War. But just as easily, in a kind of throwback to colonialism, Uganda’s loss has been the West’s gain.

The opportunity cost of something is defined as the monetary cost that is lost in order to take another course of action, or, conversely, the benefits that could have been received by choosing to take that alternative course of action. Nowhere is this opportunity cost more apparent than it is in Uganda. Having spent a month there this summer, I personally saw the widespread poverty and lack of funding in the IDP camps in Gulu. The kids ran all over the place, with rags for clothes, scar tissue on thei bodies and bellies full of poverty. The reality of Uganda, as I saw it, makes the CHOGM mission statement, “Transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve political, economic and human rights", less a rallying call and more a passing phrase.

In all this, the opportunity cost that could have gone towards stabilizing Uganda has been mismanaged. The costs that have gone towards CHOGM, the lack of funding on part of the commonwealth nations and the War in Iraq have been at the expense of avenues that would have been to Uganda’s benefit. The rising contradiction between the costs of an unproductive CHOGM and rising crises in Uganda serves as the focal point of the issue at hand.

So, knowing this, why not redirect focus and monetary funds away from an outdated conference and towards resettling displaced people settled in camps? Or towards creating jobs that are more than just the rudimentary security guard and hotel waiters? Why not redirect funds to renovate hospitals such as the Mulago Referral Hospital and provide adequate equipment? These are just a few of the many questions that plague Uganda daily.

In looking forward, for the betterment of international relations and the stabilization of the African continent, we need to be less concerned with what we get from Uganda in the here and now; but rather, what we can give Uganda for long-term stability. Maybe then, we can return the favor and invite them over to our place for dinner.

Things Looking Up for North Korea

These days, you don't seem to be hearing a whole lot about the tensions between North Korean and the U.S., and also, South Korea. The days of nuclear threats, political tension and cold shoulders may not be a thing of the past, but they are en route to becoming distant memories. Thanks to talks between the Northern dictator Kim Jong Il and the Southern President Roh Moo Hyun, things are indeed looking up for North Korea.

One example is the development of freight transportation and service that has been allowed by both sides to cross the North-South DMZ (demilitarized zone) for the first time in the last 50 years, as summarized by this article. This would mean the collaboration of the major North and South railroads and corresponding companies. More specifically, through these discussion and summits, the short term benefits would include the South using cheap North labor to send its good to above the border. The article expresses this view in stating:

Lee (President Lee Chul of Korea Railroads) said freight train services joining the South and Kaesong will sharply cut costs for South Korean businesses and help reduce tensions between the two sides, which remain technically at war under a truce after the 1950-53 hostilities.

Many, including Lee, hope that this symbolic unity in business will lead to more than symbolism and a temporary goodwill. Many are hoping that this railroad connection will be followed by a physical and national connection, a hope which has its many dissenters who cite skepticism regarding the North's intentions and the sheer difficulties it would mean for the South. Another development is the South, North and China having talks regarding the Olympics and a possible joint North-South Korean dance/cheer team to be sent there. All these events seem to be discrete and not radical, but in something as delicate as the North Korean issue, time, patience and safety is all that can be advocated.

In more compelling news, it looks as though the nuclear issues of the North could be distant memories sooner than expected. In this article, President Roh has expressed that based on his meetings with the North's leader, Kim, that "North Korea wants the standoff over its nuclear weapons program resolved in order to forge better ties with the United States". This, of course, doesn't come as too much of a shock since North Korea has been more and more compliant in international discussions to get rid of its nuclear program while the U.S. softened its approach toward Pyongyang after tense times when the North ran its first nuclear test. Some of this compromise has been seen in the form of the North shutting down nuclear reactors in exchange for economic aid and political concessions.

In looking at prospects for unity, President Roh has been one to speak out saying that Korean reunion would not be a burden for the South, going as far as stating that "North Korea is not a land of danger, but a land of opportunity for us". In fact, the two sides, spearheaded by its leaders in Roh and Kim, are looking to formally end the war and spur up summits to discuss related issues. These peace talks would include the two Koreas, the U.S. and China.

I am all for these developments and peace talks, and in fact, I'm excited for whatever developments may come about in the coming months, especially with the goodwill that will further come about due to the Beijing Olympics. However, I would tend to disagree with President Roh's optimistic view of the possible reintegration of the North by the South. In fact, reality dictates that any integration of the North would parallel the integration of East Germany by the West, after the fall of U.S.S.R. and the Berlin Wall. What this would mean for South Korea is that there is going to be a lot of hard times ahead. First issue would be is what to do in terms of the leadership -- do they hold new elections? or is it assumed that they are united under a democratic regime? Also, it also remains to be seen how the South will integrate the communist north. Do they slowly integrate the north to the democratic south? Or do they resort to "shock therapy" and immediately privatize Northern firms and expose it to market economical forces? More than politics and economy, it will be a challenge to see socially how the democratic South helps those in the North who will find it impossible to live without an authoritarian regime. Integration is still a ways away, to be sure, but as it seems to become more and more a realistic possibility, it's necessary that it is looked at realistically. And Roh needs to realize that things won't be easy. After all, Germany still hasn't fully recovered from its reunion.

The Public Intellectual (Part 3 of 3): The Conclusion

In considering the personal status and state of the public intellectual and also their jobs, Stephen Mack makes a good point about where our priorities should be:

it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it. (Stephen Mack )

As Mack mentions later, “It’s a distinction that matters” because it really is significant regarding whether the public intellectual focuses on his perceived status or his function in society. This dichotomy expresses itself in William Dean’s review, if not a critique, of Richard Posner’s book, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Essentially, Posner, a federal judge and law professor argues for a variety of factors that have led to the decreasing number and the decline in status of the public intellectuals. However, Dean points out in an example that:

Posner launches into an ill-fated and lengthy exercise in ranking the 571 public intellectuals who in the years 1995-2000 received the most media attention and Web-site hits. None of the great public intellectuals I cite above (from Addams to Lasch) makes Posner's top 100, and three fail to show up among his top 571. Not only is this ranking a ridiculous way to assess real public influence, it undermines Posner's own project; he himself would predict that the ranking would stimulate public intellectuals' vanity, causing them either to preen or be wounded and then to ignore the book's larger argument. (William Dean)

In this example, Dean exposes Posner’s ridiculous method of measuring public influence through something that can be amounted as a popularity contest. Indeed, Posner only grazes the surface, failing to recognize that something as trivial as web site hits is hardly an indication of true influence of a public intellectual. Furthermore, as Dean points out, Posner not only focuses on what he shouldn’t, but fails to give insight on what should matter – the function of the intellectual:

But Posner is not a pragmatist when he disregards public intellectuals who discuss public philosophies and attitudes. These public intellectuals sometimes uncover implicit orientations and worldviews that, in turn, affect public decisions and actions. (William Dean)

Thus, Dean points out the fact that the public intellectual, despite what his standing in or perception by society may be, has an important role, one that can have important effects on a nation and its people. Jean Bethke Elshtain corroborates, stating “the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, […] Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers” (Jean Bethke Elshtain). She implies that the intellectual is to push aside myths and peripheral issues that only get in the way of the only thing that matters – the job of the intellectual, which is essentially to work to expose issues, create awareness and agitate the status quo. Mack concludes this issue in stating:

And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.

Therefore, a public intellectual should not be so concerned with his status as he should be

regarding the state of his profession. As Mack illustrated, there is no need to worry about who

delivers the message, as long as the message is getting delivered. Furthermore, the more one

becomes worried about and convinced of a decline in his status, he will engage in a self-fulfilling

prophecy. That is, in his almost paranoid concern over himself, he will lose focus on what he

should be most concerned about, delivering the message. So in this sort of "moping" and

"whining" which leads to a lack of focus, his concerns will certainly come true. In fact, dealing

with these issues this way will only make the issue worse as the public intellectuals deviate from

what their protocol and in effect become public "complainers" rather than "intellectuals".



In looking over the public intellectuals over the last three weeks, I have explored few of the

many issues that are prominent in the realm of the public intellectuals. Specifically, there have

been analysis of the "paradox" between religion and politics as well as the dichotomy between

status and function of the public intellectual. The common conclusions that were reached in both

cases was that both are still issues still hotly contested today. Indeed, the platform and ideas

have been established on both sides of both issues, and though I have advocated one side for

both issues, this has been but a battle that is part of the war going on in public forums in the rest

of the world. Another common conclusion for both issues that has been overlooked is that, no

matter what, the public intellectual is neither a full intellectual elitist nor an everyman. He is a

synthesis, a medium, of those two seemingly opposite ends. He must remember that in both

issues, he not only speaks for them in certain cases, but speaks to them as well. That is why in

the first issue, the intellectual finds himself contorted by varying viewpoints, beliefs and codes of

conduct. And as for the second issue, there has been too much deviation from the "public" in

favor of the "intellectual". It is in that deviation in which the intellectual forgets his function of

delivering the message, and forgets that he is often the crucial link between the public and the

socio-political world. Indeed, instead of seeing himself and the public as "us", his vision has

blurred to the point that he refers that "us" as "them" and "me". In looking forward, the public

intellectual should remember that its not ultimately his reputation that matters, but rather the

existence of the message of the intellectual and its ability to move society.

The Public Intellectual (Part 2 of 3): The "Decline" of the Public Intellectual?

A second issue that the public intellectual faces is that of his status as well as role in today’s society. To be specific, I believe that the former may be unclear, but the latter remains firmly established. In the case of the former, there have been questions as to whether the public intellectual, as related to his society, has been respected and effective. John Donatich, in a panel discussion, stated:

In preparing for this event, I might as well admit that I've been worried about making the slip, "the future of the public ineffectual." But I think that malapropism would be central to what we'll be talking about. It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best? (John Donatich)

The issue he raises is an important one. Worrying about the effectiveness of the public intellectual, or the “ineffectual”, he raises the point that there is a tension that needs to be reconciled. That is, he points out the culture of anti-intellectualism in America as butting heads with the public intellectual, resulting in the latter’s loss of credibility. But Mack contends in his response to this that the myth of America's anti-intellectual is just that, a myth:

One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum. (Stephen Mack)

I might agree that this myth of the hostile everyman opposed to the aristocratic elite is just a myth, but I would say that the two reasons he states are exaggerated for effect. First, while "the American Dream" and the idea of education are well hallowed in America's society, it doesn't reveal the fact that even in this, there is a division of the haves and the have-nots in education. Some go on to be the public intellectuals, while others go on to be laborers, and to a certain extent, there will always be some discontent from the latter towards the former. After all, it was the founding fathers, the public intellectuals of their day, who founded America, not the farmers and uneducated. In fact, it was the latter who tried overthrowing the government multiple times in incidents such as Shay’s Rebellion. For Mack's second point, he might define the anti-intellectualism as something entirely something it claims to be the opposite of -- intellectualism. To be fair, some may have properly educated and rational set of ideas and articulations that govern their "anti-intellectualism". But on the other side, some may just be ones who harbor hostility to intellectualism out of spite and emotions and not much more. But, even if we accept that anti-intellectualism actually ends up being intellectualism, it doesn't necessarily show the myth of anti-intellectualism to be false as much as it shows those dogging anti-intellectuals to be unintentionally hypocritical.

Not only are the intellectuals facing hostilities from critics and public alike, but they experience their share of distrust. Jean Bethke rationalizes that “Democracy requires laws, constitutions and authoritative institutions, but it also depends on what might be called democratic dispositions". When she specifies on those democratic dispositions, however, she reveals "We find deepening cynicism; the growth of corrosive forms of isolation, boredom, and despair; the weakening, in other words, of that world known as democratic civil society, a world of groups and associations and ties that bind"(Jean Bethke Elshtain). So in this reality of skepticism and cynicism, which hasn’t exactly been helped by the Iraq War, the public’s distrust and hostility are often exacerbated. In essence, she says that a democratic system built on these dispositions on the part of the public crumbles when it erodes. And as a result, not only do the heads of the state and government suffer, but so do the public intellectuals, who are often seen in the same light as those very politicians.