Here is a copy of IC's 2010 Annual Report:
Page 6 of the report shows a rundown on all of IC's expenditures in its programs, administration, and development. The amount of money being used for travel and transportation alone is an enormous figure, and the film and production costs are no better. In my opinion, an organization's primary focus should be on actually delivering aid to the ones in need - in the IC's case, this would be providing resources to the people of Uganda. Instead of spending thousands of dollars on films, production, and promotions, I believe that IC should refocus and start to pour more resources into its programs on the ground in Central Africa, whatever those programs may be. That being said, and judging by how quickly the Kony 2012 video has spread, it is very evident that using the media to raise awareness is highly successful - but is it really worth spending over $750,000? I honestly don't think so. Furthermore, there are criticisms about the fact that IC is spreading the wrong message through its slick-edited videos, and it's very possible that the content of the video plays on human emotion far too much and turns viewers away from the truth. Does IC support military intervention in dealing with the LRA? Yes. This blog http://whitthef.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/kony-2012/ makes shocking arguments and challenges IC's honesty in their Kony campaign. For example, they support armies that engage in rape during war. Do we really want to support something like this, and if not (which I'm hoping is your answer), are there other ways that IC could try to bring Kony down? Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is an answer. The problem with hunting Kony is that his army is comprised of child soldiers, and who really wants to kill children in order to bring Kony to justice? Are their lives worth sacrificing? That being said, I think IC's mission is noble, but it might be focusing on all the wrong areas. This goes back to the neo-imperialism and white man's burden argument. What is our place in Africa, if any? Do they really need Westerners coming in to "save" them from their dire situations? To an extent, I would argue, yes - but they don't need to be "saved"; they know what they need to do, they just need the resources.
To argue my point of aid, not save, I'd like to contrast IC with HOPE International, the organization I worked and traveled with to Ethiopia last year.
Here is a copy of their 2010 Annual Report:
First of all, the report is extremely simple and easy to understand. The sources and uses of their budget is very clearly laid out. The most important thing I would like to point out is how little is used for administrating and education in Canada - 2% and 3% respectively. These are impressive figures that demonstrate HOPE's commitment to their programs in target countries - 83% of their budget is allocated to these causes. Specific to their spring systems project in Ethiopia, much of the money is used to educate the local community about the importance of clean water and how to achieve it. A committee composed of representatives from the community plans out the spring system and once these plans are made, the community builds the spring system itself. The purpose of allowing them to build the system themselves is two-fold: first, having built it themselves, they will know how it functions and when something breaks, they will be able to fix it, and second, constructing the project with their own hands will give them a sense of pride and ownership over it, ensuring that it will be cared for many generations to come. In essence, HOPE simply provides some education and the building resources needed to get the job done - these communities will become self-sustainable and independent. When the spring system is built, it means a number of things: clean water (lowering the risk of disease), opportunities for children to attend school (children, especially girls, spend much of their time walking long distances to bring water back to their homes), and opportunities for the communities to flourish. After ensuring that a community has clean water, HOPE stays in the community and begins a second phase of their program: Income Generation projects, which basically help the locals start businesses and become sustainable. That is the gist of HOPE's current work in Ethiopia, and I believe that they are doing it in ways that IC should consider. What truly matters is how an organization engages with the local residents - dependency as a result of handouts is more harmful to a community than helpful.
In short, I do agree with the criticisms against Invisible Children, but what are the alternatives or solutions?
No comments:
Post a Comment