Cynical, I'm aware, but when giving to organizations such as Invisible Children one must question their method and purpose. And beyond the aesthetics, viewers should have serious concerns about the organization's policy goals:
1. Why just Kony?
Joseph Kony, self-proclaimed messenger of God and strongman ruler of the theocratic Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), is almost universally condemned for his crimes against humanity. But what about Kony's closest allies, also wanted by the ICC? Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo (possibly deceased), Dominic Ongwen and Raska Lukwiya deserve equal condemnation and arrest. But again, oversimplicity is better for film. The organization practically asks you to assume the intelligence of Russell's child, diminishing a multi-state, multi-agent conflict that has lasted for over a quarter of a century into a cheap crime thriller.
2. Why American Intervention?
Invisible Children, to the credit of its perseverance and not necessarily its goal, successfully lobbied the Obama administration into sending a small task force of advisers to Uganda. The film makes no mention of alternatives - is the Ugandan government not capable of pursuing the former despotic resistance leaders? Did the organization make any appeal to the African Union (their Peace and Security Council declared the LRA a terrorist group in 2011)? Do Ugandans want Americans intervening in their domestic affairs? Again, Western solutions for African problems - pity paternalism and no recognition that Ugandans are perhaps capable of running their own nation.
3. What's the end game?
Bringing Joseph Kony to The Hague would be an incredible, if belated and fractional, expression of justice. But what then? Is the purpose of Invisible Children simply to bring Kony to trial? If so, I dare say this is somewhat shallow. The film provides almost zero historical perspective on Uganda, discusses neither the struggles associated with recent economic growth nor the prevalence of Nodding disease, currently a far greater threat than the LRA. Context, indeed, risks undermining the emotional effect of the message. Are we interested in significantly improving the quality of life in Uganda? If so, perhaps NGO and charity work should be focused elsewhere. Some African thinkers - Dead Aid author Dambisa Moyo comes to mind - might even argue the best approach from the West would be none at all.
The average American citizen need not be criticized for lacking an in-depth knowledge of Ugandan history and politics. But when giving money to an organization that intends to intervene in the domestic affairs of a foreign nation, one must carry a healthy dose of cynicism before becoming an overnight activist. The wave of backlash to Invisible Children's efforts - notably by an abundance of Ugandan writers and commentators such as former child soldier Anywar Ricky Richard and Project Diaspora co-founder TMS Ruge - reflects the inherent historical ironies of an all-white council attempting to solve the problems of a complex African nation.
Wainaina ends his satirical essay with the following: "Always end your book with Nelson Mandela saying something about rainbows and renaissances. Because you care." I'll follow suit: "If the United States of America or Britain is having elections, they don't ask for observers from Africa or Asia. But when we have elections, they want observers."
The paradox of post-colonial paternalism could not be expressed any better.
